Monterey Park City Council
January 17, 2024

CITY COUNCIL OF MONTEREY PARK

THE CITY COUNCIL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE MONTEREY PARK FINANCING

AUTHORITY AND THE MONTEREY PARK GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONTEREY PARK CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
320 W. NEWMARK AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754

Wednesday
January 17, 2024
6:30 p.m.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Documents related to an Agenda item are available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office located at 320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754, during normal business hours and the City’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/City-Council-17.

The public may watch the meeting live on the city’s cable channel MPKTV (AT&T U -verse, channel 99 or Charter Communications, channel 182) or by visiting the city’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/133/City-Council-Meeting-Videos.P er the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call City Hall at (626) 307- 1359 for reasonable accommodation at least 24 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
You may speak up to 5 minutes on Agenda item. You may combine up to 2 minutes of time with another person’s speaking. No person may speak more than a total of 10 minutes. The Mayor and City Council may change the amount of time allowed for speakers. Written Communication will be accepted up to 24 hours before the meeting via email to [email protected].

While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow the City Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council may briefly respond to comments after Public Communications is closed. Persons may, in addition to any other matter within the City Council's subject-matter jurisdiction, comment on Agenda Items at this time. If you provide public comment on a specific Agenda item at this time, however, you cannot later provide comments at the time the Agenda Item is considered.

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño- Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor t heir labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 17, 2024 - Page 2

CALL TO ORDER Mayor
FLAG SALUTE The Monterey Park Police Explores
ROLL CALL Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Yvonne Yiu

AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, CHANGES AND ADOPTIONS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
• City Manager’s Office
• Fire Department
• Library
• Recreation and Community Services

[1.] PRESENTATION

1-A. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

1-B. MPK HOPE RESILIENCY CENTER UPDATES

1-C. RECREATION STAFF RECOGNITION

[2.] OLD BUSINESS

2-A. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ON CITY’S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE

FEASIBILITY/FEE STUDY
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the report and presentation;
(2) Providing direction to staff; and
(3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

2-B. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CU- 89-004 (AS AMENDED AND MODIFIED) HELD BY ATLANTIC SQUARE, LLC (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2023) It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to issue legislative subpoenas for testimony and records related to the potential revocation of CUP No. CU -89-004 (as amended) that was originally approved via Resolution No. 9356, adopted August 29, 1989 (and subsequently modified/amended); and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 17, 2024 - Page 3

2-C. SR-710 NORTH MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT UPDATE AND FUNDING

AGREEMENT
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), on a form approved by the City Attorney, for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements totaling $18,202,000; (2) Authorizing the City Manager to appropriate project funds for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements project per the project funding schedule included in the terms and conditions of the funding agreement;
(3) Adopting a Resolution to add the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement and Parking Structure projects to the fiscal year 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); (4) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. This activity is primarily a legislative tool to assess legislative and budgetary priorities and does not approve any of the specific projects for construction, and therefore does not have the potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, no further review is required.

[3.] CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 3A-3J

All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

3-A. MINUTES
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1)
Approving the minutes from the special and regular meetings of November 15, 2023; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-B. MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT – DECEMBER 2023
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 17, 2024 - Page 4

3-C. RECEIVE AND FILE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE INCREASE IN WATER RATES AND

CHARGES
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing effective date for the increase in water rates and charges; (2) Direct the City Manager to postpone implementing the approved rates until after the City Council considers issuing bonds for infrastructure financing (in February 2024); and (3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-D. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO RECORD A

NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN AGAINST CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY (APN 5254-002-031)
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopt a resolution to record a Notice of Nuisance Abatement Lien; and/or (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Adoption of the Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action proposed by the proposed resolution would have a significant effect on the environment.

3-E. WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT ZONE CHANGE (ZA -23-02), AN ORDINANCE

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH

THE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinances; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-F. WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING

CODE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS

DELIVERY RETAILERS
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-G. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RENEWAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK AND EZEQUIEL LOPEZ VALASCO, DOING BUSINESS

AS EFFICIENT JANITORIAL SERVICE
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Agreement 1974- A, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Ezequiel Lopez Valasco, doing business as Efficient Janitorial Services, in an amount of $68,303.78; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 17, 2024 - Page 5

3-H. PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT: E. HELLMAN AVENUE FROM N. ALHAMBRA AVENUE TO N. NICHOLSON AVENUE.

It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution designating E. Hellman Avenue from N. Alhambra Avenue to N.

Nicholson Avenue among the preferential parking districts; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guideline § 15303 exempts activity that results in new construction or conversion of small structures. The Resolution creates a preferential parking district governing parking within a designated area and which requires installation of pedestrian level street signage. Accordingly, the Resolution is exempt from further review.

3-I. APPROVAL OF HAULERS QUALIFIED FOR A WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING

FRANCHISE AND AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Approving the list of haulers qualified to submit proposals for a waste collection and recycling franchise for residential and/or commercial services; (2) Authorizing the release of the Request for Applications (RFA) to the list of qualified haulers; and
(3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-J. RECEIVE AND FILE SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO THE

MONTEREY PASS ROAD WATER LINE
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and Filing the staff report summarizing the status of emergency repairs to the Monterey Pass Road water line; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[4.] PUBLIC HEARING

4-A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 7.46 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE TITLE 7 – BUSINESS LICENSES INTO A NEW CHAPTER 5.90 OF THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE (“MPMC”)
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Opening the continued public hearing to receive both written and oral testimony, closing the continued public hearing;
(2) Waiving second reading and adopting an Ordinance that would incorporate by reference Los Angeles County Code Title 7, Chapter 7.46 regarding the regulation of gun dealers within the City of Monterey Park (“City”); and
(3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 17, 2024 - Page 6

CEQA DETERMINATION
This Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) in that it is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA, as that term is defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15378. Specifically, this Ordinance constitutes creation of government regulations which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. In addition, this Ordinance is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

[5.] NEW BUSINESS

5-A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK,

CALIFORNIA APPOINTING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO SPECIFIC

ORGANIZATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution appointing representatives to specific organizations; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

5-B. REQUESTING DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF

THE SISTER CITIES COMMISSION
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Providing direction to the City Manager regarding the structure of the Sister Cities Commission; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

5-C. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A

THREE-YEAR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (WITH ONE-
YEAR EXTENSION) WITH MS.

INEZ ALVAREZ, IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR CITY MANAGER SERVICES. FISCAL IMPACTS INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMIT ATION, A (1) BASE COMPENSATION FOR A TOTAL OF $265,000 BEGINNING NOVEMBER 15, 2023; (2) VEHICLE ALLOWANCE OF $600 PER MONTH; AND (3) MEDICAL, DISABILITY, AND

OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CALPERS RETIREMENT BENEFITS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS OTHER DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS. THE TOTAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE IS APPROXIMATELY $325,278 FOR THE FIRST YEAR. AN INCREASE IN BASE SALARY TO MEDIAN SALARY (OF SIMILARLY SIZED CITIES) MAY OCCUR ON JANUARY 1, 2025 WITH A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN TOTAL COMPENSATION.

It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement with Ms. Inez Alvarez, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 17, 2024 - Page 7 [6.] CI TY COMMUNICATIONS (CITY COUNCIL)
[

7.] FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
[

8.] CLOSED SESSION (IF REQUIRED; CITY ATTORNEY TO ANNOUNCE)

ADJOURN

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Discussion of Findings on City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Feasibility/Fee Study
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the report and presentation;

2. Providing direction to staff; and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 6, 2023, the City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and an IHO in-lieu fee formula. As part of this action, Council also directed the City Manager to conduct an evaluation of the City’s IHO to determine whether it is financially feasible and recommend in-lieu fees in cases where an IHO is feasible. Based on the Council’s direction, the City partnered with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), and was able to participate in SGVCOG’s sub-regional effort to provide technical assistance addressing affordable housing issues . The City entered into an agreement with the SGVCOG, for its consultant, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), to conduct an IHO feasibility study tailored to Monterey Park.

EPS’s feasibility study is intended to inform and educate the City Council on the potential effects of the IHO on future residential development in the City. The study’s overall conclusion states that the requirements of the IHO are likely to be financially challenging for new residential development within the City and may constrain new projects.

BACKGROUND:

The City adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the General Plan on January 19, 2022; it was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on March 20, 2023. Housing Element Program 15 provides that the City Council will consider an inclusionary housing program. Such programs require certain residential and mixed-use developments to designate a percentage of units within the development as affordable housing. Alternatively, a developer may construct off-site units, or pay a fee or dedicate land in the City for the creation of affordable units.

To implement Program 15 of the Housing Element, the Council began consideration of Old Business - 2A

Staff Report

January 17, 2024

an IHO in Fall of 2022. The IHO was ultimately approved on September 6, 2023. Along with the IHO, a formula to provide for developers the option to pay an in-lieu fee rather than construct units on-site was also adopted. This formula requires the developer to pay the “affordability gap,” which represents the gap between the market-rate price (sales or rent) and the affordable price (sales or rent) of the inclusionary unit.

Drawing on local research and input from City representatives, EPS developed several building prototypes representative of development patterns in the City, and assessed how the City’s IHO and in-lieu fee formula would affect the different prototype developments.

The assessment utilized data on typical construction and land costs and rents and sales prices for recently-built housing projects in the City and the larger San Gabriel Valley subregion. The data allowed EPS to evaluate how likely a developer would be to pursue the construction of the modeled prototypes, based on industry standard financi al feasibility metrics. The evaluation modeled the financial feasibility for the prototypes under three different assumptions:

1. That they are rented or sold completely at market rents/sale prices;

2. That they include the affordable units required by the IHO; and

3. That they pay an in-lieu fee aligned with the requirements of the IHO (i.e., based on the “affordability gap”).

The findings of the analysis generally indicate that the financial impacts of the City’s IHO and in-lieu fee formula may dampen new residential development in the City.

ANALYSIS
In conducting its analysis, EPS created prototype developments that reflect future development types based on existing zoning and recent development trends . The prototypes are listed below and are categorized either as development seen in:

City-wide - traditional residential areas:
• Single Family Attached Townhome
• Multi-Family Condominium
• Multi-Family Rental

City’s Mixed-Use Downtown corridor:
• Multi-Family Condominium
• Multi-Family Rental – More Parking
• Multi-Family Rental – Less Parking

The modeling of the various prototypes showed that the single family attached townhome prototype meets industry-standard development feasibility thresholds at market rates and could feasibly support the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

All other modeled prototypes were found to be financially challenged even at market rates, and therefore would be unlikely to support the additional costs of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. This condition may in turn dampen future residential

Staff Report

January 17, 2024
development in the City as developers may find it challenging to absorb the cost of either setting aside affordable units or paying an equivalent in-lieu fee, particularly for multi- family rental and ownership projects.

EPS additionally calculated an in-lieu fee for the modeled prototypes that would represent the equivalent cost that developers would bear if the inclusionary housing requirements were met on-site. The calculation approach used by EPS is slightly different than the one detailed in the City’s adopted in-lieu fee formula, but still meets the goal of setting a fee that reflects the financial impact of the IHO requirements.

Based on the study conducted, there are implementation considerations to help achieve the creation of affordable units while not inhibiting the creation of market rate units .

Potential strategies to better implement the IHO include:
• Temporarily pause the IHO requirements and monitor market conditions; • Adjust IHO requirements for projects to automatically qualify for State Density Bonus;
• Adopt an In-Lieu Fee lower than equivalent cost of providing units on-site; and/or • Phase-in the IHO requirements over a set time period.

Without some of the measures indicated above, and in today’s housing market, most housing developers in the City will not be able to realistically support the costs associated with the provision of affordable housing as required by the current IHO. 2023-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The IHO feasibility study helps implement the Program 15 of the Housing Element, which included the creation of an IHO and helps address the City Council’s Housing goal in the 2023-24 strategic plan. In-lieu fees will offer options for a developer to comply with the IHO and may help with the maintenance and creation of affordable housing units within the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with the presentation of findings of the IHO feasibility study.

Staff Report

January 17, 2024
Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development
Beth Chow, AICP
Interim Planning Manager
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Draft Report: Development Feasibility Analysis and In-Lieu Fee Calculation for Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

Staff Report
January 17, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Report: Development Feasibility Analysis
and In-Lieu Fee Calculation for Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

Draft Report
Development Feasibility Analysis
and In-Lieu Fee Calculation for
Monterey Park Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance

Prepared for:

City of Monterey Park
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments

Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

EPS #224027

January 11, 2024

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 Study Background ................................................................................................ 1 Overview of Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................. 2 Key Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................ 3

2. Market Context ......................................................................................... 4 Housing Need ...................................................................................................... 4 Real Estate Market Activity .................................................................................... 5

3. Development Feasibility Analysis ................................................................ 8 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 8 Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 8 Feasibility Analysis Findings ................................................................................. 21

4. In-Lieu Fee Calculation ............................................................................ 23

5. Strategic Considerations .......................................................................... 26

Appendices
Appendix A: Development Program and Cost Categories
Appendix B: In-Lieu Fees in Other California Jurisdictions

Tables and Figures
Table 1 RHNA for Monterey Park ........................................................................... 4 Table 2 Citywide Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park ............................ 10 Table 3 Mixed-Use Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park .......................... 10 Table 4 Citywide Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions ......................... 11 Table 5 Citywide For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions .................. 12 Table 6 Citywide For-Sale Townhome Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions ...................... 13 Table 7 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with Less Parking) .......................................................................................................... 14 Table 8 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with More Parking) .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 9 Mixed-Use For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions ................ 16 Table 10 Maximum Unit Values for Affordable Housing for Los Angeles County (2023) .... 19 Table 11 Feasibility of Market-Rate Product Prototypes in Monterey Park ...................... 22 Table 12 Financial Gap for Inclusionary Units .......................................................... 24 Table 13 Inclusionary Housing Program Equivalent In-Lieu Fees for Prototypes .............. 25 Table 14 Feasibility of Product Prototypes with Current Inclusionary Program in Monterey Park .................................................................................................... 26

Figure 1 Mixed-Use Land Designation Area ............................................................... 7 Figure 2 Housing Opportunity Sites in the Northeast Portion of Monterey Park ................ 7

Economic & Planning Systems
1 1. Introduction
Study Background
The City of Monterey Park (City) adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) in August 2023 and it became effective in September 2023. Inclusionary housing ordinances require that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households. Per the City’s IHO, developers of new residential projects are required to provide 15 percent of the new units built as affordable to lower-income households. For rental developments, the 15 percent requirement consists of 9 percent of units affordable to households earning the Low-Income level for Los Angeles County and 6 percent of units affordable to households earning the Moderate Income level. For ownership developments, 15 percent of units are required to be affordable to households earning the Moderate Income level.
1 The IHO also includes an option for developers to pay a fee in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site as an alternative means of compliance.

Following adoption of the IHO, the City sought to study how the ordinance could impact the financial feasibility of new market-rate housing developments in the City. Additionally, the City wanted to consider a more standardized and transparent approach to the in-lieu fee formula included in the IHO. The current formula requires the developer to uniquely calculate the gap between the value of their project’s market-rate units and the value of the required affordable units, and leaves room for interpretation regarding the calculation of unit value, which can fluctuate on a variety of factors such as unit size, type, market conditions, and more.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) on behalf of the City to conduct a feasibility analysis of the IHO and to calculate potential in-lieu fee levels that are consistent with the IHO’s on-site unit requirement. The feasibility analysis specifically tests whether new market-rate residential developments in the City can absorb the additional financial costs associated with the IHO requirements and still be financially feasible. While cities are generally not legally required to consider the financial impacts of an inclusionary housing requirement, the City has elected to study them to better inform its inclusionary housing policy and align the City’s overall housing goals with its local real estate market conditions. 2 1 Income levels are described in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this Report. 2 An exception to this statement is Assembly Bill (AB) 1505, which allows the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to request an economic feasibility study for inclusionary housing policies that include a requirement that more than 1 5 percent of total rental units developed be affordable to households earning 80 percent of area median income (AMI) or below.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
2 Overview of Feasibility Analysis
The financial feasibility of a development project is determined by comparing the cost of the project to its value (based on achievable sale prices or rents).

A financially feasible project is one in which the value provides a sufficient return on the investment to incentivize moving forward with the project. Given the range of investment opportunities available to developers and financial investors, a development project will not be built if it is not considered a financially feasible proposition. For the purposes of this study’s analysis, a “sufficient” return on investment was established using market-based standards that are relevant at the time of this analysis (further detailed in Chapter 3). However, what is considered a “sufficient” return for any individual project will vary depending on a range of considerations.

The impacts of inclusionary housing policies on the financial feasibility of market- rate housing projects can manifest in one of two ways:

1. On-site inclusionary affordable units typically cost the same to build as the market-rate units but are sold or rented at below-market rates; OR

2. Fees paid in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site add to the costs of a project, while the value of the project as reflected in market-rate rents or sale prices tends to stay the same.

The resulting decrease in project revenue or increase in development costs related to inclusionary policies will reduce the achievable return on investment for housing projects. At a certain level, the impacts of the policy may reduce the achievable return to the point that projects are financially infeasible, and developers will not move forward with building them. This study is intended to provide the City with additional context regarding the cost associated with its inclusionary requirement and whether it might render new residential development in the City extremely challenging or even completely financially infeasible. This context is important given that the production of affordable units through an inclusionary housing policy can only happen through the development of larger market-rate projects.

Economic & Planning Systems
3 Key Findings and Recommendations
The key findings and recommendations stemming from the feasibility analysis for inclusionary housing in Monterey Park are summarized below. It is important to note that the analysis is a point-in-time assessment of typical new market-rate development projects completed in late 2023. The findings are not deterministic of all development feasibility in the City, as there are many variables that can impact costs and values and resulting feasibility of any individual project.

Similarly, future market conditions can also change the financial forces impacting real estate development generally and inclusionary housing programs specifically.

1. Higher-density owner- and renter-occupied residential projects appear financially challenging to build in the City, while lower-density owner-occupied projects appear financially feasible. The feasibility analysis indicates that the development of higher density residential products, such as multifamily owner-occupied condominiums and renter-occupied apartments, appear financially infeasible even at market rates. By contrast, lower density residential products such as owner-occupied attached townhomes appears to be feasible at market rates, and demonstrate sufficient development feasibility to absorb the additional impact of an inclusionary requirement.

2. The zoning allowances under the City’s Mixed-Use (MU) zoning designation may improve the financial feasibility of residential projects. Residential projects in the MU zoned areas of the City generate a higher return on investment than development in other parts of the City due to the MU zone’s unlimited density allowances and lower parking requirements. However, in order for future projects in the MU zone to support the additional cost of inclusionary units, they would likely need to achieve even higher densities and lower parking ratios than the MU pipeline projects currently proposed.

3. The City’s current inclusionary housing requirements will likely be financially challenging for new residential development projects under current market conditions. This challenge is particularly seen for multifamily residential rental and ownership projects, which are facing other financial challenges related to development costs and achievable market rates. Chapter 5 of this report outlines a number of options the City may consider to improve the efficacy of the IHO in developing affordable units in the community while also supporting new residential development overall.

The subsequent chapters of this report detail on the methodology, key assumptions, and results of the feasibility analysis, as well as the calculation of an in-lieu fee aligned with the City’s current IHO requirements.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
4 2. Market Context
Housing Need
The State of California requires every jurisdiction to adequately plan for its community’s housing needs, as specified by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA. The RHNA breaks down the amount of housing units needed in each jurisdiction by income category, ranging from Extremely-Low Income to Above Moderate Income. The definitions of the State’s income categories for Los Angeles County are provided in more detail in Chapter 3 of this report.

Currently, jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) area, which includes Los Angeles County, have adopted or are working towards adopting their 6
th Cycle (2021 through 2029) Housing Elements, which
contain policies and strategies required to meet current RHNA numbers. The City of Monterey Park’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was certified as of March 30, 2023.

Monterey Park has a RHNA of 5,257 total units for the 2021-2029 period, representing a nearly 25 percent increase to the City’s existing housing inventory.

Table 1 displays the City’s RHNA breakdown by income levels.

Table 1 RHNA for Monterey Park

Since the City’s RHNA targets include housing at a range of income levels, it is important to adopt policies that both advance affordable housing opportunities and support the development of new market-rate housing.

Affordablility Category Units Percentage
Extremely Low Income 653 12.4%
Very Low Income 671 12.8%
Low Income 822 15.6%
Moderate Income 848 16.1%
Above Moderate 2,263 43.0%
Total 5,257 100.0%
Source: HCD; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems
5 Real Estate Market Activity
To evaluate the impacts of Monterey Park’s inclusionary program on future residential development, EPS first sought to answer the following questions:
(1) Is market-rate development occurring in Monterey Park? (2) What are the market-rate rents and sales prices of new development? These questions are critical, as an inclusionary program is only effective if new market-rate residential development is occurring and can achieve prices or rents that can support the additional costs of including affordable units. In order to understand the local development landscape and the extent of new residential development activity in the City and subregion, EPS researched several key local residential market activity indicators, utilizing a variety of data sources including the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Progress Reports (APRs), CoStar, Redfin, and City input. 3 In addition, EPS
reviewed the City’s new development capacity as detailed in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, to understand zoning or plans that could accommodate new residential developments in the future.

To the greatest extent possible and to maximize transparency, EPS aimed to use publicly-available data, such as information collected and posted by HCD, the US Census, and local planning documents and zoning codes. EPS additionally vetted and confirmed assumptions through discussions with City planning staff and residential developers active in the City (as identified by City staff) and the larger San Gabriel Valley subregion.

Housing Affordability
Households in the City of Monterey Park have a median annual income of $68,497 and an average household size of 3.0 people per household. According to the 2023 State Income Limits for Los Angeles County, a three-person household with earnings of nearly $69,000 (i.e., the “typical” household in Monterey Park) would be considered a Low-Income household.

Based on standard thresholds for housing affordability, a household earning median income in the City can afford a home price of approximately $410,000 4 or
a monthly rent of approximately $1,700.5 As of mid-2023, the median sales price

3 CoStar reports rents for multifamily housing units based on data provided by property management companies. Redfin reports sale prices for sold housing units based on publicly - available data, such as MLS and County Assessor records . 4 Assumes that no more than 35 percent of an owner -occupied household's income is spent on housing costs, and that the house is purchased with 30-year mortgage with a fixed 5 percent interest rate and a 10 percent downpayment.
5 Assumes that no more than 30 percent of a renter -occupied household's income should be spent on housing costs.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
6 in the City for a detached single-family home is approximately $930,000, while the median apartment rent across the San Gabriel Valley is approximately $2,700 per month.6 Given these price points, the “typical” household in Monterey Park could not afford the “typical” single-family for-sale home or multifamily rental apartment in the City and subregion.

Future Development Trends
There has been limited new market-rate development in Monterey Park in the past several years. However, there are several large multifamily projects in the development pipeline and the Housing Element identifies significant new capacity in the Mixed-Use (MU) areas in the City’s downtown corridor. These trends are summarized below.

Single-Family Housing
In 2022, thirteen attached townhome units and two single-family detached units were completed within the City.

Multifamily Housing
In 2022, 87 multifamily units were completed within the City, the majority of which were part of a single project. In addition, there are ten residential projects that would yield approximately 700 units currently in the City’s pipeline, with project completion statuses ranging from “Conceptual” to “Under Construction”.

These projects include owner-occupied condominium units and renter-occupied apartment units.

Development Capacity Potential
The Housing Element anticipates most of its new residential development capacity will be in the City’s northeast area, which contains the Mixed-Use zoned areas.

The purple portions in Figure 1 illustrate the downtown Mixed-Use zoned areas within the City. Figure 2 from the City’s Housing Element further illustrates that the majority of housing opportunity sites in the City (shown in orange) are in the northeast area.

