City Council of Monterey Park
The City Council Acting on Behalf of the Successor Agency of the Former Redevelopment Agency, the Housing Authority, the Monterey Park Financing Authority and the Monterey Park Geologic Hazard Abatement District Agenda
Regular Meeting
Monterey Park City Hall Council Chambers
320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754
Wednesday, April 1, 2026
6:30 PM
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.
Land Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño-Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land.
We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.
General Information
Documents related to an Agenda item are available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office located at 320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754, during normal business hours and at www.montereypark.ca.gov/agendas.
The public may watch the meeting live on the city’s cable channel MPKTV (AT&T U-verse, channel 99 or Charter Communications, channel 182) or by visiting the city’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/133/City-Council-Meeting-Videos. Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email City Hall at [email protected] or call (626) 307-1359 for reasonable accommodation at least 48 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.
Public Comment for Matters Not on the Agenda
Pursuant to Rule 5 of Resolution No. 12226 (adopted February 17, 2021), speakers are limited to a total of five minutes for Public Comment and a total of five minutes on all other items on the Agenda.
Exception - See Public Hearing Procedures under Rule 7, Resolution No. 12226. If desirable, the Mayor and City Council may change the amount of time allowed for speakers.
While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow the City Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council may briefly respond to comments after Public Communications is closed. Persons may speak to any matter that is not on the Agenda but within the City Council's subject-matter jurisdiction at this time. Comments regarding an Agenda item, including the Consent
Calendar, will be heard when that matter is called. Written Communication is accepted up to 24 hours before the meeting by completing an online form at www.montereypark.ca.gov/writtencomm. Written communications are provided to the City Council.
Live Translation:
Meetings will be translated (transcribed or audio) to the language you select. Instructions are provided below.
即時翻譯:
會議將被翻譯(筆譯或音譯)至您選擇的語言。操作說明如下
Traducción en vivo:
Las reuniones se traducirán (por escrito o por audio) al idioma que seleccione. Las instrucciones se encuentran a continuación.
1. Call to Order
Mayor
2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Fire Explorers
3. Roll Call
Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
6. Public Communications
7. Staff Communications
7.A. Public Works
7.B. Community Development
7.C. Library
7.D. Recreation & Community Services
8. Presentation
8.A. Miss Los Angeles Chinatown - Victoria Yip
9. Old Business
10. Consent Calendar
All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.
10.A. Minutes
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the minutes from the special meetings of January 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., January 21, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. and January 27, 2026, and the regular meetings of January 21, 2026 and February 4, 2026; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.B. Monthly Investment Report
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.C. Services Agreement First Amendment to Fifth Asset Inc, DBA Debtbook for Debt, Cash and Investment Management Software and Services
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to Agreement No. 2369- AI with Fifth Asset Inc., DBA Debtbook, in a form approved by the City Attorney. This first amendment will permit Fifth Asset Inc. to continue to provide the City with debt, cash and investment management software and services from May 20, 2026, through May 19, 2029, and increase the not-to-exceed amount to $80,500 for the term of the Agreement; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.D. Creation of a Subcommittee on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' SGV Forward Project Proposal
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing this report;
2. If desirable, appointing two Council Members to serve on a subcommittee to discuss the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' SGV Forward Project Proposal; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.E. Waive Further Reading and Adopt an Ordinance to Expand the Lifeline Utility Rate Program and Clarify Billing, Collection, and Owner Responsibility for Water, Wastewater, and other City Billed Utility Charges
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.F. Amendment to Agreement No. 2444-A with MAK Fire Protection Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Agreement No.2444-A with MAK Fire Protection Engineering and Consulting, Inc., in the amount of $115,000 annually through June 30, 2027 in a form approved by City Attorney; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.G. 2025 Monterey Park General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report;
2. Directing the City Manager, or designee, to forward a copy of the report to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) by April 1, 2026; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.H. Amendment to Agreement No. 2529-A with Onyx Paving Company, Inc. concerning the 25-26 Street Rehabilitation at Various Locations Project
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Agreement No. 2529-A with Onyx Paving Company, Inc., to increase the contract amount by $445,665, plus $44,565 contingency; for a total of $4,381,665, $634,965 contingency, and new contract total of $5,016,630; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guideline § 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, alteration of existing public or private structures which involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The proposed work will occur entirely within an existing structure. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.
