South El Monte City Council
January 11, 2022

Gloria Olmos, Mayor
Richard Angel, Mayor Pro Tem
Manuel Acosta, Councilmember
Hector Delgado, Councilmember
Gracie Retamoza, Councilmember
Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
January 11, 2022, 6:00 PM
(Via Zoom Webinar Only; Due to Covid-19 Pandemic and AB 361, City Council Chambers is Temporarily Closed to the Public)
***SPECIAL NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19***
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361, which modified the Brown Act to allow for teleconferencing participation at local legislative body public meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) as amended by AB 361, City Council is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically available to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Public participation will be allowed via the information below.

TO VIEW LIVE MEETING, USE ZOOM LINK BELOW
Join Zoom Meeting (View and/or Participate ONLY during PUBLIC COMMENT) Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86581711880
Webinar ID: 865 8171 1880
Or Call In: 1 669 900 6833, when prompted, enter 86581711880# For both open and closed session each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Time limits may not be shared with other speakers and may not accumulate from one period of public comment to another or from one meeting to another. This is the only opportunity for public input except for scheduled public hearing items. All comments or queries shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any specific member thereof. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(2), the Ralph M. Brown Act, no action or discussion by the City Council shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except to briefly provide information, ask for clarification, provide direction to staff, or schedule a matter for a future meeting.

GENERAL COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to submit a general comment or a comment on an agenda item, can email [email protected] or call (626) 579-6540 ext. 3280 to leave a voicemail message. All comments received an hour before the scheduled meeting will be read during public comment and made part of the record.

MEETINGS
The City Council holds regular meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month. Regular meetings start at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1415 Santa Anita Avenue, South El Monte, California. Special and Adjourned Regular meetings start time are to be determined.

POSTING LOCATIONS OF AGENDA AND/OR CANCELLATION NOTICES Regular meeting agendas will be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting (GC 54954(a)(1)).

Agenda and Cancellation Notices can be viewed online and are also posted at the following three (3) locations: City Hall located at 1415 Santa Anita Avenue, Senior Center located at 1556 Central Avenue and the Community Center located at 1530 Central Avenue, South El Monte, California.

VIEWING OF AGENDA PACKETS
Full agenda packet can be viewed either at www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/129/CityCouncil-Agendas-Minutes or in the City Clerk’s Office during normal business hours Monday through Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Closed on Fridays and major holidays.

ISSUES RELATED TO AGENDA
For issues related to the agenda, including a disability-related accommodation necessary to participate in this meeting, please contact:

Donna G. Schwartz, CMC, City Clerk
Ph (626) 579-6540 ext. 3280
Cell (626) 274-4842
Paola Lara, Deputy City Clerk
Ph (626) 579-6540 ext. 3220
Cell (626) 374-1998

AGENDA BEGINS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE

1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel and Mayor Olmos

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Hector Delgado

3. INVOCATION
Pastor Patricia Garrett, Faith Dominion Church

4. PRESENTATIONS: None

5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF

ORDINANCES
By motion of the City Council, this is the time to notify the public of any changes to the agenda, remove items from the consent calendar for individual consideration and/or rearrange the order of the agenda.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Speakers may provide public comments on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, including items on the agenda. Each speaker may speak up to five minutes. Unless a majority of the Council objects, the Mayor may provide speakers more or less time to speak. With respect to non-public hearing items, speakers shall provide their comments at this time. During public hearing, speakers are encouraged to speak at the time the public hearing item is presented. Any documents for review should be presented to the City Clerk for distribution.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and customary and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items previously removed by a member of the City Council during "Approval of the Agenda" for individual consideration. Any items removed shall be individually considered immediately after taking action on the Consent Calendar.

7.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14, 2021

Staff is requesting approval of Minutes for the December 14, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 14, 2021.

CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED)

7.b. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-01, APPROVING WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15, 2021
THROUGH JANUARY 11, 2022

Authorizing payment of City expenditures for the period of December 15, 2021 through January 11, 2022 totaling $1,297,414.42
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-01, authorizing payment of City expenditures.

7.c. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-02,

PROCLAIMING A LOCAL EMERGENCY PERSISTS AND

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETING

PROCEDURES BY THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE BODIES AS
AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(E) ET SEQ.

FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 11, 2022 THROUGH FEBRUARY 9,
2022

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law. AB 361 was made effective October 1, 2021. Pursuant to AB 361, staff recommends consideration of Resolution No. 22-02 proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of remote meeting procedures by the City’s legislative bodies, which can include meetings held via a virtual platform (e.g Zoom), for the period of January 11, 2022 through February 9, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-02, proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of alternative meeting procedures by the City’s legislative bodies, such as utilizing a virtual platform (e.g. Zoom) for the period of January 11, 2022 through February 9, 2022.

7.d. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-03

AWARDING AN AGREEMENT TO VASQUEZ & COMPANY LLP FOR

AUDITING SERVICES

On November 10, 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Auditing Services and received five proposals. Staff reviewed the proposals, conducted interviews and determined that, of the five companies, Vasquez & Company LLP (Vasquez) provided the best overall value to meet the needs of the City.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-03, approving a three-year agreement with a two-year renewal option with Vasquez & Company LLP for Auditing Services.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-04,

APPROVING THE PROGRAMMING OF THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR
(FY) 2022-2023

Provide the Council with recommendations for the use of the City’s estimated Fiscal Year 2022-2023 CDBG allocation, keeping in mind the priority of need and eligibility. Public Notice was posted December 09, 2021.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-04 and authorize City Manager and/or designee to execute an agreement for the Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023 CDBG project with the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA), subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney;

2. Reprogram $123,000 from the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Public Facilities and Improvements - City Hall Restroom ADA Upgrade project to the FY 2022 - 2023 "2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project;" and

3. Authorize City Manager and/or designee to adjust the project amounts, as necessary, to reconcile LACDA's final CDBG allocations and any amounts unexpended at the close of FY 2021 - 2022.

8.b. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-05,

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1256 FOR A

PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE

Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) is proposing the development of 106,137 square foot commercial and residential mixed use building. The development requires a Zone Change ("ZC") from CommercialManufacturing ("C-M") to Commercial-Residential ("C-R") and a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") from Commercial-Manufacturing to Mixed Use (“proposed Project” or “Project”). The proposed Project will include 8 commercial ground floor units and 73 residential units, 67 will be market rate and 6 will be affordable units (2 very low income and 4 low income units).

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-05 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and General Plan Amendment. Staff also recommends City Council conduct a first reading of Ordinance 1256.

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.a. SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM

The City Council will consider appointing a Mayor Pro Tem from among its members. The term of office shall be one year, or until the City Council selects a successor.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council select a Mayor Pro Tem from among its members for a term of one year.

9.b. APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSIONERS

Staff is seeking City Council direction on the appointment of five residents to serve on the Community Services Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council consider appointing five individuals from amongst the ten applicants seeking an appointment on the Community Services Commission for a one year term commencing January 11, 2022 and ending December 31, 2022.

9.c. APPOINTMENT OF PATRIOTIC COMMISSIONERS

Staff is seeking City Council direction on the appointment of five residents to serve on the Patriotic Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council consider appointing five individuals from amongst the six applicants seeking an appointment on the Patriotic Commission for a one year term commencing January 11, 2022 and ending December 31, 2022.

9.d. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS

Staff is seeking City Council direction on the appointment of five residents to serve on the Planning Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council consider appointing five individuals from amongst the twelve applicants seeking an appointment to the Planning Commission for a one year term commencing January 11, 2022 and ending December 31, 2022.

9.e. on next page.

9.e. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1256-U, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.16 (“STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING”) TO TITLE 10 (“VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC”) OF THE

SOUTH EL MONTE MUNICIPAL CODE, INCLUDING AN EXEMPTION

THEREFORE FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT; AND RESOLUTION NO. 22-06 ESTABLISHING NEW STREET

SWEEPING SCHEDULES

On January 1, 2022, the City of South El Monte implemented new waste collection services to comply with the State of California regulations (SB 1383). The new waste collection schedules are conflicting with those of existing street sweeping services, and as a result, regular street maintenance throughout the City has been affected. The City Council is considering the proposed Urgency Ordinance to amend the municipal code to establish revisions to the street sweeping route schedules and adopt a related Resolution to establish no parking prohibitions for street sweeping purposes.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1256-U, amending Chapter 10.16 “Stopping, Standing, and Parking” to Title 10 “Vehicles and Traffic” of the City of South El Monte Municipal Code; and Resolution No. 22-06 establishing new no parking prohibitions for street sweeping purposes. At a minimum, a 4/5 vote of the City Council is required to approve this action.

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS, INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS
AB 1234 requires councilmembers briefly report, orally or in writing, on meetings attended at City expense (i.e. League of California Cities Conferences, ICSC conferences, etc.) at City Council meetings following the meeting.

11. CORRESPONDENCE: None

12. COUNCILMEMBERS’ AGENDA

12.a. MAYOR GLORIA OLMOS

1. The COVID-19 Impact: Cost of Delayed Construction Projects and Extended Building Permits

2. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Grant Writing Services

13. CLOSED SESSION: None

14. ADJOURNMENT
January 25, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

I Donna G. Schwartz, hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted not less than 72 hours at the following locations: City of South El Monte City Hall, Senior Center and Community Center and made available at www.cityofsouthelmonte.org on this 6 th day of January, 2022.

City Clerk, CMC

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.a.

DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Donna Schwartz, City Clerk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14, 2021
SUMMARY: Staff is requesting approval of Minutes for the December 14, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 14, 2021.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

DISCUSSION: None.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. December 14, 2021 Minutes

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2021 - 6:00 PM

1. ROLL CALL
Mayor Olmos called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM
PRESENT: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado (via zoom), Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager; Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney; Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk; Rene Salas, Deputy City Manager; Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director; Paola Lara, Deputy City Clerk; Ian McAleese, Assistant Planner; and Jayson Perez, Recreation Coordinator.

Zoom was provided for the Public to participate during public comment via teleconference.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Manuel Acosta led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. INVOCATION – Laura Lozano, Permit Technician for City of South El Monte, offered the Invocation.

4. PRESENTATIONS

4.a. City Council received a report from the Sheriff’s Department and discussed matters concerning law enforcement in the City for the months of October and November.

4.b. City Council received a report from Community Development Director Colby Cataldi on Code Enforcement and Public Safety Activities for the months of October and November and presented the new schedule for street sweeping.

5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF

ORDINANCES
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Angel, seconded by Councilmember Acosta to approve the agenda. Motion carried 4-0-1, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None
ABSENT: Councilmember(s): Delgado
Councilmember Delgado was present at the meeting but not present for this vote.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Olmos opened public comment

1. Fidel Acosta, South El Monte resident, voiced concern with pedestrians hazardously crossing Santa Anita Avenue between Lexington-Gallatin Road and the 60 freeway to Whittier Narrows Park, requested the City work with the County to create a pedestrian crosswalk at the location and to waive Whittier Narrows parking fees for South El Monte residents, made suggestions to decrease illegal dumping and catalytic converter theft, and requested South El Monte High School allow their swapmeet vendors to park at the school because it creates parking issues on Fawcett Avenue.

2. Julianna Jimenez, Nancy Briones, Lisa Ducharme, Leo Briones, Edward Maldonado, Carlos Seguayo, Victor Martinez, Adrian Jimenez, Julian Camacho, and Lori Brown spoke in support of allowing the Brewer’s Baseball travel team to continue to use the baseball fields and of the youth programs in the City working together to share the fields because it is all for the benefit of the children.

3. Sergio Velasquez, South El Monte resident, spoke against waiving the electricity bill for travel baseball teams because as a resident he is unable to practice baseball with his son on the fields because they are always locked, requested City Council put the community first for the use of the fields, and recommended the use of the fields be examined because they are damaged and are hazardous.

4. Enzo Fierros, on behalf of Carroll Klett, President of Huntington Culinary, thanked the City for the opportunity to provide meals to the Seniors for the past 30 years and they hope to continue to work with the City.

There being no further comments, Mayor Olmos closed public comment.

Mayor Olmos called for a recess at 7:49 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Councilmember Retamoza, seconded by Councilmember Acosta to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

7.a. Approved Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting held November 9, 2021.

7.b. Adopted Resolution No. 21-75, approving warrants for the period of November 10, 2021 through December 14, 2021 totaling $2,043,317.88.

7.c. Adopted Resolution No. 21-76, accepting the improvements for the Rush Street and Peck Road Traffic Signal and Lighting Project, authorize City Clerk to send the Notice of Completion for recordation to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, and release retention accordingly.

7.d. Adopted Resolution No. 21-77, approving Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. for environmental services to include services for oversight of the Commercial and Industrial Waste Inspections, Used Oil Recycling, and the Beverage Container Recycling grant programs.

7.e. Adopted Resolution No. 21-78, proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of alternative meeting procedures by the City’s legislative bodies, such as utilizing a virtual platform (e.g. Zoom) for the period of December 14, 2021 through January 12, 2022.

7.f. Adopted Resolution No. 21-79, accepting the improvements for the 2020 Residential Street Rehabilitation Project (CDBG) Project, authorize City Clerk to send the Notice of Completion for recordation to the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, release retention accordingly, and approved $81,493 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to pay for improvements at City Hall, which include parking lot resurfacing and installation of an ADA curb ramp; and to reduce the appropriated amount of SB-1 funds on this project to $318,507 (from $400,000) to ensure the total approved project budget of $776,710 remains unchanged and in compliance with all funding sources.