6 EPS utilized the subregional median rent given the limited inventory of new multifamily rental apartments in the City.

Economic & Planning Systems
7 Figure 1 Mixed-Use Land Designation Area

Figure 2 Housing Opportunity Sites in the Northeast Portion of Monterey Park

Source: City of Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element 2040 Source: City of Monterey Park Housing Element 2021-2029

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
8 3. Development Feasibility Analysis
The development feasibility analysis detailed in this study tests whether new market-rate residential development in the City can absorb the financial impact of an inclusionary housing requirement. This assessment reflects that building affordable housing units represents a cost to market-rate housing projects, and it is possible that the additional cost will cause the project to be financially infeasible.

Methodology
To support an inclusionary requirement, a development project must demonstrate feasibility in excess of a feasibility “threshold,” described in more detail below.

Based on this criterion, the feasibility analysis is intended to demonstrate if an inclusionary housing program is an appropriate tool to adopt at this time given market conditions, and, if so, identify inclusionary requirements that could be feasibly absorbed by different types of new market-rate projects in the City. The analysis utilizes information on market rents and sale prices in the City, affordable rents and sale prices in the region, and development costs for new residential units in the region. The analysis reflects costs and values of newly constructed housing units since the IHO only applies to new development projects.

Assumptions
Product Prototypes
The feasibility analysis was conducted on a series of prototype residential products intended to reflect the types of new residential development projects expected to occur in the City in the coming years. The prototypes were informed by EPS research on the local housing market, which included review of recent developments and proposed projects, discussions with developers active in the City and subregion, input from City staff, and City zoning regulations.

The analyzed prototypes include three Citywide prototypes, reflecting residential zoning designations across the City; and three MU Zone prototypes reflecting the City’s MU zoning designation. Prototypes for the MU Zone are considered separately as the MU designation provides zoning allowances distinct from other residential zones in the City. Specifically, there is no limit on density for projects in the MU Zone. Additionally, many of the properties located in the MU Zone meet the requirements of California law, which allows a developer to provide fewer parking spaces than required by the City standards if the development is constructed within ½ miles of a major transit hub. Since the MU Zone is expected to absorb a significant amount of future residential development in the City, it is

Economic & Planning Systems
9 particularly important to understand the impact of the IHO on future projects in the MU Zone area.

The Citywide prototypes include one rental prototype – multifamily apartments – and two for-sale prototypes – multifamily condominiums and attached townhomes. The critical differentiator between the two for-sale prototypes is the density at which they are built, with the “condominium” product assumed to be built at a density of 30 units per acre and the “townhome” product assumed to be built at a density of 20 units per acre. These densities align with zoning regulations for the City’s R-2 and R-3 zones, and the associated product types are based on how units at those densities can fit on a site. Given these densities, it is assumed that the condominium units would be contained within a single multi- story building, while the townhome units would be built as distinct units, each with its own ground-floor entrance (although likely with shared walls). The analysis also assumes that the prototypical condominium units are smaller than the prototypical townhome unit. While there may be additional factors – such as how the lot is subdivided – that the City uses to define a project as a condominium or townhome, this analysis does not account for those types of factors and only differentiates the prototypes based on density and unit size.

The Mixed-Use prototypes include two rental multifamily apartment prototypes and one for-sale multifamily condominium prototype. These products reflect characteristics of pipeline projects currently seen in the MU Zone. The difference between the two rental prototypes is the parking ratios, with one prototype assuming 2 spaces per unit and the other prototype assuming 1.5 spaces per unit.

The two rental prototypes were developed per guidance from staff in the City’s Community Development Department to reflect the range of parking ratios anticipated in pipeline and future projects. The Mixed-Use for-sale multifamily condominium prototype (for both market-rate and affordable units) also reflects a lower parking ratio of 2 spaces per unit as compared to the corresponding Citywide prototype, which assumes a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit. 7 The unit characteristics for each prototype are meant to represent average unit sizes, with the resulting analysis demonstrating feasibility for an average residential project. The findings of this analysis assume that the unique unit mix of any particular project will, in aggregate, conform to these average unit sizes.

However, any specific project will have its own cost and revenue factors that may be impacted in part by its unit mix. Additionally, this analysis does not include a detached single-family home prototype, as the City anticipates limited future development of this product type.

7 The use of a 2-space per unit parking ratio reflects the fact that while projects in the MU Zone will not be required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces per State law, developers will likely still provide some amount of parking to meet market expectations and demand.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
10 The characteristics of each Citywide development prototype are summarized in Table 2 and characteristics of each Mixed-Use development prototype are summarized in Table 3.

Table 2 Citywide Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park

Table 3 Mixed-Use Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park

Development Cost Assumptions
Development cost categories include land acquisition, site preparation, hard costs (e.g., construction labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture/engineering, entitlement, financing, marketing). Appendix A provides additional detail about what elements are included in each development Item
Tenure Ownership Ow nership Rental
Building Type Attached Multifamily Multifamily
Density (units/acre) 20 units/acre 30 units/acre 30 units/acre Unit Square Feet 1800 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. 1100 sq. ft.

Unit Bedrooms 3 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit
Parking Spaces 2 per unit 2.5 per unit 2.5 per unit
Parking Type Attached Garage Podium Podium
Source: City of Monterey Park; Costar; EPS
Multifamily Rental -
High Density
Multifamily
Condominium
Single Family
Attached Townhome
Item More Parking Le ss Pa rking
Tenure Ownership Rent al Rental
Building Type Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily
Density (units/acre) 30 units/acre 70 units/acre 70 units/acre Unit Square Feet 1200 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft.

Unit Bedrooms 2 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit
Parking Spaces 2 per unit 2 per unit 1.5 per unit
Parking Type Podium Podium Podium
Source: City of Monterey Park; Costar; EPS
Multifamily
Condominium
Multifamily Rental

Economic & Planning Systems
11 cost category. For the multifamily prototypes that include structured/podium parking, EPS identifies parking costs as a separate line item and assumes the parking is built as one or two above-grade levels of parking below the residential levels. Data from recent developments and land transactions in the City have been combined with information from interviews with developers who are active in the region to inform the development cost assumptions used in the analysis.

Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 below detail the cost assumptions and estimated costs per unit for the apartment, condominium, and townhome prototypes, respectively, under the Citywide zoning designation, while Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 detail the assumption and estimated costs per unit for the apartment and condominium prototypes under the MU zoning designation. As shown, the estimated development costs for multifamily units are approximately $670,000 to $690,000 per unit under Citywide zoning designations, and $500,000 to $640,000 per unit under the Mixed-Use zoning designation. The estimated development cost for townhome units is approximately $490,000 per unit.

Table 4 Citywide Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Rental
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units/acre
Unit Size 1,100 sq.ft.

Amount of Parking 2.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $83,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $141,413
Direct Construction Costs $275 per sq.ft. $302,500
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $125,000
Builder Fee 3.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $12,825 Subtotal, Direct Costs $440,325
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $110,081
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $110,081
Total Development Costs $691,820
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Assumptions

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
12 Table 5 Citywide For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Ownership
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units/acre
Unit Size 1,200 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $83,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $141,413
Direct Construction Costs $250 per sq.ft. $300,000
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $125,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $425,000
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $106,250
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $106,250
Total Construction Costs $672,663
Multifamily Attached Condo
Assumptions

Economic & Planning Systems
13 Table 6 Citywide For-Sale Townhome Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
De
velopment Prototype
Tenure Ownership
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 20 units/acre
Unit Size 1,800 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 3.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $125,000
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $87,120
Subtotal, Land $212,120
Direct Construction Costs $125 per bldg. sq.ft. $225,000 Parking Costs $0 per space $0
Subtotal, Direct Costs $225,000
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $56,250
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $56,250
Total Construction Costs $493,370
Single Family Attached Townhome
Assumptions

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
14 Table 7 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with Less Parking)

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Rental
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 70 units/acre
Unit Size 900 sq.ft.

Amount of Parking 1.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $57,143
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $24,891
Subtotal, Land $82,034
Direct Construction Costs $275 per sq.ft. $247,500
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $75,000
Builder Fee 3.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $9,675
Subtotal, Direct Costs $332,175
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $83,044
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $83,044
Total Development Costs $497,253
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
Assumptions

Economic & Planning Systems
15 Table 8 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with More Parking)

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Rental
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 70 units/acre
Unit Size 900 sq.ft.

Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $57,143
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $24,891
Subtotal, Land $82,034
Direct Construction Costs $275 per sq.ft. $247,500
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $100,000
Builder Fee 3.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $10,425 Subtotal, Direct Costs $357,925
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $89,481
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $89,481
Total Development Costs $529,441
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
Assumptions

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
16 Table 9 Mixed-Use For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Ownership
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units/acre
Unit Size 1,200 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $83,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $141,413
Direct Construction Costs $250 per sq.ft. $300,000
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $100,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $400,000
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $100,000
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $100,000
Total Construction Costs $641,413
Multifamily Attached Condo
Assumptions

Economic & Planning Systems
17 Value Assumptions
Market-Rate Residential Values
The value for market-rate rental apartments is based on annual net operating income (NOI), which is calculated as annual rent minus annual operating expenses. For the apartment prototypes in Monterey Park, annual rent is assumed at $33,420 per unit (equivalent to $2,785 per month), and annual operating expenses are assumed at $10,000 per unit. This rental rate reflects market rents for newly constructed apartment projects in the San Gabriel Valley subregion.

For the market-rate for-sale prototypes, the value of the unit is equal to the estimated sale price. The assumed price points for new for-sale products in Monterey Park are $674,000 for a condominium unit and $870,000 for a townhome unit. These price points reflect expectations for newly constructed units, which are assumed to achieve higher prices than the overall existing inventory. For this analysis, EPS applied a premium of 40 percent over existing inventory values to estimate projected prices for new units, based on sales trend data for the San Gabriel Valley subregion.

Affordable Residential Values
Affordable rents and sale prices for inclusionary units are based on maximum housing costs affordable to households at various household income levels.

Income levels for households in Los Angeles County are set by California law on an annual basis. The income level for each category differs by household size.

This analysis assumes a two-bedroom unit is occupied by a three-person household and a three-bedroom unit is occupied by a four-person household.8 For 2023, the Area Median Income (AMI) in Los Angeles County is defined as $88,400 for a household of three and $98,200 for a household of four.

In general, Very Low-Income households are defined as those earning up to 50 percent of AMI; Low-Income households earn up to 80 percent AMI; and Moderate-Income households earn up to 120 percent of AMI. However, within Los Angeles County, the maximum income defining Very Low- and Low-Income households is adjusted upwards from the associated percentage of AMI. This adjustment occurs in counties with relatively high housing costs and/or relatively high or low household incomes. Due to this adjustment, the maximum income for a Low-Income household—$90,850 for a three-person household and $100,900 for a four-person household—is actually higher than the area median income.

8 Based on California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
18 Based on the maximum household income for each income category, EPS calculated the maximum spending towards housing costs that would be considered affordable. The analysis assumes that households in affordable units spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs. For the purposes of this analysis, housing costs for rental units include rent only, while housing costs for for-sale units include mortgage and interest payments, insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees.

To calculate the maximum affordable sale price for for-sale units, EPS assumed that insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees represent approximately 10 percent of household income, and therefore the maximum income available for a mortgage payment is 20 percent of annual household income. This mortgage payment was converted into an affordable home sale price assuming a 10 percent down payment and a 30-year mortgage with a fixed interest rate of 5 percent, reflecting a long-term, historical average.

The affordable values remain consistent across Citywide and Mixed-Use prototype products as they are based on County income limits rather than the programmatic characteristics of the prototype unit. Table 10 indicates the maximum annual incomes for households associated with each income category in Los Angeles Category for the associated household size, as well as the affordable rents and sale prices associated with each category.

Economic & Planning Systems
19 Table 10 Maximum Unit Values for Affordable Housing for Los Angeles County (2023)

Item
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
Multifamily Apartment
Maximum Household Income [1] $56,750 $90,850 $106,050
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [2] $13,887 $24,117 $28,677 Supportable Rent/Month $1,157 $2,010 $2,390
(less) Operating Expenses per Unit/Year [3] ($7,500) ($7,500) ($10,000) Annual Net Operating Income $6,387 $16,617 $18,677
Capitalization Rate [4] 5% 5% 5%
Unit Value [5] $127,740 $332,340 $373,540
Multifamily Attached Condo
Household Income [1] $56,750 $90,850 $106,050
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [6] $11,350 $18,170 $21,210 Supportable Mortgage [7] $174,477 $279,317 $326,050
Supportable Home Price [8] $193,900 $310,400 $362,300
Single Family Attached Townhome
Household Income [1] $63,050 $100,900 $117,850
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [6] $12,610 $20,180 $23,570 Supportable Mortgage [7] $193,847 $310,216 $362,329
Affordable Home Price [8] $215,400 $344,700 $402,600
Sources: City of Monterey Park; HCD; CoStar; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [7] Assumes a 30-year mortgage and a fixed 5% interest rate. [8] Assumes a 10% down payment.
[1] Reflects 2023 HCD Income Limits for a three-person household for apartments and condominiums, and a four- person household for townhomes.
[2] Assumes that no more than 30% of a household's income should be spent on housing costs for housing to be considered affordable. This number represents the affordable annual rent. [3] Operating expenses are generally based on EPS feasibility studies in the region and are inclusive of utility costs; units at or below 80% of AMI are assumed to be built as non-profit and are therefore exempt from property taxes.

Property taxes are assumed to comprise a share of the operating expenses for the moderate income category. [4] The capitalization rate is used to determine the current value of a property based on estimated future operating income, and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk. Obtained for multifamily developments in Monterey Park and the surrounding region from CoStar.
[5] The unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. [6] Assumes that no more than 20% of household income is spent on mortgage payments. This reflects that total housing costs should not exceed 30% of income, and takes into account other housing-related costs, such as taxes, insurance, and HOA fees.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
20 Feasibility Thresholds
The assessment of financial feasibility for real estate development products is based on calculating financial return metrics for the products and comparing them against typical industry target thresholds. In the case of residential development, relevant return metrics are based on comparing total project revenues to total project development costs, as follows:
• For for-sale market-rate housing prototypes, which in this analysis includes condominiums and townhomes, the estimated cost of development (shown in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 9) is subtracted from the estimated value, or sale price, in order to calculate profit. The profit is then divided by the estimated development cost to calculate the relevant feasibility metric, profit margin, which is the percentage by which total project value exceeds total project cost. Based on EPS research and feedback from the developer community, the analysis assumes that developers in the greater Los Angeles region will require a projected profit margin of at least 15 percent to move forward with a for-sale development project. Therefore, a prototype attaining a profit margin at or above 15 percent at market sale prices would be considered feasible in this analysis. A profit margin in excess of 15 percent would be required to support any additional costs, such as an inclusionary requirement.

• For rental market-rate housing prototypes, which in this analysis includes multifamily apartments, the feasibility threshold is based on the return metric of “yield on cost,” which is calculated by dividing the annual net operating income (NOI) by the total costs of development.
9 Based on EPS research and
experience, the analysis assumes that developers in the greater Los Angeles region will require a projected yield on cost of at least 5.5 percent in order to move forward with a multifamily rental development project. A yield-on-cost in excess of 5.5 percent would be required to support any additional costs, such as an inclusionary requirement.

It is important to note that these return metrics do not account for the time value of money and are not based on any assumption regarding project timeline.

9 Net operating income reflects total rent collected minus operating costs.

Economic & Planning Systems
21 Feasibility Analysis Findings
EPS assumptions for prototype revenues and costs detailed above were used to calculate the relevant return metrics for each prototype category at market rates (without the current inclusionary requirements). The calculated return metrics for each prototype are detailed below in Table 11.

As shown, the analysis indicates that only the townhome prototype both meets feasibility thresholds at market rates and demonstrates sufficient feasibility to support the additional costs of an inclusionary requirement. None of the multifamily prototypes achieve feasible return thresholds at market rates, although the Mixed-Use prototypes’ higher densities and lower parking ratios increase revenue and lower development cost, and are therefore estimated to generate higher returns as compared to their Citywide counterparts. Overall, the estimated returns for the multifamily prototypes suggest that, on average, it is challenging to develop these project types in the City under current market conditions. The additional costs of an inclusionary requirement would exacerbate those challenges and potentially limit the opportunities for new housing development in the community.

It is important to note that this analysis only reflects average prototypical projects and does not mean that the prototypes shown as infeasible above will never be built in the City. There are many factors that can impact the financial feasibility of any particular development project. For example, if a project can acquire land at a lower price or build at a higher density than what is represented in the above assumptions, the project may become financially feasible. Similarly, a developer may find that there is sufficient demand to achieve rents or sale prices higher than those assumed in this analysis. Indeed, the City may find that even though this analysis shows specific types of development to be infeasible at market rates, they still receive proposals to build these types of projects. Therefore, as stated previously in this report, the analysis should not be considered deterministic regarding the future of housing development in the City. Rather, it should be taken as informative regarding the obstacles to housing development under current average market conditions, and how inclusionary housing requirements might therefore impact the feasibility of the average project.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
22 Table 11 Feasibility of Market-Rate Product Prototypes in Monterey Park

Item
Feasibility
Threshold Re sults
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Development Costs Per Unit $692,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 3.4%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Development Costs Per Unit $673,000
Average Sale Price $674,000
Profit $1,000
Profit Margin 15% 0.1%
Single Family Attached Townhome
Development Costs Per Unit $493,000
Average Sale Price $870,000
Profit $377,000
Profit Margin 15% 76.3%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (Less Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $497,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.7%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (More Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $529,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.4%
Multifamily Attached Condo -
Mixed Use Downtown
Development Costs Per Unit $641,000
Average Sale Price $674,000
Profit $33,000
Profit Margin 15% 5.0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Key
Feasible
Infeasible

Economic & Planning Systems
23 4. In-Lieu Fee Calculation
In addition to evaluating the impacts of the City’s IHO on development feasibility, EPS was scoped to calculate an in-lieu fee that developers might pay instead of providing affordable units on-site. The City adopted a resolution in September 2023 regarding calculation of the in-lieu fee, which called for the fee to equal “the difference between the market rate price and the defined affordable price… associated with each income restricted unit required to be produced.”10 While this is one possible approach for calculating an in-lieu fee, EPS recommends an alternative approach that would still reflect the City’s goal to establish a fee that reflects “the financial impact or ‘affordability gap’ that is created by the IHO,” and is commonly used in other jurisdictions across the State. 11 In EPS’s recommended approach, the in-lieu fee is set to equal (as closely as possible) the cost that developers incur in providing on-site affordable units. This cost manifests as a “financial gap” associated with inclusionary units, calculated as the cost of developing the inclusionary unit (which is the same as the cost to build a market-rate unit) minus the inclusionary unit’s value based on maximum affordable rents or sales prices. The in-lieu fee per required affordable unit would be based on that financial gap.

Using the financial gap approach described above, EPS calculated the financial gap for each modeled prototype unit at values associated with Low- and Moderate-Income affordability levels. The calculation utilizes the development costs detailed in Table 4 through Table 9 and affordable rents and sale prices detailed in Table 10. These gaps are shown in Table 12 below.

10 Resolution No. 2023-R74 – Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee 11 Ibid.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
24 Table 12 Financial Gap for Inclusionary Units

Item
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Development Costs Per Unit $692,000 $692,000
Development Value Per Unit $332,000 $374,000
Financial Gap ($359,000) ($318,000)
Multifamily Attached Condo
Development Costs Per Unit $774,000 $774,000
Development Value Per Unit $310,000 $362,000
Financial Gap ($463,000) ($411,000)
Single Family Attached Townhome
Development Costs Per Unit $567,000 $567,000
Development Value Per Unit $345,000 $403,000
Financial Gap ($223,000) ($165,000)
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Downtown (Less Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $497,000 $497,000
Development Value Per Unit $332,000 $374,000
Financial Gap ($165,000) ($124,000)
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Downtown (More Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $529,000 $529,000
Development Value Per Unit $332,000 $374,000
Financial Gap ($197,000) ($156,000)
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed
Use Downtown
Development Costs Per Unit $738,000 $738,000
Development Value Per Unit $310,000 $362,000
Financial Gap ($427,000) ($375,000)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems

Economic & Planning Systems
25 The financial gaps were then converted into a fee per market-rate square foot of a project, which is a standard basis for levying such fees. The fees per market-rate square foot are shown in Table 13. As shown, the fees for different prototypes range widely, aligned with the range of costs (and resulting financial gaps) associated with different prototype products.

Table 13 Inclusionary Housing Program Equivalent In- Lieu Fees for Prototypes

For additional context, EPS has gathered information on in-lieu fee levels in several jurisdictions throughout the State, included in Appendix B. It is worth noting that while the approach of aligning the cost of the in-lieu fee with the cost of providing on-site units is considered the best practice, some cities make a policy decision to incentivize the production of on-site units over payment of the in-lieu fee (or vice versa). In these circumstances, a city’s on-site requirement and the associated in-lieu fee may be intentionally different from a development cost perspective.

Item On-Site Requirement
In-Lieu Fee Per Market
Rate Sq. Ft.

Multifamily Apartment - High Density 9% Low-Income;
6% Moderate-Income $46.77
Multifamily Attached Condo 15% Moderate-Income $51.41
Single Family Attached Townhome 15% Moderate-Income $13.73 Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
(Less Parking)
9% Low-Income;
6% Moderate-Income $24.74
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
(More Parking)
9% Low-Income;
6% Moderate-Income $30.10
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed Use
Downtown 15% Moderate-Income $46.92
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
26 5. Strategic Considerations
Based on the above analysis, EPS finds that the costs of Monterey Park’s current inclusionary housing requirements will likely be challenging on average for new market-rate residential development projects, particularly multifamily rental and ownership projects, to absorb under current market conditions. As summarized in Table 14, most of the modeled prototypes do not achieve the thresholds for feasibility at market rates, and the addition of the on-site inclusionary requirements and associated in-lieu fee move the prototypes even further away from achieving these thresholds. Only the for-sale attached townhome prototype demonstrates sufficient feasibility to support the City’s current inclusionary housing requirements. The table also demonstrates that while zoning allowance in the MU Zone may improve development feasibility, future projects will likely have to achieve higher densities and lower parking ratios than currently observed in the pipeline projects in order to feasibly support inclusionary requirements.

Table 14 Feasibility of Product Prototypes with Current Inclusionary Program in Monterey Park

Item On-Site Build Calculated In-Lieu Fee
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Yield on Cost 5.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Profit Margin 15% 0.1% -6.8% -8.3%
Single Family Attached Townhome
Profit Margin 15% 76.3% 62.1% 67.9%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (Less Parking)
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.7% 4.5% 4.5%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (More Parking)
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.2%
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed
Use Downtown
Profit Margin 15% 5.0% -2.3% -3.5%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Feasibility
Threshold Current Program FeasibilityMarket Rate
(No Inclusionary)

Economic & Planning Systems
27 Given these findings, EPS has outlined several strategies for the City to consider regarding the immediate and long-term future of the IHO. These strategies can help the City balance its affordable housing objectives with current market and development feasibility conditions. These strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the City may decide to pursue them in combination.

1. Temporarily pause the inclusionary housing requirement. The City may consider a pause in enforcement of the IHO until there is more market evidence that the development economics of residential development, particularly multifamily development, are improving. The City can continue to monitor several metrics in this regard, including developer interest and applications, residential production trends, development costs, and market prices/rents in the City. A reasonable timeframe for monitoring changing real estate and financial markets conditions would be one to two years. When early indicators, such as increased developer interest and multifamily rents, suggest improving market conditions, the City may then reevaluate the feasibility of its inclusionary program. While it would be a “best practice” to conduct another feasibility study at that time, the law does not require it.

2. Phase-in the IHO requirements. It can take some time for the market to respond to new inclusionary requirements and for developers to figure out how to adjust their development programs to maintain feasibility. Sometimes phasing in inclusionary requirements is a way for a jurisdiction to signal to the development community what is coming while allowing projects already in early planning stages to respond.