10.I. Resolution Celebrating Earth Day and Arbor Day 2026
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting a Resolution proclaiming Arbor Day and authorizing staff to apply for “Tree City USA” community recognition;
2. Waiving Spirit Bus and MPK Transit Express fare for riders for one week, starting on April 20, 2026, through April 24, 2026, in celebration of Earth Day; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
10.J. National Pickleball Month Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Ngo)
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the attached resolution; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
11. Public Hearing
12. New Business
13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items
14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce)
15. Adjournment
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.A.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Maychelle Yee , City Clerk
Subject: Minutes
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the minutes from the special meetings of January 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., January 21, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. and January 27, 2026, and the regular meetings of January 21, 2026 and February 4, 2026; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
The minutes are a record of the official actions taken at the City Council meeting.
Background:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approving the minutes from the special meetings of January 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., January 21, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. and January 27, 2026, and the regular meetings of January 21, 2026 and February 4, 2026.
Strategic Plan Goal:
N/A
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Draft Minutes
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.A.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Maychelle Yee , City Clerk
Subject: Minutes
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the minutes from the special meetings of January 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., January 21, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. and January 27, 2026, and the regular meetings of January 21, 2026 and February 4, 2026; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
The minutes are a record of the official actions taken at the City Council meeting.
Background:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approving the minutes from the special meetings of January 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., January 21, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. and January 27, 2026, and the regular meetings of January 21, 2026 and February 4, 2026.
Strategic Plan Goal:
N/A
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Draft Minutes
Staff Report
April 1, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Minutes
xx-xx
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.
Minutes
Monterey Park City Council
Financing Authority (MPFA)
Housing Authority (MPHA)
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Successor Agency (SA)
Special Meeting
January 21, 2026
The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council in Room 266, Second Floor of City Hall, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 5:39 p.m.
2. Roll Call
City Manager Inez Alvarez called the roll:
Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Council Members Absent: None.
Also Present:
City Attorney Karl Berger
Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang
Virtually Present: None.
3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.
4. Public Communications
None.
5. Open Session
5.A. Appoint Labor Negotiator for Contract Negotiations with City Manager
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Appoint the City Attorney as negotiator for Closed Session Item No. 6A
2. Taking such additional, related action that may be desirable.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
6. Closed Session
Upon conclusion of Closed Session, the Mayor and/or City Attorney will announce any reportable actions in accordance with the Brown Act.
The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:40 p.m.
6.A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Routine) (Pursuant to Government Code § 54957(b)(1))
Title: City Manager
7. Adjournment
The City Council reconvened and adjourned from Closed Session with all Council Members present at 6:24 p.m.
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
Action Taken: No reportable action taken in Closed Session.
__________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk
Approved on MM DD, 2026 at the regular City Council Meeting
xx-xx
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.
Minutes
Monterey Park City Council
Financing Authority (MPFA)
Housing Authority (MPHA)
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Successor Agency (SA)
Special Meeting
January 21, 2026
The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
The meeting was held concurrently with the January 21, 2026 Regular City Council meeting.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
2. Roll Call
City Clerk Maychelle Yee called the roll:
Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Council Members Absent: None
Also Present:
City Treasurer Amy Lee
City Manager Inez Alvarez
City Attorney Karl Berger
Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Director of Finance Martha Garcia
Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Christine Tomikawa Director of Recreation and Community Services Robert Aguirre Director of Community Development Timothy Hou
City Librarian Kristin Olivarez
Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Recreation and Community Services Leader Deanna Ramirez Zhu Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang
Assistant Deputy City Clerk Helena Cho
Office Assistant Michelle Martinez
Virtually Present: None.
