Agenda packet — Artesia City Council, June 8, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighth day of June, 2026.

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED TO FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3105

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026, WITH

THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
THE SAME DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF

THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Artesia, California, on November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing persons to three (3) seats on the Artesia City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date, and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election, and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA,

CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the California Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of the election of three (3) Members of the City Council.

SECTION 2. That the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election for the City of Artesia.

The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10418, the election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the Statewide General Election.

SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 4. That the City of Artesia recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County of Los Angeles by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County of Los Angeles for any costs upon presentation of reasonably detailed invoices.

SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward without delay a certified copy of this resolution to both the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.

SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighth day of June, 2026. ____________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
Resolution No. 26-3105

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST:
________________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED TO FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3106

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS

FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE
PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS

SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026
WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the California Elections Code provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidate's statement; WHEREAS, the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk implemented an Online Candidate Statement Pilot dated February 8, 2023, and implemented it for the 2024 General Election;
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (Department) to implement an Online Candidate Statement Program, extending the program to cities that consolidate elections with the County, and authorized a fee of $279.60 per each candidate statement requested for the purpose of cost-recovery to be established effective November 29, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the continuation of this pilot program, making it available for the November 3, 2026 General Election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA,

CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the California Elections Code, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Artesia on November 3, 2026 may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themselves. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the Office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. Except as provided in Section 13309 of the California Election Code, the candidate's statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. All requirements that apply to the traditional printed candidate statements apply to online statements.

SECTION 2. ONLINE STATEMENTS. Pursuant to Section 13307(c) of the California Elections Code, the governing body of the City of Artesia authorizes the preparation of candidate statements for nonpartisan elective office for the purpose of electronic distribution. Candidates will prepare statements for electronic distribution pursuant to Section 13307(a) of the Elections Code. A statement prepared pursuant to this subdivision shall be posted on the internet website of the County Elections Official.

Pursuant to Section 13307.7(a) of the Elections Code, candidates shall provide payment of the requisite fee to cover the duties and procedures set forth in Sections 13307(b) and (d) of the Elections Code.

SECTION 3. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY.

A. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidates’ statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of Los Angeles must translate all candidates’ statements into Chinese, Resolution No. 26-3106

Page 2 of 4 ends

Cambodian/Khmer, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Spanish,
Tagalog/Filipino, Thai, and Vietnamese.

B. The County will mail separate voter information guides and candidates’ statements in Armenian, Bengali, Burmese, Chinese, Cambodian/Khmer, Farsi, Filipino/Tagalog, Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Russian, Spanish, Telugu, Thai, and Vietnamese to only those voters who are on the county voter file as having requested a voter information guide in a particular language. The County will make the voter information guides and candidates’ statements in the required languages available at all vote centers on the County of Los Angeles's website, in the Office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, and in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Artesia.

SECTION 3. PAYMENT.

A. Translations

1. That each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate's statement into the required foreign languages as specified in Subsection A of Section 2 above, pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as
amended) and/or state law.

2. That each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate's statement into any foreign
language requested by the candidate that is not required as specified in Subsection A of Section 2 above pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) and/or state law
B. Printing

1. That each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in English in the main voter information guide.

2. That each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in the required foreign languages as specified in Subsection A of Section 2 above, pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as
amended) and/or state law, in the main voter pamphlet.

3. That each candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate's statement in any foreign language requested by the candidate that is not required as specified in Subsection A of Section 2 above pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) and/or state law, in the main voter pamphlet.

4. That the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk shall provide the City Clerk with estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate's statements filed pursuant to the Elections Code, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and the City Clerk shall require each candidate filing a candidate’s statement to pay in advance to the City of Artesia an amount equaling their estimated pro rata share as a condition of having their statement included in the main voter pamphlet. In the event Resolution No. 26-3106

Page 3 of 4 ends

an advance payment is required, the estimation of the
advance payment will be an approximation of the actual cost, which approximation varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the City Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill each candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess amount paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event of
underpayment, the City Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the invoice. In the event of overpayment, the City Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within thirty (30) calendar days of the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024.

C. Online Candidate Statement publication is available for a fixed fee of $279.60 per each candidate statement.

SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS
A. All translations shall be provided by professionally-certified translators.

B. The City Clerk shall allow (bold type) (underlining) (capitalization) (indentations) (bullets) (leading hyphens) to the same extent and manner as allowed in previous City elections.

C. The City Clerk shall comply with all recommendations and standards set forth by the California Secretary of State regarding occupational designations and other matters relating to elections.

SECTION 5. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS. No candidate shall be permitted to include additional materials in the voter information guide.

SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative with a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.

SECTION 7. That all previous Resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for candidate's statements are hereby repealed.

SECTION 8. That this Resolution shall apply only to the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026, and shall thereafter be repealed.

SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighth day of June, 2026. __________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 26-3106

Page 4 of 4 ends

APPROVED TO FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 9N.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding Senate Bill 1 (SB1) Pavement Rehabilitation Project List for FY 2026- 27 FROM: Karen Lee, Special Projects Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council, by motion, adopt Resolution No. 26-3096, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Artesia, California, Adopting a Project List for Fiscal Year 2026-27 to be Funded by Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

BACKGROUND:

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on April 28, 2017, enabling local jurisdictions to address significant maintenance, rehabilitation, and safety needs on their street and roadway systems. SB 1 guidelines require the City Council to adopt a project list via resolution each fiscal year in order to access this funding. Once the resolution is adopted by the City Council and approved by the California Transportation Commission, the City of Artesia ("City") can use Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funding to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1. The City Council may adopt an amended resolution during the next fiscal year to amend or add a project based on new priorities.

Staff drafted Resolution No. 26-3096 to comply with SB 1 guidelines, and it provides that the City is projected to receive $460,076 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27. The resolution also states the proposed projects can be completely or partially funded by RMRA funding.

ANALYSIS:

The proposed list of projects for Fiscal Year 2026-27 consists of two (2) capital improvement projects, which are included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget. The first proposed project is:

Project No. 1: Roadway Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Project Description: The project encompasses comprehensive roadway enhancements throughout the City.

The project will maintain collector roadways per the City’s Pavement Management Program and will include roadway maintenance and repair, including the repair of isolated areas of pavement, pavement grinding and removal, crack seal, patching, slurry seal when required, and roadway markings and striping.

Project Location: Residential streets bounded by Artesia Boulevard in the north, Pioneer Boulevard in the west, 183rd Street in the south, and Norwalk Boulevard in the east.

Estimated Project Schedule: Start February 2027 – Completion June 2027.

Estimated Project Useful Life: Twenty-five (25) years.

On May 12, 2025, the City Council adopted the 2025 Pavement Management System which included an inventory of all streets within the City of Artesia, an assessment of pavement conditions and a determination of budget needs for street rehabilitation. The assessment determined that the City’s overall street network is in fair condition.

However, residential streets located within communities bounded by Artesia Boulevard in the north, Pioneer Boulevard in the west, 183rd Street in the south, and Norwalk Boulevard in the east have significantly reduced pavement conditions than other parts of the City. The project will extend the roadway’s lifespan and enhance structural integrity through targeted repairs informed by the City’s Pavement Management Program and fulfills the community needs for safer transportation infrastructure. Funding would be available through SB 1 RMRA and a $6,000,000 Congressional Directed Spending Program Grant.

The second proposed project is:

Project No. 2: Highway Safety Improvement Program and Traffic Calming Street Improvement Project Project Description: The project is focused on improving pedestrian safety at key intersections on 166th Street, 178th St, Ashworth Street, and 186th Street, Elaine Avenue, and Grayland Avenue. This project includes the installation of rapid flashing beacons and high-visibility crosswalks at select locations, designed to increase pedestrian visibility and alert drivers more effectively. These enhancements aim to reduce pedestrian-related collisions and ensure safer crossings at busy intersections.

Project Location: City-Wide
Estimated Project Schedule: Start August 2026 – Completion October 2026.

Estimated Project Useful Life: Twenty-five (25) years.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program and Traffic Calming Street Improvement Project is focused on increasing safety and promoting pedestrian accessibility in the City. The project is partially grant funded by the California State Department of Transportation's Highway Safety Improvement Program. Other funding sources for this project include Measure R and Measure M.

Resolution No. 26-3096 would make $460,076 in RMRA funding available for both of these upcoming projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund. Adoption of Resolution No. 26-3096 makes the City eligible to receive $460,076 in RMRA funds for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Attachments
Resolution 26- 3096.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3096

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A PROJECT LIST FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 TO BE FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1
(SB 1), THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide;
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Artesia (City) are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of all projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement;
WHEREAS, the City will receive and estimated $460,076 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27 from SB 1;
WHEREAS, Fiscal Year 2026-27 will be the tenth year in which the City will be receiving SB 1 funding, which will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1;
WHEREAS, the City used the 2025 Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 projects to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and costeffective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; WHEREAS, the 2025 Pavement Management System found that the City’s streets and roads are in “fair” condition and this revenue will help the City increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and road into a “good” condition;
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City rehabilitate local and arterial streets this Fiscal Year and similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the SB 1 project and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The newly proposed projects as outlined below, will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2026-27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project No 1: Roadway Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Project Description: The project encompasses comprehensive roadway enhancements throughout the City. The project will maintain collector roadways per the City’s Pavement Management Program and will include roadway maintenance and repair, including the repair of isolated areas of pavement, pavement grinding and removal, crack seal, patching, slurry seal when required, and roadway markings and striping.

Project Location: Residential streets bounded by Artesia Boulevard in the north, Pioneer Boulevard in the west, 183rd Street in the south, and Norwalk Boulevard in the east.

Estimated Project Schedule: Start February 2027 – Completion June 2027.

Estimated Project Useful Life: Twenty-five (25) years.

Project No. 2: Highway Safety Improvement Program and Traffic Calming Street Improvement Project
Project Description: The project is focused on improving pedestrian safety at key intersections on 166th Street, 178th St, Ashworth Street, and 186th Street, Elaine Avenue, and Grayland Avenue. This project includes the installation of rapid flashing beacons and high-visibility crosswalks at select locations, designed to increase pedestrian visibility and alert drivers more effectively. These enhancements aim to reduce pedestrian-related collisions and ensure safer crossings at busy intersections.

Project Location: City-Wide
Estimated Project Schedule: Start August 2026 – Completion October 2026.

Estimated Project Useful Life: Twenty-five (25) years.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8
th day of June, 2026.
________________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________

BEST, BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 9O.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: First Amendment to the Contract with Southeast Los Angeles County Workforce Development Board
FROM: Joshua Acevedo, Parks and Recreation Supervisor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council, approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, on their behalf, the First Amendment to the Contract between the City of Artesia and Southeast Los Angeles County Workforce Development Board (SELACO WDB) to provide a Youth at Work Program.

BACKGROUND:

On August 12, 2024, the City Council approved a contract agreement between the City of Artesia ("City") and the Southeast Los Angeles County Workforce Development Board (SELACO WDB) for a three-year term spanning July 2024 through June 2027. The Youth at Work Program offers work experience, professional development, and community engagement opportunities to eligible participants ages 14–24 residing in Los Angeles County.

Since the program’s launch in July 2024, the City has provided work experience opportunities to 70 youth. For Fiscal Year 2025-26, the City has been allocated a total of 44 participant slots, including 30 Net County Cost (NCC) participants and 14 Youth at Work CalWORKs participants, with a total funding amount of $163,098 in the form of a reimbursable grant.

ANALYSIS:

Due to the continued success of the Youth at Work Program, the Southeast Los Angeles County Workforce Development Board (SELACO WDB) secured additional funding to expand services for the Youth at Work Program in the City. On May 18, 2026, the City was awarded an additional $35,830 to support 10 additional participant slots for the Youth at Work Program to be used during the period of May 18, 2026 through August 30, 2026. This additional funding increases the City’s total allocation from $163,098 to $198,928 and requires an amendment to the original Contract. Approval of the First Amendment will enable the City to begin recruiting and hiring the 10 additional youth workers to assist with summer programs.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund associated with the adoption of the First Amendment. Approval of the First Amendment increases the City’s total grant funding for the Youth at Work Program from $163,098 to $198,928.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Attachments
SELACO Amendment No1.pdf
Letter to incur additional funding May18, 2026.pdf
Executed SELACO- YAW agreement 2024-June 2027.pdf
Amendment I, Contract NO. 108006 (FY 2025-2026)
City of Artesia
Youth@Work Program
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 108006

BETWEEN

SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES COUNTY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND

CITY OF ARTESIA
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered this 18th day of May, 2026 by and between the Southeast Los Angeles County Workforce Development Board (SELACO WDB) hereinafter referred to as the SELACO WDB, and the City of Artesia, hereinafter referred to as the CITY.

WHEREAS, the parties hereto have previously entered into an Agreement in 2024, approved by the SELACO WDB Board of Directors to provide Work Experience services and personal enrichment activities under the Los Angeles County Earn and Learn program regulations; and, WHEREAS, the SELACO WDB Board of Directors approved a one (1) year contract extension on May 22, 2025 to the CITY for the implementation of Youth@Work Youth Program for FY 2025-2026.

WHEREAS, the SELACO WDB received additional funding to serve Work Based Learning Youth; and
WHEREAS, the CITY agrees to serve 10 additional Work Base Learning youth; Amendment I, Contract NO. 106008 (FY 2025-2026)
City of Artesia
Youth@Work Program
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligations provided herein, the parties hereto agrees as follows:

1. SECTION 5.2.1.1. – MAXIMUM CONTRACT SUM : is amended to add the following:
“The SELACO WDB agrees to pay the CITY an amount not to exceed $179,150.00 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for reasonable and allowable expenses incurred during the conduct of the Youth@Work youth program.”
Except as otherwise specifically amended herein, all terms and conditions contained in the original Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. 10900 E. 183rd Street • Suite 350 • Cerritos CA 90703
(562) 402-9336 • Fax (562) 860-4701 • www.selacowdb.com For information [email protected]
Serving our eight cities:

Artesia, Bellflower, Cerritos, Downey, Hawaiian Gardens, Lakewood, Norwalk and Paramount May 18, 2026
Melissa Burke
Assistant City Manager
City of Artesia
18747 Clarkdale Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
Re: Award and Authorization to Incur Costs; Additional Youth@Work Funding; PY 2025-26 Dear Ms. Burke,
The City of Artesia has been awarded additional funding in the amount of $35,830.00 to provide Youth@Work services to NCC participants for PY 2025–2026 (Phase I). This additional funding will support ten (10) NCC participants at a cost of $3,583.00 per participant, in alignment with the eligibility characteristics matrix established by the County of Los Angeles.

The following conditions, mandated by the County of Los Angeles, apply to the Youth@Work PY 2025–2026 (Phase I) program:
• The program period starts on May 18, 2026, and ends on August 30, 2025, with the final closeout report due on September 15, 2026.
• All participants must be enrolled by June 30, 2026.
• All participants will receive a minimum of 140 hours of work experience and 20 hours of Personal Enrichment training totaling 160 hours of paid work experience. • Participants will be paid at the rate established by the County of Los Angeles, which is $17.87 per hour.
• The program design must adhere to the Statement of Work (SOW) under the regulations of the Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) established for PY 2025-2026 by the Department of Economic Opportunity, County of Los Angeles.
• The budget allotted for each Youth@Work participant must adhere to the prescribed county budget as follows:

Y@W NCC Cost Per Participant
Wages ($17.87 per hour x
160 hours discounted at
10% to 144 hours)
$2,573
Social
Security/Medicare/Worker's
Comp
$480
Supportive Services $80
Programs Supervision $450
Cost Per Participant $3,583
This letter authorizes the City of Artesia to incur administration and program-related costs associated with the NCC participant additional funding effective May 18, 2026, for the Youth@Work Program PY 2025–2026, subject to the availability of County of Los Angeles funding. By incurring costs under these funding allocations, your agency acknowledges agreement with the terms and conditions specified under Contract #108006.

Sincerely,
Yolanda L. Castro
Executive Director
Signature:

Email:

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ARTESIA-YOUTH AT WORK
STATEMENT OF WORK-PY 2024-2025
Number of Participant Slots: 20
Eligibility: Other Underserved Youth: 20 Foster:0
Probation:0 System Involved Youth:0
CalWORKS:0
Summary of Deliverables – Youth at Work
Activity Description Responsible Party
Outreach Conduct outreach with the goal of
recruiting 20 participants
Contractor
Conduct Participant Intake,
Enrollment and Exit
Conduct program orientations to
meet the goal of 20 enrollments.

Conduct intake and enrollment of
20 participants. Upon completion,
exit 20 participants.

Contractor
Provide Personal Enrichment
Training
Facilitate 20 hours of in-person or
virtual personal enrichment
training program prescribed by
the Los Angeles County via the
platform provided by the Los
Angeles County for 20
participants.

Contractor
Program Administration Administer the Youth at Work
program per the regulations,
restrictions and requirements
identified by the Los Angeles
County by way of the SELAC WDB.

Contractor
Secure Work Experience Sites Secure work experience sites to meet the work-based needs of
enrolled participants.

Provide Work Experience Provide up to 140 hours of WEX to 20 participants.

Program Data Management Enter and track all activity
delivered for each Contractor
participant on the WEB portal
provided and managed by the
SELACO WDB.

Contractor
Fiscal Administration Track and manage all fiscal related matters regarding the billing and
invoicing of the Youth at Work
program.

Contractor

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF ARTESIA-YOUTH AT WORK
STATEMENT OF WORK-PY 2024-2025
Reporting Attend provider meetings
monthly. Provide participant
activity reports.

SELACO WDB in collaboration with the
Contractor
Record Retention Maintain and safeguard
participant files per county record
retention regulations; currently
five years.

Contractor
Program Monitoring Provide files as needed for county
auditor or SELACO reviews.

SELACO WDB in collaboration with
the Contractor

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF ARTESIA
PARTICIPANT BUDGET PY 2024-2025
Cost Per Participant: $3,794
Hours of Work Experience Per Participant: 160
Hourly Wage: $17.28
Wages $2,765.00
Social Security/Medicare/Worker’s Comp: $449.00
Supportive Services: $130.00
Program Supervision: $450.00
Total Per Participant: $3,794.00
Total Allocation for 20 participant slots: $75, 880

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 9P.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Fourth Amendment to the Paratransit Demand Response Transportation Services Agreement With Administrative Services Cooperative, Inc. And Create an Ad-Hoc Committee to Evaluate and Develop the City's Public Transportation Programs
FROM: Karen Lee, Special Projects Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute a fourth amendment on their behalf, to the Paratransit Demand Response Transportation Services Agreement between the City of Artesia and Administrative Services Cooperative, Inc. to provide paratransit demand-response transportation services for an amount not to exceed $417,105, and

2. Form a Transportation Ad-Hoc Committee and appoint Councilmember Manalo and Councilmember Ahir to work with Staff on the evaluation and an implementation plan for the City's public transportation programs.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council approved an agreement with Administrative Services Cooperative, Inc., DBA Fiesta Taxi, ("Contractor") on January 17, 2023 for paratransit demand response transportation services ("Dial-a-Ride Program"). The first amendment was approved on July 27, 2023 to set forth a new contract term, service rates, operating days and hours, ride limits, and revised the service area to better reflect ridership trip patterns. The Diala-Ride program provides rides within a defined service area for residents who are 60 years and older or disabled (qualified ridership). The City Council further amended the agreement on June 17, 2024 with amendment two, which increased the not-to-exceed amount of the contract to $309,000 and extended the term of the agreement to June 30, 2027. Most recently, the City Council approved amendment three, which increased the not-to-exceed amount of the contract to $359,000.

ANALYSIS:

The City of Artesia ("City") continues to see a significant uptick in utilization of the Dial-a-Ride program among qualified ridership since Fiscal Year 2024-25 that has caused the Agreement's not-to-exceed value to be reached sooner than expected. The fourth amendment to the Agreement would allow Staff more time to develop this strategy, while maintaining services to qualified riders. To facilitate a holistic approach to the City's transportation services, including the City's fixed bus service, Staff is seeking additional input from an Ad-Hoc Committee prior to presenting a final strategy to the City Council for approval. After reviewing the City's existing standing committee list, and the nature of potential policy changes, it was determined that it would be appropriate to form a Transportation Ad-Hoc Committee specifically to review the City's transportation services for this purpose.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no impact to the General Fund associated with the adoption of amendment four. The City utilizes annual Prop A local return funds for this program, and funds are available to cover the amendment of the agreement.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

Attachments
Fourth Amendment - Dial-a-Ride.pdf
1 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

CITY OF ARTESIA PARATRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
PARTIES AND DATE.

This Fourth Amendment to the Agreement for Paratransit Demand Response Transportation Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on June 8, 2026, by and between the City of Artesia, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Administrative Services Cooperative, Inc., a California corporation, (“Contractor”). The City and Contractor are collective referred to herein as the “Parties.”

1. RECITALS.

1.1 Agreement. The Parties entered the Transportation Services Agreement dated January 17, 2023 (“Agreement”).

1.2 First Amendment. The Parties entered into a First Amendment dated July 27, 2023, in order to revise the Service Area and Limitations provisions of the Agreement.

1.3 Second Amendment. The Parties entered into a Second Amendment dated June 17, 2024, in order to increase the total compensation under the agreement and extend the term of the Agreement.

1.4 Third Amendment. The Parties entered into a Third Amendment dated April 13, 2026, in order to increase the total compensation under the Agreement.

1.5 Fourth Amendment. The Parties now desire to amend the Agreement in order to increase the total compensation under the Agreement.

2. TERMS.

2.1 Compensation. Section 4.11.1 “Compensation” of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and restated as follows:
“The City will compensate the Contractor for the services for the services on a monthly basis for each year service is provided under this agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “C”.” attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The compensation shall not exceed Four Hundred Seventeen Thousand, One Hundred and Five Dollars ($417,105) over the Term of the Agreement without written approval of the City Council or City Manager, as applicable. Extra Work may be authorized, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. The City Manager will have authority to approve Extra Work within 10% of the total compensation.”

2.2 Remaining Provisions of Agreement. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this Third Amendment, the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
2 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ARTESIA PARATRANSIT

DEMAND RESPONSE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the 8th day of June, 2026.

CITY OF ARTESIA
By:

ABEL AVALOS
City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

JENNIFER ALDERETE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
COOPERATIVE, INC.

By:

Its: Director of Operations, Vice President
Printed Name: MARCO A SOTO
By:

Its: Chief Financial Officer
Printed Name: BORIS HRISTEV

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 9Q.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Addition and Cancellation of Regular July Council Meeting FROM: Jennifer Alderete, City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Abel Avalos, City Manager
Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve the addition of July 8, 2026 Regular Meeting at 7 p.m. and cancel the July 13, 2026 Meeting.

BACKGROUND:

Regular Council meetings are held on the second Monday of each month per the Artesia Municipal Code. To accommodate a Public Finance Authority meeting, which meet immediately before City Council meetings, and needs to be held a minimum of thirty days ahead of the August 10, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council is requested hold the regular July meeting on Wednesday, July 8, 2026 at 7 p.m. and cancel the July 13, 2026 meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 10A.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding Mixed Use Overlay Zone Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee FROM: Steven Valdez, Planning Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Paul Bollier, Community Development Director
Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Open and conduct the Public Hearing;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-3088, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Artesia, California, Establishing an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee for Residential and Mixed-Use Development Projects within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, Creating a Corresponding Fund Account Pursuant to Section 9-2.4809(c) of the Artesia Municipal Code; and

3. Determine that adoption of Resolution No. 26-3088 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fees, and Charges).

BACKGROUND:

An Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee (In-lieu Fee), applicable to residential and mixed-use development within the Mixed Use Overlay Zone (MU-O), is required by the MU-O Ordinance. It is intended to provide an alternative means of compliance with on-site affordable housing requirements while ensuring that new development contributes its proportional share toward meeting the City of Artesia's ("City") affordable housing obligations. To support adoption of the In-lieu Fee, the City retained Willdan Financial Services to prepare a nexus study consistent with the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act. The study establishes the required reasonable relationship between new market-rate development and the demand for affordable housing. The attached study, titled City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study (April 16, 2026), provides the technical basis for the proposed fee.

ANALYSIS:

The nexus study demonstrates that new market-rate residential development generates household spending, which induces job growth in the local economy. Many of these induced jobs are held by lower-income households that cannot afford market-rate housing in the City, thereby creating a demand for subsidized affordable housing. The analysis quantifies the relationship between development and housing demand using economic modeling (IMPLAN), identifying the affordability gap between what lower-income households can afford and the cost to construct affordable housing units.

Findings of the Study
The analysis and data compiled in the report demonstrate the following:

1. Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households in the City, as defined by the 2025 HUD income limits, cannot afford market rate housing. Affordable housing is defined as housing that costs 30 percent or less of gross monthly household income.

2. The costs to develop new, modest, rental housing are significant and exceed the development costs that can be supported by the ongoing affordable rents.

3. New market-rate development induces job growth across a range of income levels, including lower-wage jobs that generate a demand for affordable housing.

4. Household spending from new development increases demand for goods and services, further contributing to job creation and housing demand.

The study identifies the maximum justified affordable housing impact fee necessary to mitigate these impacts to bridge the gap between the cost of developing affordable housing and what Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and LowIncome households can afford to pay.

Maximum Justified Fee
The maximum justified affordable housing in-lieu fee schedule is summarized below. The fees shown here are the maximum supportable fee under state law.

Project Type Maximum Fee per Square Foot
Rental Residential $112
For-Sale Residential $105
Application to Mixed-Use Overlay Zone
The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, which was adopted in 2025 and revised in 2026, is expected to accommodate new residential and mixed-use development that will:

Increase population and household spending;
Generate induced employment; and
Contribute to additional demand for affordable housing.

The application of an In-lieu Fee within this zone, as required by the Mixed-Use Ordinance, ensures consistency with the City’s Housing Element, policies, and General Plan objectives.

Use of Funds
All fees collected pursuant to this program will be deposited into a dedicated Affordable Housing Fund and used for:

Development of affordable housing units;
Land acquisition;
Gap financing;
Housing programs serving lower-income households.

In-Lieu Fee Program Administration
The Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee program establishes the framework for the collection, management, and expenditure of in-lieu fees consistent with the City’s Mixed Use Overlay Zone requirements and the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000 et seq.).

The In-lieu Fee shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance for applicable residential and mixed-use development projects within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, unless otherwise specified by the Municipal Code.

All fee revenues shall be deposited into a separate Affordable Housing Fund and accounted for in accordance with Government Code §66006. Funds shall be used solely for the purpose of increasing, preserving, and supporting affordable housing opportunities for Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households.

Eligible uses of the fund include, but are not limited to:

Development of new affordable housing units;
Acquisition of land for affordable housing;
Provision of gap financing for affordable housing projects; Preservation and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing; and Housing programs that assist lower-income households.

The City will monitor and report on the collection and expenditure of in-lieu fees in compliance with State law, including the preparation of annual and five-year reports as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Gov. Code § 66001)
The City Council hereby finds:

1. Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee is to mitigate the impact of new residential and mixed-use development on the demand for affordable housing within the City.

2. Use of the Fee. Fee revenues will be used to fund activities that increase, preserve, and support affordable housing for Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households.

3. Relationship Between Use and Type of Development. There is a reasonable relationship between the type of development project on which the fee is imposed and the need for affordable housing. New development generates household spending, which induces employment and creates demand for additional housing, including affordable units.

4. Relationship Between Fee and Impact (Proportionality). There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the impact of development, as demonstrated in the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study. The fee does not exceed the cost necessary to mitigate the affordable housing impacts attributable to new development.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Notice of the public hearing for consideration of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee was provided published in the Los Cerritos Community News on May 8, 2026 and May 22, 2026, in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66016 and §66018). The required fee information and supporting nexus study were made available to the public prior to the public hearing in accordance with State law.

In addition to the required publication procedures, the City also provided the required minimum 14-day notice to those organizations which have requested written notice of the City's adoption of a nexus study and impact fees on May 12, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adoption of the In-lieu Fee will establish a new revenue source to fund affordable housing programs. Revenue generated will vary depending on the type of development.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

Adoption of the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273, as the fee constitutes the establishment of rates, tolls, and charges by a public agency for the purpose of meeting operating expenses and funding public facilities and services.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Open and conduct the Public Hearing;

3. Determine that adoption of Resolution No. 26-3088 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fees, and Charges).

Attachments
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Impact Fee Report dated 4-16-26.pdf Resolution 26-3088.pdf

CITY OF ARTESIA

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
APRIL 16, 2026
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
This page intentionally left blank.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 2 Background and Study Objectives 2
Nexus Study Conclusions 2
Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Schedule 3

1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS............................... 4 Nexus Approach 4
Housing Affordability in Artesia 4
Market Rate Rents 4
Market Rate Housing Affordability 5
Market Rate Prototypes and Gross Income 7
Market Rate Rental Prototype 7
Market Rate For-Sale Prototype 7
Aggregate Income 8
Induced Employment Impacts 9
Affordable Housing Development Costs 12
Affordability Gap and Maximum Fee Calculation 13
2 Executive Summary
This report documents an analysis of affordable housing in-lieu fees, also known as affordable housing impact fees, needed to fund new development’s share of affordable housing induced by the household spending associated with new market rate development in the City of Artesia. The fees are referred to as “in-lieu” fees because they are paid in-lieu of providing affordable housing units within new development projects.

Background and Study Objectives
To adopt a fee to fund affordable housing, a local jurisdiction must demonstrate the reasonable relationship (or “nexus”) between the development projects paying the fee and the fee that is charged. This nexus study quantifies the connection between the development of market rate housing and the demand for (and pricing of) affordable housing units.

The residential in-lieu fee nexus study examines the household income and spending generated by the new market rate households renting or buying new units in Artesia. Using the IMPLAN economic model, the household spending associated with new development is translated into new induced job growth. These induced jobs will be at various wage rates, though many induced jobs will earn lower wages. Because low-wage households cannot typically afford to pay for market rate housing in Artesia, a housing impact fee can be justified to bridge the difference between what these new households can afford to pay and the cost to provide housing units to accommodate lower income households associated with this induced job growth.

Nexus Study Conclusions
The analysis and data compiled in this report demonstrate the following:

1. Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households in Artesia, as defined by the 2025 HUD income limits, cannot afford market rate housing in the City. Affordable housing is defined as housing that costs 30 percent or less of gross monthly household income.

2. The costs to develop new, modest, rental housing are significant in Artesia and exceed the development costs that can be supported by the ongoing affordable rents.

3. Household spending by new market rate rental and for sale households will induce the creation of Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income job-holding households that cannot afford housing at the market rate. This requires households to commute from more affordable areas which puts a strain on workforce satisfaction, air quality, infrastructure, traffic and transit, and the health and safety of the City’s residents and workforce.

4. Residents who can afford to purchase or rent new housing within the City spend a portion of their disposable income in the City. This increased spending results in the need to hire new workers to accommodate the increased demand for goods and services associated with new development and increases demand for housing.

Consequently, the analysis in this report identifies the maximum justified affordable housing impact fee that can bridge the gap between the cost of developing affordable housing and what Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households can afford to pay.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
3 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Schedule
The maximum justified affordable housing in-lieu fee schedule is summarized in Table E.1. The fees shown here are the maximum supportable under state law. The City can adopt any amount up to the amounts shown below.

Fee per Square
Foot
Maximum Impact Fee per Square Foot- New Rental Unit $ 112 Maximum Impact Fee per Square Foot - New For Sale Unit 105 Source: Table 1.11
Table E.1: Maximum Justified Affordable Housing Impact Fee Schedule
4 1. Affordable Housing Fee Nexus
Analysis
This chapter details an analysis of the need for affordable housing required to accommodate lower-income employees that support growth within Artesia. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a fee to fund affordable housing.

Nexus Approach
New residential development generates population growth. Residents who can afford to purchase or rent this new housing then spend their disposable income in the City. Consequently, this increased spending results in the need to hire new workers to accommodate the increased demand for goods and services associated with new development. This analysis establishes the connection between the increase in household spending associated with new development and the number of new workers that will be hired by local businesses to meet that demand.

Employment growth provides occupations at various wage and salary levels. Low wage workers cannot afford market rate housing within Artesia, so an affordable housing impact fee can be calculated to bridge the gap between what low wage workers can afford to pay for and the cost of providing that housing.

The analysis presented here defines the upper limit for a housing impact fee to be charged on new rental and for-sale housing to mitigate impacts on affordable housing needs. The maximum fee is not necessarily the recommended fee.

Housing Affordability in Artesia
This section of the chapter evaluates housing affordability in Artesia, using Department of Housing and Community Development State Income Limits and current market rate rent data.

Table 1.1 displays the Los Angeles County annual income limits, as identified by HUD.

Table 1.1: 2025 Los Angeles County Income Limits
Persons per HH: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low 31,850 36,400 40,950 45,450 49,100 52,750 56,400 60,000 Very Low Income 53,000 60,600 68,150 75,750 81,800 87,850 93,900 100,000 Low Income 84,850 96,950 109,050 121,150 130,850 140,550 150,250 159,950 Median Income 74,600 85,300 95,950 106,600 115,150 123,650 132,200 140,700 Moderate Income 89,550 102,300 115,100 127,900 138,150 148,350 158,600 168,850 Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits 2025.

Market Rate Rents
Willdan gathered data regarding existing market rate rents in the South Los Angeles Multifamily submarket, as identified by CoStar. Artesia is located within the identified submarket. CoStar is a commercial property data aggregator who collects and analyzes market data through out the Country. This data informs the assumption of the household income necessary to rent a housing City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
5 unit in Artesia at the market rate. The results of the market rate rent analysis for the first quarter of 2026are summarized in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Market Rate Rent, Q1 2026 - Listings in
South Los Angeles Multifamily Submarket
Unit Type
Average Monthly
Rent
Studio $ 1,606
1-Bedroom 1,824
2-Bedroom 2,198
3-Bedroom 2,832
Sources: Multi-Family Submarket Report, CoStar, January 21, 2026.

Market Rate Housing Affordability
To evaluate housing affordability in Artesia, the analysis compares the household income at the midpoint of each income category from Table 1.1 to the market rents by number of bedrooms from Table 1.2. This analysis uses household incomes at the mid-point of each income range when calculating affordable rents as a conservative measure to avoid overstating the affordability of rental housing. In addition to rents, the analysis also includes an estimate of utility costs based on the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) utility allowances. The maximum affordable monthly rent including utilities for each income category is calculated as 30 percent of gross monthly household income. If the difference between the maximum affordable rent and the total monthly housing costs is negative, then housing for that income category and housing product is considered unaffordable.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
6 Table 1.3: Affordability of Market Rate Rental Housing in Artesia Household (Unit) 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person
Size: (Studio) (1 Bedroom) (2 Bedrooms) (3 Bedrooms)
Average Market-Rate Rent1 $ 1,606 $ 1,824 $ 2,198 $ 2,832 Utility Costs2
187 235 286 350
Total Monthly Housing Costs $ 1,793 $ 2,059 $ 2,484 $ 3,182 Extremely Low Income (up to 30% AMI)
Household Income at Midpoint of Income Range3 $ 15,925 $ 18,200 $ 20,475 $ 22,725 Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent4 211 220 226 218
Amount Above (Below) Market Rate Rent (1,395) (1,604) (1,972) (2,614) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI)
Household Income at Midpoint of Income Range3 $ 42,425 $ 48,500 $ 54,550 $ 60,600 Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent4 874 978 1,078 1,165
Amount Above (Below) Market Rate Rent (732) (846) (1,120) (1,667) Low Income (51-80% AMI)
Household Income at Midpoint of Income Range3 $ 68,925 $ 78,775 $ 88,600 $ 98,450 Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent4 1,536 1,734 1,929 2,111 Amount Above (Below) Market Rate Rent (70) (90) (269) (721) Moderate Income (81-120% AMI)
Household Income at Midpoint of Income Range3 $ 87,200 $ 99,625 $ 112,075 $ 124,525 Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent4
1,993 2,256 2,516 2,763
Amount Above (Below) Market Rate Rent 387 432 318 (69)
1 See Table 1.2.
2 Utility costs per LACDA Utility Allow ance, effective 7-1-25. Assumes electric heating, cooking costs. 4 Assumes 30-percent of gross income spent on housing and utilities costs.

Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2025; LACDA; Willdan Financial Services. 3 Household income limits published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Los Angeles County, 2025.

Show s midpoint of income range. See Table 1.1.

Table 1.4 identifies the income required to afford market rate rents in the City, by household size.

The income required to afford market rate rents assumes that 30 percent of gross income spent on housing and utility costs is considered affordable. The annual affordable housing costs are then compared to the area median income (area median income) to estimate amount of gross income above AMI that is needed to afford each product type, by household size.

Table 1.4: Income Required to Afford Market-Rate Rents in Artesia Household (Unit) 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person
Size: (Studio) (1 Bedroom) (2 Bedrooms) (3 Bedrooms)
Total Monthly Housing Costs $ 1,793 $ 2,059 $ 2,484 $ 3,182 Annual Housing Costs $ 21,516 $ 24,708 $ 29,808 $ 38,184 Household Income Required1 71,720 82,360 99,360 127,280 Area Median Income (AMI) 74,600 85,300 95,950 106,600
Income Required as Percent of AMI 96% 97% 104% 119%
1 Assumes 30-percent of gross income spent on housing and utilities costs.

Sources: Tables 1.1 and 1.3.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
7 Market Rate Prototypes and Gross Income
This analysis identified two market rate residential prototypes based on a review of the housing market in Artesia.

Market Rate Rental Prototype
The data collected to identify the current effective rent in Artesia was also used to identify typical rental product characteristics. The typical rental unit in the City was a two-bedroom, onebathroom unit sized at 818 square feet. Using the current rent data, and the housing cost as percent of gross income assumptions discussed above, the amount of gross income needed to afford rent in Artesia is calculated in Table 1.5. It requires an annual gross household income of $87,920 to afford to rent the typical market rate rental unit in Artesia.

Table 1.5: Rental Residential Prototype
Bedrooms 2
Bathrooms 1
Square feet 818
Rent per Square Foot $ 2.69
Monthly Rent $ 2,198
Annual Rent 26,376
Housing Cost as Percent of Income1
30%
Gross Household Income $ 87,920
1 Renter housing burden is estimated at 30-percent of gross household income, based on California Health & Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053.

Sources: CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

Market Rate For-Sale Prototype
Recent housing sales data was collected from mlslistings.com from November 2025 to January 2026. This data informed the typical for sale product prototype displayed below in Table 1.6. The data indicated that the typical for sale product in Artesia was a three-bedroom, two-bathroom townhouse. The assumption for average sales price and square footage shown in Table 1.6 are the average for sold homes with these characteristics and exclude larger and smaller homes. The gross household income necessary to afford to purchase the prototype is then calculated using current interest rates and estimated housing ownership costs. An annual gross household income of nearly $159,000 is required to purchase the typical home in Artesia.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
8 Table 1.6: For Sale Residential Prototype
Townhouse
Prototype Assumptions 1
Bedrooms 3
Bathrooms 2
Square feet 1,454
Sales Price per Square Foot $ 517
Sales Price $ 751,828
Down Payment (20%) $ 150,366
Loan Amount $ 601,462
Interest Rate26.09%
Monthly Mortgage Payment $ 3,641
Annual Property Tax3 8,427
Homeowners Insurance 3,500
Annual Housing Costs $ 55,619
Housing Cost as Percent of Income435%
Gross Household Income $ 158,910
1 Based on an analysis of recent sales of single family homes in Artesia, as reported by mlslistings.com from November 2025 to January 2026.
3 City of Artesia Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024, p. 98.
2 Average 30-year fixed interest rate as of January 22, 2026 per http://w w w .freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms_archives.html
4 Homeow ner housing burden is estimated at 35-percent of gross household income, based on California Health & Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053.

Sources: City of Artesia Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024; mlslistings.com; Freddie Mac; Willdan Financial Services.

Aggregate Income
Table 1.7 identifies the aggregate household income of 100 single family owner households and 100 single family renter households who can afford housing at the market rate. This aggregate income is used as the driver of induced economic effects using the IMPLAN model.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
9 Table 1.7: Estimated Incomes by Income Categories of
Prototype Buyers and Renters
Single Family
(Buyer)
Multifamily
(Renter)
Income Category $150,000 to $200,000 $70,000 to $100,000 Gross Household Income $ 158,910 $ 87,920
New Households 100 100
Aggregate Household Income $ 15,891,024 $ 8,792,000
Sources: Tables 1.5 and 1.6.

Induced Employment Impacts
The aggregate household income identified above is used to estimate the number of new jobs that new households will support with their household expenditures using the IMPLAN model.

IMPLAN is an input-output based economic impact model used for a variety of different analyses.

In this case IMPLAN models the economy for a region.

For this analysis, IMPLAN used data specific to Artesia to estimate the multipliers effects from new households. Essentially, IMPLAN used the increase in household spending associated with the new prototype households to identify the jobs (or fraction of jobs) that are supported by that spending.

The output of the IMPLAN model was then cross referenced with the assumed compensation associated with each occupation to estimate the aggregate number of jobs induced within each income category. The resulting net new jobs by income category are divided by the assumption of jobs per household to determine the number of net new worker households in Artesia induced by the household spending from market rate housing development. In Artesia there are approximately 1.52 jobs per household, as calculated from the latest 2023 American Community Survey data.

Table 1.8 shows the results of the IMPLAN analysis in terms of the induced employment and household generation supported by household spending from the gross income of 100 market rate multifamily rental households.

Table 1.9 shows the results of the IMPLAN analysis in terms of the induced employment and household generation supported by household spending from the gross income of 100 market rate single family for sale households.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
10 Table 1.8: Employment and Household Generation from a New 100-Unit Multifamily Rental Development by Income Level
SOC
Code Major Goup
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Income Low Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Total
Employment
11 Management Occupations - - - - 1.82 1.82
13 Business and Financial Operations Occupations - - - - 1.47 1.47 15 Computer and Mathematical Occupations - - - - 0.56 0.56 17 Architecture and Engineering Occupations - - - - 0.10 0.10 19 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations - - 0.02 - 0.09 0.11 21 Community and Social Service Occupations - 0.20 0.63 - - 0.83 23 Legal Occupations - - - 0.07 0.10 0.17
25 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations - 0.42 0.28 - 0.16 0.86 27 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations - - - - 0.43 0.43 29 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations - - 0.95 - 1.94 2.89 31 Healthcare Support Occupations 2.32 0.68 - - - 3.00
33 Protective Service Occupations - - 0.32 - 0.02 0.34
35 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 2.82 1.12 0.45 - - 4.39 37 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations - 0.63 0.03 - - 0.66 39 Personal Care and Service Occupations 0.62 0.21 0.10 - - 0.93 41 Sales and Related Occupations - 1.92 0.40 - 0.51 2.83 43 Office and Administrative Support Occupations - 1.44 1.66 - - 3.10 45 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations - - 0.02 - - 0.02 47 Construction and Extraction Occupations - - 0.16 - 0.03 0.19 49 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations - - 0.82 - 0.09 0.91 51 Production Occupations - 0.26 0.18 - 0.08 0.52
53 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations - 1.06 0.75 0.01 0.10 1.92 Total Jobs 5.76 7.94 6.77 0.08 7.50 28.05
Total Households1

3.78 5.22 4.45 0.05 4.93 18.43
1 Assumes 1.52 jobs per household in Artesia based on data from the 2023 American Community Survey and OnTheMap.ces.census.gov.

Sources: IMPLAN, US Census, American Community Survey, 2023; OnTheMap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
11 Table 1.9: Employment and Household Generation from a New 100-Unit Single Family For Sale Development by Income Level
SOC
Code Major Goup
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Income Low Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Total
Employment
11 Management Occupations - - - - 3.01 3.01
13 Business and Financial Operations Occupations - - - - 2.46 2.46 15 Computer and Mathematical Occupations - - - - 0.97 0.97 17 Architecture and Engineering Occupations - - - - 0.18 0.18 19 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations - - 0.04 - 0.18 0.22 21 Community and Social Service Occupations - 0.38 1.00 - - 1.38 23 Legal Occupations - - - 0.12 0.19 0.31
25 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations - 0.62 0.56 - 0.26 1.44 27 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations - - - - 0.78 0.78 29 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations - - 1.35 - 2.71 4.06 31 Healthcare Support Occupations 3.07 1.05 - - - 4.12
33 Protective Service Occupations - - 0.64 - 0.03 0.67
35 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 5.22 2.03 0.84 - - 8.09 37 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations - 1.07 0.06 - - 1.13 39 Personal Care and Service Occupations 1.08 0.42 0.18 - - 1.68 41 Sales and Related Occupations - 3.41 0.67 - 0.86 4.94 43 Office and Administrative Support Occupations - 2.38 2.75 - - 5.13 45 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations - - 0.03 - - 0.03 47 Construction and Extraction Occupations - 0.01 0.28 - 0.05 0.34 49 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations - - 1.36 - 0.14 1.50 51 Production Occupations - 0.46 0.31 - 0.13 0.90
53 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations - 1.82 1.27 0.01 0.19 3.29 Total Jobs 9.37 13.65 11.34 0.13 12.14 46.63
Total Households1 6.16 8.97 7.45 0.09 7.97 30.63
1 Assumes 1.52 jobs per household in Artesia based on data from the 2023 American Community Survey and OnTheMap.ces.census.gov.

Sources: IMPLAN, US Census, American Community Survey, 2023; OnTheMap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
12 Affordable Housing Development Costs
Table 1.10 displays an analysis of the assumed cost to build low and very-low housing units in the City of Artesia. The analysis assumes a four-story apartment building containing 70 units of affordable housing. The cost of land acquisition is based on recent sales comparisons, as reported by CoStar in Artesia. In total, it is assumed to cost $763,520 per unit to construct affordable housing in Artesia
Table 1.10: Affordable Housing Development Costs
Item Assumption Quantity
4-Story Apt with Structured Parking Prototype Assumptions Units/Acre 70
Unit Size 1,100
Total Project SF 77,000
Net Unit Size185% 935
Bedrooms2 2
Persons Per Unit3 3
Parking Spaces/Unit4 2
Total Resident Parking Spaces 140
Guest Parking Spaces5 23
Direct Cost Assumptions
Land Cost (per acre)6$ 2,550,000 /acre $ 2,550,000
Direct Construction Costs7$ 350 /gross sf 26,950,000
Resident Parking Costs (structured) $ 60,000 /space 8,400,000 Guest Parking Costs (surface) $ 12,000 /space 276,000
Total Direct Costs $ 38,176,000
Indirect Costs
Soft Costs825% of direct costs $ 9,544,000
Total Indirect Costs $ 9,544,000
Total Costs $ 47,720,000
Developer Fee 12% of total costs $ 5,726,400
Total Project Costs $ 53,446,400
Total Project Costs Per Unit $ 763,520
1 Assumes 85% living space, accounting for common areas, circulation, mechanical, etc. 2 Assumes 2BR unit is average unit, w ith some 1BR and 3BR also included. 3 Health and Safety Code 50052.5(h) specifies three persons for a 2BR unit. 4 Artesia Municipal Code Sec. 9-2.1103(a)(2)(A)(i).
5 Artesia Municipal Code Sec. 9-2.1103(a)(2)(B)(i). Guest Parking assumed to be surface. 6 Recent sales comparisons data from CoStar.
7 Cost of labor and materials based on regional costs.
8 Architecture, engineering, entitlement, fees, project management, insurance, and other development-related costs.

Sources: CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
13 Affordability Gap and Maximum Fee Calculation
The housing affordability gap is the difference between what extremely low, very low, and low - income households can afford to pay for housing, and the cost to develop affordable housing units. The affordable monthly rent associated with each income level is used to estimate the monthly supportable debt per unit, which is then used to estimate the loan proceeds associated with that level of income. The loan amount is compared to the affordable unit development costs, and the difference is the financing gap per unit.

The financing gap per unit is then multiplied by the number of units induced within each income category to determine the total financing gap associated with the 100 prototype units. This figure is then divided by 100 to determine the housing fee per unit, but prototype type. The fee per unit is finally divided by the assumed prototype square footage to determine the fee per square foot.

Table 1.11 displays the calculation of the affordability gap and maximum justified affordable housing impact fee for new multifamily rental units and for new single family for sale units.

City of Artesia Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study
14 Table 1.11: Affordable Housing Impact Fee Calculation Extremely
Low Income
(up to 30%
AMI)
Very Low
Income (31-
50% AMI)
Low Income
(51-80% AMI)
Household Income Limit $ 40,950 $ 68,150 $ 109,050
Affordable Monthly Rent per Unit 738 1,418 2,440
Monthly Operating Expenses 1,003 1,003 1,003
Vacancy 5% 5% 5%
Net Operating Income per Unit - 344 1,315
Monthly Supportable Debt Service per Unit - 299 1,144
Loan Amount - 51,251 196,030
Affordable Unit Development Costs $ 763,520 763,520 763,520 Financing Gap per Affordable Unit 763,520 712,269 567,490 Fee Calculation for New Rental Units
Units Demanded 3.78 5.22 4.45
Total Financing Gap $ 2,889,033 $ 3,715,131 $ 2,523,809 Maximum Impact Fee per 100-Unit Development $ 9,127,973 Maximum Impact Fee per Unit $ 91,280
Prototype Square Feet 818
Maximum Impact Fee per Square Foot $ 112
Fee Calculation for New For Sale Single Family Units
Units Demanded 6.16 8.97 7.45
Total Financing Gap $ 4,699,695 $ 6,386,843 $ 4,227,473 Maximum Impact Fee per 100-Unit Development $ 15,314,011 Maximum Impact Fee per Unit $ 153,140
Prototype Square Feet 1,454
Maximum Impact Fee per Square Foot $ 105
Financing Terms
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15
Interest Rate 6.42%
Term of Loan 40
Sources: Tables 1.1, 1.3, 1.5.

RESOLUTION NO. 26-3088

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING AN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE FOR

RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS WITHIN THE MIXED-USE OVERLAY ZONE,

CREATING A CORRESPONDING FUND ACCOUNT AND

DETERMINING THAT THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM
CEQA.

WHEREAS, the City of Artesia seeks to promote the development of housing affordable to all income levels;
WHEREAS, new market-rate residential and mixed-use development generates demand for affordable housing through induced employment and economic activity; WHEREAS, new development generates household spending that induces employment, including lower-wage jobs that create additional demand for affordable housing;
WHEREAS, the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone is intended to accommodate new residential and mixed-use development that increases population, household spending, and employment growth, thereby contributing to additional demand for affordable housing;
WHEREAS, property owners and developers developing property within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone are required to provide below-market rate housing units to offset the continued demand for affordable housing as a condition of development approval; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to provide property owners and developers developing property within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone an option to pay an in-lieu fee to fund their affordable housing requirements (the “In-Lieu Fee”) in-lieu of providing affordable housing units directly;
WHEREAS, the City retained Willdan Financial Services to prepare an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study, dated April 16, 2026, which establishes a nexus between new development and the need for affordable housing;
WHEREAS, the study identifies the maximum justified in-lieu fee necessary to mitigate the impacts of new residential development;
WHEREAS, the In-Lieu Fee is intended to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share toward meeting the City’s affordable housing obligations;
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the study and finds that the imposition of an In-Lieu Fee is consistent with State law, including the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000 et seq.);
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of the In-Lieu Fee on June 8, 2026; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals and Findings. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council hereby finds that the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study dated April 16, 2026 (“Nexus Study”) demonstrates a reasonable relationship (nexus), as required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000 et seq.), between new residential and mixed-use development and the need for affordable housing, and between the amount of the In-Lieu Fee imposed and the cost of mitigating such impacts. The City Council further finds that the In-Lieu Fee established herein will mitigate the demand for affordable housing generated by new development and ensure that such development contributes its proportional share toward meeting the City’s affordable housing needs.

SECTION 2. Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Gov. Code § 66001). The City Council hereby finds:

A. Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the In-Lieu Fee is to mitigate the impacts of new residential and mixed-use development on the demand for affordable housing within the City.

B. Use of the Fee. In-Lieu Fee revenues will be used to fund the development, preservation, and support of affordable housing for Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households.

C. Relationship Between Development and Need (Nexus). As demonstrated in the Nexus Study, there is a reasonable relationship between the type of development project on which the fee is imposed and the need for affordable housing, as new development generates household spending and employment growth that creates demand for additional housing, including affordable housing.

D. Relationship Between Fee and Impact (Proportionality). There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the impacts of development, as demonstrated in the Nexus Study. The fee does not exceed the cost necessary to mitigate the affordable housing impacts attributable to new development.