A phase-in approach has been used in several jurisdictions, including in the cities of Long Beach and San Jose, as described below:
- The City of Long Beach phased in its inclusionary requirements over a three- year period, starting in 2021. Ownership projects that submitted their application for first approval in the first year were required to include 4 percent of units as affordable to Moderate-Income households. Those applying in the second year had to include 5 percent of units as affordable, and those applying in the third year had to include 10 percent of units as affordable.

Similarly, for rental projects, applicants in the first year had to include 5 percent of units as affordable to Very-Low Income households, with the requirements increasing to 6 percent and then 11 percent for applicants in the second and third years. The City’s in-lieu fee levels were similarly phased in. - In San Jose, the City adopted its inclusionary housing ordinance in early 2010 but delayed implementation until 2013. The City also added a market- based “trigger” to allow for earlier implementation if the housing market picked up more quickly than expected. Specifically, the ordinance could go into effect if at least 2,500 building permits were issued within a 12-month consecutive period.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
28 3. Adjust the housing requirements so that the complying projects automatically qualify for the State Density Bonus (SDB). As written, the City’s inclusionary requirement for for-sale projects qualifies developers for a 10 percent density bonus through the SDB. For rental projects, the City’s current inclusionary requirements do not automatically align with requirements for using the SDB. However, if the City increases the current requirement of 9 percent of units for Low Income households to 10 percent of units, projects would automatically qualify for a 20 percent density bonus. The City could potentially eliminate the requirement for Moderate-Income housing on rental to offset the cost of the additional Low-Income requirement. While this adjustment to the rental inclusionary requirements may not completely resolve feasibility concerns under current market conditions, the additional density and other regulatory waivers and concessions allowed under the SDB have economic value and can improve the feasibility of a residential project.

4. Consider adopting an in-lieu fee that is lower than the equivalent subsidy of providing units on-site. This would lessen the cost burden on developers while still generating revenue for City to use specifically for affordable housing initiatives and opportunities. Some examples of cities that have implemented such a strategy include Jurupa Valley and San Clemente.

In taking this approach, the City should anticipate that most developers will choose to pay the in-lieu fee. However, even under this approach, some developers may still choose to build affordable units on-site anyway to qualify for the extra density and the waivers/concessions available under the SDB, which may be even more valuable to their project.

If the City does take this approach, it may still only be helpful to the developers of attached townhome projects under current market conditions.

Given the feasibility challenges demonstrated for multifamily development at market rates, even an in-lieu fee that is set below the equivalent cost of the on-site inclusionary requirement (e.g., $2 to $5 per square foot) may be more cost than new projects of this type can absorb at this time.

It is also important to note that while cities do not often take this approach at the outset of establishing a new inclusionary housing program, it tends to happen over time if cities do not regularly update their inclusionary housing in-lieu fees. For example, cities that have not updated their in-lieu fees in some time may find that the cost to a developer of complying with the inclusionary requirement by building affordable units on-site far exceeds the cost of paying the in-lieu fee, given changes in development costs over time.

While the above strategies will not change the market and economic conditions impacting residential development projects, they can reduce the additional costs associated with inclusionary requirements. This in turn may increase the likelihood that any individual market-rate project can feasibly contribute to the supply of affordable units in the City.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Development Program and Cost Categories

Item
Description
Sources
Development
Prototype
Density
Units permitted per acre, for each
development prototype.

City zoning code and staff input
Unit Size
Average size of a unit.

CoStar; Redfin; Developer input;
City staff input
Parking Requirement
Number of parking spaces required per unit.

City zoning code and staff input
Development Costs
Land Costs
Acquisition of land. Varies by location and
prototype.

CoStar, vacant land transactions
where underlying zoning allows
residential development; Developer
input; SGVRHT pro formas
Site Preparation
Demolition (if needed), grading, horizontal
infrastructure.

Developer input; EPS experience
Hard Costs
On-site work (labor and materials), vertical
construction, general requirements,
overhead and builder fees (excl. parking
costs). Varies by prototype, with denser
development costing more on a per square
foot basis.

Developer input; Cost estimators
(RLB, Marshall & Swift); EPS
experience
Parking Costs
Hard costs specific to parking. Multifamily
development assumes one to two levels of
above-grade, podium-style parking beneath
residential. Costs can range from $40,000 to
$60,000 per space, or higher if
undergrounding is required. Analysis
assumes $50,000.

Developer input; Cost estimators
(RLB, Marshall & Swift, Watry);
EPS experience
Soft Costs
Architecture and engineering; entitlement
and fees; project management; consultants;
marketing, commissions, and general
administration; financing and charges;
insurance; and contingency. Assumed to be
a percentage of hard costs.

Developer input; EPS experience

Appendix B: In-Lieu Fees in Other California Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Rental Ownership
Alhambra [1] $0.89 - $14.30 $1.88 - $30.00
Pom
ona [1] $0.33 - $9.20 $0.33 - $11.40
Glendale [1] $28.71 - $55.00 $28.71 - $55.00
Pasadena [1] [2] $55.21 - $76.68 $56.84 - $78.95
Long Beach $47.50 $36.40
Montclair $15,400 (per unit) $15,400 (per unit)
Jurupa Valley [3] $2.50 $2.50
Fremont $17.50 $44.00
San Ramon $14.63 $15.70
In-Lieu Fee ($ / Sq. Ft.)
[1] These jurisdictions charge an in-lieu fee that varies by number of units in a project. [2] The in-lieu fee in Pasadena is dependent on the location of the development within the city.
[3] Jurupa Valley chose to set their in-lieu fee lower than the associated subsidy for on- site units.

January 17, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting

Agenda Item No. 2B

AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS REGARDING
THE POTENTIAL REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.

CU-89-004 (AS AMENDED AND MODIFIED) HELD BY ATLANTIC
SQUARE, LLC (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2023)

Staff Report available at a later date.

Staff Report
January 17, 2024 City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: SR-710 North Mobility Improvements Project Update and Funding Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), on a form approved by the City Attorney, for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements totaling $18,202,000;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to appropriate project funds for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements project per the project funding schedule included in the terms and conditions of the funding agreement;

3. Adopting a Resolution to add the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement and Parking Structure projects to the fiscal year 20 23-2024 Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”);

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively.

This activity is primarily a legislative tool to assess legislative and budgetary priorities and does not approve any of the specific projects for construction, and therefore does not have the potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, no further review is required.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The SR-710 Mobility Improvement Projects are the result of reallocated Measure R Funds for the SR-710 North Project to new mobility improvement projects within the San Gabriel Valley subregion. These projects are consistent with the purpose and need of the Gap Old Business - 2C

Staff Report

January 17, 2024

Closure Project to relieve congestion on local streets along the SR- 710 alignment between Interstates 10 and 210, with the highest priority for projects proximate to the Interstate 10 freeway. As part of the SR-710 North Mobility Improvements Projects, the City received a total allocation of $100,300,000 from LACMTA to complete seven projects. It is recommended that the City Council approve the funding agreement for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement project which includes a modified scope of work from the originally proposed project, eliminating the need for adding third lanes and removal of parking along Garvey Avenue.

BACKGROUND:

City Council approved four funding agreements from LACMTA at the December 16, 2020 and March 17, 2021 City Council Meetings. The funding agreements included the Garfield Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, Ramona Road, and Adaptive Traffic/Traffic Responsive Control System projects totaling $14,000,000.

At the March 17, 2021 Council meeting, the community expressed concerns for the Garvey Avenue and Parking Structure Construction projects and requested the City review project scopes and discuss project modifications with LACMTA. Consideration to approve these projects was postponed to a future date pending additional input from LACMTA regarding potential new guidelines for the projects.

At the February 16, 2022 Council meeting, City Council approved funding agreements for the Parking Structure and Monterey Pass Road projects. The Community again expressed concerns for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements project, and City Council directed staff to work with LACMTA to seek alternatives to the proposed lane expansions for the project.

Staff had multiple meetings with LACMTA regarding the proposed parking structure at the corner of Garvey and Lincoln, which is estimated at $22,445,000. The City has an available budget of $47,258,000 allocated for multiple parking structures or other project needs. At this time, LACMTA is finalizing the funding agreement for the Garvey/Lincoln parking structure. Upon execution, staff can start the design phase of the project. Staff will present design concepts to the City Council before moving forward with the final design.

Additionally, staff worked with LACMTA and modified the scope of work of the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements project to eliminate the proposed addition of a third lane of traffic and the removal of parking along Garvey Avenue. The final proposed scope of work comprises various improvements, including:
x Bus pads, bus shelters, benches , and various related amenities for bus riders x Median adjustments and left turn pockets lengthening to improve public transit/bus flow
x Paving and restriping
x Sidewalk and ADA improvements to improve pedestrian mobility and safety

Staff Report

January 17, 2024

x Additional bicycle routes on the northerly parallel street (Emerson Ave . from Atlantic to New) and southerly parallel street (Newmark Ave. from Atlantic to New) to promote the use of bicycles and improve rider experience x Lighting and driveway modification improvements to meet current standards x Install ation of EV chargers for public use, where feasible, to promote electric vehicle use
x Signal infrastructure improvements, adjustments, and modifications as necessary to comply with current Caltrans standards.

Staff will seek community input during the design phase and will be presenting a final scope to the City Council prior to proceeding with a final design.

Consultants will be retained for various project phases, which may include Design, Environmental, Construction Management, and Inspection. However, staff will return in the future to award those contracts individually on a project- by-project basis and base d on submittal of proposals as requested.

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the funding agreement, for the revised Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement Project for an amount of $18,202,000. LACTMA expressed support for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement Project and is currently finalizing the funding agreement.

2023-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The proposed Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements project meets the City’s strategic goal of Economic Development by improving circulation, beautifying the medians and providing a more walkable, and bicycle friendly downtown area, resulting in the potential attraction of more pedestrians and patrons to downtown businesses.

In addition, the proposed installation of EV charging stations, replacement of lighting with LED lights, and synchronizing the signals meet the City’s strategic goal of Sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City expects to receive a funding agreement from LACMTA for the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements in the near future and will appropriate funds according to the funding schedule included in the terms and conditions totaling $18,202,000 over the next three years. The following table provides an overview of the projects funded by SR- 710 funds.

CIP No.

Project Name/Description Project
Funding
96023 Garfield Avenue Capacity Improvements [Hellman to Hilliard] $700,000 96024 Atlantic Avenue Capacity Improvements [Hellman to Garvey] $1,900,000 96025 Ramona Road Capacity Improvements [710 Off s/o I-10 Freeway] $2,400,000

Staff Report

January 17, 2024
Costs will be reimbursed by LACMTA from project funds per the terms and conditions included in the funding agreements. It is recommended that a resolution be adopted to add Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement and Parking Structure projects to the fiscal year 2023-2024 CIP. New CIP numbers will be assigned to the projects by the Finance Department and funds programming with LACMTA will be coordinated by the Public Works Engineering Division.

Respectfully submitted and prepared by: Reviewed by:

Shawn Igoe
Director of Public Works
Martha Garcia
Director of Finance
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:
 Resolution
 City Council Resolution No. 202-R52
(Approved at the December 16, 2020 Council Meeting)
96026 Adaptive Traffic/Traffic Responsive Control System Project

$9,000,000
(Approved at the March 17, 2021 Council Meeting)
96047 Monterey Pass Road Improvements $20,840,000
Construct Parking Structures $47,258,000
(Approved at the February 16, 2022 Council Meeting)
Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvements [Atlantic to New] $18,202,000 (Proposed)
TOTAL $100,300,000

Staff Report
January 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution

1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-R52 TO ADD THE

GARVEY AVENUE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT AND PARKING

STRUCTURE PROJECTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(“CIP”) AND FINDING SUCH AMENDMENT CONFORMS WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Monterey Park as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 2.56.020(B), the City Council is the Monterey Park Planning Agency for purposes of this Resolution.

B. The Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement and Parking Structure Projects (“Projects”) were not previously included within the Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) as approved by Resolution No. 2022-R52 on June 21, 2023.

C. This Resolution amends Resolution No. 2022-R52 to add the Projects to the CIP.

D. The City reviewed this Resolution’s environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et set., the “CEQA” Guidelines”), and the City’s Environmental Guidelines.

E. This Resolution is adopted based upon the entirety of the administrative record including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Director of Public Works.

SECTION 2: Findings. Pursuant to Government Code § 65401, the City Council finds that the CIP, as amended by adding Projects, is consistent with the Monterey Park General Plan. Among other things the CIP meets the following goals in the General Plan:

x Goal 2.0 of the Circulation Element: Provide a local street system that accommodates current and future traffic volumes;

x Goal 5.0 of the Circulation Element: Create and maintain a connected system of bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities that meets the need of City residents;

x Goal 6.0 of the Circulation Element: Ensure that all development projects provide well-designed parking facilities that are safe, convenient, and attractive;

2 x Goal 3.0 of the Safety and Community Services Element: Protect public and private properties from geologic hazards associated with steep slopes, unstable hillsides, and liquefaction-prone areas;

SECTION 3: Design Immunity; City Engineer. The City Council wishes to obtain the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6 regarding the plans and construction of the Projects. Accordingly, in addition to the other projects in the CIP, the City Council authorizes the City Engineer to exercise discretionary approval for plans or designs for the Projects in advance of the construction or improvement as set forth in Resolution No. 2022-R52.

SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. This activity is primarily a legislative tool to assess legislative and budgetary priorities and does not approve any of the specific projects for construction, and therefore does not have the potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Accordingly, no further review is required.

SECTION 5: Notice of Exemption. The Director of Public Works, or designee, is directed to file a Notice of Exemption in accordance with CEQA §§ 15062, and any other applicable law.

SECTION 6: Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts were made to form accurate assumptions.

Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 7: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 8:Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

3 SECTION 9: Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its Application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 10: E
lectronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 11: R ecordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 12: E ffective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED
AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 2024.

Jose Sanchez, Mayor

ATTEST:

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

KARL H. BERGER, CITY ATTORNEY

Justin A. Tamayo, Deputy City Attorney

Staff Report
January 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
City Council Resolution No. 202-R52

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-R52

A RESOLUTION FINDING THE FY 2023 -24 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (“CIP”) CONFORMS WITH THE GENERAL PLAN; AUTHORIZING

THE CITY ENGINEER TO APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE

PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE CIP.

The City Council of the city of Monterey Park does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: Planning Agency. Pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“ MPMC”) §

2.56.020(B), the City Council is the Monterey Park Planning Agency for purposes of this Resolution. In accordance with Government Code § 65401, the Public Works Director prepared and submitted a capital improvement plan (“CIP”) to the Planning Agency as set forth in attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference. Government Code § 65103(C) requires the Planning Agency to annually review the City’s CIP to determine whether the CIP is consistent with the Monterey Park General Plan. The City Council finds that the CIP is consistent with the Monterey Park General Plan. Among other things the CIP meets the following goals in the General Plan:

x Goal 2.0 of the Circulation Element: Provide a local street system that accommodates current and future traffic volumes;

x Goal 5.0 of the Circulation Element: Create and maintain a connected system of bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities that meets the need of City residents;

x Goal 6.0 of the Circulation Element: Ensure that all development projects provide well-designed parking facilities that are safe, convenient, and attractive;

x Goal 3.0 of the Safety and Community Services Element: Protect public and private properties from geologic hazards associated with steep slopes, unstable hillsides, and liquefaction-prone areas;

x Goal 13.0 of the Safety and Community Services Element: Provide adequate sewer, water, and drainage systems to meet the needs of City residents and businesses; and

x Goal 4.0 of the Resources Element: Conserve and protect groundwater supply and water resources.

SECTION 2: Design Immunity ; City Engineer . The City Council wishes to obtain the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6 regarding the plans and construction of the CIP projects. Accordingly, the City Council authorizes the City Engineer to exercise

Resolution No. 2023-R52

discretionary approval for plans or designs for each project identified in the CIP in advance of the construction or improvement. Such approval must conform with the following:

A. The City Engineer must determine that design and plans for the CIP projects are consistent with the City’s standards, guidelines, practices, or otherwise comply with applicable law and engineering standards, guidelines, or practices.

B. Approval must be in writing and be stamped by the City Engineer while exercising his or her discretion in accordance with California law.

C. The design approval must occur before a solicitation of bids is issued in accordance with this Resolution and before actual construction work construction commences.

D. The City Engineer is authorized to act on the City’s behalf in approving any alterations or modifications of approved design and plans.

SECTION 3: Solicitation of Bids; Public Works Director . For CIP projects exceeding the threshold in MPMC § 3.100.040 for informal bidding (at the time this Resolution was adopted, the threshold is $200,000 or more), the Public Works Director is authorized to solicit bids for projects identified in the CIP and in the current Budget Resolution without additional City Council authorization. Such solicitation for bids must comply with applicable California law including, without limitation, the Public Contract Code. The Public Works Director is required to bring all recommendations for award to the City Council.

SECTION 4: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 5: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 6: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

Resolution No. 2023-R52

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June.
______________________________
Jose Sanchez, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
State of California )
County of Los Angeles) §.

City of Monterey Park )
I, Maychelle Yee, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-R52 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park at a regular meeting held on the 21 st day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Council Members: Yiu, Ngo, Wong, Sanchez
Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: /o
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Dated this 21st day of June, 2023.

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
Monterey Park, California

Five Year Capital Improvement Program
FY 2023-2024 Preliminary Budget
Year To Date New Funding
Appropriation Estimated FY 2022-2023 Request Planned Planned Planned Planned Total Project Project Fund Project Description Amount Expenditures Carryover Balance FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025 FY 2025-2026 FY 2026-2027 FY 2027-2028 Needs Enterprise Capital Projects
86005 411 SEWER MASTER PLAN $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400,000.00 86005 419 SEWER MASTER PLAN $71,177.00 $0.00 $49,190.00 $0.00 $21,987.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $71,177.00 96007 411 SEWER REPAIRS & PIPE RELINING $609,235.00 $450,403.00 $158,832.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $609,235.00 99009 411 CHANDLER AVENUE PIPELINE REPLACEMENT $160,000.00 $149,773.75 $10,226.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 99010 411 EMERSON AVENUE PIPELINE RELINING $245,000.00 $0.00 $245,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $245,000.00 99011 411 EMERSON AVENUE PARALLEL PIPELINE $615,000.00 $0.00 $615,000.00 $1,015,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,630,000.00 96001 411 N. ATLANTIC SEWER IMPROVEMENT $1,940,394.00 $736,539.15 $0.00 $0.00 $2,236,539.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,973,079.00 99014 411 CURED-IN PLACE PIPE RELINING- VARIOUS LOCATIONS (GARVEY) $887,000.00 $0.00 $887,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $887,000.00 99015 411 SPOT REPAIRS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS $1,282,000.00 $659,268.84 $622,731.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,282,000.00 99016 411 CCTV FIELD EQUIPMENT UPGRADE $71,000.00 $33,868.85 $37,131.15 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $71,000.00 99020 411 SEWER SYSTEM INVENTORY & MAPPING AND STAFF TRAINING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $156,435.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $156,435.00 99021 411 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT - CIPRIANO AND EL PORTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $304,886.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $304,886.00 NEW 411 SEWER MANHOLE REHABILITATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00 $1,200,000.00 NEW 411 SEWER REPAIRS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $0.00 $6,000,000.00 Sewer Sub-total $6,080,806.00 $2,029,853.59 $2,625,110.56 $2,815,000.00 $4,719,847.85 $1,800,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $0.00 $8,789,812.00 86007 401 WATER MASTER PLAN $286,809.00 $104,233.00 $182,576.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $286,809.00 99012 402 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM $105,541.02 $0.00 $105,541.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $105,541.02 99012 403 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM $6,837,000.00 $5,537,807.07 $1,299,192.93 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,837,000.00 99005 401 MIRA VALLE WATER PROJECT $540,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540,000.00 99006 401 MPK GOLF COURSE WATER MAIN EXTENSION $630,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $630,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $630,000.00 99007 401 RUSSELL STREET RESERVOIR $1,199,625.00 $19,992.45 $0.00 $0.00 $2,315,007.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,514,632.55 96001 401 N. ATLANTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT $1,668,753.00 $10,175.00 $1,658,578.00 $0.00 $345,922.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,014,675.00 99022 409 PLC UPGRADE $387,341.00 $0.00 $387,341.00 $212,659.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $600,000.00 99023 409 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - NORTHEAST $112,491.00 $13,032.00 $99,459.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $112,491.00 99023 401 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - NORTHEAST $2,602,305.00 $0.00 $2,602,305.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,602,305.00 99024 401 WATER METER REPLACEMENTS $5,000,000.00 $53,611.56 $4,946,388.44 $0.00 $4,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000,000.00 99025 401 MONTEREY PASS RD WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS $8,241,000.00 $1,504,235.90 $6,736,764.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,241,000.00 NEW 401 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - NORTHEAST (PHASE 4) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,400,000.00 NEW 401 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - NORTHEAST (PHASE 5) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,700,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,700,000.00 NEW 401 DE LA FUENTE ST MAINLINE REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,000,000.00 NEW 401 MONTECHICO DR MAINLINE REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,300,000.00 NEW 401 RUSSELL BOOSTER STATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,800,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,800,000.00 NEW 401 BROCKWELL AVE MAINLINE REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,500,000.00 $0.00 $5,500,000.00 NEW 401 REPLACE DELTA SETTLING TANKS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,700,000.00 $0.00 $2,700,000.00 NEW 401 EAST GRAVES AVE MAINLINE REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $670,000.00 $670,000.00 NEW 401 BRIGHTWOOD BOOSTER STATION REHAB $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,900,000.00 $1,900,000.00 NEW 401 GRAYLOCK AVE MAINLINE REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 NEW 401 PIPELINE SEISMIC UPGRADE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 NEW 401 DELTA BOOSTER STATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 NEW 401 DONCREST ST MAINLINE REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Water Sub-total $27,610,865.02 $7,243,086.98 $18,018,145.49 $212,659.00 $10,230,929.55 $12,800,000.00 $8,200,000.00 $5,770,000.00 $63,654,453.57 Enterprise Capital Projects Subtotal $33,691,671.02 $9,272,940.57 $20,643,256.05 $3,027,659.00 $14,950,777.40 $14,600,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $5,770,000.00 $72,444,265.57 R7