3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
4. Public Communications
Public Communications was heard after Special Meeting Agenda Item No. 5.A.
• Jorg Correga submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Thomas Fernandez submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called
• Felicia Sandoval submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
5. New Business
5.A. Consideration and possible action to adopt an urgency ordinance implementing interim development regulations for data centers within Saturn Park upon a four-fifths vote
This Agenda Item was heard after Regular Meeting Agenda Item No. 9.A. and was amended to reflect the new author of the item.
On November 6, 2024, the City Council adopted new zoning regulations for Saturn Park based upon recommendations from the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC). The draft ordinance proposed to the City Council at that time included regulations for design and studies governing data centers. Following City Council consideration of those draft regulations, however, the Council ultimately decided that requiring a development agreement for all data centers would ensure comprehensive City oversight of such projects.
Since then, it is apparent that the City Council may wish to reconsider regulations governing data centers. While the City Council generally considered all issues identified by recent public communications in 2024, it is apparent that it is in the public interest to revisit those issues.
To give the City Manager and City Attorney additional time to craft refined regulations that the City Council may wish to reconsider, I request that the City Council adopt interim regulations and a moratorium on processing land use applications for any data center within Saturn Park. If adopted, the draft urgency ordinance included with this report would prohibit the City from processing any pending applications for a data center and prevent acceptance of any new applications. Additionally, it would require the City Manager, or designee, to prepare a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for any pending application once the City Council considers and, hopefully, adopts new land use regulations for data centers. This initial moratorium would last at least 45 days but may be extended up to a total of two years.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
Adopting the draft Urgency Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes temporary rules and procedures for minor alterations in land use. The Urgency Ordinance, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15305. Further, the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance is also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance is for general policies and procedure-making. This Ordinance does not authorize any new development entitlements. Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this Ordinance is subject to environmental review as part of the entitlement review of the project. The Ordinance will not adversely impact the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting an Urgency Ordinance upon 4/5 vote pursuant to Government Code § 65858 establishing a moratorium on new data centers within Saturn Park for 45 days; and
2. Taking such additional, related action that may be desirable.
Public Speakers:
Mayor Yang announced the speakers in groups of five.
• Laziza Lambert, Community Engagement Representative for the applicant of the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project, reiterated their goal to communicate with the residents to develop a data center with the community's needs in mind.
• Angelica Salazar spoke about her frequent visits to Monterey Park as a neighboring resident and commented on the potential harmful environmental effects a data center can bring to the community if it is built.
• Anna Yeh, resident, expressed her strong opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
• Oscar Uribe, resident, reiterated the audience's disdain for the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and proposed a permanent ban on all data centers in the City.
• Luka Uribe voiced their opposition to data centers in the City, as they believed its concept and origin was through systematic racism.
• Cindy Alvarado, resident, emphasized her opposition to data centers in the City and provided her opinion on the negative effects of data centers.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Christina Cisneros submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Randy and Jalina, residents, spoke together. Jalina talked about the young advocates in Monterey Park. Randy explained his experience working in a data center, claiming it is isolating, does create economic fluidity and is not representative of the needs of the community.
• Jen, resident, reminded the community's opportunity to reelect the City Council during the 2026 election season.
• Ronan Rock provided a written correspondence to the City Clerk and the City Council to be filed in the record. He
elaborated on his opposition to the idea of
data centers in Monterey Park and emphasized the potential negative effects it brings to the community.
• Charles Stapleton voiced the necessity of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and emphasized the community's daily use of data centers.
• Mike Rudholm shared his appreciation of the proposed moratorium and the need for an EIR to allow the applicant the opportunity to state their case.
• Scarlett commented on her opposition to a data center in Monterey Park and requested an EIR for a more detailed analysis.
• Yun, resident, stated his opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and expressed his disappointment at the lack of information provided to the community regarding the proposed project.
• Jeremy, resident and member of the Amazon Teamsters Union, communicated his opposition to the proposed 1977 Data Center project.