7.g. Adopted Resolution No. 21-80, approving Amendment No. 1 extending the current agreement with Rio Hondo College Community College District and authorizing City Manager, or her designee, to execute the agreement.

7.h. Adopted Resolution No. 21-81, approving the Amended and Restated Agreement with Huntington Culinary for Senior Nutrition Services, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute agreement.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 21-82, TO ESTABLISH BASIC RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SB-9 PROJECTS
Mayor Olmos announced the item and opened the public hearing, there being no public comment, closed the public hearing.

Assistant Planner Ian McAleese presented the staff report.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Angel, seconded by Councilmember Acosta to adopt Resolution No. 21-82, establishing basic rules for SB-9 projects.

Motion carried 5-0, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.a. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 21-83, ADOPTING THE 2021 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Mayor Olmos announced the item and Community Development Director Colby Cataldi presented the staff report and a PowerPoint prepared by Carolyn J. Harshman, Emergency Planning Consultants.

A motion was made by Councilmember Acosta, seconded by Councilmember Retamoza to adopt Resolution No. 21-83, approving the 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan, and authorize staff to submit the resolution of approval to FEMA for issuance of a Final Letter of Approval. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

9.b. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 21-84,

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE

NATIONAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT
Mayor Olmos announced the item and City Attorney Anthony R. Taylor presented the staff report.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Angel, seconded by Councilmember Acosta to adopt Resolution No. 21-84, which authorizes and approves as follows:

1. Approve Settlement Participation Form for City’s participation in the National Opioid Settlement with McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corporation;

2. Approve Settlement Participation Form for City’s participation in the National Opioid Settlement with Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.;

3. Approve California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Distributor Settlement;

4. Approve California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds - Janssen Settlement;

5. Authorize City Manager to execute documents identified in Recommendation Nos. 1 through 4; and

6. Authorize City Manager to carry out all necessary acts such that the City can participate in the National Opioid Settlements, including, but not limited to, the transmittal of the executed documents in Recommendation Nos. 1 through 4.

Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None
Mayor Pro Tem Angel requested to move Item 11.b. up for discussion before Committee Reports. Council concurred.

ITEM MOVED UP FOR DISCUSSION

11.b. LETTER FROM BREWERS BASEBALL ORGANIZATION (BREWERS)

REQUESTING FEE WAIVER RESULTING IN REIMBURSEMENT OF

RESERVATION FEES
Mayor Olmos announced the item and Recreation Coordinator Jayson Perez presented the staff report.

Mayor Pro Tem Angel and Councilmember Acosta spoke in favor of allowing youth organizations to use the baseball fields because it is for the children. Mayor Olmos spoke against approving the fee waiver request because the City will have to invest funds to fix the damage done to the baseball fields.

A motion was made by Councilmember Acosta, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Angel to approve fee waiver request made by the Brewers resulting in a reimbursement amount of $495.00. Motion carried 4-0-1 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, and Mayor Pro Tem Angel NAYS: Councilmember(s): None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s): Mayor Olmos

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS, INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS
Councilmember Acosta, announced his attendance at the City’s Turkey Dash & Trot, Boxing Show, Senior Center Thanksgiving Drive-Thru, Tree Lighting Ceremony, Supervisor Hilda Solis’ Breakfast with Santa, and International Council of Shopping Centers Conference.

Councilmember Retamoza, announced her attendance at the City’s Tree Lighting Ceremony and South El Monte Employee Recognition Dinner.

Councilmember Delgado, announced his attendance at the City’s Turkey Dash & Trot, Tree Lighting Ceremony, South El Monte Employee Recognition Dinner, and Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District Meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Angel, announced his attendance at the City’s Turkey Dash & Trot, Tree Lighting Ceremony, and International Council of Shopping Centers Conference.

Mayor Olmos, announced her attendance at the City’s Turkey Dash & Trot, Tree Lighting Ceremony, Senator Susan Rubio’s Turkey Giveaway, South El Monte Community Outreach Turkey Giveaway, South El Monte Employee Recognition Dinner, and Supervisor Hilda Solis’ Breakfast with Santa.

11. CORRESPONDENCE

11.a. LETTER FROM THE SOUTH EL MONTE/ EL MONTE JETS

ORGANIZATION (JETS) REQUESTING EVENT FEE WAIVER

RESULTING IN REIMBURSEMENT OF RESERVATION FEES
Mayor Olmos announced the item.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Angel, seconded by Councilmember Acosta to approve the fee waiver request made by the Jets organization resulting in a reimbursement amount of $480.00. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

11.c. LETTER FROM EPIPHANY CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR RELATED CITY

COSTS AND TEMPORARY USE PERMIT (TUP) FEE WAIVER FOR THE

ANNUAL PILGRIMAGE WALK OF OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE
Mayor Olmos announced the item.

A motion was made by Councilmember Retamoza, seconded by Councilmember Acosta to approve the fee waiver request made by Epiphany Catholic Church resulting in a reimbursement amount of $2,516. Motion carried 5-0 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s): Acosta, Delgado, Retamoza, Mayor Pro Tem Angel, and Mayor Olmos
NAYS: Councilmember(s): None

12. COUNCILMEMBERS’ AGENDA

12.a. MAYOR GLORIA OLMOS

1. Announcement of Vacancies on the City Commissions.

Mayor Olmos announced that applications are being accepted for vacancies on the Community Services, Patriotic, and Planning Commissions and encouraged residents who want to be more involved in the community to apply by the deadline of Wednesday, January 5, 2022 by 5:00 p.m.

13. CLOSED SESSION: None.

14. ADJOURN COUNCIL MEETING
There being no further business coming before this body, at 8:53 p.m. Mayor Olmos adjourned the meeting to a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
______________________________ ______________________
Donna G. Schwartz, CMC, City Clerk Gloria Olmos, Mayor

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.b.

DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: William Fox, Interim Finance Director
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 01, APPROVING WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF
DECEMBER 15, 2021 THROUGH JANUARY 11, 2022
SUMMARY: Authorizing payment of City expenditures for the period of December 15, 2021 through January 11, 2022 totaling $1,297,414.42
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 22- 01, authorizing payment of City expenditures.

FISCAL IMPACT:

DISCUSSION:

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Resolution No. 22-01
B. Warrants

RESOLUTION NO. 22-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL

ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS FOR THE
PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15, 2021 THROUGH JANUARY 11,
2022 TOTALING $1,297,414.42

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That in accordance with Section 37202 of the Government Code, the Finance Director hereby certifies to the accuracy of the following demands and the availability of funds for payment thereof.
_____________________________________
Finance Director
SECTION 2: That the following claims and demands have been audited as required by law and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount hereafter set forth.

CLAIMANT CLAIM PERIOD WARRANT #’S AMOUNT
FY 21/22 Electronic Warrants 12/15/2021-1/11/2022 5222-5246 $270,013.90 FY 21/22 Hand Typed Warrants 12/15/2021-1/11/2022 138831-138846 $44,479.37 FY 21/22 Regular Warrants 12/15/2021-1/11/2022 138847-138922 $686,157.23 Payroll Check PPE 12/11/2021 27547-27554 $7,163.91
Payroll Direct Deposit PPE 12/11/2021 799699-799814 $156,727.25 Payroll Check PPE 12/25/2021 27555-27561 $8,550.74
Payroll Direct Deposit PPE 12/25/2021 799815-799912 $124,322.02 TOTAL EXPENDITURES RESOLUTION NO. 22-01 $1,297,414.42
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of January 2022. __________________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-01, was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 11th day of January 2022, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.c.

DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 02, PROCLAIMING A LOCAL EMERGENCY PERSISTS AND

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE

MEETING PROCEDURES BY THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE

BODIES AS AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54953(E) ET SEQ. FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY
11, 2022 THROUGH FEBRUARY 9, 2022
SUMMARY: On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law. AB 361 was made effective October 1, 2021. Pursuant to AB 361, staff recommends consideration of Resolution No. 22-02 proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of remote meeting procedures by the City’s legislative bodies, which can include meetings held via a virtual platform (e.g Zoom), for the period of January 11, 2022 through February 9, 2022.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-02, proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of alternative meeting procedures by the City’s legislative bodies, such as utilizing a virtual platform (e.g. Zoom) for the period of January 11, 2022 through February 9, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: None.

DISCUSSION: In March of 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California, and issued Executive Order N25-20 to facilitate the ability of legislative bodies to meet using remote/virtual platforms to comply with health orders. Since that time, several other Executive Orders have been issued that further modified the requirements related to the conduct of teleconferenced meetings and the right of public participation during the state of emergency. The Executive Orders collectively operated to remove certain requirements for teleconferenced meetings, including that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, and that members of the public be able to address the legislative body at each teleconference location.

The Executive Orders allowed the City Council and each of the City’s legislative bodies, commissions, and committees subject to the Brown Act to modify how meetings were conducted to protect the health and safety of the legislative bodies, staff, and the public, while ensuring transparency and accessibility for open and public meetings. However, those executive orders expired on October 1, 2021.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law. AB 361 was made effective October 1, 2021, to correspond to the timing of expiration of the executive orders.

AB 361 allows legislative bodies to continue to utilize remote/virtual platforms for meetings during a state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor that includes the City, provided that one of the following three criteria is met with respect to the meeting:
i) State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or
ii) The legislative body is meeting for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; or
iii) The legislative body has previously determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

These provisions of AB 361 are effective until January 1, 2024. This means these provisions may be invoked any time there is a proclaimed state of emergency by the Governor (e.g., wildfires) and the City Council can make at least one of the enumerated findings.

On October 26, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-69 proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of remote teleconference procedures by the City’s legislative bodies for the period of October 26 through November 25, 2021. To avoid a lapse in time between meetings and the effective date of Resolution No. 21-69, on November 9, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-72 proclaiming a local emergency persists and authorizing the use of remote teleconference procedures by the City’s legislative bodies for the period of November 9 through December 9, 2021. On December 14, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-78, authorizing the same, for the period of December 14, 2021 through January 12, 2022.

According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles County has experienced a sharp surge of Covid-19 positive cases since December 2021, leading to a positivity rate of 14.90% as of December 27, 2021 and 1,792 hospitalizations as of January 1, 2022. The data available as of January 5, 2022 indicates a total of 1,780,154 cases reported in the Los Angeles County, Long Beach, and Pasadena Health Departments with 21,790 new cases and 24 deaths on January 4, 2022. The total number of deaths reported are 27,671.

In light of the continuing COVID-19 emergency, and the continued threats to health and safety posed by indoor meetings with large attendance, staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution making the findings required to initially invoke AB 361. Doing so will allow the meetings of the City Council and each of the City’s legislative bodies to continue to occur by teleconference, without adhering to the teleconferencing

requirements set out in Government Code Section 54953(b)(3) that would otherwise apply absent invocation of AB 361.

Continued reliance on AB 361 will require adoption of a new resolution making the required findings every 30 days.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Resolution No. 22-02

RESOLUTION NO. 22-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL
PROCLAIMING A LOCAL EMERGENCY PERSISTS AND REAUTHORIZING THE USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE

MEETING PROCEDURES BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF
THE CITY FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 11, 2022 TO
FEBRUARY 9, 2022, AS AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54953(E) ET SEQ.

WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte is committed to preserving and nurturing public access, transparency, observation and participation in meetings of the City Council and each of its legislative bodies; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, codified in Government Code sections 54950 et seq., so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and observe the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, as amended by Assembly Bill 361 (2021), codified in Government Code sections 54953(e) et seq., allows for remote teleconferencing observation and participation in meetings by members of a legislative body and members of the public, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3) regarding teleconferencing, subject to the existence of certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the initial required condition is that a state of emergency is a declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act at Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state and within the boundaries of the City, caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, pursuant to Government Code Section 8625, Governor Newsom declared the existence of a state of emergency for the State of California, which includes area within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City, in response to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (a disease now known as COVID-19); and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the City’s Director of Emergency Services declared a local emergency for the City pursuant to Chapter 2.32 of the South El Monte Municipal Code, finding that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within the City as a result of the COVID-19 virus and that these conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-40, ratified the Director of Emergency Services’ declaration of local emergency; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e) et seq. further requires that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or, the legislative

body of the City finds that meeting in person would present imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, the Council previously adopted Resolution No.21-69 on October 26, 2021, finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953(e) et seq.; and WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the remote teleconference meeting procedures provided in Government Code section 54953(e), the Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency, and as of the date of this Resolution, the Council has done so; and
WHEREAS, a state of emergency persists, as initially identified and described by the Governor in the proclamation of the existence of a state of emergency for the State of California in response to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (a disease now known as COVID-19) issued on March 4, 2020 pursuant to Government Code Section 8625; and WHEREAS, in large part due to the Omicron variant, there has been a sharp surge of Covid-19 positive cases since December 2021, leading to a positivity rate of 14.90% as of December 27, 2021 and 1,792 hospitalizations as of January 1, 2022. The data available as of January 5, 2022 indicates a total of 1,780,154 cases reported in the Los Angeles County, Long Beach, and Pasadena Health Departments with 21,790 new cases and 24 deaths on January 4, 2022.