EXHIBIT A

Five Year Capital Improvement Program
FY 2023-2024 Preliminary Budget
Year To Date New Funding
Appropriation Estimated FY 2022-2023 Request Planned Planned Planned Planned Total Project Project Fund Project Description Amount Expenditures Carryover Balance FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025 FY 2025-2026 FY 2026-2027 FY 2027-2028 Needs Street Construction Capital Projects
96004 239 DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROV $343,744.00 $239,946.35 $103,797.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343,744.00 96004 246 DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROV $932,500.00 $52,977.63 $879,522.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $932,500.00 96012 101 POTRERO GRANDE RENOVATION $3,588,858.60 $60,580.00 $3,528,278.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,588,858.60 96023 239 GARFIELD AVENUE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT $700,000.00 $212.50 $699,787.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $700,000.00 96024 239 ATLANTIC AVENUE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT $250,000.00 $212.50 $249,787.50 $1,650,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,900,000.00 96025 239 RAMONA ROAD CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT $575,000.00 $2,096.00 $572,904.00 $175,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $650,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,400,000.00 96026 239 ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC/TRAFFIC RESPONSIVE CONTROL SYSTEM $1,750,000.00 $15,608.50 $1,734,391.50 $2,250,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000,000.00 96027 601 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY $94,269.00 $32,960.00 $61,309.00 $0.00 $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $184,269.00 96028 246 GARFIELD AVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS $537,200.00 $44,928.35 $492,271.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $537,200.00 96030 601 SLURRY SEAL - VARIOUS LOCATIONS $1,231,004.00 $805,265.65 $425,738.35 $1,032,933.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,263,937.00 96031 601 STREET REHABILITATION -VARIOUS LOCATIONS $11,388,652.00 $1,962,846.90 $9,425,805.10 $7,029,985.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,418,637.00 96031 101 STREET REHABILITATION-VARIOUS LOCATIONS $35,350.00 $0.00 $35,350.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,350.00 96034 281 SCHOOL AND CROSSWALK SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT $1,354,900.00 $0.00 $1,354,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,354,900.00 96034 239 SCHOOL AND CROSSWALK SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT $489,657.00 $69,398.00 $420,259.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $489,657.00 96035 239 CESAR CHAVEZ AVE. PAVING PROJECT $55,000.00 $0.00 $55,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $55,000.00 96036 237 STREET REHABILITATION -VARIOUS LOCATIONS (RMRA) $1,252,121.00 $5,889.13 $1,246,231.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,252,121.00 96038 240 MAT CYCLE 1- POTRERO GRANDE REGIONAL PROJECT $108,750.00 $0.00 $108,750.00 $1,646,112.00 $4,329,753.00 $281,610.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,366,225.00 96039 242 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT $922,672.00 $0.00 $922,672.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $922,672.00 96039 238 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT $802,182.00 $0.00 $802,182.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $802,182.00 96039 236 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT $174,946.00 $0.00 $174,946.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $174,946.00 96005 241 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 NEW 246 MONTEREY PASS STREET REHABILITATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,064,323.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,064,323.00 NEW 242 SLURRY SEAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $2,500,000.00 NEW 237 STREET REHABILITATION - VARIOUS STREETS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $150,000.00 $6,150,000.00 NEW 241 SIDEWALK REPAIRS - CITYWIDE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $179,557.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $899,557.00 NEW 236 SIDEWALK REPAIRS - CITYWIDE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $70,443.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $350,443.00 NEW 218 SAFE STREETS FPR ALL (SS4A) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $984,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $984,000.00 NEW 239 SAFE STREETS FPR ALL (SS4A) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $246,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $246,000.00 NEW 241 BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $600,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $600,000.00 NEW ALLEYS REHABILITATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,930,000.00 $2,544,000.00 $2,671,000.00 $2,804,000.00 $10,949,000.00 Street Sub-total $26,786,805.60 $3,292,921.51 $23,293,884.09 $19,128,353.00 $15,599,753.00 $5,725,610.00 $4,921,000.00 $3,704,000.00 $75,665,521.60 99003 248 EAST LA SUSTAINABLE MEDIAN STORMWATER $600,000.00 $600,000.00 $0.00 $600,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1,200,000.00$ 96033 248 CATCH BASIN CPS UNITS $302,250.00 $8,068.06 $294,181.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 302,250.00$ NEW 248 STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $153,233.00 Drainage Sub-total $902,250.00 $608,068.06 $294,181.94 $753,233.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,502,250.00 -$
Street Construction Capital Projects Subtotal $27,689,055.60 $3,900,989.57 $23,588,066.03 $19,881,586.00 $15,599,753.00 $5,725,610.00 $4,921,000.00 $3,704,000.00 $77,167,771.60 R7

Five Year Capital Improvement Program
FY 2023-2024 Preliminary Budget
Year To Date New Funding
Appropriation Estimated FY 2022-2023 Request Planned Planned Planned Planned Total Project Project Fund Project Description Amount Expenditures Carryover Balance FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025 FY 2025-2026 FY 2026-2027 FY 2027-2028 Needs Community Capital Improvement Projects
81401 502 IT EMERGENCY / MASTER PLAN $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 87001 101 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN $346,632.27 $382,570.12 -$35,937.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $346,632.27 91401 502 NETWORK EQUIPMENT (ERP) $1,133,563.16 $999,933.32 $133,629.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,133,563.16 93004 363 CITYWIDE CAMERAS $1,312,127.00 $1,302,127.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,312,127.00 93004 401 CITYWIDE CAMERAS $238,210.00 $238,210.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $238,210.00 93004 411 CITYWIDE CAMERAS $42,761.00 $42,761.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $42,761.00 93004 421 CITYWIDE CAMERAS $42,761.00 $42,761.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $42,761.00 93004 501 CITYWIDE CAMERAS $64,141.00 $62,940.31 $1,200.69 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $64,141.00 96018 101 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS $567,153.00 $0.00 $567,153.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $567,153.00 96029 363 CITY HALL A/C UNITS REPLACEMENT $345,451.00 $51,045.00 $294,406.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $345,451.00 95011 231 LIBRARY STORYROOM EXPANSION AND STAINED GLASS $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 95011 363 LIBRARY STORYROOM EXPANSION AND STAINED GLASS $120,000.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 95013 231 BARNES GYM RESTROOMS UPGRADES $230,000.00 $6,333.00 $223,667.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $230,000.00 95014 231 LANGLEY RESTROOMS UPGRADES $200,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 95014 362 LANGLEY RESTROOMS UPGRADES $545,603.00 $0.00 $545,603.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $545,603.00 95016 363 GATE RAMP $60,000.00 $13,497.38 $46,502.62 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 95017 363 EDISON TRAILS PARK PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $300,000.00 $63,169.88 $236,830.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 95018 363 SEQUOIA PARK SMALL PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $220,000.00 $0.00 $220,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $220,000.00 95019 363 GARVEY RANCH PARK BIG PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $480,000.00 $0.00 $480,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $480,000.00 95020 363 GARVEY RANCH PARK SMALL PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $175,000.00 $0.00 $175,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $175,000.00 95021 363 BELLA VISTA PARK PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $200,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200,000.00 95022 363 HIGHLANDS PARK SMALL PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $175,000.00 $0.00 $175,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $175,000.00 95023 363 LASER CUT BASEBALL FIELDS $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 95024 363 HIGHLANDS PARK BIG PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT $450,000.00 $0.00 $450,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $450,000.00 95025 363 DUAL MODEM MDC'S $127,528.00 $97,968.89 $29,559.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $127,528.00 95026 363 CITY HALL GENERATOR $335,000.00 $1,701.00 $333,299.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $335,000.00 95027 387 SIERRA VISTA COURTS $27,500.00 $26,043.69 $1,456.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,500.00 95028 387 BARNES PARK AMPHITHEATER SEATING $188,492.00 $0.00 $188,492.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $188,492.00 95029 363 REKEYING OF CITY HALL DOORS $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 95030 363 DEMOLITION OF TRAINING TOWER $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 ### 501 PUBLIC SAFETY $60,000.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 ### 501 PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLE $150,000.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 $360,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $510,000.00 ### 238 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES VEHICLES $245,000.00 $0.00 $245,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $245,000.00 ### 401 PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLE (WATER) $70,000.00 $0.00 $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $70,000.00 NEW 362 PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS - BARNES PARK $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $445,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $445,000.00 NEW 362 PARK RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $1,600,000.00 NEW 101 AMBULANCE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $425,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $425,000.00 NEW 101 ELDER GYM ROOF REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $433,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $433,000.00 NEW 101 CITY HALL SKYLIGHTS ATRIUM REPLACEMENT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 NEW 101 CITY HALL LROOF REPAIR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $693,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $693,000.00 NEW 101 GARVEY RANCH PARK MUSEUM ROOF REPAIRS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $140,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $140,000.00 NEW 101 LANGLEY CENTER ROOF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 NEW 101 BARNES GYM ROOF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 NEW 101 POLICE VEHICLE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $66,790.65 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $266,790.65 Community Capital Improvement Projects Subtotal $8,966,379.93 $3,535,519.09 $5,430,860.84 $3,062,790.65 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $13,829,170.58 R7

Five Year Capital Improvement Program
FY 2023-2024 Preliminary Budget
Year To Date New Funding
Appropriation Estimated FY 2022-2023 Request Planned Planned Planned Planned Total Project Project Fund Project Description Amount Expenditures Carryover Balance FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025 FY 2025-2026 FY 2026-2027 FY 2027-2028 Needs

TOTAL ALL FUNDS
101 GENERAL FUND $4,537,993.87 $443,150.12 $4,094,843.75 $2,257,790.65 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,995,784.52 218 SS4A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $984,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $984,000.00 231 PUBLIC/PARKS/LIBRARY DIF $460,000.00 $6,333.00 $453,667.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $460,000.00 236 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT 3 $174,946.00 $0.00 $174,946.00 $70,443.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $525,389.00 237 SB1 $1,252,121.00 $5,889.13 $1,246,231.87 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $150,000.00 $7,402,121.00 238 PROP A $1,047,182.00 $0.00 $1,047,182.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,047,182.00 239 MEASURE R $4,163,401.00 $327,473.85 $3,835,927.15 $4,321,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $650,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,134,401.00 240 Measure M $108,750.00 $0.00 $108,750.00 $1,646,112.00 $4,329,753.00 $281,610.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,366,225.00 241 PROP C $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $979,557.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $180,000.00 $1,699,557.00 242 GAS TAX $922,672.00 $0.00 $922,672.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $3,422,672.00 246 HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROV PROGRAM $1,469,700.00 $97,905.98 $1,371,794.02 $1,064,323.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,534,023.00 248 MEASURE W $902,250.00 $608,068.06 $294,181.94 $753,233.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,502,250.00 362 CDBG $545,603.00 $0.00 $545,603.00 $445,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $2,590,603.00 363 ARPA $4,530,106.00 $1,529,509.15 $3,000,596.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,530,106.00 379 MTA MONTEREY PASS BIKE GRANT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 387 PER CAPITA 68 GRANT $215,992.00 $26,043.69 $189,948.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $215,992.00 401 WATER $20,476,702.00 $1,930,457.91 $16,196,611.54 $0.00 $10,230,929.55 $12,800,000.00 $8,200,000.00 $5,770,000.00 $56,307,631.55 402 WATER TREATMENT $105,541.02 $0.00 $105,541.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $105,541.02 403 WATER TREATMENT $6,837,000.00 $5,537,807.07 $1,299,192.93 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,837,000.00 409 WATER - DIF $499,832.00 $13,032.00 $486,800.00 $212,659.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $712,491.00 411 SEWER $6,052,390.00 $2,072,614.59 $2,575,920.56 $2,815,000.00 $4,697,860.85 $1,800,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $0.00 $15,961,396.00 419 SEWER - DIF $71,177.00 $0.00 $49,190.00 $0.00 $21,987.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $71,177.00 421 REFUSE $42,761.00 $42,761.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $42,761.00 501 SHOP $274,141.00 $62,940.31 $211,200.69 $360,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $634,141.00 502 TECHNOLOGY $1,388,020.66 $1,204,390.82 $183,629.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,388,020.66 601 STREET BONDS $12,713,925.00 $2,801,072.55 $9,912,852.45 $8,062,918.00 $90,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,866,843.00 621 SALES TAX BONDS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 GRANT GRANTS $0.00 $443,150.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $68,992,206.55 $17,152,599.35 $48,307,282.92 $25,972,035.65 $28,220,530.40 $18,181,610.00 $12,650,000.00 $7,070,000.00 $158,337,307.75 R7

City Council Staff Report
TO:

FROM:

The Honorable Mayor and City Council
SUBJECT: Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Approving the minutes from the special and regular meetings of November 15, 2023; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

None.

BACKGROUND:

None.

FISCAL IMPACT
:

None.

R
espect
fully submi
tted, Prepared by:

Maychelle Yee
City Clerk
Ruben Antonio Barbosa
Senior Clerk Typist
Approved By:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Draft Minutes
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: Consent Calendar - 3A

Staff Report
January 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Minutes

71-XX

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community

MINUTES

MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL

FINANCING AUTHORITY (MPFA)

HOUSING AUTHORITY (MPHA)

GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD)

SUCCESSOR AGENCY (SA)

SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2023

The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council in Room 266, Second Floor of City Hall located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, November 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Sanchez called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Interim City Manager Inez Alvarez called the roll:

Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Yvonne Yiu
Council Members Absent: None

ALSO PRESENT: Interim City Manager Inez Alvarez, City Attorney Karl Berger, Interim Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia, Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe ( present for Agenda Item No. 2B – 2), Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Christine Tomikawa (present for Agenda Item No. 2B – 1)

VIRTUALLY PRESENT: None

AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, CHANGES AND ADOPTIONS
None.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS: None.

[1.] OPEN SESSION

1-A. APPOINT LABOR NEGOTIATIOR FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH

CITY MANAGER

Action Taken: The City Council appointed the City Attorney as negotiator for Closed Session Item No. 2-A.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and seconded by Council Member Lo motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Yiu, Ngo, Wong, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

[2.] CLOSED SESSION

The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m.

2-A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957)

Position: City Manager

This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 2B.

2-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION. Conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): 2 cases

This Item was heard before Agenda Item No. 2A

1. City of Monterey Park and Monterey Park Civilians Association and Service Employees International Union Local 721 Case No. LA-SV-191-M

2. City of Monterey Park v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.) et al. (filed July 2, 2021), United States District Court (District of So. Carolina), Case No. 2:21-cv-1990-RMG.

RECONVENE & ADJOURNMENT
The City Council reconvened from Closed Session with all Council Members present. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Action Taken: Mayor Sanchez announced the appointment of Inez Alvarez as the new City Manager.

__________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

71-XX

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent services to enhance the quality of life for our entire community.

MINUTES

MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL

FINANCING AUTHORITY (MPFA)

HOUSING AUTHORITY (MPHA)

GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD)

SUCCESSOR AGENCY (SA)

REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2023

The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Regular Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, November 15, 2023, at 6:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Sanchez called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE:

The Monterey Park Police Explorers led the flag salute. Pledge of Allegiance presented by Civic Superstar Aaron Zheng

ROLL CALL:

City Clerk Maychelle Yee called the roll:

Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Yvonne Yiu
Council Members Absent: None

ALSO PRESENT: City Treasurer Amy Lee, City Manager Inez Alvarez, City Attorney Karl Berger, Interim Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia , Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe, Director of Recreation and Community Services Robert Aguirre, Director of Finance Martha Garcia, Community Development Director Jessica Serrano, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Christine Tomikawa, Police Chief Scott Wiese, Fire Chief Matt Hallock, Interim City Librarian Kristin Olivarez , Economic Development Manager Joseph Torres, Recreation Manager Christina Alatorre, Finance Manager Laura Borjon, Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang

VIRTUALLY PRESENT: None.

AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, CHANGES AND ADOPTIONS
Mayor Sanchez announced the appointment of Inez Alvarez as the new City Manager.

71-XX
November 15, 2023

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

- Nidal Oudeh expressed his frustration regarding his public record requests and his interactions with various City departments.

- Randye Kay talked about the conditions at the intersection of Chandler and Hellman Avenues, including details of past accidents and personal anecdotes regarding those conditions. She provided the City with a petition of 984 signatures for local government intervention for specific safety measures at the intersection, including 3-way stop signs and extension of red zones along Hellman Avenue.

- Patricia Mesquite said she is a resident living near t he intersection of Chandler Avenue and Hellman Avenue and spoke about the traffic conditions at the intersection. She voiced her experiences witnessing various automobile accidents.

1. PRESENTATION
Matters listed under presentation are informational content and for discussion only.

1-A. MONTEREY PARK COMMUNITY HEALING FUND UPDATES

This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 5B

City Treasurer Lee presented an update on the Monterey Park Community Healing Fund which included the distribution of 37 checks for $3,000 each to members of the community affected by the mass casualty incident. Treasurer Lee talked about a new training offered to the community on January 18, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber called the Gun Violence Restraining Order Training, which will include a Judge, City Attorney, and Los Angeles County Counsel to help educate the community about restraining orders and red flag laws. Treasurer Lee also took questions and comments from City Council.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

This item was heard after Agenda Item No. 6B

- Fire Department: Fire Engineer David Goetz talked about the Community Preparedness Clinic at Sequoia Park on December 16 , which will include information on emergency supplies, utility shut offs, exit drills , the C ommunity Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) program and Cooking Safety during the holiday season which includes a turkey deep frying, additional informational can be found on the Quick Response (“QR”) code located on the City website.

- Police Department: Police Chief Wiese talked about the recently restarted Neighborhood Watch program and encouraged the community to participate. Chief Wiese talked about the Neighborhood Engagement Team (“NET”) and their efforts to engage and assist homeless individuals in the City. Chief Wiese introduced new

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Police Officer Cata Chiv and Dispatcher Jessica Rodriguez and took questions and comments from the City Council regarding homeless outreach and neighborhood watch.

2. OLD BUSINESS

2-A. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE LEGISLATIVE SUBPOENAS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CU- 89-004 (AS AMENDED AND MODIFIED) HELD BY ATLANTIC SQUARE, LLC
(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2023)

On November 1, 2023, the City Council considered whether to issue legislative subpoenas to gather information to determine whether the City should consider taking action to revoke CUP No. CU -89-004 which, as amended and modified, regulates land uses at 2000- 2290 South Atlantic Boulevard. A copy of the staff report for that item is attached as Exhibit “1” (in its entirety).

After discussion, the City Council postponed the matter to this meeting. In doing so, the Council invited the property owner to contact the City Attorney with a plan to file an application to revitalize the South Atlantic Boulevard. At the time this Agenda was posted, the City Attorney’s office was not provided with any plan from the property owner.

This item was heard after Agenda Item No. 4A

Public Speakers:

- Maychelle Yee, a resident, expressed her desire for both sides to take a step back from legal action.

- Tom Kuehl, Senior Vice-President for Terramar Retail Center (“TRC”), provided the City with an informational packet and talked about how their company handle vacancies and their long-term reevaluation plan and the obstacles they have encountered from the City.

- Tim Pettit, Senior Vice -President, and Chief Financial Officer for TRC, talked about the efforts TRC has made toward resolution of the ongoing situation and expressed his frustration at the City’s position on the issue.

- City Clerk Yee received, filed, and read a written communication submitted by Byron de Arakal, Consulting Director Entitlement Planning and Special Projects for TRC, which included his concerns that information in the staff report was incomplete, documentation which shows TRC did submit plans to the City, and stated he hopes for a productive relationship with the City.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Discussion: A supplemental staff report was submitted prior to the City Council meeting which detailed a letter and proposed site plan TRC attempted to deliver to the City i n response to this issue . Community Development Director Serrano clarified the question regarding those plans being received and whether they were previously submitted, and City Attorney Berger added that those plans did not satisfy the City’s request for substantive plans or municipal code requirements.

Representatives of TRC were asked to clarify the submission of these site plans and where they are positioned now.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider (1) Adopting a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to issue legislative subpoenas for testimony and records related to the potential revocation of CUP No. CU -89- 004 (as amended) that was originally approved via Resolution No. 9356, adopted August 29, 1989 (and subsequently modified/amended); and (2) Tak ing such additional, related action that may be desirable.

Action Taken: Council Member Ngo declared a potential conflict of interest related to his employer, Bank of America, who has business relations with the developer, left the dais and did not participate in discussion. By consensus, t he City Council continued this item to the January 17, 2024 City Council meeting.

EXTENSION OF COUNCIL MEETING

Action Taken: The City Council extended the council meeting to 11:30 p.m.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and seconded by Council Member Lo, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Yiu, Wong, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: N go
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

3. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS. 3A-3L

All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

This item was heard after Agenda Item No. 1A

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Agenda Item Nos. 3A – 3L on Consent Calendar, excluding Item Nos. 3E, 3F, and 3J which were pulled for discussion, separate motion, reading resolutions and ordinances by the title

71-XX
November 15, 2023
only and waiving further reading thereof. Agenda Item No. 3I was previously heard.

Council Member Ngo declared a Conflict of Interest for Item No. 3I as he is on the Chinatown Service Center Board of Directors and left the dais and did not participate in discussion.

Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo and seconded by Council Member Yiu, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Yiu, Ngo, Wong, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: Ngo (Agenda Item No. 3-I)

3-A. M INUTES

Approving the minutes from the regular meeting of September 6, 2023 and the special meetings of September 6, 2023 and September 26, 2023.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the minutes from the regular meeting of September 6, 2023 and the special meetings of September 6, 2023 and September 26, 2023, on Consent Calendar

3-B. AMENDING RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE

At its November 2, 2011 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11443, approving a Records Retention Schedule for City documents. Thereafter, every odd numbered year staff reviews the retention schedule for purposes of practicability and applicable law.

Action Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-R90 amending the City’s records retention schedule for City documents, on Consent Calendar

Resolution No. 2023-R90
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE

FOR CITY DOCUMENTS

3-C. MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT – OCTOBER 2023

As of October 31, 2023, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $64,079,482.93.

Action Taken: The City Council Received and filed the monthly investment report, on Consent Calendar.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
3-D. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR JULY 1, 2024 – JUNE 30, 2025

Existing law requires the Monterey Park Successor Agency (SA) to formulate recognized Obligation Payment Schedules (ROPS) under which the SA makes payments for eligible obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. The ROPS are considered by the Successor Agency Board, proposed to the Oversight Board (OB) and, if approved by the OB, provided to the California Department of Finance for review.

The ROPS is required to be prepared for an entire 12 months. Staff requests that the City Council, acting on behalf of the SA for the former Monterey Park Redevelopment Agency, consider and adopt the ROPS 24-25 A&B and the related administrative budget for the period covering July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025.

Action Taken: The City Council (1) adopted Resolution SA -188 approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 24- 25 A&B) for the period between July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025; (2) approved the Successor Agency Administrative Budget for July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025; and (3) directed staff to post and transmit the ROPS and Administrative Budget to the appropriate public agencies, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. SA-188

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE MONTEREY PARK

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION
PAYMENT SCHEDULES PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE § 34177

3-E. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE OPEN

MARKET BOND REPURCHASE OF A PORTION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

PARK OUTSTANDING TAXABLE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021

On February 16, 2021, the City of Monterey Park issued Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds, Series 2021 (2021 POBS) in the amount of $106,335,000. The proceeds were used to pay the City’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL), with respect to certain pension benefits of designated City employees, to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPers). The City is required to make principal and interest payments each year on the outstanding 2021 POBS. The significant increase in interest rates since the issuance of the 2021 POBs has decreased the price of bonds in the secondary market. If current bondholders are willing to sell bonds back to the City at a discount, the City could generate debt service savings with the repurchase of 2021 POBS.

As of June 30, 2023, Pension Fund 202 has a fund balance of $4.4 million. The Finance Director recommends allocation a maximum of $4 million of Pension Fund

71-XX
November 15, 2023
202 funds to repurchase a portion of the 2021 POBS on the open market. However, there is no assurance that investors will agree to sell their bonds back to the City.

If no current bondholders are willing to sell the 2021 POBS at the prices the City is prepared to offer for repurchase, the City would still have to pay any non- contingent consultant fees. Additionally, there are alternative uses for the $4 million that the City may wish to consider.

Public Speaker;

- Michael Mejia, Managing Director for Ramirez and Company presented background and details regarding the sale and repurchase of the Pension Obligation Bonds and took questions from the City Council.

- Wing-See Fox, Managing Director , Urban Futures , virtually present, spoke about long range investment forecasts versus the repurchase of bonds.

- Vanessa Legbandt, Bond Counselor at Stradling Law’s Public Law section was virtually present to take questions.

- Michael Busch, Chief Strategy Officer, Urban Futures was virtually present to take questions.

Discussion: Finance Director Garcia presented a PowerPoint presentation which provided background information on the proposed resolution and spoke with the City Council about the financial ramifications of both options to repurchase the bonds or any of the alternative uses for the fund balance.