• Caleb, resident, vocalized his opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. He requested the EIR to be done ethically as the data center development may lead to potential health risks to the community.
• Teresa, resident, spoke about the City Council's alleged miscommunication to the public and explained the potential long-term physical effects of data centers on the residents.
• Samuel Taylor, resident, advocated against the development of any data center in Monterey Park and elaborated on his wish to protect the community.
• Carrie L. provided a written correspondence to the City Clerk and the City Council to be filed in the record. She relayed her concerns about the negative environmental effects caused by data centers. She requested a different company, one chosen by the residents to develop the EIR and provided amended recommendations to the proposed Urgency Ordinance.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Debra Shibuyama Simone advocated her love for Monterey Park and expressed her disdain towards data centers. She questioned the City Council's intentions and their legacy once their terms end.
• Miranda Sharp commented on the potential health effects data centers cause for the communities.
• Joan Tu elaborated her opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and talked about her experience growing up in Monterey Park.
• Christian Duran, resident, vocalized his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park.
• Emily Chu, resident, expressed her disapproval of data centers in Monterey Park and reiterated her support for an EIR but believed it was insufficient. She commented on the previous SPARC meetings and asked the City Council to listen to their constituents.
• Hrag Balian, resident, spoke about the petition he helped create to oppose the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. He commented on how neighboring cities would view Monterey Park if the proposed project was approved and reiterated the importance of clarity and transparency.
• Steve Scharf communicated his disdain towards the idea of data centers in Monterey Park and articulated the misinformation allegedly provided by City Council regarding the proposed data center project.
• Ebony Guerrero, a California Youth Leadership Fellow, urged the City to vote yes to the proposed moratorium and recommended Council Member Wong to recuse himself regarding the decision of the proposed 1977 data center project as it may be a potential conflict of interest.
• Paul Lange, resident, recommended that Saturn Park should be developed into mixed-use housing and expressed his opinion on private institutions developing residential land for economic benefit.
• Melissa Michelson, representing the San Gabriel Valley Progressive Alliance, spoke about her opposition to the proposed data center and recommended a permanent ban on data centers.
• Dora Leung submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Vincent Chang commented that most elderly residents in Monterey Park have limited technology experience and as such were not informed of the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Josue Morales, alongside American Sign Language translators Jasmine Salazar and Ana Maritza Rivera talked about his experience living in Monterey Park and expressed his confusion as to why a data center would be interested in a small city like Monterey Park.
• Roxanna Farhani vocalized her opposition towards data centers in Monterey Park, claiming the city was chosen for its socioeconomic demographics. She believed the results from the SPARC meetings were not representative of what the residents want.
• Maximillian Reed expressed his opinion on the City Council's need to better communicate with the residents on what is needed for the City and voiced his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park.
• Felicia Marquez shared the potential harmful environmental impacts data centers bring to residential communities.
• Youssef Ghasham submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Jesse Damon spoke about his experience as a public health practitioner and claimed the idea of an EIR was only considered due to community advocacy.
• Joyce Vega declared her opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
• Priscilla Isip submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Scarlett Orta submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Daiquelin Frumento commented on her recent notification of the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. She expressed her opinion on the lack of job
creation a project of this scale would provide.
• Carlos T. Navarrette submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Virginia Cruz submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• A registered public speaker provided her family's history of residing in Monterey Park and voiced her opposition towards any data centers in Monterey Park.
• Brandon Solorzano submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Jon Tran expressed his concerns regarding the City Council's decision- making process and vocalized his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park.
• Domino submitted a speaker card but was not present when their name was called.
• Janice Yee submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Christine Harsono provided her opinion on data centers and opposed the idea of one in Monterey Park.
• Kary Ramirez submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Nikole Liang, resident, spoke about the potential harmful effects data centers will bring on the residents and the environment.
• Irma Gorrocino and Hagar Benitez spoke about their experiences living in Monterey Park and opposed the idea of data centers in Monterey Park.