The total number of deaths reported are 27,671; and
WHEREAS, the Council hereby finds that the emergency conditions persist in the City, such that meeting in person for the meetings of the City’s legislative bodies would present imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees as a result of the increased risk of the spread of the COVID-19 virus among those in attendance; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with the COVID-19 emergency; and
WHEREAS, the Council hereby finds that the state of emergency due to the COVID-19 virus and the conditions related thereto has caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons within the City that are likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, and thereby reaffirms, reauthorizes, and continues the existence of a local emergency and re-ratifies the proclamation of state of emergency by the Governor of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Council hereby finds that, as a consequence of the local emergency persisting, the Council does hereby find that the legislative bodies of the City shall conduct their meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), and shall instead comply with the remote teleconference meeting requirements as authorized by Government Code section 54953(e) et seq.; and

WHEREAS, the Council affirms that it will allow for observation and participation by Councilmembers and the public via participation and comment in real time via Zoom or by telephone, as well as allowing limited in-person attendance for certain legislative bodies of the City in an effort to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of all attendees.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. The Council hereby reconsiders the conditions of the state of emergency as proclaimed by the Governor, the existence of emergency conditions in the City, and reaffirms, reauthorizes, and continues the existence of a local emergency throughout the City.

Section 3. Further, the Council finds that holding the meetings of the City’s legislative bodies in person would present imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees as a result of the increased risk of the spread of the COVID-19 virus among those in attendance and that the State of California and County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with the COVID-19 emergency, as required by Government Code section 54953(e) et seq.

Section 4. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including, continuing to conduct open and public meetings remotely in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) February 9, 2022, or (ii) such time the Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City may continue to meet remotely, without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), but otherwise as permitted by Government Code section 54953(e) et seq..

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of January 2022.

_____________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-02, was duly passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 11th day of January, 2022, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.d.

DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: William Fox, Interim Finance Director
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 03 AWARDING AN AGREEMENT TO VASQUEZ & COMPANY

LLP FOR AUDITING SERVICES
SUMMARY: On November 10, 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Auditing Services and received five proposals. Staff reviewed the proposals, conducted interviews and determined that, of the five companies, Vasquez & Company LLP (Vasquez) provided the best overall value to meet the needs of the City.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-03, approving a three-year agreement with a two-year renewal option with Vasquez & Company LLP for Auditing Services.

FISCAL IMPACT: The maximum contract sum for the three-year contract is $108,300, averaging $36,100 per year. The three years to be audited are fiscal years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The Fiscal Year 2020-21 audit has been budgeted for the current year. Expenditures for the two remaining fiscal years will be budgeted in the corresponding fiscal years.

DISCUSSION: At the November 9, 2021 City Council Meeting, Staff requested that the City Council authorize the issuance of an Auditing Services RFP. This request was approved, and on the following day, November 10, 2021, the RFP was issued. In order to obtain maximum coverage, thirteen (13) auditing firms that specialize in municipality auditing were solicited and provided a copy of the RFP. The RFP was also posted on the City's website for additional prospective proposers to participate.

There were two addendums to the initial RFP. Addendum #1 was posted on the City’s website on November 30, 2021, and consisted of thirty four (34) questions and City responses to the RFP posed by the various solicited auditing firms. As a courtesy to all solicited firms, each was sent a copy. Addendum #2 was posted on the City’s website on December 1, 2021. This provided for a one-week extension until December 8, 2021 to submit proposals. Again, all solicited firms were notified.

There were a total of five proposals received from the thirteen solicited auditing firms.

The top three firms from the screening process were invited to participate in a panel interview with the City Manager, Interim Finance Director, and Accounting Manager. The proposed fees from the three selected auditing firms were as follows:
 Moss, Levy & Hartzheim, LLP - $90,136 ($30,122 average per year)  The Pun Group - $141,863 ($47,288 average per year)
 Vasquez & Company LLP - $108,300 ($36,100 average per year) The interviews were conducted on December 20, 2021. Each interview was 45 minutes in length and consisted of a presentation where the auditing firm provided an overview of their experience and qualifications. This was followed by a series of questions and answers. Finally, the auditing firm was given an opportunity to make a closing statement on why they should be selected to perform auditing services for the City. After the interviews, the panel tabulated the results and concluded that Vasquez’s services would provide the best overall value to the City.

Vasquez is an auditing firm that has been in business 50 years; has 142 professional staff, and has offices in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Philippines. Vasquez is ranked in the top 1% of auditing firms in the nation by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Vasquez has also been the City’s Metro auditor for the past 5 years. Last year, Los Angeles County awarded Vasquez another 5-year contract to continue as its Metro auditor. City management believes having the same auditor will reduce many redundant audit procedures and improve the timeliness of reporting. This is critical for staying in compliance with the Federal, State, and Los Angeles County laws and regulations, as well as obtaining the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) award on the City’s June 30, 2022 financial statements.

Included with the RFP was the City's standard form contract for professional services.

There were no exceptions made by Vasquez with the City's standard contact. Field work is expected to begin in February 202

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Resolution No. 22-03
B. Auditing Services Professional Services Agreement

ATTACHMENT A

RESOLUTION NO. 22-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY

COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY

OF SOUTH EL MONTE AND VASQUEZ & COMPANY LLP

FOR AUDITING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte issued a Request for Proposals for Auditing Services on November 10, 2021; and
WHEREAS, five proposal responses were received by the December 8, 2021 deadline; and
WHEREAS, of the five proposals received, the three highest scoring proposers were invited to participate in a panel interview with the City Manager, Interim Finance Director, and Accounting Manager; and
WHEREAS, following the interviews, the panel determined that Vasquez & Company LLP would provide the best overall value and fit to the City in providing the professional auditing services and therefore is the lowest responsive bidder; and WHEREAS, Vasquez & Company LLP’s proposal for a three-year contract was $108,300, or $36,100 average per year. An additional two year mutual option is available at the conclusion of the initial three year agreement following the same terms for FYs 2022-2023 and 2024-2025; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to enter into an agreement with Vasquez & Company LLP for professional auditing services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South El Monte as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby approves a professional services agreement (“Agreement”) with Vasquez & Company LLP to provide auditing services for the City, including all tasks requested in the RFP.

Section 2. The Mayor is hereby directed to execute the Agreement in substantially the form attached as Attachment B to the January 11, 2022 staff report accompanying this Resolution. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby directed to take all actions necessary to enter into and effectuate the Agreement.

Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, ADOPTED this 11th day of January 2022.

ATTEST:

Gloria Olmos, Mayor
Donna Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-03, was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 11th day of January 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Donna Schwartz, City Clerk
5

ATTACHMENT B

1 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE AND
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of January 2022 by and between the City of South El Monte, a California, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Vasquez & Company LLP (“Consultant”).

City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services.

C. Pursuant to the City of South El Monte Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.

D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder

2 and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.

1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.

The Scope of Services shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.

Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

1.5 Familiarity with Work.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer.

1.6 Care of Work.

The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be

3 responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.

1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other.

1.8 Additional Services.

City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.

1.9 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.

ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($108,300) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section

1.9. The Consultant has provided for an additional two year option at the amount of $38,400 for fiscal year 2023-24 and $39,600 for fiscal year 2024-25. The two option years are exercisable

4 based upon mutual agreement at the conclusion of the third year of this Agreement.

2.2 Method of Compensation.

The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.

Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.

2.4 Invoices.

Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall contain all information specified in Exhibit “C”, and shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and subcontractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.

City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.5 Waiver.

Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.

5 ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Term.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not to extend past December 15, 2023, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).

The City may, in its sole discretion, extend the Term for two additional one-year terms related to the audit for fiscal year 2023-24 and fiscal year 2024-25.

ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.

The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

6 Roger A Martinez Partner, Audit Practice Leader
(Name) (Title)
Cristy A. Canieda Partner, Government Practice Leader

(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement.

Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.

4.2 Status of Consultant.

Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.

4.3 Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall be Masami Higa or such person as may be designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

7 4.4 Independent Consultant.

Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venture or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant. Consultant represents and warrants that the personnel used to provide services to the City pursuant to this Agreement are classified by Consultant as employees and that Consultant issues or will issue a W-2 to such personnel.

In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, subcontractor, or independent contractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a federal or state agency, a court of competent jurisdiction, or the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) to be classified as other than an independent contractor for the City, then Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City for the payment of any and all assessed fines, penalties, judgments, employee and/or employer contributions, and any other damages and costs assessed to the City as a consequence of, or in any way attributable to, the assertion that Consultant or any of Consultant’s personnel used to provide the Services under this Agreement are other than independent contractors of the City.

4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

5.1 Insurance Coverages.

Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own

8 expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, nonowned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $2,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement. (d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.

5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to

9 property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. (c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. (e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

10 (i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. (l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. (m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review. (n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

11 5.3 Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

12 ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

6.1 Records.

Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.

6.2 Reports.

Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.

6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such

13 documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.

All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.

6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct. (d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

7.1 California Law.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District

14 Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

7.2 Disputes; Default.

In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.

7.3 Retention of Funds.

Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

7.4 Waiver.

Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.

Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party

15 of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.

7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.

7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant.

If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.

7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.

If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such

16 action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION

8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.

No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

8.2 Conflict of Interest.

Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.

17 8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of South El Monte, 6330 Pine Avenue, South El Monte, California 90201 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement.

Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.

9.2 Interpretation.

The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

9.3 Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

9.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

18 9.5 Severability.

In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.

No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.

Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.

Consultant’s Authorized Initials

9.7 Corporate Authority.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.

CITY:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal
corporation
ATTEST
:

Gloria Olmos, Mayor
Donna Schwartz, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:

VASQUEZ & COMPANY, LLP
By:

Name: Roger Martinez
Title: Partner
By:

Name: Cristy Canieda
Title: Partner
Address:
655 North Central Ave, Suite 1550
Glendale, CA 91203
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES SHALL BE

DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.

A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
1) Consultant will perform the following Services:
a) Perform annual audits and render an auditor’s report on the Basic Financial Statements of the City and its component units in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
i) As part of the annual audits a report will be rendered on the basic financial statements that will include both Government-Wide Financial Statements and Combining Fund Financial Statements, and also apply limited audit procedures to Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), if provided and required supplementary information pertaining to the General Fund and each major fund of the City.
ii) Render auditor’s reports on the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance with relevant laws and regulations and other matters based on the audit of the financial statements.
iii) Prepare and word process the City’s Annual Financial Report. iv) Provide 10 copies and an electronic copy (e.g. PDF) of the final Annual Financial Report b) Issue a Management Letter that includes recommendations for improvements in internal control, accounting procedures, and other significant observations that are considered to be non-reportable conditions.
c) Perform an annual Single Audit and render an auditor’s report on the expenditure of federal grants in accordance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget Federal regulations entitled “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards of 2 CFR200” (the Uniform Guidance)
i) Issue an annual report on the City’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ii) Render an opinion on the City’s compliance with requirements applicable to each Major Program
iii) Render a report on the City’s internal controls over the administration of Federal units. d) Provide guidance on implementing new GASB pronouncements and specifics of Federal and State of California regulations as they pertain to local government accounting. e) Provide information on new developments, trends and changing requirements pertaining to auditing and accounting standards.
f) Provide interpretations of federal and state rules and regulations.

A-2
g) Provide impact of new or existing tax laws.
h) Provide assistance in meeting the requirements of the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program.
i) Provide a presentation to City Council to discuss audit approach, scope of work, and results. 2) Consultant will keep the City apprised of the status of performance by delivering the following status updates:
a) Planning Phase and additional items required from the City b) Internal Control Review along with recommended improvements c) Compliance Testing
d) Field Work
e) Audit findings and recommendations
f) Draft financial statements
g) Draft audit report
h) Draft Management letters outlining a summary of findings and recommendations as needed. 3) All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City. 4) Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
a) Cristy Canieda – Engagement Lead Partner
b) Roger A Martinez – Technical Review Partner
c) Isidro Conde – Senior Manager
d) Angelica Rufino – IT Manager
e) Additional staff auditors may be assigned as needed

B-1
EXHIBIT “B”

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text is indicated in bold italics, deleted text is indicated in strikethrough.

I. Section 6.3, “Ownership of Documents,” of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.

All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City. This provision is not applicable to audit working papers prepared in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards as set forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (GAAS) or the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards (current edition) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (GAGAS).”

C-1
EXHIBIT “C”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:

Optional Years
Task 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
A. Financial Audit 29,100 30,023 30,941 31,954 32,964
B. Single Audit 5,900 6,077 6,259 6,446 6,366
Totals 35,000 36,100 37,200 38,400 39,600

II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of services.

III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task sub-budget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.9.

IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:

A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.

B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.

C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.

D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services.

V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.

D-1
EXHIBIT “D”

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule:

Fiscal Year 2020-21 Days to Perform Deadline Date
A. Task A As Required May 15, 2022
B. Task B As Required May 15, 2022
Fiscal Year 2021-22
Days to Perform Deadline Date
A. Task A As Required Dec. 15, 2022
B. Task B As Required Dec. 15, 2022
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Days to Perform Deadline Date
A. Task A As Required Dec. 15, 2023
B. Task B As Required Dec. 15, 2023
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates;
Fiscal Year 2020-21
A. Draft Financial Statements – April 15, 2022.