SECTION 3. Adoption of Study. The City Council hereby accepts the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study prepared by Willdan Financial Services, dated April 16, 2026.

SECTION 4. Establishment of Fee. An In-Lieu Fee is hereby established for residential and mixed-use development projects within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. The fee amounts and program requirements shall be as set forth in Exhibit “A,” Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Project Type Fee per Square Foot
Rental Residential $112
For-Sale Residential $105
SECTION 5. Annual Adjustments. The In-Lieu Fee shall be automatically adjusted annually, effective July 1, 2027, and each July 1 thereafter without further City Council action, based on California Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News Record (“CCI”) based on the percentage increase from the prior year annual CCI, calculated by the 12-month change as of March each year. If the CCI does not change, or decreases in any given year, no change shall be made to the In-lieu Fee that year. In the event the CCI is no longer published or otherwise not available the City shall use a comparable replacement index.

SECTION 6. Affordable Housing Fund. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to establish a separate Affordable Housing Fund into which all in-lieu fees shall be deposited and used exclusively for the development, preservation, and support of affordable housing.

SECTION 7. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds that adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fees, and Charges).

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. However, the In-Lieu Fee shall be effective 60 days following the date of adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one of or more sections, subsections, clauses, or phases be declared invalid or unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 8th day of June, 2026. ______________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT “A”

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM

1. Fee Schedule
The Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee shall be imposed on all applicable residential and mixed-use development projects within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone as follows:

Project Type Fee per Square
Foot
Rental Residential $112
For-Sale
Residential $105
The fee shall be calculated based on the gross residential floor area of the project.

2. Applicability
The fee shall apply to:
• New residential development projects;
• Residential components of mixed-use development projects; and • Any project subject to the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone requirements that elects to pay an in-lieu fee in place of providing on-site affordable housing.

3. Timing of Fee Payment
Unless otherwise specified by a development agreement:
• Rental Projects: Fee shall be due and payable prior to issuance of a building permit.
• For-Sale Projects: Fee shall be due and payable prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or at an earlier time as determined by the City.

The City may require earlier payment if necessary to ensure fee collection.

4. Annual Adjustments
The fee shall be automatically adjusted annually based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCI).

Annual adjustments shall begin effective July 1, 2027 and each July 1 therafter and shall not require additional City Council action.

5. Use of Funds
All fees collected shall be deposited into a dedicated Affordable Housing Fund and used solely for the following eligible purposes:
• Development of affordable housing units;
• Acquisition of land for affordable housing;
• Gap financing for affordable housing projects;
• Preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing; • Housing programs serving Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income households;
• Reasonable administrative costs associated with program implementation.

6. Credits and Adjustments
A developer may be eligible for a fee credit, adjustment, or waiver if the developer:
• Provides on-site affordable housing units; or
• Provides off-site affordable housing units or other equivalent housing benefits.

Any request for credit or adjustment shall:
• Be submitted in writing;
• Include supporting documentation; and
• Be subject to review and approval by the City Manager or designee.

The City shall ensure that any credit granted does not exceed the proportional impact of the development.

7. Administrative Authority
The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to:
• Adopt administrative guidelines and procedures for implementation of this program;
• Interpret and apply the provisions of this Exhibit;
• Determine the applicable fee for specific projects; and • Ensure compliance with applicable State law.

8. Nexus Study Incorporation
The Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study dated April 16, 2026, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, is hereby incorporated by reference and forms the basis for the fee established herein.

9. Severability
If any provision of this Exhibit is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, and the remaining portions shall continue in full force and effect.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 10B.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance and Resolution Regarding City Paid Parking Program Amendments and Preferential Parking Program Fee Schedule FROM: Danielle Osborne, Management Analyst
Paul Bollier, Community Development Director
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Introduce Ordinance No. 26-987, Amending Portions of Articles 6 and 7 of Title 4 of the Artesia Municipal Code Modifying the Preferential Parking Program and Parking Fees;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-3091, Establishing a Preferential Parking Program Fee Schedule; and

3. Find the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guideline §15378(b)(5).

BACKGROUND:

On April 13, 2026, staff presented an item to the Artesia City Council to update the City's Parking Program. The City Council provided the following direction to Staff:

1. Direction to return with a five-year Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Passport Labs, Inc. for a Mobile Pay application to manage the hourly paid parking program in designated areas of the City including the downtown and the Residential Parking Permit Program;

2. Direction to return with an agreement to secure three physical parking meters in the paid parking areas downtown to meet the requirements of Senate Bill 532;

3. Direct Staff to standardize paid parking fees at $2.00 per hour for both on-street and off-street parking in the downtown area and remove the first hour free offering and return with a corresponding ordinance to make such adjustments; and

4. Direct Staff to update the Residential Parking Permit Program section of the Municipal Code to reduce the number of residential permits issued per household to three per household, change visitor passes from annual to as-needed 24-hour permits, and to adopt a fee schedule to recover the administrative costs of the program.

On May 11, 2026, the City Council approved the purchase of three parking meters to replace aging equipment, as well as an Agreement with Passport Labs, Inc. for a new mobile pay-based application to manage the paid parking program.

The introduction of Ordinance No. 26-987 and adoption of Resolution No. 26-3091 would complete the last two tasks directed by the City Council by amending the Artesia Municipal Code regarding the Preferential Permit Program and paid parking fees, and by passing a Resolution to establish fees for the Preferential Parking Program.

ANALYSIS:

Paid Parking Program
At the recommendation of the Public Safety Commission, and direction of the City Council, proposed Ordinance No. 26-987 makes the following amendments to the Artesia Municipal Code:

1. Modify language to reflect the inclusion of application-based meters which records vehicle license plate numbers, along with traditional mechanical and electronic meters in compliance with Senate Bill 532.

2. Revise the names of Parking Pay Station Zones to reflect their location for ease of distinction.

3. Standardize all paid parking zones to cost $2.00 per hour and remove the "first hour free" parking provision.

4. Modify language throughout the code reflecting the authority of the Community Development Department to manage and enforce the Paid Parking Program.

Residential Parking Permit Program:

At the recommendation of the Public Safety Commission, and direction of the City Council, proposed Ordinance No. 26-987 makes the following amendments to the Artesia Municipal Code:

1. Include the definition of 24-hour parking permit to acknowledge the new forms of temporary passes available to visitors and guests.

2. Formalize an existing Preferential Parking District ("Alburtis Street Preferential Parking District"), by adding it to the code, with a provision prohibiting parking from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. except by permit, as currently posted on signage.

3. Modify language and terminology throughout the code to reflect the transition away from printed permits to the recording of license plates for monitoring and enforcement.

4. Formalize a process for residents wishing to petition for the creation of a Preferential Parking District. The process requires residents to provide a petition containing the signatures, printed names, and addresses of one hundred percent (100%) of the residents residing on property abutting a street within the boundaries of the requested preferential parking district. The petition will be verified by the Community Development Director and, upon successful validation, will be submitted to the Public Safety Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. If recommended for approval, the City Council will consider the petition and public comments and either approve or deny the request.

Additionally, the City Manager, or designee, will have the right to submit a proposal for a preferential parking district, which will be subject to the same review and recommendation process as residents. Upon approval of any new preferential parking district, written notification will be provided by the City to all affected residents and property owners with instructions to secure a permit, a minimum of 30 days before enforcement begins.

5. Modify language throughout the code reflecting the authority of the Community Development Department to manage and enforce the Preferential Parking Program.

6. Revise the Preferential Parking Program to allow for up to three (3) residential parking permits per household.

7. Upon adoption of Resolution No. 26-3091, establish fees of $10.00 per residential permit and unlimited 24- hour guest passes on an as-needed basis for a fee of $4.00 per pass.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Notice of the public hearing to Introduce Ordinance No. 26-987 and Resolution No. 26-3091, Updating the Artesia Municipal Code Regarding the Residential Parking Permit Program, paid parking fees, and establishing the fees for the Residential Parking Program permits was published in the Los Cerritos Community News on May 22, 2026 and May 29, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of Resolution 26-3091 will result in increased revenue from fees associated with the City's paid parking program to offset the costs of running the program, including the Passport Labs, Inc. Application. The revenue is proposed from the following fees:

1. Residential Parking Permits: Establishing a new fee at $10.00 per permit, maximum three per household.

2. Temporary 24-hour Parking Permits (Residential Areas): Establishing a new fee of $4.00 per permit, no limit on number of permits issued.

Projected revenues associated with this program are as follows:

1. Residential Parking Permits - $7,000

2. 24-Hour Guest Passes - $650
The associated fiscal impacts have been accounted for in the draft Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff recommends the City Council, by motion:

1. Introduce Ordinance No. 26-987, Amending Portions of Articles 6 and 7 of Title 4 of the Artesia Municipal Code Modifying the Preferential Parking Program and Parking Fees;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-3091, Establishing a Preferential Parking Program Fee Schedule; and

3. Find the Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guideline §15378(b)(5).

Attachments
Ordinance 26-987.pdf
Ordinance 26-987 Exhibit A.pdf
Ordinance 26-987 Exhibit B.pdf
Resolution 26-3091.pdf
Resolution 26-3091 Exhibit A.pdf
ORDINANCE NO. 26-987

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
ARTICLES 6 AND 7 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ARTESIA

MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING THE PREFERENTIAL
PARKING PROGRAM AND PARKING FEES; AND

DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM
CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Artesia (“City”) is authorized under its police power to enact regulations to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare; WHEREAS, the Public Safety Commission convened on March 19, 2026, to consider staff recommendations for adjustments to paid parking rates throughout the City, including implementing a new Mobile Pay parking application , and an adjustment to the rate schedule for commercial and residential parking;
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Commission recommended to the City Council that the City update the Artesia Municipal Code regarding the Residential Parking Permit Program (“Preferential Parking”) to change the number of residential permits issued per household, to three annual per household and charge a $10.00 fee per permit, change three annual no cost visitor passes per qualified household to as-needed 24-hour permits, and charge a $4.00 fee per permit to cover the cost of managing the program; and
WHEREAS, Article 6 of Title 4 of the Artesia Municipal Code (“AMC”) currently regulates preferential parking throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend Article 6 of Title 4 of the AMC to create a new preferential parking district, establish a process for creating preferential parking districts, modify the department and City personnel as listed in the code to reflect the appropriate authorities to enforce the code, and update language throughout the AMC reflecting the use of digitally-issued permits (“Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Commission recommends that the City standardize paid parking fees at $2.00 per hour for both on-street and off-street parking in the downtown areas and remove the first hour free offering; and WHEREAS, Article 7 of Title 4 of the AMC currently regulates parking pay stations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend Article 7 of Title 4 of the AMC to reflect the use of Mobile Pay Stations to register parking payments, establish a new Parking Pay Station Zone, rename existing Parking Pay Station Zones to reflect their locations, modify language within the code to establish the appropriate authority for regulation, and update language within the code reflecting current rates for metered parking; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 8, 2026 at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the Ordinance, the recommendations of staff, and other public testimony; and WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the Ordinance is not a CEQA Resolution No. 26-987

Page 2 of 2 ends

“project” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5), which provides that organizational and administrative activities of governments that will not result in physical environmental impacts are not CEQA projects, and here the proposed Ordinance modifies existing regulations and standards related to preferential parking, and parking pay stations throughout the City. Further, the City Council finds that State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) exempts those activities for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential to result in significant environmental effects. The Ordinance has no potential to result in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly, as the Ordinance does not propose nor authorize any action that would have the potential to cause a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. The City Council directs staff to file a notice of exemption within five days of the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. Amendment. Articles 6 and 7 of Title 4 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A and B attached hereto.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 5. Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable, or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance, and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.

The City Council of the City of Artesia declares that it would have adopted all the provisions of this Ordinance that remain valid if any provisions of this ordinance are declared invalid.

SECTION 6. Adoption, Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be published and/or posted in the manner required by law.

SECTION 7. Record of Proceedings. The documents and materials associated with this Ordinance that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at 18747 Clarkdale Avenue, Artesia, California, 90701. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Artesia, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8th day of June 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
City of Artesia, CA
Article 6
Preferential Parking
City of Artesia, CA
§ 4-4.601. Purpose.

This article is enacted pursuant to authority granted by California Vehicle Code Section 22507 to alleviate a severe lack of on-street parking on certain residential streets surrounding the Old Downtown area and other areas of the City, provide reasonably available and convenient parking for the adjacent residents, reduce noise, traffic hazards, and environmental pollution, and encourage car pooling, telecommuting and mass transit.

In establishing these restrictions, the City Council finds that there is a lack of sufficient and available parking for residents of certain streets listed in this article during all or portions of the day due to the influx of vehicles parked in conjunction with commercial uses in the Old Downtown area and other areas of the City, and by the establishment of a pay parking zone in the Old Downtown area. (Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 19-877, § 4)
§ 4-4.602. Definitions.

For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless it is apparent from their context that a different meaning is intended:
"Dwelling unit" shall mean any one-family, two-family, or three-family dwelling or apartment house. "Dwelling unit" shall not include hotel guestrooms or suites. "Guest" shall mean a person who visits or is employed by a resident. "Parking restriction" shall mean the amount of time or time of day vehicles may park on the street in a preferential parking district. A "parking restriction" may include, without limitation, "one-hour parking except by permit," "two-hour parking except by permit," and "no parking except by permit."
"Preferential parking" shall mean a street block or group of street blocks where vehicles displaying a valid permit shall be exempt from certain daytime and nighttime parking restrictions.
"Preferential parking district" shall mean a street block or group of street blocks that are designated for preferential parking by the City Council. “24-hour parking permit” shall mean a parking pass purchased by a registered residential property owner or resident for a guest of the registered residential property owner or resident.
"Resident" shall mean a person who lives in a dwelling unit located in a preferential parking district.
"Residential property owner" shall mean a person or entity who holds title to a dwelling unit or units located within a preferential parking district as evidenced on the last equalized roll of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's Office, and who is not otherwise a resident in the preferential parking district. "Street" shall have the meaning set forth in Subsection (y) of Section 9-2.420 of Article 4 of Chapter 2 of Title 9 of this Code, except that "street" shall not include alleys. "Street block" shall mean the portion of a street that lies between two immediately intersecting streets. If a street block has two residential land use designations and an alley is intersecting that street block, a street block shall mean that portion of the street that lies between the alley and the nearest intersecting street.

City of Artesia, CA
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, § 2; Ord. 19-877, §§ 5,6) § 4-4.603. Old Downtown Area Preferential Parking District.

The following preferential parking district is hereby established within the Old Downtown area of the City. The parking restriction in this district shall be "no parking from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. except by permit." The streets within this district shall be as follows:
(a) South side of 186th Street, from the alleyway west of Pioneer Boulevard and westerly along 186th Street to Jersey Avenue.
(b) Both sides of 186th Street, from Arline Avenue and easterly along 186th Street to Clarkdale Avenue.
(c) East side of Corby Avenue, from the north property line of the City Parking Lot and northerly along Corby Avenue to 184th Street.
(d) East side of Corby Avenue, from 186th Street and southerly along Corby Avenue to 187th Street.
(e) West side of Corby Avenue, from 184th Street and southerly along Corby Avenue to 187th Street.
(f) Both sides of Corby Avenue, from 187th Street and southerly along Corby Avenue to 188th Street.
(g) Both sides of Alburtis Avenue, from 184th Street and southerly along Alburtis Avenue to the MTA abandoned railroad property.
(h) The north side of 187th Street, from the alleyway west of Pioneer Boulevard and westerly along 187th Street to Jersey Avenue.
(i) The south side of 187th Street, from Corby Avenue and westward along 187th Street to Jersey Avenue.
(j) Both sides of 187th Street, from the alleyway east of Pioneer Boulevard and easterly along 187th Street to Clarkdale Avenue.
(k) Arline Avenue, from 183rd Street and southerly along Arline Avenue to the southerly City terminus south of 187th Street.
(l) West side of Clarkdale Avenue, from 186th Street and southerly along Clarkdale Avenue to 187th Street.
(m) Both sides of Alburtis Avenue between 187th Street on the north and 188th Street on the south.
(n) East side of Clarkdale Avenue, from 186th Street and southerly along Clarkdale Avenue to 187th Street excluding the street frontage of the property occupied by the Holy Family Church.

City of Artesia, CA
A map designating the preferential parking districts shall be prepared and maintained on file in the office of the City Manager.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, §§ 3, 4; Ord. 15-822, § 3) § 4-4.604. Roseton Avenue Permit Parking District.

The following permit parking district is hereby established within the City. The parking restriction in this district shall be "no parking except by permit." The streets within this district shall be as follows:
(a) East side of Roseton Avenue, from Artesia Boulevard southerly along Roseton Avenue to 178th Street.

A map designating the permit parking district shall be prepared and maintained on file in the office of the City Manager.
(Ord. 15-823, § 5)
§ 4-4.605. Ashworth Street 1 Preferential Parking District.

The following permit parking district is hereby established within the City. The parking restriction in this district shall be "no parking except by permit." The streets within this district shall be as follows:
(a) North and south side of Ashworth Street between Norwalk Boulevard and Horst Avenue.

A map designating the permit parking district shall be prepared and maintained on file in the office of the City Manager.
(Ord. 19-877, § 8)
§ 4-4.606. Alburtis Street Preferential Parking District.

The following permit parking district is hereby established within the City. The parking restriction in this district shall be "no parking from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. except by permit." The streets within this district shall be as follows:
(a) East and west side of Alburtis Street between 183rd Street and 180th Street. (b) South side of 178th Street from Alburtis Avenue to Jersey Avenue. (c) East side of Alburtis Avenue from 178th Street southerly to Artesia-Cerritos United States Post Office parking lot.
(d) West side of Alburtis Avenue from 178th Street to 183rd Street. (e) East and West side of Jersey Avenue from 178th Street southerly to 183rd Street. (f) North and South side of 180th Street from Alburtis Avenue to Jersey Avenue. (g) North side of 183rd Street from Jersey Avenue to Alburtis Avenue. § 4-4.6076. Signposting.

City of Artesia, CA
The Traffic Engineer shall place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained on each of the streets included in a preferential parking district, appropriate signs notifying the public that vehicles must display preferential parking permits as well as showing the applicable time limits, if any, for parking of vehicles without preferential parking permits. (Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7)
§ 4-4.608. Creation of Preferential Parking Districts.
(a) The City Council may establish new preferential parking districts at their discretion upon the City Clerk’s receipt of a petition containing the signatures, printed names and addresses of one hundred percent (100%) of the residents residing on property abutting a street within the boundaries of the requested preferential parking district. (b) With limited exception at the discretion of the Community Development Director, preferential parking districts must comprise an entire street block, to include both sides of the street. Partial street blocks will not be permitted. (c) Only one signature per dwelling unit will be considered and subject to verification by the Community Development Department.
(d) If the petition fails to meet the minimum criteria, the petition will automatically be denied, and the requestor(s) will be notified in writing that the application has been rejected. (e) Upon successful completion and validation of the petition, a staff report will be prepared and submitted to the Public Safety Commission for review. The Public Safety Commission will recommend that City Council approve or deny the request. (f) The City Council will either approve by code amendment a preferential parking district or deny the request. The decision of the City Council will be final and conclusive in all cases. (g) The City Manager, or designee, will also have the right to submit a proposal for a preferential parking district. Any such proposal shall require the same review by the Public Safety Commission and approval by Council.
(h) Upon approval of the new preferential parking district, written notification will be provided by the City to all affected residents and property owners. The notice shall be sent a minimum of 30 days before enforcement begins advising them of any required actions. § 4-4.6097. Termination of Preferential Parking Districts. (a) The City Council may terminate a preferential parking district or a portion of a preferential parking district upon the City Clerk's receipt of a petition containing the signatures, printed names and addresses of more than 60% of the residents residing on property abutting a street within the preferential parking district requesting the termination of the preferential parking district.
(b) The Traffic Engineer shall periodically, but not more often than annually, review City of Artesia, CA
the status of the preferential parking districts established under this article, and if the Traffic Engineer determines that a substantial number of eligible persons within a preferential parking district have failed to apply for and receive preferential parking permits, the Traffic Engineer may recommend termination of the preferential parking district to the City Council.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7)
§ 4-4.61008. Modification of Existing Districts.
(a) An existing district may be modified in one of the following ways:
(1) The Traffic Engineer, at the request of the City Council, may initiate a modification to an existing district. If a request is initiated by the City Council, the modification shall be heard by the City Council and approved by ordinance. (2) Sixty percent of the residents within the existing district sign a petition requesting a modification to the parking restrictions in that district. The modification shall be approved by ordinance of the City Council. (b) The City Council shall determine the maximum parking restriction that may be imposed for vehicles parking in the preferential parking district as it deems appropriate.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7)
§ 4-4.61109. Application and Issuance of Permits.
(a) Issuing Department of the City. The Public Safety Community Development Department shall issue initial preferential parking permits, renewal preferential parking permits, transfer preferential parking permits, in the case of a holder of a preferential parking permit in one preferential parking district moving to another preferential parking district and desiring a new permit for the latter district, or replacement preferential parking permits, in the case of a lost or mutilated permit, to residents occupying property within a preferential parking district. (b) Type of Permits. Preferential parking permits shall be of four three types: residential preferential parking permits, residential property owner preferential parking permits, and 24-hour guest preferential parking permits, and temporary preferential parking permits. Each preferential parking permit issued shall reflect by statements thereon or by color thereof, or both, the particular preferential parking district for which the permit is issued and, except for residential property owner preferential parking permits, and 24-hour guest preferential parking permits, and temporary preferential parking permits, the permit shall reflect the license number of the vehicle for which the permit is issued.
(c) Application and Issuing Requirements. Preferential parking permits shall be issued subject to the following requirements and restrictions:
(1) Furnishing satisfactory proof of residency or property ownership on the street City of Artesia, CA
in the preferential parking district;
(2) Furnishing proof of vehicle ownership for which the preferential parking permit is to be issued;
(3) Completion of an application on the form designated by the Administrative Services Manager Community Development Director;
(4) Payment of the preferential parking permit fee; and (5) Verification that the applicant has no outstanding parking citations. (d) Applications for preferential parking permits shall, at a minimum, contain:
(1) A statement to the effect that the applicant agrees that the preferential parking permit applied for may not be sold, rented or leased, for any value or consideration;
(2) A statement that the sale, rental or lease of the preferential parking permit in violation of this article shall be punishable in accordance with Section 1-2.01 of Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code;
(3) The purchase of a 24-hour parking permit must be purchased by the registered property owner or resident in that parking district.
(4) A statement that the preferential parking permit is subject to revocation pursuant to Section 4-4.6167 of this article; and
(5) Such other information as the Administrative Services Manager Community Development Director deems necessary for the proper processing of the application.
(e) Exemptions. Persons parking the following types of vehicles may park in the preferential parking district without acquiring displaying a preferential parking permit and 24-hour parking permit:
(1) Vehicles owned by a government entity and displaying government license plates, when engaged in government-related activities in the preferential parking district;
(2) Vehicles with a valid disabled or disabled veteran license plate, or displaying a valid distinguishing disabled or disabled veteran placard; (3) Vehicles of service providers, contractors, and utility companies, when those vehicles are engaged in work-related activities for a resident in a permit parking district, and when those vehicles have a clearly identifiable marking indicating the service provider, contractor or utility company. Private vehicles used by service providers, contractors or utility companies that do not have clearly identifiable markings indicating the service provider, contractor or utility company, shall not be exempt; and
(4) Oversized vehicles with a valid permit issued in accordance with Section 4-4.801 of this Code.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, § 5; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7, 9, 10; Ord.

City of Artesia, CA
22-924, § 5)
§ 4-4.6120. Maximum Number of Permits.
(a) Maximum Number of Preferential Parking Permits.
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, up to three (3) residential preferential parking permits may be issued to the inhabitants of a dwelling unit who provide proof that they reside in the dwelling unit and that their vehicle is operable and registered to that dwelling unit address, to the satisfaction of the Administrative Services Manager Community Development Director, or designee.
(2) Up to one residential property owner preferential parking permit may be issued to the residential property owner of a dwelling unit or units in a preferential parking district, unless that person is a resident of the preferential parking district.
(3) Up to a total of three guest preferential parking permits may be issued to the inhabitants of a single dwelling unit.
(4) Temporary Guest 24-hour preferential parking permits may be issued purchased by registered property owners or residents for guests of residents of a within the preferential parking district for a period of provided that temporary preferential parking permits shall be valid for no more than seven consecutive days twenty-four (24) hours. The number of temporary permits that may be issued shall be approved by the Administrative Services Manager on a caseby-case basis. (b) Additional Residential Preferential Parking Permits. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may grant additional residential preferential parking permits upon application of a qualified applicant and proof that more than three vehicles are registered to the dwelling unit or used on a full-time basis by the inhabitants of the dwelling unit, that sufficient off-street parking is not available to the applicant and that an undue hardship will result if the additional permit request is not granted. (Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, §§ 6—8; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 18-873, § 1; Ord. 19-877, § 7, 11)
§ 4-4.6131. Term of Permits.

Except for temporary preferential parking permits, the Public Safety Department shall issue preferential parking permits on a calendar year basis, and each preferential parking permit shall expire at midnight (12:00 a.m.) on January 1st following its issuance or such time as the applicant ceases to reside in the preferential parking district, whichever occurs first. Preferential parking permits may be renewed annually by mail.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7)
§ 4-4.6142. Permit Fees.

The City Council shall establish fees for the issuance of initial, renewal, transfer and replacement preferential parking permits by resolution. The fee charged for residential, residential property owner and guest preferential parking permits issued for less than 12 months may be reduced in proportion to the time already elapsed in the current calendar year for which the permit would be City of Artesia, CA
valid. The Administrative Services Manager shall not issue a replacement preferential parking permit unless he or she has received satisfactory evidence that the preferential parking permit being replaced has been lost or mutilated.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, § 9; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7) § 4-4.6153. Use of Permits by Residents and Guests.
(a) A resident who holds a valid, unrevoked residential preferential parking permit may use the permit to park on the street block adjacent to the resident's dwelling unit or adjacent to the dwelling unit of another resident who resides in the same preferential parking district while they are visiting that resident, without being limited by time restrictions on parking, other than those in effect for purposes of street sweeping, prohibiting parking or stopping at any time or prohibiting parking more than 72 consecutive hours, and applicable generally to parking of vehicles. (b) A resident who holds a valid, unrevoked residential property owner preferential parking permit may use the permit to park on the street block adjacent to the residential property owner's dwelling unit, without being limited by time restrictions on parking, other than those in effect for purposes of street sweeping, prohibiting parking or stopping at any time or prohibiting parking more than 72 consecutive hours, and applicable generally to parking of vehicles. (Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, § 10; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7) § 4-4.614. Display of Permits.

Residential preferential parking permits, residential property owner preferential parking permits, guest preferential parking permits, and temporary preferential parking permits shall be hung on the rearview mirror of the vehicle.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 14-805, § 11; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7) § 4-4.6165. Prohibitions and Restrictions on Permits.
(a) No vehicle shall be parked or stopped adjacent to any curb in a preferential parking district during the time preferential parking is in effect, unless the vehicle has is in possession of a City-issued preferential parking permit displayed in accordance with Section 4-4.614 of this article.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to sell, rent or lease, or cause to be sold, rented or leased, for any value or consideration any preferential parking permit. The sale, rental or lease of a preferential parking permit in violation of this Subsection (b) shall constitute an infraction punishable in accordance with Section 1-2.01 of Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this Code.
(c) It is unlawful for any person to buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any preferential parking permit, except as provided for in this article. (d) It is unlawful for a permit holder to fail to return surrender any preferential parking permit to the City when the permit holder moves, sells the vehicle for which the permit was issued, or no longer needs the permit.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4) ; Ord. 19-877, § 7, 12) City of Artesia, CA
§ 4-4.6167. Revocation of Permit.
(a) Where any permit issued under this article has been procured through fraud or misrepresentation, or where the permittee has violated provisions of this article, the City Manager, or designee, shall hold a hearing, with notice of the time and place of such hearing mailed to the permittee at least 10 calendar days preceding the hearing. If the permit is revoked following the hearing, the City Manager, or designee, shall mail written notice of the revocation and the reasons therefor to the permittee within five business days of the close of the hearing and the permittee shall surrender the permit to the City Manager or prove its destruction or disfigurement to the City Manager's, or designee's, satisfaction. (b) Any person whose preferential parking permit has been revoked shall not be issued a new preferential parking permit until expiration of a period of one year following the date of revocation and until such person has made required application therefor and has paid the fee required for a renewal permit.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7)
§ 4-4.6178. Appeal of Director's Decision to the Public Safety Commission.

Any decision of the Public Safety Community Development Department in granting or denying a permit under this article or any decision of the City Manager, or designee, revoking a permit under this article may be appealed to the Public Safety Commission. The appeal shall be in writing, and shall be filed with the Public Safety Commission within 14 days after the decision.

The decision of the Public Safety Commission to uphold or reverse the decision of the Public Safety Community Development Department or the City Manager, or his or her designee, as the case may be, shall be final.
(Ord. 13-797, § 2; Ord. 15-823, § 4; Ord. 19-877, § 7)
City of Artesia, CA

EXHIBIT B
Article 7
Parking Pay Stations
City of Artesia, CA
§ 4-4.701. State Vehicle Code Provisions.

All of the provisions of this article concerning the parking of vehicles and the regulation of the parking of vehicles by the use of parking pay stations are expressly enacted under the Constitution of the State, Article XI, Section 11, together with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code, including, but not limited to, Vehicle Code Section 22508, as that section may be amended from time to time. The provisions set forth in the California Vehicle Code shall govern whenever this article fails to set forth any specific provisions. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.702. Definitions.

For the purpose of this article, certain words and phrases are defined and certain provisions shall be construed as provided below, unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended.
"Coin" means any lawful coin or combination of coins of the United States of America as designated by the legend on the parking pay station. "Downtown business operator" means an owner, operator or manager of a business located on Pioneer Boulevard or within one block thereof and southerly of 183rd Street and northerly of the City's southern border who can provide proof to City staff of owning, operating or managing a business within that area.
"Operator" means and includes every individual who shall operate a vehicle as the owner, or as the agent, employee or permittee of the owner, or who is in actual physical control of the vehicle.
"Parking pay station" means and includes any mechanical or electronic device, system or meter that has mechanical and electric components into which registers payment for parking in a defined space is deposited as required by this article. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3; Ord. 14-806, § 2)
§ 4-4.703. Designation of Pay Station Numbered Spaces.

The Traffic Engineer is authorized and empowered to: (a) mark off individual parking spaces in all parking pay station zones, which spaces shall be designated by lines painted or durably marked on the surface of the street or on the curb; and (b) assign and apply a pay station number adjacent to each parking space that corresponds with the parking place identified in the applicable pay station.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.704. Installation of Parking Pay Stations.
(a) Street Parking Pay Stations. The Traffic Engineer is authorized and empowered to install parking pay stations upon the curb or sidewalk on the same side of the street for those parking spaces along the streets designated in Section 4-4.711. Each parking pay station shall display a code, letters or a signal showing parking is allowed for a specific number of minutes or hours upon the deposit of appropriate coin and using a key pad to enter the vehicle license plate number. identify the space number. The pay station shall also
City of Artesia, CA
indicate by signal, code or letters when the lawful parking period has expired. No parking pay station shall be capable of registering permitted parking time in excess of the time limit established by the Traffic Engineer.
(b) Parking Lot Pay Stations. The Traffic Engineer is authorized and empowered to designate locations for and install parking pay stations within the City's parking lot designated in Section 4-4.712. Each parking pay station shall display a code, letters or a signal showing parking is allowed for a specific number of minutes or hours upon the deposit of appropriate coin and using a key pad to enter the vehicle license plate number identify the space number. The pay station shall also indicate by signal, code or letters when the lawful parking period has expired. No parking pay station shall be capable of registering permitted parking time in excess of the time limit established by the Traffic Engineer.
(c) Mobile Pay Stations. The Traffic Engineer is authorized and empowered to designate parking locations which will be regulated by mobile pay stations in the form of an internet-based application. Mobile pay stations will record the license plate number of the vehicle and record the time of payment as the initiation of the parking period. The mobile pay station shall notify Traffic Enforcement Officers via mobile application when the lawful parking period has expired. No parking pay station shall be capable of registering permitted parking time in excess of the time limit established by the Traffic Engineer.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.705. Installation of Parking Pay Station Signage.

The Traffic Engineer, or designee, is directed to install standard and required signage indicating parking pay station restrictions in all parking pay station zones. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.706. Maintenance of Parking Pay Stations.

The Traffic Engineer and the City's contract pay station provider shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the parking pay stations. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.707. Reservation of Powers.

Nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting the Traffic Engineer from converting a parking space in a parking pay station zone to an area for a pedestrian crosswalk, bus stop, and taxicab stand and other use, including the loading and unloading of trucks, vans, and other commercial vehicles. Nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting the Traffic Engineer from establishing maximum parking time limits. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.708. Enforcement.

It shall be the duty of Traffic Enforcement officers to enforce the provisions of this article.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
City of Artesia, CA
§ 4-4.709. Collection.

The City's Code Enforcement officers, Traffic Enforcement officers, or other City personnel designated by the City Manager shall be authorized to make regular collections of the money deposited in the parking pay stations and to deliver the money to the Finance Director, or designee, who shall count and deposit the funds into the City's Treasury. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.710. Parking Pay Station Zones.

The City shall be divided into the following parking pay station zones and each zone shall be subject to the rules and regulations established for that zone, as set forth below. Parking rates for parking a vehicle in a designated space in a parking pay station zone shall be two dollars ($2.00) per hour for both on-street and off-street parking. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.711. Parking Pay Station Zone A—"Zone A-Street Parking Pay Station Zone Downtown Artesia On-Street Parking."
(a) The following named and described streets or portions of streets within the City shall constitute "Zone A-Downtown Artesia On-Street Parking Street Parking Pay Station Zone":
(1) The north and south side of 186th Street between Pioneer Boulevard on the west and Arline Avenue on the east.
(2) The north and south side of 187th Street between Pioneer Boulevard on the west and the first alleyway on the east.
(3) The north side of 186th Street between Pioneer Boulevard on the east and Corby Boulevard on the west.
(4) The south side of 186th Street between Pioneer Boulevard on the east and the first alleyway on the west.
(5) The east side of Corby Avenue between 186th Street on the south and the north property line of the City parking lot on the north.
(6) The north and south side of 187th Street between Pioneer Boulevard on the east and the first alleyway on the west.
(7) The west side of Pioneer Boulevard between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority right-of-way on the north and 188th Street on the south.
(8) The north and south sides of 187th Street between the alley west of Pioneer Boulevard and Corby Avenue.
(b) Parking rates for parking a vehicle in a designated space in parking pay station "Zone A-Street Parking Pay Station Zone" shall be one dollar fifty cents ($1.50) per hour.
(c) Parking pay stations shall be operated in "Zone A-Downtown Artesia On-Street Parking Street Parking Pay Station Zone" at such times and hours as posted by the City of Artesia, CA
Traffic Engineer.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3; Ord. 14-806, § 3)
§ 4-4.712. Parking Pay Station Zone B—"Zone B-Downtown Artesia Public Parking LotParking Lot Pay Station Zone."
(a) The City parking lot on the northeast corner of 186th Street and Corby Avenue shall constitute "Zone B-Downtown Artesia Public Parking Lot Parking Lot Pay Station Zone."
(b) Parking rates for parking a vehicle in a designated space in parking pay station "Zone B-Parking Lot Pay Station Zone" shall be one ($1.00) dollar per hour, unless the vehicle is displaying a downtown business operator parking permit. (c) Downtown Business Operator Parking Permit.
(1) City staff is authorized to establish a system of downtown business operator parking permits for purposes of allowing downtown business operators and their employees to park in Zone B-Downtown Artesia Public Parking Lot Pay Station Zone for extended periods of time without depositing money into the pay stations in Zone B-Downtown Artesia Public Parking Lot Pay Station Zone.
(2) Downtown business operators and their employees shall provide proof that they are a downtown business operator or employee and submit an application for a permit on the form designated by the Administrative Services Manager Community Development Director.
(3) Downtown business operators and their employees shall pay a downtown business operator parking permit fee. The City Council shall establish fees for the issuance of initial, renewal, transfer and replacement of downtown business operator parking permits. (4) City staff shall issue downtown business operator parking permits quarterly, on a first-come, first-serve basis, not to exceed the available spaces in the Zone B-Downtown Artesia Public Parking Lot Pay Station Zone.
(d) Parking pay stations shall be operated in "Zone B-Parking Lot Pay Station Zone" at such times and hours as posted by the Traffic Engineer. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3; Ord. 14-806, § 4)
§ 4-4.713. Parking Pay Station Zone C—Reserved.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.714. Violations.

It is unlawful and a violation of the provisions of this article for any person to violate the provisions of Sections 4-4.715 through 4-4.722.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.715. Parking Beyond Designated Space.

City of Artesia, CA
It is a violation to park any vehicle across any line or marking of a parking pay station space or in such a position that the vehicle shall not be entirely within the area designated by such lines or markings.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.716. Operation of Parking Pay Stations.
(a) Unless exempt pursuant to Subsection (b), (c) or (d) of this section, when any vehicle shall be parked in any parking pay station space, the operator immediately shall deposit payment in the manner prescribed on the parking pay station. Payment may be made by coins or credit card as designated by signage on the parking pay station. Unless otherwise permitted by law, no person shall park a vehicle in a designated parking pay station space in excess of the maximum parking time limit set by the Traffic Engineer, or designee.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not require an operator of a vehicle to deposit payment in a parking pay station when:
(1) The parking pay station indicates an unexpired portion remains of the period for which payment had been previously made; or
(2) An officer of the Fire or Police Department has determined a period of emergency exists; or
(3) In compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control sign or signal.
(c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not require an operator of a vehicle to deposit payment in a parking pay station if the vehicle is lawfully displaying a disabled person or disabled veteran placard, pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22511 issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
(d) Subsection (a) of this section shall not require an operator of a vehicle to deposit payment in a parking pay station in Zone B-Downtown Public Parking Lot Pay Station Zone if the vehicle is lawfully displaying a down-town business operator parking permit. A downtown business operator parking permit shall not exempt the vehicle operator from having to deposit payment in any other parking pay station zone and such permits shall not be applicable in the Zone A-Street Parking Pay Station ZoneDowntown Artesia On-Street Parking.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3; Ord. 14-806, §§ 5, 6)
§ 4-4.717. Parking Beyond Time Limit.

It is a violation to cause, allow, permit or suffer any vehicle registered in the name of, or operated by such person to be parked overtime, or beyond the period of legal parking time established for any parking pay station zone as herein described, or to deposit in any parking pay station any coin for the purpose of parking beyond the maximum legal parking time for the particular parking pay station zone.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.718. Failure to Remove Vehicle within Posted Time Limit Period.

No owner or operator of a vehicle shall cause the vehicle to remain in a City owned or operated parking spot beyond the period of time allowed that is specified on posted signs.

City of Artesia, CA
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.719. Parking When Parking Pay Station Indicates Time Limit is Over.

It is a violation to permit any vehicle to remain or be placed in any parking space adjacent to any parking pay station beyond the time permitted or when the pay station indicates the paid time period has expired.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.720. Damaging Parking Pay Stations.

It is a violation to deface, injure, tamper with, open or willfully break, alter, destroy, or impair the usefulness of any parking pay station installed or provided under the provisions of this article.
(Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.721. Slugs.

It is a violation to deposit or cause to be deposited in any parking pay station any slugs, device or metal substance, or other substitute for lawful coins. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3)
§ 4-4.722. Civil Penalties.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary, violation of Sections 4-

4.715 through 4-4.721 of this Code shall be punishable by the following civil penalties:
(a) If payment is made within the time set forth in the notice of citation of violation or as provided for by law, not less than $40 shall be assessed. (b) If no payment or request for administrative review is made as provided for by law, after notice of delinquency is issued, in the manner required by law, not less than $23 shall be assessed in addition to the underlying assessment. (Ord. 12-787A, § 3; Ord. 13-796, § 2)
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3091

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A

PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the Artesia Municipal Code (“AMC”) provides that certain filing fees, permit fees, inspection fees, deposits, and conditions of service may from time to time be established by resolution of the City Council;
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Vehicle Code 22507, the City Council desires to update the Citywide Paid Parking Program to increase fees associated with residential parking permits;
WHEREAS, based on the results of the City’s review, the existing parking fees no longer reflect the City’s operational costs related to the administration of residential parking permits throughout the City;
WHEREAS, the fees for paid parking throughout the City are meant to aid in cost recovery for the software, transaction fees and staff time used to administer the program; WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the anticipated costs of operating and administering the expanded paid parking program, including personnel costs, software licensing and support services, payment processing expenses, and other administrative costs, and determined that the proposed parking fees are reasonably necessary to offset such costs and ensure the long-term sustainability of the program; and WHEREAS, upon review of the residential parking permit program, the Public Safety Commission is recommending that the City Council charge an annual fee for qualified residential parking permits in the amount of $10.00 per permit, and replace guest permits with as-needed 24-hour passes in the amount of $4.00 per pass; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the paid parking increases on June 8, 2026, at which the City Council received and considered public comments.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are found to be true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the fees as recommended by the Public Safety Commission, the schedule of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, or phases be declared invalid or unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

SECTION 5. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2026.

Resolution No. 26-3091

Page 2 of 2 ends

_____________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK

EXHIBIT A
Preferential Parking Program
Fee Name Fee Description Fee Amount
Residential Preferential
Parking Permit
Parking pass purchased by a registered
residential property owner or resident
with property in a Preferential Parking
District.
$10.00
24-Hour Parking Permit Parking pass purchased by a registered residential property owner or resident for
a guest of the registered residential
property owner or resident.
$4.00

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 10C.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Street Light Maintenance District Diagram and Assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-27 FROM: Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Request that the City Council open the Public Hearing, and hear and consider all oral and written statements, protests, objections, or other communications made or filed with respect to the assessment. At the conclusion of the public hearing, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-3102, confirming the diagram and assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-27 and ordering the improvements in connection with the City of Artesia Street Lighting Maintenance District.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Artesia ("City") Street Lighting Maintenance District funds the installation, maintenance and servicing of streetlights, traffic signals, and related facilities located along City streets and public right-of-ways.

As of this writing, and subject to change, the total number of active parcels within the District's boundaries is 4,003.

This number represents the maximum number of parcels that have a potential of being charged and levied.

Because 57 parcels do not have a structure value or may be exempt public properties, they are exempt from assessment levy; this figure is subject to change due to lot consolidations, lot splits, and annexations. The 3,946 remaining developed parcels are, therefore, subject to the District's levy.

ANALYSIS:

At the regular City Council meeting of May 11, 2026, the Council adopted Resolution No. 26-3086, approving the Engineer's Report for the Street Lighting Maintenance District. The Engineer's Report indicates that the total proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessment is $137,394. The assessment for each property was calculated based on the special benefit each property owner received from the street lighting improvements. The assessment for each parcel within the Street Lighting Maintenance District is $5.90 plus $0.34 per foot of frontage for residential parcel (aka Zone 1), and $5.90 plus $1.44 per foot of frontage for non-residential parcels (aka Zone 2). The per parcel assessment rates equal the assessments for the preceding Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Also, at its May 11, 2026 meeting, the City Council set June 8, 2026, as the date for a public hearing on the Street Lighting Maintenance District.

At the public hearing, the City Council must hear and consider all oral and written statements, protests, objections, or other communications made or filed with respect to the assessment. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the assessment and ordering the improvements for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Exhibit D of the Engineer's report estimates the total cost of utilities, maintenance, and administration will be $235,631 for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The District will generate approximately $137,394 in assessment revenues. The $98,237 shortfall will need to be budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 General Fund.

Closing the projected $98,237 shortfall by increasing the parcel assessments would require the City to establish the process for raising assessments as stipulated by the Streets and Highways Code and the requirements of Proposition 218.

This process includes engaging an assessment district engineer to analyze each street within the District to determine and establish how much general benefit versus special benefit is provided by the streetlights.

Assessments can be levied on property owners for the special benefits that accrue to those property owners; as a rule, general benefits cannot.

The City’s subsidy to this special benefit district from General Fund taxes continues to grow. As part of the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, funds are allocated for a study that would aide in closing the nearly $100,000 shortfall.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Attachments
Resolution 26-3102.pdf
FY2627 Artesia Engineers Report.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3102

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2026-27 FISCAL YEAR AND ORDERING

THE IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY OF

ARTESIA STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15

OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Artesia, by its Resolution No. 26-3085, initiated proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year for the City of Artesia Street Lighting Maintenance District (the "District") pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act").

Section 2. The City Council ordered the preparation of a report and the Engineer, Willdan Financial Services, has prepared and filed with the City Clerk a Report (the "Engineer's Report") pursuant to law for the City Council's consideration. Subsequently thereto, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 26-3086, approving the Engineer's Report, and its Resolution No. 26-3087 declaring the intention of the City Council to order the levy and collection of assessments to pay the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating public streets within the District, including the maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, and appurtenant facilities located in and along public streets, roadways and rights-of-way in the City for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027.

Section 3. Following notice duly given in accordance with law, the City Council held a full and fair public hearing regarding protests and objections to the levy and collection of assessments within the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027, to pay for the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating public streets within the District, including the maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals, and appurtenant facilities located in and along public streets, roadways and rights-of-way in the City. At the public hearing, all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests and objections to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments against lots or parcels of real property within the District. The City Council considered all oral and written statements, protests and communications made or filed by interested persons.

Section 4. The City Council hereby finally approves the Engineer's Report.

Section 5. Based upon its review of the Engineer's Report, a copy of which has been filed with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference, and other information presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby finds and determines (i) that the land within the District will be benefited by the improvements described in the Engineer's Report, namely the maintenance and servicing of street lights, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities located in and along public streets, roadways and rights-of-way in the City, (ii) that the District includes all of the land so benefited, and (iii) that the net amount to be assessed upon the land within the District for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year in accordance with the Engineer's Report is apportioned by a method and formula which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements. Any and all oral and written protests and objections are hereby overruled by the City Council.

Section 6. The City Council declares that the diagram and assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby confirmed.

Section 7. The City Council hereby orders the improvements described in the Engineer's Report to be made.

Section 8. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual assessment pursuant to the Act.

Section 9. The assessment is levied without regard to property valuation.

Section 10. The assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and expenses of the maintenance and operation of public streets within the District, including the maintenance and servicing of streetlights, traffic signals, and appurtenant facilities located in and along public streets, roadways and rights-of-way in the City for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Section 11. The adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027.

Section 12. The maintenance and servicing of the streetlights, traffic signals, and appurtenant facilities shall be performed pursuant to law.

Section 13. The County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles shall enter on the County Assessment Roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of the assessment, and such assessments shall then be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected.

Section 14. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the diagram and assessment, or a certified copy of the diagram and assessment, with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption.

Section 15. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk and be open for public inspection.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8
th day of June, 2026.
____________________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED TO FORM:
_________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY

City of Artesia

Street Lighting Maintenance District

2026/2027 ENGINEER’S ANNUAL LEVY REPORT

Intent Meeting: May 11, 2026
Public Hearing: June 8, 2026

27368 Via Industria
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
T 951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864
F 951.587.3510 | 888.326.6864
Property Tax Information Line
T. 866.807.6864
www.willdan.com

ENGINEER'S REPORT AFFIDAVIT
Establishment of Annual Rates and Charges for the:

Street Lighting Maintenance District
City of Artesia
Los Angeles County, State of California
This Report and the information contained herein reflect the proposed budget for each of the various services provided by the Street Lighting Maintenance District and the rates and charges applicable to those services as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. Reference is hereby made to the Los Angeles County Assessor’s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of parcels within the District.

The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council of the City of Artesia.

Dated this ____________ day of ______________, 2026.

Willdan Financial Services
District Engineer
On Behalf of the City of Artesia
By: ________________________________
Chonney Gano
Project Manager, District Administration Services
By: ________________________________
Tyrone Peter
P.E. # C 81888
19th May

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 II. AUTHORITY FOR THE REPORT ....................................................................... 1 III. PROPOSITION 218 ............................................................................................. 3 IV. PLANS ................................................................................................................ 5 V. SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING ............................... 5 VI. ESTIMATE OF COST .......................................................................................... 5 VII. DIAGRAM ........................................................................................................... 6 VIII. BENEFIT DETERMINATION ............................................................................... 6 IX. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 6 X. CERTIFICATIONS............................................................................................... 8 EXHIBIT A - ASSESSMENT ROLL ................................................................................. 9 EXHIBIT B - PLANS ........................................................................................................ 9 EXHIBIT C - DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS .......................................................... 9 EXHIBIT D - COST OF IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 11 2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION
To ensure the flow of funds for a portion of the ongoing maintenance and servicing of street lighting facilities and traffic signals within the boundaries of the City of Artesia (the “City”), the City Council has previously formed the City’s Street Lighting Maintenance District (the “District”).

Adequate lighting on public streets and traffic signals to control the flow of traffic and pedestrians are considered important for public convenience and safety.

Protection of property and reduction of traffic accidents are specific benefits that properties realize within the City. The lighting benefit is directly related to safety and property protection and therefore increases the desirability and usability of residential, commercial and industrial properties.

This Engineer’s Report (the “Report”) presents the engineering analysis for the District for Fiscal Year 2026/2027.

II. AUTHORITY FOR THE REPORT
This Report is prepared pursuant to a Resolution of the City Council ordering an Engineer’s Report and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2, Division 15, Sections 22500 through 22679 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (the “1972 Act”.)
As applicable or may be applicable to this proposed District, the 1972 Act defines improvements to mean one or any combination of the following:
 The installation or construction of public lighting facilities.  The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.  The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing.  The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.

Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to:
 The cost of preparation of the Report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment;
2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 2  The costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting and mailing of notices;
 Compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments;  Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services;  Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements;
 Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5.
 Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

The 1972 Act defines "Maintain" or "Maintenance" to mean furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including:
 Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement.  Providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.
 The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

The Report prepared by the engineer includes plans and specifications for the improvements, an estimate of the costs of the improvements, a diagram, i.e., map of the assessment district showing the boundary of the District, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements against the parcels or lots, which benefit from the improvements. This Report is presented to the City Council for its review and approval as presented or, as the City Council may determine it should be modified, before approval.

After the Report is preliminarily approved, the City Council may adopt a Resolution of Intention, which describes the improvements, refers to the Report for details of the District, and sets a time and place for a public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments.

Following consideration of public comments and written protests at a noticed public hearing, and review of the Report, the City Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report, and confirmation of the assessments, the Council may order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 pursuant to the 1972 Act. In such case, the assessment information will be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller, and 2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 3 included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel for Fiscal Year 2026/2027. Should the County Auditor/Controller reject a proposed assessment as the parcel is no longer a valid Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), the new parcel or parcels will be identified and resubmitted for inclusion on the tax roll with an assessment calculated based on the Method of Assessment and applicable rates.

Assessments for this District are being levied for the following:

1. The maintenance and servicing of streetlights that provide a special benefit to all the assessable parcels within the District whether or not such parcels are in close proximity to such lights.

2. The maintenance and servicing of local streetlights in close proximity to certain lots and parcels which provide a special benefit to such lots or parcels.

3. The maintenance and servicing of traffic signals that contribute to traffic flow, thereby providing a measure of safety and pedestrian and vehicular accessibility to residential, commercial and industrial properties.

The 1972 Act, in Section 22573, states that the "net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Details of the formula being used to spread the assessments throughout this District are found under the heading "Method of Assessment".

III. PROPOSITION 218
In conjunction with the provisions of the 1972 Act, in November 1996 voters of the State of California passed Proposition 218, which added Article XIIID to the California Constitution requiring new procedures for assessment districts. The California Constitution Article XIIID addresses several key criteria for the levy of assessments, notably:

Article XIIID Section 2(d) defines District as follows:
“District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service”;
Article XIIID Section 2(i) defines Special Benefit as follows:
“Special benefit” means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.

General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.” 2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 4 Article XIIID Section 4(a) defines proportional special benefit assessments as follows:
“An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.”
Article XIIID requires that assessments comply with stated provisions by July 1, 1997, unless an assessment district meets certain exemptions. The exemptions from the procedural and approval requirements are set forth in Section 5 of the Article and include the following:
“(a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control.” The District qualifies as an existing assessment that is considered exempt under provision 5(a) quoted above, specifically street and sidewalk improvements. Using the definitions provided by the Office of the Controller for the State of California in the Guidelines Relating to Gas Tax Expenditures published by the Division of Local Government Fiscal Affairs, street improvements include street lighting.