Action Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-R92, adopted the Resolution of the City Council of The City of Monterey Park (a) authoriz ed the Open Market Bond Repurchase of a portion of its Outstanding Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds, Series 2021; (b) approved a Repurchase Agent and authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Samuel A. Ramirez & Co., Inc.; and (c) and authoriz ed certain additional actions in connection therewit h, as amended to delegate the authority decision to the City Treasury Committee /Investment Policy Team and to report back to the City Council on the potential savings.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Resolution No. 2023-R92

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OPEN MARKET BOND REPURCHASE OF

A PORTION OF ITS OUTSTANDING TAXABLE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021, APPROVING SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & CO., INC. AS ITS

REPURCHASE AGENT AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL ACTIONS

3-F. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE

INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO FINANCE

WATER FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER SYSTEM

The City has set a Public Hearing to consider rate adjustments to the Water System on December 6, 2023, and the City has already mailed the Proposition 218 notice with proposed water rate increases of 32%, 8%, 8%, 7%, and 8% starting in Fiscal Year 2023- 24 through Fiscal Year 2027- 28, respectively.

However, issuing bonds to finance a portion of the needed improvements to the Water System would lower the cumulative rate increases from Fiscal Year 2023- 24 through Fiscal Year 2027- 28 and allow the City to accelerate much needed projects, including replacement of water meters.

Public Speaker:

- Rick Simonson, Vice-President at HF & H Consultants, virtually present, spoke with the City Council about the current rate increase proposition and the proposed $20 million bond needed for water improvements that are high priority and that could be implemented within the next 3 years.

- Michael Mejia, Managing Director for Ramirez and Company spoke about the effects of the interest rate on the proposed bond.

- Wing-See Fox, Managing Director, Urban Futures, was virtually present to take questions.

- Vanessa Legbandt, Bond Counselor at Stradling Law’s Public Law section was virtually present to take questions.

- Michael Busch, Chief Strategy Officer, Urban Futures was virtually present to take questions.

Discussion: Finance Director Garcia presented a PowerPoint presentation which provided background information on the proposed resolution and the needed infrastructure projects that would be prioritized through the funding. Finance Director Garcia introduced Public Works Director Igoe who added details regarding the needed infrastructure improvements and the need for the bond.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Action Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- R93 directing the City Manager to take actions necessary to finance water facilities and improvements to the water system.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Sanchez and Seconded by Council Member Yiu, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

Resolution No. 2023-R93

RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND MUNICIPAL FINANCE

PROFESSIONALS TO PREPARE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR

BONDS TO FINANCE WATER FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE

WATER SYSTEM

RECESSED AND RECONVENED
The City Council recessed at 9:34 p.m. and reconvened with all council members present at 9:46 p.m.

3-G. APPROVE REVISED FY2023 -2024 CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

COMPREHENSIVE SALARY SCHEDULE

California law requires the City to approve a comprehensive salary schedule listing all full-time and part-time employee classifications with associated salary ranges in one document. The City Council’s approval of various memoranda of understanding (“MOUs”) with bargaining units in the City means new salary ranges were approved for employees and the City Council is being asked to approve a revised comprehensive salary schedule to reflect those changes.

Action Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution 2023- R91 approving a revised City of Monterey Park Comprehensive Salary Schedule, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution 2023-R91

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REVISED SALARY RANGES FOR CITY

EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO
IMPLEMENT SUCH CHANGES IN THE CITY’S SALARY SCHEDULE

3-H. SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OPPORTUNITY FOR WATER LEADERSHIP (OWL) GRANT FISCAL YEAR 2023/24

71-XX
November 15, 2023
The Library was notified of a $3,000 award from the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Grant funds will be used to purchase books and media for the Library to educate patrons about water conservation. Funding will also be used to host a family-friendly event celebrating Earth Day and provide activities promoting water-wise solutions for residents of all ages.

Action Taken: The City Council accepted $3,000 in San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District grant funding to purchase items for the Bruggemeyer library collection and host a family -friendly event and augment ed the FY 2023- 2024 to allocate the $3,000 in grant funds, on Consent Calendar.

3-I. AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE LICENSE

AGREEMENT WITH CHINATOWN SERVICE CENTER FOR USE OF THE

SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITY CENTER AS THE TEMPORARY SITE OF THE

MPK HOPE RESILIENCY CENTER

At the June 21, 2023 City Council meeting, City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a license agreement with Chinatown Service Center to utilize Sierra Vista Community Center as a temporary location for the MPK Hope Resiliency Center through December 31, 2023.

Chinatown Service Center is seeking a location for a permanent Community Resiliency Center and needs additional time at the temporary site during their search. While their search for a permanent location continues, the City would like to extend the license agreement with Chinatown Service Center for an additional six months to provide mental health and wellness services to those impacted by the 2023 Monterey Park tragedy.

Staff is recommending City Council authorize the City Manager, or designee, to extend the term of the license agreement through June 30, 2024, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to use the Sierra Vista Community Center as a temporary Community Resiliency Center.

This item was heard after Staff Communications

Public Speaker:

- Peter Ng, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Chinatown Service Center started by congratulating newly appointed City Manager Alvarez and spoke about the success of the Monterey Park Hope Resiliency Center since opening. CEO Ng talked about their search for a more permanent location.

Action Taken: Council Member Ngo declared a potential conflict of interest, as he serves on the Chinatown Service Center Board of Directors and left the dais and did not participate in discussion on this item. The City Council authorized the City Manager, or designee, to extend the license agreement, in a form approved by the

71-XX
November 15, 2023
City Attorney with Chinatown Service Center for use of the Sierra Vista Community Center as the temporary MPK Hope Resiliency Center.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and Seconded by Council Member Yiu, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: Ngo

3-J. AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LICENSE

AGREEMENT WITH CARNIVAL MIDWAY ATTRACTIONS TO PROVIDE

AMUSEMENT RIDES, GAMES, AND CONCESSIONS AT THE ANNUAL HAPPY

BIRTHDAY MONTEREY PARK, PLAY DAYS CARNIVAL

This Item was heard after meeting reconvened.

The City of Monterey Park traditionally celebrates its “birthday” each May with a four-day celebration in Barnes Park, “Happy Birthday Monterey Park, Play Days.” As part of the festivities, the City contracts with an amusement contractor to provide rides, game booths, and concessions at Barnes Park. In addition to the carnival, the four-day event includes live entertainment and food trucks.

Agreement No. 1925-A between the City of Monterey Park and Carnival Midway Attractions allowed services at the annual Happy Birthday Monterey Park Play Days carnival from 2018-2023. City staff has met with Carnival Midway Attractions and would like to extend the license agreement for a five-year term.

The annual Happy Birthday Monterey Park Play Days celebration is fully funded by revenue generated at the Play Days carnival.

Action Taken: The City Council authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute a license agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney with Carnival Midway Attractions to provide amusement rides, games, and concessions at the annual Happy Birthday Monterey Park Play Days carnival.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and Seconded by Mayor Sanchez, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

71-XX
November 15, 2023
3-K. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN INTERAGENCY MEMORANDUM

OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK AND THE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE REGIONAL INTEGRATION OF

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

The proposed MOU is an agreement between the City of Monterey Park and LACMTA and it expresses the City’s legal commitment to support LACMTA’s vision to improve mobility throughout its public transit network, which includes the City of Monterey Park. Execution of this MOU grants the City membership in the Configuration Management Committee that oversees RIITS. In 2010, the City approved an MOU with LACMTA, granting it the permission to modify the City’s traffic control equipment – such as Traffic signals – at identified intersections to give priority to LACMTA buses and improve bus service for residents.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The proposed action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.: “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14, §§ 15000, et, seq.) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15305 (Class 5 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). The project involves a negligible expansion of use; there is only a minor change in the operation of an existing use. The project would not result in signi ficant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality and it can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Action Taken: The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the Regional Integration of Intelligent Transportation System (RIITS), on Consent Calendar.

3-L. 2023 RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION – AWARD OF PUBLIC

WORKS CONTRACT TO ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

Per Resolution No. 2023-R52, the Public Works Director solicited bids for the 2023 Residential Street Rehabilitation project, Capital Improvement Project No. 96042.

The public bid opening for the 2023 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project was held on November 1, 2023. Five bids were received: All American Asphalt, Hardy & Harper Inc., Onyx Paving Company, Vance Corporation, and Palp, Inc., dba Excel Paving Co. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Public Works contract with All American Asphalt, the lowest responsible bidder for the 2023 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $1,200,000, plus 15% contingency.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

It is recommended that the City Council find that the proposed work is exempt from additional environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) § 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) which exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, alteration of existing public or private structures which involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Subsection (c) of Section 15301 notes that repair of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, and bicycle and pedestrian trails —like the proposed work —are exempt from CEQA if additional automobile lanes are not created.

Action Taken: The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a public works contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with All American Asphalt in the contract amount of $1,200,000 for the 2023 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project and authorized the Director of Public Works to approve change orders and contingency up to $180,000, or 15% of the contract amount, on Consent Calendar.

4. PUBLIC HEARING:

4-A. PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORT AND THE

LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2024

At its October 18, 2023 meeting, the City Council received an annual report on Business Improvement District No. 1 (BID) and set November 15, 2023 as the date for a public hearing regarding the levying of an assessment on business withing the BID. BID assessment revenues will fund beautification, promotional activities, and special events to benefit participating Downtown BID businesses.

This hearing was noticed in the Monterey Park Press newspaper and every business in the BID was sent a hearing notice in Chinese, English, and Spanish.

At the conclusion of this public hearing, the Council can choose to adopt the resolution confirming the levy of assessments for the BID or adjust as needed. The proposed assessment is identical to the assessment on BID businesses for program year 2023.

Action Taken: The City Council opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. to receive testimonial and documentary evidence, and with no registered speakers, closed the public hearing at 9:59 p.m. adopted Resolution No. 2023- R94 confirming the 2023 Annual Report and the levy of assessments for Downtown Business Improvement District No. 1 for program year 2024.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

Resolution 2023-R94

A RESOLUTION LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2024 IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE § 36624.

5. NEW BUSINESS

5-A. PROVIDE AN UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE

MONTEREY PARK REWARDS PROGRAM

Staff anticipates that the existing $60,000 budget allocation for the MPK Rewards program app will be fully expended before the end of the calendar year, December 2023. Should the City Council wish to continue with a shop local reward app through June 30, 2024, an additional $60,000 budget appropriation will be required. Due to the MPK rewards app’s high operating costs and limitations on translating the smartphone- based application to Chinese and Spanish, the Economic Development staff researched other platforms, allowing the City to provide a customer rewards program for local businesses. The City Council may consider appropriating additional funds to transition to a more cost -effective and translatable alternative with Bludot’s Open Rewards app.

Staff asks that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding a shop local program. Option One, this report compares the two shop- local programs: MPK Rewards and Open Rewards, and involves discontinuing MPK Rewards entirely by December 31, 2023, an d transitioning to the Open Rewards app. Option two involves discontinuing MPK Rewards entirely by December 31, 2023, and directing staff to work through the Economic Development Strategic Plan process to identify and recommend strategies and potential programs to support local businesses.

This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 3I

Public Speaker:

- Sophia Zheng, President of Bludot Technologies, who was virtually present, for questions and discussion.

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Action Taken: The City Council discussed several options regarding the continued us e of a shop local rewards program and provided staff direction to approve option no. 2: Discontinuing the MPK Rewards program entirely by December 31, 2023, or the soonest possible date thereafter; appropriating $30,000 from the general fund to the FY 2023- 2024 budget to fund potential final user redemptions for the MPK Rewards program; and using the results of the Economic Development Strategic Plan to determine what programs and initiatives will best serve our local business community. If MPK Rewards is terminated entirely by December 2023, staff recommends appropriating $30,000 from the General Fund to the FY 2023-2024 budget to fund potential redemptions of all remaining points in the MPK Rewards user accounts and waiting until the com pletion of the Economic Development Strategic Plan in the next six to nine months to determine what programs and initiatives will best serve our local business community.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and seconded by Mayor Sanchez motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

5-B. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE (“MPMC”) REGULATING PERMIT PARKING

An ordinance amending the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) by adding a new chapter entitled "Chapter 10.68: PARKING PERMITS” to regulate the establishment of preferential parking districts and procedures for the issuance of permits.

In November of 2004 the City adopted a policy which provides a process for residents to petition the City to establish a permit parking area, and the criteria for considering residential parking districts. Upon recent review of the policy, it is recommended that existing procedures be superseded to review permit parking requests in a more efficient and expedited process and codified in the MPMC.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidel ines”). CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. T his Ordinance is for general

71-XX
November 15, 2023
policies and procedure- making. Any request for preferential parking districts pursuant to this ordinance will be evaluated separately under the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, this Ordinance is exempt from further review.

Action Taken: The City Council introduced and waived first reading of the Ordinance adding Chapter 10.68 to the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) regulating preferential parking permit districts and scheduled a second reading and adoption for December 6, 2023, as amended to implement a City policy regarding permit parking to allow the City’s Traffic Commission to consider permit parking when timing is feasible but allowing the bypass of the Traffic Commission and for City Council to take action to expedite the approval process.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

Ordinance 1
st Reading:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
(“MPMC”) BY ADDING CHAPTER 10.68 ENTITLED “PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS”

6. CITY COMMUNICATIONS (CITY COUNCIL)

6-A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2023 FAMILY COURT AWARENESS MONTH (Requested by Mayor Sanchez)

This Item was heard after Public Communication

Public Speakers:

- Sandy Ross , a member of California Protective Parents Association and a survivor of domestic violence, spoke virtually on behalf of victims of domestic violence and her efforts to raise awareness about the Family Court system.

Action Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- R88 declaring the month of November 2023 Family Court Awareness month

71-XX
November 15, 2023
Motion: Moved by Mayor Sanchez and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

Resolution No. 2023-R88

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2023 FAMILY COURT

AWARENESS MONTH

6-B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2023 NATIONAL HOMELESS YOUTH AWARENESS MONTH (Requested by Mayor Sanchez)

Action Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- R89 declaring the month of November 2023 National Homeless Youth Awareness month

Motion: Moved by Mayor Sanchez and seconded by Council Member Yiu, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Wong, Yiu, Ngo, Sanchez
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

Resolution No. 2023-R89:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2023 NATIONAL

HOMELESS YOUTH AWARENESS MONTH

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS

Council Member Lo spoke about joining other Council Members and first responders being honored by the Young Women’s Christian Association (“YWCA”) on November 10 and congratulated the Garvey Education Foundation on their Fundraising Gala on November 8. Council Member Lo thanked Mayor Pro Tem Wong and City Treasurer Lee for attending the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership Awards Gala on November 4.

Council Member Yiu congratulated the newly appointed City Manager Alvarez and pledged the support of the entire City Council.

71-XX
November 15, 2023

Council Member Ngo talked about attending the U.S. General Chamber of Commerce for Hong Kong, Macau, and Guangdong 1st Anniversary Celebration Dinner on November 5, the Garvey Educational Foundation Gala on November 8, and the Chinese American Museum Gala on November 9. Council Member Ngo spoke about attending the Veterans Day Commemoration at the American Legion Hall and the pickleball tournament at Barnes Park on November 11. Council Member Ngo said he participated in the groundbreaking for the Chinatown Service Center Regional Health Center in Alhambra on November 13 and the Ynez Elementary School Literacy Program earlier in the evening. Finally, Council Member Ngo congratulated newly appointed City Manager Alvarez.

Mayor Pro Tem Wong talked about attending many of the same events with the other Council Members. He highlighted his attendance along with City Treasurer Lee at the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership Gala on November 4. Mayor Pro Tem Wong spoke about attending the Small Business Administration (SBA) Roundtable with Mayor Sanchez and the Deputy Administrator for Disaster Response regarding the efforts to assist small businesses in the wake of the mass casualty event. Mayor Pro Tem Wong said he attended the Federal Government’s public hearing on the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument’s potential expansion on November 7 and the Veterans Day Commemoration at the American Legion Hall on November 11.

Mayor Sanchez mentioned he attended many of the same events as the other Council Members and wished to highlight his meeting with city staff and East Los Angeles College (ELAC) on November 2 to start creating a relationship with ELAC for professional development of city staff, an extension campus in the City, and affordable housing around the campus. Mayor Sanchez said he attended the Junior Friendsgiving at the Bruggemeyer Library, the SBA roundtable with Mayor Pro Tem Wong in an effort to reach out to businesses that need assistance. Mayor Sanchez spoke about meeting with Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school board members regarding Robert Hill Lane Elementary School and how to improve communication with school staff. He also said he attended the Veterans Day event at the American Legion Hall and a breakfast meeting with various area Mayors and the Assistant Secretary of the Army on how to encourage local participation on November 11. Mayor Sanchez read a letter he received from Anthony Rodriguez, whose father, Seferino Rodriguez, was recognized at the Veterans Day Commemoration thanking Mayor Sanchez for his presentation.

Mayor Sanchez congratulated City Manager Alvarez on her appointment, to which she thanked the Mayor, City Council, city staff and the community.

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8. CLOSED SESSION (IF REQUIRED; CITY ATTORNEY TO ANNOUNCE) None.

71-XX
November 15, 2023

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 1 1:27 p.m.

__________________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Lee, City Treasurer
SUBJECT: Monthly Investment Report – December 2023
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As of December 31 , 202 3, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $57,582,853.44.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with the City’s Investment Policy, a monthly investment report is presented to the City Council showing the types of investments, dates and maturities, amounts of deposits, rates of interest, and the current market values for securities with maturity more than 12 months. The attached monthly investment report includes a summary investment report for the LA County Pooled Investment Fund, which displays the composition by type for the entire pooled investment fund.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Amy Lee
City Treasurer
Martha Garcia
Finance Director
Approved by:

Inez Alvarez
Interim City Manager
ATTACHMENT:

1. Monthly Investment Report
Consent Calendar - 3B

Staff Report
January 17, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Monthly Investment Report

INVESTMENTS PORTFOLIO PROFILE:

TOTAL BALANCE AT 11/30/2023 57,582,853.44$

INVESTMENT COMPOSITION
(1) LA COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT FUND ON DEMAND 4.020% 44,589,749.85$ (See Schedule A for LA County Pool Composition)
(2) LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND ON DEMAND 3.670% 5,148,103.59$ Purchase Maturity Interest
(3) CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT Date Date Rate
1 SALLIE MAE BANK 08/11/21 08/12/24 0.70% 245,000
2 TOYOTA FINANCIAL SAVINGS BANK 09/16/21 09/16/24 0.65% 245,000 3 SYNCHRONY BANK 09/17/21 09/17/24 0.65% 245,000
4 UBS BANK USA 09/22/21 09/23/24 0.65% 245,000
5 STATE BANK OF INDIA 10/18/21 10/18/24 0.70% 245,000
6 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 01/28/22 01/28/25 1.25% 245,000
7 PENTAGON FEDERAL UNION 01/31/22 01/31/25 1.25% 245,000 8 BEAL BANK 02/02/22 01/29/25 1.15% 245,000
9 VALLIANCE BANK 03/18/22 03/18/25 1.40% 245,000
10 STATE BANK OF TEXAS 03/25/22 03/25/25 1.45% 245,000 11 FIRST FED SAVINGS & LOAN 03/30/22 03/31/25 2.00% 245,000 12 LAFAYETTE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 03/30/22 03/31/25 2.20% 245,000 13 ALLY BANK 03/31/22 03/28/24 1.95% 245,000
14 COMENITY CAPITAL BANK 04/14/22 04/14/25 2.55% 245,000 15 AMERICU CREDIT UNION 04/21/22 04/21/25 2.30% 245,000 16 BALBOA THRIFT & LOAN 04/29/22 04/29/25 2.00% 245,000 17 CONNEXUS CREDIT UNION 05/26/22 05/28/24 2.65% 245,000 18 METRO CREDIT UNION 07/13/22 07/12/24 3.20% 245,000
19 FIRST TECHNOLOGY CREDIT UNION 08/05/22 08/05/24 3.25% 245,000 20 AUSTIN TELCO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 12/16/22 12/16/24 5.00% 245,000 21 GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL FED CREDIT UNION 01/27/23 01/27/25 4.80% 245,000 22 RAIZ CREDIT UNION 01/27/23 01/27/25 4.75% 245,000
23 WORKERS 01/27/23 01/27/25 4.70% 245,000
24 MANUF & TRADERS TRUST CO 01/31/23 01/31/26 4.25% 245,000 25 ALPINE BANK 01/31/23 01/31/25 4.55% 245,000
26 TECHNOLOGY FCU 02/10/23 02/24/25 5.00% 245,000
27 RED CROWN FCU 02/14/23 02/21/25 4.85% 245,000
28 UFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 02/15/23 02/25/25 4.85% 245,000 29 SEA COMM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 02/23/23 03/03/25 4.90% 245,000 30 GLOBAL CREDIT UNION 05/02/23 05/12/25 4.85% 245,000 31 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 05/02/23 05/05/25 4.85% 245,000 32 PREFERRED BANK 09/03/23 09/03/24 4.16% 100,000
33 PREFERRED BANK 09/08/23 09/08/24 4.16% 150,000
Total CDs (33) 3.254% 7,845,000.00$
OTHER INFORMATION:

BANK BALANCE: (1)
$7,858,472.76
AVERAGE MATURITY DAYS 58
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE FOR THE MONTH 3.769%

THE CITY'S INVESTMENT HAS SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY TO MEET THE CITY'S EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEXT 180 DAYS. THE 180-DAY LIQUIDITY DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED PER GOVERNMENT CODE 53646.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO VARIANCES TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY.
(1) Bank balance is maintained to cover outstanding warrants, payroll checks and on-going operating costs.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

INVESTMENT REPORT
DECEMBER 31, 2023

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Martha Garcia, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Receive and file effective date for the increase in water rates and charges
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing effective date for the increase in water rates and charges;

2. Direct the City Manager to postpone implementing the approved rates until after the City Council considers issuing bonds for infrastructure financing (in February 2024); and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At the December 6, 2023, City Council meeting the Council introduced an Ordinance that set a “cap rate” on water increases at 32%, 8%, 8%, 7%, 8% for the five-year period from FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28. The second reading and adoption of ordinance occurred on December 20, 2023; the ordinance becomes effective January 19, 2024 and the rates are scheduled for implementation on February 1, 2024.

On November 15, 2023, Council directed staff to explore bond financing for water infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that this matter will be placed onto the City Council agenda for consideration on February 7
th or 21 st. Should the City Council decide to issue
bonds, then the rates that become effective on January 20 th may be lowered. Should that occur, then such new rates would be March 1, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

At the December 6 meeting the Council introduced an Ordinance that set a “cap rate” on water increases at 32%, 8%, 8%, 7%, 8% for the five-year period from FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28. The second reading and adoption of ordinance occurred on December 20, 2023; the ordinance takes effect on January 19, 2024. Rates may be implemented February 1, 2024.

On November 15, 2023, Council directed the City Manager to explore bond financing for water infrastructure needs. The matter is scheduled for City Council consideration in February. Should Council approve the financing of water facilities and improvements, the City Council may reduce the already approved (maximum) rates to 26%, 8%, 8%, 7% 7% Consent Calendar - 3C

Staff Report

January 17, 2024

from FY 2023-24 to FY 2027-28. If that occurs, then the rates would be implemented on March 1, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact is associated with the proposed action other than a one-month delay of implementing rate increases approved in December 2023.

Respectfully submitted by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Finance

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin A. Tamayo, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution to record a Notice of Nuisance Abatement Lien against certain real property in the City (APN 5254-002-031)
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution to record a Notice of Nuisance Abatement Lien; and/or

2. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Adoption of the Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action proposed by the proposed resolution would have a significant effect on the environment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Adopting the attached resolution will allow the City to recover costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred the City’s abatement of the public nuisance present on certain real property located in the City (Lot 1 of Tract No. 34875—APN 5254-002-031) (the “Property”) owned by Center Int’l Investments , Inc. (“CII”). The Resolution authorizes recording the associated Notice of Nuisance Abatement Lien in the amount of $3,683,075.89. This will be the sixth lien placed on the Property and covers expenses that the City incurred between July 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023. After recording this lien, the liens against the Property will total $15,776,980.16.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

As the Council is aware, the City is abating the public nuisance on the Property in accordance with the Settlement Agreement voluntarily entered into by CII in the civil case captioned The People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int’l Investments, Inc. , et al. which was filed on December 31, 2015 (LASC Case No. BC605788).