B. A Draft Audit Report – four weeks following completion of field work phase or in no case later than May 1, 2022.

C. 10 physical copies and one electronic copy of the Final Audit Report – May 15, 2022.

D. Management letters outlining a summary of findings and recommendations as needed – May 15, 2022.

Fiscal Year 2021-22
A. Draft Financial Statements – November 1, 2022.

B. A Draft Audit Report – four weeks following completion of field work or in no case later than November 1, 2022.

C. 40 physical copies and one electronic copy of the Final Audit Report – December 15, 2022.

D-2
D. Management letters outlining a summary of findings and recommendations December 15, 2022.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
A. Draft Financial Statements – November 1, 2023.

B. A Draft Audit Report – four weeks following completion of field work or in no case later than November 1, 2023.

C. 10 physical copies and one electronic copy of the Final Audit Report – December 15, 2023.

D. Management letters outlining a summary of findings and recommendations December 15, 2023.

III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.a.

DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 04, APPROVING THE PROGRAMMING OF THE ANNUAL

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-2023
SUMMARY: Provide the Council with recommendations for the use of the City’s estimated Fiscal Year 2022-2023 CDBG allocation, keeping in mind the priority of need and eligibility. Public Notice was posted December 09, 2021.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-04 and authorize City Manager and/or designee to execute an agreement for the Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023 CDBG project with the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA), subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney;

2. Reprogram $123,000 from the Fiscal Year '21-'22 Public Facilities and Improvements - City Hall Restroom ADA Upgrade project to the FY 2022 - 2023 "2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project;" and

3. Authorize City Manager and/or designee to adjust the project amounts, as necessary, to reconcile LACDA's final CDBG allocations and any amounts unexpended at the close of FY 2021 - 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project was included in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 proposed budget and is provided by CDBG grant funds. Funds are expected to be $223,000. Additionally, the City has approximately $36,800 in un-programmed funds.

The total amount available for programming is approximately $259,800. Final numbers will be provided by the LACDA in early March 2022.

DISCUSSION: On October 4, 2021, LACDA informed cities of their 2022 - 2023 CDBG estimated allocation. Planning Summaries are due to LACDA by February 1 each fiscal year, and require a Council-approved resolution for upcoming fiscal year programs.

LACDA consolidates Planning Summaries from all participating cities, and releases final CDBG program allocations by the end of March each year.

The continuation of a successful public safety program that has been funded through CDBG will deploy a Code Enforcement officer to eligible areas of the City to provide community enhancement services to deter blight, illegal business activity and property maintenance challenges.

The continuation of a successful road rehabilitation program will improve the City's infrastructure and road conditions by funding a portion of the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation project. As with last year, this project has multiple funding sources to implement the grouping of city streets in need of significant repairs. In May of 2021, Council approved SB1 program funds to rehabilitate the roads south of New Temple Middle School. These CDBG funds will be applied to additional street repairs for the poorest conditions along Klingerman, Chico, Floradale and Portrero.

The reprogramming of $123,000 from the City Hall Restroom ADA Upgrades project will help fully fund the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Staff has identified California Natural Resources Agency grant funds to cover City Hall restroom upgrades.

Additional details are provided in Exhibit A.

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. CDBG Funding for FY22-23
B. Resolution No. 22-04

ATTACHMENT A

Recommendation 1
Reprogram funds for the Public Facilities and Improvements – City Hall Restrooms Upgrade to the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project This project was programmed under Fiscal Year 2021-2022. The project was allocated $123,000 (CDBG funding).

The goal of the programming of these funds was to perform ADA restroom upgrade at City Hall.

Staff recommends the funds be reprogrammed to the 2022 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation project where it is best utilized to improve public roadways.

Recommendation 2
New Programming of the following projects for Fiscal Year 2022-2023:

Project 1: Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project for $159,800 ($123,000 FY21-22 carry-over +$36,800 of unallocated funds). The new project provides for the rehabilitation of residential streets through asphalt concrete cold mill & overlay, localized reconstruction asphalt repairs, slurry seal, traffic striping and all related work.

Project 2: Code Enforcement Program for $100,000. CDBG funds will be used for personnel and non-personnel costs associated with one Code Enforcement Officer dedicated to designated census tracks in South El Monte.

Total Budget Amount is estimated at $259,800.

ATTACHMENT B

RESOLUTION NO. 22-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL,

AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF THE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2022-2023.

WHEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program has operated since 1974 to provide local governments the resources to meet the needs of persons of low-and moderate-income; and
WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte contracts with the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) for the disbursement of CDBG Funds, through the Small Cities Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of South El Monte will receive an estimated total of $223,000 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in Community Development Block Grant Funds and $36,800 in previous years’ unallocated funds, for a total of $259,800; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing, with the required prior noticing to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the programs proposed for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Community Development Block Grant Funds Program, which include: (i) the 2022 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation project and (ii) the Code Enforcement Program.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 in the amount of $259,800 and instructs staff to submit the necessary document and a copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County Development Authority.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes City staff to adjust the Program budget as necessary throughout the Fiscal Year. This includes, but is not limited to, allocating amounts on a per project basis, adjusting project budgets, implementing a new or cancelling existing activities, to allow for the timely expenditure of CDBG funds.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute agreements with LACDA in connection the 2022-2023 CDBG project, subject to City Attorney approval.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 11th day of January, 2022.

________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor

ATTEST:
____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-04 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte, at a special meeting of said Council held on January 11, 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.b.

DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
APPROVED BY: Rachel Barbosa, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Colby Cataldi, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 22- 05, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND FIRST READING
OF ORDINANCE NO. 1256 FOR A PROPOSED ZONE
CHANGE
SUMMARY: Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) is proposing the development of 106,137 square foot commercial and residential mixed use building. The development requires a Zone Change ("ZC") from Commercial-Manufacturing ("C-M") to CommercialResidential ("C-R") and a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") from CommercialManufacturing to Mixed Use (“proposed Project” or “Project”). The proposed Project will include 8 commercial ground floor units and 73 residential units, 67 will be market rate and 6 will be affordable units (2 very low income and 4 low income units).

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-05 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and General Plan Amendment. Staff also recommends City Council conduct a first reading of Ordinance 1256.

FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact.

DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request for the Proposed Project on December 21, 2021 and voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") and Subdivision request upon City Council's adoption of the Mitigated Degative Declaration ("MND"), Mitigated Monitoring & Reporting Program ("MMRP"), ZC, and GPA.

General Plan Amendment
The six parcels are designated as “Commercial-Manufacturing” Land Use category in the City’s General Plan; the applicant is requesting a General Plan amendment to allow for a change in land use designation from Commercial-Manufacturing to Mixed Use. The

proposed amendment would allow the site to be developed with residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with land use designation that is currently applicable to the properties at the adjacent intersection. Furthermore, the General Plan amendment is intended to promote balanced and dynamic economic growth in the area, and address the residential needs of the City and surrounding region. The amendment would also be consistent with the following goals and objectives of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan as follows:

Land Use Element
Goal 1.0: Maintain a balanced mix and distribution of land uses throughout South El Monte by allowing for the development of a mixed use development by providing both residential and commercial uses in one project and said project is not common within the City.

Policy 1.1: Provide opportunities for housing development at a range of densities and housing types that accommodate the varied interests and needs of present and future residents. This Project will serve the area by greatly expanding the housing stock in the City. Currently the Property is undeveloped, and will create 73 rental units.

Policy 1.2: Allow for the transition of mixed-density neighborhoods to higher density development consistent with underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations.

The nonconforming neighborhood has an average density of approximately 21 dwelling units per acre and this Project will provide a higher density of 42.2 dwelling units per acre.

Goal 2: Focus on revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility by approving a development that provides new commercial opportunities along the City’s highest traveled corridor.

Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses by allowing for the establishment of a large mixed use commercial/residential development that fits with the surrounding uses.

Goal 6.0: Provide for the revitalization of deteriorating land uses and properties by developing a property that has lain vacant for many years and has been underdeveloped.

Housing Element
Goal 1: An adequate supply of a variety of housing types to meet the existing and future needs of City residents by allowing the proposed Project to offer new mixed-use for-rent housing that is uncommon in the City.

Policy 1.1: The City shall provide adequate sites to facilitate the development of a range of residential development types that fulfills its regional housing needs, including lowdensity single-family units, moderate- to higher-density single-family attached and multiple-family units. This development will fulfill a need the City has in regards to their housing needs by providing multi-family units at a range from very low income, to low income, to market rate.

Goal 3: Compatible land uses that meet the needs of residents, employers and employees. The development of housing in this industrial, retail, and nonconforming residential area will help visually as well as physically seamlessly transition between the residential uses in the area and industrial uses.

Policy 3.3: The City shall encourage development of higher density housing in close proximity to public transportation, services, employment, recreation, and other resources and amenities. This is accomplished through the Project consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses located near high quality bus routes that are between 500 feet to

1.3 miles away.

Zone Change

In order to allow for the proposed use, a change to the zoning designation will also be required. Currently, the zoning of the Property is “C-M” (Commercial-Manufacturing) and the zoning designation would have to be amended to be consistent with the Property’s new General Plan designation. Therefore, the request includes a zone change from “CM” (Commercial-Manufacturing) zone to “C-R” (Commercial-Residential) in order to allow for the development of the Project. To permit the rezoning of the subject site to C-R would allow for the creation of a quality residential development at the site which would help alleviate a housing need in the City.

As analyzed by staff, the proposed change is compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area along Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue. The immediate surrounding area is made up of a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial uses which complement the proposed Project. Therefore, staff has determined, and the Planning Commission accepted, that the following findings can be made in favor of the proposed zone change pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section

17.66.040 (Planning Commission procedure) of Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations) of the South El Monte Municipal Code:

1. Substantial proof exists that the proposed change will promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City by allowing for the development of the property with a mix of residential and commercial uses that will benefit the City as a whole. Currently, the property is underdeveloped and underutilized and the proposed change will allow for improvements to the property that will address housing needs, diversity of commercial options for the residents and beautification;

2. The proposed change is in conformance with purpose of Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations) the Municipal Code, and with all applicable, officially adopted policies and plans by changing the Property to the C-R Zone so that the mixed use development will conform to the Zoning Code and General Plan;

3. Streets and public facilities existing or proposed are adequate to serve all uses permitted when the property is reclassified since the use will not change the level of service of the surrounding streets because the surrounding area is already developed as commercial, manufacturing, and residential. Also it was found that the wastewater generation, storm drainage facilities, and water services all are anticipated to meet project demands; and

4. All uses permitted when the Property is reclassified will be compatible with present and potential future uses, and further, existing regulations applying to the property in question since commercial uses are already allowed under the current zoning, nonconforming residential uses are also present in the area and the Project as proposed complies with the South El Monte Municipal Code.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study was conducted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3, §15063; §15070). The study concluded that there will be less than significant impacts with project mitigation.

Conclusion
The proposed Project is consistent with the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed mixed use commercial/residential development will provide

new housing for the City, as well as a high quality commercial opportunities. In staff’s opinion the proposed Project is well designed, representing a quality mixed use development that will promote opportunities for the City. The proposed development will develop a site that has been underutilized for several decades into a viable asset for the City and the community generating property and sales taxes and increasing property values.

Staff Report Prepared by: Ian McAleese, Assistant Planner

ATTACHMENT(S):

A. Ordinance No. 1255
B. Resolution No. 22-05
C. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-13

ATTACHMENT A

ORDINANCE NO. 1255

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE

ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2727
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD, 9340-9352 MABEL AVENUE,
AND APNS 5281-002-009 AND 5281-002-011
WHEREAS, Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application for a Zone Change to change the land use designation of property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340- 9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002-011 in South El Monte (“Property” or “project site”) from the zoning designation of “Commercial-Manufacturing” to “CommercialResidential” in order to allow for a mixed use development consisting of 73 residential apartments with first floor commercial (“Project” or “proposed Project”); WHEREAS, pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section 17.66.040, the Project requires Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council because the Project consists of property rezoning; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 21, 2021, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination and it voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on January 11, 2022, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the City Council in making its determination.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines” and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, City staff had an initial study prepared of the potential environmental effects of the proposed CUP. Based on the information contained in the initial study, staff determined that there was less than substantial evidence that approval of the proposed redesignations may have significant environmental impact with mitigating measures. Accordingly, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the period of November 30, 2021 through December 20, 2021. Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of said Guidelines, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the contents of the initial study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Pursuant to the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution No. 22-05, the City Council approves Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.

Based on the initial study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the comments received thereon, and the record before the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project represents the independent judgment of the City and that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment may have any significant environmental impact with mitigating measures implemented. The documents and other materials which constitute the record on which this decision is based, are maintained by the City’s Department of Community Development.

SECTION 2: Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.66.040, the City Council hereby finds as follows for the proposed Zone Change (No. 20-13):

1. Substantial proof exists that the proposed change will promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City by allowing for the development of the property with a mix of residential and commercial uses that will benefit the City as a whole. Currently, the property is underdeveloped and underutilized and the proposed change will allow for improvements to the property that will address housing needs, diversity of commercial options for the residents and beautification;

2. The proposed change is in conformance with purpose of Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations) the Municipal Code, and with all applicable, officially adopted policies and plans by changing the Property to the C-R Zone so that the mixed use development will conform to the Zoning Code and General Plan;

3. Streets and public facilities existing or proposed are adequate to serve all uses permitted when the property is reclassified since the use will not change the level of service of the surrounding streets because the surrounding area is already developed as commercial, manufacturing, and residential. Also it was found that the wastewater generation, storm drainage facilities, and water services all are anticipated to meet project demands; and

4. All uses permitted when the Property is reclassified will be compatible with present and potential future uses, and further, existing regulations applying to the property in question since commercial uses are already allowed under the current zoning, nonconforming residential uses are also present in the area and the Project as proposed complies with the South El Monte Municipal Code.