This District was formed to establish and provide for the improvements that enhance the presentation of the surrounding properties and developments. These improvements will directly benefit the parcels to be assessed within the District.

The assessments and method of apportionment are based on the premise that the assessments will be used to construct and install landscape and lighting improvements within the existing District as well as provide for the annual maintenance of those improvements, and the assessment revenues generated by District will be used solely for such purposes.

The costs of the proposed improvements have been identified and allocated to properties within the District based on special benefit. The improvements to be provided by this District and for which properties will be assessed have been identified as an essential component and local amenity that provides a direct reflection and extension of the properties within the District which the property owners and residents have expressed a high level of support.

The method of apportionment (method of assessment) set forth in the Report is based on the premise that each assessed property receives special benefits from the lighting improvements within the District, and the assessment obligation for 2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 5 each parcel reflects that parcel’s proportional special benefits as compared to other properties that receive special benefits.

To identify and determine the proportional special benefit to each parcel within the District, it is necessary to consider the entire scope of the improvements provided as well as the properties that benefit from those improvements. The improvements and the associated costs described in this Report, have been carefully reviewed and have been identified and allocated based on a benefit rationale and calculations that proportionally allocate the net cost of only those improvements determined to be of special benefit to properties within the District. The various public improvements and the associated costs have been identified as either “general benefit” (not assessed) or “special benefit”.

IV. PLANS
A plan showing the size and location of streetlights and traffic signals to be maintained and serviced in the District are shown on the diagram and report prepared by the Southern California Edison Company, said diagram and report being on file in the office of the City Clerk and by reference incorporated and made part of this Report.

V. SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING
The street lighting and traffic signal system are maintained and serviced to provide adequate illumination and traffic control. Maintenance and servicing include but is not limited to removal, repair, replacement or relocation of light standards, traffic signals, poles, bulbs, fixtures, circuits and all appurtenances.

Energy for streetlights and traffic signals is currently furnished by the Southern California Edison Company. In the event that Southern California Edison no longer furnishes this service, a successor will be assigned. The level of illumination is adequate for the intended purpose in the residential, commercial and industrial use zones. Rates for energy are those authorized by the Public Utilities Commission, State of California.

VI. ESTIMATE OF COST
The estimated costs of maintenance and servicing are shown on Exhibit D, Cost of Improvements.
2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 6 VII. DIAGRAM
A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District, said boundaries being the jurisdictional boundaries of the City, the boundaries of any designated Zones within the District are on file in the office of the City Clerk and by reference is incorporated and made part of this Report. Reference is made to the maps of the Los Angeles County Assessor for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lots or parcels in the District.

VIII. BENEFIT DETERMINATION
The proper maintenance and servicing of the street lighting system provide special benefits to properties within the District by providing increased property protection and proper illumination for ingress and egress and for traveling to and from property at night. Properties within the District also benefit from the proper functioning and maintenance of the District’s traffic signal system. Proper operation of the streetlight and traffic signal systems provides orderly traffic flow and enhances congestion management and safety. Improved security, protection of property and reduction of traffic accidents are special benefits to all properties within the City as street lighting and traffic signal benefits are related to the safety of property users and to property protection.

In the non-residential zone, the special benefit to each parcel is derived not only from the special benefits to the property described above, but also enhances the ability of the properties, through the protection and safety provided by the District improvements, to attract clients, employees, and customers to the parcel.

IX. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
The street lighting facilities and traffic signals are for the special benefit and enjoyment of properties within the District and parcels that benefit from the maintenance and servicing. The assessment of maintenance, servicing and incidental expenses that place costs on each parcel is apportioned in accordance with the special benefit received by the parcel. It was determined that the most equitable method for spreading the estimated benefit received by each parcel is to assess each parcel in the District a base amount for the street lighting benefits which are received by each parcel in the District, regardless of land use or parcel size. In addition to this base amount, an additional amount is applied to each parcel based upon the adjusted front footage of the parcel because lighting and traffic signal improvements are considered “frontage” improvements. The frontage of a parcel has been adjusted to take into consideration irregular shapes or corner parcels. The criteria used for the assessment spread are as follows:

1. Rectangular lots street frontage on a public street

2. Irregular shaped lots (a) width of lot at set back line, or 2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 7 (b) average of front and rear lot line lengths, or
(c) street frontage, whichever is most
representative of benefit

3. Flag lots one-half of total street frontage on a public street to each of the two lots

4. Corner lots the narrowest frontage on a public street

5. Interior parcels/condos an equitable apportionment based on condominium front footage and number of
parcels
The District is divided into two benefit Zones. Zone 1 includes all residential property, excluding common areas or homeowner association properties that are not assessed, as they receive no special benefit from the District improvements.

Zone 2 includes all non-residential property, excluding government-owned parcels, which are not assessed. An examination of the lighting pattern and lumens of light provided indicates that the lighting intensity in general is much greater in front of non-residential properties than in areas of residential properties. The additional lighting provides greater benefit to such properties because it provides additional protection from robberies and vandalism and provides an enhanced appearance and access to potential customers.

The proposed assessment for lighting and traffic signals for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 is derived by apportioning the net amount to be assessed among the assessable parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefit. All parcels are assessed a base charge of $5.90 plus an adjusted front footage assessment as determined by the methodology previously outlined for front footage adjustments. The base charge is apportioned to all Zone 1 and Zone 2 properties equally. In addition to the base charge, the total special benefit assessment calculated for each parcel includes a front footage component. Two Zones of benefit have been established for this component of the assessment based on the intensity of the lighting and the type of development.

Zone Assessment Rate per Foot of Adjusted Frontage
1 $0.34
2 $1.44
The assessment number for each parcel in the District is defined by the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office as an Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) that is recognized by the County Auditor/Controller each Fiscal Year if valid. The proposed amount of assessment upon each lot or parcel within the District is shown on the assessment roll attached hereto.
2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 8 X. CERTIFICATIONS

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Preliminary approval by the City Council of the City of Artesia on the _____ day of ____________, 2026.
______________________________
City Clerk
City of Artesia
State of California

FINAL APPROVAL
Final approval by the City Council of the City of Artesia on the _____ day of ____________, 2026.
______________________________
City Clerk
City of Artesia
State of California
I, _______________________, as City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing assessments, together with the boundary map attached thereto, were filed in my office on the _____ day of ____________, 2026.
______________________________
City Clerk
City of Artesia
State of California
2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 9

EXHIBIT A - ASSESSMENT ROLL
The assessment roll for the District is voluminous and is therefore not included in this Report but is herein incorporated by reference. The Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 is on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Engineer, where it is available for public inspection.

Reference is made to the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Roll for a detailed description of the lots or parcels in the District.

EXHIBIT B - PLANS
The plans of the items to be operated and maintained are shown partly on the Diagram and partly on the report prepared by the Southern California Edison Company. The report outlined below, is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.

STREET LIGHT INVENTORY
Pole and Lamp Symbol/Legend Page(s)
Street Light Decals 1
Inventory Detail 2 – 44
Street Light Maps 45 – 63
A portion of the lights shown on the Southern California Edison Company maps are outside the City limits of the City of Artesia and are not included in the inventory count for the City of Artesia.

EXHIBIT C - DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS
The following describes the items listed on the Cost of Improvements, shown on Exhibit D.

Cost of Maintenance & Improvements
Includes all labor, subcontractors, material and equipment required to properly maintain and service the street lighting, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities within the District by City staff and others. All improvements within the District will be maintained and serviced on a regular basis. The frequency and specific maintenance operations required will be determined by City staff and in certain instances are incorporated in the agreements with the Southern California Edison Company.

Also included are repairs that are unforeseen and not normally included in the yearly maintenance cost. This may include repair of damage due to vandalism, 2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 10 storms and other natural occurrences. Planned upgrades of the improvements that provide a benefit to the District could also be included in renovation costs.

Utilities (Light & Power)
The furnishing of electricity required for the operation of the street lighting, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities.

Capital Outlay
Replacement of Capital items necessary for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements; such as trucks.

Consultants
The cost of contracting with consultants to provide services specific to the levy and annual administration.

Incidentals/County Fees
The costs charged by the County to place and collect the assessments on the County property tax rolls and other miscellaneous costs as may be incurred.

City Contribution from General Fund
This item includes additional funds designated for the District that are not annual assessments. These funds are contributed to the District account to meet the budgeted expenditures when expenditures cannot be met by annual assessments.

Reserve Account
The Reserve Fund provides for the collection of funds to operate a district from the time period of July 1 (beginning of the Fiscal Year) through January, or when the County provides the City with the first installment of assessments collected from the property tax bills. The Reserve Fund eliminates the need for the City to transfer funds from non-district accounts to pay for district charges during the first half of the Fiscal Year. The Reserve Fund may also be used to offset any unforeseen costs such as repairs, legal fees, revenue deficits, or increased costs that are greater than originally planned.
2026/2027 City of Artesia / Street Lighting Maintenance District Page 11

EXHIBIT D - COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
A summary of the cost of improvements is as follows:

FY 2026/2027 BUDGET ESTIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT
Direct Costs
Cost of Maintenance and Improvements $0
Utilities (Light & Power) 228,000

Capital Outlay $0

Administrative Costs
Consultants $6,600
Incidentals/County Fees 1,031
Total FY 2026/2027 Costs $235,631
Reimbursement/Shared Cost $0
City Contribution from General Fund 98,237
Amount to be Assessed for FY 2026/2027 137,394
Total $235,631

Total Number of Parcels 3,946
Adjusted Front Footage 212,364.15

Base Charge Each Parcel @ $5.90 $23,281.40
Charge Per Adjusted Front Footage
Zone 1 174,264.91 front feet x $0.34 $59,250.07
Zone 2 38,099.24 front feet x $1.44 $54,862.91

Estimated Reserve Fund Balance (July 1, 2026) $0.00

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 10D.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Granting Crimson California Pipeline a Franchise Agreement FROM: Karen Lee, Special Projects Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Open and conduct a public hearing; and

2. By motion, introduce for first reading, Ordinance No. 26-986, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Artesia, California, Granting to Crimson California Pipeline, L.P. to Maintain and Operate a Pipeline for the Transportation of Petroleum Products For Any and All Purposes In, Along, Across and Under Certain Public Streets Within the City of Artesia
BACKGROUND:

At the May 11, 2026, regular City Council meeting, the City Council Adopted Resolution No. 26-3084, which declared the Council's intention to adopt an ordinance granting Crimson California Pipeline ("Applicant") a petroleum pipeline franchise in the City of Artesia ("City"). Notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the Los Cerritos Community News on May 22, 2026, in accordance with the Artesia Municipal Code (AMC) and Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, 65856(b) and 65867.

ANALYSIS:

Staff negotiated a new franchise agreement with the Applicant, which is memorialized in proposed Ordinance No. 26-986. If adopted, the proposed ordinance will:

Establish a 15-year term for the franchise agreement;
Require the Applicant to comply with construction standards at the federal, state, and local levels; Provide the City an annually adjusted franchise fee in accordance with state law; and Reimburse the City for the costs of publishing the public hearing notice.

If adopted, the proposed ordinance will become effective 30 days after the second reading.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Currently, the Applicant pays the City annual Franchise Fees calculated on a formula basis set by state statute and then adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). With the adoption of this agreement, the City will continue to receive annual Franchise Fees without any gaps. For background, the City received $3,318.22 in Fiscal Year 2025-26, and the projected annual CPI increase is 3% for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Open and conduct a public hearing; and

2. By motion, introduce for first reading of Ordinance No. 26-986, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Artesia, California, Granting to Crimson California Pipeline, L.P. to Maintain and Operate a Pipeline for the Transportation of Petroleum Products For Any and All Purposes In, Along, Across and Under Certain Public Streets Within the City of Artesia
Attachments
Ordinance 26-986.pdf
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 26-986

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA GRANTING A
FRANCHISE TO CRIMSON PIPELINE, L.P. TO MAINTAIN

AND OPERATE A PIPELINE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION

OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR ANY AND ALL

PURPOSES IN, ALONG, ACROSS AND UNDER CERTAIN

PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF ARTESIA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings in connection with the adoption of this Ordinance:
a. CRIMSON PIPELINE, L.P., a California Limited Partnership, has filed an application with the City of Artesia for the grant of a pipeline franchise to maintain and operate an 8 inch pipeline 6,853 feet in length, known as the Brea West Crude Line, which runs from a northerly to a southerly direction under Norwalk Boulevard through the City of Artesia.
b. CRIMSON PIPELINE, L.P., has committed to reimburse the City for related costs to the City and its infrastructure in addition to providing statutorily required annual payments to the City.
c. This franchise Ordinance will provide the basis upon which the franchise may operate the pipeline described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" to this Ordinance; and
d. The Artesia City Council at its Regular Meeting on August 8, 2011, adopted Ordinance No. 11-773, granting a franchise for fifteen years; and e. Pursuant to Resolution No. 26-3084, adopted by the Artesia City Council at its Regular Meeting on May 11, 2026, the City has declared its intention to grant this franchise and notice thereof was published as required by law.

SECTION 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number.
a. “Applicable Law” shall mean all present or future federal, state, municipal, or local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, orders, permit requirements, judgments, injunctions, or decrees, or any judgment or order or decree by a court applicable the Franchisee or any of Franchisee’s Facilities or activities. b. “City” shall mean the City of Artesia, a California city and municipal corporation, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, or reincorporated form.
c. “City Clerk” shall mean the City Clerk of the City of Artesia. d. “City Engineer” shall mean the City Engineer of the City of Artesia. e. “City Property” shall mean the property or facilities owned by the City of Artesia or property owned by any of the City’s affiliated agencies including but not limited to the Artesia Redevelopment Agency.
f. “Claims” shall mean all claims, losses, liabilities, causes of action, demands, damages, suits, judgments, debts, costs, contribution or indemnity, expenses (including but not limited to attorney's fees and costs) fines, penalties, judgments, orders, injunctions and liens of every kind and nature, including, but not limited to, claims relating to any Environmental Condition or any Release of any Contaminant, claims for personal or bodily injury, wrongful death, injury to real or personal property, natural resources -2-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
damages, and including claims based on active or passive negligence, gross negligence, contractual, statutory or strict liability, or otherwise, and any claims seeking judicial or administrative relief, or relating to any administrative proceedings by any governmental agency, whether or not any such claim is ultimately defeated. g. “Code” shall mean the Municipal Code of the City of Artesia, California.
h. “Contaminant” shall mean any material, substance or constituent originating from Franchisee’s facilities or activities, whether solid, liquid, semisolid, or gaseous in nature, including any hazardous substance or waste, hazardous material, chemical compound, petroleum (or fraction thereof), or any hydrocarbon substance, pollutant or contaminant, as those terms are defined by any federal, state or local law, rule, regulation or order.
i. “Council” shall mean City Council of the City of Artesia. j. “CPUC” shall mean the California Public Utilities Commission. k. “Day” shall mean calendar day unless otherwise provided. l. “Department” shall mean the Public Works Department of the City of Artesia.
m. “Effective Date” shall mean thirty (30) calendar days from and after the adoption of this ordinance.
n. “Environmental Condition” shall mean the presence, or evidence of the likely presence, of any Contaminant originating from Franchisee’s Facility (s) or from Franchisee’s activities, in surface water, ground water, drinking water supply, soil, land surface, subsurface strata or the air.
o. “Facility” or “Facilities” shall mean all property owned or used by the Franchisee in connection with the franchise, including, but not limited to, traps, manholes, conduits, valves, appliances, attachments, pipelines, pump stations, and service connections with the Franchisee's Facilities, whether installed by the Franchisee or not, erected, constructed, laid, operated or maintained in, upon, over, under, along or across any street pursuant to any right or privilege granted by the franchise. p. “Franchise” shall mean and includes any authorization granted to Franchisee hereunder by the City hereunder pursuant to its police power and this Ordinance in terms of a right, privilege, permit, license, or otherwise to lay, construct, excavate, erect, install, operate, maintain, use, repair, replace, relocate, or remove a system of pipes and appurtenances for conducting, transporting, conveying, and carrying oil, petroleum, petroleum products, gas, gasoline, or other hydrocarbon substances for any and all purposes pursuant to this Ordinance, in, under, along, and across City Streets.

Any authorization, in whatever terms granted, means and includes any license or permit required for the privilege of transacting and carrying on the Franchisee’s pipeline business within the City.
q. “Franchisee” shall mean Crimson Pipeline, L.P., a California limited partnership and public utility within the meaning of California Public Utilities Code section 216, and its lawful successors or assigns, and any person acting on behalf of Franchisee. r. “Franchise Payment Period” shall mean the time period between the effective date of this Ordinance and December 31 of the same year, and each calendar year thereafter, during the life of the franchise.
s. “Franchise Report Period” in all cases shall mean the time period between the effective date of this Ordinance through and including December 31 of that year, and each calendar year thereafter, during the life of the franchise. t. “Ordinance” shall mean this Ordinance granting a franchise to CRIMSON PIPELINE, L.P., unless some other ordinance is mentioned. -3-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
u. “Person” shall mean any individual, person, firm, partnership or corporation.
v. “Pipeline” shall mean any and all pipeline(s) as defined in California Government Code Section 51010.5(a).
w. “Release” shall mean any “release” (as that term is defined in Section 101(22) of CERCLA [42 U.S.C. §9601(22)]), or “disposal” (as that term is defined in Section 1004(3) of RCRA [42 U.S.C. §6903(3)]), or any discharge, active or passive migration, deposit, storage, burial, emplacement, seepage, filtration or disposal of a Contaminant into the environment originating from any Facility or from Franchisee's activities.
x. “Remediation Costs” shall mean all costs and expenses, including the City’s current rate of overhead, incurred by the City in performing and monitoring any Remedial Work.
y. “Remedial Work” means all "Remedial Action", as that term is defined in Section 101(24) of CERCLA [42 U.S.C. §9601], and all other actions as are necessary or required to remediate a Release of any Contaminant or an Environmental Condition to a condition which would allow unimpaired and unrestricted use and development and would comply with Applicable Law, and including but not limited to all actions necessary to “Respond” to, “Remove”, or “Remedy”, as those terms are defined in Sections 101(23), 101(24) and 101(25) of CERCLA [42 U.S.C. §9601], a Release of a Contaminant or Environmental Condition.
z. “Shall” is mandatory, "may" is permissive.
aa. “Street” shall mean any street, road, highway, alley, lane or court or other public easement, which now exists or may hereafter exist in the City of Artesia and in which the City has the authority to grant a franchise.

SECTION 3. Scope of Franchise. By this Ordinance, the City Council hereby grants a franchise to CRIMSON PIPELINE, L.P., a limited partnership, to use, maintain, operate, and repair the 6,853 foot long portion of an 8 inch pipeline known as the Brea West Crude Line which runs from a northerly to a southerly direction under Norwalk Boulevard through the City of Artesia for the transportation of petroleum products, and other liquid and gaseous substances which are not more hazardous than petroleum, together with traps, manholes, valves, appurtenances and service connections necessary or convenient for the operation of said pipes or pipelines including conduits, cathodic protection devices, wires, cables and other appurtenances necessary or convenient for the exercise of CRIMSON PIPELINE, L.P. in, along, across, upon and under the streets within the City of Artesia designated by this Ordinance or by a resolution as adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time.

SECTION 4. Pole Lines. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to permit the Franchisee to construct new poles or other Facilities above ground.

SECTION 5. Nonexclusive Franchise. The granting of the franchise shall not prevent the City from granting any identical or similar franchise to any Person other than the Franchisee.

SECTION 6. Acceptance of Franchise. The Franchisee shall, within thirty (30) days after the passage of this Ordinance, file with the City Clerk of the City of Artesia a written acceptance of the terms and conditions of said ordinance. The franchise shall be null and void if the written acceptance is not filed within the prescribed time.

SECTION 7. Term. The term of the franchise shall be fifteen (15) years from the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 8. Change in Status. If the Franchisee no longer qualifies before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California as a common carrier, the Franchisee shall then have no right to continue to operate hereunder after the date of such disqualification, except with the consent of the Council granted upon such additional terms -4-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
and conditions as the Council may deem proper. Such additional terms and conditions shall be expressed by ordinance.

SECTION 9. Forfeiture. The franchise is granted and shall be held and enjoyed upon each and every condition contained in this Ordinance and shall be strictly construed against the franchisee. The franchise shall grant only those rights that are stated in plain and unambiguous terms. Failure or refusal to comply with any of the conditions of the franchise, including the failure to comply with all Applicable Law, shall constitute grounds for the suspension or forfeiture of the Franchise. The Council, prior to any suspension or forfeiture of the franchise, shall give to the Franchisee not less than thirty (30) days notice in writing of any default thereunder. If the Franchisee does not, within the noticed period, begin the work of compliance or after such beginning does not prosecute the work with due diligence to completion, the Council may hold a hearing, at which the Franchisee shall have the right to appear and be heard, and thereupon the Council may determine, in its sole discretion, whether such conditions are material and essential to the franchise and whether the Franchisee is in default with respect thereto and may declare the franchise suspended or forfeited. Notice of said hearing shall be given to the Franchisee by certified mail not less than ten (10) days before said hearing.

SECTION 10. State Highways. If any street or portion thereof becomes a state highway, except for such rights as by law remain with the City, the state shall succeed to all rights reserved to the City by the franchise. This Section does not apply to any change of location in a state highway for a temporary purpose.

SECTION 11. Eminent Domain. The franchise granted hereunder shall not in any way to any extent impair or affect the right of the City to acquire the property of the Franchisee hereof either by purchase or through the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to contract away or to modify or abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity, the City’s or the Franchisee's rights of eminent domain before any court or other public authority in any proceeding of any character.

SECTION 12. Assignment. The Franchisee shall not directly or indirectly sell, transfer, assign or lease the franchise or any part thereof, or allow another Person or entity to operate any pipeline or related Facility subject to the franchise, except with the consent of the Council, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Such sale, transfer, assignment lease or agreement shall be made only by filing with the Council a copy of the duly executed instrument of such sale, transfer, assignment lease or agreement and a written request for the consent of the Council to such sale, transfer, assignment, lease or agreement. If such duly executed instrument and such written request are not filed with the Council before the expiration of sixty (60) days after the effective date of such sale, transfer, assignment or lease, then, upon the expiration of said sixty (60) days, the franchise shall be subject to forfeiture and the Council may, without notice, by ordinance, repeal the franchise. As a condition to the granting of consent to such sale, transfer, assignment, lease or agreement, the Council may impose such reasonable additional terms and conditions upon the franchise and upon the Franchisee or assignee, which the Council may deem to be in the public interest. Such additional terms and conditions shall be expressed by ordinance. The Franchisee shall have no right to sell, transfer, assign or lease the franchise, or any part thereof, except in the manner aforesaid. This Section applies to any assignment, whether by operation of law, by a voluntary act of the Franchisee or otherwise, and includes a transfer of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock of any corporate grantee or the change in identity of any general partner of a Franchisee which is a partnership, whether to a third party or to any subsidiary, parent, or affiliated agency of Franchisee.

SECTION 13. Prior Franchises. All Facilities erected, constructed, laid, operated or maintained by the Franchisee in the streets, whether installed by the Franchisee or not, prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, except those maintained under prior right other than franchise, shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Ordinance upon such effective date. There shall be no refund for any franchise-related fees paid prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
-5-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
SECTION 14. City Officers. Any right or power conferred, or duty imposed upon any officer, employee or Department of the City shall be subject to transfer to any other officer, employee, or Department of the City.

SECTION 15. Council Approval of Location of Facilities. The Franchisee may not install or operate any Facilities in any street, as such term is defined in this Ordinance, or other public place without first obtaining the prior approval of the City Council or except as otherwise provided in Section 3 of this Ordinance.

SECTION 16. Release of Products or Contaminants. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, in the event of Release of a Contaminant by Franchisee or from any Facility of Franchisee or the discovery of an Environmental Condition caused by Franchisee or any Facility of Franchisee, Franchisee shall immediately conduct such Remedial Work and pay all Remediation Costs, at its sole expense, as is necessary to fully mitigate and remediate the same in accordance with all Applicable Law, and as directed by the City except to the extent that City direction conflicts with Applicable Law.

In the event that Franchisee fails to perform necessary remediation work, City may commence a nuisance abatement action or take any other legal action the City deems appropriate in the circumstances.

SECTION 17. Compliance With Applicable Law. Until such time as (i) the Franchise terminates; and (ii) the Franchisee removes all of its Facilities; and (iii) completes any necessary Remedial Work, Franchisee will comply with all Applicable Law.

SECTION 18. Notices and Records. Upon request, Franchisee will transmit to City copies of all notices, orders or statements, other than those relating to taxes, sent to or received from any governmental agency concerning any Facility or any operations conducted by Franchisee in the City pursuant to the franchise. Upon request, Franchisee shall send to the City copies of requested documents concerning any Facility or any operations conducted by Franchisee pursuant to the franchise sent to any other governmental agency concurrently with sending them to the other agency and shall send to City documents received by Franchisee within fifteen days of receipt by Franchisee unless providing documents to City would conflict with applicable law.

SECTION 19. Access to Records and Property. Upon request, the Franchisee shall permit the City or its duly authorized representative to examine all of Franchisee's Facilities, together with any appurtenant property of the Franchisee, and to examine and transcribe any and all books, accounts, papers, maps, and other records kept or maintained by the Franchisee or under its control which concern the operations, affairs, transactions or property of the Franchisee with respect thereto. Said records shall be made available to the City at Franchisee’s office in Long Beach, California.

SECTION 20. Removal or Abandonment of Facilities.
a. Subject to Applicable Law, at the time of the expiration (unless renewed), revocation, or termination of this franchise, or the permanent discontinuance of the use of its Facilities, or any portion thereof, the Franchisee shall, within thirty (30) days thereafter make written application to the City Engineer for authority to either abandon all or a portion of such Facilities in place or to remove all or a portion of such Facilities. Thereupon the City Engineer shall determine whether any abandonment or removal which is thereby proposed may be effected without detriment to the public interest or under what conditions such proposal of abandonment or removal may be safely affected and shall then notify the Franchisee according to such requirements as shall be specified in the City Engineer’s order. Within ninety (90) days thereafter Franchisee shall, pursuant to such order of the City Engineer, either (a) remove all or a portion of such Facilities; or (b) abandon in place all or a portion of such Facilities in accordance with all conditions prescribed.
b. The Franchisee shall pay to the City the cost of all tests required to determine whether the Facilities shall be abandoned or removed. c. If any Facilities to be abandoned in place, subject to prescribed conditions, shall not be abandoned in accordance with all of such conditions, then the -6-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
City Engineer may make additional appropriate orders, including if deemed appropriate, an order that the Franchisee shall remove all such Facilities. If the Franchisee fails to comply therewith, the City Engineer may cause said Facilities to be removed at the Franchisee’s expense, and the Franchisee shall pay to the City the actual cost plus the City’s established overhead. If the work is performed by force account, the City’s overhead shall be thirty (30%) percent of actual labor costs. d. If the Franchisee applies for authority to abandon all or a portion of its Facilities in place, and the City Engineer determines that abandonment in place of all or part of the Facilities may be effected without detriment to the public interest, the Franchisee shall pay to the City a fee which shall be computed as follows:

Pipelines with an
Internal Diameter of
Amount Per
Lineal Foot
0-12 inches $ 15.00
14-18 inches 22.00
20-30 inches 28.00
SECTION 21. Appeal. Any decision made by the City Engineer pursuant authority delegated in this Ordinance may be appealed by any interested person to the City Council.

For purposes of seeking judicial review, the decision of the City Council shall be final when notice of the decision is mailed by first class mail to the Franchisee.

SECTION 22. Indemnification.
a. The Franchisee shall indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, and defend and hold the City, and its Council members, employees, consultants, agents and attorneys free and harmless from and against all Claims arising from or in any way related to the franchise or activities conducted by or on behalf of Franchisee. b. The City and the other parties indemnified herein shall have the right to approve the attorneys selected by Franchisee to represent them. In the event Franchisee does not provide attorneys acceptable to the indemnified parties, the indemnified parties may select attorneys of their choice, so long as the attorney’s rates do not exceed the lesser of the rates the indemnified parties or the Franchisee pays for other legal services.
c. The indemnity provided herein shall survive the expiration or other termination of the franchise.
d. The Franchisee shall indemnify any person for personal injuries caused by or resulting from any of Franchisee's activities.

SECTION 23. Insurance.
a. On or before commencement of any franchise operations, the Franchisee shall obtain or provide satisfactory evidence of having policies of comprehensive general liability, general contractor's pollution legal liability and worker's compensation insurance from companies admitted to transact business in the State of California by the Insurance Commissioner of California, and with a Best's rating of "A" or better.
b. The policy of comprehensive general liability insurance shall:

1. Be issued to Franchisee and name the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, as additional insureds.

2. Defend and indemnify the insureds against all liability for personal injury, bodily injury, wrongful death and property damage arising from activities conducted pursuant to the franchise by providing coverage therefor, including but not limited to, coverage for:
-7-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
A. Negligent acts or omissions of Franchisee and the
agents, servants and employees thereof, committed in the conduct of franchise operations;
B. Provide a combined single limit liability insurance in the amount ten million dollars ($10,000,000);
C. Be noncancellable without thirty (30) days' written
notice thereof directed to the City Clerk.
c. The Franchisee's pollution legal liability policy shall:

1. Be issued to the Franchisee and name the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, as additional insureds.

2. Defend and indemnify the insureds against all liability for personal injury, bodily injury, wrongful death and property damage (including but not limited to damages and costs relating to site remediation) caused by pollution conditions arising from operations performed by or on behalf of the Franchisee.

3. Provide a combined single limit in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000).

4. Provide coverage on an “occurrence” basis, as opposed to a "Claims made" basis.

5. Provide coverage for damage to the “owned premises” of any insured.

6. Be noncancellable without thirty (30) days' written notice thereof directed to the City Clerk.
d. The policy of workers compensation insurance shall:

1. Have been previously approved as to substance and form by the California Insurance Commissioner.

2. Cover all employees of Franchisee who in the course and scope of their employment are to conduct or do work pursuant to the franchise operations.

3. Provide for every benefit and payment presently or hereinafter conferred by Division 4 of the Labor Code of the State of California upon an injured employee, including the vocational rehabilitation and death benefits.

4. Be noncancellable without thirty (30) days' written notice thereof directed to the City Clerk.
e. The Franchisee shall file with the City Clerk certified copies of said policies of insurance for each of the required policies executed by the company issuing the policy, certifying that the policy is in force and providing the following information with respect to said policy:

1. The policy number.

2. The date upon which the policy will become effective and the date upon which it will expire.

3. The names of the named insured and any additional insured.

4. Subject of the insurance.

5. The type of coverage provided by the insurance.

6. Amount of limit of coverage provided by the insurance. -8-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc

7. A description of all endorsements that form a part of the policy. f. The Franchisee shall not commence operations until Franchisee has complied with the aforementioned provisions of this Section. The Franchisee shall cease operations if the Franchisee fails to maintain said policies in full force and effect. In the event any policy is cancelled or reduced in amount or scope or coverage, the Franchisee shall provide the City, not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date of the cancellation or reduction in coverage, a certificate of insurance showing that the Franchisee will have replacement insurance in full force and effect after the effective date of the cancellation or reduction in coverage and shall provide a certified copy of such replacement insurance meeting the requirements of this Section 23 within 120 days following the effective date of the cancellation or reduction in coverage.

SECTION 24. Faithful Performance Bond. On or before the effective date of this Ordinance, Franchisee shall file and thereafter at all times during the life of the franchise keep on file with the City Clerk a corporate surety bond approved by the City Attorney running to the City in the penal sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), with a surety licensed to do business in California and approved by the City Clerk. The bond shall provide that Franchisee shall well and truly observe, fulfill and perform each condition of the franchise and that in case of any breach of condition of the bond the whole amount of the penal sum shall be deemed to be liquidated damages and shall be recoverable from the principal and sureties of the bond. If said bond is not filed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, the award of the franchise may be set aside and this Ordinance may be repealed at any time prior to the filing of said bond and any money paid in consideration for said award of franchise shall be deemed forfeited. In the event that said bond, after it has been so filed, shall at any time during the life of the franchise become insufficient, in the sole opinion of the City Council, the Franchisee agrees to renew said bond within ten (10) days after written notice to do so from the City Clerk. At such time, the bond shall be increased by a rate pursuant to adjustments to the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles - Anaheim - Riverside Area since the effective date of the Franchise or the most recent increase to the bond.

SECTION 25. Liability. The Franchisee shall be liable to the City for damage to City property, including but not limited to any street, or any other cost incurred by the City caused by Franchisee, any of Franchisees Facilities or by any Person acting on Franchisees behalf. The Franchisee shall be held to a standard of strict liability to City for any activity conducted pursuant to or in connection with the franchise. The Franchisee's strict liability shall extend to any consequential damages incurred by the City, and to any costs, including Remediation Costs, incurred by the City for control or abatement of any Environmental Condition, Release of Contaminants, Remedial Work or any resulting from any activity conducted by or on behalf of Franchisee pursuant to the franchise.

SECTION 26. Attorneys' Fees. The Franchisee shall pay all attorneys’ fees incurred by City to enforce any term of the franchise, including, but not limited to, any requirement of this Ordinance.

SECTION 27. Damage to City Property. Any damage done to property of the City of Artesia by Franchisee in exercising any right, power, or privilege under this franchise, or in performing any duty under or pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be promptly repaired by Franchisee at its sole cost and expense to as good a condition as it was before such damage was incurred, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If the Franchisee, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice from the City, instructing it to repair such damage, shall fail to commence to comply with such instructions, or, thereafter, shall fail diligently to prosecute such work to completion, then the City immediately may do work necessary to carry out said instructions at the cost and expense of the Franchisee, which cost and expense, by the acceptance of the franchise, the Franchisee agrees to pay upon demand. If such damage constitutes an immediate danger to the public health or safety requiring the immediate repair thereof, the City without notice may repair such damage and the Franchisee agrees to pay all costs incurred.

SECTION 28. Compensation.
-9-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
a. Rates. As consideration for the franchise granted, the Franchisee shall pay to the City in lawful money of the United States the following:

1. Annual Fee. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 6231.5(b)(c), the Franchisee, as consideration for the franchise, shall, pay within ninety (90) days after the end of each calendar year and during the life of the franchise for each and every year, including the year of granting the franchise, annually pay to the City in lawful money of the United States, a fee in the following amounts:

Pipelines With an
Internal Diameter of
Base Rate
Per Lineal Foot
0-4 inches $ 0.088
6 inches 0.132
8 inches 0.176
10 inches 0.220
12 inches 0.264
14 inches 0.308
16 inches 0.352
18 inches 0.396
20 inches 0.440
22 inches 0.484
24 inches 0.528
26 inches 0.572
28 inches 0.616
30 inches 0.660
For pipelines with an internal diameter not listed above, the fees shall be in the same proportion to the fees of a 12-inch-diameter pipe as the diameter of the unlisted pipe is to 12 inches.

The amount of the fee or charge provided for in this subsection shall be multiplied by the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles – Riverside – Orange County Area as published by the United States Department of Labor, Office of Information for the month of September immediately preceding the month in which payment is due and payable, and divided by the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles – Riverside – Orange County Area for June 30, 1989 (Base period 1982-1984 = 100).

In the event that Public Utilities Code Section 6231.5 is revised to increase the annual fee rates set forth in this paragraph 1, whichever annual fee rate is greater shall apply and be effective on the date of the amended legislation is adopted.

2. Base Construction Charges. The Franchisee shall pay at the time of installation, relocation, or replacement of any pipeline or other facility covered by the franchise, a base construction charge of seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per lineal foot of pipeline located within any street within the City. The City reserves the right to change the base fees established hereunder at any time after the effective date of the ordinance granting a franchise, but the base fees applicable to any one franchise may only be changed five (5) times during the life of that particular franchise.

3. Base Granting Fee. The Franchisee shall pay to the City a base granting fee of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the granting of this franchise.

4. Deposit for Administrative Costs. The Franchisee shall deposit ten thousand dollars ($10,000) with the City to cover any and all actual and -10-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
reasonable costs of the City’s administrative, staff, legal or consulting costs in connection with the preparation and evaluation of this franchise. Any unused portion of said deposit shall be returned to the Franchisee within one hundred and eight (180) days of the effective date of this Ordinance.

5. Penalty/Late Charge. If the annual Franchise fee payment is more than 10 days late, a 10% penalty/late charge is added to the fee due. If the payment is not received by April 1st, an additional penalty of 10% is added to the fee due. This penalty/late charge is to cover the cost of collection on the account and interest forgone on the receipts.

6. No Waiver of Franchisee’s Liability or Obligation.

Franchisee’s payment of the annual Franchise fee shall not constitute a waiver or release, nor relieve the Franchisee, in whole or in part, of any of its liability under the terms of the Franchise, encroachment permit, and/or Applicable Law.
b. Adjustments.

1. The amount of each base fee specified in subparagraph (a)(2) shall be adjusted at the time payment is due by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles - Riverside – Orange County Area (1982-84 = 100), from the effective date of this Franchise Ordinance to the date which is sixty (60) days prior to the due date of the fee.

2. In no event shall any fee be charged which is less than the base fee amount established by subparagraph (a)(2).

A. The indices specified in subparagraph (a)(1) and
subparagraph (1) of this subparagraph (b) are calculated and published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the Bureau discontinues the calculation or publication of the Consumer Price Index, all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles - Riverside – Orange County (1982-84 = 100), and no transposition table is available to convert to another index, then the amount of each annual adjustment in base fees shall be computed by using a comparable governmental index. c. Publication and Administrative Issuance Costs. The Franchisee shall pay to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving a statement therefor, all actual and reasonable administrative and other costs incurred by the City in processing the application for a franchise, including but not limited to the preparation of any reports, statements or studies pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.,) and any similar Federal statute, or any successor statute, and for all reasonable advertising and publishing costs, including the cost of publishing the ordinance, if necessary, incurred in connection with the granting of the franchise.
d. Proration of Payments. In the event of abandonment of Facilities in compliance with Section 20 or in the event of removal of such Facilities by the Franchisee, the annual franchise fee required under subsections a, b and c of this Section 28 shall be prorated for the calendar year in which such removal or abandonment occurs as of the end of the calendar month in which removed or abandoned. e. Records. The Franchisee shall keep and preserve for a period of five (5) years subsequent to the date of the most recent franchise fee determination all the records necessary to determine the amount of such franchise fee. f. Audit. The City may, at any time, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, but no more than once a year, request an audit of the Franchisee’s accounting of the annual fee paid to the City to confirm that the Franchisee is accurately calculating the annual fee paid to the City and that the Franchisee is accurately reporting the annual fee. Unless otherwise required by law, the City shall maintain confidentiality of all information provided by the Franchisee to the City in connection with such audit that the Franchisee has informed the City is confidential.

Unless otherwise required by law, nothing herein shall be construed to require the -11-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
Franchisee to make available to the City, its officials, employees, agents, or other representatives information that constitutes private or confidential information pertaining to specific customers of the Franchisee without the consent of such customers. All books and records of Franchisee relating to the calculation of the annual fee for any calendar year shall be maintained by Franchisee for a period of at least four (4) years following delivery of the verified statement for such year. Franchisee shall reimburse the City for its actual and reasonable expense in performing an audit to the extent Franchisee has underpaid the City in equal to or in excess of five percent (5%) of what was owed. To the extent such underpayment is below five percent (5%) or if Franchisee overpaid the City, the City shall be solely responsible for its audit cost.

SECTION 29. Construction.
a. Construction Requirements. Pipelines and all other Facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a good worker like manner in conformity with Applicable Law.
b. New Installation or Replacement. New installation or replacement of pipelines and all other Facilities necessary for the installation, operation, maintenance, and safety of pipelines and conduits shall be laid and maintained pursuant to Applicable Law. All such installations or replacements shall be reviewed by the City Engineer as to the most desirable location in the streets of the City and his or her decision shall be final and binding on the Franchisee subject to appeal to the Council pursuant to Section 21. c. Permits. Where the provisions of any Applicable Law, which shall be in force at the time, require the issuance of an excavation, encroachment or other type of permit, the Franchisee shall not commence any excavation or encroachment work under the franchise until it shall have obtained such permits, except in cases of emergency affecting public health, safety or welfare or the preservation of life or property, in which case the Franchisee shall apply for such permits not later than the next business day.

The Franchisee's application for a permit under Applicable Law shall show the length and proposed location of the pipeline and/or other Facility intended to be installed, and such other facts as the Department may require. The Franchisee shall pay any and all permit inspection fees to the Department. After the completion of the initial construction of the pipeline, any subsequent repair or replacement of the pipeline shall require the payment of the applicable encroachment permit fees that are in effect at the time the permit is issued.
d. Work on and Restoration of Streets. The work of constructing, laying, replacing, maintaining, repairing or removing all pipelines and other Facilities authorized under the provisions of this Ordinance in, over, under, along or across any street shall be conducted to minimize hindrance to the use of the street for purposes of travel, and as soon as such work is completed, all portions of the street which have been excavated or otherwise damaged thereby shall promptly and in a workmanlike manner be repaired, replaced or restored and placed in as good condition as the same was before the commencement of such work. All restoration, repair, or replacement work shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the expense of the Franchisee in accordance with all Applicable Law.

In the event that the Franchisee shall fail or neglect to make such highway repair, replacement, or restoration work, then ten (10) days after notice therefor has been given Franchisee by the City Engineer, the City may repair, replace or restore said highway at the expense of Franchisee. The Franchisee agrees to pay to the City the cost of performing such work. The amount so chargeable shall be the direct cost of such work plus the current rate of overhead being charged by the City for reimbursable work. e. Failure to Timely Comply. In the event that the Franchisee fails to complete the work within the time specified in the permit, the City may require the Franchisee to pay to the City five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day as liquidated damages for each day construction extends beyond the time specified in the permit, or any extension thereof.
-12-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
Whenever the Franchisee fails to complete any work required by the terms and conditions of the franchise, and the permits issued thereunder, within the time limits required thereby, the City may complete or cause to be completed said work in compliance with Applicable Law at the expense of the Franchisee. The Franchisee agrees to pay to the City the cost of performing such work. The amount so chargeable to Franchisee shall be the reasonable direct cost of said work plus the current rate of overhead being charged by the City for reimbursable work. f. Completion Statement. Upon the completion of the construction of any pipelines or other Facilities constructed pursuant to said franchise, the Franchisee shall submit a statement to the City Engineer, identifying the permit or permits issued by the Department, the total length of pipeline, pipeline material, diameter of pipeline, the construction of which was authorized under such permit or permits, the total length of pipeline or other Facility actually laid, and as-built drawings. g. Maps. Within ninety (90) days following the date in which any Facilities have been laid, removed or abandoned under the franchise, the Franchisee shall file a map or maps with the Department showing the location, depth, and size of the Facilities so laid, removed or abandoned.
h. Facilities. The Franchisee shall have the right to construct, maintain and repair such traps, manholes, conduits, valves, appliances, attachments and other Facilities as may be necessary or convenient for the proper maintenance and operation of the pipelines under said franchise, and said Facilities shall be kept flush with the surface of the street and so located as to conform to any ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, or of any permit issued by the Department in regard thereto and shall not interfere with the use of the street for travel. The Franchisee shall have the right, subject to such ordinances, rules or regulations as are now or may hereafter be in force, to make all necessary excavations in said streets for the construction, maintenance and repair of said Facilities; provided, however, that the Franchisee shall first obtain an encroachment permit from the Department for doing any such work.
i. Ordinary Repair. The Franchisee shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Department to perform repair work. In the event of a condition that could cause a threat to public health or safety and requires emergency repair work, the Franchisee shall proceed with the repairs and notify the Department as soon as possible, not later than the next business day.
j. Pipeline Protection. Adequate protective facilities shall be provided in accordance with the federal and state pipeline safety laws, as amended from time to time, on the portion of each Pipeline installed under the authority of this Ordinance, and elsewhere on the same Pipeline, to immediately locate operating troubles and minimize their effects on City Streets or on their use by the public. If, at any time during the term of this Franchise, protective facilities on any pipeline are found to be inadequate as determined by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, CPUC, the federal Office of Pipeline Safety, or any other federal, state, or local agency with responsibility for pipeline safety, Franchisee shall at its own expense make changes in accordance with Applicable Law, or as may be required by the City. Failure to do so may result in forfeiture of this Franchise and require immediate cessation of the use of the facilities. k. Testing. Adequate protective facilities shall be provided in accordance with the federal and state pipeline safety laws, as amended from time to time, on the portion of each Pipeline installed under the authority of this Ordinance, and elsewhere on the same Pipeline, to immediately locate operating troubles and minimize their effects on City Streets or on their use by the public. If, at any time during the term of this Franchise, protective facilities on any pipeline are found to be inadequate as determined by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, CPUC, the federal Office of Pipeline Safety, or any other federal, state, or local agency with responsibility for pipeline safety, Franchisee shall at its own expense make changes in accordance with Applicable Law, or as may be required by the City. Failure to do so may result in forfeiture of this Franchise and require immediate cessation of the use of the facilities. -13-
A0444-1040\1297098v5.doc
SECTION 30. Relocation. If, in the sole discretion of the City Engineer, subject to appeal to the Council pursuant to Section 21, the Franchisee's Facilities conflict in any way with the construction, relocation or repair of any City facility or storm drain or sewer owned by the City of Artesia, the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District or any successor agency to any of these agencies, the Franchisee shall relocate its facility to the reasonably nearest alternative location or other location mutually agreeable to the City and the Franchisee necessary to accommodate the relocation or repair of the storm drain, sewer or City facility, either permanently or temporarily, as is determined by the City Engineer to be required within the time required by the City Engineer. Said relocation shall be accomplished at the Franchisee's sole cost and expense. If the Franchisee, fails to relocate its Facility within the required time, or to pave, surface, grade, repave, resurface or regrade, the City, to the extent permitted by Applicable Law, may cause the work to be done and shall keep an itemized account of the entire cost thereof, and the Franchisee shall reimburse the City or other public entity for such cost within thirty (30) days after presentation to said Franchisee of an itemized account of such costs. The Franchisee shall hold harmless the City, its offices and employees and the other public agency, if any, from any liability which may arise or be claimed to arise from the moving, cutting, or alteration of any of the Franchisee's Facilities, or the turning on or off of water, oil, or other liquid, gas, or electricity required to be accomplished by City or any other public agency as a result of the Franchisee's failure to relocate said facility by the date established by the City or other public agency. The Franchisee shall also be liable for any consequential damages incurred by the City or other public agency arising from the Franchisee's failure to timely complete the work required by this section.

SECTION 31. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.

SECTION 32. Amendments. To the extent not contrary to Applicable Law, the City Council may amend this ordinance from time to time consistent with any amendments to the Artesia City Code of general application to oil pipeline franchises in the City of Artesia.

SECTION 33. Acceptance of Franchise. This Franchise is granted and shall be held and enjoyed only upon the terms and conditions herein contained. Prior to the Effective Date of this Franchise, the Franchisee shall file a written acceptance of such terms and conditions with the City Clerk.

SECTION 34. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any Person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of such provision to other Persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

SECTION 35. CEQA. The City Council finds that the enactment of this Ordinance is determined to be exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the "State CEQA Guidelines") in that its adoption merely implements a regulatory process that will not foreseeably result in construction activities or other physical activities, either directly or indirectly. It can therefore be foreseen that the enactment of this ordinance does not have the potential to result in significant effects on the environment.

SECTION 36. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of this Ordinance and shall post or publish as required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July, 2026 by the following vote:
___________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 11A.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for the Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and the Allocation of Property Tax Increment within the Artesia EIFD
FROM: Carmen Zambrano, Management Analyst
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 26-3090, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Artesia, California, Approving the Infrastructure Financing District and the Allocation of the City's Incremental Property Tax Revenue Within the Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Pursuant to Government Code Sections 53398.68 and 53398.75; and

2. Finding the Adoption of Resolution 26-3090 is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

BACKGROUND:

As a result of the elimination of redevelopment agencies in California, the City of Artesia (“City”) lost a tax increment financing (TIF) tool to invest in public facilities supporting the development of communities. In 2014, SB 628 created a new tax increment financing tool called the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). The original legislation has been amended to modify the EIFD formation procedural requirements and requirements to issue bonds to finance infrastructure.

EIFDs aid cities in funding public facilities and other public investments to foster future development and increase property values. By capturing tax increment revenue generated within the district as new development occurs and property values increase over time, like a redevelopment project area, a portion of tax increment revenue is redirected from the taxing entity to the EIFD. Importantly, the establishment of EIFDs does not increase property taxes or any other taxes for landowners within or outside the EIFD boundaries.

The following chart illustrates how TIF captures that new revenue from new development into the EIFD (note these dollars are for illustrative purposes only):

On October 13, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-3068, declaring its intention to establish the City of Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (Artesia EIFD) and establish the Artesia EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) as the governing body. On February 10, 2026, the County of Los Angeles (“County”) Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intention to participate in the Artesia EIFD as a partner to the City.

Subsequently, on April 13, 2026, the PFA ordered the preparation of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) as required by the EIFD Law (California Government Code Section 53398.50 through 53398.88). The IFP is the legal document describing the EIFD, and it is to be adopted by the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and PFA to guide the use of incremental tax revenues over the life of the EIFD. Public notices were mailed, information was posted on a dedicated website (https://cityofartesia.us/EIFD), and notices were also published in the newspaper on or before May 1, 2026, as required by law, to inform property owners and residents.

On May 11, 2026, the PFA received a presentation of the IFP, taking no action at that time. Following that public meeting, the PFA must hold two public hearings before considering the approval of the IFP. The public hearings are tentatively scheduled for July 8, 2026 and August 10, 2026, for which there will be additional required newspaper, mail, and website notices.

ANALYSIS:

The current IFP is included in the Resolution as Exhibit A. It contains all items required by California Government Code Section 53398.63. A summary of the key requirements contained in the IFP is provided below.

1. EIFD Map and Legal Description. The proposed EIFD boundaries are based on opportunity sites for new development or rehabilitation, including the Downtown Specific Plan area and other mixed-use and commercial opportunity sites, with the Metro Southeast Gateway Line (SGL) Pioneer Station at the core. The land included in these boundaries totals approximately 324 acres (approx. 31% of the City).

2. Public Facilities and Development Proposed within the EIFD. The public capital facilities proposed to be financed through the EIFD include:

Metro Southeast Gateway Line (SGL) 3% local cost match contribution 20% set-aside for Affordable Housing
Water, sewer, other utility capacity enhancements
Roadway, streetscape improvements along Pioneer Blvd.

SGL first and last mile improvements / improvements to the Historic District Multi-Use Trail adjacent to the future SGL line
Park Improvements for Artesia Park and A.J. Padelford Park Public Safety / Sheriff facilities
Broadband internet infrastructure
Undergrounding utilities.

3. Use of Incremental Tax Revenue. The EIFD will use incremental property tax revenue to finance public facilities and maintenance of those public facilities, and administration of the EIFD. The City would allocate a maximum of 75% of its future share of future property tax increment within the EIFD, and the County would match the City’s allocation dollar-for-dollar. Based on projected growth of assessed value, total EIFD funding capacity is estimated at approximately $60 million on a present-value basis.

4. Necessity and Goals of the EIFD. The formation of the EIFD is necessary to assist in the financing of the construction of the targeted public facilities that serve the EIFD boundary and surrounding community while providing significant communitywide benefits. These public facilities will catalyze private sector investment and development to support the City's General Plan and provide the infrastructure foundation for the development of critically needed housing in the community and greater region.

5. Economic and Fiscal Impacts. Establishing the EIFD is a necessary step towards the successful development of the public facilities and other projects of communitywide significance, which will generate significant economic benefits to the City, County, and other taxing entities. Fiscal impact analysis prepared by Kosmont Companies as Appendix D to the IFP estimates that EIFD activity would generate approximately $11 million in net positive general fund revenues on present value basis for the City. Additionally, the Analysis highlights the job opportunities generated by the EIFD, including approximately 2,046 direct, indirect, and induced temporary constructed-related jobs and approximately 173 permanent ongoing jobs in the City and County.

Next Steps
The County Board of Supervisors must approve the IFP, and the PFA must hold two public hearings before final approval of the IFP. These public meetings and hearings are scheduled to occur in July and August. If the IFP is modified after City Council action this evening, the modified IFP would be required to return to the City Council for approval prior to EIFD formation.