Consent Calendar - 3D

Staff Report

On May 4, 2022, and August 1, 2022, March 15, 2023, and September 3, 2023, the City authorized liens against the Property for nuisance abatement cost recovery. On November 21, 2023, Management Services Director Martha Garcia sent correspondence (Resolution Exhibit A) demanding CII’s payment of $3,683,075.89 to the City in abatement costs for Quarter 3 of 2023. This is in addition to liens already placed on the Property totaling $12,093,904.27. The City has not received any payments from CII. After recording this lien, the liens against the Property will total $15,776,980.16.

Pursuant to MPMC § 4.30.150 and Government Code § 38773.1, the City may recover its nuisance abatement costs by recording a lien against a Subject Property. The attached Resolution authorizes the City to record a Notice of Nuisance Abatement Lien against the Property. Under California law and upon recordation, the notice would constitute a lien against the Property with the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The City can foreclose against the lien through an action for a money judgment. CII previously agreed to waive its notice and hearing rights in § 7 of the First Amendment to the Settlement Agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The attached Resolution will allow the City to impose a lien on the Property in the amount of $3,683,075.89. This is one of several notices that will be continuing being brought to the City Council for consideration.

Respectfully submitted by:
____________________________
Justin A. Tamayo,
Deputy City Attorney
Attachment:

1. Resolution with exhibits

Staff Report
January 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Resolution

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF A NUISANCE

ABATEMENT LIEN AGAINST CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE CITY (APN 5254-002-031).

The City Council does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Center Int’l Investments, Inc. (“CII”) is the record owner of the real property described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 34875, in the City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 932, Pages 16-18 of maps, in the office of the county Recorder of said county, and more commonly known as Los Angeles County assessor’s parcel number 5254- 002-031 (the “Property”), which is located in the City of Monterey Park (the “City”).

B. Despite years of City efforts to cause CII to remediate the dangerous hillside slope conditions on the Property, CII failed to make the Property safe despite its promise to do so via settlement agreement with the City and the People of the State of California (the “Settlement Agreement”) in the civil case captioned The People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D.

Hensley, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int’l Investments, Inc., et al. that was filed December 31, 2015 (LASC Case No.

BC605788).

C. The Settlement Agreement authorizes the City, on behalf of the People, to enter the Property, without additional CII consent, to remediate the Property’s nuisance conditions upon CII’s failure to timely develop the Property and abate the nuisance, at CII’s sole cost (Settlement Agreement § 2.A.vii, first amendment; § 2.b.5, second amendment).

D. Pursuant to Resolution Nos. (collectively, the “Emergency Resolutions”) 12255 (adopted June 16, 2021), Resolution No. 2022 -R22 (adopted April 20, 2022), 2022 -R34 (adopted May 18, 2022), and Resolution No. 2022 - R63 (Adopted August 1, 2022), the City is exercising emergency powers to abate a public nuisance on the Property in accordance with the Settlement Agreement in the civil case referenced in paragraph B, above . This abatement is identified as the Goodviews Abatement Project (“GAP”).

E. Due to CII’s ongoing failure to reimburse the City for costs incurred as a result of the GAP, as required under the Settlement Agreement, Management Services Director Martha Garcia sent correspondence dated November 21, 2023 , demanding CII’s payment of $3,683,075.89 for the time period between July 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023, establishing a

Resolution No.
total of $15,776,980.16 in GAP costs owed to the City by CII. A true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached as Exhibit “A ,” and incorporated by reference.

F. Pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 4.30.150 and Government Code § 38773.1, the City may recover its nuisance abatement costs by recording a lien against a subject property.

G. The City Council approve s the recordation of a lien against the Property through the Notice of Nuisance Abatement (“Notice”) attached as Exhibit “B,” and incorporated by reference. After recording this lien, the liens against the Property will total $15,776,980.16.

H. CII agreed to waive its notice and hearing rights in § 7 of the first amendment to the Settlement Agreement
SECTION 2: Approval; Direction.

A. The City Council approves the Notice and finds that it is true and correct.

B. The City Council directs the City Clerk to submit the Notice with the Los Angeles County Recorder for recordation, pursuant to Government Code § 38773.1(c) and MPPC § 4.30.150(c).

SECTION 4: Severability. If any part fo this Resolution or its appliction is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intendds that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures . This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code § 16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 7: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____th day of January, 2024.
________________________________
Jose Sanchez, Mayor

Resolution No.

ATTEST:
____________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

KARL H. BERGER, CITY ATTORNEY
____________________________
Justin A. Tamayo, Deputy City Attorney
Attachments:

Exhibit A: November 21, 2023, Demand letter for City GAP costs Exhibit B: Notice of Nuisance Abatement Lien

Resolution No.

EXHIBIT “A”
NOVEMBER 21, 2023 DEMAND LETTER FOR

CITY GAP COSTS

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov
November 21, 2023
City Council
Henry Lo
Hans Liang
Peter Chan
Yvonne Yiu
City Clerk
Vincent D. Chang
City Treasurer
Joseph Leon
Center Int’l Investments
501 W. Garvey Ave. #207
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Attn: Karrie On
Re: NOTICE OF ABATEMENT COSTS
Property: Lot 1 of Tract No. 34875 (APN 5254-002-031)
To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is a follow-up to the City of Monterey Park’s letters dated February 16, 2022, April 1, 2022, July 1, 2022 , September 30, 2022, January 31, 2023, and July 6, 2023, regarding the nuisance abatement action affecting 1688 West Garvey Avenue, Monterey Park, CA (Lot 1 of Tract No. 34875 —APN 5254-002-031) (the “Property”). The underlying public nuisance is identified in the civil case captioned The People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D.

Hensley, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int’l Investments, Inc. , et al. that was filed December 31, 2015 (LASC Case No. BC605788).

The nuisance abatement activity, identified as the “Goodviews Abatement Project” or “GAP,” is being undertaken in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, as amended, executed by Center Int’l Investments, Inc. (“CII”).

Per the February 16, 2022 letter, abatement costs associated with the GAP will be recovered on a quarterly basis from CII. This is the seventh Notice for the time period between July 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023.

Attached to this Notice are the City’s abatement costs that were incurred by the City relating to the enforcement action against the Property. These abatement costs are imposed pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 4.30. Please remit payment to the City within 30 days from the date of this letter.

This is a demand for payment in the amount of $3,683,075.89. This is in addition to the previously demanded $12,093,904.27 which remains unpaid and is accruing interest at 10 - percent per annum. Payment must be made not later than 30 days from the date of this letter.

Failure to pay by that date will cause the City to charge interest at the statutory rate on this

GAP Invoice
November 20, 2023

outstanding amount (along with the unpaid amount) . Additionally, the City will take action to collect its abatement costs in any manner allowed by law, including collection by special assessment or nuisance abatement lien (see MPMC § 4.30.150) Be advised that CII waived all due process rights in this matter including, without limitation, appeals rights set forth in MPMC § 4.30.140. CII, therefore, waived any right to contest the notice of abatement costs. Consequently, this interim notice of abatement costs is final and binding for the time period stated above . This is not the total cost of the GAP; the City continues to incur costs on a daily basis.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Martha Garcia
Finance Director
C: Inez Alvarez, Interim City Manager
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Alfred Fraijo Jr., Esq. @
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Agent for Service of Process:

Willis Do
1648 Puente Avenue
Baldwin Park, CA 91706

Process/
Invoice
Date Reference Project# Invoice# CR & CK# Amount
Payments/
Reversal Balance
07/06/23 KCM Group 64004 12232 CK113165 (43,106.92) (43,106.92) (43,106.92) 07/06/23 KCM Group 64004 12263 CK113165 (23,855.61) (23,855.61) (66,962.53) 09/27/23 KCM Group 64004 12283 CK114333 (16,493.58) (16,493.58) (83,456.11) 08/23/23 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. 64004 21518084 CK113836 (1,744.48) (1,744.48) (85,200.59) 08/23/23 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. 64004 SC0982B CK113836 (109,135.76) (109,135.76) (194,336.35) 09/20/23 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. 64004 21520619 CK114212 (17,782.76) (17,782.76) (212,119.11) 07/26/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3769 ACH400022 (274,473.80) (274,473.80) (486,592.91) 07/26/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3783 ACH400022 (905,984.15) (905,984.15) (1,392,577.06) 08/23/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3813 ACH400036 (745,180.00) (745,180.00) (2,137,757.06) 09/27/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3856 ACH400057 (216,460.00) (216,460.00) (2,354,217.06) 09/27/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3871 ACH400057 (563,003.15) (563,003.15) (2,917,220.21) 10/04/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3906 ACH400062 (619,340.56) (619,340.56) (3,536,560.77) 10/04/23 C.A.Rasmussen 64004 3907 ACH400062 (32,996.87) (32,996.87) (3,569,557.64) 10/13/23 Dev Review / Phoenix Civil Enginee 64004 22663 CK114706 (2,047.50) (2,047.50) (3,571,605.14) 09/13/23 Dev Review / Phoenix Civil Enginee 64004 22620 CK114520 (1,470.00) (1,470.00) (3,573,075.14) 07/12/23 Dev Review / Phoenix Civil Enginee 64004 22574 CK113522 (4,015.00) (4,015.00) (3,577,090.14) 07/10/23 City Expenses - Legal Fees 64004 304162 ACH400026 (29,267.50) (29,267.50) (3,606,357.64) 08/15/23 City Expenses - Legal Fees 64004 306060 ACH400044 (23,069.47) (23,069.47) (3,629,427.11) 09/13/23 City Expenses - Legal Fees 64004 307157 ACH400049 (40,144.44) (40,144.44) (3,669,571.55) 10/11/23 City Expenses - Legal Fees 64004 308728 ACH400075 (13,040.60) (13,040.60) (3,682,612.15) 09/30/23 Cifty Expenses - Finance (463.74) (463.74) (3,683,075.89) Balance Due (3,683,075.89) (3,683,075.89)

Resolution No.

EXHIBIT “B”

NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN

NOTICE OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Government Code § 38773.1 and Monterey Park Municipal Code § 4.30.150, the City of Monterey Park (“City”) seeks to impose a nuisance abatement lien against the real property (“Property”) described below for the City’s unreimbursed costs incurred in abating a public nuisance under a duly issued judicial abatement warrant. The Monterey Park City Council ordered the imposition of a nuisance abatement lien through its adoption of Resolution No. XXX on January 17, 2024 (attached as Exhibit “A”). Pursuant to a settlement agreement by and among the City the People of California, and the owner of the Property in the civil litigation captioned, The People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int’l Investments, Inc., et al. (LASC Case No. BC605788), the Property owner agreed to waive its notice and hearing rights in § 7 of the first amendment to such settlement agreement, which is on file with the City Clerk.

Recordation of this notice of nuisance abatement lien against the Property is made pursuant to Government Code § 38773.1(c) and Monterey Park Municipal Code §

4.30.150(c). Once recorded, this notice will constitute a lien against the Property with the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien (Gov. Code, § 38773.1, subd. (c)). The City may foreclose on this nuisance abatement lien by a City action for a money judgment. (Ibid.) In accordance with § 38773.1(c)(1), the following apply to the Property and this notice of nuisance abatement lien:

Lien amount $3,683,075.89
Agency on whose behalf
the lien is imposed
City of Monterey Park
Property assessor’s
parcel number
5254-002-031
Property legal
description
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 34875, IN THE CITY OF MONTEREY

PARK, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 932, PAGES 16-18 OF

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF

SAID COUNTY

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Monterey Park
Attn: City Clerk
320 W. Newmark Ave.

Monterey Park, CA 91754

No fee per Government Code § 27383

Address associated with
Property
No known address associated with the Property pursuant to Los Angeles County property and title records
Property record owner Center Int’l Investments Inc., a California Corporation Property owner address 846 East Garvey Avenue, #D, Monterey Park, CA 91755

Signed the day of January 2024. CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

_________________________
Inez Alvarez, City Manager

(NOTARIZED SIGNATURE REQUIRED)

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Waive further reading and adopt an Ordinance amending the zoning map for certain properties for consistency with the General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Ordinance was introduced and received first reading at the December 20, 2023 City Council meeting. The original staff report (from December 20 , 2023 ) is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of th is Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the ordinance will take effect in 30 days.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development
Beth Chow, AICP
Interim Planning Manager
Consent Calendar - 3E

Staff Report

January 17, 2024
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance - Zone Change (ZA-23-02) - Amending the zoning map for certain properties for consistency with the General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element.

2. City Council Staff Report, dated December 20, 2023 (without attachments)

Staff Report
January 17, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance – Zone Change (ZA-23-02) –
Amending the zoning map for certain properties
for consistency with the General Plan, Land Use
and Urban Design Element

ORDINANCE NO. _

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (ZC-23-02) TO CHANGE THE

ZONING FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE

GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:

A. On November 3, 2020, the voters initiated changes to the zoning designations for properties generally located on Monterey Pass Road, Corporate Center Drive, and East Mabel Avenue for consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map when it adopted the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan;

B. This Ordinance changes the zoning designation for several properties, identified in Section 2, to conform to the adopted Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan.

C. This Ordinance was reviewed by the City Planner for, in part, consistency with the G eneral Plan, and conformity with the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”);

D. In addition, the City reviewed the environmental impacts of this Ordinance under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., (“CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”);

E. On November 14, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to assess this Ordinance, considered all oral and written evidence, and adopted Resolution 07- 23 recommending that the City Council adopt this Ordinance.

F. The City Planner completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding this Ordinance before the City Council for December 20, 2023;

G. Notice of the Public Hearing before the City Council was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law;

H. On December 20, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed re-zoning including, without limitation, information provided to the City Council by the City Planner and public testimony;

I. The findings in this Ordinance are made based on the entire administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission on November 14, 2023; the City Council at its December 20, 2023 , public hearing

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2 OF 7

including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the City Planner.

SECTION 2: F actual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds as follows:

A. The proposed zone change will:

1. Change the zoning designation for the following properties to Office Professional (O-P) zone:

The properties on the south side of Monterey Pass Road, east of its intersection with S outh Fremont Avenue, currently zoned Commercial Services (C-S):

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number(s)
Address
5261-003-054 1166 W. Garvey Avenue
5261-003-016;
5261-003-017;
5261-003-018;
5261-003-019;
5261-003-020
212 - 270 Monterey Pass Road

The properties on the north and south sides of Corporate Place, bounded by Davidson Drive to the north, Kern Avenue and Monterey Pass Road to the east, Floral Drive to the south, and Corporate Center Drive to the west, currently zoned Shopping Center (S-C):

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number(s)
Address
5237-024-025;
5237-024-026;
5237-024-029;
5237-024-056
2525 - 2630 Corporate Place
5237-024-065;
5237-024-066;
5237-024-067;
5237-024-068;
5237-024-055;
5237-024-071;
5237-024-072
1200 – 1600 Corporate Center
Drive

2. Change the zoning designation for the following properties to High Density Residential (R-3) zone:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3 OF 7

The properties on the south side of E ast Mabel Avenue, east of Orange Avenue to the terminus of E ast Mabel Avenue, currently zoned C -S with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay:

Assessor’s Parcel
Number(s) Address
5259-013-043;
5259-013-044;
5259-013-045;
5259-013-046;
200-204
South Orange Avenue
5259-013-047;
5259-013-048;
5259-013-049;
5259-013-050;
5259-013-051;
5259-013-054;
5259-013-055;
5259-013-056;
5259-013-089;
5259-013-090;
5259-013-091;
5259-013-092;
5259-013-093;
5259-013-094;
5259-014-025;
5259-014-026;
5259-014-027;
5259-014-028;
5259-014-029;
5259-014-050;
5259-014-051;

710-928
East Mabel Avenue

B. Resolution No.12213 certified the results of the voter approved proposition to revise the Monterey Park 2040 Land Use Element Proposition (Measure JJ).

C. Ordinance No. 2198 approved Measure JJ, which was approved by a vote of the people on November 3, 2020 to revise the Monterey Park 2040 Land Use and Urban Design Element.

D. Figure LU-3: Land Use Policy Map was adopted as part of the Monterey Park 2040 Land Use Element by the City Council and a vote of the people.

SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment . The City Council reviewed the environmental impacts of this proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4 OF 7

Guidelines § 15168 provides that a Program EIR may be prepared to consider the environmental impacts of a series of actions that can b e characterized as one large project that are related as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions. The City Council finds as follows:

A. On December 5, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12126 approving a Focused General Plan update to the City’s Land Use and Urban Design Element (“GPLU”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“ FEIR”) (SCH No. 2001 -01- 1074).

B. The FEIR is a Program EIR that evaluated the environmental impacts resulting from the GPLU implementation which is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference.

C. Changing the zoning designation for those properties within the Innovation/ Technology GPLU designation is an activity contemplated by the GPLU and analyzed under the FEIR.

D. Changing the zoning designation for those properties within the High Density GPLU designation is an activity contemplated by the GPLU and analyzed under the FEIR.

E. This zone change does not contemplate any changes which will require major revisions to the FEIR nor are there any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the FEIR was undertaken.

F. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the FEIR was certified showing: (1) the zone change will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the FEIR; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

SECTION 4: Z
one Change Findings. Pursuant to MPMC §§ 21.38.050 and 21.42.010, the City Council finds as follows:

A. The zone change is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and will create consistency between the General Plan Land Use designations and zone designations on the Zoning Map. The zone change affects areas that have a voter approved Land Use designation that implements the Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element (Measure JJ). The correlations between the proposed zone changes and General Plan Land Use designations exist as follows:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 5 OF 7
(1) The
Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element identifies Innovation/Technology designation as an area for primary uses related to research and development, light manufacturing, service commercials, professional offices, entertainment, and breweries/wineries/distilleries. The Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element also identi fies retail and service commercial uses as support services within the Innovation/Technology designation.
(2) Mont
erey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element Policy 24.1 seeks to ensure that zoning regulations applicable to the Monterey Pass Road corridor permit the range of uses necessary to achieve land use goals and prohibit uses that conflict with those goals.
(3) The
S-C – Shopping Center zone provides for the development of shopping and business centers that serve as major retail attraction for the broader community.
(4) The
O -P – Office Professional zone provides for the development of integrated professional, office and limited retail areas that exhibit a diversity of business activity.
(5) The
Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element identifies High Density designation as an area for primary uses that include attached or detached residential units, with private common open space, at densities ranging from 16.1 to 30 units per acre.
(6) The
C -S – Commercial Services zone provides for the development of commercial areas that promote retail and provide transition areas between the City and neighboring communities.
(7) The
R-3 – High Density Residential zone provides high density res idential housing either attached or detached multiple-family units at a density of 25 units per acre.

B. The zone change will not adversely affect surrounding properties, as the types of uses currently developed at the properties will conform with the proposed zoning designations of their respective areas.

C. The proposed zone change promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the MPMC’s zoning regulations since it will harmonize the zoning designations with the General Plan for certain properties on Monterey Pass Road, Corporate Center Drive and East Mabel Avenue.

Additionally, no development or construction is proposed as part of this zone change.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 6 OF 7
SECTION 5: Notice of Determination. The Director of Community Development, or designee,
is directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA §§ 15094, and any other applicable law.

SECTION 6: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 7: Amendment. The City Council, based upon the evidence and staff report received at the public hearing adopts this Ordinance to amend the Zoning Map set forth in attached Exhibit “A,” which are incorporated by reference.

SECTION 8: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 9: Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the Monterey Park Municipal Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 10 : Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Ordinance are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the matter. The determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 11: Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitati ons on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts were made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 12: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its Application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 7 OF 7
SECTION 13: El ectronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 14: Publications. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance , cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances , make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting, and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 15: Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective on the 30th day after second reading and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2023.
_________
___________________
Jose Sanchez, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________
_______________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPRO
VED AS TO FORM:

Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
_________
_______________________
Justin A. Tamayo,
Deputy City Attorney
Exh
ibit “A:” Proposed Zoning Maps
Exhibit “B:” FEIR (SCH No. 2001-01-1074)

Davidson Dr
Corporate Pl
1-----------------------Floral·0r--------t
East Los Angeles County abel Ave
Zone Change 23-02
Proposed Zoning Map
Zoning Legend
D Office Professional (0- Neighborhood Shopping Commercial/Professional Garlield Village - P) (N-S) (C-P) Neighbortiood Shopping
Zoning Shopping Center (S-C) Open Space (0-S) (GVC-N)
Single-Family Central Business Office Professional (0- City Boundaries Residential (R-1) Commercial (C-B) P} c:J Monterey Park Medium-Multiple Regional Specialty Garlield VIiiage - L--J Sphere of Inftuence Center (R-S) Commercial Services Residential (R-2) (GVC-S) Commercial Services (C-High-Density Residential S) (R-3) 0 w Mabel Ave
N
+

0.01 0.03 0.06 Miles
I
Exhibit "A"

Edgley Dr
Vl
0 o.1
::,
IC
<1)
)>
<
<1)
Vl
r---, High Density Residential
L......J IR-3)
Zoning
Single-Family Residential
(R-1)
Medium-Multiple
Residential (R-2)
E Garvey Ave
E Mabel Ave
,._/
�
E Newmark Ave
High-Density Residential
(R-3)
Neighborhood Shopping
(N·S)
Shopping Center (S-<:)
Central Business
Commercial (C-8)
Regional Specialty Center
(R-S)
Zone Change 23-02
Proposed Zoning Map
Zoning Legend
Commercial Services (C-S)
Commercial/Professional
(C·P)
Open Space (0-S)
Office Professional (0-P)
Gameld VIiiage •
Commercial Services
(GVC•S)
Garfield Vi lage -
Neighborhood Shopping
(GVC·N)
Overlay
ITI] Mccaslin E!uslness Park
(0-P Voter Enacted)
CJ PIQnned Development (P­
D)
C::J Senior Citizen Housing {S-
C-H)
City Boundaries
c:::J Monterey Park
C: 1 Sphere of lnfh.ience
N
+
0 0.02 0.03
-c
ro
QJ
E
QJ
Vl
0 a::

Newmar

0.06 Miles
I
Exhibit "A"

Exhibit "B"
FEIR (SCH No. 2001-01-1074) is available at the
City Clerk's Office and online at the following
website:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/
View/9942/Monterey-Park-Focused-GPU-FEIR

Staff Report
January 17, 2024

ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Staff Report, dated December 20,
2023 (without attachments)

City Council Staff Report
DATE: December 20, 2023
AGENDA ITEM NO: Public Hearing - 4A
TO: Th
e Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: A p ublic hearing to consider introduction and first reading of Zone Change No. ZC-23-02 (“ZC-23-02”), an Ordinance amending the zoning map for certain properties for consistency with the General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Opening a public hearing and taking testimonial and documentary evidence;

2. After closing the public hearing and considering the evidence submitted during that public hearing, introducing and waiving f irst reading of Ordinance No. _____ amending the zoning map for certain properties for consistency with the General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element; and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City recently began efforts in the Our City, Our Plan campaign to implement the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element (“ GPLU”) and the Housing Element (“HE”), which sets the vision for development within the City. The General Plan is implemented through the zoning regulations located in Title 21 of the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”). Those regulations assign a zoning district to each property in the City, as governed by the Zoning Map. This proposed zone change will harmonize the zoning designations with the GPLU for certain properties on Monterey Pass Road, Corporate Center Drive and East Mabel Avenue.

The Z
one Changes will only impact the future development of these properties; existing structures and businesses are allowed to remain.