SECTION 3: Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby changes the zoning designation for property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002-011 from “C-M” (Commercial-Manufacturing) to “C-R” (Commercial-Residential), as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and hereby incorporated by this reference. The City Council hereby directs City staff to amend the City’s official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning designation.

SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, 2022. ________________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:

Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Anthony R. Taylor, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance, being Ordinance No. 1255 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte, at a meeting of said Council held on January 25, 2022 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

Exhibit A
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning

ATTACHMENT B

RESOLUTION NO. 22-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (NO. 21-14) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2727 ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD, 9340-9352 MABEL AVENUE, AND APNS 5281-002-009 AND 5281-002-011
WHEREAS, Wilson Ye/Mye Plaza LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002-011 in South El Monte (“Property” or “project site”) from General Plan Land Use Category “Commercial-Manufacturing” to “Mixed Use” in order to allow for a mixed use development consisting of 73 residential apartments with first floor commercial (“Project” or “proposed Project”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section

17.66.040, the Project requires Planning Commission review and recommendation to City Council because the Project consists of property rezoning; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 24, 2021, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination and it voted unanimously to recommend adoption/approval of the resolution/ordinance; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on January 11, 2022, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the City Council in making its determination.

THE SOUTH EL MONTE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. A record of the public hearing indicates the following:

The proposed amendment would allow the site to be developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses, which is consistent with the area. Furthermore, the Code amendment is intended to promote balanced and dynamic economic growth in the area and address the commercial and residential needs of the City and surrounding region. The amendment would also be consistent with the following goals and objectives of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan:

Land Use Element
(1) Goal 1.0: Maintain a balanced mix and distribution of land uses throughout South El Monte by allowing for the development of a mixed use development by providing both

residential and commercial uses in one project and said project is not common within the City;
(2) Policy 1.1: Provide opportunities for housing development at a range of densities and housing types that accommodate the varied interests and needs of present and future residents. This Project will serve the area by greatly expanding the housing stock in the City. Currently the Property is undeveloped, and will create 73 rental units; (3) Policy 1.2: Allow for the transition of mixed-density neighborhoods to higher density development consistent with underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations.

The nonconforming neighborhood has an average density of approximately 21 dwelling units per acre and this Project will provide a higher density of 42.2 dwelling units per acre;
(4) Goal 2: Focus on revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility by approving a development that provides new commercial opportunities along the City’s highest traveled corridor;
(5) Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses by allowing for the establishment of a large mixed use commercial/residential development that fits with the surrounding uses; (6) Goal 6.0: Provide for the revitalization of deteriorating land uses and properties by developing a property that has lain vacant for many years and has been underdeveloped; Housing Element
(7) Goal 1: An adequate supply of a variety of housing types to meet the existing and future needs of City residents by allowing the proposed Project to offer new mixed-use for-rent housing that is uncommon in the City;
(8) Policy 1.1: The City shall provide adequate sites to facilitate the development of a range of residential development types that fulfills its regional housing needs, including lowdensity single-family units, moderate- to higher-density single-family attached and multiple-family units. This development will fulfill a need the City has in regards to their housing needs by providing multi-family units at a range from very low income, to low income, to market rate;
(9) Goal 3: Compatible land uses that meet the needs of residents, employers and employees.

The development of housing in this industrial, retail, and nonconforming residential area will help visually as well as physically seamlessly transition between the residential uses in the area and industrial uses; and
(10) Policy 3.3: The City shall encourage development of higher density housing in close proximity to public transportation, services, employment, recreation, and other resources and amenities. This is accomplished through the Project consisting of a mix of residential and commercial uses located near high quality bus routes that are between 500 feet to 1.3 miles away.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines” and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, City staff had an initial study prepared of the potential environmental effects of the proposed CUP. Based on the information contained in the initial study, staff determined that there was less than substantial evidence that approval of the proposed re-designations may have significant environmental impact with mitigating measures.

Accordingly, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the period of November 30, 2021 through December 20, 2021.

Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of said Guidelines, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the contents of the initial study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Pursuant to the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution No. 22-05, the City Council approves Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.

Based on the initial study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the comments received thereon, and the record before the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project represents the independent judgment of the City and that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment may have any significant environmental impact with mitigating measures implemented. The documents and other materials which constitute the record on which this decision is based, are maintained by the City’s Department of Community Development.

SECTION 3. Based on the above findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program along with General Plan Amendment (No. 20-14) to change the land use designation of property located at 2727 Rosemead Boulevard, 9340-9352 Mabel Avenue, and APNs 5281-002-009 and 5281-002- 011 from “Commercial-Manufacturing” to “Mixed Use” as shown in Exhibit “A” hereto and hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of January, 2022. ________________________
Gloria Olmos, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 22-05 was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of South El Monte, at a special meeting of said Council held on January 11, 2022 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Donna G. Schwartz, City Clerk

Exhibit A
Existing General Plan Designation
Proposed General Plan Designation
General Plan
General Plan

ATTACHMENT C

MYE PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared By
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Prepared For
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
November 2021

Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Date November 2021

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table of Contents
i Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study............................................................................1

1.2 Summary of Findings......................................................................................................1

1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process.................................................................................1

1.4 Report Organization .......................................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................3

2.1 Project Location and Existing Setting ..............................................................................3

2.2 Land Use Designations....................................................................................................4

2.3 Project Characteristics....................................................................................................4

2.4 Construction Activities.................................................................................................. 35

2.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals ....................................................................... 35

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST........................................................................................................ 36 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................... 38

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 48

4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 48

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.............................................................................. 59

4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 61

4.4 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 70

4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................ 73

4.6 Energy.......................................................................................................................... 76

4.7 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................... 80

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................... 85

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................. 91

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 97

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 103

4.12 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................... 106

4.13 Noise.......................................................................................................................... 107

4.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................. 114

4.15 Public Services............................................................................................................ 116

4.16 Recreation.................................................................................................................. 120

4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 122

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................ 130

Table of Contents
ii Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 135

4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 140

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................ 142

5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 143 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional and Local Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................7 Exhibit 2a: Site Plan - First Floor...............................................................................................................9 Exhibit 2b: Site Plan – Second Floor....................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 2c: Site Plan – Third Floor........................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 2d: Site Plan – Fourth Floor........................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 3a: Conceptual Exterior Rendering............................................................................................. 17 Exhibit 3b: Conceptual Exterior Rendering............................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 3c: Conceptual Exterior Rendering ............................................................................................. 21 Exhibit 4: Conceptual Renderings .......................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 5a: Landscaping Plan.................................................................................................................. 25 Exhibit 5b: Landscaping Plan – Second Floor.......................................................................................... 27 Exhibit 6a: Conceptual Parking Plan – Ground Level............................................................................... 29 Exhibit 6b: Conceptual Parking Plan – Parking Deck ............................................................................... 31 Exhibit 7a: Shade Shadow Modeling - Spring Equinox ............................................................................ 51 Exhibit 7b: Shade Shadow Modeling - Summer Solstice ......................................................................... 53 Exhibit 7c: Shade Shadow Modeling – Fall Equinox ................................................................................ 55 Exhibit 7d: Shade Shadow Modeling – Winter Solstice........................................................................... 57 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses............................................................................................................4 Table 2-2: Project Summary.....................................................................................................................5 Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary.......................................................................................................5 Table 2-4: Project Parking...................................................................................................................... 33 Table 4.3-1: Construction Emissions ...................................................................................................... 64 Table 4.3-2: Operational Emissions........................................................................................................ 64 Table 4.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions...................................... 67 Table 4.8-1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................... 87 Table 4.9-1: LUST and Cleanup Sites ...................................................................................................... 93

Table of Contents
iii Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4.11-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis.................................................................................. 103 Table 4.13-1: Exterior Noise Limits....................................................................................................... 109 Table 4.13-2: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment...................................... 110 Table 4.13-3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment...................................................... 112 Table 4.14-1: RHNA Requirement by Income Level .............................................................................. 114 Table 4.15-1: Nearby County Library Facilities ..................................................................................... 118 Table 4.17-1: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 124 Table 4.17-2: Project VMT Impact Evaluation ...................................................................................... 127 Table 4.19-1: Future Wastewater Generation...................................................................................... 135 Table 4.19-2: Project Water Demand................................................................................................... 137 Table 4.19-3: County of San Bernardino Landfill Capacities.................................................................. 138 Table 4.19-4: Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation ..................................................................... 138 List of Appendices
A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
B. Cultural Resources Records Search
C. Geotechnical Study
D. Paleontological Records Search
E. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F. Hydrology and Water Quality Studies
G. Transportation Study
H. Native American Tribal Consultation Correspondence

Table of Contents
iv Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Section 1.0
Introduction
1 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15000 et seq.), this Initial Study has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”). This Initial Study includes a description of the proposed Project; evaluates each of the environmental issue areas identified in the environmental checklist form provided in Section 3.0; and recommends standard conditions and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid the project’s significant adverse impacts on the environment.

Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of South El Monte (City) is the Lead Agency for the project. The Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City has the authority for environmental review in accordance with CEQA and certification of the environmental documentation. Any responsible agency may elect to use this environmental analysis for discretionary actions associated with the implementation of the project.

1.2 Summary of Findings
Based on the environmental checklist form completed for the proposed project and supporting environmental analysis, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gases, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfires. The proposed project’s impacts on the following issue areas would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. All impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) can be prepared when the Initial Study has identified potentially significant environmental impacts but revisions have been made to the Project, prior to public review of the Initial Study, that would avoid or mitigate the impacts to a level considered less than significant; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, may have a significant effect on the environment.

1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provided to the County of Los Angeles Clerk-Recorder and mailed to responsible agencies, nearby property owners, and others who expressed interest in being notified. A 20-day public review period has been established for the IS/MND in accordance with Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines. During the public review period, the IS/MND, including the technical appendices, can be accessed on the City’s website and is available for review at the location identified below.
https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/185/Planning

Section 1.0
Introduction
2 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South El Monte
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts and the ways in which the potentially significant effects of the project can be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the IS/MND and the analysis contained herein may be sent to:

Ian McAleese, Assistant Planner
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
(626) 579-6540 extension 3201
[email protected]
Comments sent via email should include the project title in the subject line and a valid mailing address in the email.

Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals, the City of South El Monte will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised. If so, further documentation may be required. If not or if the issues raised do not provide substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the IS/MND and the project will be considered for adoption and approval, respectively.

1.4 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.

Section 2.0 – Project Description. This section identifies key project characteristics and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.

Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation.

Section 4.0 – Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist.

Section 5.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.

Section 2.0
Project Description
3 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location and Existing Setting
The project site is shown in a regional and local context at Exhibit 1, Regional and Local Vicinity Map. The project site is located at 2727 N. Rosemead Boulevard in the western portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 1.73-acre project site includes six parcels legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 5281-002-005, -006, -009, -010, -011, -018. The property is generally bordered by Mabel Avenue to the north, Rosemead Boulevard (State Route [SR] 164) to the east, a mobile home park and Troy Avenue to the south, and light industrial uses to the west. Regional access is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10), which is located approximately 0.75 mile north of the project site, and the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), which is located approximately 1.4 miles south of the project site.

Local access into the project site is currently restricted by locked gates, although there are driveways on Mabel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard for private access. Public, on‐street parking is provided along parts of Mabel Avenue. No on-street parking is allowed on Rosemead Boulevard.

The proposed project is approximately 0.2 mile east of the Rio Hondo bikeway. There are no existing bike lanes on Rosemead Boulevard or Mabel Avenue. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies future bikeways in the project vicinity including a Class II bikeway along Rosemead Boulevard and a Class III bikeway along Loma Avenue and Mabel Avenue.

Public transit service is provided by Foothill Transit, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and Norwalk Transit. Foothill Transit provides fixed-route bus public transit service to the San Gabriel Valley in the greater Los Angeles area. Foothill Transit has north-south fixed-route bus service that operates from the El Monte Station to the Montebello Town Center with a bus stop is at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue approximately 1.3 miles east of the project site.

Metro provides bus rapid transit service throughout Los Angeles County. Four fixed-route (three northsouth routes and one east-west route) lines are near the project site. Bus stops are located within approximately 430 feet of the project site. Norwalk Transit provides rapid bus and paratransit services in the City of Norwalk, along with several adjacent cities, including the City of South El Monte. The nearest bus stop is at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue, which is approximately 1.3 miles east from the project site.