The PFA may adopt the IFP at the second public hearing to form the EIFD. A summary of the key actions for establishing the EIFD, as well as estimated dates of completion, is as follows:

Task Target Date Notes
PFA holds Public
Hearing #1
July 8, 2026
Additional comments
taken; PFA takes action
to approve, modify, or
reject IFP
PFA holds Public
Hearing #2 and Protest
Proceeding
August 10, 2026
If majority protest
exists, takes action to
terminate EIFD. If no
majority protest, PFA
can propose adoption of
the IFP and formation of
the EIFD.

Staff files EIFD with
State Board of
Equalization (BOE)
September 2026
In the event of a majority protest by property owners or residents within the boundaries, the formation proceedings would be discontinued.

CEQA Review
The City Council’s adoption of the Resolution approving the EIFD IFP is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as they are actions solely related to the creation of a government funding mechanism and the administrative or organizational activities of the City. Therefore, this action does not constitute a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5). This action could not result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to any specific project(s) that could be funded by the EIFD.

As a separate and independent ground, this action is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they will have a significant effect on the environment. However, future actions (such as the approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact if the City Council adopts Resolution No. 26-3090 approving the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) for the Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and the allocation of property tax increment within the EIFD. All technical advisory associated with the development and formation of the EIFD and IFP has been funded by the Los Angeles County Metro Value Capture Support Program. If ultimately implemented, the EIFD would provide the opportunity to use tax increment financing to fund targeted infrastructure investments within the City.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

2. Finding the Adoption of Resolution 26-3090 is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

Attachments
Resolution No. 26-3090 Approving IFP.pdf
Exhibit A: Infrastructure Financing Plan - Artesia EIFD 5-29-2026 DRAFT.pdf Presentation.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3090

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARTESIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ARTESIA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT
AND THE ALLOCATION OF THE CITY’S INCREMENTAL

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WITHIN THE ARTESIA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT

PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS
53398.68 AND 53398.75
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted California Government Code sections 53398.50 through 53398.88 (“EIFD Law”) authorizing cities and counties to form enhanced infrastructure financing districts within defined areas and use incremental property tax revenue generated from the growth in property taxes collected from within such districts to finance certain infrastructure and community benefit projects; WHEREAS, in enacting the EIFD Law, the California Legislature found and determined that with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, public benefits will accrue if local agencies are provided a means to finance certain public infrastructure and community benefit projects authorized under the EIFD Law; WHEREAS, on October 13, 2025, the City Council of the City of Artesia (“City Council”) adopted Resolution No. 25-3068 (“Resolution of Intention”), which initiated the process to establish the Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“Artesia EIFD”) pursuant to EIFD Law;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the City Council found that the Artesia EIFD is necessary for the area within the boundaries of the Artesia EIFD and the City of Artesia (“City”) and declared that, pursuant to the EIFD Law, if approved by resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68, incremental property tax revenue from the City within the Artesia EIFD may be used to finance the activities described in the Resolution of Intention;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the City Council established the Artesia EIFD Public Financing Authority (“PFA”) to serve as the governing board of the Artesia EIFD;
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2026, pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.63, the PFA directed staff to prepare a draft Infrastructure Financing Plan (“IFP”) for the Artesia EIFD, which IFP is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and is available for inspection at Artesia City Hall, 18747 Clarkdale Ave, Artesia, CA 90701; WHEREAS, the IFP, among other things, includes a description of the public facilities to be financed by the Artesia EIFD and a financing section that includes, among

Page 2 of 5 ends

other things, a specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the City proposed to be committed to the Artesia EIFD for each year during which the Artesia EIFD will receive incremental tax revenue, and a projection of the amount of tax revenues expected to be received by the Artesia EIFD in each year during which the Artesia EIFD will receive tax revenues, including an estimate of the amount of tax revenues attributable to the City for each year;
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2026, the PFA held a public meeting to present the IFP; WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt this Resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68 to approve the IFP, substantially in the form prepared by the PFA, including the allocation of incremental tax revenue of the City in accordance with Government Code Section 53398.75 as set forth in the IFP; and, WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as an action solely related to financing and is not in-and-of itself a “project” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378) since it does not result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to fund any specific projects through the EIFD. However, future actions (such as the funding and/or approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARTESIA HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council herby approves the IFP for the Artesia EIFD substantially in the form presented to the City Council and attached hereto as “Exhibit A,” including, but not limited to, the specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the City to be committed to the Artesia EIFD for each year during which the Artesia EIFD will receive incremental tax revenue.

SECTION 3. The City Manager, or designee, are herby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Resolution.

SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to the PFA.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk of the City of Artesia shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 8
th day of June 2026.

Page 3 of 5 ends

__________________________

RENE TREVINO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________

JENNIFER ALDERETE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, CITY ATTORNEY

Page 4 of 5 ends

EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF ARTESIA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT (EIFD)

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (PFA)

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN (IFP)

Page 5 of 5 ends

CITY OF ARTESIA

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN
JUNE 2026
Prepared by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Value Capture Support Advisory Team:

Morgner
Kosmont Companies
NBS
Prepared For:

The City of Artesia and the County of Los Angeles
Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 2 ends

Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3

2.0 Description of the Proposed District.....................................................................................6

3.0 Description of Proposed Facilities and Development...........................................................7

4.0 Finding of Communitywide Significance ............................................................................13

5.0 Financing Section...............................................................................................................14

6.0 Removal of Dwelling Units and Replacement Housing Plan..............................................19

7.0 Goals of the District............................................................................................................20

8.0 Appendices ........................................................................................................................21 Index of Appendices
Appendix A: Map of Boundaries of the Artesia EIFD
Appendix B: Legal Description of the Artesia EIFD
Appendix C: Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis
Appendix D: Fiscal Impact Analysis
Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 3 ends

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background & Purpose
The proposed Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“Artesia EIFD” or “District”) will serve as a catalyst for private development and critical regional infrastructure with transformative potential for the City of Artesia (“City”) and larger County of Los Angeles (“County”) region. The Artesia EIFD encompasses approximately 324 acres of land, representing approximately 31% of the total land area within the City. The Artesia EIFD includes various specific housing and blended-use development opportunity sites within the City that stand to benefit from catalytic infrastructure improvements with communitywide and regional benefit. The District represents a partnership between the City and the County, and as such, will be funded by property tax increment from both taxing entities.

1.2 Contents and Overview of this Infrastructure Financing Plan (“IFP”) Pursuant to Government Code Sections 53398.59 through 53398.74, this IFP comprises the following information:
a) A map and legal description of the District, included herein as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
b) A description of the public facilities and other forms of development or financial assistance that is proposed in the area of the district, including those to be provided by the private sector, those to be provided by governmental entities without assistance under this chapter, those public improvements and facilities to be financed with assistance from the proposed district, and those to be provided jointly. The description shall include the proposed location, timing, and costs of the development and financial assistance. This information is included in Section 3 of this IFP.
c) If funding from affected taxing entities is incorporated into the financing plan, a finding that the development and financial assistance are of communitywide significance and provide significant benefits to an area larger than the area of the district. This information is included in Section 4 of this IFP.
d) A financing section (included in Section 5 of this IFP), which shall contain all of the following information:
a. A specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the city or county and of each affected taxing entity proposed to be committed to the district for each year during which the district will receive incremental tax revenue.

The portion need not be the same for all affected taxing entities. The portion may Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 4 ends

change over time. The maximum portion of the City’s property tax increment to be committed to the District will be 75% throughout the duration of the District lifetime.

Beyond the City’s standard “AB8” property tax (general fund and recreation and parks apportionments), this includes the City’s allocation of incremental property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (“MVLF”) and incremental successor agency Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) residual revenues, to the extent legally available. The maximum portion of the County’s property tax increment to be committed to the District will be 49% throughout duration of the District lifetime (approximating a County dollar match of the City allocation). This includes the County’s incremental standard “AB8” property tax (general fund apportionment) and incremental RPTTF residual revenues, but not the County’s incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF.
b. A projection of the amount of tax revenues expected to be received by the district in each year during which the district will receive tax revenues, including an estimate of the amount of tax revenues attributable to each affected taxing entity for each year. Section 5.3 of this IFP includes a projection of tax revenues to be received by the District from each participating taxing entity by year over the course of the projected District lifetime. These projections are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP preparation for purposes of illustration. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this document.

Appendix C provides additional detail for the projected revenue analysis. c. A plan for financing the public facilities to be assisted by the district, including a detailed description of any intention to incur debt. Section 5.4 of this IFP includes a plan for financing the public facilities to be assisted by the District. The Public Financing Authority (“PFA”) governing the District intends to incur debt only when it is financially prudent to do so. It is estimated at this time that the Artesia EIFD will contribute approximately $60 million in present-value dollars to public improvements and affordable housing projects from a combination of bond or loan proceeds (multiple issuances may be necessary) and pay-as-you-go funding over the District lifetime. This is equivalent to approximately $157 million in nominal dollars (i.e., not adjusting for inflation, or the purchasing power of money). d. A limit on the total number of dollars of taxes that may be allocated to the district pursuant to the plan. The total number of dollars or taxes that may be allocated to the District shall not exceed $400,000,000 (nominal dollars) over the District lifetime. This represents a maximum allocation of $200,000,000 from the City and $200,000,000 from the County over the District lifetime (nominal dollars). This cap is intended to provide capacity for future financings in a scenario where actual revenues exceed projections.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 5 ends

e. A date on which the district will cease to exist, by which time all tax allocation to the district will end. The date shall not be more than 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 53398.81, or the issuance of a loan is approved by the governing board of a local agency pursuant to Section 53398.87. The District will cease to exist the earlier of: (i) forty five (45) years from the date on which the first issuance of bonds or acquisition of a loan is approved by the PFA, or (ii) June 30, 2080. This IFP assumes that the base year for the District will be Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and that the District will begin receiving tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2026-2027. f. An analysis of the costs to the city or county of providing facilities and services to the area of the district while the area is being developed and after the area is developed. The plan shall also include an analysis of the tax, fee, charge, and other revenues expected to be received by the city or county as a result of expected development in the area of the district. Appendix D to this IFP includes, as part of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, an analysis of the costs to the City and County for providing facilities and services to the area of the District. It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime (assumed stabilized buildout of District area), annual costs to the City will be approximately $1.22 million, and annual costs to the County will be approximately $709,000 to service the area of the District. g. An analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the district and the associated development upon each affected taxing entity. Appendix D to this IFP includes an analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the District and the associated development upon both the City and the County, as the only two affected taxing entities that are contributing tax increment revenues to the District. It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime, the District area will generate an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $439,500 to the City and an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $146,500 to the County.
h. A plan for financing any potential costs that may be incurred by reimbursing a developer of a project that is both located entirely within the boundaries of that district and qualifies for the Transit Priority Project Program, pursuant to Section 65470, including any permit and affordable housing expenses related to the project. At this time, the PFA does not intend to finance any potential costs that may be incurred by reimbursing a developer of a project that is both located entirely within the boundaries of the District and qualifies for the Transit Priority Project Program, pursuant to Section 65470.
e) If any dwelling units within the territory of the district are proposed to be removed or destroyed in the course of public works construction within the area of the district or private development within the area of the district that is subject to a written agreement with the district or that is financed in whole or in part by the district, a plan providing for Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 6 ends

replacement of those units and relocation of those persons or families consistent with the requirements of Section 53398.56. The PFA does not anticipate that any housing units will be removed as a result of any project identified in this IFP. However, if any relocation of dwelling units is deemed to be required in the future for a project financed by the District, the PFA will comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 53398.56.
f) The goals the district proposes to achieve for each project financed pursuant to Section 53398.52. Section 7 of this IFP summarizes the goals of each project to be financed by the District.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 7 ends

2.0 Description of the Proposed District
The Artesia EIFD encompasses approximately 324 acres of land, representing approximately 31% of the total land area within the City. The Artesia EIFD includes various specific housing and blended-use development opportunity sites within the City that stand to benefit from catalytic infrastructure improvements with communitywide and regional benefit. Appendix A includes a map of the proposed District, and Appendix B is a legal description of the District.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 8 ends

3.0 Description of Proposed Facilities
and Development

3.1 Anticipated Future Private Development
Anticipated future private development within the EIFD boundary is summarized in Table 1 below.

Buildout and absorption of these land uses are forecasted in the first 20 years of the District lifetime.

Table 1: Anticipated Future Development
Development Type SF / Units AV Per SF / Unit Estimated AV at Buildout (2026$)
Residential – Market Rate 378 units $350,000 per unit $132 million Hotel 111 rooms $300,000 per room $33 million
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF $350 per SF $6 million
Estimated Total $172 million

3.2 Public Facilities to be Financed with Assistance from the Artesia EIFD The PFA intends to utilize the District to contribute approximately $60 million (in present value dollars) of funding to infrastructure and affordable housing projects of communitywide and regional significance over the District lifetime. This is equivalent to approximately $157 million in nominal dollars (i.e., not accounting for inflation, or the purchasing power of money). Table 2 outlines an estimate of anticipated EIFD budget allocation over the District’s lifetime.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 9 ends

Table 2: Estimated EIFD Funding Allocation
#

PROJECT
(within City of Artesia with tangible benefit to
properties within EIFD)

ESTIMATED

ALLOCATION
(present-value)

ESTIMATED
TIMING
1 • Affordable Housing Development in Artesia
(20% Minimum County Requirement) $12,000,000
Year 1 to Year 50 of
EIFD Lifetime
2 • LA Metro Southeast Gateway Line, 3%
local cost match contribution
• Water, sewer, other utility capacity
enhancements
• Roadway, streetscape improvements
along Pioneer Blvd.
• Southeast Gateway Line (“SGL”) First and
Last Mile Improvements / Improvements to
the Historic District Multi-Use Trail adjacent
to the future SGL line
• Park Improvements for Artesia Park and
A.J. Padelford Park
• Public Safety / Sheriff facilities
• Broadband internet infrastructure
• Undergrounding utilities
$48,000,000
Estimated Total EIFD Budget Allocation $60,000,000 (present value dollars)
Pursuant to category #1 identified in Table 2, the EIFD will implement a 20% affordable housing set-aside for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of housing for persons of very low, low, and moderate income, as defined in Sections 50105 and 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, for rent or purchase in the City. The PFA will coordinate with the City of Artesia Housing Authority for implementation and administration of these funds and projects. The sequence in which EIFD revenues shall be allocated annually shall prioritize this affordable housing set-aside as the first priority. The PFA and City may additionally elect to coordinate with the County of Los Angeles Affordable Housing Trust Fund or another entity as an alternative or in addition to the City’s Housing Authority for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable housing in the City, subject to the approval of the City of Artesia City Council. Funds dedicated to these projects will be tracked and delineated specifically in the required annual reporting for the EIFD.

Funds allocated under category #2 above may be reallocated to any eligible projects under the IFP and EIFD law based on future infrastructure needs. Specific project funding will be subject to approval by the PFA.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 10 ends

Additional expenditures by the EIFD, including any use of potential future EIFD bond proceeds as they are needed, will be subject to approval by the PFA. Targeted improvements would conform to established guidelines in existing, adopted planning documentation, such as the City General Plan.

Eligible expenditures in accordance with Government code sections 53398.52 and 53398.56 include the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of 15 years or and are projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community.

The Artesia EIFD may also finance the ongoing or capitalized costs to maintain public capital facilities financed in whole or in part by the Artesia EIFD. Facilities funded may be located outside the boundaries of the Artesia EIFD, as long as they have a tangible connection to the work of the Artesia EIFD. The Artesia EIFD will also finance planning and design activities that are directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of these projects. Projects financed by the Artesia EIFD may include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
• Highways, interchanges, ramps and bridges, arterial streets, parking facilities, and transit facilities;
• Sewage treatment and water reclamation plants and interceptor pipes; • Facilities for the collection and treatment of water for urban uses; • Flood control levees and dams, retention basins, and drainage channels; • Child care facilities;
• Libraries;
• Parks, recreational facilities, and open space;
• Governmental and administrative facilities;
• Facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid waste, including transfer stations and vehicles;
• Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; • Affordable housing as authorized under the EIFD Law;
• Acquisition, construction, or repair of commercial structures by the small business occupant of such structures, if such acquisition, construction, or repair is for purposes of fostering economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and of ensuring the long-term economic sustainability of small businesses;
• Projects that enable communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including, but not limited to, higher average temperatures, decreased air and water quality, the spread of infectious and vector-borne diseases, other public health impacts, extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and drought; • Broadband and telecommunications infrastructure;
• Projects that implement a sustainable communities strategy and transit priority projects; Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 11 ends

• Acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; • Facilities in which nonprofit community organizations provide health, youth, homeless, and social services.
• For areas at least partially in high or very high fire hazard severity zones designated by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Article 9 (commencing with Section 4201) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code, facilities including heavy equipment to be used for vegetation clearance and firebreaks, undergrounding of local publicly owned electric utilities, as defined in Section 224.3 of the Public Utilities Code, against wildfires, and equipment used for fire watch, prevention, and fighting, including, but not limited to, helicopters, air tankers, and technological advancements to weather and wind science infrastructure, risk modeling, and prediction (with the exception that bond proceeds may not be used to finance equipment).

In addition, the Artesia EIFD may finance any other expenses incidental to the formation, administration1 and implementation of the Artesia EIFD and to the construction, completion, inspection and acquisition of the authorized facilities, including, but not limited to, the costs of creation and administration of the Artesia EIFD; costs of issuance of bonds or other debt of the Artesia EIFD or of any other public agency (including a community facilities district) that finances authorized facilities, and payment of debt service thereon; financing costs of improvements incurred by developers until reimbursement for the costs of the improvements from the Artesia EIFD; costs incurred by the City, County, or the Artesia EIFD in connection with the division of taxes pursuant to Government Code section 53398.75; and legal costs.

In accordance with Government Code Section 53398.69, the Artesia EIFD may expend up to 10 percent of any accrued tax increment in the first two years of the effective date of the Artesia EIFD on planning and dissemination of information to the residents within the Artesia EIFD boundaries about the IFP and planned activities to be funded by the Artesia EIFD, including reimbursement of the City’s advanced funding of such eligible costs.

Ongoing administration costs are estimated in the range of $25,000 to $40,000, with expectations that such costs would increase with inflation during the EIFD lifetime. 1 Administration costs refer to the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the Artesia EIFD, including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing annual tax increment revenues and preparing the required annual reporting; the costs of allocation tax increment revenues (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs to the City, Artesia EIFD, or any designee thereof in complying with disclosure requirements; the costs associated with preparing required disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Artesia EIFD; and the costs of the City, Artesia EIFD, or any designee thereof related to any appeal of the implementation of the Artesia EIFD. Administration costs shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees or any other expenses incidental to the implementation of the Artesia EIFD.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 12 ends

The PFA intends to continue to identify, evaluate, and pursue additional funding sources and financing mechanisms aside from District tax increment to implement the improvements identified above, potentially including grant sources, impact fees, private sector investment incentivized by the formation of the EIFD itself, and/or other sources.

Private sector developers will be responsible for funding project-specific / fair-share / in-tract infrastructure, unless otherwise outlined in this IFP. Some public facilities included in the EIFD area are anticipated to be provided by governmental entities without assistance from the District.

There are no public facilities anticipated to be provided jointly by the private sector and governmental entities, however it is possible that private sector developers may advance funding for improvements such as brownfield site remediation, with anticipation to be partially reimbursed with EIFD proceeds. Such case-specific agreements would come before the PFA for approval at the appropriate time.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 13 ends

4.0 Finding of Communitywide
Significance
Implementation of the District promotes the goals of and is consistent with the City’s General Plan, serves as a catalyst for private sector investment and critical public infrastructure with transformative potential for the Artesia EIFD area and the City as a whole. The District supports job creation, housing production, and improvement of quality of life.

Specific communitywide and regional benefits anticipated to be generated by the District include:
• Sustainable infrastructure investment; 4,432 daily boardings anticipated for SGL Pioneer Station
• Approximately $11 million in net fiscal surplus to the City over 50 years (on a presentvalue basis) • Approximately $2 million in net fiscal impact to County over 50 years (on a present-value basis)
• Approximately $9 million in new County transportation and homelessness sales tax funding over 50 years (on a present-value basis)
• Approximately 378 housing units within the District
• Approximately 2,046 direct, indirect, and induced temporary, construction-related jobs in the City and County
• Approximately 126 direct, permanent jobs in the City
• Approximately 47 additional indirect and induced permanent jobs in the City and County (total of 173 direct, indirect, and induced permanent jobs) • Approximately $283 million in economic output from construction in the City and County • Approximately $22 million in annual ongoing economic output in the City and County.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 14 ends

5.0 Financing Section
The Artesia EIFD represents a partnership between the City and County, and as such, will be funded by property tax increment from both taxing entities. No other taxing entity is contributing property tax increment to the District. It is anticipated that property tax increment will be utilized on both a “pay-as-you-go” basis as well as security for tax increment bond issuance or loan acquisition as may be needed.

Portions of the Artesia EIFD are located within the boundaries of the former Redevelopment Project Area of the former Redevelopment Agency of Artesia, and so property tax revenues generated by the properties within the overlapping area will flow according to the Redevelopment Agency dissolution statutes the Successor Agency’s obligations are retired. Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) residual revenues are intended to be contributed by the City and County to the District as part of the maximum allocations outlined in the following sections, to the extent legally available.

5.1 Maximum Portion of Incremental Tax Revenue Dedicated to the District The maximum portion of the City’s property tax increment to be committed to the District will be 75% throughout the duration of the District lifetime. Beyond the City’s standard “AB8” property tax (general fund and recreation and parks apportionments), this includes the City’s allocation of incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.75(e)(1) and incremental successor agency RPTTF residual revenues.

The maximum portion of the County’s property tax increment to be committed to the District will be 49% throughout duration of the District lifetime, intended to provide a dollar match for the City’s allocation. This includes the County’s incremental standard “AB8” property tax (general fund apportionment) and incremental RPTTF residual revenues, but not the County’s incremental property tax in lieu of MVLF.

5.2 Projection of District Tax Revenues by Year
Table 3 provides an overview of the projected growth of assessed value, property tax increment, and City and County contributions to the District over the District lifetime. It is expected that a total of approximately $78.5 million of incremental tax revenues will be allocated to the District by the City, and a total of approximately $78.5 million of incremental tax revenues will be allocated to the District by the County, for a total allocation of taxes revenues to the EIFD of approximately $157 million over approximately 50 years.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 15 ends

Table 3: Projection of District Revenues by Year
Note: Present value at 3% discount rate.

Incremental
Assessed Value
Property Tax
Increment @
1% General Levy
Average City
Share
Available (incl.

MVLF)
City Increment
Available
Portion of City
Share
Allocated
City Increment
Allocated to
EIFD
Average
County Share
Available
County
Increment
Available
Portion of
County Share
Allocated
County
Increment
Allocated
Total Taxes
Allocated to
EIFD
0 2025 / 2026 $0 $0 17.73% $0 75% $0 27.2% $0 49% $0 $0 1 2026 / 2027 $32,516,175 $325,162 17.73% $57,665 75% $43,249 27.2% $88,300 49% $43,249 $86,498 2 2027 / 2028 $66,448,846 $664,488 17.73% $117,842 75% $88,382 27.2% $180,447 49% $88,382 $176,763 3 2028 / 2029 $101,853,738 $1,018,537 17.73% $180,630 75% $135,473 27.2% $276,591 49% $135,473 $270,945 4 2029 / 2030 $138,788,645 $1,387,886 17.73% $246,132 75% $184,599 27.2% $376,890 49% $184,599 $369,197 5 2030 / 2031 $217,075,446 $2,170,754 17.73% $384,967 75% $288,726 27.2% $589,484 49% $288,726 $577,451 6 2031 / 2032 $258,445,270 $2,584,453 17.73% $458,334 75% $343,750 27.2% $701,826 49% $343,750 $687,501 7 2032 / 2033 $301,567,442 $3,015,674 17.73% $534,808 75% $401,106 27.2% $818,928 49% $401,106 $802,212 8 2033 / 2034 $346,509,869 $3,465,099 17.73% $614,510 75% $460,882 27.2% $940,972 49% $460,882 $921,765 9 2034 / 2035 $393,342,956 $3,933,430 17.73% $697,565 75% $523,174 27.2% $1,068,150 49% $523,174 $1,046,347 10 2035 / 2036 $442,139,696 $4,421,397 17.73% $784,102 75% $588,077 27.2% $1,200,661 49% $588,077 $1,176,154 11 2036 / 2037 $473,219,701 $4,732,197 17.73% $839,221 75% $629,415 27.2% $1,285,061 49% $629,415 $1,258,831 12 2037 / 2038 $505,232,106 $5,052,321 17.73% $895,992 75% $671,994 27.2% $1,371,993 49% $671,994 $1,343,988 13 2038 / 2039 $538,204,883 $5,382,049 17.73% $954,467 75% $715,850 27.2% $1,461,533 49% $715,850 $1,431,701 14 2039 / 2040 $572,166,843 $5,721,668 17.73% $1,014,696 75% $761,022 27.2% $1,553,759 49% $761,022 $1,522,044 15 2040 / 2041 $607,147,663 $6,071,477 17.73% $1,076,732 75% $807,549 27.2% $1,648,752 49% $807,549 $1,615,098 16 2041 / 2042 $643,177,907 $6,431,779 17.73% $1,140,629 75% $855,472 27.2% $1,746,595 49% $855,472 $1,710,943 17 2042 / 2043 $680,289,058 $6,802,891 17.73% $1,206,443 75% $904,832 27.2% $1,847,373 49% $904,832 $1,809,664 18 2043 / 2044 $718,513,543 $7,185,135 17.73% $1,274,231 75% $955,673 27.2% $1,951,174 49% $955,673 $1,911,347 19 2044 / 2045 $757,884,764 $7,578,848 17.73% $1,344,053 75% $1,008,040 27.2% $2,058,089 49% $1,008,040 $2,016,080 20 2045 / 2046 $798,437,121 $7,984,371 17.73% $1,415,970 75% $1,061,977 27.2% $2,168,212 49% $1,061,977 $2,123,955 21 2046 / 2047 $840,206,048 $8,402,060 17.73% $1,490,044 75% $1,117,533 27.2% $2,281,638 49% $1,117,533 $2,235,066 22 2047 / 2048 $883,228,044 $8,832,280 17.73% $1,566,340 75% $1,174,755 27.2% $2,398,468 49% $1,174,755 $2,349,511 23 2048 / 2049 $927,540,699 $9,275,407 17.73% $1,644,926 75% $1,233,694 27.2% $2,518,802 49% $1,233,694 $2,467,388 24 2049 / 2050 $973,182,734 $9,731,827 17.73% $1,725,868 75% $1,294,401 27.2% $2,642,746 49% $1,294,401 $2,588,803 25 2050 / 2051 $1,020,194,030 $10,201,940 17.73% $1,809,240 75% $1,356,930 27.2% $2,770,408 49% $1,356,930 $2,713,859 26 2051 / 2052 $1,068,615,665 $10,686,157 17.73% $1,895,112 75% $1,421,334 27.2% $2,901,901 49% $1,421,334 $2,842,668 27 2052 / 2053 $1,118,489,949 $11,184,899 17.73% $1,983,560 75% $1,487,670 27.2% $3,037,338 49% $1,487,670 $2,975,340 28 2053 / 2054 $1,169,860,461 $11,698,605 17.73% $2,074,662 75% $1,555,996 27.2% $3,176,838 49% $1,555,996 $3,111,993 29 2054 / 2055 $1,222,772,089 $12,227,721 17.73% $2,168,497 75% $1,626,373 27.2% $3,320,523 49% $1,626,373 $3,252,745 30 2055 / 2056 $1,277,271,066 $12,772,711 17.73% $2,265,147 75% $1,698,860 27.2% $3,468,519 49% $1,698,860 $3,397,720 31 2056 / 2057 $1,333,405,012 $13,334,050 17.73% $2,364,696 75% $1,773,522 27.2% $3,620,955 49% $1,773,522 $3,547,044 32 2057 / 2058 $1,391,222,976 $13,912,230 17.73% $2,467,232 75% $1,850,424 27.2% $3,777,964 49% $1,850,424 $3,700,848 33 2058 / 2059 $1,450,775,480 $14,507,755 17.73% $2,572,844 75% $1,929,633 27.2% $3,939,683 49% $1,929,633 $3,859,266 34 2059 / 2060 $1,512,114,558 $15,121,146 17.73% $2,681,625 75% $2,011,218 27.2% $4,106,253 49% $2,011,218 $4,022,437 35 2060 / 2061 $1,575,293,809 $15,752,938 17.73% $2,793,668 75% $2,095,251 27.2% $4,277,821 49% $2,095,251 $4,190,503 36 2061 / 2062 $1,640,368,437 $16,403,684 17.73% $2,909,073 75% $2,181,805 27.2% $4,454,536 49% $2,181,805 $4,363,610 37 2062 / 2063 $1,707,395,304 $17,073,953 17.73% $3,027,941 75% $2,270,956 27.2% $4,636,552 49% $2,270,956 $4,541,911 38 2063 / 2064 $1,776,432,977 $17,764,330 17.73% $3,150,374 75% $2,362,780 27.2% $4,824,028 49% $2,362,780 $4,725,561 39 2064 / 2065 $1,847,541,781 $18,475,418 17.73% $3,276,480 75% $2,457,360 27.2% $5,017,129 49% $2,457,360 $4,914,720 40 2065 / 2066 $1,920,783,848 $19,207,838 17.73% $3,406,370 75% $2,554,777 27.2% $5,216,023 49% $2,554,777 $5,109,555 41 2066 / 2067 $1,996,223,177 $19,962,232 17.73% $3,540,156 75% $2,655,117 27.2% $5,420,884 49% $2,655,117 $5,310,234 42 2067 / 2068 $2,073,925,687 $20,739,257 17.73% $3,677,956 75% $2,758,467 27.2% $5,631,891 49% $2,758,467 $5,516,933 43 2068 / 2069 $2,153,959,271 $21,539,593 17.73% $3,819,889 75% $2,864,917 27.2% $5,849,227 49% $2,864,917 $5,729,834 44 2069 / 2070 $2,236,393,863 $22,363,939 17.73% $3,966,081 75% $2,974,561 27.2% $6,073,084 49% $2,974,561 $5,949,121 45 2070 / 2071 $2,321,301,493 $23,213,015 17.73% $4,116,658 75% $3,087,494 27.2% $6,303,657 49% $3,087,494 $6,174,988 46 2071 / 2072 $2,408,756,352 $24,087,564 17.73% $4,271,753 75% $3,203,815 27.2% $6,541,147 49% $3,203,815 $6,407,630 47 2072 / 2073 $2,498,834,857 $24,988,349 17.73% $4,431,501 75% $3,323,626 27.2% $6,785,761 49% $3,323,626 $6,647,251 48 2073 / 2074 $2,591,615,716 $25,916,157 17.73% $4,596,041 75% $3,447,031 27.2% $7,037,714 49% $3,447,031 $6,894,061 49 2074 / 2075 $2,687,180,002 $26,871,800 17.73% $4,765,517 75% $3,574,138 27.2% $7,297,226 49% $3,574,138 $7,148,276 50 2075 / 2076 $2,785,611,216 $27,856,112 17.73% $4,940,078 75% $3,705,058 27.2% $7,564,523 49% $3,705,058 $7,410,117 $104,638,318 75% $78,478,739 $160,228,028 49% $78,478,739 $156,957,478 $39,875,036 75% $29,906,277 $61,058,878 49% $29,906,277 $59,812,554 City Contribution County Contribution
Fiscal Year
Total
Present Value
Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 16 ends

These projections are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP preparation for purposes of illustration. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this document. Appendix C provides additional detail for the projected revenue analysis.

5.3 Plan for Financing Public Facilities
The PFA intends to utilize numerous funding sources and financing mechanisms to implement the projects identified in Section 3.2, potentially including District tax increment, grant sources, impact fees, private sector investment, and/or other sources.

As it pertains to the use of District tax increment, the PFA intends to incur debt only when it is financially prudent to do so. It is estimated at this time that approximately $60 million of EIFD funding (in present value dollars) will be made available through bond or loan proceeds as they are needed and pay-as-you-go proceeds over the District lifetime. It may be the case that multiple debt issuances will be necessary to achieve the targeted funding capacity.

5.4 Limit on Total Dollars Allocated to the District
The total number of dollars or taxes that may be allocated to the District shall not exceed $400,000,000 (nominal dollars). This represents a maximum allocation of $200,000,000 from the City and $200,000,000 from the County over the District lifetime. This limit has been identified to allow capacity in case of actual revenues outperforming projections.

The limit on the total number of dollars that the City and County will contribute to the EIFD shall be defined as the annual amount of the City and County contributions that is needed to pay bond payments, or otherwise fund the approved list of infrastructure and other projects and expenses of the District, with an estimated allocation of approximately $60 million (in present value dollars) over the entire District lifetime. The infrastructure and other projects shall be considered fully funded when all projects have been financed by bonds, excess tax increment, or other funds. In the following fiscal year after the projects have been fully funded, and any year thereafter up to the time limit, any City and County contributions in excess of remaining bond payments shall be returned by the EIFD to the City and County according to their respective proportions. The EIFD shall provide the County an annual accounting of the status of the funding of the approved infrastructure projects and notify the County when they have been fully funded.

To the extent a computation of the limit on total dollars allocated to the district is needed in future dollars at some time in the future, the analysis shall utilize as a benchmark index the California Department of General Services (DGS) California Construction Cost Index (CCCI).

The PFA authorizes the County, throughout the existence of the PFA and the District, to review the PFA’s calculations to determine if excess property tax increment revenue exists, as defined above, in any given year. The PFA shall cooperate with such review by providing reasonable access, inspection privileges, and copies of the PFA’s and/or District's records to County staff upon request, as necessary to review the PFA’s calculations. In the event a County review determines excess property tax increment revenue exists, the PFA shall return such excess back to the City and County in proportion to those entities' contributions to the excess amount.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 17 ends

5.5 District Termination Date
The District will cease to exist the earlier of: (i) forty five (45) years from the date on which the first issuance of bonds or acquisition of a loan is approved by the PFA, or (ii) June 30, 2080. This IFP assumes that that the base year for the District will be Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and that the District will begin receiving tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

5.6 Analysis of Costs to Provide Facilities and Services Appendix D to this IFP includes, as part of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, an analysis of the costs to the City and County for providing facilities and services to the area of the District. It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime (assumed stabilized buildout of District area), annual costs to the City will be approximately $1.22 million, and annual costs to the County will be approximately $709,000 to service the area of the District.

5.7 Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix D to this IFP includes an analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the District and the associated development upon both the City and the County, as the only two affected taxing entities that are contributing tax increment revenues to the District. Table 5 presents an overview of fiscal impacts to the City and County.

Table 5: Overview of Fiscal Impacts to City and County
It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime, the District area will generate an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $439,500 to the City and an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $146,500 for the County. Over 50 years, District activity will generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $11 million for the City and approximately $1.8 million for the County on a present-value basis. This is in addition to the Community economic benefits outlined Annual
(Stablized
Year 20)
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value
@ 3.0%
City of Artesia
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation to EIFD) $1,657,300 $102,425,500 $40,825,800 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures ($1,217,800) ($74,796,500) ($29,729,900) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $439,500 $27,629,000 $11,095,900 County of Los Angeles
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation to EIFD) $855,100 $46,407,300 $19,134,700 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures ($708,600) ($43,617,800) ($17,337,600) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to County $146,500 $2,789,500 $1,797,100 Add'l Sales Tax - County Transp. + Homelessness $315,000 $22,483,200 $8,938,700 Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 18 ends

in Section 4 of this IFP (e.g. jobs, housing, remediation of contamination, connectivity, active transportation).

5.8 Developer Reimbursement for Transit Priority Project The PFA does not intend to finance any potential costs that may be incurred by reimbursing a developer of a project that is both located entirely within the boundaries of the District and qualifies for the Transit Priority Project Program, pursuant to Section 65470. To the extent that a developer is willing to fund Transit Priority Project infrastructure expenditures beyond and in advance of said developer’s fair share (not contemplated at this time), the PFA may consider and evaluate such reimbursement at the appropriate time.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 19 ends

6.0 Removal of Dwelling Units and
Replacement Housing Plan
The PFA does not anticipated that any housing units will be removed as a result of any project identified in this IFP. However, if any relocation of dwelling units is deemed to be required in the future for a project financed by the District, the PFA will comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 53398.56.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 20 ends

7.0 Goals of the District
As stated in the Resolution of Intention, the goal of the Artesia EIFD is to assist in the provision of public facilities of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits and promote economic development within the boundaries of the Artesia EIFD and the surrounding community and, for those facilities located outside the Artesia EIFD boundaries which also have a tangible connection to the Artesia EIFD.

More specifically, the goals of the District’s implementation of the public facilities outlined in Section 3.2 are to support the City’s General Plan and serve as a catalyst for private sector investment and critical public infrastructure with transformative potential for the Artesia EIFD area and the City as a whole. The District additionally aims to implement Statewide policy goals of housing supply and sustainable infrastructure investment.

Additional objectives include economic development in the form of fiscal revenue generation for the City, County, and other taxing entities, job creation, housing production, improvement of quality of life, and promotion of environmental sustainability. The District will be utilized to address critical infrastructure funding needs, which are are critical to catalyze private sector investment and development.

Artesia EIFD
Infrastructure Financing Plan
June 2026

Page 21 ends

8.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Map of Boundaries of the Artesia EIFD
Appendix B: Legal Description of the Artesia EIFD
Appendix C: Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis
Appendix D: Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix A to IFP
Map of Artesia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) EIFD parcels are highlighted above and total approx. 324 acres.

Artesia City boundaries and transit station location are noted for reference only.

Appendix B to Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) - Artesia EIFD Parcel List DRAFT 7011-004-055 7014-003-067 7024-006-061 7033-030-010 7035-005-098 7035-014-070 7011-004-076 7014-003-070 7024-006-062 7033-030-017 7035-005-099 7035-014-071 7011-004-902 7014-003-072 7024-006-063 7033-031-035 7035-005-100 7035-014-072 7011-004-903 7014-003-079 7024-006-064 7033-031-036 7035-005-101 7035-014-073 7011-005-005 7014-003-080 7024-006-065 7033-031-037 7035-005-102 7035-014-074 7011-005-006 7014-003-081 7024-006-066 7035-003-033 7035-005-103 7035-014-075 7011-005-007 7014-003-082 7024-006-067 7035-003-034 7035-005-104 7035-014-076 7011-005-008 7014-003-083 7024-006-068 7035-003-053 7035-005-105 7035-014-077 7011-005-009 7014-003-084 7024-006-069 7035-003-054 7035-005-106 7035-014-078 7011-005-010 7014-003-085 7024-006-070 7035-003-055 7035-005-107 7035-014-079 7011-005-026 7014-003-086 7025-007-056 7035-003-058 7035-012-030 7035-014-080 7011-005-044 7014-003-087 7025-007-057 7035-003-059 7035-012-037 7035-014-081 7011-005-900 7014-003-088 7033-003-010 7035-003-060 7035-012-038 7035-014-082 7011-005-901 7014-003-089 7033-003-011 7035-004-074 7035-012-042 7035-014-083 7011-005-902 7014-003-090 7033-004-004 7035-004-075 7035-012-045 7035-014-084 7011-005-903 7014-003-091 7033-004-005 7035-005-001 7035-012-904 7035-014-085 7011-006-004 7014-003-092 7033-004-006 7035-005-002 7035-012-905 7035-014-086 7011-006-006 7014-003-093 7033-004-029 7035-005-025 7035-014-038 7035-014-087 7011-006-007 7014-003-094 7033-004-033 7035-005-026 7035-014-041 7035-014-088 7011-006-019 7014-003-095 7033-004-034 7035-005-048 7035-014-042 7035-014-089 7011-006-020 7014-003-096 7033-004-044 7035-005-049 7035-014-043 7035-014-090 7011-006-021 7014-003-097 7033-004-045 7035-005-050 7035-014-044 7035-014-091 7011-006-022 7014-003-098 7033-004-904 7035-005-051 7035-014-045 7035-014-092 7011-006-023 7014-003-099 7033-005-012 7035-005-052 7035-014-046 7035-014-093 7011-006-024 7014-003-100 7033-005-013 7035-005-053 7035-014-047 7035-014-094 7011-006-041 7014-003-101 7033-005-014 7035-005-074 7035-014-048 7035-014-095 7011-006-043 7014-003-102 7033-005-016 7035-005-075 7035-014-049 7035-014-096 7011-006-046 7014-004-005 7033-005-017 7035-005-078 7035-014-050 7035-014-097 7011-006-049 7014-004-033 7033-005-019 7035-005-079 7035-014-051 7035-014-098 7011-006-051 7024-006-013 7033-005-020 7035-005-080 7035-014-052 7035-014-099 7011-007-001 7024-006-043 7033-005-021 7035-005-081 7035-014-053 7035-014-100 7011-007-003 7024-006-044 7033-005-022 7035-005-082 7035-014-054 7035-014-101 7011-007-004 7024-006-045 7033-007-004 7035-005-083 7035-014-055 7035-014-102 7011-007-027 7024-006-046 7033-007-009 7035-005-084 7035-014-056 7035-016-064 7011-007-028 7024-006-047 7033-007-010 7035-005-085 7035-014-057 7035-016-066 7011-007-029 7024-006-048 7033-007-011 7035-005-086 7035-014-058 7035-016-067 7011-007-042 7024-006-049 7033-007-016 7035-005-087 7035-014-059 7035-017-010 7011-007-046 7024-006-051 7033-007-017 7035-005-088 7035-014-060 7035-017-011 7011-007-047 7024-006-052 7033-007-018 7035-005-089 7035-014-061 7035-017-013 7014-003-015 7024-006-053 7033-007-021 7035-005-090 7035-014-062 7035-017-014 7014-003-016 7024-006-054 7033-007-023 7035-005-091 7035-014-063 7035-017-015 7014-003-017 7024-006-055 7033-008-021 7035-005-092 7035-014-064 7035-017-024 7014-003-018 7024-006-056 7033-017-032 7035-005-093 7035-014-065 7035-017-025 7014-003-019 7024-006-057 7033-019-027 7035-005-094 7035-014-066 7035-017-040 7014-003-027 7024-006-058 7033-019-030 7035-005-095 7035-014-067 7035-017-042 7014-003-059 7024-006-059 7033-019-031 7035-005-096 7035-014-068 7035-017-043 7014-003-066 7024-006-060 7033-030-009 7035-005-097 7035-014-069 7035-018-035 April 2026 Appendix B Page 1 of 2
Appendix B to Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) - Artesia EIFD Parcel List DRAFT 7035-018-036 7039-011-016 7039-015-005 7040-018-014 7054-005-012 7035-019-042 7039-011-017 7039-015-006 7040-018-015 7054-005-019 7035-020-053 7039-011-020 7039-015-007 7040-018-800 7054-005-020 7035-020-064 7039-011-021 7039-017-006 7040-018-801 7054-005-021 7035-020-065 7039-011-024 7039-017-007 7040-018-802 7054-005-052 7035-020-066 7039-011-025 7039-017-008 7040-018-804 7054-005-053 7035-020-078 7039-011-026 7039-017-009 7040-019-003 7054-005-054 7035-020-079 7039-011-027 7039-017-015 7040-019-004 7054-005-055 7035-020-083 7039-011-028 7039-017-016 7040-019-008 7054-005-056 7035-020-089 7039-012-003 7039-017-018 7040-019-010 7054-027-058 7035-020-092 7039-012-004 7039-017-019 7040-019-011 7054-027-059 7035-021-032 7039-012-007 7039-017-021 7040-019-012 7054-027-060 7035-021-033 7039-012-008 7039-017-022 7040-019-013 7054-027-079 7035-021-043 7039-012-009 7039-017-025 7040-019-018
7035-021-048 7039-012-010 7039-017-026 7040-019-019
7035-021-049 7039-012-012 7039-018-016 7040-019-021
7035-021-050 7039-012-013 7039-018-019 7040-019-022
7035-021-051 7039-012-014 7039-018-020 7040-020-001
7035-021-053 7039-012-900 7039-018-033 7040-020-002
7039-001-002 7039-013-005 7039-018-035 7040-020-003
7039-001-003 7039-013-006 7039-018-038 7040-020-004
7039-001-005 7039-013-007 7039-018-039 7040-020-015
7039-001-009 7039-013-008 7039-018-040 7040-020-016
7039-002-003 7039-013-010 7039-018-041 7040-020-017
7039-002-004 7039-013-011 7039-024-006 7040-020-018
7039-002-005 7039-013-012 7039-024-009 7040-020-019
7039-002-013 7039-013-013 7039-024-010 7040-020-020
7039-002-014 7039-013-014 7039-024-014 7040-020-021
7039-002-018 7039-013-016 7039-024-019 7040-020-022
7039-002-019 7039-013-021 7039-024-021 7040-020-024
7039-002-020 7039-013-022 7039-024-022 7040-020-025
7039-002-022 7039-013-023 7039-024-030 7040-020-026
7039-002-900 7039-014-003 7039-024-031 7040-020-027
7039-002-901 7039-014-005 7039-024-032 7040-020-028
7039-008-025 7039-014-006 7039-024-033 7040-020-029
7039-008-027 7039-014-011 7039-024-034 7040-020-030
7039-008-034 7039-014-012 7039-026-027 7040-022-001
7039-008-037 7039-014-013 7040-017-001 7040-022-002
7039-011-001 7039-014-014 7040-017-002 7040-022-003
7039-011-002 7039-014-015 7040-017-006 7040-022-004
7039-011-008 7039-014-016 7040-017-007 7040-022-005
7039-011-009 7039-014-017 7040-017-008 7040-022-028
7039-011-010 7039-014-018 7040-018-001 7040-023-002
7039-011-012 7039-015-001 7040-018-002 7040-032-022
7039-011-013 7039-015-002 7040-018-004 7040-032-023
7039-011-014 7039-015-003 7040-018-005 7054-003-036
7039-011-015 7039-015-004 7040-018-006 7054-003-037
April 2026 Appendix B Page 2 of 2
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total 2025-2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units 38 units 38 units 38 units 38 units 38 units 38 units 38 units $350,000 per unit $160,903,651 $14,035,707 $14,456,778 $14,890,482 $15,337,196 $15,797,312 $16,271,231 $16,759,368 Hotel 111 rooms 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,761,941 $0 $0 Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF $350 PSF $7,619,512 $664,654 $684,593 $705,131 $726,285 $748,074 $770,516 $793,631 Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104 $14,700,361 $15,141,372 $15,595,613 $16,063,481 $56,307,327 $17,041,747 $17,553,000 Total Assessed Value $593,860,467 $626,376,642 $660,309,313 $695,714,205 $732,649,112 $810,935,913 $852,305,737 $895,427,909 Incremental AV $32,516,175 $66,448,846 $101,853,738 $138,788,645 $217,075,446 $258,445,270 $301,567,442 Total tax increment @ 1% $325,162 $664,488 $1,018,537 $1,387,886 $2,170,754 $2,584,453 $3,015,674 City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332 $21,635 $44,213 $67,771 $92,346 $144,436 $171,963 $200,655 Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499 $16,227 $33,160 $50,828 $69,260 $108,327 $128,972 $150,491 City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987 $36,030 $73,629 $112,859 $153,785 $240,531 $286,371 $334,153 Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240 $27,022 $55,222 $84,645 $115,339 $180,398 $214,778 $250,615 County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028 $88,300 $180,447 $276,591 $376,890 $589,484 $701,826 $818,928 Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739 $43,249 $88,382 $135,473 $184,599 $288,726 $343,750 $401,106 Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478 $86,498 $176,763 $270,945 $369,197 $577,451 $687,501 $802,212 April 2026 Appendix C Page 1 of 7
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units
$350,000 per unit $160,903,651
Hotel 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF
$350 PSF $7,619,512
Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499
City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240
County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028
Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739
Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
38 units 38 units 38 units
$17,262,149 $17,780,014 $18,313,414 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1,790 SF 1,790 SF 1,790 SF
$817,440 $841,964 $867,223 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$18,079,590 $18,621,977 $19,180,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$940,370,336 $987,203,423 $1,036,000,163 $1,067,080,167 $1,099,092,572 $1,132,065,350 $1,166,027,310 $1,201,008,129 $346,509,869 $393,342,956 $442,139,696 $473,219,701 $505,232,106 $538,204,883 $572,166,843 $607,147,663 $3,465,099 $3,933,430 $4,421,397 $4,732,197 $5,052,321 $5,382,049 $5,721,668 $6,071,477 $230,558 $261,720 $294,188 $314,868 $336,168 $358,107 $380,705 $403,980 $172,919 $196,290 $220,641 $236,151 $252,126 $268,580 $285,528 $302,985 $383,951 $435,845 $489,914 $524,353 $559,824 $596,360 $633,991 $672,752 $287,964 $326,884 $367,436 $393,265 $419,868 $447,270 $475,494 $504,564 $940,972 $1,068,150 $1,200,661 $1,285,061 $1,371,993 $1,461,533 $1,553,759 $1,648,752 $460,882 $523,174 $588,077 $629,415 $671,994 $715,850 $761,022 $807,549 $921,765 $1,046,347 $1,176,154 $1,258,831 $1,343,988 $1,431,701 $1,522,044 $1,615,098 April 2026 Appendix C Page 2 of 7
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units
$350,000 per unit $160,903,651
Hotel 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF
$350 PSF $7,619,512
Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499
City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240
County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028
Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739
Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,237,038,373 $1,274,149,525 $1,312,374,010 $1,351,745,231 $1,392,297,587 $1,434,066,515 $1,477,088,511 $1,521,401,166 $643,177,907 $680,289,058 $718,513,543 $757,884,764 $798,437,121 $840,206,048 $883,228,044 $927,540,699 $6,431,779 $6,802,891 $7,185,135 $7,578,848 $7,984,371 $8,402,060 $8,832,280 $9,275,407 $427,953 $452,646 $478,080 $504,276 $531,259 $559,051 $587,676 $617,161 $320,965 $339,485 $358,560 $378,207 $398,444 $419,288 $440,757 $462,871 $712,676 $753,797 $796,151 $839,777 $884,711 $930,993 $978,664 $1,027,765 $534,507 $565,347 $597,114 $629,833 $663,533 $698,245 $733,998 $770,824 $1,746,595 $1,847,373 $1,951,174 $2,058,089 $2,168,212 $2,281,638 $2,398,468 $2,518,802 $855,472 $904,832 $955,673 $1,008,040 $1,061,977 $1,117,533 $1,174,755 $1,233,694 $1,710,943 $1,809,664 $1,911,347 $2,016,080 $2,123,955 $2,235,066 $2,349,511 $2,467,388 April 2026 Appendix C Page 3 of 7
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units
$350,000 per unit $160,903,651
Hotel 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF
$350 PSF $7,619,512
Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499
City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240
County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028
Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739
Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,567,043,201 $1,614,054,497 $1,662,476,132 $1,712,350,416 $1,763,720,928 $1,816,632,556 $1,871,131,533 $1,927,265,479 $973,182,734 $1,020,194,030 $1,068,615,665 $1,118,489,949 $1,169,860,461 $1,222,772,089 $1,277,271,066 $1,333,405,012 $9,731,827 $10,201,940 $10,686,157 $11,184,899 $11,698,605 $12,227,721 $12,772,711 $13,334,050 $647,530 $678,810 $711,028 $744,213 $778,394 $813,600 $849,862 $887,212 $485,647 $509,107 $533,271 $558,160 $583,796 $610,200 $637,397 $665,409 $1,078,339 $1,130,430 $1,184,083 $1,239,347 $1,296,268 $1,354,897 $1,415,285 $1,477,484 $808,754 $847,822 $888,062 $929,510 $972,201 $1,016,173 $1,061,463 $1,108,113 $2,642,746 $2,770,408 $2,901,901 $3,037,338 $3,176,838 $3,320,523 $3,468,519 $3,620,955 $1,294,401 $1,356,930 $1,421,334 $1,487,670 $1,555,996 $1,626,373 $1,698,860 $1,773,522 $2,588,803 $2,713,859 $2,842,668 $2,975,340 $3,111,993 $3,252,745 $3,397,720 $3,547,044 April 2026 Appendix C Page 4 of 7
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units
$350,000 per unit $160,903,651
Hotel 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF
$350 PSF $7,619,512
Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499
City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240
County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028
Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739
Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,985,083,443 $2,044,635,946 $2,105,975,025 $2,169,154,276 $2,234,228,904 $2,301,255,771 $2,370,293,444 $2,441,402,247 $1,391,222,976 $1,450,775,480 $1,512,114,558 $1,575,293,809 $1,640,368,437 $1,707,395,304 $1,776,432,977 $1,847,541,781 $13,912,230 $14,507,755 $15,121,146 $15,752,938 $16,403,684 $17,073,953 $17,764,330 $18,475,418 $925,683 $965,307 $1,006,121 $1,048,159 $1,091,458 $1,136,055 $1,181,991 $1,229,305 $694,262 $723,981 $754,591 $786,119 $818,593 $852,042 $886,493 $921,979 $1,541,549 $1,607,537 $1,675,504 $1,745,510 $1,817,616 $1,891,885 $1,968,383 $2,047,175 $1,156,162 $1,205,653 $1,256,628 $1,309,132 $1,363,212 $1,418,914 $1,476,287 $1,535,381 $3,777,964 $3,939,683 $4,106,253 $4,277,821 $4,454,536 $4,636,552 $4,824,028 $5,017,129 $1,850,424 $1,929,633 $2,011,218 $2,095,251 $2,181,805 $2,270,956 $2,362,780 $2,457,360 $3,700,848 $3,859,266 $4,022,437 $4,190,503 $4,363,610 $4,541,911 $4,725,561 $4,914,720 April 2026 Appendix C Page 5 of 7
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units
$350,000 per unit $160,903,651
Hotel 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF
$350 PSF $7,619,512
Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499
City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240
County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028
Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739
Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,514,644,315 $2,590,083,644 $2,667,786,154 $2,747,819,738 $2,830,254,330 $2,915,161,960 $3,002,616,819 $3,092,695,324 $1,920,783,848 $1,996,223,177 $2,073,925,687 $2,153,959,271 $2,236,393,863 $2,321,301,493 $2,408,756,352 $2,498,834,857 $19,207,838 $19,962,232 $20,739,257 $21,539,593 $22,363,939 $23,213,015 $24,087,564 $24,988,349 $1,278,038 $1,328,234 $1,379,935 $1,433,187 $1,488,037 $1,544,532 $1,602,722 $1,662,658 $958,529 $996,175 $1,034,951 $1,074,890 $1,116,028 $1,158,399 $1,202,042 $1,246,994 $2,128,331 $2,211,922 $2,298,021 $2,386,702 $2,478,044 $2,572,126 $2,669,031 $2,768,843 $1,596,248 $1,658,942 $1,723,515 $1,790,027 $1,858,533 $1,929,095 $2,001,773 $2,076,632 $5,216,023 $5,420,884 $5,631,891 $5,849,227 $6,073,084 $6,303,657 $6,541,147 $6,785,761 $2,554,777 $2,655,117 $2,758,467 $2,864,917 $2,974,561 $3,087,494 $3,203,815 $3,323,626 $5,109,555 $5,310,234 $5,516,933 $5,729,834 $5,949,121 $6,174,988 $6,407,630 $6,647,251 April 2026 Appendix C Page 6 of 7
Appendix C to IFP - Tax Increment Revenue Analysis - Artesia EIFD DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 378 units
$350,000 per unit $160,903,651
Hotel 111 rooms
$300,000 per room $39,761,941
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF
$350 PSF $7,619,512
Subtotal Value Add $208,285,104
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average Share Available 6.65% $39,259,332
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $29,444,499
City Equivalent MVLF Share 11.08% $65,378,987
Percent Allocated to EIFD 75.0% $49,034,240
County Average Share Available 27.16% $160,228,028
Percent Allocated to EIFD 49.0% $78,478,739
Total Allocation to EIFD $156,957,478
48 49 50
2074 2075 2076
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$3,185,476,183 $3,281,040,469 $3,379,471,683
$2,591,615,716 $2,687,180,002 $2,785,611,216
$25,916,157 $26,871,800 $27,856,112
$1,724,392 $1,787,978 $1,853,472
$1,293,294 $1,340,984 $1,390,104
$2,871,649 $2,977,539 $3,086,606
$2,153,737 $2,233,154 $2,314,955
$7,037,714 $7,297,226 $7,564,523
$3,447,031 $3,574,138 $3,705,058
$6,894,061 $7,148,276 $7,410,117
April 2026 Appendix C Page 7 of 7
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Overview of Fiscal Impacts Key Land Use Assumptions (Stabilized Year 20) Annual
(Stablized
Year 20)
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value
@ 3.0%
City of Artesia Residential 378 DU
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation to EIFD) $1,657,300 $102,425,500 $40,825,800 Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF Estimated Fiscal Expenditures ($1,217,800) ($74,796,500) ($29,729,900) Hotel 111 rooms Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $439,500 $27,629,000 $11,095,900 County of Los Angeles
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation to EIFD) $855,100 $46,407,300 $19,134,700 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures ($708,600) ($43,617,800) ($17,337,600) Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to County $146,500 $2,789,500 $1,797,100 Add'l Sales Tax - County Transp. + Homelessness $315,000 $22,483,200 $8,938,700 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Values in 2026 dollars
Project Component
April 2026 Appendix D Page 1 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to City Stablized
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 Year 55 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2065 2075 2080
Stabilized
Escalation
Rate
Year 0-50 Nominal
Total
Year 0-50 Present
Value @ 3.0%
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $81,937 $157,221 $182,262 $211,291 $244,945 $283,958 $381,616 $512,860 $594,545 3.0% $13,021,100 $5,179,700 Property Tax Allocation to EIFD ($61,453) ($117,916) ($136,696) ($158,469) ($183,709) ($212,969) ($286,212) ($384,645) $0 3.0% ($9,765,800) ($3,884,800) Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $131,771 $255,930 $296,692 $343,948 $398,730 $462,237 $621,208 $834,852 $967,822 3.0% $21,194,300 $8,430,400 Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF Allocation to EIFD ($98,828) ($191,947) ($222,519) ($257,961) ($299,047) ($346,678) ($465,906) ($626,139) $0 3.0% ($15,895,700) ($6,322,800) Property Transfer Tax $3,270 $6,352 $7,363 $8,536 $9,896 $11,472 $15,417 $20,720 $24,020 3.0% $526,000 $209,200 Sales and Use Tax - Direct / On-Site $30,504 $70,725 $81,990 $95,048 $110,187 $127,737 $171,668 $230,707 $267,453 3.0% $5,849,600 $2,324,700 Transactions and Use Tax to City - Direct $20,427 $47,360 $54,904 $63,648 $73,786 $85,538 $114,956 $154,492 $179,098 3.0% $3,917,200 $1,556,700 Sales and Use Tax - Indirect / Off-Site $32,892 $64,512 $74,787 $86,699 $100,507 $116,516 $156,587 $210,440 $243,958 3.0% $5,342,000 $2,124,800 Transactions and Use Tax to City - Indirect $22,026 $43,200 $50,081 $58,057 $67,304 $78,024 $104,858 $140,920 $163,365 3.0% $3,577,200 $1,422,800 Transient Occupancy Tax $616,455 $714,640 $828,464 $960,417 $1,113,386 $1,290,720 $1,734,619 $2,331,183 $2,702,480 3.0% $59,488,800 $23,748,500 Business License $12,850 $18,786 $21,779 $25,247 $29,269 $33,930 $45,599 $61,282 $71,043 3.0% $1,559,700 $621,500 Interest Income $34,992 $49,080 $56,898 $65,960 $76,466 $88,644 $119,131 $160,102 $185,602 3.0% $4,076,500 $1,624,900 Cannabis Tax $10,630 $23,715 $27,492 $31,871 $36,947 $42,832 $57,563 $77,360 $89,681 3.0% $1,962,000 $779,900 Transfer in $10,397 $23,195 $26,890 $31,173 $36,138 $41,893 $56,301 $75,664 $87,716 3.0% $1,919,000 $762,800 Rental Income $4,079 $9,458 $10,964 $12,711 $14,735 $17,082 $22,957 $30,853 $35,767 3.0% $782,300 $310,900 Measure V $2,538 $3,711 $4,302 $4,987 $5,781 $6,702 $9,007 $12,105 $14,033 3.0% $308,100 $122,800 Other Revenues $24,724 $55,157 $63,942 $74,127 $85,933 $99,620 $133,881 $179,925 $208,583 3.0% $4,563,200 $1,813,800 Estimated Total Revenues $879,212 $1,233,180 $1,429,594 $1,657,291 $1,921,254 $2,227,261 $2,993,252 $4,022,680 $5,835,164 $102,425,500 $40,825,800 General Fund Expenditures
Law Enforcement $177,707 $396,451 $459,595 $532,797 $617,657 $716,034 $962,290 $1,293,237 $1,499,216 3.0% $32,798,600 $13,037,000 Public Works Maintenance $62,591 $139,636 $161,876 $187,659 $217,548 $252,198 $338,933 $455,498 $528,047 3.0% $11,552,200 $4,591,800 Administrative (General) $22,122 $49,352 $57,213 $66,325 $76,889 $89,135 $119,790 $160,988 $186,629 3.0% $4,082,900 $1,622,900 Parks & Recreation (General) $34,310 $79,550 $92,220 $106,908 $123,936 $143,675 $193,088 $259,494 $300,824 3.0% $6,579,500 $2,614,800 Fiscal Services (General) $16,878 $37,653 $43,651 $50,603 $58,663 $68,006 $91,395 $122,827 $142,390 3.0% $3,115,100 $1,238,200 Planning $11,803 $26,331 $30,525 $35,386 $41,023 $47,556 $63,912 $85,892 $99,573 3.0% $2,178,400 $865,900 Risk Management $9,373 $20,909 $24,240 $28,100 $32,576 $37,765 $50,753 $68,207 $79,071 3.0% $1,729,800 $687,600 Human Resources $8,681 $19,366 $22,451 $26,026 $30,172 $34,977 $47,006 $63,173 $73,235 3.0% $1,602,200 $636,800 Code Compliance $11,991 $26,751 $31,012 $35,951 $41,677 $48,315 $64,932 $87,263 $101,161 3.0% $2,213,100 $879,700 City Council $7,097 $15,833 $18,355 $21,279 $24,668 $28,597 $38,431 $51,649 $59,875 3.0% $1,309,900 $520,700 Legal Services $6,029 $13,451 $15,594 $18,077 $20,957 $24,294 $32,650 $43,878 $50,867 3.0% $1,112,800 $442,300 Building & Safety (Engineering) $8,474 $18,904 $21,915 $25,405 $29,452 $34,143 $45,885 $61,665 $71,487 3.0% $1,563,900 $621,600 City Manager $5,221 $11,648 $13,503 $15,654 $18,148 $21,038 $28,273 $37,997 $44,049 3.0% $963,700 $383,000 Community Promotions $5,659 $13,120 $15,210 $17,633 $20,441 $23,697 $31,846 $42,799 $49,616 3.0% $1,085,200 $431,300 City Clerk $4,621 $10,309 $11,951 $13,855 $16,062 $18,620 $25,023 $33,629 $38,986 3.0% $852,900 $339,000 Economic Development $3,732 $8,327 $9,653 $11,191 $12,973 $15,039 $20,212 $27,163 $31,489 3.0% $688,900 $273,800 City Engineer $3,127 $6,976 $8,087 $9,375 $10,868 $12,599 $16,932 $22,755 $26,379 3.0% $577,100 $229,400 Parking Enforcement $4,282 $9,552 $11,074 $12,837 $14,882 $17,252 $23,185 $31,159 $36,122 3.0% $790,300 $314,100 General $924 $2,062 $2,390 $2,771 $3,213 $3,724 $5,005 $6,726 $7,798 3.0% $170,600 $67,800 Estimated Total Expenditures $404,622 $906,182 $1,050,513 $1,217,833 $1,411,802 $1,636,665 $2,199,541 $2,956,000 $3,426,814 $74,796,500 $29,729,900 Estimated Annual Net Fiscal Impact $474,590 $326,998 $379,081 $439,458 $509,453 $590,595 $793,711 $1,066,681 $2,408,351 $27,629,000 $11,095,900 Revenue / Cost Ratio 2.17 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.70 1.37 1.37 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Actual absorption will depend on market conditions and other factors.