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

On November 14, 2023, by a 3- 0 vote (two commissioners were not present), the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

The P
lanning Commission public hearing notice, report and resolution recommending approval erroneously identified five parcels that should not have been included and are not a part of this zone change ( Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”): 5259- 014-053;

Staff Report

December 20, 2023

5259-014-054; 5259- 014-055; 5259 -014-056; and 5259- 014-057). The erroneously identified parcels are condominiums located at 221 South New Avenue and are consistent with the GPLU . A ccordingly, these parcels have been removed from the proposed Ordinance.

TYPE OF ACTION (LEGISLATIVE; QUASI-JUDI CIAL; OR ADVISORY):

Legislative: The proposed Ordinance is legislative policy action intending to harmonize zoning designations with the GPLU. In considering such actions, the City Council acts in its legislative capacity. For the proposed zone change, the City Council must find, pursuant to MPMC § 21.38.050, that the proposed zone change:

• I s consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan;

• W ill not adversely affect surrounding properties; and

• P romotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the MPMC’s zoning regulations.

These findings , including supporting facts, are further described in the attached Ordinance.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guideline § 15168 provides that a Program EIR may be prepared to consider the environmental impacts of a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project that are related as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions. The proposed Ordinance is within the scope of the City’s Focused General Plan Update to the Land Use and Urban Design Element which was evaluated under a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (SCH No. 2001-01-1074). The FEIR adequately describes and considers the proposed Ordinance for CEQA purposes.

Accordingly, the Ordinance is not subject to further environmental review.

BACKGROUND:

The GPLU was voter approved by Measure JJ in November of 2020. The HE was approved by the City Council in November 2022, and certified by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in March 2023. As part of the work to implement the GPLU and HE, staff is proposing a series of measures that will bring consistency between the GPLU , HE, Zoning Map, and the MPMC, collectively known as Our City, Our Plan.

ANAYLSIS:

If adopted, the Ordinance will make the Zoning Map consistent with the General Plan land use designation as established in Figure LU-3, Land Use Policy Map in compliance with

Staff Report

December 20, 2023

State law (Government Code § 65860). ZC -23-02 will affect certain properties on Monterey Pass Road, Corporate Center Drive and East Mabel Avenue.

The two areas on Monterey Pass Road and Corporate Center Drive that are included in ZC-23-02 have GPLU designations of Innovation/Technology and are currently zoned Shopping Center (S -C) and Commercial Services (C -S) as shown in Figure 1. The Innovation/Technology land use designation corresponds with the Office Professional (O- P) Zone; the proposed zone of the properties is shown in Figure 1.

The general areas where the zone change will occur identified in Table 1 include: 1) the properties on the south side of Monterey Pass Road, east of its intersection with S outh Fremont Avenue; and 2) properties generally bounded on the west of Corporate Center Drive, Davidson Drive to the north, Kern Avenue and Monterey Pass Road to the east, and Floral Drive to the south, including the north and south sides of Corporate Place, as detailed in Table 1. As developed, the properties feature a mix of commercial uses, with larger professional office type buildings along Corporate Center Drive and Corporate Place, and smaller commercial uses along Monterey Pass Road, which are consistent with the proposed O-P zone.

Figure 1: Existing Zoning Map – Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Pass Road

Staff Report

December 20, 2023

Figure 2: Proposed Zoning Map – Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Pass Road

Table 1: Proposed Office-Professional Zone by APN/Address

Assessor’s
Parcel Number(s) Address(es) Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation
Existing General
Plan Land Use
Designation
5261-003-054
1166 West
Garvey
Avenue
Commercial
Services (C-S)
Office Professional
(O-P)
Innovation/
Technology
5261-003-016;
5261-003-017;
5261-003-018;
5261-003-019;
5261-003-020
212 - 270
Monterey
Pass Road
Commercial
Services (C-S)
Office Professional
(O-P)
Innovation/
Technology
5237-024-025;
5237-024-026;
5237-024-029;
5237-024-056
2525 - 2630
Corporate
Place
Shopping Center
(S-C)
Office Professional
(O-P)
Innovation/
Technology
5237-024-065;
5237-024-066;
5237-024-067;
5237-024-068;
5237-024-055;
5237-024-071;
5237-024-072
1200 – 1600
Corporate
Center Drive
Shopping Center
(S-C)
Office Professional
(O-P)
Innovation/
Technology

Staff Report

December 20, 2023

ZC-23-02 will also affect properties on E ast Mabel Avenue, which have a GPLU designation of High Density Residential and are currently zoned Commercial Services (C- S) with a Planned Development Overlay, as shown in Figure 3. The High- Density Residential land use designation corresponds with the High Density (R-3) Zone, which is shown as the proposed zone of the properties in Figure 4.

The general area of the zone change includes properties on the south side of East Mabel Avenue, east of Orange Avenue to the terminus of East Mabel Avenue as detailed in Table 2. As developed, the properties all feature residential uses, including single and multi-family developments which will are consistent uses within the proposed R-3 zone.

Figure 3 – Existing Zoning Map – East Mabel Drive

Staff Report

December 20, 2023

Figure 4 – Proposed Zoning Map – East Mabel Drive

Table 2: Proposed High Density Residential (R-3) by APN/Address

Assessor’s
Parcel Number(s) Address(es) Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation
Existing General
Plan Land Use
Designation
5259-013-043;
5259-013-044;
5259-013-045;
5259-013-046;
200-204
South
Orange
Avenue
Commercial
Services (C-S)
with Planned
Development
(PD) Overlay
High Density
Residential (R-3)
High Density
Residential
5259-013-047;
5259-013-048;
5259-013-049;
5259-013-050;
5259-013-051;
5259-013-054;
5259-013-055;
5259-013-056;
5259-013-089;
5259-013-090;
5259-013-091;
5259-013-092;
5259-013-093;
5259-013-094;
5259-014-025;
5259-014-026;
5259-014-027;
710-928
East Mabel
Avenue
Commercial
Services (C-S)
with Planned
Development
(PD) Overlay
High Density
Residential (R-3)
High Density
Residential

Staff Report

December 20, 2023

Assessor’s
Parcel Number(s) Address(es) Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation
Existing General
Plan Land Use
Designation
5259-014-028;
5259-014-029;
5259-014-050;
5259-014-051;

The changes proposed as part of the ZC-23-02 are the first set of zone changes that will be part of the Our City, Our Plan campaign in order to bring consistency between the General Plan and the zoning regulations. The Zone Changes will impact only the future development of these properties; existing structures and businesses are allowed to remain.

2023-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The proposed Ordinance will advance the City Council’s Economic Development and Housing goals identified in the 2023-2024 strategic plan by creating consistency between the General Plan and the zoning regulations which will provide clearly defined development standards that encourage redevelopment and attract new businesses in the affected areas.

LEGAL NOTIFICATION:

The legal notice of this hearing was published in the Monterey Park Progress and posted at City Hall, Monterey Park Bruggemeyer Library, and Langley Center on December 7, 2023, with affidavits of posting on file. The legal notice of this hearing was mailed to 382 property owners within a 300-foot radius of the affected properties on December 7, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with adopting the Ordinance itself (other than costs associated with codifying the Ordinance).

Respectfully submitted and prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development

Staff Report

December 20, 2023
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Deputy City Attorney
ATTAC
HMENTS:

1. Ordinance No. ____ amending the zoning map for certain properties for consistency with the General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element, with attached Exhibit “A” Proposed Zoning Maps (enlarged) and Exhibit “B” FEIR (SCH No. 2001-01-1074

2. Existing Zoning Maps (enlarged)

3. Notice of Determination

City Council Staff Report
DAT
E: January 17, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: T
he Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Waive further reading and adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Code to comply with California law regarding medical cannabis delivery retailers.

RECO
MMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECU
TIVE SUMMARY:

The Ordinance was introduced and received first reading at the December 20, 2023 City Council meeting. The original staff report (from December 20, 2023) is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of this Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the ordinance will take effect in 30 days.

Respectfully submitted and prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development
Consent Calendar - 3F

Staff Report

January 17, 2024

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Deputy City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance – Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-23-05) - Amending the Zoning Code to comply with California law regarding medical cannabis delivery retailers.

2. City Council Staff Report, dated December 20, 2023 (without attachments)

Staff Report
January 17, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance

4895-4614-9014 v2
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §
36937 AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 26320 AMENDING MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 6.35 AND 9.102,
AND ADD ING NEW CHAPTERS 6.36 AND 21.27 TO IMPLEMENT

CALIFORNIA LAW GOVERNING MEDICAL CANNABIS
The City Council ordains as follows:

SECTION 1. T he City Council finds and determines as follows:

A. Article XI, § 7 of the California Constitution empowers the City to enact and enforce ordinances regulating conditions that may be public nuisances or health hazards, or that promote social, economic, or aesthetic considerations.

B. The Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq., classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 Drug, which is defined as a drug or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, that has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and that has not been accepted as safe for use under medical supervision. The Federal Controlled Substances Act makes it unlawful under federal law for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense, cannabis.

C. The penalties for violating federal law include fines between $10,000 and $50,000 (21 U.S.C. § 841) for first time offenders. California law has similar provisions (see, e.g., Health and Safety Code §§ 11352 and 11379.6).

D. As of the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Council has not authorized any cannabis activity within its jurisdiction. To the contrary, Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 6.35.030 explicitly prohibits all commercial cannabis activity in the City including, without limitation, medical cannabis dispensaries and medical cannabis delivery services.

E. A statewide initiative entitled the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (“AUMA”) was approved by voters on the November 2016 ballot. AUMA does not, and cannot, affect federal regulations as to cannabis or its derivatives.

F. AUMA expressly preserves local control over the regulation of cannabis- related businesses and cannabis-related land uses (Business & Professions Code § 26200, et seq.).

G. In City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, the California Supreme Court held that nothing

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
in state cannabis law “expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land[.]” Additionally, in Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975, the Court of Appeal held that “there is no right – and certainly no constitutional right – to cultivate medical marijuana[.]” The Court in Maral affirmed the ability of a local governmental entity to prohibit the cultivation of cannabis under its land use authority.

H. It is in the public interest for the City to take appropriate actions to protect citizens and their property from conditions that threaten public health, safety, and welfare including, without limitation, matters that devalue real property.

I. On September 18, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 1186, known as the “Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act” into law.

J. SB 1186 imposes restrictions on how cities may regulate the retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis within their jurisdiction.

K. The City Council is required by California law to enact this Ordinance to regulate how qualified delivery-only medical cannabis retailers may operate within the City in accordance with SB 1186.

L. On November 30, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. MP
MC Chapter 9.102 is repealed.

SECTION 3. MPMC § 6.35.030 is amended to read as follows with additions denoted by underline and deletions with strikethrough:
“6.35.030 Prohibition.

Unless otherwise provided by California law, commercial cannabis activity is prohibited within the City of Monterey Park. No use permit, variance, building permit, or any other entitlement, license, or permit, whether ministerial or discretionary, may be issued or approved for any commercial cannabis activity in the City except as set forth in this code, and it is unlawful for any person to establish or conduct such activities in the City without the permits required by this code.”
SECTION 4. A new Chapter 6.36, entitled “Medical Cannabis Delivery,” is added to the MPMC read as follows:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
“Chapter 6.36
Medical Cannabis Delivery

6.36.010 I ntent and Purpose.

This chapter is adopted pursuant to the legal mandate imposed by the state of California via Business and Profes sions Code § 26320. Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorize any activity that is contrary to California law.

6.36.020 S
unset Clause; Automatic Repeal.

The regulations in this chapter will be automatically repealed without additional action by the City Council should Business and Professions Code § 26322 be repealed by the California Legislature or be invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction.

6.36.030 R
esponsibility for Compliance.

The owners and operators of a delivery -only medical cannabis retailer , together with any person listed as the permittee or applicant on the delivery- only medical cannabis retailer application, are responsible for ensuring that the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer is, at all times, operating in a manner compliant with all applicable law.

6.36.040 D efinitions.

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter. Words and phrases undefined in this chapter have the same meaning as set forth in the Compassionate Use Act; the Medical Cannabis Program Act; the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Cannabis Act; or the Medicinal and Adult-use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. “Cannabis” is defined in Health and Safety Code § 11018. “Delivery” means the commercial transfer of nonmedical cannabis or nonmedical cannabis products from a dispensary or delivery-only medical cannabis retailer to a customer over 21 years of age, or the commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to a primary caregiver or qualified patient as defined in Health and Safety Code § 11362.7.
“Delivery” also includes the use by a dispensary or delivery-only medical cannabis retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by the dispensary, delivery-only medical cannabis retailer, or independently licensed under California law, which enables customers or qualified patients

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
or primary caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed dispensary or delivery-only medical cannabis retailer of cannabis or cannabis products.
“Delivery-only medical cannabis retailer” means a non- storefront delivery retailer authorized to engage in the retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis to qualified patients pursuant to an M-license. “Delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit” means a regulatory permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
“Identification card” means a document issued by the state of California that identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of cannabis and the person’s designated primary caregiver, if any.
“Medical cannabis” or “medical cannabis product” means a product containing cannabis, including , without limitation , concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold for use by medical cannabis patients in California pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11362.5. “ Medical cannabis” does not include “industrial hemp” as defined by Food and Agricultural Code § 81000 or Health and Safety Code § 11018.5. “Medical cannabis dispens ary” or “medical marijuana dispensary” is a dispensary that offers or delivers medical cannabis and medical cannabis products for retail sale to qualified patients and primary caregivers. “Operations Plan” means an operating plan that implements the standard requirements of this chapter along with such additional, reasonable, criteria needed to protect public health and safety as determined by the Police Chief based upon the size and location of the proposed cannabis -related business.
“Person with an identification card” means an individual who is a qualified patient who has applied for and received a valid identification card pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 11362.7, et seq.
“Police Chief” means the Police Chief or any other individual appointed by the City Manager or approved pursuant to written agreement for law enforcement services executed pursuant to Government Code § 54981. “Primary caregiver” means the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person, and may include any of the following:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 5 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
A. In any case in which a qualified patient or person with an identification card receives medical care or supportive services, or both, from a clinic licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 1200, et seq., a health care facility licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 1250, et seq., a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 1568.01, et seq., a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 1569, et seq., a hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 1725, et seq., the owner or operator, or no more than three employees who are designated by the owner or operator, of the clinic, facility, hospice, or home health agency, if designated as a primary caregiver by that qualified patient or person with an identification card.

B. An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by more than one qualified patient or person with an identification card, if every qualified patient or person with an identification card who has designated that individual as a primary caregiver resides in the same city or county as the primary caregiver.

C. An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by a qualified patient or person with an identification card who resides in a city or county other than that of the primary caregiver, if the individual has not been designated as a primary caregiver by any other qualified patient or person with an identification card.

D. A primary caregiver must be at least 18 years old, unless the primary caregiver is the parent of a minor child who is a qualified patient or a person with an identification card or the primary caregiver is a person otherwise entitled to make medical decisions under state law pursuant to Family Code §§ 6922, 7002, 7050, or 7120.
“Qualified patient” means a person who is entitled to the protections of Health and Safety Code § 11362.5.

6.36.050 D
elivery-Only Medical Cannabis Retailer Permit Required to Engage in or Operate a Delivery-Only Medical Cannabis Retailer.

It is unlawful for any person to engage in or operate a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer in the City unless the person posses a valid delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit from the City; and complies with all applicable law governing the delivery -only medical cannabis retailer , including the duty to obtain and maintain any required state license(s).

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 6 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2

6.36.060 A pplications.

A. Delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit applications must be made on a form approved by the City Manager, or designee, and accompanied by all information requested on the application.

B. Each application must be accompanied by an application fee, the amount of which will be set by City Council resolution. Any application fee is in addition to any permit fee separately established by City Council resolution.

C. The application must identify the address of the location where the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer is proposed to operate.

D. No person may apply for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit until and unless a conditional use permit issued pursuant to Title 21 authorizes a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer use at the subject location. A conditional use permit is required in addition to, and separately from, a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit required by this chapter. Before an application for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit will be accepted by the City for processing, the applicant must provide, on a form approved by the City Manager, or designee, proof that the owner of the underlying property, or his/her/its authorized agent, authorized filing the application for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit at the subject location. A copy of the conditional use permit authorizing a cannabis-related use on the subject property must accompany the application for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit. Only one application per parcel will be accepted and processed by the City at a given time. If an application for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit is denied, a subsequent application for a delivery- only medical cannabis retailer permit on the same parcel may be accepted by the City only after one year following the denial is final and all available administrative and judicial remedies are exhausted.

E. Completed applications must be submitted to the City Manager, or designee. Only complete applications will be considered. An application is complete if it is submitted with all of the information requested therein, together with full payment of the application fee. Applications will be considered in the order they are received. The City Manager, or designee, may require supplemental information from any applicant before deeming an application complete. Such information must be provided to the City Manager, or designee, within seven business days. Failure to provide the information results in the application losing its priority in the queue and will not be considered “received” until the date that all requested supplemental information is provided to the City Manager, or designee.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 7 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
F. The City Council may, by resolution, establish minimum threshold qualifications for all delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit applicants including, without limitation, qualifications relating to previous relevant business experience, criminal history, minimum liquid assets, and/or net worth. Every application for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit must be accompanied by credible evidence demonstrating that the applicant meets or exceeds each of the threshold requirements established by the City Council.

6.36.070 E
xpiration.

Each delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit issued pursuant to this chapter must be activated within 30 days after the City approves the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit. Activation occurs when the permittee pays all fees required by this chapter ; accepts all conditions; provides evidence that it was issued a valid Conditional Use Permit; and provides evidence that it applied with the state of California for all required permits.

Each delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit issued pursuant to this chapter expires twelve months after the date it is issued. Delivery -only medical cannabis retailer permits may be renewed as provided in this chapter.

6.36.080 R
enewals.

A. An application for renewal of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit must be filed at least 60 calendar days before the expiration of the current permit.

B. The renewal application must contain all the information required for a new application.

C. The renewal application must be accompanied by a renewal fee established by City Council resolution.

D. The renewal application must be denied if any of the following circumstances exists:

1. The renewal application is filed less than 60 calendar days before expiration of the permit.

2. The delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit is suspended at the time of the renewal application.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 8 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2

3. The delivery-only medical cannabis retailer has not been in regular and continuous operation in the four months before the renewal application.

4. The delivery-only medical cannabis retailer failed to conform to the requirements of this chapter, any regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter, or applicable state law.

5. The permittee does not possess a valid license from the State of California, if required by law.

E. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to make all decisions concerning applications for renewal. The City Manager, or designee, may impose additional conditions on a renewal permit if he or she determines it is necessary to ensure compliance with state or local laws and regulations or to preserve and protect the public health, safety, or welfare.

F. If a renewal application is denied for any reason, the permittee will be barred from renewing the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit. If the permittee wishes to obtain another delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit, they must file a new application as set forth in this chapter.

G. The City Manager’s decision with respect to a renewal application is the City’s final decision.

6.36.090 P
rohibition on Transfer of Delivery-Only Medical Cannabis Retailer Permits.

A. I t is unlawful for any person to operate a delivery -only medical cannabis retailer at any location other than the location specifically authorized and identified on a City-issued delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit.

B. No person may transfer an ownership interest, ownership, or control of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer or transfer any delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit issued under this chapter. It is unlawful for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permittee to sell or transfer a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit to another party. Any attempt to transfer an ownership interest or ownership of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer, or of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit, will automatically render the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit void.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 9 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2

6.36.100 C annabis Permit Fee.

In consideration of the privilege for obtaining a delivery -only medical cannabis retailer permit pursuant to this chapter, and in addition to any other requirements of this chapter, a permittee must pay to the City the following:

A. Permit Fee.

1. During the term of any permit, the permittee will pay the City an annual fee (the “permit fee”) as established by City Council resolution.

2. The permit fee is due and payable annually on the anniversary date of the permit without demand and upon filing of the report required by this section. Any fees or expenses charged to permittees by City pursuant to this section, or any other provision of the permit, unless disputed in good faith, must be paid when due or are deemed delinquent. Any undisputed delinquent amounts will accrue an interest rate of ten percent per annum. Any neglect, omission or refusal by permittee to pay any undisputed delinquent fee with any late charges, within 30 days of written demand for payment is grounds for the City to declare the permit forfeited pursuant to the procedures established by this chapter.

3. Payments must be made as determined by the City Manager, or designee. The permit fee must be paid annually during the term of the permit, including the year of granting the permit.

B. Annual Increase.

1. The amount of each annual payment of the permit fee is subject to an increase after the first year of the permit and each subsequent year.

2. The increase is based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), All Urban Consumers, for the Los Angeles- Riverside- Orange County area (1982-84 = 100), as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, for the month of September immediately preceding the month in which payment is due and payable CPI for the year. If the Index is discontinued or revised during the term of this permit, such other governmental price index or computation with which it is replaced chosen by the City will be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 10 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
C. Reports Required. A permittee must file with the City Clerk and Finance Director, on or before January 31st after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the granting of this permit and on or before January 31st after the expiration of each calendar year thereafter, two copies of a report duly verified by the oath of the permittee or by the oath of a duly authorized representative of the permittee, showing for the immediately preceding permit period:

1. The total gross receipts received by the permittee from the sale of cannabis and the use, operation or possession of this permit during the preceding calendar year, or fractional calendar year.

D. Any neglect, omission or refusal by permittee to file the verified statement required by the permit, or to pay any required payments at the time and in the manner specified is grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this permit and of all rights and privileges of permittee hereunder, provided that permittee has not cured said neglect, omission, or refusal to file or pay within fifteen days following written notice from the City of failure to file or pay the required amount, or, if such neglect, omission or refusal is not reasonably subject to cure within such fifteen day period, permittee has not commenced to cure such neglect, omission or refusal within such fifteen day period and has not continued to prosecute such cure to completion.

E. The fee required by this section is in addition to any taxes imposed upon a cannabis business.

6.36.110 O
perations Plan Required.

A conditional use permit issued pursuant to this code for a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit must include, as a conditio n of approval, the operational standards set forth in this chapter . In addition, the conditional use permit must incorporate by reference an Operations Plan approved by the Police Chief, or designee.

6.36.120 O
perational Standards.

A. To operate, a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must obtain and maintain both the proper license from the state of California and a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit as set forth in this chapter.

B. Subject to the conditions imposed by this chapter, mobile delivery privileges may be suspended or terminated by the City Manager, or designee, as set forth in this chapter.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 11 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
C. It is unlawful for alcohol or tobacco to be sold by a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer. Further, it is unlawful for smoking, vaporization, ingestion or consumption of alcohol, tobacco or cannabis in any form, to occur on the premises of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer.

D. It is unlawful for cannabis or cannabis products to be publicly visible from the exterior of the property of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer.

E. All cannabis and cannabis products sold or otherwise made available at a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must be cultivated, manufactured, and transported by licensed facilities that maintain operations in full conformance with applicable law.

F. Each delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must provide the City Manager, or designee, with the name and telephone number of an on-site employee or owner to whom emergency notice can be provided. The telephone number provided must be capable of accepting recorded voice messages in the event the contact person does not answer.

G. It is unlawful for any person under 21 years of age to be allowed on the premises of a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer unless such person possesses a valid identification card issued by the state of California.

H. It is unlawful for any person to employ another person under the age of 21 at a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer.

I. Uniformed security personnel must be employed to monitor all entrances and exits of the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer and to serve as a visual deterrent to unlawful activities during all hours of operation. Every security guard employed by or provided by the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must be currently licensed by the state of California and in possession of a valid “guard card.” The number of such security personnel must be set forth in the Operations Plan.

J. Odor control devices and techniques must be incorporated in a delivery- only medical cannabis retailer to ensure that odors from cannabis are not detectable outside of the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer or in any tenant space or area adjacent to the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer.