The project site has been used as large vehicle storage and junk yard and includes concrete paving in the southern and eastern portions of the site and gravel paving throughout the remainder of the site. The site is fenced. A small, dilapidated six-foot by six-foot guard shack is located at the southeast property boundary. There is existing perimeter landscaping along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage and sparse vegetation on Mabel Avenue. There are eight trees on the site: two bottlebrush, one juniper, one caster bean, and one ligustrum along Rosemead Boulevard; one juniper tree on the southwestern corner of the site; one ash tree on the southeast portion of the site; and one dead tree on the south-central portion of the site. There are sidewalks along the project site frontage on Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue, as well as overhead utilities on both streets. The project site is generally flat with on-site elevations ranging from approximately 241 to 243 feet above mean sea level (msl)1 .
1 Topographic Map. Calland Engineering, Inc., 2020.

Section 2.0
Project Description
4 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Land uses near the project site are summarized in Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses.

Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Land Uses
North Mabel Avenue; car wash; dental office and commercial retail on the north side of Mabel Avenue East Rosemead Boulevard; car wash, commercial retail and surface parking, Bruin Avenue and light industrial uses east of Rosemead Boulevard
South Mobile home park, single-family residences, Troy Avenue West Single-family residences, light industrial uses, Lee Avenue

2.2 Land Use Designations
General Plan
The project site has a General Plan designation of Commercial-Manufacturing (CM). According to the City of South El Monte General Plan, the CM designation allows for general commercial and limited manufacturing uses. The CM designation has a floor-area-ratio (FAR) limit of 0.75. Allowable uses include light manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, wholesale, and service operations. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from CM to Mixed-Use (C/R). The Mixed-Use (C/R) category provides opportunities for mixtures of commercial, office, and residential uses in the same building on the same parcel of land, or side by side within the same area. Allowable uses include those identified in the High-Density Residential and Commercial categories. Multi-family residential development is allowed at densities up to 100 units per acre (du/ac) without a requirement for commercial uses. Commercial development is allowed up to an FAR of 1.0 without a requirement for accompanying residential uses. However, commercial uses are permitted on the ground floor of an otherwise residential building. If a site designated mixed use includes both residential and commercial uses, 100 units per acre plus ground floor commercial are permitted.

Zoning
The project site is zoned Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) and the project requires a zone change to Commercial Residential (C-R). The C-R zoning district allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses, or solely commercial or residential land uses. Development standards are found in the City of South El Monte Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 17.15. Like the General Plan Mixed Use (C/R) land use designation, the residential density allowances in the C-R zoning district vary based on the zoning of abutting properties: 35 du/ac when abutting a single-family zone; 87 du/ac when abutting a multi-family zone; and 100 du/ac when not abutting any residential zone. The project site abuts properties with a Manufacturing (M) designation to the west and south, and a Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) designation on all other sides. Accordingly, per Municipal Code Table 17.15-B, the maximum residential density for the project site is 100 du/ac. The proposed project would have a density of 42.4 du/ac and would meet current development standards for the C-R zoning district.

2.3 Project Characteristics
Site Development
The conceptual site plan for each floor of the project is provided at Exhibits 2a-2d, Site Plan. As proposed, the project would allow for a 4-story, 106,137-square-foot (sf) mixed-use residential and retail building.

Section 2.0
Project Description
5 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-2: Project Summary table identifies proposed uses and associated square footage. The maximum proposed building height would be 59 feet (to top of roof, excluding parapet). The retail component would be limited to the ground floor while the residential component occupies the second, third, and fourth floors.

Table 2-2: Project Summary
Use Type Net Square Feet
Residential 89,337
Food Retail 3,170
Commercial Retail 13,630
Total 106,137
Source: SLA Architects, 2020.

Retail Component
The ground floor commercial retail uses are proposed along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage, and would wrap around to Mabel Avenue. Commercial retail uses could include but not be limited to, a mini market, café, restaurant, and other sale and service uses. Eight retail lease spaces are proposed and would range from 1,460 sf to 3,335 sf. Pedestrian access to the ground-floor retail and food establishments would be provided from the existing public sidewalks on Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue. Additional pedestrian entrances are provided at the back of each lease space for access from the parking garage.

Residential Component
Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary presents the breakdown of dwelling unit type for the proposed project. The project would include a mix of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom leasable apartment units ranging in size from 770 sf to 1,469 sf. Of the 73 rental units, the project includes 4 lowincome and 2 very low-income housing units. Municipal Code Chapter 17.83, Density Bonus Procedures, allows incentives for the production of housing for very low income and lower income households in accordance with Government Code Sections 65915—65918 with the intent to facilitate the development of affordable housing in the City. The City has determined that the project is eligible for a concession, which is addressed under Parking and Circulation.

Table 2-3: Residential Unit Summary
Unit Type Net Square Feet Total Units
Type A (2 bed, 2.5 bathroom) 1,008 39
Type B (1 bed, 1.5 bathroom) 770 28
Type C (3 bed, 3 bathroom) 1,469 6
Total 73
Source: SLA Architects, 2020.

Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting
Conceptual exterior elevations and renderings are shown at Exhibit 3a to Exhibit 3c, Conceptual Exterior Elevations and Exhibit 4, Conceptual Renderings. Overall, the building would have a neutral color palette featuring yellow, brown, and tan tones with articulated building facades to minimize building massing.

The contemporary modern palladium façade would include articulated archway treatments along the

Section 2.0
Project Description
6 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ground floor retail shops. Archway supports would be finished in stucco, painted tan with a stone veneer.

Large glass windows would be provided for each retail space fronting Rosemead Boulevard and limited portions on Mabel Avenue. The upper residential floors would be finished in stucco and painted with contrasting colors including cream, tan, and terracotta. Architectural tower structures with dark terracotta concrete roof tiles would be located on northeast and southeast corners of the building.

Project site landscaping is depicted at Exhibit 5a and Exhibit 5b, Landscape Plan. Perimeter landscaping is proposed along all project boundaries. Four trees (including one caster bean, one ligustrum, and two Hollywood junipers) fronting Rosemead Boulevard would be removed. A six-foot-high concrete block wall would be constructed along the southern and western boundaries of the project site with fern pines and artificial turf adjacent to the block wall. Foxtail ferns, red impatiens, and cat mints are proposed in parking lot planter islands. A marina strawberry tree would anchor the planter at the southwest corner of the site.

Four36-inch box street trees would also be provided along Mabel Avenue. The second-story courtyard is proposed to have artificial turf, trellises, benches, two reflection ponds and an olive tree with cobblestone pavers. Shrub planters with purple fountain grass, red autumn sage, and smooth agave are also proposed.

Project lighting would include light sources typically used in mixed-use developments, including outdoor lighting for security and wayfinding. Standard parking light posts would be provided along the uncovered parking area in the southern portion of the project site. Additionally, exterior lighting fixtures along the building frontage would provide illumination for retail storefronts. Planters would also include the standard parking light posts.

Parking and Circulation
The conceptual layout of the ground level and parking deck of the on-site parking garage is shown in Exhibit 6a and Exhibit 6b, Conceptual Parking Plan, respectively. Table 2-4: Project Parking summarizes City parking requirements and parking provided by the project. The project would provide 223 vehicle parking spaces in a ground floor parking garage and an above-ground parking deck, situated between the ground floor and second floor. Specifically, the project would provide 216 standard size parking spaces and 5 designated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) handicap spaces; all ADA handicap spaces are located on the ground floor. The project includes 113 parking spaces in a ground level parking garage for guest parking and commercial retail uses. Bicycle storage would be provided on the ground level of the parking garage. An above ground (resident only) parking deck would have 110 spaces. A loading space would also be provided near the site access driveway on Rosemead Boulevard for large delivery trucks.

The standard parking standards for multi-family development require two parking spaces per residential unit; however, the project qualifies for a density bonus incentive that allows for a parking requirement modification. Municipal Code Section 17.83.040 allows one incentive for housing projects that include at least ten percent of the total units for lower-income households, and five percent of the total units for very low-income households. Based on the Applicant’s request for a reduction in parking for the residential component of the project, the City is allowing the project to split the two requirements and is allowing 50 percent of the units in each of the two categories to meet the incentive criteria for a reduced on-site parking requirement.

EXHIBIT 1: Regional and Local Vicinity Map
Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Garvey Avenue
Mabel Avenue
Lee Avenue
Project Site
Garvey Avenue
Rosemead Boulevard
City of South El Monte
Pacific Ocean
Los Angeles
Troy Avenue
Rio Hondo
Rosemead Boulevard

Section 2.0
Project Description
8 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2a: Site Plan - First Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
10 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2b: Site Plan - Second Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
12 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2c: Site Plan - Third Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
14 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 2d: Site Plan - Fourth Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
16 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXHIBIT 3a: Conceptual Exterior Elevations - West and South Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
18 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 3b: Conceptual Exterior Elevations - East and North Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
20 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXHIBIT 3c: Conceptual Exterior Elevations - Building Sections Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
22 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXHIBIT 4: Conceptual Renderings
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
24 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 5a: Landscape Plan
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
26 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 5b: Landscape Plan - Second Floor
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
28 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 6a: Conceptual Parking Plan - Ground Level
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
30 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 6b: Conceptual Parking Plan - Parking Deck
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 2.0
Project Description
32 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Section 2.0
Project Description
33 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-4: Project Parking identifies the adjusted parking requirements for the project.

Table 2-4: Project Parking
Use Type Project Details Required Provided Difference
Residential
(2 spaces per unit) 73 DU 146 110 -36
Residential Guest
(1 space per four
residential units)
— 18 15 -3
Food: Restaurant
(1 space per 4 seats)
3,180 sf
(est. 75 seats) 19
98 +34
Commercial: Retail
(1 space per 300 sf) 13,620 sf 45
Total 228 223 -5
DU = dwelling unit; sf = square feet
Source: SLA Architects, 2020.

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from three driveways: two driveways on Mabel Avenue and one on Rosemead Boulevard. The driveway on Rosemead Boulevard would be 28 feet wide, and would be restricted to a right-in, right-out turning movements. The Rosemead Boulevard driveway would lead to a 26-foot-wide drive aisle to the ground floor retail parking on the south side of the project site. The Rosemead Boulevard driveway would also provide emergency access to the site.

The first driveway on Mabel Avenue (closest to Rosemead Boulevard) would be 24 feet wide and provide access to the public ground floor parking garage. This driveway would lead to covered parking stalls provided by the above-ground residential parking deck. The second driveway on Mabel Avenue would be

23.5 feet wide and lead to the private residential above-ground parking deck. Access to the above-ground residential parking deck would be secured by a gate. There would be no turning movement restrictions from Mabel Avenue.

Primary pedestrian access to the residential units would be from an elevator and stairwell in the residential lobby, which would be adjacent to the key-card gated parking deck ramp on Mabel Avenue.

The elevator and stairwell in the residential lobby would provide access to the above-ground parking deck and all residential floors above.

A second stairwell near the southwestern corner of the building would provide access to the ground floor of the parking garage to the above-ground parking deck and all residential floors above. A third stairwell at the southeastern corner of the building would provide the same access as the other stairwells but be located adjacent to the ground floor commercial retail uses. Lastly, a fourth stairwell at the northwestern corner would provide access only between the ground floor parking garage and the above-ground parking deck.

Section 2.0
Project Description
34 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Open Space and Amenities
Municipal Code Section 17.15.040 identifies that the C-R zoning designation requires a minimum outdoor space of 140 sf per dwelling unit which can be provided as common or private space2 which, for the purposes of the proposed project, would be 10,220 sf of outdoor space.

The proposed project would provide common open space in the form of an open-air courtyard, a recreation room, a fitness gym, and a library, which would total 9,625 sf of common open space. The 7,717-sf courtyard is proposed to include two trellises, artificial turf, cobblestone pavers, two reflection ponds, and bench seating. The library, recreation room, and gym would be provided on the second floor adjacent to the open-air courtyard. The project would provide 11,213 sf of private open space in the form of a private balcony or deck for each residential unit. The proposed project would satisfy the City’s outdoor space requirements for the C-R zoning designation.

Utility Infrastructure
Project implementation would require the construction of new on-site utility infrastructure to serve the residential and retail uses. These utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure in adjacent roadways, with the final sizing and design of on‐site facilities to occur during final building design and plan check.

Water and Sewer. San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC) provides water service to the project site.

The Los Angeles County Public Works Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD) maintains sewer service to the City. Upon project implementation, SGVWC and Los Angeles County Public Works CSMD would continue to serve the project site.

Drainage and Water Quality. The City owns and maintains a limited number of catch basins and storm drains while the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (County Flood Control District), a part of the Los Angeles County Public Works Division, owns and maintains a network of catch basins, storm drains and channels throughout the City. The County Flood Control District owns and operates the storm drain system near the project site.3 Upon project implementation, County Flood Control District would continue to serve the project site.

The project site was previously developed and contains remnant concrete paving in the southern and eastern sections of the site, and gravel paving throughout the remainder of the site. As such, the project site is somewhat impervious and does not promote substantial stormwater infiltration. Runoff from the project site flows in a northeast to the southwest direction. The proposed project would not alter existing drainage patterns. Site runoff would be directed to an on-site infiltration system before overflowing to existing County Flood Control District’s storm drains in Troy Avenue. Additionally, the project would implement source control measures including storm drain messages (e.g., “No Dumping - Drains to Ocean”) and signage and landscape irrigation using pressure sensors and rain sensors to reduce pollutant sources in stormwater runoff.
2 Per South El Monte Municipal Code Section 17.15.040(D), “A minimum outdoor space of one hundred forty square feet shall be provided per dwelling unit. Outdoor space may be provided as common or private space. Any common outdoor space shall have a minimum level surface dimension of twenty feet and a minimum area of 140 square feet.” 3 Los Angeles County Public Works, 2021. Los Angeles County Storm Drain System GIS Maps. Accessed from https://pw.lacounty.gov/fcd/StormDrain/index.cfm. Accessed March 17, 2021.