Values in 2026 dollars
Select years shown for illustration
April 2026 Appendix D Page 2 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to County Stablized Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 Year 55 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2065 2075 2080
Stabilized
Escalation
Rate
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value @

3.0%
County of Los Angeles Revenues
Property Tax - County General $334,408 $641,660 $743,860 $862,338 $952,091 $1,051,185 $1,281,389 $1,562,006 $1,724,581 2.0% $46,569,000 $19,230,800 Property Tax - County Allocation to EIFD ($143,796) ($275,914) ($319,860) ($370,805) ($409,399) ($452,010) ($550,997) ($671,663) $0 2.0% ($20,024,700) ($8,269,200) Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $124,365 $241,545 $280,017 $324,617 $358,403 $395,706 $482,364 $587,999 $649,198 2.0% $17,528,500 $7,237,900 Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF - County Allocation to EIFD $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2.0% $0 $0 Property Transfer Tax $3,270 $6,352 $7,363 $8,536 $9,425 $10,406 $12,684 $15,462 $17,071 2.0% $460,900 $190,300 Sales Tax (County Transportation) - Direct / On-Site $5,107 $11,840 $13,726 $15,912 $18,447 $21,385 $28,739 $38,623 $44,775 3.0% $979,300 $389,200 Sales Tax (County Transportation) - Indirect / Off-Site $5,506 $10,800 $12,520 $14,514 $16,826 $19,506 $26,214 $35,230 $40,841 3.0% $894,300 $355,700 Estimated County Revenues $328,861 $636,284 $737,627 $855,112 $945,792 $1,046,178 $1,280,393 $1,567,657 $2,476,466 $46,407,300 $19,134,700 County of Los Angeles Expenditures
Public Protection $89,321 $199,268 $231,007 $267,800 $310,454 $359,901 $483,677 $650,021 $753,553 3.0% $16,485,600 $6,552,800 General Government $44,675 $99,667 $115,542 $133,944 $155,278 $180,010 $241,918 $325,118 $376,901 3.0% $8,245,500 $3,277,500 Health and Sanitation $45,390 $101,261 $117,389 $136,086 $157,761 $182,888 $245,786 $330,316 $382,927 3.0% $8,377,300 $3,329,900 Public Assistance $47,817 $106,677 $123,668 $143,365 $166,199 $192,670 $258,932 $347,984 $403,408 3.0% $8,825,400 $3,508,000 Recreational and Cultural $9,124 $20,355 $23,597 $27,355 $31,712 $36,763 $49,407 $66,399 $76,974 3.0% $1,684,000 $669,400 Estimated County Expenditures $236,327 $527,228 $611,202 $708,550 $821,404 $952,232 $1,279,720 $1,719,837 $1,993,763 $43,617,800 $17,337,600 Estimated County Net Fiscal Impact $92,534 $109,056 $126,426 $146,562 $124,388 $93,946 $673 ($152,180) $482,703 $2,789,500 $1,797,100 Additional Sales Tax - County Transportation + Homelessness $127,358 $271,681 $314,953 $365,117 $423,270 $490,686 $659,442 $886,234 $1,027,389 3.0% $22,483,200 $8,938,700 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Public Protection costs exclude Sheriff cost categories that overlap with City-funded Sheriff services (e.g. Patrol for Unincorporated Areas, Detective) General government costs exclude non-recurring Capital Projects, Extraordinaring Maintenance, and Appropriations for Contingencies Values in 2026 dollars
Select years shown for illustration
April 2026 Appendix D Page 3 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Project Description
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Project Component 2030 2035 2040 2045
Rental Residential - Units 189 DU 378 DU 378 DU 378 DU
Hotel - Rooms 111 rooms 111 rooms 111 rooms 111 rooms
Commercial / Retail - SF 8,950 SF 17,900 SF 17,900 SF 17,900 SF Annual Escalation Factor 3.0% 1.16 1.34 1.56 1.81
Estimated A/V - Rental Residential $350K Per Unit $76,685,980 $177,800,137 $206,119,089 $238,948,516 Estimated A/V - Hotel $300K Per Room $38,603,827 $44,752,415 $51,880,315 $60,143,504 Estimated A/V - Commercial / Retail $350 PSF $3,631,426 $8,419,636 $9,760,666 $11,315,287 Total Estimated Assessed Value $118,921,233 $230,972,189 $267,760,070 $310,407,307 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
April 2026 Appendix D Page 4 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Project Employment and Occupants
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Project Component 2030 2035 2040 2045
Rental Residential - Units 189 DU 378 DU 378 DU 378 DU
Hotel - Rooms 111 Rooms 111 Rooms 111 Rooms 111 Rooms
Commercial / Retail - SF 8,950 SF 17,900 SF 17,900 SF 17,900 SF Estimated # Employees (FTE)
Residential 50 DU / emp 4 8 8 8
Hotel 1.5 room / emp 74 74 74 74
Commercial / Retail 400 SF / emp 22 45 45 45
Total Estimated # Employees (FTE) 100 126 126 126
Occupied Dwelling Units 93% 176 DU 352 DU 352 DU 352 DU Residents 2.50 per DU 439 879 879 879
Employees Weighted at 50% 50% 50 63 63 63
Total Service Population (Residents + Empl.) 490 942 942 942 Occupied Hotel Rooms 70% 78 rooms 78 rooms 78 rooms 78 rooms Hotel Guests 1.5 per room 117 117 117 117
Notes:

Average household size reflects blend of residential product type (primarily rental anticipated at this stage) Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
April 2026 Appendix D Page 5 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Property Tax
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Assessed Value - Residential $76,685,980 $177,800,137 $206,119,089 $238,948,516 Estimated Assessed Value - Non-Residential $42,235,253 $53,172,052 $61,640,981 $71,458,791 Total Estimated Assessed Value $118,921,233 $230,972,189 $267,760,070 $310,407,307 Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $1,189,212 $2,309,722 $2,677,601 $3,104,073 Estimated Unsecured Property Tax as % of Secured Non-Residential Value 10.00% $42,235 $53,172 $61,641 $71,459 Total Estimated Secured + Unsecured Property Tax $1,231,448 $2,362,894 $2,739,242 $3,175,532 Distributions to Taxing Entities
City of Artesia 6.65% $81,937 $157,221 $182,262 $211,291 City Allocation to EIFD (4.99%) ($61,453) ($117,916) ($136,696) ($158,469) Net Property Tax to City 1.66% $20,484 $39,305 $45,565 $52,823 Los Angeles County General 27.16% $334,408 $641,660 $743,860 $862,338 County Allocation to EIFD (11.68%) ($143,796) ($275,914) ($319,860) ($370,805) Net Los Angeles County Distributions 15.48% $190,613 $365,746 $424,000 $491,533 Notes:

General levy distributions represent tax rate area average within boundary, incl. RPTTF residual revenue splits for parcels within former Redevelopment Agency Project Area boundaries Does not include property tax overrides above 1% general levy, County Fire, County Flood Control, or other City or County entity distributions Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller (2026)
April 2026 Appendix D Page 6 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) Total AV within CITY (2024-2025) $2,288,052,034
Current Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF (2024-2025) $2,535,284 Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $1,108
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Project Assessed Value $14,272,195 $118,921,233 $230,972,189 $267,760,070 $310,407,307 Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $15,814 $131,771 $255,930 $296,692 $343,948 City Allocation to EIFD ($11,861) ($98,828) ($191,947) ($222,519) ($257,961) Net Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $3,954 $32,943 $63,982 $74,173 $85,987 Total AV within COUNTY (2024-2025) $2,101,924,313,796
Current Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF (2024-2025) $2,198,144,647 Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $1,046
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2026 2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Project Assessed Value $14,272,195 $118,921,233 $230,972,189 $267,760,070 $310,407,307 Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to County $14,926 $124,365 $241,545 $280,017 $324,617 County Allocation to EIFD $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to County $14,926 $124,365 $241,545 $280,017 $324,617 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller (2026)
April 2026 Appendix D Page 7 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Property Transfer Tax
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated Assessed Value - For-Sale Residential $0 $0 $0 $0 Estimated Property Turnover Rate 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Estimated Value of Property Transferred $0 $0 $0 $0
Estimated Assessed Value - Other Land Uses $118,921,233 $230,972,189 $267,760,070 $310,407,307 Estimated Property Turnover Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Estimated Value of Property Transferred $5,946,062 $11,548,609 $13,388,004 $15,520,365 Estimated Total Value of Property Transferred $5,946,062 $11,548,609 $13,388,004 $15,520,365 Total Transfer Tax $1.10 per $1,000 $6,541 $12,703 $14,727 $17,072 Transfer Tax to City $0.55 per $1,000 $3,270 $6,352 $7,363 $8,536 Transfer Tax to County $0.55 per $1,000 $3,270 $6,352 $7,363 $8,536 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller (2026)
April 2026 Appendix D Page 8 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Sales Tax - Direct / On-Site
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Project Component 2030 2035 2040 2045
Retail SF 8,950 SF 17,900 SF 17,900 SF 17,900 SF
Percentage of Retail Buildings Generating Local Taxable Sales 75.0% 6,713 SF 13,425 SF 13,425 SF 13,425 SF Total Sales-Generating SF 6,713 SF 13,425 SF 13,425 SF 13,425 SF Estimated Average Taxable Sales $350 PSF $2,723,570 $6,314,727 $7,320,499 $8,486,465 Sales Tax to City 1.00% $27,236 $63,147 $73,205 $84,865 Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 12.00% $3,268 $7,578 $8,785 $10,184 Sales and Use Tax to City - Direct $30,504 $70,725 $81,990 $95,048 Transactions and Use Tax to City - Direct 0.75% $20,427 $47,360 $54,904 $63,648 Sales Tax to County 0.25% $6,809 $15,787 $18,301 $21,216 Net of Sales Transfer within County (25%) ($1,702) ($3,947) ($4,575) ($5,304) Sales Tax to County $5,107 $11,840 $13,726 $15,912
Add'l Sales Tax - Cnty Transp. + Homeless. 2.25% $61,280 $142,081 $164,711 $190,945 Notes:

County General Fund sales tax for Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7203.1 County Transportation and Homelessness sales tax includes Prop A, Prop C, Measure R/M, Measure H Taxable sales PSF factor escalated 3% annually
Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

April 2026 Appendix D Page 9 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Sales Tax - Indirect / Off-Site
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated # Employees 100 126 126 126
Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Empl. Near Work $5,565 $6,451 $7,478 $8,669 Estimated Employee Taxable Retail Spending Within City $557,314 $814,800 $944,577 $1,095,024 Estimated # Occupied Dwelling Units 176 DU 352 DU 352 DU 352 DU Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / HH $35,772 $41,470 $48,075 $55,732 Estimated Resident Taxable Retail Spending $6,287,672 $14,578,270 $16,900,210 $19,591,976 Estimated Capture within City 30.0% $1,886,302 $4,373,481 $5,070,063 $5,877,593 Estimated # Occupied Hotel Rooms 78 rooms 78 rooms 78 rooms 78 rooms Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Room $21,157 $24,526 $28,433 $32,962 Estimated Resident Taxable Retail Spending $1,643,880 $1,905,707 $2,209,237 $2,561,111 Estimated Capture within City 30.0% $493,164 $571,712 $662,771 $768,333 Total Estimated Indirect Taxable Sales $2,936,779 $5,759,993 $6,677,411 $7,740,950 Sales Tax to City 1.00% $29,368 $57,600 $66,774 $77,409 Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 12.00% $3,524 $6,912 $8,013 $9,289 Sales and Use Tax to City - Indirect $32,892 $64,512 $74,787 $86,699 Transactions and Use Tax to City - Indirect 0.75% $22,026 $43,200 $50,081 $58,057 Sales Tax to County 0.25% $7,342 $14,400 $16,694 $19,352 Net of Sales Transfer within County (25%) ($1,835) ($3,600) ($4,173) ($4,838) Sales Tax to County $5,506 $10,800 $12,520 $14,514
Add'l Sales Tax - Cnty Transp. + Homeless. 2.25% $66,078 $129,600 $150,242 $174,171 Notes:

County General Fund sales tax for Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7203.1 County Transportation and Homelessness sales tax includes Prop A, Prop C, Measure R/M, Measure H Employee spending estimates based on "Office Worker Retail Spending Patterns: A Downtown and Suburban Area Study," ICSC (2004).

Household spending based on average houshold income within City.

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

April 2026 Appendix D Page 10 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT")
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated # Hotel Rooms 111 rooms 111 rooms 111 rooms 111 rooms Average Daily Room Rate (ADR) $174 $202 $234 $271
Average Occupancy Rate 70% 70% 70% 70%
Annual Hotel Room Receipts $4,931,639 $5,717,121 $6,627,710 $7,683,333 TOT to City 12.5% $616,455 $714,640 $828,464 $960,417
Notes:

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

April 2026 Appendix D Page 11 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT City Service Population
City Population 16,359
City Employee Population 7,319
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5
Weighted # Employees 3,660
Total City Service Population 20,019
Source: CA Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2024) April 2026 Appendix D Page 12 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT City Multipler Revenue and Expenditure Factors
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Budget Category
Adopted City
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant City
Population
Percent
Fixed
Per Capita
Factor
Annual
Escalation 2030 2035 2040 2045
General Fund Revenues
Sales and Use Tax $4,262,882 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method ----------------------------------------- Transaction and Use Tax $3,151,000 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method ----------------------------------------- Property Tax in-lieu of MVLF $2,635,428 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method ----------------------------------------- No/Low Property Tax Allocation $1,295,080 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method ----------------------------------------- Transient Occupancy Tax $590,000 N/A - Estimated Separately via Case Study Method ----------------------------------------- Building Permits $1,500,000 N/A Non-Recurring --------------------------------------------------------------------- Business License $810,000 Employment Base 7,319 0% $110.67 3.0% $128.30 $148.73 $172.42 $199.88 Interest Income $750,000 As % of other revenues 4.14% 0% 4.14% N/A 4.14% 4.14% 4.14% 4.14% Cannabis Tax $750,000 Service Population 20,019 50% $18.73 3.0% $21.72 $25.18 $29.18 $33.83 Transfer in $733,564 Service Population 20,019 50% $18.32 3.0% $21.24 $24.62 $28.55 $33.09 Rental Income $262,000 Residents 16,359 50% $8.01 3.0% $9.28 $10.76 $12.48 $14.46 Planning Fees $200,000 N/A Non-Recurring --------------------------------------------------------------------- Measure V $160,000 Employment Base 7,319 0% $21.86 3.0% $25.34 $29.38 $34.06 $39.48 Other Revenues $1,744,372 Service Population 20,019 50% $43.57 3.0% $50.51 $58.55 $67.88 $78.69 Total General Fund Revenues $18,844,326
General Fund Expenditures
Law Enforcement $6,268,956 Service Population 20,019 0% $313.16 3.0% $363.04 $420.86 $487.89 $565.60 Public Works Maintenance $2,208,021 Service Population 20,019 0% $110.30 3.0% $127.87 $148.23 $171.84 $199.21 Administrative (General) $1,560,778 Service Population 20,019 50% $38.98 3.0% $45.19 $52.39 $60.73 $70.41 Parks & Recreation (General) $1,469,083 Residents 16,359 25% $67.35 3.0% $78.08 $90.52 $104.93 $121.65 Fiscal Services (General) $1,190,807 Service Population 20,019 50% $29.74 3.0% $34.48 $39.97 $46.34 $53.72 Planning $832,724 Service Population 20,019 50% $20.80 3.0% $24.11 $27.95 $32.40 $37.57 Risk Management $661,267 Service Population 20,019 50% $16.52 3.0% $19.15 $22.20 $25.73 $29.83 Human Resources $612,459 Service Population 20,019 50% $15.30 3.0% $17.73 $20.56 $23.83 $27.63 Code Compliance $564,007 Service Population 20,019 25% $21.13 3.0% $24.50 $28.40 $32.92 $38.16 City Council $500,733 Service Population 20,019 50% $12.51 3.0% $14.50 $16.81 $19.49 $22.59 Legal Services $425,400 Service Population 20,019 50% $10.63 3.0% $12.32 $14.28 $16.55 $19.19 Building & Safety (Engineering) $398,563 Service Population 20,019 25% $14.93 3.0% $17.31 $20.07 $23.26 $26.97 City Manager $368,379 Service Population 20,019 50% $9.20 3.0% $10.67 $12.37 $14.33 $16.62 Community Promotions $363,450 Residents 16,359 50% $11.11 3.0% $12.88 $14.93 $17.31 $20.06 City Clerk $326,036 Service Population 20,019 50% $8.14 3.0% $9.44 $10.94 $12.69 $14.71 Economic Development $263,341 Service Population 20,019 50% $6.58 3.0% $7.63 $8.84 $10.25 $11.88 City Engineer $220,611 Service Population 20,019 50% $5.51 3.0% $6.39 $7.41 $8.58 $9.95 Parking Enforcement $201,393 Service Population 20,019 25% $7.55 3.0% $8.75 $10.14 $11.76 $13.63 Artesia Towne Center $137,522 N/A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General $65,211 Service Population 20,019 50% $1.63 3.0% $1.89 $2.19 $2.54 $2.94 Total General Fund Expenditures $18,638,741
Notes:

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: City of Artesia 2024-2025 Adopted Budget
April 2026 Appendix D Page 13 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT City Multipler Revenues and Expenditures
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated # Residents 439 879 879 879
Estimated # Employees 100 126 126 126
Total Project Service Population 490 942 942 942
Budget Category 2030 2035 2040 2045
General Fund Revenues
Business License $12,850 $18,786 $21,779 $25,247
Interest Income $34,992 $49,080 $56,898 $65,960
Cannabis Tax $10,630 $23,715 $27,492 $31,871
Transfer in $10,397 $23,195 $26,890 $31,173
Rental Income $4,079 $9,458 $10,964 $12,711
Planning Fees $0 $0 $0 $0
Measure V $2,538 $3,711 $4,302 $4,987
Other Revenues $24,724 $55,157 $63,942 $74,127
Total Multiplier Revenues $100,211 $183,103 $212,267 $246,076 General Fund Expenditures
Law Enforcement $177,707 $396,451 $459,595 $532,797
Public Works Maintenance $62,591 $139,636 $161,876 $187,659 Administrative (General) $22,122 $49,352 $57,213 $66,325 Parks & Recreation (General) $34,310 $79,550 $92,220 $106,908 Fiscal Services (General) $16,878 $37,653 $43,651 $50,603 Planning $11,803 $26,331 $30,525 $35,386
Risk Management $9,373 $20,909 $24,240 $28,100
Human Resources $8,681 $19,366 $22,451 $26,026
Code Compliance $11,991 $26,751 $31,012 $35,951
City Council $7,097 $15,833 $18,355 $21,279
Legal Services $6,029 $13,451 $15,594 $18,077
Building & Safety (Engineering) $8,474 $18,904 $21,915 $25,405 City Manager $5,221 $11,648 $13,503 $15,654
Community Promotions $5,659 $13,120 $15,210 $17,633
City Clerk $4,621 $10,309 $11,951 $13,855
Economic Development $3,732 $8,327 $9,653 $11,191
City Engineer $3,127 $6,976 $8,087 $9,375
Parking Enforcement $4,282 $9,552 $11,074 $12,837
Artesia Towne Center $0 $0 $0 $0
General $924 $2,062 $2,390 $2,771
Total Multiplier Expenditures $404,622 $906,182 $1,050,513 $1,217,833 Notes:

Major case study revenues not shown include property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: City of Artesia 2024-2025 Adopted Budget
April 2026 Appendix D Page 14 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT County Service Population
County Population 9,876,811
County Employee Population 4,875,632
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5
Weighted # Employees 2,437,816
Total County Service Population 12,314,627
Source: CA Department of Finance, CA Employment Development Department (2024) April 2026 Appendix D Page 15 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT County Multipler Expenditure Factors
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Budget Category
Adopted County
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant County
Population Percent Fixed
Per Capita
Factor
Annual
Escalation 2030 2035 2040 2045
Primary Expenditures - Net County Cost
Public Protection (Countywide) $3,876,720,000 Service Population 12,314,627 50% $157.40 3.0% $182.47 $211.54 $245.23 $284.29 Public Protection (Unincorporated Only) $579,280,000 N/A Health and Sanitation $1,939,000,000 Service Population 12,314,627 50% $78.73 3.0% $91.27 $105.80 $122.65 $142.19 Public Assistance $1,970,000,000 Service Population 12,314,627 50% $79.99 3.0% $92.73 $107.49 $124.62 $144.46 General Government (adjusted - note below) $2,075,370,000 Service Population 12,314,627 50% $84.26 3.0% $97.69 $113.24 $131.28 $152.19 General Government (Capital Projects and Ext. Maint.) $1,565,630,000 N/A Recreational and Cultural $396,000,000 Service Population 12,314,627 50% $16.08 3.0% $18.64 $21.61 $25.05 $29.04 Other $149,000,000 N/A
Total Net County Cost $12,551,000,000
Notes:

Public Protection costs exclude Sheriff cost categories that overlap with City-funded Sheriff services (e.g. Patrol for Unincorporated Areas, Detective) General government costs exclude non-recurring Capital Projects and Extraordinary Maintenance Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: County of Los Angeles 2025-2026 Recommended Budget April 2026 Appendix D Page 16 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT County Multipler Expenditures
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2030 2035 2040 2045
Estimated # Residents 439 879 879 879
Estimated # Employees 100 126 126 126
Total Project Service Population 490 942 942 942
Budget Category 2030 2035 2040 2045
Primary Expenditures - Net County Cost
Public Protection $89,321 $199,268 $231,007 $267,800
General Government $44,675 $99,667 $115,542 $133,944
Health and Sanitation $45,390 $101,261 $117,389 $136,086 Public Assistance $47,817 $106,677 $123,668 $143,365
Recreational and Cultural $9,124 $20,355 $23,597 $27,355 Total Primary Expenditures $236,327 $527,228 $611,202 $708,550 Notes:

Public Protection costs exclude Sheriff cost categories that overlap with City-funded Sheriff services (e.g. Patrol for Unincorporated Areas, Detective) General government costs exclude non-recurring Capital Projects, Extraordinaring Maintenance, and Appropriations for Contingencies Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: County of Los Angeles 2025-2026 Recommended Budget April 2026 Appendix D Page 17 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT IMPLAN Inputs
Construction Inputs
Industry NAICS Category
Approximate Inputs
(Industry Spending)
58 - Construction of new multifamily residential structures $132,300,000 55 - Construction of new commercial structures, including farm structures $39,565,000 51 - Construction of new manufacturing structures $0
Ongoing Operation Inputs
Industry NAICS Category
Approximate Inputs
(Employment Change)
412 - Retail - Miscellaneous store retailers 45 Jobs
507 - Hotels and motels, including casino hotels 74 Jobs 476 - Services to buildings 8 Jobs
422 - Warehousing and storage 0 Jobs
April 2026 Appendix D Page 18 of 19
Appendix D to IFP - Artesia EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Summary of IMPLAN Economic Benefits
Economic Benefits from Construction (One-Time / Short-Term) Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct 1,507 $104,416,302 $171,865,000
Indirect 123 $9,276,051 $28,612,592
Induced 417 $28,068,907 $82,556,653
Total Countywide 2,046 $141,761,259 $283,034,246
Estimated City Capture 1,534 $106,283,550 $177,423,462
Economic Benefits from Ongoing Operation (Annual)
Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct 126 $6,046,572 $12,135,705
Indirect 20 $1,550,644 $4,443,789
Induced 27 $1,789,568 $5,267,885
Total Countywide 173 $9,386,784 $21,847,380
Estimated City Capture 129 $6,213,582 $12,621,289
Notes
100% of direct benefits estimated to be captured on-site within the City. 5% of indirect and induced benefits estimated to be captured off-site within the City.

Estimated ongoing benefits upon build-out and stabilization.

April 2026 Appendix D Page 19 of 19
Prepared by the Metro Value Capture Support Advisory Team Morgner, Kosmont Companies, NBS, Community Connections
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
City Council Consideration of
Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) Approval
June 8, 2026
Executive Summary
2 • Artesia has evaluated the use of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to capture value from potential new development to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities without increasing taxes
• City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (ROI) to form the EIFD on October 13, 2025 • County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intention (ROI) to participate in the EIFD on February 10, 2026
• Los Angeles County Metro is providing funding and technical advisory through its Value Capture Support program
• Public Financing Authority (PFA) met April 13, 2026 to adopt PFA Bylaws and direct preparation of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
• PFA met May 11, 2026 to hear a presentation of the draft IFP from staff and consultants and address questions, but take no action
Executive Summary (Continued)
3 • Public notices regarding the EIFD have been mailed, information was posted on a dedicated website, and notices were also published in the newspaper, as required by law, to inform property owners and residents within the EIFD
• City Council is now being asked to consider approval of the governing IFP, including the proposed allocation of a portion of future City property tax increment within the EIFD boundary • Next steps include two additional PFA public hearings and County Board of Supervisors approval – completion targeted before September 2026
• If the IFP is modified after City Council action this evening, the modified IFP would be required to return to the City Council for approval prior to EIFD formation 4 $0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Baseline Property Value
Property taxes continue to flow to City / County / Schools / Other Taxing Entities as normal New Property Value from
New Development / Rehabilitation
Available to TIF District
Years from District Formation
Assessed
Property Value
(A/V) within TIF
District
Boundaries
New Total
Value After
TIF District
Benefits all
Taxing Entities
Period of New
Development
Note: Illustrative. Conservative 2% growth of existing assessed value (A/V) shown; does not include mark-to-market increases associated with property sales.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Overview – Not a New Tax
Contents of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
5 A. Description of the District
B. Description of Proposed Facilities and Development
C. Finding of Communitywide Significance
D. Financing Section
E. Goals of the District
F. Appendices (e.g., Legal Description, Financial Analysis Detail) Draft EIFD Boundaries
6 Source: NBS, Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller (2026) • Approx. 324 acres (~31% of City)
• Approx. $577M in existing assessed value (~25%
of City)
• Metro Southeast Gateway Line Pioneer Station at
the core
7 Top Priorities
a) Metro SGL 3% local cost match contribution (approximately $15M in May 2025) b) 20% set-aside for Affordable Housing (e.g., gap funding to facilitate affordable housing development utilizing the City’s existing Housing Authority) Secondary Priorities
a) Water, sewer, other utility capacity enhancements
b) Roadway, streetscape improvements along Pioneer Blvd. c) SGL first and last mile improvements / improvements to the Historic District Multi-Use Trail adjacent to the future SGL line
d) Park Improvements for Artesia Park and A.J. Padelford Park e) Public Safety / Sheriff facilities
f) Broadband internet infrastructure
g) Undergrounding utilities
Potential Investments to Receive EIFD Funding
8 Draft Financing Section Terms
• City commits 75% of its future property tax increment within the boundary for approx. 50 years (remaining portion flows to General Fund)
• County matches the City’s allocation dollar-for-dollar, equivalent to ~49% of its future property tax increment within the boundary for approx. 50 years (remaining portion flows to General Fund) City allocation includes allocation from both AB8 + MVLF in-lieu. County allocation does not include MVLF in-lieu. * Bonding capacity assumes Year 5 is first bond issuance for EIFD. “Year 10” means tenth year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 150% debt service coverage. 6.0% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000. Issuance costs may be payable from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit-Oriented Development grant awarded to Los Angeles County Metro.

Source: Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), registered municipal advisor.

EIFD Revenue
Allocation Scenario
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding Capacity*
50-Year
Present-Value
@ 3%
Discount Rate
City 75% + County Dollar Match
(~49% of County share) $15,246,000 $59,813,000
9 Financing Districts work better with a Multi-Agency Partnership & Attract Other Funding
Other Public Sources
▪ Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant & loan
programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC,CERF)
▪ Prop 4 Climate Bond Fundings
▪ Prop 68 parks & open space grants
▪ Prop 1 water/sewer funds
▪ Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
▪ Federal EDA / DOT / EPA funding
▪ Federal ARPA, Invest Act, IIJ Act
Other Private Sources
▪ Development Agreement / impact fees
▪ Benefit assessments (e.g., contribution
from CFD)
▪ Private investment
• Ideal strategy includes City / County partnership
• Districts which involve a multi-agency joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources • Districts explicitly increase scoring for CA state housing grants (e.g., IIG, AHSC, TCC) Regional and Communitywide Significance
10 • Housing, including significant potential for affordable units • Economic revitalization, quality of life
• Sustainable infrastructure investment; 4,432 daily boardings anticipated for SGL Pioneer Station • Job creation, wages:
▪ Approx. 173 permanent jobs in City and County, related ~$9M in annual wage income ▪ Approx. 2,046 temporary construction-related jobs* in City and County, $142M in related wage income • Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues:
▪ $11 million in present value fiscal benefit for CITY general fund over 50 years, net of tax increment contribution to EIFD and net of estimated fiscal expenditures
▪ $2 million in present value fiscal benefit for COUNTY general fund over 50 years, net of tax increment contribution to EIFD and net of estimated fiscal expenditures, plus ▪ $9 million in present value new funding for COUNTY homeless and transportation services (separate from County general fund)
• Catalyze economic development and attract other money (e.g., grants) Source for Boarding data is Metro Travel Demand Model. * Construction job-years, where one job-year is defined as one year of employment for one individual. 11 Potential EIFD Formation Schedule
Target Date Task

COMPLETE
October 13, 2025 a) City Council adopts Resolution of Intention (ROI) to form EIFD and formally establish PFA Board

COMPLETE
February 10, 2026 b) County Board of Supervisors adopts ROI to participate with the City in the EIFD

COMPLETE
April 13, 2026 c) PFA meets to direct the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)

COMPLETE
May 1, 2026
d) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities, City Council, County Board of Supervisors, planning commission

COMPLETE
May 11, 2026 e) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP June / July 2026 f) City Council (TODAY, June 8) and County Board of Supervisors (TBD) consider resolutions approving IFP July 8, 2026 g) PFA holds first public hearing to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject IFP August 10, 2026 h) PFA holds second public hearing to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt IFP and form the district by resolution
12 Next Steps / Actions Items
• For today:
a) Consider adoption of Resolution approving EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) and allocation of a portion of City’s future property tax increment within EIFD boundary • Artesia EIFD website: https://cityofartesia.us/EIFD
13 THANK YOU
Questions?
Disclaimer
14 The high-level analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.

Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the Client and public agencies are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be to be “advice” within the context of this Analysis.

Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies’ affiliate, Kosmont Financial Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB. 15 APPENDIX
16 Development Assumptions
Absorption Assumed over First 10 Years of District Lifetime Note: AV at buildout values in current 2026 dollars. In actuality, model assumes absorption over time with annual escalation of assessed value factors.

Sources: Downtown Specific Plan; CoStar (2025)
Land Use # SF or Units Estimated
AV Factor
Estimated
Total AV at Buildout
Residential 378 units $350K per unit $132 million
Hotel 111 rooms $300K per room $33 million
Commercial / Retail 17,900 SF $350 PSF $6 million
Total New Development Assumed within Study Area $172 million • Specific Plan allows for up to 1,981 new residential units and up to 78,901 new commercial square feet, envisioned over approximately 20 years
• This analysis focuses on the following assumptions deemed to me more likely in the near-tomid-term (5-10 years out) 17 • Primary potential contributors of property tax are City and County
• City share varies by area and averages ~6.7% of every $1 collected in property taxes – City is a no-low property tax City subject AB 1197 Tax Equity Allocation (TEA)
▪ City additionally receives equivalent of ~11.1% of property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF), also
available to EIFD
• County General Fund share varies by area and averages ~27.2%
▪ County additionally receives property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to EIFD, but not incorporated into this analysis to be conservative
• School-related entities cannot participate
As counties tend to rely more heavily on property tax revenue sources generated by new development within incorporated jurisdictions, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is not reasonable to assume allocation of property tax in lieu of MVLF by the County. As cities benefit from additional non-property tax revenue sources (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy tax) from new development, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is reasonable for cities to consider contributing property tax in lieu of MVLF.

Tax Rate Area (TRA) weighted average distributions for EIFD Study Area shown. Post-ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) distribution.

Parcels within former Redevelopment Agency Project Areas are subject to RPTTF revenue flow until expiration of ROPS obligatio ns (2046 for Artesia).

Source: Los Angeles County Auditor Controller (2025)
Property Tax Revenues Available to EIFD
Property Tax Distribution
City

6.7%
County

27.2%
Other / School
Entities (not eligible)

66.2%
+ MVLF (separate from
distribution of 1% general levy)
~11.1% = 17.7% total

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2026 ITEM NO: 11B.

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Presentation of Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update FROM: Mario Flores, Management Analyst
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Melissa Burke, Deputy City Manager
Jamie Murguia, Finance Manager
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Abel Avalos, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review the draft five-year update to the City of Artesia's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, provide feedback, and receive and file the report.

BACKGROUND:

The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 requires local governments to develop and adopt pre-disaster mitigation plans, known as Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP), in order to minimize property damage and the risk to public health and safety that might otherwise result from the effects of a natural or man-made disaster. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved plan makes the City of Artesia eligible for FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs. The LHMP assesses risk, vulnerabilities, and identifies and prioritizes mitigation efforts. FEMA requires the LHMP to be updated every five years to maintain eligibility for grants and federal disaster relief funds. The City last adopted the LHMP in November 2020 and is due to update the plan now.

Hazard Mitigation Planning is the basis for a community's long-term strategy to reduce disaster risk and losses through the ongoing evaluation and analysis of an ever-changing environment. The LHMP identifies the City's known natural and human caused disaster risks. It provides a plan for departments, stakeholders, and the community to decrease risk and loss through various mitigation efforts. The LHMP creates the framework for riskbased decision making to reduce loss of life and injuries as well as lessen damage to property and the economy from future disasters.

In June 2024, Staff submitted a sub-grant application under the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program for funding to complete the next required five-year update in 2025. In March 2025, Staff received notice from Cal OES that FEMA approved the City's application for a total project amount of $208,124, of which $156,093 is federal funding (75%) with a required City match of $52,031 (25%).

In July 2025, Staff completed a Request for Proposals process for a consulting firm experienced in writing hazard mitigation plans. Risk Management Professionals (RMP) was awarded the contract at a cost much lower than originally anticipated. The contract with RMP to complete the LHMP Update was awarded for $66,653, of which $49,989.75 is covered by the grant (75%) and $16,663.25 is funded by the City's 25% match. The project commenced in September 2025.

ANALYSIS:

The LHMP project was divided into four phases:

1. Planning Committee

2. Public Engagement

3. Draft Plan

4. Submission, Approval & Adoption
During the planning committee phase, a group of stakeholders comprised of City Staff, utility agencies, and public safety agencies, engaged in monthly meetings with RMP to identify and rank hazards, assess the potential impacts upon the community, defining goals and objectives of the plan, conducting a vulnerability assessment of the City's assets, determining mitigation actions for each identified hazard and completing a cost-benefit analysis to assess feasibility of the mitigation actions. During this phase, community organizations were also contacted to make sure their feedback was welcome when building the foundation of the updated plan.

During the public engagement phase, the community was strongly encouraged to participate in the hazard mitigation survey to provide their feedback on hazards and potential mitigation actions within the City. A total of 34 surveys were completed with responses trending towards concerns of earthquakes and extreme heat events within the City of Artesia. Additionally, RMP provided strategic outreach to solicit community input by hosting information tables at a variety of City events. The public engagement phase concluded with a presentation of the LHMP and an update on the process at the Artesia Public Safety Commission meeting on April 13 to solicit additional feedback from the public and Commissioners.

Currently, the project is in the draft plan phase where work of the planning committee and input from the community are incorporated in the plan. Staff is now requesting feedback and comments from the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to receiving and filing the report on the draft of the five-year update to the LHMP.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review the draft five-year update to Artesia's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, provide feedback, and receive and file the report.

Attachments
2026 Draft LHMP.pdf
2026 HMP Presentation.pdf
City of Artesia
Draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
June 2026
Prepared By:

Risk Management Professionals
60 Bunsen
Irvine, California 92618
949/282-0123
www.RMPCorp.com
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1: Plan Requirements and Objectives ..........................................................................ES-2 ES.2: Mitigation Definition ................................................................................................. ES-5 ES.3: Planning Process Summary ....................................................................................ES-5 ES.4: Hazard Analysis ......................................................................................................ES-6 ES.5: Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan .......................................................ES-8 ES.6: Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ......................................................ES-14 Chapter 1: Planning Process ................................................................................................1-1

1.1: Narrative Description of the Planning Process ...............................................................1-2

1.2: Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and Public Involvement.....................................1-7

1.3: Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans ................................................................. 1-13 Chapter 2: Planning Area Profile ..........................................................................................2-1

2.1: Region Description ........................................................................................................2-2

2.2: Development Trends .....................................................................................................2-3

2.3: Population .....................................................................................................................2-8

2.4: Demographics ...............................................................................................................2-9 Chapter 3: Risk Assessment.................................................................................................3-1

3.1: Risk Assessment ...........................................................................................................3-3

3.2: Hazard Identification......................................................................................................3-4

3.3: Considerations for Climate Change ...............................................................................3-9

3.4: Asset Inventory ............................................................................................................3-10 Appendix A: Earthquake .................................................................................. Earthquake-1 Appendix B: Windstorm .....................................................................................Windstorm-1 Appendix C: Dam Failure................................................................................ Dam Failure-1 Appendix D: Urban Fire .....................................................................................Urban Fire-1 Appendix E: Extreme Heat............................................................................Extreme Heat-1 Appendix F: Flood......................................................................................................Flood-1 Appendix G: Drought .............................................................................................Drought-1 Appendix H: Cyberattack .................................................................................Cyberattack-1 Appendix I: Unhoused Related Risk............................................. Unhoused Related Risk -1 Chapter 4: Mitigation Strategies ...........................................................................................4-1

4.1: Mitigation Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................4-2

4.2: Identification of Mitigation Recommendations................................................................4-4

4.3: Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations ..............................................................4-10

4.4: Implementation Strategy..............................................................................................4-16 Chapter 5: Plan Maintenance ................................................................................................5-1

5.1: Mitigation Progress Monitoring.......................................................................................5-2

5.2: Planning Mechanisms....................................................................................................5-2

5.3: Periodic Assessment Requirements ............................................................................5-12

5.4: Update Requirements..................................................................................................5-13 Annex A: Glossary................................................................................................................A-1 Annex B: Regulations...........................................................................................................B-1 Annex C: Hazard Analysis....................................................................................................C-1 Annex D: Public Participation and Planning Process ........................................................D-1 City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-1
ES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives...............................................................................ES-2 ES.2 Mitigation Definition ......................................................................................................ES-5 ES.3 Planning Process Summary .........................................................................................ES-5 ES.4 Hazard Analysis............................................................................................................ES-6 ES.5: Mitigation Strategies and Implementation Plan............................................................ES-8 ES.6: Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan ..........................................................ES-14

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1: City of Artesia Hazard Ranking Summary ..........................................................ES-7 Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary ....................................................................................ES-7 Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary...............................................................................ES-10 City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-2
ES.1 Plan Requirements and Objectives
The City of Artesia (City) Hazard Mitigation Plan is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities. Hazard mitigation involves strategies to reduce short- and long-term vulnerability to identified hazards. This document serves as the framework for the ongoing identification and implementation of hazard mitigation strategies developed in the City.

Background Information
In 2000, the United States Congress determined that disasters and, more importantly, lack of preparedness for disasters, were significant causes of loss of life, human suffering, loss of income, and property loss and damage. Furthermore, because disasters often disrupt the normal functioning of governments and communities and adversely affect individuals and families with great severity, special measures designed to assist the efforts of the affected States in expediting the rendering of aid, assistance, and emergency services, and the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas, were necessary. As a result, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), or Public Law 106-390, to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This provides an opportunity for States, Tribal governments, and local jurisdictions to apply for assistance from the Federal government in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which results from such disasters by:
a. revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs; b. encouraging the development of comprehensive disaster preparedness and assistance plans, programs, capabilities, and organizations by the States and by local governments; c. achieving greater coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs;
d. encouraging individuals, States, and local governments to protect themselves by obtaining insurance coverage to supplement or replace governmental assistance; e. encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from disasters, including development of land use and construction regulations; and f. providing Federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-3
DMA 2000 allows State, Tribal, and local jurisdictions to obtain Federal assistance through predisaster hazard mitigation planning. As part of the requirements for receiving Federal grants for improving a locality’s resistance to disasters, each locality must determine their existing vulnerabilities and develop a plan to reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities and must have this plan approved by the appropriate State and Federal officials. Upon approval of this plan, each locality is eligible to receive various types of disaster-related assistance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Program. This includes the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) which releases grant funds before and after a hazard event as well as the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMA) Program which appropriates funds for projects and planning that will reduce long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The BRIC program provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation actions prior to a disaster event. These grants are funded and approved through FEMA on a competitive basis. The HMGP provides grants to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration.

These grants are funded by FEMA but are distributed by the State. In California, that agency is the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES).