• Kristenne Reidy submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Agatha Rodriguez submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Catherine Horlick Wilson submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Wyatt Stiles submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• David Hanson, representing United Association Plumbers Local Union 3, spoke in favor of the moratorium and the EIR, as he believes it is important to hold the developer accountable.
• Christina Cisneros, resident, spoke later as she was not present when her name was first called. She reminded the City Council of their duty to serve the community members and claimed the City Council is misinforming the public.
She reiterated the potential negative effects data centers cause on the environment and on communities.
• Rico Rivera submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Valerie Lizarraga submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Jessica Ju submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Sebrina Phan submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Steven Kung commented on the proposed moratorium and provided recommendations on how the City should proceed with the EIR. He gave his opinion about the decision-making process of the City Council and City management.
• Madeline Ocampo submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Aurora Mireles submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• A registered public speaker talked about her generational family ties to Monterey Park and voiced her opposition to the project.
• Eric Morales, resident, expressed his disapproval of any data centers in Monterey Park and relayed his interest in economically developing the community with small businesses.
• C aleb Shimke, resident, approved the moratorium, and expressed interest in affordable housing.
• Alex Leon commented on the potential negative effects of data centers and questioned what the future of Monterey Park would look like if a data center was developed.
• Richard T. Kamei submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Yoko submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Sam Kahan detailed his opinions about the previous December 3, 2025, regular City Council meeting and commented on the written correspondence provided by the developer to the City Council. He elaborated on his disapproval of the data center.
• Alice Li urged the City Council to vote yes on the proposed moratorium and recommended City Council to find a more permanent solution to ban data centers entirely.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Grace Young submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Mimi Li, resident, explained her recent findings regarding data centers and voiced her opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
• Haley submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Nancy Nguyen expressed her concerns regarding a zone change on a property she was developing and expressed her disappointment to the City Council about the proposed data center project.
• Mitchel Del Rio vocalized his opposition to the moratorium and provided details on the negative effects of data centers.
• Aaron Reveles submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Jenny Talia Dal submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• A registered public speaker emphasized the City Council's alleged lack of respect for the community during Public Communications. She believed there is no benefit to building a data center.
• Logan Bell, resident, spoke in favor of the moratorium, believing an EIR is important to the community.
• Godfrey Wachira, representing the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development, Los Angeles (CREED LA) communicated his support for the data center project as it will benefit career outreach and provide opportunities to people who need second chances.
• Dave Jones provided a written correspondence to the City Clerk and the City Council to be filed in the record. He expressed his approval of the amount of citizen advocacy received regarding the data center project. He talked about the proposed moratorium and recommended it be permanent as he believed a data center does not belong in the City.
• Bryan Mercke commented on the late addition of the moratorium and recommended there be an addition to the agenda to ban data centers entirely.
He provided his opinion on Mayor Yang and Council Member Wong regarding their outside employment and urged the public to vote no for data centers.
• Vivian Romero detailed her legacy in Monterey Park and spoke about the environmental injustices she has seen over the decades and believed approving a data center will worsen its effects entirely.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Helene Ly, resident, explained her opposition to the proposed data center project.
• Angelica expressed her support for the EIR and opposed the proposed data center project.
• Teresa submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Amy L. submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Lilly Huang talked about the recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in nearby cities and compared it to the proposed data center project.
• Emily Leang elaborated on her long-time residency in Monterey Park and expressed her opposition to the proposed data center project.
• Dolores Roque submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Maychelle Yee commented on the residents' requests and recommended environmentally friendly modifications to the proposed data center. She mentioned the previous SPARC meetings, addressed comments made about Council Member Wong and expressed the importance of respecting the communities' right to speak regardless of opinion.
• Aliya Fang submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Ismael submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Angela Hong submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Samuel Taylor submitted a speaker card but was not present when he was called.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Extension of Council Meeting
Action Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 12:00 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Public Speakers, continued:
• Sam Mau, resident, commented on the research conducted into the potential electricity usage in the City if a data center were to be built in Monterey Park.