Section 2.0
Project Description
35 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dry Utilities and Solid Waste Management. There are aboveground and below ground utility infrastructure along Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the project site. The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas service to the project site. Both SCE and SoCalGas would continue to serve the project site. New service connections for the proposed project would connect to existing underground utility lines. No connections to the existing overhead utility lines would occur. Athens Disposal Company currently provides solid waste collection and services to the City, including the project site, and would continue to serve the project.

2.4 Construction Activities
Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 24 months. For purposes of this environmental analysis, project construction is estimated to begin in Summer 2022 and end in Summer 2024 with opening year being 2024. Construction would occur in the following sequence:
 Site clearing (removal of existing vehicle storage and containers and trees);  Site preparation;
 Grading. Approximately 100 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 200 cy of fill with 100 cy imported to the project site, inclusive of on-site grading and installation of infrastructure within existing rights-ofway. All infrastructure (i.e., storm drain, water, wastewater, dry utilities, and street improvements) would be installed within the existing rights-of-way with connections to the project site;
 Building construction; and
 Paving, architectural coating, and landscaping.

2.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
The discretionary and ministerial actions and/or approvals need for the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project requires CEQA compliance through the adoption of an IS/MND prior to approval of the project. This IS/MND is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all actions associated with the approval of the Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project. In addition, this is the primary reference document for the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project.  General Plan Amendment. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) to Mixed-Use (C/R).  Zone Change. The project site requires a zone change from Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) to Commercial Residential (C-R).
 Tentative Tract Map. The project requires review and approval of a tentative tract map for the development of 73 dwelling units and 16,800 sf of commercial retail uses.  Density Housing Bonus Agreement (Municipal Code 17.83.080). The project requires a density housing bonus agreement to reduce the project's residential parking requirement from 146 spaces to 110 spaces for residential use.
 Demolition, grading, building, and sign permits.
 Any other permit or approval required by an agency with jurisdiction over the project.

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
36 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, and would require the preparation of an EIR. Because no factors are checked, an EIR is not required.

Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
38 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
39 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
40 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
41 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
42 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
43 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
44 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
45 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
46 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?

Section 3.0
Initial Study Checklist
47 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
48 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area of the City. The site has been used as a large vehicle storage and junk yard. Besides the guard shack, there are no structures on the site. There are eight trees on the site including two bottlebrush, one juniper, one caster bean, and one ligustrum along Rosemead Boulevard; one juniper tree on the southwestern corner of the site; one ash tree on the southeast portion of the site; and one dead tree on the south-central portion of the site. Light industrial, commercial retail, and a mix of residential types including single-family and multi-family residences, and mobile homes are in the project area. The General Plan does not identify any specific scenic vistas in the City. However, the San Gabriel Mountain Range is a prominent vista within the San Gabriel Valley. The existing urban development within the surrounding project area limits views across and beyond the project site. Mabel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard do not provide long range scenic views. The proposed project would be limited to 59 feet and not obstruct any scenic vistas. Therefore, the project would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a scenic vista. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. There are no officially-designated State scenic highways proximate to the project site.

Interstate 210 (I-210) is the nearest eligible state highway, which is approximately nine miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not visible from I-210. 4 The project site does not contain any scenic
rock outcroppings or historic buildings. None of the existing on-site trees or trees in the immediate surrounding area are heritage trees. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources along an officially designed or an eligible scenic highway. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project also would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. The City does not have a scenic overlay zone district that governs scenic quality. The project site has been used as a large vehicle storage and junk yard. Project implementation would result in the development of a mixed-use building, which would be consistent with the existing surrounding residential land uses adjacent to the site to the south and single-family residences to the east at Lashbrook Avenue.

Shadows cast by the proposed project would vary in length and direction throughout the day and from season to season. The proposed project would result in new shadows cast onto surrounding residential and commercial uses, as well as onto adjacent sidewalks and roadways. An existing mobile home park is south of the project site.

The City of South El Monte does not have a specific adopted threshold to determine whether increased shade/shadow patterns are considered significant; therefore, this analysis used the City of Los Angeles’ 4 California Scenic Highway Mapping System, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed December 22, 2020.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
49 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
adopted threshold. The City of Los Angeles threshold identifies that a significant impact would result if shadow-sensitive use areas (where sunlight is important to its function) would be shaded by projectrelated structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October), compared to existing conditions.

For the proposed project, simulations were prepared to depict potential shade/shadow conditions for the following time periods:
 Spring Equinox (March 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM
 Summer Solstice (June 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM
 Fall Equinox (September 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM
 Winter Solstice (December 21): 9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM, 5 PM Shadows cast by the proposed project vary in length and direction throughout the day and from season to season. The proposed project would result in new shadows cast onto surrounding residential such as the mobile home park located 75 feet to the south of the project site, and the single-family residence and associated structures at 9336 Mabel Avenue to the west of the site, as well as onto adjacent sidewalks and public roads. As shown at Exhibit 7a through Exhibit 7d, Shade Shadow Modeling, shadow-sensitive uses near the project site would not experience significant shadow impacts, meaning no shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded for more than four hours between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM during the summer/winter solstice and or between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM during the spring/autumnal equinox. Shade and shadows are mostly cast onto Mabel Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard under all simulation scenarios. Therefore, impacts for shade and shadow are less than significant.

Compliance with C-R zoning district development standards including setbacks and building height limits would be ensured through the City’s review during application process and future review of building permits. The proposed architecture and massing would complement the existing development and would comply with the objectives and General Plan policies to ensure the compatibly of the project design with the surrounding community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials can cause reflected light (glare). Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. Materials known to cause glare, such as mirrored/reflective glass would not be used by the project. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

The project site is in an urbanized area with existing light sources, which include street lighting on Rosemead Boulevard and Mabel Avenue, the car wash on the north side of Mabel Avenue, and residential lighting from the mobile home park to the south. Additional lighting in the area includes vehicle headlights and traffic signals.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
50 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from building interiors that would pass through windows, and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., signage, street lighting, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, wayfinding, and landscape lighting). The outdoor amenities (courtyard on second floor) and landscaped areas on the site would have lighting to allow for nighttime use; lighting for security; and landscape accent lighting. Although the proposed project would introduce new sources of light, the surrounding urban area contains multiple sources of illumination. The proposed lighting would be subject to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 17.15.030 – General Development Standards for C-R zoning district. The proposed project would be required to prepare a photometric plan which would be subject to City review. Street lighting would be subject to Municipal Code Chapter 16.12.060 which would require lighting facilities designed and constructed in compliance with the City’s improvement standards and specifications. Therefore, the proposed project lighting would not cause adverse effects; the change would be a less than significant impact.

Cumulative Impacts
When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, a number of factors must be considered. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the project site and surrounding areas. The context in which public views a project is being viewed will also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. The contrast a project has with its surrounding environment may actually be reduced by the presence of other cumulative projects. For example, if most of an area becomes urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural surroundings may be less since it would not stand out in contrast as much. In order for a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the aesthetic impacts from cumulative projects would need to occur within the same geographic area to substantially alter the existing viewshed or existing scenic character of an area. The cumulative projects would need to be visible together or near each other so a viewer could perceive them in the same view. However, a change in the viewshed or character of an area from cumulative development does not necessitate the conclusion of a significant adverse effect.

There is existing development bordering the project site. There are no undeveloped properties adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity or viewshed of the project site. Other potential future projects in the viewshed would likely be renovations or rehabilitations because the project site bordered by existing development. No significant cumulative visual impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7a: Shade Shadow Modeling - Spring Equinox
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
52 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7b: Shade Shadow Modeling - Summer Solstice
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
54 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7c: Shade Shadow Modeling - Fall Equinox
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
56 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 7d: Shade Shadow Modeling - Winter Solistice
Mye Plaza Mixed Use Project

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
58 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
59 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The project site and surrounding area can be characterized as a developed urban environment. There are no agricultural and forestry resources located on or proximate to the project site.

Threshold (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, has designated the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land. This farmland category defines Urban and Built-Up Land as land developed at a density of at least 1 dwelling unit (du) per 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Land uses include but are not limited to residential, industrial, office/commercial, institutional, and public administration. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance on the project site or in the project vicinity.5 The surrounding area includes various automotive repair and servicing uses, a mobile home park, single-family residences, and commercial retail uses. No farmland would be converted.

Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
No Impact. A Williamson Act contract between local governments and private landowners restricts specified parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in return for a lower property tax assessment. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would require a zone change from Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) to Commercial Residential (C-R). Neither the existing or proposed zoning designation allows for agriculture uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning designation or a Williamson contract. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 (g))? and
Threshold (d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. There are no forest or timberland resources on the project site or in the surrounding area. The existing and proposed zoning designations for the project site do not permit such uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 5 State of California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed March 9, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
60 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Threshold (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area do not include nor are proximate to agricultural uses or forest land. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of property from agricultural or timberland uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. The General Plan does not identify any agricultural or forestry resources within the City. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
61 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.3 Air Quality
An air quality analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn, 2021) for the proposed project. The air quality modeling outputs and results are included in Appendix A of this Initial Study and the results are summarized herein.

Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) which includes all of Orange County and non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The Air Basin is approximately 6,600 square miles extending from the Pacific Ocean to the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains. The Air Basin is a coastal plain with broad valleys and low hills, and semi-arid climate. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitor air quality within the Air Basin.

The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Air quality plans describe strategies to control air pollution and measures to be implemented by a city, county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not attain federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. Non-attainment is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

The current plan is the 2016 AQMP adopted on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP is designed to meet the State and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and focuses on federal ozone and ultra-fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The SCAQMD’s AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth; to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD; and to attain clean air within the region. Projects that are considered consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP.

The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:

1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase.

With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the proposed project, the construction and operation of the project would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance; therefore, project construction and operation would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The proposed project is not forecasted to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards.

With respect to the second criterion, the project site has a General Plan designation of CommercialManufacturing (CM). The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the designation from CM to Mixed-Use (C/R). The project site is zoned Commercial-Manufacturing (C-M) and the project requires

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
62 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
a zone change to Commercial Residential (C-R). Although the proposed project would change the land use designation to allow for residential and commercial development, as discussed in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, of this Initial Study, the project would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the 2016 AQMP. As such, the project would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Additionally, the project is an infill development along Rosemead Boulevard (SR-164) near Metro transit stops and commercial land uses. Infill developments reduce emissions by reducing the need to travel long distances by some residents.6 Additionally, the SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook indicates that significant air pollutant projects may include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities. The proposed project is not defined as one of these significant uses. Therefore, the project is also consistent with the second criterion.

SCAG forecasts are based on the General Plans of municipalities in the Air Basin. As addressed in the following analysis, total project emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions increase due to the project would not interfere with the AQMP or the attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, emissions from the project would not be greater than those anticipated in the AQMP.

The determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Air Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP for the control of fugitive dust.

Threshold (b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction Emissions
Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality standards in Southern California are identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the NAAQS and by CARB in the CAAQS. The air quality standards of the following five criteria pollutants relate to development projects: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Of these criteria pollutants, the Air Basin, in which South El Monte lies, is designated non-attainment for O3 and particulate matter, meaning the Air Basin has recorded exceedances of the air quality standards for these pollutants in recent years.7
The project’s construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the project area include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, 6 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010), identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed project would have an improved location efficiency. 7 A portion of the Air Basin in Los Angeles County is also designated a non-attainment basin for lead, which is not a criteria pollutant that is relevant to this project, since air emissions of lead would not be generated by the project.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
63 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction equipment would include excavators, dozers, rollers, rubber-tired loaders, tractors, trenchers, and pavers. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on or off the site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared using CalEEMod.

In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was used to model construction emissions for ROG, NOx, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain.

NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). Sulfur oxides (SOX) belong to the family of sulfur oxide gases that are formed when fuel containing sulfur from coal and oil are burned and during industrial metal smelting processes. SO2 contributes to respiratory illness, particularly in children and the elderly, and aggravates existing heart and lung diseases.

CalEEMod allows the user to input mitigation measures such as watering the construction area to limit fugitive dust. Standard conditions that were input into CalEEMod allow for certain reduction credits (i.e., compliance with SCAQMD rules) and result in a decrease of pollutant emissions. Reduction credits are based upon studies developed by CARB, SCAQMD, and other air quality management districts throughout California, and were programmed within CalEEMod. Table 4.3-1: Construction Emissions identifiesthe anticipated daily short-term construction emissions and assumes reductions associated with Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 (Dust Control) and SC AQ-2 (Architectural Coatings). Impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants during construction. The project would be required to adhere to SCAQMD Rules 403 and 402, as part of SC AQ-1 to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions resulting from fugitive dust, and Rule 1113 as part of SC AQ-2 to reduce ROG emissions. As indicated in the table, project construction emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project’s constructionrelated impacts would be less than significant for all criteria pollutants.