FEMA has developed guidance to assist communities in developing both the vulnerability assessments and plans to reduce or eliminate their vulnerabilities to disasters. These tools, coupled with techniques from the safety and security industries were used to develop the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additional information regarding the HMGP and BRIC programs can be found in FEMA’s “Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance” document, located in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Planning portal. Additional information including guidance and regulations can be found at the Cal OES’s Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Program portal.

In order to be eligible for certain Federal disaster assistance and mitigation funding, the City is required to have a Cal OES- and FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place. As a result, the City obtained grant funding to update this document to fulfill Cal OES and FEMA requirements and provide direction and guidance on implementing hazard mitigation actions on a hazard-level, probability, and cost-priority basis. The overall goal of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the potential for damage to critical assets from natural and man-made hazards. In addition, the plan describes past and current hazard mitigation activities and philosophies and outlines future mitigation goals and strategies.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-4
FEMA Requirements
FEMA requires that the Hazard Mitigation Plan meet certain requirements. First, the planning process must be open and public and must allow the public to have an opportunity to comment during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval.

Second, the process must allow other local jurisdictions to be involved in the planning process. Third, the Plan must
incorporate, if appropriate, existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

FEMA expects that each Hazard Mitigation Plan has the following information:

1. Documentation of the planning process used to develop the plan

2. A risk assessment that provides a factual basis for upgrades and recommendations

3. A description of the natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction

4. A description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to these hazards

5. A description of land usage, and an estimate of losses should a disaster occur

6. A mitigation strategy

7. A plan maintenance process

8. Documentation that the plan has been adopted by the jurisdiction’s governing body

9. Review by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-5
ES.2 Mitigation Definition
Mitigation is an ongoing effort to prevent or lessen future emergency or disaster incidents, and the impacts they might have on people, property, and the environment. Examples of mitigation activities include the following:
• Legislation, laws, and regulations;
• Variances;
• Zoning and land use management;
• Engineering and building codes;
• Hazard mitigation plans & teams;
• Technical guidance & assistance;
• Financial assistance;
• Hazard Identification;
• Risk Analysis;
• Evaluation;
• Research; and
• Education
Mitigation decreases the demand for emergency response resources, reduces the principal causes of injuries and deaths, enables a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because the community infrastructure remains intact, and reduces the societal impacts of the emergency because it results in less disruption to the social environment. In essence, mitigation is the foundation of sustainable community development.

ES.3 Planning Process Summary
Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past and present information that enables the City to anticipate future hazards and provide mitigation strategies to address possible impacts and identified needs. The overall approach to the Hazard Mitigation Plan included developing a baseline understanding of natural and man-made hazards, determining ways to reduce those risks, and prioritizing mitigation recommendations for implementation.

To complete these objectives, the City compiled a qualified team with various expertise to participate in a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) to guide the development of the City’s comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City solicited participation in the HMPC by contacting both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders included members of the various City departments. External stakeholders were comprised of representatives from local agencies and neighboring communities, including the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and representatives from the City of Norwalk.

Additionally, the HMPC actively engaged the public throughout the planning process through a variety of outreach efforts designed to encourage community participation and gather input from City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-6
a broad cross-section of residents. Public involvement efforts included an online survey hosted on the City’s website throughout the duration of the planning process, public outreach events, and opportunities for public review and comment on the draft Plan. The survey allowed residents to provide feedback regarding hazard concerns, preparedness actions, and mitigation priorities, offering an accessible way for community members to participate in the planning process.

To further encourage participation, the City conducted several in-person outreach efforts throughout the planning process. The City hosted a dedicated LHMP booth at the International Street Fair and Diversity Festival and additional outreach was conducted at the Dog Day Afternoon event, where HMPC members gathered feedback from residents and discussed community resilience and hazard impacts. The HMPC also provided a presentation to the Public Safety Commission to share information regarding the planning process and encourage public involvement.

Finally, the draft Plan was made available on the City’s website for public review and comment and was presented at a City Council meeting, providing an additional opportunity for community input prior to final adoption. These outreach efforts helped ensure compliance with FEMA’s public participation requirements and provided multiple opportunities for residents and stakeholders to contribute throughout the development of the Plan. Chapter 1: Planning Process and Annex D contain descriptions of the planning process, including information on the HMPC and public involvement.

ES.4 Hazard Analysis
The City is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and man-made hazards that threaten life and property. To identify the hazards that the City and neighboring communities perceive as the largest threat, each member of the HMPC participated in the Hazard Identification Workshop during the first HMPC Meeting. The HMPC brainstormed potential hazards based on past incidents that have impacted the City and information incorporated from other studies. (Incorporated Plans and studies are described in Section 1.3 “Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans”). Each identified hazard was then qualitatively ranked based upon hazard probability/frequency, consequence/severity, and the City’s overall vulnerability using an interactive model. Section 3.2 Hazard Identification contains detailed information regarding the hazard ranking. Table ES.1 provides a summary of the hazard rankings.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-7
Table ES.1: City of Artesia Hazard Ranking Summary

HAZARD RANK SCORE
EARTHQUAKE 32
WINDSTORM 27
DAM FAILURE 20
URBAN FIRE 18
EXTREME HEAT 16
FLOOD 12
DROUGHT 9
CYBERATTACK 8
UNHOUSED RELATED RISK 6
Note: The HMPC did not identify any Low ranked hazards
Asset Inventory and Loss Estimates
In addition to the hazard profiles, the Risk Assessment contains a detailed asset inventory that lists the City’s assets, such as buildings, public facilities, and historical sites. This asset inventory was used in the vulnerability assessment to estimate potential losses for each hazard. The HMPC reviewed each hazard and assigned a potential percentage of damage expected. Section 3.7 Loss Estimates includes a detailed breakdown of the vulnerability assessment calculations. Table ES.2 highlights the summary of loss estimates for each identified hazard.

Table ES.2: Loss Estimate Summary

HAZARD NAME
Dam Failure $14,564,000
Earthquake $5,367,000
Urban Fire $2,449,000
Flood $2,075,000
Windstorm $529,000
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-8
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest thousand.

ES.5: Mitigation Strategies and Implementation
Plan
Plan Goals and Objectives
As part of the development process, Plan goals and objectives were revalidated to provide a framework for mitigating hazards and proposing potential mitigation actions. The goals are consistent with the California State Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan and were developed by the HMPC. The City’s overall Plan goals are to:

1. Protect Life and Property

2. Enhance Public Awareness and Education

3. Preserve and Reclaim Natural Systems

4. Strengthen Partnerships and Implementation

5. Improve Emergency Management Capabilities
In addition to the overall Plan goals, individual objectives were developed that more specifically address mitigation strategies. Section 4.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives contains the full list of the Plan goals and objectives.

Mitigation Strategies
Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. The HMPC identified specific mitigation actions to reduce the impact or likelihood of the hazards. The specific objectives served as a starting point for developing the mitigation actions, and additional actions were developed by the HMPC. Each of the mitigation recommendations fell into one or more of the following categories:

Unhoused Related Risk $406,000
Drought $0
Cyberattack $0
Extreme Heat $0
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-9
Implementation Plan
Following the identification of mitigation actions, a simplified Benefit-Cost Analysis was applied in order to prioritize the mitigation actions for implementation. The priority for implementing mitigation actions depended upon the overall cost effectiveness of the action, when taking into account monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits associated with each action. Additionally, the following questions were considered when developing the Benefit-Cost Analysis:
• How many people will benefit from this action?
• How large of an area is impacted?
• How critical are the facilities that benefit from the action? • Environmentally, does it make sense to do this project for the overall community? The Benefit-Cost Analysis yielded a relative priority ranking (High, Medium, or Low) for each mitigation action. Each ranking was defined as follows. • High: Benefits are perceived to exceed costs without further study or evaluations; or the action is critical.
• Medium: Benefits are perceived to exceed costs but may require further study or evaluation prior to implementation.
• Low: Benefits and costs require evaluation prior to implementation.

Mitigation actions identified as high priority are typically implemented before lower ranked actions.

Results from the Benefit-Cost Analysis are located in Chapter 4.3 Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations. The HMPC considered responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe when developing the implementation plan.

Chapter 4 Mitigation Strategies contains additional information regarding the mitigation strategies and implementation plan. Table ES.3 on the following pages provides a summary of each mitigation action, including the hazard(s) mitigated, responsible agency/department, and relative priority rank taken from the Benefit-Cost Analysis.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-10
Table ES.3: Mitigation Action Summary
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards
Mitigated
Responsible
Agency/Dept. Priority
2025.HMP.01 Implement seismic studies throughout city facilities and develop a plan to implement structural improvement projects accordingly. Earthquake Public Works High 2025.HMP.02
Review NEHRP guidance and applicable state requirements to ensure local building code implementation aligns with the most current seismic safety standards
Earthquake Community
Development High
2025.HMP.03 Expand public outreach and education regarding voluntary residential seismic retrofitting options. Earthquake Administration High 2025.HMP.04
Coordinate with utility providers to upgrade and/or bury overhead utility lines to reduce windstorm-related damage and service disruptions.

Windstorm
Public Works /
Community
Development
Low
2025.HMP.05
Develop and maintain a Debris Management Plan, including debris clearance procedures, contractor coordination, and staging/disposal protocols.

Windstorm Public Works Medium
2025.HMP.06 Coordinate with City contractors to remove dead or hazardous trees in a timely manner to reduce high wind event impacts. Windstorm Public Works High 2025.HMP.07
Implement the Urban Forest Management Plan to reduce
hazards from falling tree limbs and downed power lines during high wind and severe weather events.

Windstorm Public Works Medium
2025.HMP.08 Conduct an EOC tabletop exercise that focuses on dam failure response and evacuation coordination. Dam Failure Administration High City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-11
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards
Mitigated
Responsible
Agency/Dept. Priority
2025.HMP.09
Develop and maintain an evacuation plan in coordination with local and regional partners (e.g., Fire, Police, and neighboring jurisdictions).

Dam Failure Administration High
2025.HMP.10
Coordinate with Southern California Edison (SCE) to harden electrical distribution infrastructure (e.g., covered conductors and equipment upgrades) in high-risk areas to reduce ignition potential and urban fire risk.

Urban Fire Public Works Low
2025.HMP.11 Evaluate feasibility and pursue designation as a FireWise USA community. Urban Fire Administration High
2025.HMP.12 Strengthen implementation and enforcement of the City’s Property Maintenance Standards. Urban Fire Community Development High 2025.HMP.13
Implement Urban Forest Management Plan goals to expand the urban tree canopy to reduce heat exposure and mitigate the urban heat island effect.

Extreme Heat Public Works /
Administration Medium
2025.HMP.14
Assess drainage capacities throughout the city and determine the elements of infrastructure that require improvement to allow for proper drainage.

Flood Public Works High
2025.HMP.15
Update flood hazard mapping, flood management policies, and related procedures as new state and federal data or guidance becomes available.

Flood
Administration /
Community
Development
Medium
2025.HMP.15
Evaluate and use data analytics (e.g., usage trends and messaging) to promote water-use reduction and improve
community water resilience.

Drought Administration High
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-12
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards
Mitigated
Responsible
Agency/Dept. Priority
2025.HMP.17
Expand public outreach on drought conditions, water
conservation requirements, and available incentives for droughttolerant landscaping and other water-saving measures. Drought Administration High 2025.HMP.18
Implement recurring (bi-annual or quarterly) cybersecurity awareness training for City employees to strengthen
preparedness against evolving cyber threats and reduce system vulnerabilities.

Cyberattack Finance High
2025.HMP.19
Identify and, when possible, harden vulnerable infrastructure near freeway edges, utility corridors, and known encampment areas (e.g. using protective barriers, secured access lids, locking valve covers, and tamper-resistant enclosures).

Unhoused
Related Risk
Public Works /
Community
Development
Medium
2025.HMP.20
Improve implementation of the City’s Vacant Property Ordinance to reduce unauthorized access, encampment related hazards, and property damage.

Unhoused
Related Risk
Community
Development High
2025.HMP.21
Construct new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to support emergency coordination, communications, and continuity of operations.

Multi-Hazard Administration High
2025.HMP.22
Install alternative power sources (e.g., emergency generator, solar panels) to ensure continued use of recreation center as a shelter/cooling center in the event of loss of power.

Multi-Hazard Maintenance High
2025.HMP.23
Update and maintain City GIS mapping to incorporate fault lines, FEMA flood hazard data, evacuation routes, vulnerable
populations, and heat mapping layers.

Multi-Hazard
Administration/
Community
Development
High
2025.HMP.24 Coordinate with public safety partners to establish and maintain Genasys evacuation zones for use during emergency incidents. Multi-Hazard Administration Medium City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-13
Action ID Mitigation Action Hazards
Mitigated
Responsible
Agency/Dept. Priority
2025.HMP.25 Coordinate with Caltrans to maintain ignition-risk reduction areas along freeway edges. Multi-Hazard Public Works / Administration Low 2025.HMP.26
Implement a Citywide reporting and tracking process for encampment-related incidents impacting City assets (fires, vandalism, utility access, illegal dumping), including GIS mapping and trend reporting to inform targeted mitigation and resource allocation.

Multi-Hazard Administration Medium
2025.HMP.27
Develop and distribute accessible, multilingual public education materials on natural hazards (e.g., English, Spanish, and other identified languages) to improve public awareness.

Multi-Hazard Administration High
2025.HMP.28
Enhance and expand the CERT program to increase volunteer capacity and improve readiness to support emergency response and recovery operations.

Multi-Hazard Administration Medium
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan ES-14
ES.6: Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the
Plan
The Hazard Mitigation Plan is a living document that reflects ongoing hazard mitigation activities and requires monitoring, evaluating, and updating to ensure the mitigation actions are implemented. To facilitate the Hazard Mitigation Planning process and adhere to regulatory requirements, the Plan will be reviewed annually, and any major revisions will be incorporated into the five-year update. In addition, public involvement will be requested when applicable.

Chapter 5: Plan Maintenance outlines the update requirements and planning mechanisms the City has in place for ongoing hazard mitigation.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Narrative Description of the Planning Process .................................................................. 1-2

1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and Public Involvement........................................ 1-7

1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans..................................................................... 1-13

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Stakeholders Invited to Participate in the Plan Update............................................ 1-3 Table 1.2: Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Participants................................................ 1-8 CHAPTER 1

PLANNING PROCESS
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-2

1.1 Narrative Description of the
Planning Process
Hazard mitigation planning is a dynamic process built on realistic assessments of past and present information that engages the City of Artesia (City) to anticipate future hazards and provide meaningful strategies to address possible impacts and identified needs. The hazard mitigation planning process involves the following tasks:

The overall approach to updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan includes building off the baseline understanding of the natural hazards as defined in the 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan, determining ways to focus solely on those risks which impact the City, continuing to reduce those risks, and prioritizing those recommendations for implementation. The following task descriptions provide a detailed narrative of the overall project progression.

Organizing resources
Assessing Risks
Developing Mitigtation Goals, Strategies, and Priorities Adopting a Plan
Implementing the Plan
Monitoring Progress
Revising the Plan as Necessary
§201.6(b): In order to
develop a more
comprehensive approach
to reducing the effects of
natural disasters, the
planning process shall
include:
(1) An opportunity for the
public to comment on the
plan during the drafting
stage and prior to plan
approval;
(2) An opportunity for
neighboring communities,
local and regional
agencies involved in
hazard mitigation
activities, and agencies
that have the authority to
regulate development, as
well as businesses,
academia, and other
private and non-profit
interests to be involved in
the planning process; and
(3) Review and
incorporation, if
appropriate, of existing
plans, studies, reports,
and technical information.
§201.6(c)(1): [The plan
shall document] the
planning process used to
develop the plan,
including how it was
prepared, who was
involved in the process,
and how the public was
involved.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-3
Organize Resources
Identify Stakeholders and Compile Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Mario Flores, Management Analyst for the City, invited and coordinated participation for a Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) from the appropriate law enforcement, emergency response, academia, health organizations, local businesses, City personnel, local government representatives, and vulnerable populations. The HMPC was responsible for providing essential insight into past hazard events, current hazard vulnerability (including specific locations), critical assets, and possible mitigation projects. The following groups were invited via email to participate in the Plan development.

Table 1.1: Stakeholders Invited to Participate in the Plan Update Local/Regional
Agencies
Agencies
with
Authority to
Regulate
Development
Businesses/
Academia/Other
Private
Organizations
Neighboring
Communities
Volunteer/NonProfit
Organizations
-City of Artesia
Administration
-City of Artesia Public
Works Department
-City of Artesia Public
Safety Department
-City of Artesia
Community
Development
Department
-City of Artesia Parks
and Recreation
Department
-Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department
-Los Angeles County
Fire Department
-SoCal Edison
-Golden State Water
Company
-City of Artesia
City Council
-City of Artesia
Public Safety
Commission
-ABC Unified
School District
-Artesia Chamber
of Commerce
-City of
Paramount
-City of
Bellflower
-City of Cerritos
-City of Norwalk
-City of La
Palma
-City of Cypress
-City of Los
Alamitos
-American Red
Cross
-Holy Family
Catholic Church
-New Life
Community
Church
-Sahara (South
Asian Helpline
and Referral
Agency)
-South Asian
Network
-PATH (People
Assisting the
Homeless)
-Kingdom Causes
Bellflower
Public Process
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-4
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires an “Open and Public Process” for developing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This process requires, at a minimum, that the public be allowed to comment on the Hazard Mitigation Plan during the drafting phase and prior to adoption. To meet this requirement, the City conducted public outreach efforts to gather input during the planning process to invite public comments on the draft before its submission for review with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A public survey was made available prior to and during the drafting stage and was advertised on social media and the City’s website, allowing residents to provide feedback on hazard risks and mitigation strategies. Additionally, the City engaged with the community through various events to collect input and address concerns. Documentation of public involvement is provided in Annex D.

Risk Assessment
Identify Hazards
This task was designed to identify all the natural and man-made hazards that might affect the City and then narrow the list to the hazards that are most likely to occur. The hazards included natural and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of disasters on the City’s critical facilities. To compile the list, the HMPC built upon the list of hazards identified in the 2020 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and those identified for Los Angeles County through FEMA's National Risk Index, determined which hazards were specific to the City, and then continued to research numerous sources to determine any additional hazards. In addition, the HMPC reviewed a list of hazards that have affected the City in the past with specific information regarding frequency, magnitude, and associated consequences. A Hazard Identification exercise was conducted during the first HMPC Meeting to identify and evaluate each selected hazard. The following hazards were included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan:

The list above is not all-inclusive of the hazards discussed during the Hazard Identification exercise. Hazards not thought to pose significant risk to the City were not included. For example, Earthquake Windstorm Dam Failure Urban Fire Extreme Heat Flood Drought Cyberattack Unhoused
Related Risk
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-5
FEMA's National Risk Index indicates that wildfire might be a high risk for cities in Los Angeles County. Given that the City's relative location in Los Angeles County, coupled with the city being mostly built out with no significant open areas, wildfire was not deemed a credible hazard for this Plan. To address this hazard, the team identified Urban Fire as being a higher hazard specific to the City. In addition, some items were captured as sub-items of the hazards listed above. For example, climate change is discussed with hazards where the impact of changes in weather patterns could act as a catalyst for those scenarios.

Profile Hazard Events
Hazard profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or an important piece of data regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the City and surrounding area. To update the detailed hazard profiles, members of the HMPC researched and reviewed relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects. In addition, the City supplied any hazard studies that have been developed specifically for the City. This task determined the hazard magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics (e.g., predicted ground acceleration values, fault locations, floodplains, etc.) that were used as the design-basis for the hazard rankings and loss estimates.

Asset Inventory & Loss Estimates
Source: FEMA Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT)- National Risk Index City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-6
The purpose of this task was to determine the quantity of City facilities and assets that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was compiled with data provided by the City. The completed asset inventory enables the HMPC to estimate losses which was critical in determining which assets are subject to the greatest potential damage and which hazard event is likely to produce the greatest potential losses. The conclusion of this task precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate for each identified hazard for each specific asset in terms of damage, economic loss, and the associated consequences.

Vulnerable Populations
To improve the City's insight into how hazards affect vulnerable populations and ensure compliance with FEMA's updated guidelines, the HMPC convened to explore the impacts of various hazard scenarios on vulnerable populations. The discussion focused on the City's ability to provide resources and information to better serve vulnerable populations.

Mitigation Strategy Development
Development of Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The HMPC discussed the mitigation features and resources that the City currently has in place.

These mitigation features provided a framework to determine where practical improvements could be made and where sufficient improvements would be prohibitive due to cost, schedule, or impracticality of implementation.

For each of the hazard events, mitigation goals and objectives were developed with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts. The mitigation goals and objectives were developed at a HMPC Meeting to provide the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects.

Identify and Prioritize Mitigation Actions
Mitigation strategies are administrative and/or engineering project recommendations to reduce the vulnerability to the identified hazards. It was imperative to have City Planners and community developers involved in this phase of the Plan to develop strategies and projects that will mitigate the hazards cost-effectively, as well as ensure consistency with the City’s long-term mitigation goals and capital improvements. At a HMPC Meeting, a team-based approach was used to brainstorm mitigation projects based on the identified hazards and associated loss estimates. The evaluation and prioritization of the mitigation actions produced a list of recommended mitigation actions to be incorporated into the Hazard Mitigation Plan. A separate HMPC meeting was held City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-7
to conduct a Benefit-Cost Review for each proposed mitigation action to determine the relative priority level of the recommendation.

Implementation and Monitoring
Preparation of Implementation Strategy
The HMPC developed an action plan to detail how the mitigation recommendations will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the City. During the Hazard Mitigation Plan update process, the HMPC determined the mitigation project implementation strategy (including identifying responsible departments, funding resources, and estimated implementation timeframe).

1.2 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and
Public Involvement
While the City and Risk Management Professionals, a consultant hired to assist with the planning effort, had lead responsibility for updating the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, neighboring communities, agencies, businesses, and other interested parties were invited to participate in the HMPC to review the plan during each phase of its development. To compile a list of HMPC participants, the City assessed community support through active community leaders, established a planning group, and engaged public participants throughout the process. Each member of the HMPC had the opportunity to participate in all aspects of the planning process Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Participant Solicitation The City solicited participation in the HMPC by contacting both internal and external stakeholders.

Internal stakeholders included members of the various City departments. External stakeholders were comprised of representatives from local agencies and neighboring communities, including the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management, representatives of vulnerable populations, and the public.

Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Participants
The City brought together personnel from Administration, Public Works, Community Development, Public Safety, and Parks and Recreation to ensure the HMPC included a variety of departments and provided a mechanism for receiving input from each participant. Additionally, the City compiled historical hazard data, provided relevant planning documents for incorporation into the Hazard Mitigation Plan, and coordinated participation with the public. Each draft chapter was City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-8
reviewed by the HMPC and specific comments and input were incorporated into the plan. The multidisciplinary HMPC enabled the City to work together and incorporate each individual’s expertise to provide a comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed with assistance and advice from participants from the City and neighboring agencies.

Table 1.2 provides a list of the HMPC participants.

Table 1.2: Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Participants Name Affiliation Title
Mario Flores City of Artesia Management Analyst
Melissa Burke City of Artesia Deputy City Manager
Edith Guerra City of Artesia Parks & Recreation Manager Steven Valdez City of Artesia Planning Manager
Karen Lee City of Artesia Special Projects Manager
Leslie Nacionales City of Artesia Management Analyst
Paul Bollier City of Artesia Community Development Director Carmen Zambrano City of Artesia Management Analyst
Khoi Dao Los Angeles County Fire
Department Assistant Fire Chief
Jacqueline Koontz City of Norwalk Senior Civil Engineer Marco Ramirez City of Norwalk Chief Water Operator
Eloy Ramos Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department Sergeant
Shireen Kulkarni Risk Management
Professionals Technical Consultant
Kathia Brown Risk Management
Professionals Project Engineer I
Ryan Bray Risk Management
Professionals Senior Technical Consultant
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-9
The HMPC met five times over the course of the project to discuss project progress and obtain valuable input and information for documenting the Hazard Mitigation Plan. The meetings are detailed over the subsequent pages. Annex D – Public Participation contains copies of the presentations used at each meeting and specific meeting handouts.

Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting Descriptions Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #1- September 29th, 2025: Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection
During the Project Initiation, Hazard Identification, and Information Collection Meeting, Risk Management Professionals presented an overview presentation that detailed the objectives and scope of the project. After a review of the project schedule and key tasks, the HMPC participants’ areas of expertise, resultant member responsibilities, and the community meeting process were discussed. The HMPC meeting also served as a mechanism to determine the hazards to profile in detail. To effectively characterize the City’s risk and vulnerability, Risk Management Professionals facilitated a discussion of the historical hazards with the HMPC members during this meeting.

The HMPC determined the initial hazard profile ranking through a facilitated exercise using an automated interactive spreadsheet that asked specific questions on potential hazards and then assigned a relative value to each potential hazard, accordingly, including numerical rankings (1- 5) of the following criteria:
• Consequence/Severity – How widespread is the impact area? • Secondary Effects – Could the event trigger another event and separate response? • Probability/Frequency – Historical view of how often this type of event occurs locally and projected recurrence intervals.
• Warning/Onset – Advance warning of the event, or none. • Duration – Length of elapsed time where response resources are active. • Recovery – Length of time until lives and property return to normal Chapter 3: Risk Assessment outlines the methodology used for hazard rankings.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-10
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #2- October 14th, 2025: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
During the second meeting, the hazard risk ranking from HMPC Meeting #1 was reviewed, updated, and validated with the HMPC with a review of the hazard profiles. Additionally, the Plan’s mitigation goals and objectives were updated with the intention of reducing or eliminating the potential hazard impacts, which also provided the basis for determining the associated mitigation projects. The HMPC reviewed the goals from the City’s 2020 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the 2020 Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the 2023 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan as a baseline for determining the City’s current mitigation goals and objectives.

Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #3- November 18th, 2025: Vulnerability Assessment and Critical Facilities Loss Estimate The asset inventory was developed to determine the quantity of buildings, facilities, and other assets in the City that lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory included locations and specifications for city well sites, civic buildings, and parks. The asset inventory was then used to develop loss estimates for all hazard scenarios. The hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals were applied to the City assets to determine which assets were subject to the greatest potential damages and which hazard events were likely to produce the greatest potential losses.

To enhance the City’s understanding of how hazards impact vulnerable populations and comply with FEMA’s new requirements, the HMPC examined the effects of hazard scenarios on these populations. As detailed in Section 2.4 (Demographics), the City identified several groups likely to experience heightened impacts during hazard events, including the elderly, children, individuals with cognitive or physical disabilities, economically disadvantaged residents, and those with limited English proficiency (LEP).

During the meeting, a productive discussion took place regarding the City's capacity to provide resources and information to better support these populations. This resulted in a deeper analysis of the hazard understanding in Chapter 3 and the mitigation actions in Chapter 4 of the plan.

Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #4- January 14th, 2026: Mitigation Action Identification
The purpose of this meeting was to identify potential mitigation actions and projects that will reduce the impact of identified hazards. First, the mitigation goals and objectives from HMPC Meeting #2 were reviewed and validated. Then, during the meeting, the HMPC participants brainstormed possible projects and actions to mitigate the effects of the identified hazards.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-11
As the mitigation projects were identified, the HMPC discussed the mitigation action implementation plan according to the following characteristics:
• Mitigation Action Category – Prevention, Property Protection, Public Education and Awareness, Natural Resource Protection, Emergency Services, and Structural Projects • Corresponding Goals and Objectives
• Responsible Department – Building and Safety, Engineering, Administration, Community Development, Public Works, etc.
• Resources – General Fund, Grant Programs, Staff Time, Capital Improvements, etc. • Implementation Timeframe – Ongoing, Short-Term (within two years), Medium-Term (between three and five years), and Long-Term (greater than five years) • Whether or not the projects protect new or future buildings Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meeting #5- March 23rd, 2026:

Mitigation Action Finalization and Benefit Cost Analysis During the fifth HMPC Meeting, the identified mitigation actions from HMPC Meeting #4 were reviewed and validated with the HMPC. The HMPC then performed a high-level Benefit-Cost Analysis on each of the identified mitigation actions. The review consisted of identifying all benefits and costs associated with implementing each mitigation action. Typical benefits include:
• Avoided physical damage (e.g., to buildings, infrastructure, and equipment) • Avoided loss of function costs (e.g., loss of utilities and lifelines) • Avoided casualties
• Avoided emergency management costs (e.g., emergency operations center costs, evacuation/rescue costs, and other management costs)
Once the benefits and costs were estimated, a relative priority was assigned for each action based upon the evaluation. More detailed information can be found in Section 4.4 “Prioritization of Mitigation Recommendations.”
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-12
Public Meetings and Outreach
The City actively solicited public involvement through a variety of outreach efforts to engage the community and gather feedback.

These efforts included an online survey, public outreach events, and a presentation at a City Council meeting.

The survey, which was hosted on the City’s website throughout the duration of the entire planning process, allowed residents to provide input on hazard risks and mitigation strategies. The survey assessed the community’s level of concern with various hazards and the steps each respondent had taken to prepare for a disaster.

The survey was an accessible way for a wide range of community members to participate in the planning process.

In addition to the online survey,
the City conducted in-person
outreach to engage residents
who may not have participated
online. These efforts were
designed to reach a broad
cross-section of the community
and encourage meaningful
public involvement. The City
hosted a dedicated LHMP
booth at the International Street
Fair and Diversity Festival on
October 4, 2025, where members of the HMPC engaged with attendees, promoted the survey, and discussed local hazard concerns. A similar outreach effort took place at the highly attended Dog Day Afternoon event on February 21, 2026, where HMPC members again connected with residents to gather feedback, share information about the planning process, and hear firsthand experiences related to hazards and community resilience. Finally, the draft plan was posted on the City website, as well as presented at a City Council meeting on DATE, providing an opportunity for members of the public to review and provide final comments. These outreach activities were crucial in meeting the public participation requirements set by FEMA for the Hazard Mitigation Plan. By offering multiple opportunities for residents to engage, the City was able to reach a wide and diverse audience, ensuring that the community’s concerns and ideas were reflected in the §201.6(b): In order to develop a
more comprehensive approach
to reducing the effects of natural
disasters, the planning process
shall include:
(1) An opportunity for the public
to comment on the plan during
the drafting stage and prior to
plan approval;
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-13
final plan. Additional documentation regarding public involvement and additional information on the City Council Meeting, including the attendance log and presentation, can be found in Annex D.

1.3 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans
While developing the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Project Team reviewed existing plans (detailed below) and incorporated relevant information into the planning efforts.

City of Artesia Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2020)
The 2020 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was crucial in
comparing the previous mitigation ideas and attitudes to the City’s current needs and concerns. The project team referred to this plan constantly throughout the updating process. The Hazard Mitigation Plan provides insight into hazard ranking, hazard history, previously proposed mitigation projects, etc.

City of Artesia General Plan (2030).

The City of Artesia General Plan 2030 contains guidelines and policies that serve as the City’s vision for future planning and development. Mitigation projects defined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan will be required to align with the objectives outlined in the Community Safety Sub-Element of the General Plan. Proposed mitigation actions are found in Chapter 4 of this document.

City of Artesia Housing Element (2021-2029).

The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, which outlines the City’s housing goals from 2021 through 2029, provided critical data on demographics, housing supply, and areas identified for future development. This information helped the LHMP assess potential vulnerabilities and prioritize mitigation strategies. Mitigation projects defined in the LHMP will be required to align with the objectives outlined in the Community Safety-Sub Element of the General Plan. Proposed mitigation actions are found in Chapter 4 of this document.

California State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2023)
The State Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the State and City Plan, with respect to identified hazards and vulnerability, goals and objectives, and mitigation actions. The State goals served as the basis for developing the goals at the City level. City goals and objectives are outlined in Chapter 4.
§201.6(b): In order to develop a more
comprehensive approach to reducing
the effects of natural disasters, the
planning process shall include:
(3) Review and incorporation, if
appropriate, of existing plans, studies,
reports, and technical information.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-14
County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan (2025) Los Angeles County’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan was reviewed to ensure consistency between the County and City Plan. The County Plan, updated in 2025, outlines the County’s approach to hazard mitigation, focusing on natural hazards, human-caused events, and technological emergencies.

California Adaptation Planning Guide (2020)
FEMA, Cal OES, and the California Natural Resources Agency developed the California Adaptation Planning Guide to assist municipalities in recognizing local climate change and to provide guidance addressing potential vulnerabilities. The information was used to develop potential hazards and to provide background information that allowed the HMPC to make educated decisions regarding mitigation actions designed to alleviate the effects of climate change.

FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
The FIRM, or FEMA’s official map of the community delineating Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and flood risk zones was reviewed to determine flood hazard areas with the City boundary. Portions of the map are included in the Flood Hazard Profile in Chapter 3 which was used to support the City’s understanding of flood-related risks within the City.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-1
CHAPTER 2

PLANNING AREA PROFILE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1 Region Description............................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2 Development Trends ......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Population......................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4 Demographics................................................................................................................... 2-9

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Estimated Population Growth.................................................................................. 2-8 Table 2.2: Demographic Estimates........................................................................................ 2-10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: City of Artesia Regional Location Map................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.2: City of Artesia Zoning Map .................................................................................... 2-7 City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-2

2.1 Region Description
The village of Artesia was originally established in 1875 following the creation of the local school district and was named for the artesian wells that supported early farming and agriculture. In the early 20th century, the area became a prominent dairy farming community, particularly through Dutch and Portuguese influences. Following World War II, increasing development pressures led to a transition from agricultural uses to residential neighborhoods, and Artesia officially incorporated as a city in 1959.

Today, the City of Artesia (City) is a suburban municipality characterized by a mix of residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, and light industrial uses. Located in the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County, the City sits approximately 23 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

The City is bordered by Cerritos to the West, South, and East, and by Norwalk to the North.

Bellflower lies to the Northwest, Lakewood is located to the West and Southwest, and Cypress is situated to the Southeast. The City is located near major regional transportation corridors, including Interstate 605 and State Route 91, providing access to surrounding employment centers and the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Long Beach Municipal Airport is located Southwest, the Los Angeles International Airport is located West, and the City is within proximity to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, making it part of a highly interconnected urban region. The City has a total area of 1.62 miles.

The City’s climate is consistent with Southern California’s Mediterranean climate, which is defined by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Summer temperatures typically reach the high 70s to low 80s in degrees Fahrenheit, while winter temperatures often range in the 50s. August is generally the warmest month, with average highs around 83°F, and December or January are the coolest months, with average lows in the mid-50s. Rainfall is limited, with the majority occurring between November and March. On average, the City receives approximately 14 inches of rainfall per year, with February typically being the wettest month.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-3

2.2 Development Trends
The City is 1.62 square miles in area. The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan provides a guide for land use and development within the City. Since the 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan, there have been no major changes in development that have greatly affected the City’s vulnerability to the identified hazards.

The following describes land use designations, as amended, for the City. These descriptions were summarized from the City’s Municipal Code and Housing Element as an attempt to designate the proposed general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, public facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.

Residential Land Uses
Agriculture- Single Family Residential Zone (A-1)
The A-1 zone provides for low-density single-family residential uses in conjunction with limited agricultural, equestrian, and livestock uses. This zone allows residential development while preserving limited agricultural and animal-keeping activities where appropriate.

Single- Family Residential Zone (R-1)
The R-1 zone is designated for low-density residential development consisting of one dwelling unit per lot. It is intended to maintain stable, single-family neighborhoods and preserve the residential character of the community.

Medium Density Residential Zone (M-D-R)
The M-D-R zone allows for medium-density residential development, including duplexes, townhomes, and small multi-family structures. This zone provides a transition between lowdensity and higher-density residential areas.

Multiple Residential Zone (M-R)
The MHP zone is designated for mobile home park developments, offering an alternative housing option that accommodates manufactured homes in a community setting. 44 CFR 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): The plan
should describe vulnerability in
terms of] providing a general
description of land uses and
development trends within the
community so that mitigation options
can be considered in future land use
decisions.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-4
Condominium Zone (C-O)
The C-O zone provides for condominium and common-interest residential development. This designation allows individually owned residential units within a shared development framework, including common areas, access, and related amenities.

Mixed Residential/Commercial Land Uses
Mixed-Use Overlay Zones (MU-O)
The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone is enacted to encourage and incentivize new mixed-use infill residential, retail, and commercial development within the City, and to facilitate affordable multifamily housing for very-low and low-income classifications Housing Opportunity Overlay Zone (HO-O)
The Housing Opportunity Overlay Zone is established to facilitate the development of affordable multi-family housing, enable the City to meet its housing goals, and ensure that affordable housing developments will be compatible with surrounding land uses.

Commercial Land Uses
Service and Professional Zone (CSP)
The C-S-P zone provides areas for professional offices, personal services, and similar lowerintensity commercial activities. These uses generally serve nearby residents and businesses while maintaining compatibility with adjacent land uses.

Commercial General Zone (CG)
The C-G zone accommodates a broad range of commercial uses, including retail, restaurant, service, and general business activities. These areas support local and regional commercial needs and are typically located along major corridors.

Commercial Planned Development Zone (CPD)
The C-P-D zone allows coordinated commercial development under a unified site plan. This designation provides flexibility in site design, circulation, and layout while ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses.

Commercial Transition Zone (CT)
The C-T zone provides a transition between commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods.

It allows lower-intensity commercial and service uses that can buffer nearby residential areas from more intensive activity.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-5
Industrial Land Uses
Light Manufacturing and Industrial Zone (M-1)
The Light Manufacturing and Industrial Zone is intended to be developed with small to moderate sized industry which poses limited environmental impacts in terms of noise, chemical wastes and health and safety hazards. It provides for uses where small to medium scale equipment is used and which produce low volumes of truck traffic. This zone is also intended for certain limited commercial and service uses which are compatible with the other uses in the zone and which are necessary to serve the businesses in that zone.

Heavy Manufacturing and Industrial Zone (M-2)
The Heavy Manufacturing and Industrial Zone (M-2) is intended to be developed with manufacturing and warehousing activities which typically use heavy equipment, moderate amount of raw materials and products and which use processes requiring careful environmental monitoring.

Other Land Uses
Open Space and Recreation Zone (OS-R)
The Open Space and Recreation Zone is established to provide for the continued availability of open space land for outdoor recreational uses and public facilities. It provides areas for recreational activity and open space needs, including open space for flood control purposes, and passive recreation. This district allows for recreational development of land and necessary public facilities.

Historic District Zone (H-D)
The Historic District Zone is established to preserve the historic nature of buildings located within the Historic District. In addition, it is established to promote the general welfare, education and recreational pleasure of the public, through the identification, preservation and enhancement of those buildings, structures, neighborhoods, landscapes, places, and areas that have special historical, cultural, architectural or archaeological significance.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-6
Figure 2.1: City of Artesia Regional Location Map
Source: City of Artesia General Plan
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-7
Figure 2.2: City of Artesia Zoning Map
Source: City of Artesia Zoning Map
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-8

2.3 Population
Since its incorporation in 1959, the City of Artesia has developed into a mature, highly urbanized community with a population of approximately 16,395 residents according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2024 estimate). The population of the City is projected to increase modestly between 2024 and 2045, reflecting the City’s built-out development pattern and limited opportunities for outward expansion. According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Demographic and Growth Forecast, the City’s population is expected to increase from approximately 16,395 residents in 2024 to 17,800 residents by 2045. The table below summarizes estimated population growth through 2045.

Table 2.1: Estimated Population Growth
Year 2016 2024 2045
Population 16,800 16,395 17,800
Source: 2020 Southern California Association of Governments Demographics and Growth Forecast Census and SCAG demographic data indicate that the City’s population has remained relatively stable over the past two decades, with only minor fluctuations between 2000 and 2020. This trend reflects the City’s constrained land supply and established urban character. Existing residential neighborhoods are largely developed, and future growth opportunities are concentrated in targeted redevelopment areas, mixed-use corridors, and housing opportunity sites identified through the City’s Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning process, and areas identified for revitalization through the adopted Artesia Downtown Specific Plan.

As highlighted in the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element, future residential growth is anticipated to occur through higher-density residential and mixed-use development, including redevelopment of underutilized commercial properties, infill housing projects, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and implementation of the City’s MU-O and HO-O zones. The City’s Housing Element also identifies opportunities for additional multi-family and affordable housing development to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation and evolving housing needs. Similar to other built-out communities in southeastern Los Angeles County, future residential growth is expected to occur primarily through infill, mixed-use redevelopment, and higher-density housing opportunities supported by existing infrastructure and planning policies.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-9

2.4 Demographics
When considering the impacts of hazard scenarios on the community, the City is cognizant that some portions of the community will be impacted to a greater extent than others. A better understanding of how disasters impact the community, even disproportionately, can help guide resiliency efforts to better serve the entire community. Although other factors may be present, this section will focus on how low economic status, age, physical or cognitive disabilities, and limited English proficiency might make certain groups more vulnerable and can exacerbate the impacts of a hazard scenario.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) defines social vulnerability as the “demographic and socioeconomic factors (such as poverty, lack of access to transportation, and crowded housing) that adversely affect communities-level stressors.” To address this planning requirement, the City considered vulnerable groups as part of the plan update through identifying areas within the City more prone to hazard stresses due to multiple factors. The City utilized guidance from the CDC/ATSDR to identify elements contributing to vulnerability. Those elements are listed below.

To further refine the vulnerable population within the City, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) considered the community and established the following individual vulnerability factors that drove community vulnerability discussions throughout the plan development process.
• Age
• Socioeconomic Status
• Mobility and Transportation

SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS
•Below Poverty
•Unemployed
•Housing Cost Burden
•No High School Diploma
•No Health Insurance

HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS
•Aged 65 & Older
•Aged 17 & Younger
•Civilian with a Disability
•Single-Parent Household
•Limited English
Language Proficiency

HOUSING TYPE &

TRANSPORTATION
•Multi-Unit Structures
•Moblie Homes
•Crowding
•No Vehicle
•Group Quartes
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-10
• Language/Communication Barriers
• Housing
The vulnerability factors that impact the community within the City are included in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2: Demographic Estimates

ESTIMATE CATEGORY CENSUS

ESTIMATES
Population (2024) * 16,395
Persons under 5 years, percent 4.4%
Persons under 18 years, percent 19.9%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 18.0 %
Persons with a disability under age 65, percent (2020-2024) 8.4% Persons with independent living difficulty, percent 5.25% Households (2020-2024) 4,513
Persons per household (2020-2024) 3.38
Limited English Speaking (LEP) Households, percent (2020) 22.5% Households with a computer, percent (2020-2024) 94.9%
Households with a broadband internet subscription, percent (2020- 2024)

93.7%
High School graduate or higher, percent of persons aged 25 years+ (2020-2024)

78.9%
Bachelor’s degree or higher percent of persons aged 25 years+ (2020- 2024)

32.4%
Median Household income (in 2024 dollars,2020-2024) $101,004 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024) $34,301 City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-11
Persons in poverty, percent 9.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau , City of Artesia Title VI Program (2022) Although many inferences could be made based on the table above 9.4% of the community is recorded being at or below poverty level. Additionally, 18% of the community is over the age of 65 while 4.4% are under the age of 5. Based on the data provided for the City, 8.4% of the population under the age of 65 within the City’s jurisdiction are classified as having a disability.

Additionally, of the population that was identified as being between the ages of 18 and 64, 5.25% of the individuals were classified as having a disability which includes independent living difficulty.

Of the total households within the City’s jurisdiction, it was identified that 22.5% of households include individuals that can be classified as LEP. While each of these groups represents a small portion of the City, it can be assumed this percentage of the public will be impacted by disasters to a higher degree than the rest of the community. As the City moves forward, considerations for this small sector of the population should be made to provide effective resilience measures.

The HMPC is cognizant of the complicated, intersection nature of social vulnerabilities. As such, the HMPC discussed that more research was needed to more fully understand the levels of vulnerabilities throughout the City. The effort to better serve the community is ongoing and the City intends to expand its understanding of vulnerable populations and expand its capabilities to provide equitable services when considering future planning efforts.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 Risk Assessment............................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Hazard Identification ......................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3 Considerations for Climate Change................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 Asset Inventory ............................................................................................................... 3-10

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Risk Factors for Hazard Identification ..................................................................... 3-5 Table 3.2: Risk Rank Matrix..................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3.3: Risk Rank Categorization ....................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3.4: Hazard Ranking Summary...................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3.5: Asset Inventory Summary..................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3.6: Loss Estimates for Earthquake, Windstorm, Dam Failure, Urban Fire, and Extreme Heat...................................................................................................................................... 3-13 Table 3.7: Loss Estimates for Flood, Drought, Cyberattack, and Unhoused Related Risk ..... 3-14 Chapter 3
Risk Assessment
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-2
Table 3.8: Loss Estimates Summary ..................................................................................... 3-15

LIST OF HAZARD PROFILE APPENDICES
Appendix A – Earthquake
Appendix B – Windstorm
Appendix C – Dam Failure
Appendix D – Urban Fire
Appendix E – Extreme Heat
Appendix F – Flood
Appendix G – Drought
Appendix H – Cyberattack
Appendix I – Unhoused Related Risk
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-3

3.1 Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment consists of four steps: Hazard Identification, Hazard Profiling, Asset Inventory, and Loss Estimates. This chapter includes the Hazard Identification and Hazard Profiling steps to evaluate the hazards of primary concern to local decision-makers in order to provide a basis for loss estimates. Additionally, the Risk Assessment provides a foundation for the evaluation of mitigation actions which can help reduce the impacts of potential hazard events.

Step 1 Identify Hazards
This step identified the natural and man-made hazards which might affect the City of Artesia (City) and then narrowed the list to those hazards which are most likely to occur. These hazards included natural, technical, and human-caused events, with an emphasis on the effect of disaster events on critical facilities and vulnerable populations.The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) participated in a hazard identification exercise to identify and rank the potential hazards within the City.

Step 2 Profile Hazard Events
Hazard profiles consist of either a map indicating the area impacted by each hazard or key information regarding the characteristics of hazard events within the planning area. To develop detailed hazard profiles, relevant open-source natural hazard studies and mapping projects were reviewed and documented within this report. This planning step determined the magnitude, frequency, and location characteristics or relevant natural hazards (predicted ground acceleration values, fault locations, floodplains, etc.) that were utilized as the design-basis for the loss estimates. These profiles are included as appendices attached to this chapter.

Step 3 Inventory Assets
The purpose of this step was to determine the quantity of buildings, people (specifically vulnerable populations), and City assets which lie in the different hazard areas and what proportion of the City this represents. The asset inventory was completed utilizing a December 2023 property valuation insurance report from CBIZ Valuation Group, which included asset locations and specifications for the following facility types:

Step 1:

Hazard
Identification
Step 2:

Hazard
Profiling
Step 3:

Asset
Inventory
Step 4:

Loss Estimate
Step 5:

Use risk
Assessment
to Develop
Mitigation
Actions
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-4
• City Government Facilities
• Recreation Buildings
• Historic Buildings
For facilities not included in the CBIZ Valuation Report, replacement values and inventory information were estimated using FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual. The development of the comprehensive inventory facilitated the development of loss estimates for all hazard scenarios.

Step 4 Loss Estimates
The loss estimate step relied on detailed information regarding the hazard probability and maps that were completed as part of the hazard profiles. This information was utilized to apply the hazard probabilities and recurrence intervals to the assets and vulnerable populations within the City. This step was critical in determining which assets and population groups were subject to the greatest potential impacts and which hazard event was likely to produce the greatest potential losses or injuries. The conclusion of this step precipitated a comprehensive loss estimate which captured the projected impacts to city assets and population groups throughout the City. This understanding of the vulnerability for the community and City infrastructure was used to develop mitigation actions which seek to promote resiliency for the affected community/assets.

3.2 Hazard Identification
The hazard identification and ranking was obtained primarily from the Hazard Identification Exercise. Each hazard profile includes a summary of the Hazard Identification Exercise identified risk factors and overall rank for each hazard, in addition to the detailed hazard description, historical occurrences, and projected future probability, magnitude, and frequency.

The hazard identification exercise was conducted as a participatory HMPC workshop to identify the potential hazards within the City. The hazard identification exercise was facilitated utilizing an interactive spreadsheet program that asks specific questions on potential hazards and then rated them accordingly. These questions guide the team in the correct facilitation and application of the program. Table 3.1 summarizes the Hazard Identification Exercise risk factors, lists the descriptions of each factor, provides the specific descriptor choices for each risk factor, and summarizes the risk ranking associated with each hazard.

City Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-5
Table 3.1: Risk Factors for Hazard Identification

RISK FACTOR DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTORS VALUE

PROBABILITY/ FREQUENCY
Prediction of how often a
hazard will occur in the future.

Rare event - occurs less than once every 50 years 1
Infrequent event - occurs once between every 8
years and every 50 years (inclusive)
2 Regular event - occurs between once a year and
once every 7 years
3 Frequent event - occurs more than once a year 4

CONSEQUENCE/SEVERITY
Physical Damage - Structures
and lifelines.

Economic Impact – Loss of
function for power, water,
sanitation, roads, etc., as
applicable.

No damage 1
Minor/slight damage to buildings and structures, no
loss of lifelines (water, gas, electricity, sanitation, roads)
2 Moderate building damage, minor loss of lifelines
(less than 12 hours)
3 Moderate building damage, lifeline loss (less than
24 hours)
4 Extensive building damage, widespread loss of
lifelines, loss of life
5 VULNERABILITY
Impact Area - Area impacted
by a hazard event.

Secondary Impacts -
Capability of triggering
additional hazards.

Onset - Period of time
between initial recognition of
an approaching hazard and
when the hazard begins to
impact the community.

No physical damage, no secondary impacts 1
Localized damage area 2
Localized damage area, minor secondary impacts,
delayed hazard onset 3
Moderate damage area, moderate secondary
impacts, moderate warning time 4
Widespread damage area, significant secondary
impacts, no warning time 5
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-6
Each profile also includes a ranking of the hazard, ranging from low hazard to high hazard. Table

3.2 illustrates the matrix for how each hazard was ranked according to all of the previously mentioned factors and Table 3.3 provides the value determinations for each ranking. The HMPC determined this initial profile ranking based on the hazard identification, profile research, group discussion, and evaluation of all of the data. Table 3.4 provides the hazard ranking summary for the City.

Table 3.2: Risk Rank Matrix

PROBABILITY/

FREQUENCY DESCRIPTION RISK RANKING MATRIX
Rare Event:

Occurs less than once every 50
years
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 1 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 4 6 8 10
3 3 6 9 12 15
4 4 8 12 16 20
5 5 10 15 20 25
Infrequent Event:

Occurs between once every 8 years
and once every 50 years (inclusive)
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 2 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 2 4 6 8 10
2 4 8 12 16 20
3 6 12 18 24 30
4 8 16 24 32 40
5 10 20 30 40 50
Regular Event:

Occurs between once a year and
once every 7 years
Probability/Frequency Consequence/Severity
Value 3 1 2 3 4 5
Vulnerability
1 3 6 9 12 15
2 6 12 18 24 30
3 9 18 27 36 45
4 12 24 36 48 60
5 15 30 45 60 75
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-7
Table 3.3: Risk Rank Categorization
High Hazard 50-100
Moderately High Hazard 25-49
Moderate Hazard 15-24
Moderately Low Hazard 5-14
Low Hazard 1-4
Table 3.4: Hazard Ranking Summary

HAZARD RANK SCORE
EARTHQUAKE 32
WINDSTORM 27
DAM FAILURE 20
URBAN FIRE 18
EXTREME HEAT 16
FLOOD 12
DROUGHT 9
CYBERATTACK 8
UNHOUSED RELATED RISK 6
Note: The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee did not identify any Low ranked hazards.

Trends in Perceived Vulnerability
As illustrated above, the HMPC reviewed its perceived vulnerability to determine the potential impact of each hazard on the City. The HMPC began with the hazards identified in the City’s 2020 Hazard Mitigation Plan and used that list as a foundation for evaluating current hazard vulnerability and community concerns. The current update retains Earthquake and Seismic Hazards, Flood, Drought, Extreme Heat, and Urban Fire as identified hazards. In addition, the hazard previously identified as Dam Inundation was updated to Dam Failure to better reflect the potential impacts associated with dam-related incidents. The previous Winter Storm/High Wind City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-8
hazard was separated conceptually, with high wind impacts now addressed under Windstorm, while heavy rainfall and storm-related flooding concerns are incorporated into the Flood hazard profile. The City also removed Climate Change as a standalone hazard, as climate-related impacts are now integrated throughout the applicable hazard profiles where appropriate.