• Jorg Correga submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Thomas Fernandez submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Cady Cole vocalized her disapproval of data centers as she does not want her family and friends to be contaminated by the negative effects of their development.
• Felicia Sandoval submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Katherine Torres relayed her concerns regarding the concept of data centers and requested to hear more from the developer and alleged hearing Council Member Ngo's approval of the proposed data center project.
• Shayda Jalali articulated her disapproval of the data center and explained how research is conducted for private projects such as the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. She claimed the potential negative impacts may be worse than they appear.
• Jack Chen submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Meredith Lepe, resident, expressed her opposition to the proposed data center project. She detailed that data centers consume large amounts of water, which contradicts Monterey Park's citywide issued water restriction.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• A registered public speaker spoke about receiving news about the proposed data center through social media. He conveyed his disapproval of data centers and talked about respecting the opinions of others.
• Robert Lopez articulated his objection to the proposed data center project and expressed his care for the people.
• Jessica Chou commented on her personal experience living in Monterey Park and conveyed her concerns about the potential environmental effects data centers may bring to the community.
• Anne Kageyama urged the City Council to reconsider their decision regarding the proposed data center project and asked them to step into the resident’s shoes to see the negative effects of data centers.
• The City Clerk's office received and filed written communications from K.
Shen, O Shen, J Gonse, E. Shen, Elizabeth Mercado, Vincent Cheng, Evelyn Moreno, Kelly McNeill, Karen Z, Natalie Wong, Nikita Bitra, Janice Wong, Noelle Wong, Sally Smith, Elizabeth Mercado, Richard Kamei, Siew Low, Erica Yu, Vi Chen, Lisa Dott, Pui-Yuk Dorothy Ko, Madeline Ocampo, Kai Ebens, Zen Tran, Wesley Reutimann, David Diaz from Active SGV, Kimberly Phung, Victoria Landeros-Lopez from the Montebello Teachers Association and James Pugh regarding Special Meeting Agenda Item No. 5.A.
• During the City Council's discussion regarding special meeting Agenda Item No. 5.A Eric Chen submitted a speaker card. He expressed his support for the moratorium and proposed a city-wide ban on data centers entirely. • The Applicant provided its informational sheet that was available to the public.
Discussion: The City Council ensued in a discussion regarding Agenda Item No.
5.A. and commented on the residents' concerns about data centers in the City.
Extension of Council Meeting
Action Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 1:00 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Action Taken: The City Council approved and waived Urgency Ordinance 2272 upon a unanimous vote as amended, to remove the language in Section 4(C) “Accordingly, the City Manager, or designee, is directed to require that any applicant with a pending data center application prepare an EIR in accordance with applicable law to fully inform decision-makers regarding potential significant impacts of such land uses.” and amended to replace the language in Section (E) of “The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to draft regulations that are substantially similar to those previously considered on November 6, 2024 to govern data centers within Saturn Park” to “The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to draft regulations that prohibit data centers within the City’s jurisdiction.”, and directed staff to research housing into the zoning code.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Sanchez, motion by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Recessed and Reconvened
The City Council recessed at 12:20 a.m. and reconvened with all Council Members present at 12:42 a.m.
5.B. Receive and File Regarding Council Member Thomas Wong's Participation on the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC)
This item was rolled over to the Jan. 21, 2026 Regular Meeting as Consent Calendar Item No. 10.E.
Recent social media posts allege that Council Member Thomas Wong may not participate in crafting land use regulations governing Saturn Park because of a perceived conflict of interest. The narrative is that Mr. Wong’s participation in the Saturn Park Advisory Committee (SPARC) and subsequent vote implementing new zoning regulations for Saturn Park constituted a legal conflict of interest under applicable law (the Political Reform Act and rules promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission).