Operational Emissions
Less Than Significant Impact. Table 4.3-2: Operational Emissions summarizes long-term operational emissions attributable to the proposed project. Project-generated emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use, energy, and area sources, such as the use of natural gas-fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings. Mobile and stationary (area and energy) source operational emissions would result from normal daily activities on the project site after occupancy. Mobile source emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. Energy source emissions would be generated from electricity and natural gas (non-hearth) usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. As shown in the table, emissions from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
64 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Project operational emissions would be less than significant.

Table 4.3-1: Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day) a, b
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction: 2022 3.25 33.14 20.63 0.04 9.53 5.78
Construction: 2023 2.04 16.46 20.16 0.04 1.91 0.99
Construction: 2024 24.87 8.32 12.86 0.02 0.61 0.43
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Thresholds? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD.

Refer to Appendix A
b. The modeling incorporates reduction/credits for construction emissions based on measures included in CalEEMod and as required by the SCAQMD through Rule 403. This includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2021.

Table 4.3-2: Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day) a
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 2.64 1.16 6.49 0.01 0.12 0.12
Energy Use 0.03 0.25 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Source 1.42 6.00 16.93 0.06 5.52 1.51
Total 4.09 7.41 23.53 0.07 5.66 1.65
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Thresholds? No No No No No No
ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD.

Source: Kimley-Horn, 2021.

A significant impact to air quality would occur if a project would result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The ozone precursors include ROG and NOX. The Air Basin is in non-attainment for ozone (State and federal), PM10 (State), PM2.5 (State and federal), and lead (federal, partial non-attainment in a portion of Los Angeles County). To determine whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
65 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
in non-attainment criteria pollutants or exceed the quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors, the lead agency may evaluate project emissions based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, as amended). The SCAQMD has established quantitative thresholds against which a project’s emissions could be evaluated to determine if there is a potential for a significant impact. In the event direct impacts from a project are less than significant, a project may still have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future projects are in excess of screening levels and the project’s contribution accounts for more than an insignificant proportion of the cumulative total emissions. As previously addressed, the proposed project would not result in significant construction or operational air quality impacts including non-attainment criteria pollutants. Therefore, the project’s contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would not be cumulatively considerable.

With respect to the proposed project’s construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Air Basin conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the project would comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403 (see SC AQ-1). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of a project site. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that a project mitigate its significant impacts to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, implementation of all feasible measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Air Basin, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would preclude significant constructionrelated impacts. Therefore, project-related construction emissions, in combination with emissions from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality.

As previously discussed, the proposed project would not result in long-term air quality impacts because emissions would not exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations (SC AQ-1 and SC AQ-2) would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. The SCAQMD and other entities are constantly developing emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any non-attainment criteria pollutant. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur when a project would generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors, which include populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large.

This section addresses the exposure of sensitive receptors for the following situations: CO hotspots; localized emissions concentrations, toxic air contaminants (TACs, specifically diesel particulate matter [PM]) from on-site construction; and asbestos and lead based paint during demolition.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” determines whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection caused by a proposed project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. Vehicular emissions cause CO exceedances, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections.

Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
66 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.

The Air Basin was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Further, the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot (see Section 4.17 for Traffic Trip Generation). Therefore, CO hotspots are not an environmental impact of concern for the proposed project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile‐source emissions would be less than significant. As a result, no significant impact would occur and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
Localized Significance Analysis. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology provides a lookup table for construction and operational emissions based on the emission rate, location, and distance from receptors, and provides a methodology for air dispersion modeling to evaluate whether a construction or operation could cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look-Up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD, revised July 2008) to determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, from the project would result in a significant impact to local air quality. Construction emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s screening thresholds. Project implementation would require approximately 100 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 200 cy of fill. Approximately 100 cy of fill would be imported to balance the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence and associated structures at 9336 Mabel Avenue, 10 feet west of the project site.

As shown in Table 4.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs. However, unmitigated operational emissions would exceed PM10 and PM2.5 LSTs. Natural gas hearth emissions are the primary source causing this exceedance; therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 prohibits wood burning and natural gas fireplaces. Therefore, with implementation of MM AQ-1, the project would not result in significant localized construction or operational emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment is highly dispersive and concentrations of diesel PM dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Project construction involves phased activities in several areas across the site and the project would not require

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
67 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment or diesel trucks in any one location over the duration of development, which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

Table 4.3-3: Localized Significance of Construction and Operational Emissions Emission Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 9.34 5.73
Grading (2022) 20.86 15.27 3.74 2.31
Building Construction (2022) 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66
Paving (2023) 8.79 12.19 0.44 0.40
Paving (2024) 8.27 12.22 0.40 0.37
Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(Adjusted for 3.5 acres of disturbance at 25 meters) 152 1,423 10.50 7 Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No
Unmitigated On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy) 1.70 24.49 3.06 3.06 Mitigated On-Site Emissions (Area and Energy)1 1.41 6.6 0.14 0.14 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
(Adjusted for 1.73 acres of disturbance at 25 meters) 166 1,603 3 2 SCAQMD Threshold Exceeded with Mitigation? No No No No
NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5:
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.

Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

1. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 prohibits the use of fireplaces.

Sources: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 and Kimley-Horn, 2021.

Additionally, construction activities would occur in an area of less than five acres. CARB generally considers construction project sites of such size to represent less than significant health risk impacts due to (1) limitations on the off-road diesel equipment able to operate and therefore a reduced amount of generated diesel PM; (2) the reduced amount of dust-generating ground disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites; and (3) the reduced duration of construction activities compared to the development of larger sites. Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce diesel PM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur in specific locations at the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of diesel PM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of diesel PM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
68 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
to substantial concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project is a mixed-use residential and commercial development and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses on the site.

During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that the public may detect are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The project would not include any of the land uses that the SCAQMD identifies as odor sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Air Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As discussed above, the project’s emissions would be below the significance thresholds during both construction and operations.

Therefore, the project’s contribution is not considered cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC AQ-1 Dust Control. During construction, construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
69 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b. All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c. All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e. Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SC AQ-2 Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on contractor specifications.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Hearth Emissions. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the building official shall confirm that the applicable project plans and specifications do not include wood-burning or natural gas hearths.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
70 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site has been used as a large vehicle storage and junk yard with a mix of pervious and impervious surfaces. Resources on the site are limited to ruderal vegetation (weeds)as well as eight trees: bottlebrush, one juniper, one caster bean, and one ligustrum along Rosemead Boulevard; one juniper tree on the southwestern corner of the site; one ash tree on the southeast portion of the site; and one dead tree on the south-central portion of the site. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, no natural habitat is present on the site. No natural habitats are present on the surrounding properties. Based on review of the existing and surrounding site conditions, site clearance and project development would not adversely impact candidate, sensitive, or special status biological resources. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? and Threshold (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a State or federally protected wetlands(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. As previously addressed, on-site vegetation is limited to weeds and eight trees. There are sensitive natural communities, riparian habitats, or federally protected wetlands or resources on the project site.8 The project site does not contain any water resources (e.g., streams, creeks, channels, vernal pools) nor would any of the proposed land uses potentially impact wetlands. The nearest body of water mapped by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory is the Rio Honda riverbed, approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site. The Rio Honda is a concrete-lined channel that serves primarily as flood control. It is not considered a State or federally protected wetland. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly impact this habitat. The project site is fully developed; the project site does not contain riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities would result from the proposed project and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between areas of suitable habitat in both undisturbed and fragmented landscapes. The project site has been used as a storage yard and is bordered by existing development and roadways. The project site is not a recognized wildlife corridor nor is it proximate to a nursery site for native and migratory wildlife. 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed December 18, 2020 and September 11, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
71 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project would remove several trees that have the potential to support nesting migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). The proposed project would adhere to SC BIO-1, which ensures compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Under MBTA provisions, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. In addition, the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) extends protection to non-migratory birds identified as resident game birds (CFGC §3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds‐of‐prey) (CFGC §3503). The on-site trees and vegetation could provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. Compliance with SC BIO-1 would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.

Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City’s Tree Policy applies to street on public property including along City streets.9 If a tree is removed, planting of another tree from the City’s Approved Tree List is required. As previously addressed, there are eight trees on the project site; the two bottlebrush trees would be retained (see Exhibits 5a and 5b). None of the trees are within the public right-of-way or are designated as street trees. The proposed removal of the six trees would not conflict with the City’s Tree Policy. As such, project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Regional Conservation Plans map, the project site is not located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
10 As discussed above within Responses 4.4(a) through 4.4(e), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources and would not result in conflicts with provisions of a HCP or NCCP. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework and standard conditions, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a potential cumulatively considerable impact. 9 City of South El Monte, Council Report, Dated March 22, 2011. 10 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Conservation Plans, April 2019, Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline, accessed December 19, 2020 and September 11, 2021.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
72 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC BIO-1 Nesting Migratory Birds. During construction, grubbing, brushing, or tree removal shall be conducted outside of the state identified nesting season for migratory birds (i.e., typically March 15 through September 1), if possible. If construction activities cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey within and adjacent to the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to initiating construction activities. If active nests are found during the Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented during construction. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based on the nesting species, nesting sage, nest location, its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration of the disturbance activity.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
73 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.5 Cultural Resources
A Cultural Record Search was requested for the proposed project. The results is included in this Initial Study as Appendix B and the results are summarized herein.

Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
No Impact. Historical resources are defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts of significance in history, archaeology, architecture, and culture. These resources include intact structures of any type that are 50 years or more of age. These resources are sometimes called the “built environment” and can include, in addition to houses, other structures such as irrigation works and engineering features. Historical resources are preserved because they provide a link to a region’s past as well as a frame of reference for a community.

The CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5, define “historic resources” as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.11 CEQA allows local historic resource guidelines to serve as the California Register of Historical Resources criteria if enacted by local legislation to act as the equivalent of the State criteria.

The City of South El Monte General Plan Resources Element (October 2000) notes that “no historic or archaeologically significant sites have been located in the City.” (see page 1.) Therefore, this topic is not addressed further in the City’s General Plan. As a part of the preparation of this Initial Study, a records search was prepared by the South-Central Coastal Information Center; no historical resources have been recorded as being on the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Further, the project site does not contain any structures other than a small dilapidated guard shack. Due to the lack of significant historic resources on the project site, the project would have no impact on historic resources and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As noted, a record search was requested from the SouthCentral Coastal Information Center to obtain recorded archaeological and built-environment information.

The search includes review of all recorded archaeological and built-environment resources, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file within a one-mile project site radius. No cultural studies have been conducted and no resources identified at the project site. However, one built-environment resource was recorded, and 15 cultural reports and studies were conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site.

There is a likelihood of encountering archaeological resources in the project site since the site has not been previously extensively graded and the proximity to a water body (Rio Hondo Channel), approximately 0.2 mile west of the site. Although no subterranean land uses are proposed, construction activities for the project would require excavation and grading. Therefore, while low, there is the potential for the project to affect a previously unidentified archaeological resource. The project would be required to comply with MM CR-1, which requires that an archaeologist monitor grading and excavation activities.

The archaeologist would have the ability to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, 11 California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), Section 5024.1(g).

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
74 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and resources, as appropriate. If resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist would determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City and Applicant. Compliance with MM CR-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. No known human remains occur on the site, and no dedicated cemeteries are on or near the project site. It is not anticipated that human remains are present. In the event human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, compliance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.57.98, identified in MM CR-2, would reduce any impact associated with human remains to a less than significant level.

Cumulative Impacts
Potential cumulative impacts could occur if the project – when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects – would cause significant impacts based on the thresholds of significance set forth in this Initial Study. The project site does not contain significant historic resources and is not expected to impact any archaeological resources; mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. As with the proposed project, other past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects would be required to comply with mitigation measures. Despite the site-specific nature of resources, mitigation required for the identification and protection of unknown or undocumented resources would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts.

On a cumulative level, data recovered from sites in the region allow for the examination and evaluation of the diversity of human activities in the region. The proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Requirements
No standard conditions are required.

Mitigation Measures
MM CR-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or permit for ground disturbance activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of South El Monte that a qualified professional (i.e., archaeologist, historian, architect, paleontologist, Native American Tribal monitor) has been retained. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to approval by the City. In the event that cultural resources (archaeological, historical, paleontological) are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The qualified professional shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines shall be followed.

After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

MM CR-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
75 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Section 4.0
Environmental Analysis
76 Mye Plaza Mixed-Use Development Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.6 Energy
Building Energy Conservation Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy.

The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code), which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CEC is currently preparing the 2022 Energy Code, which will improve upon the 2019 Energy Code for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and non-residential buildings. Proposed standards will be adopted in 2021 with an effective date of January 1, 2023. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years.12 The current 2019 Energy Code improve upon the previous 2016 Energy Code. Under the 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings are about 7 percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards use about 53 percent less energy than those built to meet the 2016 standards. Non-residential buildings use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.13 Senate Bill 350
In September 2015, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 350 (de León). This legislation established tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030.

Senate Bill 100
SB 100, referred to as “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2019, ”was signed into law by Governor Brown in September 2018 and increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards established in SB 350.

Under SB 100, the total kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy sold by electricity retailers to their end-use customers must consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable resources by 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Threshold (a) Would the project result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
12 California Energy Commission, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energyefficiency, Accessed March 4, 2021. 13 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions, Available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf, Accessed March 4, 2021.