K. All law enforcement personnel seeking admission to the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the standards and regulations of this Code must always be given unrestricted access to all areas of the premises during hours of operation.

Consent to such unrestricted access must be acknowledged by the permittee and included within the Operations Plan.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 12 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
L. All interior spaces of the retailer (except restrooms), and all entrances and exits to and from the premises, must be monitored by 24-hour video security surveillance of at least HD quality with night vision capability. The video security system must be compatible with software and hardware utilized by the City as determined by the Police Chief and set forth in the Operations Plan. Surveillance video must be recorded to a device that is securely located on the premises and all footage must be maintained for a minimum of 45 days. The video surveillance system specifications must be set forth in the Operations Plan before the City issues a certificate of occupancy for the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer.

M. A delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must have a professionally installed, maintained, and monitored alarm system as approved through the Operations Plan.

N. A delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must maintain a valid business license as required by this code.

O. All food products, food storage facilities, food-related utensils, equipment and materials must be approved, used, managed and handled in accordance with Health & Safety Code § 113700, et seq. All food products must be protected from contamination at all times, and all food handlers must be clean, in good health, and free from communicable diseases. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health may inspect the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer at any time during business hours to ensure compliance with applicable law.

P. It is unlawful for a physician to be permitted in a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer at any time for the purpose of evaluating patients to issue a medical cannabis prescription or identification card.

Q. As part of the Operations Plan, permittees must execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney that defends and indemnifies the City of Monterey Park, along with its officials, officers, and employees, from any claim or liability arising from the City approving a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit. Such agreement must be secured with sufficient insurance, as determined by the City Attorney, and a surety, as approved by the City Attorney, to adequately protect the City from any and all liability.

R. A delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit is subject to all of the regulations and operational standards set forth in this section in addition to the conditions stated in the permit itself.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 13 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
S. Before dispensing medical cannabis or medical cannabis products to any person under the age of 21, the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer must verify that the person possesses a valid identification card.

T. It is unlawful for any member of the public to be allowed on the premises of delivery-only medical cannabis retailer.

U. A delivery-only medical cannabis retailer may sell by delivery medical cannabis, medical cannabis products, and medical cannabis accessories to a person 18 years of age or older who possesses a valid identification card under Health and Safety Code § 11362.71 and a valid government- issued identification card.

6.36.130 M
inimum Age for Delivery Drivers.

It is unlawful for any person under the age of 21 to be allowed to serve as a delivery driver and no person or permittee can employ a person under the age of 21 for the purpose of making mobile deliveries of any cannabis product.

6.36.140 D
river May Not Carry More Than $200.

No delivery driver may carry more than $200 in cash while engaged in the service of delivering medical cannabis or medical cannabis products.

6.36.150 E
nforcement, Generally.

A violation of this chapter constitutes a misdemeanor. The City Attorney may, at his or her discretion, reduce a violation to an infraction. Any violation of this chapter may also be abated as a public nuisance. The remedies provided by this chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other criminal or civil remedies.

6.36.160 R
evocation and Suspension.

A. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, the City Manager, or designee, may suspend or revoke a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit for the following reasons:

1. Upon learning or discovering facts that require permit denial under this chapter that were not previously disclosed or reasonably discoverable;

2. If the permittee violates any condition imposed by this chapter or by the terms of the permit; or

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 14 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2

3. Violation of any law of moral turpitude including, without limitation, a criminal conviction or civil liability arising from a complaint filed in a court of competent jurisdiction.

B. Notice of Suspension or Revocation. If after having determined that adequate grounds exist the City Manager, or designee, elects to suspend or revoke a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit, the City Manager, or designee, must serve a notice of suspension or revocation on the permittee. The notice must state the reason(s) for the action and provide information regarding the right to a hearing before the City Manager. Except as otherwise provided, the suspension or revocation of the permit does not become effective until the time for filing a request for hearing has passed or, if a request for hearing is timely filed, until the decision of the City Manager, or designee, is final.

C. The notice of suspension or revocation will be sent to the business address indicated on the permit. Service is deemed complete one business day after deposit in the United States Mail.

D. A permittee that has been served with a notice of suspension of revocation may, within five business days, request a hearing before the City Manager, or designee. The request must be made on a form approved by the City Manager or designee.

E. If a timely request for a hearing is made by the permittee, the City Manager, or designee, will schedule a hearing within 30 days. The hearing may be held in the office of the City Manager, or designee, or at an alternative location designated by the City Manager, or designee. The permittee will be notified of the time and place of the hearing at least ten days before the scheduled date.

F. If the City Manager, or designee, determines, in his or her sole discretion, that the continued operation of the delivery-only medical cannabis retailer presents an imminent threat to the public health, safety or welfare, the suspension or revocation becomes effective immediately upon notice thereof. In such a case, if the permittee requests a hearing before the City Manager, or designee, the hearing will be scheduled within seven business days. The permittee will be notified of the time and place of the hearing at least 48 hours before the scheduled date. Notice may be given by any means reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the permittee including, without limitation, mailed notice or telephonic notice.

G. The permittee may present written and/or oral testimony and evidence at the hearing and will be provided 30 minutes for a presentation. Formal rules of evidence and procedure applicable in a court of law do not apply.

The City Manager, or designee, may, in his or her sole discretion, provide

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 15 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
the permittee additional time to present evidence, testimony and argument.

H. The City Manager, or designee, will issue a written decision within 10 business days of the hearing. If the suspension or revocation was made immediately effective, the City Manager’s written decision will be issued within five business days of the hearing. The City Manager’s, or designee’s, decision is the City’s final decision.

I. Effect of Revocation. If a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit is revoked, the former permittee is presumptively disqualified to apply for a new permit for a period of two years from the effective date of the revocation. This presumption may be overcome upon a showing of good cause as to why a permit should be issued following a revocation. Any such showing must be made to the City Manager’s, or designee’s, satisfaction.

SECTION 5. M
PMC § 21.02.015 is added to the Monterey Park Municipal Code to read as follows:
“21.02.015 Consistency with State and Federal Law.

Unl
ess otherwise specifically permitted by Title 21 of this Code, and notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, no new use is permitted unless it is permitted by both State and Federal law.”
SECTION 6. M
PMC § 21.04.557 is repealed.

SECTION 7. MPMC § 21.04.571 repealed.

SECTION 8. Chapter 21.27 is added to the Monterey Park Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Chapter 21.27
C

ANNABIS-RELATED USES

21.27.010 P urpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish land use restrictions for delivery- only medical cannabis retailers . Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorize any activity that is contrary to California law.

21.27.020 D efinitions.

Unless otherwise provided herein, the terms used in this chapter have the same meaning as set forth in Chapter 6.36.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 16 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2

21.27.030 C onditional Use Permit Required.

Except as otherwise provided by applicable law, it is unlawful for any person to maintain a cannabis-related use on any property in the City unless a valid conditional use permit authorizes the cannabis -related use on the subject property.

21.27.040 Loc ation Restrictions.

A. D elivery-only medical cannabis retailers are conditionally permitted in the C-S (Commercial Services) zone and are prohibited in all other zones.

B. No conditional use permit may be issued for a cannabis-related business located on a parcel that is within 1,000 feet of any other parcel containing a “sensitive use,” including, without limitation, residences, schools, religious facilities, parks, licensed child daycare facilities, youth centers or licensed drug or alcohol rehabilitation facilities. For purposes of this section, “school” includes a pre-school, transitional kindergarten, K-12 school, whether public or private.

C. Within 1,000 feet of any other parcel upon which a delivery-only medical cannabis retailer is operating.

D. A delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit may be renewed for a cannabis-related business located on a parcel that is within the distance limitations in this section if:

1. The sensitive use located to the area after the subject delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit was first issued;

2. The subject delivery-only medical cannabis retailer permit has not lapsed for any period of time; and

3. The cannabis-related business was in continuous operation.

E. For purposes of this section, a temporary interruption of business activity due to fire, natural disaster or other force majeure is excused provided reasonable steps are taken by the permittee to resume business operations expeditiously. The prior, temporary suspension of the delivery- only medical cannabis retailer permit does not render a permit ineligible for renewal under this section provided the applicant otherwise qualifies for renewal pursuant to Chapter 6.36.

F. The delivery-only medical cannabis retailer will utilize fewer than the minimum off-street parking spaces established by this Code.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 17 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2

21.27.050 D istance Measurements.

The distance between parcels will be the horizontal distance measured in a straight line from any property line of the sensitive use to the closest property line of the parcel on which the cannabis -related business is to be located, without regard to any intervening structures.

21.27.060 O
perations Plan Required.

In addition to any other conditions of approval deemed necessary and appropriate by the approving authority, an operations plan, including a detailed cash ma nagement plan is required as a condition of approval for any delivery-only medical cannabis retailer. If the operations and/or cash management plan include confidential and/or proprietary information the City will respect the confidentiality of the information submitted by the applicant. The required content of the operations plan is set forth in Chapter

6.36.”
SECTION 9. T
able 21.10(A) of MPMC § 21.10.030 is amended to add delivery-only medical cannabis retailers as a conditionally permitted use in the C-S zone as follows (no other changes to Table 21.10(A) are intended):
“Table 21.10(A)
*
* *
Delivery-only medicinal cannabis retailer X X X X C X

* * *”
SECTION 10. E nvironmental Review. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of this proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). No additional environmental review is required for this Ordinance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3). The proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it is a zoning text amendment which permits delivery of medicinal cannabis in the City’s commercial zone, which will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because it will not make physical changes to the environment. The proposed Ordinance is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 and 15303 for activities that involve negligible or no expansion of use for existing facilities and for the conversion of existing small structure

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 18 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
for another use. Finally, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption that it will not affect the environment.

SECTION 11. Z oning Amendment. Pursuant to MPMC § 21.38.050, the City Council finds as follows:

A. T he MPMC amendments in this Ordinance are consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan.

1. The Ordinance is consistent with Policy 14.1 (Second-Hand Smoke Exposure — Outdoor Public Areas) of the Healthy Community Element of the General Plan as it does not affect MPMC Chapter

6.20 (Smoking Prohibited) which prohibits publicly smoking cannabis in many areas of the City.

2. The Ordinance is consistent with Goal 1 (Commercial districts that allow a variety of retail, service, and entertainment uses and that accommodate flexibility over time) of the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan as it permits delivery-only medicinal cannabis retailers to operate in the C-S Zone with a conditional use permit, fulfilling Policy 1.1’s (Flexibility) goal of providing flexibility regarding allowed uses in the City and Policy 1.3 (Economic Development) by encouraging businesses to locate in the City.

3. The Ordinance is consistent with Goal 2 (Dynamic mix of businesses, uses, and employment that sustain a strong local economy and contributes to a fiscally sustainable tax base) of the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan and Policy 2.1 (Flexibility) and Policy 2.2 (Business Growth) by providing clear development and operational standards for delivery- only medicinal cannabis retailers to operate in and thrive economically.

4. The Ordinance is consistent with Goal 1 (Fiscal Balance) of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan, which has its goals of preserving, retaining, and building the City’s tax base. This Ordinance is consistent with Goal 1 and will meet Policy 1.2 as it will encourage the growth and relocation of industries that generate local tax and employment benefits to the City.

5. The Ordinance is consistent with Goal 2 (Business Attraction and Retention) of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan as this Ordinance will help attract new businesses to the City without the need for incentives.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 19 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
B. This Ordinance will not adversely affect surrounding properties. This Ordinance adopts reasonable regulations that will ensure that non- storefront medicinal cannabis facilities in the C-S (Commercial Services) zone do not adversely affect surrounding properties.

C. This Ordinance promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the MPMC’s zoning regulations. This Ordinance implements State law governing medicinal cannabis delivery facilities in the City to bring the MPMC into compliance with State law.

Reasonable regulations are proposed to promote public health, safety, and general welfare in the City.

SECTION 12. V
alidity of Previous Code Sections. If the entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal of the MPMC or other regulation by this Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such MPMC provision or other regulation to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.

SECTION 13. Rel
iance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Ordinance are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 14. Lim
itations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and National problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 15. Pr
eservation. Repeal or amendment of any previous Code Sections does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 16. Se
verability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 20 of 20

4895-4614-9014 v2
SECTION 17. S ummaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 18. El
ectronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 19. Th
e City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting, and, within fifteen days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 20. Effe
ctive Date. This Ordinance becomes effective on the 30th day following its passage and adoption.

ORDINANCE NO. ___ HAD ITS FIRST READING ON XX, ITS SECOND READING O
N ____, AND WAS DULY PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK AT ITS REGULAR MEETING OF ______.

Jose Sanchez, Mayor

ATTEST:

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

KARL H. BERGER, CITY ATTORNEY

By:

Ephraim Margolin, Deputy City Attorney

Staff Report
January 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Staff Report, dated
December 20, 2023 (without attachments)

4853-9695-8097 v3
City Council Staff Report
DATE: December 20, 2023
AGENDA ITEM NO: Public Hearing - 4B
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development
A public hearing to consider possible action regarding Zoning Code Amendment No. 23-05 (ZCA-23-05) to comply with California law regarding medical cannabis delivery retailers
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Opening a public hearing and taking testimonial and documentary evidence;

2. After receiving verbal and written testimony, close the public hearing;

3. After discussing the evidence , adopt Urgency Ordinance No. _____ amending Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 6.35 (Commercial Cannabis Activities) and adding Chapters 6.36 (Medical Cannabis Delivery) and 21.27 (Cannabis-Related Uses); and

4. Introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance amending MPMC Chapter 6.35 (Commercial Cannabis Activities ) and adding Chapters 6.36 (Medical Cannabis Delivery) and 21.27 (Cannabis-Related Uses) . Second reading and adoption would occur on January 17, 2024; and

5. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of this proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). No additional environmental review is required for this Ordinance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), § 15378(b)(5) § 15301 § 15303 and § 15061(b)(3). The proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it is a zonin g text amendment which permits delivery of medical cannabis in the City’s commercial zone, which will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA because it will not make physical changes to the environment. The proposed Ordinance is also exempt pursuant

Staff Report

December 20, 2023
4853-9695-8097 v3
to CEQA Guidelines § 15301 and 15303 for activities that involve negligible or no expansion of use for existing facilities and for the conversion of existing small st ructure for another use. Finally, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption that it will not affect the environment.

The notice of exemption prepared for this project is contained in Attachment 4.

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

The Planning Commission, at its November 30, 2023 meeting reviewed the proposed ordinances. With a 3-0 vote, the Commission recommended to Council to adopt the draft Ordinance amending the City’s regulations governing regarding medical cannabis delivery retailers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1886 (“SB 1186”) in 2022 which precludes cities from imposing regulations that have the effect of prohibiting medical cannabis delivery within the City and becomes effective on January 1, 2024. SB 1186 declares that any City regulation that does not allow a physical premises from which retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis may be conducted within the City has the effect of prohibiting medical cannabis delivery. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance will con ditionally allow non-store front locations for the sale by delivery of medical cannabis in the Commercial Services Zone and impose reasonable regulations.

BACKGROUND:

SB 1186 (2022) is intended to increase access to medical cannabis. The California Legislature stated that access to medical cannabis has been adversely impacted by the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, which gave cities the ability to ban all cannabis activity, including medical cannabis.

The MPMC currently prohibi ts all commercial cannabis facilities, including medical cannabis. MPMC § 6.35.030 prohibits all “commercial cannabis activity” within the City. “Commercial cannabis activity” is defined as the “cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, la boratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of cannabis or a cannabis product.” MPMP § 6.35.040 defines a cannabis “facility” to include “medical marijuana collective[s].” Medical marijuana dispensaries are also prohibited in residential zones by MPMPC § 21.08.030.

ANALYSIS
Pursuant to SB 1186, a City may not impose regulation of any of the following type that has the effect of prohibiting the retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis:

Staff Report

December 20, 2023
4853-9695-8097 v3

1. The number of medical cannabis businesses authorized to deliver medical cannabis in the local jurisdiction.

2. The operating hours of medical cannabis businesses.

3. The number or frequency of sales by delivery of medical cannabis.

4. The types or quantities of medical cannabis authorized to be sold by delivery.

5. The establishment of physical premises from which retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis within the jurisdiction is conducted by a licensed non-storefront retailer.

However, SB 1186 allows the City to impose reasonable regulations on the retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis through the City’s police powers. Therefore, the City can adopt or enforce reasonable regulations on the non -storefront retail delivery of medical cannabis related to:

1. Zoning requirements.

2. Security or public health and safety requirements.

3. Licensing requirements.

4. Imposing or collecting applicable state or local taxes on retail sales of medical cannabis occurring within the City.

5. Regulations consistent with requirements or restrictions imposed on cannabis businesses by California law or regulations promulgated by the Department of Cannabis Control.

The proposed Ordinances will ensure that the MPMC is compliant with California law concerning medical cannabis effective on January 1, 2024, by:

1. Repealing MPMC § 9.102 (Medical Marijuana) which referenced a non- existent section of the MPMC;

2. Amending MPMC § 6.35.030 (Prohibition) to add a clause stating that all commercial cannabis activity is prohibited “without the permits required by this code”;

3. Adding a new Chapter 6.36 to the MPMC (Medical Cannabis Delivery) which imposes operational standards on physical premises from which retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis is conducted;

Staff Report

December 20, 2023
4853-9695-8097 v3

4. Adding MPMC § 21.02.015 (Consistency with State and Federal Law) to clarify that “no new use is permitted unless permitted by both State and Federal law”;

5. Repealing MPMC § 21.04.557 (Marijuana) which defined marijuana;

6. Repealing MPMC § 21.04.571 (Medical Marijuana Dispensary) which defined “medical marijuana dispensaries”; and

7. Adding Chapter 21.27 (Cannabis-Related Uses) to the MPMC to establish land use restrictions for where delivery-only medical cannabis retailers are permitted in the Commercial Services Zone with a conditional use permit.

Overall, the proposed Ordinances, if adopted, help to achieve goals and objectives set by City Council and the Housing Element, and is consistent with California law.

In order for the City to ensure compliance with SB 1186 – which takes effect January 1, 2024 – one of the recommendations is for the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance (upon 4/5 vote) that would take effect immediately. Additionally, the City Council would introduce a regular ordinance; adoption would be scheduled for the regular January 17, 2024 City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with adopting the Ordinance s (other than administrative costs associated with codifying the Ordinance).

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development
Ephraim S. Margolin
Deputy City Attorney
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. SB 1186 Legislative Text

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-23

Staff Report

December 20, 2023
4853-9695-8097 v3

3. Urgency Ordinance No. _____ amending Section 6.35 (Commercial Cannabis Activities) of the Monterey Park Municipal Code and adding Chapters 6.36 (Medical Cannabis Delivery) and 21.27 (Cannabis-Related Uses)

4. Ordinance No. _____ amending Section 6.35 (Commercial Cannabis Activities) of the Monterey Park Municipal Code and adding Chapters 6.36 (Medical Cannabis Delivery) and 21.27 (Cannabis-Related Uses)

5. Notice of Exemption

Consent Calendar - 3G

Staff Report
January 17, 2024

ATTACHMENT 1
RFP #818 for Jail Facility Custodial Services

City of Monterey Park

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RFP NO. 818
FOR

CUSTODIAL SERVICES

FOR THE MONTEREY PARK POLICE JAIL FACILITY

KEY RFP DATES
Issue Due: September 15, 2016
Mandatory Walk-Through Meeting: September 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

Proposal Due Date: October 13, 2016 by 2:00 p.m.

SEND TO:

City of Monterey Park Police Department
Attention: Sergeant Paul Villalobos
Re: RFP No. 818
320 W Newmark Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754

RFP #818

CUSTODIAL SERVICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. ABOUT THE CITY
Ill. BACKGROUND
IV. REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE OF WORK
V. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONTENTS
VI. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
VII. PROPOSAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
VIII. TIMELINE
IX. SAMP LE CONTRACT

RFP #818

CUSTODIAL SERVICES
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Monterey Park is seeking proposals from qualified proposers, also hereinafter referred to as the Contractor or Vendor, to provide CUSTODIAL SERVICES for the Police Department Jail, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in this Request for Proposals (RFP).

The City of Monterey Park reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted, waive any informality in proposals, and to accept or reject any items thereon.

II. ABOUT THE CITY
Monterey Park is located in Los Angeles County, California at 320 West Newmark Avenue; Monterey Park. It is a municipality with a service area of approximately 7.73 square miles. Monterey Park is a full service City, operating under the Council/Manager form of government, offering its residents a wide range of municipal services in public safety, highways and streets, sanitation, water and sewer services, development and public infrastructure improvements, culture and leisure programming, general government functions, and others.

Ill. BACKGROUND
It is the intent of these specifications to provide Custodial Services to the Monterey Park Police Department Jail.

IV. REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE OF WORK
Vendor must submit a response to each item in the below Scope of Services. Responses must be formatted and submitted with the proposal.

1. It Is the intent of these specifications to provide CUSTODIAL SERVICES for the City's Police Jail Facility.

2. All services shall be performed by trained and supervised staff in a professional manner in conformance with standard and acceptable business practices. Materials, supplies, and equipment furnished by the contractor shall be of equal quality to the most suitable grade of each article as it is used in standard acceptable building maintenance operations and are subject to the approval of the City.

3. The City will furnish:

A. Electrical power and hot and cold water.

B. All necessary cleaning supplies (mops, mop h eads, brooms, cleaners, disinfectants, trash can liners, hand soaps, toilet tissue, paper towels, etc).

RFP #818

CUSTODIAL SERVICES

4. A limited amount of storage space for Contractor's tools, equipment, and supplies shall be provided by the City. This space shall be kept orderly and clean by the Contractor and shall conform to requirements for safety and fire prevention. Combustible materials shall not be stored In buildings. Dust mops and treated cloths shall be stored in Underwriters Lab Approved containers. Contractor shall provide additional shelves, hooks, racks etc. necessary for proper storage of tools, equipment and supplies. All permanently installed fixtures become property of the City at the termination of the service agreement.

5. Emergency conditions brought about by plumbing failure, etc., shall be reported promptly in accordance with instructions furnished the Contractor. Contractor's employees shall be diverted from their regular duties to clean-up in the event of emergencies. No additional charges shall be made for such diversions unless extra labor is required to meet normal assignments.

6. Contractor shall provide coverage for emergencies. Proposals must include an hourly cost breakdown for extra labor in case of emergency coverage or additional services that may be required.

7. Contractor will furnish all qualified labor to satisfactorily perform the custodial services specified herein at the frequencies and during the time shown. I t is intended that the services include all functions normally considered consistent with satisfactory custodial work, whether or not specifically listed herein.

8. Contractor must be willing to work with the Jailer regarding work schedule.

9. CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES
A. General: E mployees are not to disturb papers on desk; open drawers, cabinets, files or book cases; refrigerators, or use telephones, computers, office machines, kitchen appliances, televisions, games, etc.

B. Compliance with Building Regulations: Employees shall comply with all regulations Issued by the City governing admittance into facilities.

C. Employee Qualifications: All employees assigned by the Contractor shall be fully capable, experienced, and trained in the work they are employed to perform. They shall be physically able to do their work and be free from any communicable disease. The Contractor shall submit names and addresses of all employees engaged in work specified herein or having access to the buildings in an inspecting or supervisory capacity and will require the completion of applications or fingerprint cards as required.

D. Clearance of Personnel: The City shall have and exercise full and complete control over granting, denying, withholding, or terminating clearances for Contractor's employees. Employees whom the City deems careless, discourteous, or otherwise objectionable or who do not meet standards required for security or other reasons, will be prohibited from entering the building to perform work.

E. Prior to the execution of the maintenance agreement, contractor must provide proof of employee bonding to the City Clerk in the amount of not less than $5,000 per employee who will be working in City's Police Jail.