Additionally, the City added Cyberattack and Unhoused Related Risk to address emerging human-caused hazards and evolving community concerns identified during the planning process.

During the Plan Update process, the HMPC also considered hazards identified at the regional level. As part of this effort, the HMPC reviewed FEMA’s National Risk Index, which identified Wildfire, Riverine Flooding, Landslide, Heat Wave, and Earthquake as hazards relevant to Los Angeles County. Apart from Earthquake and Heat Wave, which was incorporated into this Plan under the broader hazard category of Extreme Heat, the remaining hazards were not included in the final list of identified hazards because they were not considered applicable to the City. Due to the City’s predominantly urbanized character and limited open space, wildfire was not considered a credible hazard. Additionally, the City does not contain rivers that would contribute to riverine flooding, and the generally flat terrain makes landslide hazards unlikely.

Ultimately, these updates were made to better focus mitigation efforts on the hazards most relevant to the City during the next five-year planning period. The HMPC also acknowledged that hazard conditions and community vulnerabilities may change over time, and should a shift in perceived hazard vulnerability occur during the planning period, the HMPC may reconvene and amend the plan as necessary to address additional hazards or emerging risks.

Source: FEMA Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT) City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-9

3.3 Considerations for Climate Change
With the release of the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) in March 2015 and revised in 2021, the City aimed to include the effects of climate change in the Hazard Mitigation Plan update.

As identified in the “Understanding Regional Characteristics” portion of the APG, the City is located in the South Coastal Region of California. As a result, the City considered the following climate change impacts as recommended by the APG:
• Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Sea Level Rise
• Reduce Tourism
• Reduced Water Supply
• Wildfire Risk
• Coastal Erosion
• Public Health (heat and air quality)
The HMPC engaged in a discussion to determine which impacts posed a viable threat to the City and what areas might be impacted. While some impacts clearly applied to the City, some required additional research. The result was the following list of perceived, feasible impacts which were assumed could impact all portions of the City over the next five to ten years:
• Increased Temperatures
• Reduced Precipitation
• Reduced Water Supply
After reviewing the results of each of these impacts, the HMPC considered how these conditions could affect the City. For instance, increased temperatures and reduced water availability could contribute to more severe drought conditions. Additionally, flooding associated with atmospheric rivers could be further intensified by changing weather patterns, which may influence the frequency and intensity of rainfall events. These considerations are discussed in greater detail within the hazard profile appendices.

While Climate Change was not retained as a standalone hazard for this Plan Update, the City recognizes that changing weather patterns may continue to influence existing hazards over time.

As such, climate-related considerations have been incorporated throughout the applicable hazard profiles where relevant. The HMPC also acknowledged that, should new information emerge demonstrating significant climate-related impacts to the City, the HMPC may reconvene and amend the Plan accordingly.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-10

3.4 Asset Inventory
A critical step in completing the Risk Assessment is developing a detailed asset inventory and documenting potential asset damages due to each identified hazard. The calculated loss estimates are based on values determined during the initial asset inventory. The City developed a comprehensive inventory of all assets, including their locations, to ensure accurate loss estimates. Specific values were assigned to critical City facilities, with the understanding that these values are estimates used for planning purposes.

The replacement values for facilities were derived from a variety of sources, including the December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s BenefitCost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual. For public facilities and critical infrastructure, the replacement value represents the cost of rebuilding the facility to the same size and functionality, using current estimated construction prices and materials. These values provide a baseline understanding of the potential financial impact if these assets were damaged or destroyed by a hazard.

Next, the HMPC reviewed each asset and assigned a percent of damage for each identified hazard, considering factors such as the type of hazard, location, and vulnerability of the asset.

The percent damage indicates the anticipated degree of damage that each asset could experience in the event of a hazard. These percentages were determined based on historical data and skilled judgment from City staff, who had information specific to each asset and type of hazard.

Finally, the loss estimate was calculated by applying the assigned percent damage to the total replacement value of each asset. This provides an estimate of the financial loss possible for each facility or service in the event of a hazard, helping the City to understand potential impacts and prioritize mitigation actions. These estimates are intended for planning purposes only and are primarily focused on potential physical and structural damages to facilities and infrastructure assets. Additional non-structural impacts, including operational disruptions, impacts to people, and community-wide consequences, are discussed within the individual hazard profile appendices. Together, the asset loss estimates and hazard profile discussions provide a more comprehensive understanding of the City’s overall risk and vulnerability.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-11
Future Developments
The City may experience future redevelopment and infill development over time. Recent planning efforts, including the adopted Artesia Downtown Specific Plan, anticipate future residential, commercial, and mixed-use development associated with long-term community growth and regional transportation improvements. As future development occurs, the hazard maps and loss estimates presented in this Plan can be updated accordingly to reflect changing conditions and vulnerabilities. The Asset Inventory Summary is presented on the following pages. The following tables present the asset categories, facility names, addresses, total replacement values, percent damage, and corresponding loss estimates for each identified hazard. These estimates were used to help guide the development of mitigation action strategies.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-12
Table 3.5: Asset Inventory Summary

TYPE NAME ADDRESS TOTAL VALUE
CITY PROPERTY ARTESIA CITY HALL 18747 CLARKDALE AVENUE
ARTESIA, CA 90701 $3,673,000
CITY PROPERTY ARTESIA PUBLIC WORKS YARD 17203 CORBY AVENUE ARTESIA, CA 90701 $2,930,000
CITY PROPERTY ALBERT O. LITTLE COMMUNITY
CENTER
18750 CLARKDALE AVENUE
ARTESIA, CA 90701 $5,112,000

CITY PROPERTY ARTESIA TOWN CENTER
18155-97 PIONEER

BOULEVARD
ARTESIA, CA 90701
$9,540,000

CITY PROPERTY NORTH ARTESIA COMMUNITY
CENTER
11870 169TH ST.

ARTESIA, CA 90701 $1,591,468
CITY PROPERTY NEW PUBLIC SERVICES CENTER 18730 CLARKDALE AVENUE ARTESIA, CA 90701 $1,909,134
CITY PROPERTY FRAMPTON HOUSE 18644 ALBURTIS AVENUE
ARTESIA, CA 90701 $832,696
CITY PROPERTY OLD FIRE STATION #30 18641 CORBY AVENUE
ARTESIA, CA 90701 $842,808
CITY PROPERTY WATER TOWER 18315 SEINE AVENUE
ARTESIA, CA 90701 $1,020,000
Note: Values provided by December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual
$27,451,106
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-13
Table 3.6: Loss Estimates for Earthquake, Windstorm, Dam Failure, Urban Fire, and Extreme Heat

CITY OF ARTESIA

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EARTHQUAKE WINDSTORM DAM FAILURE URBAN FIRE EXTREME HEAT TYPE Name Address TOTAL %
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
CITY PROPERTY Artesia City Hall
18747 Clarkdale
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$3,673,000 20% $734,600 2% $73,460 50% $1,836,500 3% $110,190 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY Artesia Public Works
Yard
17203 Corby
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$2,930,000 15% $439,500 2% $58,600 50% $1,465,000 3% $87,900 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY Albert O. Little
Community Center
18750 Clarkdale
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$5,112,000 25% $1,278,000 2% $102,240 50% $2,556,000 3% $153,360 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY Artesia Town Center
18155-97 Pioneer
Boulevard
Artesia, CA 90701
$9,540,000 15% $1,431,000 2% $190,800 50% $4,770,000 20% $1,908,000 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY North Artesia
Community Center
11870 169th St.

Artesia, CA 90701 $1,591,468 10% $159,147 2% $31,829 50% $795,734 3% $47,744 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY New Public Services
Center
18730 Clarkdale
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$1,909,134 5% $95,457 2% $38,183 50% $954,567 3% $57,274 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY Frampton House
18644 Alburtis
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$832,696 15% $124,904 2% $16,654 100% $832,696 5% $41,635 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY Old Fire Station #30
18641 Corby
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$842,808 10% $84,281 2% $16,856 100% $842,808 5% $42,140 0% $0 CITY PROPERTY Water Tower
18315 Seine
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$1,020,000 100% $1,020,000 0% $0 50% $510,000 0% $0 0% $0 Earthquake $5,366,889 Windstorm $528,622 Dam
Failure $14,563,305 Urban Fire $2,448,243 Extreme Heat $0 City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-14
Table 3.7: Loss Estimates for Flood, Drought, Cyberattack, and Unhoused Related Risk

CITY OF ARTESIA

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS FLOOD DROUGHT CYBERATTACK UNHOUSED RELATED RISK TYPE Name Address TOTAL %
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
%
Damage
Loss
Estimate
CITY PROPERTY Artesia City Hall
18747 Clarkdale
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$3,673,000 50% $1,836,500 0% $0 0% $0 1% $36,730
CITY PROPERTY Artesia Public Works
Yard
17203 Corby Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701 $2,930,000 1% $29,300 0% $0 0% $0 1% $29,300 CITY PROPERTY Albert O. Little
Community Center
18750 Clarkdale
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$5,112,000 1% $51,120 0% $0 0% $0 1% $51,120
CITY PROPERTY Artesia Town Center
18155-97 Pioneer
Boulevard
Artesia, CA 90701
$9,540,000 1% $95,400 0% $0 0% $0 1% $95,400
CITY PROPERTY North Artesia Community
Center
11870 169th St.

Artesia, CA 90701 $1,591,468 1% $15,915 0% $0 0% $0 5% $79,573 CITY PROPERTY New Public Services
Center
18730 Clarkdale
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$1,909,134 1% $19,091 0% $0 0% $0 1% $19,091
CITY PROPERTY Frampton House
18644 Alburtis
Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701
$832,696 1% $8,327 0% $0 0% $0 5% $41,635
CITY PROPERTY Old Fire Station #30 18641 Corby Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701 $842,808 1% $8,428 0% $0 0% $0 5% $42,140 CITY PROPERTY Water Tower 18315 Seine Avenue
Artesia, CA 90701 $1,020,000 1% $10,200 0% $0 0% $0 1% $10,200 Flood $2,074,281 Drought $0 Cyberattack $0 Unhoused
Related Risk $405,190
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-15
Table 3.8: Loss Estimates Summary
Note: Values are rounded to the nearest thousand

HAZARD NAME
DAM FAILURE $14,564,000
EARTHQUAKE $5,367,000
URBAN FIRE $2,449,000
FLOOD $2,075,000
WINDSTORM $529,000
UNHOUSED RELATED RISK $406,000
DROUGHT $0
CYBERATTACK $0
EXTREME HEAT $0
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-1
c

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.1 Earthquake Identification and Background........................................................ Earthquake-3 A.2 Earthquake Location......................................................................................... Earthquake-4 A.3 Earthquake Extent .......................................................................................... Earthquake-12 A.4 Earthquake History ......................................................................................... Earthquake-16 A.5 Earthquake Probability.................................................................................... Earthquake-22 A.6 Earthquake Vulnerability ................................................................................. Earthquake-26

LIST OF TABLES
Table A.1: San Andreas Fault Information ............................................................... Earthquake-7 Table A.2: Whittier Fault Information........................................................................ Earthquake-8 Table A.3: Newport-Inglewood Fault Information ..................................................... Earthquake-9 Table A.4: San Joaquin Fault Information.............................................................. Earthquake-10 Table A.5 : Palos Verdes Fault Information............................................................ Earthquake-10 Table A.6: San Clemente Fault Information ............................................................Earthquake-11 Table A.7: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale........................................................... Earthquake-13 Table A.8: Table of Select Historical Earthquakes.................................................. Earthquake-16 Table A.9: Mercalli Intensity and Corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration.......... Earthquake-25 Table A.10: Earthquake Loss Estimate Table......................................................... Earthquake-27 Appendix A
Earthquake
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A.1: California Historic Earthquake Map....................................................... Earthquake-5 Figure A.2: Southern California Earthquake Fault Map............................................ Earthquake-6 Figure A.3: Earthquake Shaking Potential for California........................................ Earthquake-15 Figure A.4: Peak Ground Acceleration Map........................................................... Earthquake-24 City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-3
A.1 Earthquake Identification and Background
To further understand the forces within the Earth that cause earthquakes, it is important to define plate tectonics. Plates are thick slabs of rock that make up the outermost 100 kilometers of the Earth. The term "tectonics" describes the deformation of the Earth's crust, the forces producing such
deformation, and the geologic and structural
features that result. The constant motion of the
plates causes stress in the brittle upper crust of the
earth. These tectonic stresses build as the rocks are
gradually deformed. The rock deformation, or strain,
is stored in the rocks as elastic strain energy. When the strength of the rock is exceeded, rupture occurs along a fault. The rocks on opposite sides of the fault slide past each other as they spring back into a relaxed position. The strain energy is released partly as heat and partly as elastic waves called seismic waves. The passage of these seismic waves produces ground shaking in earthquakes.

Faults are more likely to produce future earthquakes if they have rapid rates of movement, have had recent earthquakes along them, experience greater total displacements, and are aligned so that movement can relieve the accumulating tectonic stresses. Geologists classify faults by their relative hazards. “Active” faults, which represent the highest hazard, are those that have ruptured to the ground surface during the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). In contrast, “potentially active” faults are those that displaced layers of rock from the Quaternary period (the last 1,800,000 years). Determining if a fault is “active” or “potentially active” depends on geologic evidence, which may not be available for every fault.

Earthquake Magnitude
The energy released during an earthquake is measured as magnitude, based on seismic recordings. While several magnitude scales exist, including the early Richter scale, the most widely used today is the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale. Moment magnitude reflects the size of the fault area that ruptured and the amount of slip, providing a consistent measure of total energy released. More information regarding magnitude can be found in Section A.3 of this chapter.

Ground Failure
Fissuring, settlement, and permanent horizontal and vertical shifting of the ground often accompanies large earthquakes. Although not as pervasive or as costly as the shaking itself, City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-4
these ground failures can significantly increase damage and, under certain circumstances, can be the dominant cause of damage. The following is a list of different ground failure scenarios:

Fault Rupture
The sudden sliding of one part of the earth’s crust past another releases the vast store of elastic energy in the rocks as an earthquake. The resulting fracture is known as a fault, while the sliding movement of earth on either side of a fault is called fault rupture. Fault rupture begins below the ground surface at the earthquake hypocenter, typically between three and ten miles below the ground surface in California. If an earthquake is large enough, the fault rupture will actually travel all the way to the ground surface, severely damaging structures built across its path.

Liquefaction
In addition to the primary fault rupture that occurs right along a fault during an earthquake, the ground many miles away can also fail during the intense shaking. One common type of failure occurs when soft, water-saturated soil settles, causing the water to eject sediment particles as it works its way to the ground surface. This phenomenon, known as liquefaction, turns the soil into a fluid, causing it to lose the ability to support buildings and other structures. Areas susceptible to liquefaction include places where sandy sediments have been deposited by rivers along their course, or by waves along beaches.

Landslides
Landslides are the result of the down-slope movement of unstable hillside materials under the influence of natural degradation, due to exposure and gravity over time. Strength of rock and soil, steepness of slope, and weight of the hillside material, all play an important role in the stability of hillside areas. Weathering and absorption of water can weaken slopes, while the added weight of saturated materials or overlying construction can increase the chances of slope failure. Sudden failure can be triggered by heavy rainfall, excavation of weak slopes, and earthquake shaking, among other factors.

A.2 Earthquake Location
Even if the epicenter of a major earthquake is not located directly within the City, the aftershocks associated with that earthquake can cause significant damage. The hazards associated with aftershock earthquakes are the same as mainshock earthquakes and may cause significant damage and disruption. The primary difference between mainshock and aftershock earthquakes is aftershock earthquakes are categorized by the following two guidelines:

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-5
• First, it must occur within one rupture length of the mainshock rupture surface, or alternatively, within an "aftershock zone" based upon early aftershock activity and defined by seismologists.
• Second, it must occur within that designated area before the seismicity rate in that area returns to its "background", meaning pre-mainshock, level. Figure A.1, from the California Department of Conservation, details the locations and magnitudes for historic California earthquakes since 1769.

Figure A.1: California Historic Earthquake Map
Source: California Department of Conservation
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) ranked earthquakes as the greatest threat to the City. According to the Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, the City is located in a seismic fault zone near the Newport-Inglewood Fault, Whittier Fault, and Palos Verdes Fault, and is located in a high seismic risk zone. Figure A.2 illustrates the City’s location, identified by the blue marker, in relation to these regional fault systems and the surrounding seismic hazard environment.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-6
Figure A.2: Southern California Earthquake Fault Map
Source: California Geological Survey Fault Activity Map of California City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-7
Fault Zones
There are many faults and fault zones throughout Southern California. After reviewing maps of the United States, California and specifically the southern California area, the research resulted in earthquakes that could impact the City. Faults that were reviewed include: San Andreas, Whittier, Newport-Inglewood, San Joaquin, Palos Verdes, and San Clemente Faults. These faults, all considered active, are capable of producing earthquakes in the 4.5 – 8+ range. This report focused on the six faults that could most seriously impact the area.

1. San Andreas Fault

2. Whittier Fault

3. Newport-Inglewood Fault

4. San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault

5. Palos Verdes Fault

6. San Clemente Fault
A major earthquake along any of these five faults could result in substantial casualties and damage resulting from collapsed buildings, damaged roads and bridges, fires, flooding, and other threats to life and property. There may still be unmapped earthquake faults throughout southern California that could also affect the City. Tables A.1 through A.6 give fault specific information from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center for local faults that could affect the City.

The San Andreas Fault
Table A.1: San Andreas Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-lateral strike-slip
Length: 1200 km
Nearby Communities: Parkfield, Frazier Park, Palmdale, Wrightwood, San Bernardino, Banning, Indio
Last Major Rupture: January 9, 1857 (Mojave segment); April 18, 1906 (Northern segment)
Slip rate: 20-35 mm/yr.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-8
Interval Between
Major Ruptures:

Average of about 140 years on the Mojave segment; recurrence interval varies greatly from under 20 years (at Parkfield only) to over 300 years
Probable Magnitudes: 6.8-8.0
This fault marks the boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates and is capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude 8+ range. It has been scientifically determined through a carbon dating process that a major earthquake on this fault has occurred approximately every 145 years plus or minus 20 years. The last major earthquake on the Mojave segment of the Fault occurred in 1857 (159 years ago as of 2016). The San Andreas Fault is considered one of the most active faults in the world today, and a major earthquake up to an 8.3 magnitude is expected to occur again within the next 20 years. The Fault traverses the southern California region and is located east of the City. The ground shaking of an 8.3 magnitude earthquake on the Southern San Andreas Fault would result in serious damage in Southern California, including the City.

The Whittier Fault
Table A.2: Whittier Fault Information
Type of fault: Right-lateral strike-slip with some reverse slip Length: About 40 km
Nearby Communities: Yorba Linda, Hacienda Heights, Whittier, Cerritos, Downey Most Recent Surface
Rupture:

Holocene
Slip rate: 2.5- 3.0 mm/yr
Interval Between
Major Ruptures:

Unknown
Probable Magnitudes: 6.0-7.2
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-9
The Whittier Fault is a strike-slip fault located to the northeast of the City. It is part of the extensive network of faults that cross Southern California. The fault is relatively short but capable of producing moderate to large earthquakes. The most recent significant shaking occurred in 1987, with a magnitude 5.9 earthquake. Although the fault is not as active as the San Andreas Fault, it still poses a significant seismic risk to the surrounding areas, especially in the event of a larger rupture.

The Newport-Inglewood Fault
Table A.3: Newport-Inglewood Fault Information
Type of fault: Right lateral; local reverse slip associated with fault steps Length: 75 km
Nearby Communities: Lakewood, Culver City, Inglewood, Gardena, Compton, Signal Hill, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa
Last Major Rupture March 10, 1993, MW 6.4
Slip rate: 0.6 mm/yr.

Interval Between
Major Ruptures:

Unknown
Probable Magnitudes: 6.0-7.4
The Newport-Inglewood Fault is considered the second most active fault in California. It runs from the City of Inglewood through Huntington Beach and out into the Pacific Ocean near the Newport Beach area. This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the range of 6.3 to 7.5 magnitude.

The 6.5 magnitude, 1933 Long Beach earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault causing 120 deaths and severe damage. Unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed leaving people trapped beneath the rubble.

When scientists refer to the San Andreas Fault, they often call it “The Big One.” In 1990, the Los Angeles Times newspaper did a series of articles on the Newport-Inglewood Fault and described City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-10
it as “The Bigger One.” Both faults would cause considerable damage; however, a 7.5 magnitude Newport-Inglewood earthquake have a more severe impact on the City than an 8.3 on the San Andreas due to the fault’s proximity. The cost estimates of damage are much greater for the Newport-Inglewood worst-case scenario than the San Andreas worst-case scenario.

The San Joaquin Hills Fault
Table A.4: San Joaquin Fault Information
Type of fault: Blind thrust
Length: 39 km
Nearby Communities: Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point
Most recent surface
rupture:

Unknown
Slip rate: Unknown
According to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the San Joaquin Hills Fault is a blind thrust fault, which will not break the earth’s surface but can cause severe damage. It is 24 miles in length from Dana Point to Huntington Beach. This thrust fault may interact with the projected Compton Thrust Fault to the west. Caltech reported that the maximum magnitude the fault could produce was up to a 7.3 earthquake, which is a large and powerful seismic event. Caltech utilized the research on the fault conducted by Lisa Grant at UCI to complete an earthquake-shaking model showing the intensity, velocity, and acceleration.

Palos Verdes Fault
Table A.5 : Palos Verdes Fault Information
Type of fault: Right reverse
Length: Roughly 80 km
Nearby Communities: San Pedro, Palos Verdes Estates, Torrance, Redondo Beach City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-11
Most recent surface
rupture:

Holocene offshore; Late Quaternary onshore;
Slip rate: Between 0.1 and 3.0 mm/yr.

Interval between major
ruptures:

Unknown
Probable magnitudes: 6.0 – 7.0 (or greater); fault geometries may allow only partial rupture at any one time.

The Palos Verdes Hills Fault is capable of a 6.0-7.0 magnitude earthquake. It has two main branches and continues southward as the Palos Verdes-Coronado Bank Fault Zone. This fault is located off the coast of Huntington Beach. It starts north of Long Beach and extends south past Newport Beach where it is projected to join the Coronado Bank Fault Zone. The issue of concern is the fault causing shaking and liquefaction within the City.

San Clemente Fault
Table A.6: San Clemente Fault Information
Type of fault: Right lateral and vertical offsets
Length: At least 210 km; essentially continuous with the San Isidoro Fault Zone, off the coast of Mexico
Nearby Communities: San Diego (70 km offshore) forms scarp on east side of San Clemente Island
Most recent surface
rupture:

Holocene
Slip rate: Roughly 1.5 mm/yr.

As with the Palos Verdes Fault, the San Clemente Fault is located offshore and could cause ground shaking within the City.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-12
A.3 Earthquake Extent
The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured and recorded directly from the earthquake on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8). Seismologists have developed several magnitude scales. One of the first was the Richter scale, developed in 1932, by Dr. Charles F. Richter of the California Institute of Technology. The most commonly used scale today is the Moment Magnitude (Mw) Scale. Moment magnitude is related to the total area of the fault that ruptured, and the amount of offset (displacement) across the fault. It is a more uniform measure of energy released during an earthquake. The other commonly used measure of earthquake severity is intensity. Intensity is an expression of the amount of shaking at any given location on the ground surface. In general, it decreases with distance from the source of an earthquake, but it may be increased or decreased by several factors.

The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale & Corresponding Richter Scale Magnitudes Shaking intensity is often described using the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which rates an earthquake’s effects based on human observation. While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it may have many intensity values, which will generally decrease with distance from the epicenter.

Table A.7 lists the Mercalli Scale’s various intensity levels.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-13
Table A.7: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

MERCALLI

INTENSITY DESCRIPTION

RICHTER SCALE

MAGNITUDE
I Instrumental Detected only by a seismograph
II Feeble Noticed by sensitive people 0.1 to 3.4
III Slight Like the vibrations due to a passing truck 3.5 to 4.2 IV Moderate Felt by people while walking, rocking of loose objects, including standing vehicles 4.3 to 4.8
V Rather
Strong
Felt generally; most sleepers are awakened and
bells ring

4.3 to 4.8
VI Strong
Trees sway and all suspended objects swing;
damage by over-turning and falling of loose
objects

4.9 to 5.4
VII Very Strong General alarm; walls crack; plaster falls 4.9 to 5.4 VIII Destructive
Car drivers seriously disturbed; masonry fissured;
chimneys fall; poorly constructed buildings
damaged

5.5 to 6.1
IX Ruinous Some houses collapse where ground begins to
crack, and pipes break

6.2 to 6.9
X Disastrous Ground cracks badly; many buildings destroyed, and railway lines bent; landslides on steep slopes

7.0 to 7.3
XI Very
Disastrous
Few buildings remain standing; bridges destroyed;
all services (railway, pipes, and cables) out of
action; great landslides and floods

7.4 to 8.1
XI Catastrophic Total Destruction; objects thrown into air; ground rises and falls in waves

8.1 +
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan
Earthquake-14
As described in the Earthquake Probability section below, the City has roughly a .04% chance of a 6.9M earthquake annually. According to Table A.7, this could result in severe shaking resulting in housing collapse, ground fissures, and possible damage to underground infrastructure.

Amplification of Seismic Shaking
Although seismic waves radiate from their source like ripples on a pond, the radiation is not uniform due to the complex nature of an earthquake rupture, the different paths the waves follow through the Earth, and the different rock and soil layers near the Earth’s surface. Large earthquakes begin deep below the Earth’s surface, where the initial rupture occurs, and the fault breaks outward from that point. Because the speed of an earthquake rupture on a fault is similar to the speed of seismic waves, waves closer to the epicenter can be compounded by waves from farther along the rupture, creating a pulse of very strong seismic waves that moves along the fault in the direction of the rupture. Seismic waves may also be modified as they travel through the Earth’s crust.

As seismic waves approach the ground surface, they commonly enter areas of loose soils where the waves travel more slowly. As the waves slow down, their amplitude increases, resulting in larger waves with frequencies that are more likely to damage structures. Waves can also be trapped within soft sediments between the ground surface and deep, and hard basement rocks with their destructive energy multiplying as they bounce back and forth, producing much greater shaking at the ground surface.

Figure A.3 illustrates the relative earthquake shaking potential across Southern California, highlighting regions with elevated seismic risk. The City, marked with a yellow "X," lies within a zone of high shaking potential due to its proximity to several active fault lines City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-15
Figure A.3: Earthquake Shaking Potential for California Source: California Geological Survey Map Sheet 48
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-16
A.4 Earthquake History
To indicate the potential for an earthquake event, Table A.8 lists significant recorded earthquakes in Southern California and the associated magnitudes (excerpted from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech):

Table A.8: Table of Select Historical Earthquakes

MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1796 LA Basin Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1800 San Diego Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1812 Wrightwood (or San Juan Capistrano) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1812 Santa Barbara Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1852 Volcano Lake Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1855 Los Angeles Region Earthquake
MAGNITUDE > 7.5 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1858 San Bernardino Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1862 San Diego Earthquake
MAGNITUDE > 7.5 1872 Owens Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1881 Parkfield Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1883 Santa Barbara Channel Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1890 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault Region Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1892 San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault Region Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1892 Laguna Salada Earthquake
MAGNITUDE > 7.5 1892 Imperial Valley Earthquake
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-17

MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1899 Cajon Pass Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1899 San Jacinto Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1901 Parkfield Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1906 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1908 Death Valley Region Earthquake MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1910 Elsinore Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1915 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1916 South of Death Valley Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1918 San Jacinto Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1922 Parkfield Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1968 Borrego Mountain Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1970 Lytle Creek Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1973 Point Mugu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1975 Galway Lake Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1978 Santa Barbara Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1979 Malibu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1980 White Wash Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1982 "Anza Gap" Earthquake
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-18

MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1986 Oceanside Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1987 Elmore Ranch/Superstition Hills Earthquakes MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Tejon Ranch Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Upland Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1988 Pasadena Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Malibu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Newport Beach Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1989 Montebello Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1990 Upland Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1991 Sierra Madre Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Joshua Tree Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1992 Landers Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Big Bear Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1992 Mojave (Garlock) Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1993 Wheeler Ridge Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1994 Northridge Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 1995 Ridgecrest Earthquakes
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1996 Coso Earthquake
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-19

MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1997 Calico Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Coso Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Crafton Hills (Redlands) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 San Bernardino Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 1998 Whiskey Springs (Big Bear City) Earthquake MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 1999 Hector Mine Earthquake
UNDER MAGNITUDE 4.5 2001 West Hollywood Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2001 Anza Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2002 Laguna Salada Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 2003 San Simeon Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2005 Mettler Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2009 Inglewood Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2009 Baja California Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 2010 Sierra El Mayor Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2010 Ocotillo Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2010 Borrego Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2011 Calexico Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2012 Brawley Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2012 Westmoreland Earthquake
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-20

MAGNITUDE YEAR EARTHQUAKE NAME
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2013 Anza Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2013 Isla Vista Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2014 Brea Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2014 Running Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2015 Stovepipe Wells Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2016 San Jacinto Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2016 Borrego Springs Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2018 Santa Cruz Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 6.5 TO 7.4 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2020 Lone Pine Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 5.5 - 6.4 2021 Little Antelope Valley Earthquake MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2024 Lamont Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2024 Malibu Earthquake
MAGNITUDE 4.5 - 5.4 2025 Julian Earthquake
Southern California Historic Earthquakes
One of the best indicators of earthquake potential is learning the earthquake history of the area.

The following is a discussion on large earthquakes that affected the City, which were also included in Table E.7.
1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake
On January 9, 1857, one of the greatest recorded earthquakes in the U.S. occurred in Southern California. The Fort Tejon earthquake measured 7.9 on the Richter scale and left a surface rupture City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-21
scar of over 350 kilometers (225 miles) along the San Andreas Fault. Strong shaking was said to have lasted for over a minute, and water from the Los Angeles River was reportedly thrown out of its bed. Damage was not nearly as serious as it would be today since Southern California was sparsely populated at the time. Were the Fort Tejon earthquake to occur today, the damage could easily run into billions of dollars, and the loss of life could be substantial. The present-day communities of Wrightwood and Palmdale lie upon or near the 1857 rupture area. 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
In 1933, the Long Beach 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck the Los Angeles Basin on March 10.

The earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood Fault, causing serious damage in Long Beach and other communities. The earthquake resulted in 120 deaths and over $50 million in property damage. Most of the damaged buildings were of unreinforced masonry construction. The following images of the damage were taken from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center website.
1971 Sylmar Earthquake (San Fernando)
On February 9, 1971, the Los Angeles Basin shook for over one minute. There were 65 deaths and a financial cost of over $500 million. The earthquake resulted in a crack in the Van Norman Dam where an 80-square mile area had to be evacuated due to fear the dam would break.

Numerous people were trapped in buildings and fires were started from natural gas line breaks.

Two hospitals collapsed killing nine people. The Veterans Administration Hospital had seven deaths (photos left), and the Olive View Hospital had two deaths. Following this earthquake, the Alquist Hospital Seismic Act was passed establishing structural and non-structure classifications for hospital building seismic –safety levels.
1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
In October 1987, the Whittier Narrows Earthquake struck the Los Angeles area with a 5.9 magnitude earthquake. This earthquake occurred on a fault system not previously known for seismic activity. There were 8 deaths and 200 injuries. The earthquake damage was estimated at $358 million.
1994 Northridge Earthquake
On January 17, 1994, the Northridge Earthquake struck at a 6.7 magnitude in the Los Angeles area. There were 57 deaths and over 1,500 people were injured. The earthquake caused billions City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-22
of dollars in damages and disrupted the lives of thousands of residents, schools and businesses in Southern California.

For days afterward, thousands of homes and businesses were without electricity; tens of thousands had no gas; and nearly 50,000 had little or no water. According to NASA Ames Research Center, building officials inspected over 66,500 structures and determined 4,000 were severely damaged and deemed uninhabitable. An additional 11,000 buildings were moderately damaged and authorized only for limited occupancy. Several collapsed bridges and overpasses created commuter havoc on the freeway system. In addition, ground shaking caused extensive damage and triggered liquefaction. This ignited dozens of fires throughout the area resulting in further damage.

However, the earthquake occurred early in the morning on a holiday. These circumstances considerably reduced the impact. Many collapsed buildings were unoccupied, and most businesses were not yet open. Still, the direct and indirect economic losses ran into the tens of billions.

State and Federal Declared Earthquake Disasters
While Los Angeles County, where the City is located, has neither had state nor federally declared earthquake disasters since the last plan update, it is important to note that other California counties have. This includes Kern and San Bernadino Counties in July of 2019. This earthquake event resulted in the state declaring a disaster for those counties. In addition, Humboldt County experienced an earthquake in December of 2022, also resulting in the governor classifying the event as a state recognized disaster. It is crucial to recognize the history of state declared earthquake disasters in other California counties due to the fact that the service area is set in an earthquake fault zone and can occur at any moment without warning.

A.5 Earthquake Probability
To assess probability of earthquake, this report will rely on Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). PGA mapping represents peak horizontal acceleration of the ground on firm-rock conditions. The approach of representing peak horizontal ground acceleration on firm-rock is a common and widely used method of showing ground accelerations. The development of probabilistic acceleration maps is a result of three types of basic input parameters:
1) Attenuation of ground shaking with distance from the earthquake source.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-23
2) Frequency of earthquakes within an area or region, termed recurrence; and 3) The character and extent of regions and faults that generate earthquakes.

Figure A.4 shows a multi-colored Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Map showing the expected relative intensity of ground shaking in California from anticipated future earthquakes. The shaking potential depicted is the Peak Ground Acceleration with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, which is the same as the level of ground-shaking with about a 2500-year average repeat time. The City is marked with an “X” and is located within a region where expected PGA values range from approximately 0.6g to 0.75g, indicating a high potential for strong ground shaking during a major seismic event.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-24
Figure A.4: Peak Ground Acceleration Map
Source: GIS.Conservation.Ca.Gov Peak Ground Acceleration Map City of Artesia
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-25
According to Table A.9 below (provided by the United States Geographic Survey), this PGA Value is typically associated with earthquake events around magnitude 6.9 and are expected to produce violent shaking and heavy damage potential. Based on the probabilistic seismic hazard data shown in Figure A.4, the mapped ground shaking levels for the City have a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, equivalent to an approximate 0.04% annual probability of experiencing this level of ground shaking.

Table A.9: Mercalli Intensity and Corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration

MERCALLI

INTENSITY

RICHTER

INTENSITY

ACCELERATION
(%G)

VELOCITY
(CM/S)

PERCEIVED

SHAKING

POTENTIAL
DAMAGE

3.5 < 0.17 < 0.1 Not Felt None

4.2 – 4.3 0.17 - 1.4 0.1 - 1.1 Weak None

4.8 1.40 – 3.9 1.1 - 3.4 Light None

4.9 – 5.4 3.9 - 9.2 3.4 - 8.1 Moderate Very light

5.5 – 6.0 9.2 - 18 8.1 - 16 Strong Light

6.1 18 - 34 16 - 31 Very Strong Moderate

6.2 34 - 65
31 - 60 Severe
Moderate to
Heavy

6.9 65 - 124 60 - 116 Violent Heavy

7.0 > 124 > 116 Extreme Very Heavy
The City has been impacted by earthquakes numerous times over the years. Typical of many locations in Southern California, seismic building standards have prevented these earthquakes from causing any severe damage within the City. However, as noted above, the potential for a large-scale earthquake is possible. Based on data the proximity of identified fault lines and the information demonstrated in the PGA maps, it is clear the whole community is at risk to the impacts of an earthquake event. Given the frequency, and likelihood, of earthquake occurrences City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-26
in the area coupled with the possibility for a large-scale scenario, the City has ranked earthquakes as one of the hazards with highest vulnerability for the City. It should be noted that the HMPC determined that the impacts climate change would not have any effect on the probability of earthquake scenarios.

A.6 Earthquake Vulnerability
Vulnerability to Structures
A major earthquake in the region could result in widespread structural and infrastructure damage throughout the City. Due to the City’s location within a high seismic risk area, combined with underlying liquefaction susceptibility associated with shallow groundwater conditions and soft basin soils, seismic shaking has the potential to damage buildings, utilities, roadways, and other critical infrastructure. The HMPC noted concerns not only regarding structural shaking impacts, but also secondary impacts such as gas line failures, roadway damage, utility disruption, overhead wire damage, and localized ground failure associated with liquefaction and soil instability. Recent localized sinkhole and soil failure incidents within the City further reinforced concerns regarding ground stability and the potential for seismic events to worsen existing subsurface vulnerabilities.

As determined through the vulnerability assessment detailed in Chapter 3, several City facilities were identified as having elevated seismic vulnerability due to factors such as age, construction type, uncertainty regarding seismic retrofits, multi-story design features, or specialized repair requirements. The HMPC identified the Albert O. Little Community Center as one of the more vulnerable facilities due to its age and multiple phases of older construction. Artesia Town Center was also identified as having elevated vulnerability due to concerns regarding historical construction quality, multi-story design characteristics, and the presence of adjacent infrastructure such as the nearby cell tower. In addition, the Frampton House was assigned elevated vulnerability due to its historic character, age, and the specialized repairs that may be required following structural or cosmetic earthquake damage. However, the Water Tower was identified as having the highest overall structural vulnerability due to the potential for severe damage during a major seismic event. Table A.10 below summarizes estimated earthquake loss estimates for City assets. These values are intended for planning purposes only and represent generalized planning-level estimates rather than anticipated actual damages.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-27
Table A.10: Earthquake Loss Estimate Table

ASSET NAME REPLACEMENT
VALUE % DAMAGE LOSS ESTIMATE
Artesia City Hall $3,673,000 20% $734,600
Artesia Public Works Yard $2,930,000 15% $439,500
Albert O. Little Community
Center
$5,112,000 25% $1,278,000
Artesia Town Center $9,540,000 15% $1,431,000
North Artesia Community
Center
$1,591,468 10% $159,147
New Public Services
Center
$1,909,134 5% $95,457
Frampton House $832,696 15% $124,904
Old Fire Station #30 $842,808 10% $84,281
Water Tower $1,020,000 100% $1,020,000
Note: Values provided by December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual To reduce structural vulnerability associated with earthquakes, the City developed several mitigation actions focused on seismic safety, infrastructure resilience, and public preparedness.

Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.01 focuses on implementing seismic studies throughout City facilities and developing plans for structural improvement projects where necessary. Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.02 supports reviewing NEHRP guidance and applicable state seismic requirements to help ensure local building code implementation aligns with current seismic safety standards and best practices. In addition, Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.03 focuses on expanding public outreach and education regarding voluntary residential seismic retrofitting options to help reduce structural vulnerability throughout the broader community. Together, these mitigation actions help strengthen the City’s resilience to future seismic events and reduce the potential for structural damage.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Earthquake-28
Vulnerability to People
A significant earthquake poses a sizable risk to the safety and well-being of the people living and working in the City. The population is vulnerable not only to the physical dangers of ground shaking, such as falling debris, structural collapse, and utility disruptions, but also to the cascading effects that follow, including fire, injury, displacement, and lack of access to critical resources.

Residents living in older, unreinforced structures or multi-unit buildings may face increased risk of injury or entrapment, especially if these buildings are not retrofitted to current seismic standards.

Vulnerable populations such as seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income residents may have limited mobility, fewer resources to prepare or evacuate, and a greater reliance on City services. A significant earthquake also threatens the City’s ability to maintain essential services and coordinate emergency response efforts. Disruption to power, water, and transportation infrastructure could isolate parts of the community, delay response times, and strain first responders. Schools, childcare centers, and public assembly areas may be affected, placing children and families at heightened risk during and after the event.

To help reduce risks to people during future earthquake events, the City developed Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.03, which focuses on expanding public outreach and education regarding voluntary residential seismic retrofitting options. By increasing awareness of retrofit opportunities and seismic preparedness measures, the City aims to encourage residents to strengthen older homes and reduce potential structural vulnerabilities before a major earthquake occurs. This action may help reduce the risk of injury, displacement, and property damage associated with residential building damage during future seismic events and supports broader community resilience efforts.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
B.1 Windstorm Identification and Background.......................................................... Windstorm-2 B.2 Windstorm Location........................................................................................... Windstorm-3 B.3 Windstorm Extent .............................................................................................. Windstorm-3 B.4 Windstorm History ............................................................................................. Windstorm-3 B.5 Windstorm Probability........................................................................................ Windstorm-4 B.6 Windstorm Vulnerability ..................................................................................... Windstorm-5

LIST OF TABLES
Table B.1: Windstorm Loss Estimate Table .............................................................. Windstorm-5 Appendix B
Windstorm
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-2
B.1 Windstorm Identification and Background
Wind can be described as the flow of air caused by differences in atmospheric pressure within the Earth's atmosphere. Air naturally moves from areas of high pressure to areas of lower pressure, and the greater the difference between these two areas, the faster the air moves.

When these differences are substantial, they can result in strong winds capable of causing damage to natural and built environments. Strong winds have historically been responsible for a range of impacts, from minor property damage, such as broken tree limbs and displaced roof tiles, to the complete destruction of large structures. In addition to physical damage, windstorms can disrupt utility services, telecommunications, and transportation networks, leading to broader community impacts.

The Beaufort Wind Scale is widely
used to describe wind speeds
based on observed conditions,
particularly at sea, and has been
adapted for land-based
assessments. Updated in the
1940s, the Beaufort Wind Scale
uses a seventeen-level system
that measures wind speeds from
calm conditions, to winds
exceeding 73 miles per hour
(mph). As demonstrated in the
Beaufort Wind Scale, windstorm
events which may result in
considerable structural damage
typically feature airspeeds ranging
from 55 mph to 72 mph, levels at
which significant property damage,
infrastructure disruptions, and public safety hazards can occur. Because of the destructive potential of strong winds, windstorms are a hazard of concern in many communities.

Source: What is the Beaufort Scale?
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-3
B.2 Windstorm Location
The entire planning area is vulnerable to windstorm events, with no specific area fully immune from potential impacts. Due to the City of Artesia’s (City) highly urbanized environment, high wind events can result in downed trees, fallen branches, and minor structural damage throughout the community. Previous wind events within the City have resulted in roof damage to facilities such as the Artesia Community Center, as well as impacts associated with fallen trees and debris. In addition, portions of the City contain above-ground electrical infrastructure, increasing the potential for downed power lines and localized power outages when trees or large branches fall during high wind events. Residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, public facilities, and transportation corridors may all experience impacts during windstorms. While the City generally expects wind-related damage to remain localized, windstorm events occur with enough frequency in the region that the hazard remains a concern citywide.

B.3 Windstorm Extent
Windstorm intensity within the City can vary depending on regional weather patterns and Santa Ana wind conditions. Typical wind events capable of causing property damage generally involve sustained winds or strong gusts exceeding 55 mph to 72 mph, as identified on the Beaufort Wind Scale. In the City, windstorm impacts are generally associated with fallen trees and branches, minor roof damage, debris hazards, and downed utility lines. The City has experienced localized impacts from wind events, including roof damage to public facilities and tree-related incidents that have affected above-ground electrical infrastructure. Due to the presence of overhead utility lines in portions of the community, windstorms have the potential to cause localized power outages and temporary disruptions to City services and transportation corridors. Residential neighborhoods, public facilities, commercial areas, and roadways may all experience impacts during stronger wind events. While the City does not typically experience catastrophic wind damage, even moderate wind events can create hazardous conditions requiring debris removal, utility restoration, emergency response, and temporary road closures.

B.4 Windstorm History
The City has experienced periodic windstorm impacts associated with regional Santa Ana wind events, winter storms, and other severe weather systems affecting Los Angeles County. Based on input from the Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC), past wind events in the City City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-4
have resulted in fallen trees, downed power lines, minor property damage, and roof damage to public facilities, including the Artesia Community Center. These events are generally localized in nature but can still require City response for debris removal, utility coordination, and public safety concerns.

Strong Santa Ana winds and occasional winter storms have historically brought elevated wind speeds to the greater Los Angeles County region, causing scattered damage to trees, fences, roofs, and utilities. Federal major disaster declarations FEMA-DR-4699-CA in 2023 and FEMADR-4856-CA in 2025 were both issued for severe weather events that included straight-line winds and covered Los Angeles County. These declarations apply to the City, as the City is located within Los Angeles County. Additionally, a State of Emergency was declared in California in January 2025 in response to fire and windstorm conditions affecting Los Angeles County and Ventura County.

B.5 Windstorm Probability
The probability of future windstorm events occurring in the City is considered moderate. While severe windstorms are not constant occurrences, seasonal weather patterns, particularly Santa Ana wind conditions and winter storm systems, create recurring opportunities for elevated wind speeds capable of causing property damage, fallen trees, and utility disruptions. The City has experienced multiple wind-related incidents involving fallen trees, downed power lines, and minor structural damage, contributing to the hazard receiving a higher ranking during the risk assessment process.

Recent regional incidents also demonstrate the potential for damaging wind events within Los Angeles County. During the 2023–2024 New Year’s period, a rare localized wind event resembling a small tornado occurred near Lakewood City Hall in the bordering City of Lakewood, causing damage to trees and surrounding areas. Additionally, in March 2023, an EF1 tornado touched down in the City of Montebello, located approximately 15 miles north of Artesia, producing peak winds of approximately 110 miles per hour and damaging multiple structures. While neither incident occurred within the City itself, these nearby events demonstrate that unusual and damaging wind events can occur within the greater Los Angeles County region.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-5
B.6 Windstorm Vulnerability
Vulnerability to Structures
Structures throughout the City are generally expected to experience limited impacts during most windstorm events; however, localized damage may still occur during periods of elevated wind speeds, particularly in areas with mature trees and above-ground utility infrastructure. Based on input from the HMPC, previous wind events within the City have resulted in fallen trees, downed power lines, and minor roof damage to public facilities. While catastrophic structural damage is not anticipated under most windstorm scenarios, debris hazards and tree-related impacts remain a concern throughout the City.

As identified through the vulnerability assessment detailed in Chapter 3, most City-owned facilities are considered to have a relatively low level of structural vulnerability during windstorm events. A planning-level damage factor of approximately two percent was assigned to most facilities to account for the potential for roof damage, broken windows, fallen debris, and other minor windrelated impacts. The City’s Water Tower was assigned no expected structural damage under the planning-level assessment due to its design and limited susceptibility to typical windstorm impacts. Table B.1 below summarizes estimated windstorm-related loss estimates for City assets.

These values are intended for planning purposes only and represent generalized planning-level estimates rather than anticipated actual damages.

Table B.1: Windstorm Loss Estimate Table

ASSET NAME

REPLACEMENT
VALUE
% DAMAGE LOSS ESTIMATE
Artesia City Hall $3,673,000 2% $73,460
Artesia Public Works Yard $2,930,000 2% $58,600
Albert O. Little Community
Center $5,112,000 2% $102,240
Artesia Town Center $9,540,000 2% $190,800
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-6
North Artesia Community
Center $1,591,468 2% $31,829
New Public Services
Center $1,909,134 2% $38,183
Frampton House $832,696 2% $16,654
Old Fire Station #30 $842,808 2% $16,856
Water Tower $1,020,000 0% $0
Note: Values provided by December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual. These values are to be used for planning purposes only.

To reduce the risk of windstorm-related damage identified through the risk assessment process, the City developed several mitigation actions focused on addressing vulnerabilities associated with overhead utilities, debris accumulation, and tree-related hazards. Based on HMPC input and previous wind-related incidents involving fallen trees, downed power lines, and localized property damage, Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.04 focuses on coordinating with utility providers to upgrade and/or bury overhead utility lines to reduce service disruptions and infrastructure damage during future wind events. Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.05 supports the development and maintenance of a Debris Management Plan to improve debris clearance operations, contractor coordination, and post-event recovery capabilities following high wind incidents.

Additionally, Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.06 focuses on coordinating with City contractors to remove dead or hazardous trees in a timely manner, while Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.07 supports implementation of the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan to reduce hazards associated with falling tree limbs and downed power lines during severe wind events. These actions were developed in response to HMPC concerns regarding tree-related damage observed during previous windstorms and directly address vulnerabilities identified during the City’s windstorm hazard assessment, helping strengthen the resilience of City facilities and utility infrastructure.

Vulnerability to People
The most vulnerable populations during windstorms include elderly individuals, young children, people with mobility issues, and those living in aging homes. During windstorm events, these City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Windstorm-7
individuals may face a higher risk of injury from flying debris, downed trees, damaged structures, or fallen utility lines. Additionally, residents living in mobile homes or other less structurally resilient housing types may be more susceptible to injury or displacement during severe wind events.

According to the City’s Housing Element, the City contains one mobile home park community, La Belle Chateau, located in the southernmost portion of the City along Pioneer Boulevard. While widespread catastrophic damage from windstorms is not anticipated, mobile home communities may be comparatively more vulnerable to elevated wind conditions and utility disruptions. The impact of windstorms on people can also extend to the broader community. Power outages may disrupt daily life, healthcare services, and transportation systems. Public spaces, parks, sidewalks, and community facilities may become temporarily unsafe or inaccessible due to debris accumulation, fallen branches, or damaged infrastructure.

To reduce risks to public safety during future windstorm events, the City developed mitigation actions focused on improving debris management capabilities, reducing tree-related hazards, and strengthening utility infrastructure resilience. These actions support proactive tree maintenance, removal of hazardous vegetation, improved emergency debris clearance operations, and coordination with utility providers to reduce the likelihood of downed power lines and prolonged outages. Together, these efforts help reduce the impacts of windstorm hazards to residents and strengthen the City’s overall resilience to future windstorm events.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
C.1 Dam Failure Identification and Background ..................................................... Dam Failure-2 C.2 Dam Failure Location ......................................................................................Dam Failure-4 C.3 Dam Failure Extent..........................................................................................Dam Failure-6 C.4 Dam Failure History.........................................................................................Dam Failure-6 C.5 Dam Failure Probability ...................................................................................Dam Failure-9 C.6 Dam Failure Vulnerability.................................................................................Dam Failure-9

LIST OF TABLES
Table C.1: Selected Dam Failures in California ...................................................... Dam Failure-8 Table C.2: Dam Failure Loss Estimate Table........................................................ Dam Failure-10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure C.1: Location of Artesia Relative to Whittier Narrows Dam.......................... Dam Failure-5 Appendix C
Dam Failure
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-2
C.1 Dam Failure Identification and Background
Dam Failure
A dam is a barrier preventing the flow of water or loose solid materials (such as soil or snow), or a barrier built across a watercourse for impounding water. These artificial barriers are 25 feet or more in height, or have an impounding capacity of 50 acre-feet or more. Dams are important because they provide water for drinking, for industry, irrigation, fishing, and recreation, for hydroelectric power production, for navigation in rivers, and other needs. Dams also protect people by reducing or preventing floods.

There are four general types of dams: Arch, Buttress, Gravity, and Embankment. Each of these types of dams have different failure characteristics.

Arch Dams
Arch dams are best suited to narrow canyons, where they divert the force of the water behind the dam to the sides of the canyon, in order to help support the weight. Therefore, arch dams are not as thick as gravity dams, since the dam itself supports less weight, making them less expensive to construct. Arch dams may carry less weight than other dams; however, they are affected by the same kinds of force. These forces include pressure of the water, weight of the water, and weight of the dam.

Buttress Dams
Buttress dams are built in wide valleys. The name "buttress" dam comes from the structure of the dam itself. The dam is supported at intervals by several buttresses, concrete slabs reinforced with steel, which form a watertight seal against the river. There are two main types of buttress dams:
flat slab and multiple arches. They are also known as Ambursen dams, named after the American engineer who implemented this design in the early 20th century. Originally, buttress dams were used in areas requiring irrigation, but where the land was not capable of supporting the size and weight of other types of dams.

Gravity Dams
Gravity dams serve the same purposes as arch and buttress dams; however, they differ in structure and method of retaining water. This type of dam is solid and triangular in shape, requiring a large amount of concrete or other construction material. The immense weight of the concrete provides stabilization and allows the dam to maintain control of the water.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-3
Embankment Dams
Embankment dams are massive dams made of earth or rock. Embankment dams usually have a waterproof interior (called the core), which is covered with earth or rock fill. Grass may even sometimes grow on the earth fill. Water will seep in through the earth or rock fill but will not seep into the core. They rely on weight to resist the flow of water, similar to concrete gravity dams. The embankment dam is the only dam type that is not made of concrete. Embankment dams may be made of earth or rock, in which water seeps into the core material and stops at the seepage line.

The core material is usually more watertight than the rock or earth that is on the outside of the dam, but the core material is still not totally impervious to water.

According to the FEMA website, dam failures are generally caused by one or a combination of the following reasons:

Overtopping
The Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), reports 34% of all U.S. dam failures are due to overtopping, as a result of inadequate spillway design, debris blockage of spillways, or settlement of the dam crest. Overtopping occurs when primary and emergency spillways are not sufficient to pass floodwater and the excess runs over the top of the dam. The overflow can erode the embankment, weakening the dam wall and potentially causing a full dam failure. While the City has not experienced the repercussions of a major dam failure, the Sweetwater Dam failure that occurred on January 27, 1916, is an example of a failure in Southern California that was the result of overtopping. After experiencing a long period of drought, the area received more than thirty-nine inches of rain. As a result, more than 200 bridges were washed out, entire communities were swept away, levees collapsed, and valleys were inundated.

Acts of sabotage
Sabotage, or deliberate actions aimed at disrupting normal dam operations, can occur for many reasons. Like an act of terrorism or public demonstration, acts of sabotage can be motivated by a number of factors; political, socio-economic, and religious are a just a few. Often, they occur suddenly, and without warning. However, according to the Stanford University National Performance of Dams Program (NPDP), sabotage and vandalism have been the fewest cause of dam failures between the years 1975 and 2001.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-4
Structural failure of materials used in dam construction According to the NPDP, dam failure due to structural deficiencies are only marginally more common than the acts of sabotage. Due to state regulations for dam construction and maintenance, failures due to inadequate structural integrity are rare.

According to FEMA, causes of dam failure in this category may include:
• Movement and/or failure of the foundation supporting the dam, • Settlement and cracking of concrete or embankment dams, • Piping and internal erosion of the soil in embankment dams, and • Inadequate maintenance and upkeep.

C.2 Dam Failure Location
The City of Artesia (City) is located downstream of Whittier Narrows Dam within southeast Los Angeles County. Whittier Narrows Dam is located in the South El Monte area at the natural gap between the Montebello Hills and Puente Hills, approximately 11 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. The dam is situated along the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo and serves as a major component of the Los Angeles County regional flood control system. The combined drainage area associated with the San Gabriel River watershed and Rio Hondo sub watershed upstream of the dam encompasses approximately 556 square miles.

Whittier Narrows Dam
Whittier Narrows Dam was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1941 and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area flood control system. The dam was designed to provide regional flood risk reduction benefits to downstream communities throughout southeast Los Angeles County. Due to the City’s downstream location and connection to the regional drainage and flood control system associated with the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo, the City could be affected by flooding associated with a significant operational issue or failure involving Whittier Narrows Dam. Although dam failure is considered a rare event, extreme rainfall events, seismic activity, structural deficiencies, or operational failures could potentially contribute to downstream flooding impacts affecting communities located downstream of the facility
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-5
Figure C.1: Location of Artesia Relative to Whittier Narrows Dam Source: USACE Whittier Narrows Dam Safety Project
City of Artesia
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-6
C.3 Dam Failure Extent
The extent of flooding associated with a significant operational issue or failure involving Whittier Narrows Dam would depend on factors such as the amount of water in the reservoir, the type of failure, and overall storm conditions at the time of the event. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Whittier Narrows Dam Safety Modification Study Final Environmental Impact Statement (2019), the City is one of the downstream communities that could experience flooding impacts during major flood or dam failure scenarios.

USACE modeling indicates that flooding depths in the City could vary depending on the severity of the event. For spillway discharge scenarios where the dam does not fully fail, estimated flood depths within portions of Artesia range from approximately 0 to 4 feet under lower pool elevation scenarios and up to approximately 0 to 8 feet during more extreme conditions. Under modeled dam breach scenarios, estimated flood depths in portions of the City could reach up to approximately 10 feet under the most severe west embankment breach scenario.

For the City, a major dam-related flooding event could result in flooding of homes, businesses, parks, and local roadways. Critical infrastructure, transportation routes, and emergency services, could also be affected, potentially leading to disruptions in power, water service, access, and mobility. These impacts could make evacuation, emergency response, and recovery more difficult for residents and businesses. Although dam failure is generally considered a low-probability event due to ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and dam safety programs, the potential consequences can be severe. As a result, dam failure is considered a low-probability but high-consequence hazard.

C.4 Dam Failure History
The history of dam failures in Southern California serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with aging infrastructure and the region’s natural hazards. While catastrophic failures have been rare, the consequences of these events are often devastating, prompting advancements in engineering standards and emergency planning. By examining these historical failures, we gain valuable insights into the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure and the importance of ongoing maintenance and oversight.

In the Orange County and Los Angeles region, several notable dam failures- or near failureshave shaped local infrastructure practices and policies. These events have not only impacted the immediate communities but have also served as catalysts for improved safety measures and regulations across California.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-7
Santiago Dam and Irvine Lake
The Santiago Dam, which forms Irvine Lake, has also experienced structural concerns during periods of heavy rain. While no catastrophic failure has occurred, these concerns highlight the risks associated with aging infrastructure. Regular inspections and maintenance of the dam have been essential to ensuring the safety of nearby communities.

St. Francis Dam Failure (1928)
One of the most catastrophic dam failures in U.S. history occurred in 1928, when the St. Francis Dam, located in northern Los Angeles County, collapsed just two years after its completion. The failure unleashed a 12-billion-gallon flood wave that swept through the Santa Clara River Valley, destroying everything in its path. Over 400 people lost their lives in this tragedy, and entire towns were devastated. The disaster revealed critical engineering flaws and a lack of adequate oversight during the dam’s construction, leading to sweeping changes in dam safety regulations statewide.

Prado Dam Challenges
Although not a failure, Prado Dam, located near
Corona in Riverside County, and serving as a vital
flood control structure for Orange County, has
faced significant maintenance issues. In the early
2000s, concerns about seepage and aging
infrastructure prompted a major rehabilitation
effort to ensure the dam's continued functionality.

Heavy rainfall during these periods heightened
fears of potential failure, emphasizing the
importance of proactive management and regular
assessments to address vulnerabilities.

Overall, there have been at least 460 deaths from dam failures in California. A brief selection of these failures is outlined in Table C.1.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-8
Table C.1: Selected Dam Failures in California
YEAR
FAILED

DAM LOCATION CAUSE OF FAILURE/DEATHS
1883 English Sierra County
Dam crumbles to foundations, decay
of timber used
1892 Long Valley Creek San Jacinto Heavy rains, dam carried away by flood
1895 The Angels Calaveras County Undetermined during flood, poor foundation
1896 Vernon Heights Oakland Shallow foundation
1898 Snake Ravine Stanislaus County Poor compaction
1916 Sweetwater San Diego Dam collapse releasing 13 billion gallons of water
1925 Sheffield Santa Barbara Earthquake compromised
foundation integrity
1928 St. Francis Los Angeles
County Likely instability of underlying soil
1963 Baldwin Hills Los Angeles Leak through embankment turned into washout
1964 Hell Hole Rubicon River Failed during construction due to unprecedented rains
1965 Matilija Ventura
Bad foundation and concrete
disintegration
1971 San Fernando Los Angeles Gate failure resulting from earthquake
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-9
1995 Folsom Dam Sacramento
Gate failure, minor damage to dam
and spillway
2017 Oroville Oroville Inundated spillways resulted in
severe erosion
Source: Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) and various open sources No federal major disaster declaration or state emergency proclamation specific to dam failure in Los Angeles County, where the City is located, has been identified since the last planning period.

There is no recorded history of dam failures directly affecting the City, and no reports of damage from dam-related flooding have been identified. However, given the extent of development in the region and the potential impacts identified in inundation mapping, the City continues to treat dam failure as a significant, though unlikely, hazard in its planning efforts.

C.5 Dam Failure Probability
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) classified dam failure as a rare event, defined as occurring less than once every 50 years, which equates to an estimated annual probability of less than 2%. Although the likelihood of Whittier Narrows Dam impacting the City is considered very low due to ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and dam safety improvement efforts by the USACE, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Whittier Narrows Dam serves as a critical regional flood control structure for the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo systems; however, under rare or extreme conditions such as severe storm events, overtopping, structural deficiencies, or seismic activity, downstream flooding could occur. Because the City is located downstream within a heavily developed portion of southeast Los Angeles County, a major dam-related flooding event could result in significant impacts to residents, businesses, infrastructure, and transportation networks.

C.6 Dam Failure Vulnerability
Vulnerability to Structures
The City is vulnerable to flooding impacts associated with a significant operational issue or failure involving Whittier Narrows Dam. According to USACE modeling, portions of the City could experience flood depths ranging from approximately 0 to 10 feet depending on the severity and type of dam failure scenario. Because the City is a relatively flat community with minimal elevation variation, flooding associated with a dam-related event could spread across large portions of the City and affect a wide range of structures and infrastructure.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-10
During the planning meetings, the HMPC noted that many City facilities could experience substantial flooding impacts due to the City’s flat topography and downstream location. Although dam failure is considered a low-probability event, the potential consequences were considered severe because of the widespread hazard area and the potential for significant damage to buildings, infrastructure, roadways, and utilities. HMPC members also noted that floodwaters associated with a major dam-related event could result in extensive cleanup and long-term recovery challenges due to water intrusion, structural damage, and impacts to transportation access throughout the community.

Based on HMPC input and the estimated flood depths identified in the USACE study, the City assigned a 50 percent damage estimate to most critical City-owned facilities due to the potential for significant flooding and associated damage. Historic and museum facilities, including the Frampton House and Old Fire Station #30, were assigned a 100 percent damage estimate due to their age and vulnerability to flood-related damage. Table C.2 below summarizes estimated dam failure loss estimates for City assets. These values are intended for planning purposes only and represent generalized planning level estimates rather than anticipated actual damages.

Table C.2: Dam Failure Loss Estimate Table

ASSET NAME

REPLACEMENT
VALUE
% DAMAGE LOSS ESTIMATE
Artesia City Hall $3,673,000 50% $1,836,500
Artesia Public Works Yard $2,930,000 50% $1,465,000
Albert O. Little Community
Center $5,112,000 50% $2,556,000
Artesia Town Center $9,540,000 50% $4,770,000
North Artesia Community
Center $1,591,468 50% $795,734
New Public Services
Center $1,909,134 50% $954,567
Frampton House $832,696 100% $832,696
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Dam Failure-11
Old Fire Station #30 $842,808 100% $842,808
Water Tower $1,020,000 50% $510,000
Note: Values provided by December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual.

Although the consequences of a major dam failure could be severe, HMPC members noted that the downstream travel time associated with a Whittier Narrows Dam failure scenario may provide several hours of warning time before floodwater reaches the City. This could allow for evacuation efforts and emergency notifications to reduce potential loss of life; however, significant property and infrastructure damage could still occur. To help reduce vulnerability, the City developed Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.08, which encourages conducting an EOC tabletop exercise focused on dam failure response and evacuation coordination. This action is intended to help City staff and partner agencies improve interagency coordination, clarify emergency roles and responsibilities, and identify gaps in response procedures before an actual emergency occurs.

Vulnerability to People
Certain populations within the City may be more vulnerable during a dam-related flooding event, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, individuals with limited mobility, households without access to transportation, and residents requiring additional assistance during evacuations. Flooding could also impact local businesses, transportation corridors, utilities, and emergency services, creating broader community disruptions and complicating response and recovery operations.

To help reduce vulnerability to dam failure incidents, the City developed Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.09, which calls for the development and maintenance of an evacuation plan in coordination with local and regional partners, including Fire, Police, and neighboring jurisdictions.

This action is intended to improve evacuation coordination, emergency communication, and overall preparedness during a dam-related flooding event. By establishing coordinated evacuation procedures and clearly identifying roles and responsibilities among responding agencies, the City can help improve emergency response efficiency and better support residents who may require additional assistance during evacuations or emergency notifications.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
D.1 Urban Fire Identification and Background...........................................................Urban Fire-2 D.2 Urban Fire Location............................................................................................Urban Fire-3 D.3 Urban Fire Extent ...............................................................................................Urban Fire-3 D.4 Urban Fire History ..............................................................................................Urban Fire-5 D.5 Urban Fire Probability.........................................................................................Urban Fire-7 D.6 Urban Fire Vulnerability ......................................................................................Urban Fire-7

LIST OF TABLES
Table D.1: Urban Fire Loss Estimate Table ...............................................................Urban Fire-8 Appendix D
Urban Fire
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-2
D.1 Urban Fire Identification and Background
Fire is a rapid oxidation process that can lead to uncontrolled burning, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Fires often spread quickly and are usually signaled by dense smoke that may fill the area for miles around. Fires can be human-caused through acts of arson or can be caused by natural events such as lightning. Fires are typically classified according to the following categories:
• Urban fires are primarily those associated
with structures and the activities in and
around them.
• Wildland fires occur in forests or other
generally uninhabited areas and are fueled
primarily by natural vegetation.
• Urban Interface fires occur where
development and forest interface, with both
vegetation and structures providing fuel, and
are sometimes referred to as urban-wildland
interface fires.

The following factors contribute significantly to aforementioned fire behavior. • Slope/Topography: As slope increases the rate of fire spread increases. In the northern hemisphere, south facing slopes are also subject to greater solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying fire behavior.
• Fuel: Weight and volume are the two methods of classifying fuel, with volume also referred to as fuel loading. Each fuel is assigned a burn index (the estimated amount of potential energy released during a fire), an estimate of the effort required to contain a fire, and an expected flame length.
• Weather: Variations in weather conditions have a significant effect on the occurrence and behavior of fires.

Firestorms that occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) have high intensity, which makes fire suppression virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change, or the fuel is exhausted. Even small fires can threaten lives and resources and destroy properties. It is also important to note that, in addition to affecting City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-3
people, fires may severely affect livestock and pets. Such events may require the emergency watering/feeding, shelter, evacuation, and even burying of animals.

Fire Secondary Events
The aftermath of a fire can be as disastrous, if not more so, than the fire. A particularly destructive fire burns away plants and trees that prevent erosion. If heavy rains occur after such a fire, landslides, ash flows, and flash floods can occur. This can result in property damage outside the immediate fire area, and can affect the water quality of streams, rivers, and lakes.

Fire as a Secondary Event
In addition to typical ignition sources for fires, earthquakes and floods have the potential to rupture buried gas lines, and high winds or accidents could cause overhead electric lines to break, creating ignition sources for fires. Catastrophic earthquakes could cause widespread urban fires, as multiple gas and electrical lines could be broken or disrupted.

D.2 Urban Fire Location
The entire planning area is vulnerable to urban fire incidents. Due to the City of Artesia’s (City) highly urbanized environment and concentration of residential, commercial, and mixed-use development, urban fires have the potential to impact multiple structures simultaneously, particularly in areas where buildings are located in close proximity to one another. Unlike wildland fires, the City’s primary concern is structure-to-structure fire spread within densely developed urban areas, including apartment complexes, mixed-use developments, and commercial corridors.

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) identified higher-density residential and mixed-use areas as the locations of greatest concern for urban fire impacts. The City continues to plan for additional housing development through its mixed-use overlay areas, which may further increase residential density and the number of multi-family developments throughout the community over time. The HMPC noted that a major fire involving a large apartment complex or mixed-use development could create significant displacement challenges for residents and strain temporary housing and recovery resources.

Specific areas of concern identified during the planning process include the Artesia Town Center, which is located adjacent to apartment buildings, commercial uses, and other closely spaced structures. The HMPC noted that the proximity of surrounding development could increase the potential for fire spread or ember exposure during a significant urban fire event. Additionally, the North Artesia Community Center was identified as having heightened exposure due to its location City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-4
within a dense residential neighborhood and the presence of nearby landscaping vegetation and palm trees. The HMPC also noted that the City’s museum and historic-type facilities, such as the Frampton House and Old Fire Station #30, may contain more flammable materials or older construction features that could contribute to slightly increased fire vulnerability compared to other City-owned facilities. Although urban fire incidents may occur anywhere throughout the City, these locations were identified by the HMPC as having comparatively greater exposure to potential urban fire impacts based on surrounding development patterns, nearby structures, and site characteristics.

D.3 Urban Fire Extent
Urban fire incidents within the City can range from isolated structure fires to larger multi-structure events involving residential, commercial, or mixed-use developments. The extent of an urban fire depends on factors such as weather conditions, the proximity of surrounding structures, and the speed at which emergency responders are able to contain the incident. During periods of elevated winds, fires may spread more rapidly.

Due to the City’s dense urban development patterns and closely spaced buildings, there is potential for fire to spread from one structure to another, particularly within apartment complexes, mixed-use developments, and commercial corridors. The HMPC noted that the City’s primary concern involves larger multi-structure urban fire incidents rather than isolated single-structure fires. A significant fire affecting a large apartment complex or mixed-use development could result in substantial property damage, temporary displacement of residents, and disruptions to surrounding businesses and transportation access. The HMPC also noted that planned residential growth associated with the City’s mixed-use overlay areas may increase residential density and the concentration of multi-family development over time, potentially increasing exposure to urban fire hazards. In densely developed neighborhoods, emergency response access, evacuation, and recovery operations may become more challenging if multiple structures are affected simultaneously.

While the City does not contain significant wildland fuel sources or major industrial fire hazards, localized urban fires still have the potential to impact public facilities, commercial areas, utility services, and surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, the extent of an urban fire within the City is generally expected to remain localized; however, fires involving multiple closely spaced structures could result in moderate to significant community impacts.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-5
D.4 Urban Fire History
Urban fire hazards in the region are often linked to dense development patterns, aging infrastructure, and human activity. While much public attention focuses on wildfires in the hillsides and forested areas, structural fires in urban neighborhoods, such as the City, can be just as damaging, particularly in communities where buildings are closely spaced. Fires caused by electrical faults, cooking accidents, industrial malfunctions, or arson can quickly spread in residential and commercial districts, overwhelming local resources and endangering lives. Recent incidents throughout Los Angeles County demonstrate the ongoing risk posed by urban fire in highly built environments.

Dollar Tree Plaza Fire, Artesia (2021)
On April 11, 2021, Los Angeles County Fire
Department resources responded to a
reported commercial structure fire near the
intersection of South Street and Alburtis
Avenue in the City. First arriving units
encountered a one-story commercial building
with heavy smoke showing, reportedly
originating from the Dollar Tree within the
shopping center. According to incident
reporting, the fire appeared to have started
toward the rear of the store before spreading
forward and extending westward into two additional businesses. Firefighters remained on scene for several hours conducting suppression operations to ensure all remaining hotspots were extinguished, with assistance from the Los Angeles County Fire Department Dozer Team. The fire reportedly took approximately four to five hours to fully extinguish. While the cause of the fire was unknown at the time of reporting, the incident demonstrated the potential for commercial fires in the City to spread between closely spaced businesses within shared retail centers.

Commercial Structure Fire, Artesia (February 2026)
On February 8, 2026, Los Angeles County Fire Department crews responded to a large commercial structure fire on the 19000 block of Pioneer Boulevard in the City. Public reporting noted that smoke was detected across the street from a fire station, and at least two firefighters were injured while responding to the incident. This event further demonstrates that urban fire remains an active hazard within the City, particularly along commercial corridors.

Source: Los Cerritos Community News
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-6
Pico Rivera Apartment Fire (2018)
Around 4 p.m. on February 22, 2018, a fire was
reported for an apartment building in the 9100 block
of Burke Street. ABC7 Los Angeles reported that
the fire, which started on the third flood of the
structure, quickly engulfed the first and second
floors. Fortunately, only 3 injuries were reported,
but around 300 residents were displaced after more
than 141 units were impacted by the fire: 45 of them
with fire and smoke damage. More than 100
firefighters were dispatched to fight the flames while City officials worked with property owners to provide hotel vouchers for displaced residents. Due to the need for critical repairs, residents could not begin to return home for at least 3 to 5 days after the fire. Although specifics were not provided to the public, in the aftermath, the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department stated that investigators believed a problem with the building’s plumbing caused the fire. While this incident did not occur within the City itself, it demonstrates the significant displacement and recovery challenges that can occur when fires impact large multi-family residential developments within densely populated Los Angeles County communities.

Lomita Apartment Complex Fire (2024)
On March 30,2024 , a significant fire erupted in the Vista Verde Condominium complex on Palos Verdes Drive in Lomita, California. The blaze quickly spread to multiple floors, impacting 14 units in the building. Firefighters from multiple agencies, including Los Angeles County Fire Department, responded to the scene and were able to bring the fire under control after several hours. As detailed by ABC7 Los Angeles, approximately 30 residents were displaced, and temporary shelters were set up in coordination with city officials to provide emergency housing and support services. Although no fatalities were reported, several individuals sustained minor injuries, and the fire highlighted the risks posed by densely populated residential buildings in urban areas. The incident also emphasized the importance of fire safety education, building inspections, and timely response efforts to mitigate such events in the future. . While this incident occurred outside of Artesia, it serves as a relevant regional example of how urban fires in multifamily residential developments can lead to displacement, property damage, and extended recovery impacts within densely developed communities.

Source: KTLA
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-7
Eaton Fire and Palisades Fire (2025)
The January 2025 Eaton and Palisades Fires are relevant regional examples because they demonstrate how wind-driven fires can transition into destructive urban fire events once they reach developed neighborhoods. According to CAL FIRE, the Eaton Fire destroyed 9,419 structures and damaged 1,076 structures, while the Palisades Fire destroyed 6,845 structures and damaged 975 structures. Although these fires originated in wildland or wildland-urban interface areas, their most severe impacts occurred in developed communities, highlighting the potential consequences of structure-to-structure fire spread, mass displacement, and long-term recovery needs in urbanized areas of Los Angeles County.

D.5 Urban Fire Probability
The probability of a significant urban fire occurring within the City is considered low to moderate.

While large multi-structure urban fires are relatively infrequent, the HMPC noted that such incidents have occurred previously and remain a plausible hazard due to the City’s dense urban development patterns and closely spaced structures. Fires have the potential to spread between adjacent structures, particularly within apartment complexes or commercial centers. Recent fire incidents within the City, including the 2021 Dollar Tree Plaza fire and the 2026 commercial structure fire along Pioneer Boulevard, demonstrate that urban fire incidents continue to occur within the City and can require significant emergency response operations. In addition, recent regional incidents throughout Los Angeles County, including apartment complex fires and the 2025 Eaton and Palisades Fires, further illustrate how rapidly fires can escalate and affect densely developed communities under certain conditions. Although the City maintains fire prevention measures, the potential for future urban fire incidents cannot be entirely eliminated.

D.6 Urban Fire Vulnerability
Vulnerability to Structures
The City is highly developed and contains a mix of residential, commercial, public, and multifamily structures that may be susceptible to urban fire impacts. Although many buildings throughout the City are subject to modern fire and building code requirements, urban fires remain a concern due to the close proximity of structures, increasing residential density, and concentration of mixed-use development. The HMPC noted that the City’s primary concern is not isolated structure fires, but rather the potential for fire to spread between multiple closely spaced buildings.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-8
As determined through the vulnerability assessment detailed in Chapter 3, most City-owned facilities were considered to have relatively low vulnerability to urban fire impacts. However, the HMPC identified the Artesia Town Center as having elevated vulnerability due to its proximity to surrounding apartment buildings, commercial uses, and other closely spaced structures. The HMPC also identified the Frampton House and Old Fire Station #30 as having slightly elevated vulnerability due to the potential presence of more flammable materials and older construction characteristics compared to other City facilities. In contrast, facilities such as City Hall and the Water Tower were considered to have lower overall vulnerability due to their site characteristics and limited surrounding fuel exposure. Table D.1 below summarizes estimated urban fire loss estimates for City assets. These values are intended for planning purposes only and represent generalized planning-level estimates rather than anticipated actual damages.

Table D.1: Urban Fire Loss Estimate Table

ASSET NAME

REPLACEMENT
VALUE
% DAMAGE LOSS ESTIMATE
Artesia City Hall $3,673,000 3% $110,190
Artesia Public Works Yard $2,930,000 3% $87,900
Albert O. Little Community
Center $5,112,000 3% $153,360
Artesia Town Center $9,540,000 20% $1,908,000
North Artesia Community
Center $1,591,468 3% $47,744
New Public Services Center $1,909,134 3% $57,274
Frampton House $832,696 5% $41,635
Old Fire Station #30 $842,808 5% $42,140
Water Tower $1,020,000 0% $0
Note: Values provided by the December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual. These values are to be used for planning purposes only.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-9
To reduce vulnerabilities associated with urban fire hazards, the City developed several mitigation actions focused on reducing ignition potential, improving community resilience, and strengthening property maintenance efforts. Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.10 focuses on coordinating with Southern California Edison (SCE) to harden electrical distribution infrastructure in higher-risk areas to reduce ignition potential associated with electrical infrastructure failures. Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.11 supports evaluating the feasibility of pursuing designation as a FireWise USA community to strengthen fire preparedness and community awareness efforts. In addition, Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.12 focuses on strengthening implementation and enforcement of the City’s Property Maintenance Standards to reduce fire hazards associated with property conditions, combustible materials, and deferred maintenance. Together, these actions directly address vulnerabilities identified during the City’s urban fire risk assessment process and help improve the resilience of City facilities and surrounding development.

Vulnerability to People
Urban fire incidents pose potential risks to the health, safety, and well-being of residents throughout the City. The HMPC identified large apartment complexes, mixed-use developments, and densely populated residential areas as key concerns due to the potential for fires to affect multiple units and displace a large number of residents simultaneously. In dense urban environments, fires may spread rapidly between adjacent structures, making evacuation and emergency response more challenging, particularly if streets become congested or multiple structures are involved.

The City’s vulnerable populations, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, young children, and residents with limited financial resources, may face increased challenges during and after an urban fire incident. These populations may experience greater difficulty evacuating during emergencies or recovering from temporary displacement following a significant fire event. The HMPC specifically noted that a major fire involving a large apartment complex or mixed-use development could create substantial temporary housing and recovery challenges for affected residents. As additional residential growth occurs through the City’s mixed-use overlay areas, the number of residents potentially exposed to urban fire impacts may increase over time.

To reduce risks to public safety associated with urban fire hazards, the City developed mitigation actions focused on reducing ignition sources, improving property maintenance, and strengthening community preparedness. These actions support infrastructure hardening, fire prevention efforts, and proactive property maintenance practices intended to reduce the likelihood and severity of future urban fire incidents. Together, these efforts help improve the City’s overall resilience and City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Urban Fire-10
support the protection of residents, businesses, and critical community facilities during future urban fire events.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
E.1 Extreme Heat Identification and Background .................................................Extreme Heat-2 E.2 Extreme Heat Location ..................................................................................Extreme Heat-3 E.3 Extreme Heat Extent......................................................................................Extreme Heat-3 E.4 Extreme Heat History.....................................................................................Extreme Heat-5 E.5 Extreme Heat Probability ...............................................................................Extreme Heat-6 E.6 Extreme Heat Vulnerability.............................................................................Extreme Heat-6

LIST OF TABLES
Table E.1: Extreme Heat Loss Estimate Table......................................................Extreme Heat-7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure E.1: Heat Index .........................................................................................Extreme Heat-4 Figure E.2: Urban Heat Island Effect....................................................................Extreme Heat-4 Appendix E
Extreme Heat
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-2
E.1 Extreme Heat Identification and Background
Extreme heat refers to prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, often accompanied by elevated humidity, that can severely affect human health, infrastructure, ecosystems, and public services. The National Weather Service defines a heat wave as a period of abnormally hot weather generally lasting more than two days. Heat waves can occur with or without high humidity.

They have potential to cover a large area, exposing a high number of people to hazardous heat.

However, the term is relative and depends on what is considered "normal" for a given geographic area. In cooler climates, lower temperatures may still qualify as a heat wave if they deviate significantly from local norms. These events may be seasonal or exceptionally rare, occurring only once in a century in some regions.

Extreme heat poses a number of public health
risks. Among the most dangerous is heatstroke, a
medical emergency that occurs when the body is
unable to regulate its core temperature. It is
typically diagnosed when body temperature
exceeds 105°F due to environmental conditions
and, even with treatment, has a fatality rate of
approximately 15%. Other heat-related conditions
include:
• Heat Exhaustion - While much less serious
than heatstroke, heat exhaustion victims
may complain of dizziness, weakness, or fatigue. Body temperatures may be normal or slightly/moderately elevated.
• Heat Syncope - This refers to sudden loss of consciousness and is typically associated with people exercising who are not acclimated to warm temperatures. • Heat Cramps – These may occur in people unaccustomed to exercising in the heat and generally ceases to be a problem after acclimatization.

In addition to direct health impacts, extreme heat can stress infrastructure systems such as power grids. These disruptions can limit access to cooling systems, affect vulnerable populations which are reliant on electrically powered medical devices, and challenge emergency response services.

Elevated temperatures may also increase the demand for fire and medical assistance and can exacerbate existing health conditions. The effects of extreme heat extend to natural systems as City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-3
well. Prolonged high temperatures can damage vegetation and dry out landscaping, increasing the risk of wildfires. As climate change accelerates, communities across the country are experiencing more frequent and intense heat waves.

E.2 Extreme Heat Location
The City of Artesia (City) is located in the southeastern portion of Los Angeles County, which experiences a Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters.

Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the City typically benefits from coastal influences that moderate temperatures, especially during the summer months. However, the city is still vulnerable to extreme heat events, particularly during heat waves that may occur when high-pressure systems settle over Southern California.

In recent years, heat waves have become more frequent and intense, driven by climate change.

While the City is not located in a desert or semi-arid region, it is subject to elevated temperatures during the summer and early fall, when high temperatures can reach the low 90s°F (32–34°C) or higher. The City is also susceptible to the urban heat island effect, which is more pronounced in areas with dense development, limited green space, and high amounts of asphalt and concrete, as explained by the California Environmental Protection Agency. This effect can lead to temperatures that are several degrees higher than surrounding rural areas, particularly in built-up neighborhoods with little shading or tree cover. The City’s location within Los Angeles County also places it within a region prone to sporadic heat waves, which can last for several days and may result in dangerously high temperatures, especially in areas with low-income residents who may lack access to air conditioning. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) noted that the entire planning area is at risk for extreme heat hazards.

E.3 Extreme Heat Extent
The extent of extreme heat events is primarily determined by the duration of high temperatures, the intensity of heat waves, and the occurrence of elevated humidity levels. During a heat wave, temperatures can consistently exceed 90°F (32°C) for three or more consecutive days. While these conditions are typical of Southern California summers, extreme heat events in the City can push temperatures to the low 100s°F (38°C) or higher, particularly when high-pressure systems create prolonged hot spells.

The impact of extreme heat is further increased by high humidity levels, which can significantly increase the heat index, as show in Figure E.1, which is a measure that combines temperature and humidity to assess how hot it actually feels. When the heat index reaches or exceeds 105°F City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-4
(40°C), the potential for heat-related health risks increases dramatically, especially for vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.

Figure E.1: Heat Index
Source: National Weather Service
In addition to direct temperature measurements, the urban heat island effect plays a critical role in the extent of extreme heat in the City. Urban areas with dense construction, limited vegetation, and expansive asphalt can experience temperatures several degrees higher than surrounding rural areas. This localized increase in temperature can make heat waves even more hazardous in certain neighborhoods, especially those that lack adequate tree cover or green spaces. The HMPC also noted that prolonged heat exposure may contribute to secondary impacts on City infrastructure, including sidewalk damage, asphalt expansion or deterioration, and increased tree stress that may result in falling branches during summer months.

Figure E.2: Urban Heat Island Effect
Source: Urban Heat Island Effect: Eco-Intelligent™
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-5
E.4 Extreme Heat History
The City has experienced multiple extreme heat events over the past several decades. Although the City is not located within California’s inland desert regions, it remains vulnerable to periodic heat waves, particularly during late summer and early fall when persistent high-pressure systems trap hot air across Southern California and Los Angeles County.

A notable regional extreme heat event occurred during the September 2020 heat wave, when Los Angeles County recorded its highest official temperature on record at 121°F in Woodland Hills.

Although temperatures within the City of Artesia were lower due to its coastal proximity, the City still experienced locally extreme conditions, with temperatures reportedly reaching approximately 104°F. The event contributed to excessive heat warnings, increased strain on electrical infrastructure, elevated energy demand, and heightened health risks for vulnerable populations, particularly older adults, outdoor workers, and residents without access to adequate cooling.

More recently, the summers of 2022 and 2023 brought several additional periods of elevated temperatures, often reaching the mid- to high-90s°F throughout Los Angeles County. These prolonged heat events contributed to increased electricity demand, heat-related health concerns, and continued reliance on cooling centers and public facilities for relief during periods of extreme heat. During the planning process, the HMPC noted that although cooling centers are available within the City, residences may remain hot well into the evening hours following extreme heat events, potentially prolonging heat exposure for some residents. The frequency and intensity of these events have increased in recent years, aligning with broader trends in climate change that indicate a growing risk of extreme heat across Southern California.

In response to record-breaking temperatures, California Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency beginning in August 2022 and subsequently issued Executive Order N-15-22 on September 6, 2022, to extend emergency measures addressing the statewide extreme heat event. The order temporarily suspended certain permitting and air-quality restrictions to allow increased electricity generation and backup power use during periods of peak demand. Because Los Angeles County was included in this statewide proclamation, the City was also covered under the declaration. However, no federal major disaster declarations have been issued specifically for extreme heat events affecting Los Angeles County, including the City, since the last planning period.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-6
E.5 Extreme Heat Probability
The City is increasingly susceptible to extreme heat events due to rising temperatures, urban heat island effects, and broader climate change trends. The HMPC identified extreme heat as one of the most frequent and predictable hazards affecting the City, noting that elevated heat conditions occur annually within Los Angeles County and the City. Consequently, there is a 100% chance that extreme heat conditions will impact the City in some form each year. The 2021 Los Angeles County Climate Vulnerability Assessment projects a significant increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of extreme heat events, with Los Angeles County expected to experience up to a tenfold increase in the occurrence of heat waves by mid-century. Research summarized by NASA’s Ames Earth Science Office Project, also indicates that heat waves across Southern California are increasing in frequency, duration, and intensity, with inland urban areas of Los Angeles County identified as particularly susceptible due in part to nighttime warming and humidity trends. These projections reinforce that extreme heat will continue to pose an escalating and recurring hazard for the City.

E.6 Extreme Heat Vulnerability
Vulnerability to Structures
Extreme heat is primarily a threat to human health, energy systems, and vulnerable populations rather than to the structural integrity of buildings. Unlike hazards such as earthquakes or floods, extreme heat generally does not result in direct structural damage to buildings or facilities. As a result, the HMPC assigned no expected structural damage to City facilities from extreme heat events.

Although significant structural damage is not anticipated, prolonged periods of elevated temperatures can still contribute to indirect impacts on structures and infrastructure. Extended heat exposure may place additional strain on HVAC systems, increase electricity demand, and contribute to deterioration of asphalt, sidewalks, and other heat-sensitive infrastructure materials.

The HMPC also noted that prolonged heat and drought conditions may increase stress on urban vegetation and trees, potentially contributing to fallen branches and increased maintenance needs during summer months. Facilities that rely heavily on cooling systems, such as community centers, senior facilities, and public buildings, may experience operational strain during extended heat events. While these impacts may affect functionality and operational capacity, they are not generally expected to result in significant structural damage. Therefore, the structural vulnerability associated with extreme heat within the City is considered low.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-7
Table E.1: Extreme Heat Loss Estimate Table

ASSET NAME

REPLACEMENT
VALUE % DAMAGE LOSS ESTIMATE
Artesia City Hall $3,673,000 0% $0
Artesia Public Works Yard $2,930,000 0% $0
Albert O. Little Community
Center
$5,112,000 0% $0
Artesia Town Center $9,540,000 0% $0
North Artesia Community
Center
$1,591,468 0% $0
New Public Services
Center
$1,909,134 0% $0
Frampton House $832,696 0% $0
Old Fire Station #30 $842,808 0% $0
Water Tower $1,020,000 0% $0
Note: Values provided by December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual.

Vulnerability to People
Extreme heat poses a significant risk to public health within the City, particularly for older adults, young children, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, outdoor workers, and residents without reliable access to air conditioning. Prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures can result in heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion, dehydration, and heat stroke. The HMPC noted that although cooling centers are available during extreme heat events, some residences may remain hot well into the evening hours after cooling centers have closed, potentially prolonging heat exposure for vulnerable residents.

The City’s dense urban environment and urban heat island conditions may further increase exposure to elevated temperatures, particularly in neighborhoods with limited shade or tree City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Extreme Heat-8
canopy coverage. Residents living in older homes, multi-family housing, or residences with limited cooling capacity may face greater difficulty maintaining safe indoor temperatures during prolonged heat events. Extreme heat may also contribute to deteriorating pavement conditions, increased tree stress, and reduced outdoor usability of parks, sidewalks, and recreational facilities during peak heat periods.

To reduce risks associated with extreme heat, the City developed mitigation actions focused on expanding urban tree canopy coverage and improving the reliability of cooling and sheltering facilities during emergency conditions. Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.13 supports implementation of the Urban Forest Management Plan to expand shade coverage and help reduce urban heat island impacts throughout the community. In addition, Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.22 focuses on installing alternative power sources at recreation facilities to help ensure continued operation of cooling centers and emergency shelter functions during power disruptions or extreme heat emergencies. Together, these actions help strengthen the City’s resilience to prolonged heat events and support residents during periods of extreme heat.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
F.1 Flood Identification and Background .......................................................................... Flood-2 F.2 Flood Location............................................................................................................ Flood-4 F.3 Flood Extent............................................................................................................... Flood-7 F.4 Flood History.............................................................................................................. Flood-8 F.5 Flood Probability ........................................................................................................ Flood-9 F.6 Flood Vulnerability.....................................................................................................Flood-10 F.7 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance ........................................................Flood-12

LIST OF TABLES
Table F.1: Disaster Declarations....................................................................................... Flood-8 Table F.2: Flood Loss Estimate Table ..............................................................................Flood-11 Table F.3: NFIP Participation ...........................................................................................Flood-12

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure F.1: FEMA NFHL FIRMette for the City of Artesia.................................................. Flood-5 Figure F.2: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map () ............................................................... Flood-6 Appendix F
Flood
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-2
F.1 Flood Identification and Background
According to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), flood is the most common type of disaster including both man made and naturally occurring incidents in the United States. Land along rivers, streams, lakeshores, and coastlines are particularly susceptible to flooding.

The primary responsibility of the local governments during widespread flooding is to protect public safety. The second responsibility is protection of the environment followed by property such as highways, streets, bridges, and structure protection.

The types and causes of flooding that can occur within the City are the result of:
• Heavy rain,
• Atmospheric Rivers,
• Flood control channel overflow,
• Wastewater flooding within residences as a result of lift station failures, and • Coastal, tropical, and/or hurricane storms.

Due to light annual rainfall and the City’s location on the flood plain protecting it from channel overflow, dam failure is the most likely cause of flooding with the City.

What are Floods?
A flood occurs any time a body of water rises to cover what is usually dry land. Floods have many causes, including heavy rains, spring snowmelt, coastal storms, and dam or levee failure. When flooding occurs, affected areas may sustain damage to structures and personal property, as well as severe damage to the environment in the form of soil erosion, deforestation and damage to utilities and transportation systems.

Floods can take several hours to days to develop. The following flood characterization designates the amount of time for response.
• Flood Watch – a flood is possible in the area.
• Flood Warning – flooding is already occurring or will occur soon in the area. • Flash Flood Watch – a flash flood is possible in the area. Those affected should seek immediate shelter or higher ground.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-3
• Flash Flood Warning – flooding is already occurring or will occur soon in the area. Flash floods can occur without warning, during heavy rain in mountainous regions ensure that precautions and flash flood warnings are adhered to.

Alluvial Fan Flooding
Alluvial fan flooding occurs in the steep arid or semiarid mountains found throughout California.

Alluvial fans are fan-shaped deposits of eroded rock and soil carried out of mountains and into valley floors by landslides, mudslides, mudflows, and surface runoff. At the beginning of the valley, alluvial fans are steep and narrow with boulders and other course material. The deposited material becomes increasingly fine as the gradient decreases and the material, mainly gravel, sand and mud, spreads.

When rain falls, runoff from the canyon walls flows as a high-velocity sheet that channels into rivulets, and then to natural drainage courses. The rapidly moving water often carries large boulders and other material from the watershed depositing them into runoff channels, blocking the flow of water. Floodwater then spills out onto the fan, with each event finding a new channel that soon fills up with deposits and overflows. Flooding in alluvial fans often can cause greater damage than clear-water flooding.

Flash Flooding
A flash flood is a rapid flooding of low-lying areas, rivers and streams that is caused by the intense rainfall associated with a thunderstorm or multiple thunderstorms. Flash floods also occur when a man-made structure, such as a dam, collapses. Flash flooding occurs when the ground under a storm becomes saturated with water so quickly that it cannot be absorbed. The runoff collects in low-lying areas and flows rapidly downhill. As a result, anything in its path is suddenly in rising water. Typically, flash floods begin with a slow-moving thunderstorm. A slow-moving thunderstorm usually takes longer to move out of the affected areas and causes the area to endure a greater amount of rainfall for a longer period of time. In addition, a thunderstorm may pass over an affected area repeatedly, dumping even more rainfall.

The heavy rainfall associated with these storm systems contributes to urban flooding in a number of ways. Primarily, heavy rainfall will often overwhelm the capacity of the conventional drainage system made up of storm drains, catch basins, sewers, and additional natural mechanisms for storm-water management. These systems typically cannot handle more than one or two inches of rainfall per hour before they begin to back up and overflow. This amount is further diminished City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-4
if the storm drains, and other components of the storm-water management system, have not been adequately maintained, are clogged with debris such as trash or natural waste, or are old and in a state of disrepair. Heavy rainfall, combined with storm-water runoff, can cause local waterways to rise and overflow their banks.

F.2 Flood Location
The City of Artesia’s (City) flood hazards are generally associated with localized urban flooding rather than large-scale riverine flooding. Due to the City’s relatively flat topography and highly developed environment, heavy rainfall may result in shallow flooding throughout the community, particularly in streets, intersections, parking lots, and other low-lying developed areas where stormwater runoff accumulates more quickly than can be conveyed through the drainage system.

Although localized flooding is more likely to occur in areas with limited drainage capacity or concentrated runoff, flood-related impacts have the potential to affect the entire planning area during severe storm events or atmospheric river conditions. Because the City is extensively urbanized with transportation corridors, public infrastructure, and developed properties, even relatively shallow flooding can disrupt traffic movement, emergency response, access to public facilities, and day-to-day operations throughout the community. In addition, storm drain systems may become overwhelmed during periods of intense or prolonged rainfall, increasing the potential for localized flooding across multiple neighborhoods simultaneously.

According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the entire City is mapped within Zone X and identified as an “Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee.” As such, the City is not currently located within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) associated with the 1% annual chance flood event. Although this designation indicates a relatively low level of mapped flood risk, localized flooding may still occur throughout the entire planning area during severe storm events and atmospheric river conditions.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-5
Figure F.1: FEMA NFHL FIRMette for the City of Artesia
Source: FEMA Flood Map Service Center
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-6
Figure F.2: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ()
Source: FEMA Flood Map Service Center
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-7
F.3 Flood Extent
The extent of flooding in the City can vary depending on the intensity, duration, and frequency of heavy precipitation and storm events. In most cases, flooding is expected to be localized and short-lived, occurring when storm drains become overwhelmed or when runoff accumulates in low-lying developed areas. Street flooding is the most common impact, particularly at intersections, parking lots, and areas with poor drainage. These events typically involve shallow flooding ranging from a few inches to approximately one foot of water and may persist for several hours until stormwater systems are able to adequately convey runoff.

During more severe storm events, such as atmospheric river conditions or periods of prolonged rainfall, flooding could affect larger portions of the City simultaneously. If rainfall exceeds the capacity of the City’s drainage infrastructure or if multiple storms occur in close succession, stormwater may back up into streets, sidewalks, parking areas, and occasionally residential or commercial properties. Because the City is highly urbanized with extensive impervious surfaces, runoff can accumulate quickly and contribute to widespread nuisance flooding throughout the planning area.

A 100-year flood event, or 1% annual chance flood event, is commonly used as a benchmark for floodplain management and flood risk planning. According to the City’s FIRM, the City is mapped within Zone X and identified as an “Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee,” meaning the City is not currently located within a mapped FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area associated with the 1% annual chance flood event. Although this designation indicates a relatively low level of mapped flood risk compared to high-hazard flood zones, localized flooding may still occur during severe rainfall events and atmospheric river conditions.

In an extreme storm scenario, flooding throughout the City would likely remain relatively shallow and slow-moving due to the City’s generally flat terrain. However, even shallow flooding has the potential to disrupt transportation routes, emergency response access, public facilities, and dayto-day operations throughout the community. The most likely impacts would include flooded streets, temporary roadway closures, ponding in low-lying areas, and isolated property damage associated with stormwater accumulation and drainage exceedance.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-8
F.4 Flood History
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) noted that localized flooding has occurred during past heavy rainfall events within the City. During a significant storm event in approximately 2004, flooding reportedly reached door-knob height in portions of City Hall’s basement after stormwater overwhelmed the subpump system serving the basement ramp. Staff indicated that because portions of City Hall are below grade, the facility remains vulnerable to flooding if water levels rise above the adjacent curb line and exceed the capacity of the subpump system.

The HMPC also noted that drainage improvements completed along Pioneer Boulevard have improved stormwater conveyance in areas that historically experienced flooding. According to staff observations, portions of Pioneer Boulevard that previously experienced outward flooding now drain more effectively, reducing inundation impacts to surrounding neighborhoods during rainfall events.

In addition to localized impacts within the City, state and federally declared disasters throughout California and Los Angeles County have highlighted the significant effects that severe storm events and flooding can have on life, property, and infrastructure. These declarations provide critical assistance and resources for response and recovery efforts. The table below lists floodrelated disaster declarations taken from FEMA’s Website for Disasters and Decalations, and the California Franchise Tax Board, along with their respective disaster codes, offering an overview of past events that have shaped mitigation and preparedness efforts.

Table F.1: Disaster Declarations

DISASTER CODE INCIDENT PERIOD
EM-3591-CA 01/08/2023-1/31/2023
EM-3592-CA 03/09/2023-07/10/2023
DR-4683-CA 12/27/2022-01/31/2023
DR-4699-CA 02/21/2023-07/10/2023
CA Disaster Loss 109 02/2019
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-9
CA Disaster Loss 127 12/2021
CA Disaster Loss 135 09/2022
CA Disaster Loss 141 02/2023 & 03/2023
CA Disaster Loss 142 08/2023
CA Disaster Loss 146 02/2024
Ca Disaster Loss 147 03/2024
F.5 Flood Probability
The City’s designation as Zone X indicates a low probability of flooding. A 100-year flood (1% annual chance) is not anticipated to significantly impact the City, as no areas fall within the mapped 100-year floodplain. However, although the City is not located within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, localized flooding associated with intense rainfall and stormwater runoff remains possible. Severe storm events that exceed the capacity of local drainage infrastructure may still result in temporary street flooding, ponding, and localized inundation throughout portions of the City.

Looking ahead, the probability of flooding in the City is expected to increase due to future conditions, including climate change and evolving weather patterns. Climate models project that Southern California will experience more frequent and intense rainfall events, largely driven by the increased prevalence of atmospheric rivers and shifting storm dynamics. Warmer temperatures can increase the atmosphere’s capacity to hold moisture, resulting in heavier precipitation during storms. These conditions may elevate flood risk in areas with inadequate drainage infrastructure. Additionally, long-term patterns, such as extended droughts followed by intense rainfall, could further exacerbate flooding hazards. While the City is not currently anticipating changes to land use as a flood mitigation strategy, it recognizes that future adaptation measures may become necessary if climate projections hold true. Taken together, these factors suggest that the probability and potential extent of flooding in the City may rise over the coming decades, particularly during successive storm systems.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-10
F.6 Flood Vulnerability
Vulnerability to Structures
While Although the City is mapped within FEMA Zone X and is not currently located within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area, localized flooding associated with heavy rainfall and stormwater accumulation may still impact City-owned facilities and infrastructure. Because flooding within the City is expected to generally remain shallow and localized, most facilities are anticipated to experience relatively minor damage during a flooding event. However, even limited flooding has the potential to disrupt City operations, transportation access, and public services.

Based on the City’s flood loss estimate analysis, most City facilities might sustain minimal damage during a severe flooding event, reflecting the expectation that flooding would primarily involve shallow street flooding, ponding, and localized drainage exceedance rather than widespread deep inundation. However, City Hall represents a greater flood vulnerability due to portions of the facility being located below grade and dependent on a subpump system to manage stormwater intrusion.

The HMPC staff noted that during a significant storm event in approximately 2004, flooding within subterranean portions of City Hall reportedly reached door-knob height after stormwater overwhelmed the drainage system serving the basement ramp. Staff indicated that if water levels rise above the adjacent curb line, the subpump system may become ineffective, increasing the potential for flooding within lower portions of the facility. As a result, the City’s loss estimate analysis anticipates that City Hall could sustain up to 50% damage during a severe flooding event.

To help reduce these vulnerabilities, the City identified Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.14, which calls for assessing drainage capacities throughout the City and identifying infrastructure improvements needed to support proper stormwater drainage. This action will help the City identify locations where stormwater infrastructure may be undersized, aging, or unable to adequately convey runoff during heavy rainfall events. By prioritizing drainage improvements and increasing stormwater conveyance capacity, the City can reduce the potential for localized flooding impacts. In addition, Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.15 supports updates to flood hazard mapping, flood management policies, and related procedures as new state and federal guidance becomes available. Continued evaluation of flood hazard information and flood management practices will help ensure that future planning, infrastructure improvements, and emergency response procedures remain consistent with evolving flood risk conditions.

City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-11
Table F.2: Flood Loss Estimate Table

ASSET NAME REPLACEMENT
VALUE % DAMAGE LOSS ESTIMATE
Artesia City Hall $3,673,000 50% $1,836,500
Artesia Public Works Yard $2,930,000 1% $29,300
Albert O. Little Community
Center
$5,112,000 1% $51,120
Artesia Town Center $9,540,000 1% $95,400
North Artesia Community
Center
$1,591,468 1% $15,915
New Public Services
Center
$1,909,134 1% $19,091
Frampton House $832,696 1% $8,327
Old Fire Station #30 $842,808 1% $8,428
Water Tower $1,020,000 1% $10,200
Note: Values provided by the December 2023 Insurance Survey conducted by CBIZ Valuation Group, LLC, FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Reference Guide, and the HAZUS 6.1 Inventory Technical Manual. These values are to be used for planning purposes only.

Vulnerability to People
Although the probability of significant flooding within the City is relatively low, localized flooding and severe storm events may still impact residents throughout the planning area. Temporary roadway flooding and transportation disruptions may affect residents’ ability to safely travel during severe weather events, particularly in areas where drainage capacity is exceeded. Older adults and residents with limited mobility may experience greater difficulty navigating flooded streets or accessing emergency services during severe rainfall events. In addition, lower-income households and residents without reliable transportation may face challenges related to City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-12
evacuation, recovery, or access to essential services during flooding incidents. Communityserving facilities such as the Albert O. Little Community Center, North Artesia Community Center, and Artesia Town Center may also experience temporary disruptions during severe storm events, potentially impacting access to programs and community resources.

To help reduce flood-related risks to residents and public facilities, the City identified Mitigation Action 2026.HMP.14, which involves assessing drainage capacities throughout the City and identifying infrastructure improvements needed to improve stormwater conveyance and reduce localized flooding impacts. By improving drainage performance in areas susceptible to ponding or stormwater accumulation, this action may help reduce roadway flooding, improve emergency access, and lessen the overall impacts of flooding on residents during severe storm events.

F.7 National Flood Insurance Program
Compliance
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.

Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. The following table illustrates the City’s participation in the program:

Table F.3: NFIP Participation
Agency CID County
Init FHBM
Identified
Init FIRM
Identified
Curr Eff
Map Date
Reg-Emer
Date
Artesia,
City of
060097#
Los
Angeles
06/28/74 09/26/08 NSFHA 03/30/79
City of Artesia Hazard Mitigation Plan Flood-13
Floodplain Management
The City has adopted floodplain management regulations within Chapter 8-8 of the Artesia Municipal Code. These regulations establish requirements intended to reduce flood losses, minimize threats to public health and safety, and ensure that future development considers potential flood hazards. The City is mapped within FEMA Zone X and identified as an “Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee,” indicating a relatively low level of mapped flood risk.

Artesia City CouncilJune 8, 2026

Artesia City Council
June 8, 2026