A review of the record, however, shows there is ample evidence demonstrating that Council Member Wong’s service on the SPARC and his subsequent decision- making
regarding zoning for Saturn Park are legally permissible. Those same rules apply to Item No. 5A on the Special Meeting Agenda for January 21st.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the attached staff report regarding Council Member Thomas Wong's participation on the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC); and
2. Taking such additional, related action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: Agenda Item No. 5.B. was rolled over to the January 21, 2026 Regular City Council meeting as Consent Calendar Item No. 10.E. The Agenda Item was approved alongside Consent Calendar Item Nos. 10.A., 10.B., 10.C., and 10.D.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
6. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
__________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk
Approved on MM DD, 2026, at the regular City Council Meeting
xx-xx
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.
Minutes
Monterey Park City Council
Financing Authority (MPFA)
Housing Authority (MPHA)
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Successor Agency (SA)
Regular Meeting
January 21, 2026
The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, January 21, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.
The meeting was held concurrently with the January 21, 2026 Special City Council meeting.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Police Explorers led the Flag Salute. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Civic Superstars Phoebe Truong and Veronica De Klerk.
3. Roll Call
City Clerk Maychelle Yee called the roll:
Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Council Members Absent: None
Also Present:
City Treasurer Amy Lee
City Manager Inez Alvarez
City Attorney Karl Berger
Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Director of Finance Martha Garcia
Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Christine Tomikawa Director of Recreation and Community Services Robert Aguirre Director of Community Development Timothy Hou
City Librarian Kristin Olivarez
Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Recreation and Community Services Leader Deanna Ramirez Zhu Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang
Assistant Deputy City Clerk Helena Cho
Office Assistant Michelle Martinez
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Virtually Present: None.
4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.
5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
Mayor Yang announced the January 21, 2026 6:30 p.m. special meeting will be heard concurrently with the January 21, 2026 regular meeting. Mayor Yang requested Agenda Item No. 9.A to be heard after Agenda Revisions and Additions and to have Special Meeting Agenda Item No. 5.B. be rolled over as Agenda Item No. 10.E. under Consent Calendar.
Mayor Yang requested a moment of silence to honor the 3rd year commemoration of the January 21, 2023 Mass Shooting.
6. Public Communications
Public Communications was heard after Special Meeting Agenda Item No. 5.A.
• Jorg Correga submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Thomas Fernandez submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Felicia Sandoval submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
7. Staff Communications
Staff Communications was tabled to the regularly scheduled February 4, 2026 City Council meeting. City Manager Alvarez announced upcoming City events, which include the Lunar New Year Festival from January 31, 2026 to February 1, 2026, the Community Clean-Up event at Sierra Vista Park on Saturday, January 24, 2026 and the Barnes Park Pool Revitalization Community Engagement Meeting on Monday, February 2, 2026, at the Langley Center.
7.A. Fire Department
This Item was tabled to the February 4, 2026 regular City Council meeting.
7.B. Public Works
This Item was tabled to the February 4, 2026 regular City Council meeting.
7.C. Library
This Item was tabled to the February 4, 2026 regular City Council meeting.
7.D. Recreation and Community Services
This Item was tabled to the February 4, 2026 regular City Council meeting.
8. Presentation
None.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
9. Old Business
9.A. Concept Approval and Award of Contract for January 21 Memorial Design This Agenda Item was heard after Agenda Additions and Deletions.
The Public Works Director (the “Director”), in coordination with the Ad Hoc Memorial Committee, conducted a thorough consultant selection process. Kimley Horn presented a concept that reflects the input received from the community and the Ad Hoc Memorial C
ommittee. The Director recommends Council approval of the concept and award of the Professional Services Agreement to Kimley Horn for $43,000.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the proposed memorial concept presented by Kimley Horn, with any Council-directed modifications to be incorporated before final design;
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kimley Horn, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the design of the January 21, 2023 Memorial; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Public Speakers
• Peter Ng, CEO of Chinatown Service Center (CSC), shared a heartfelt tribute to the survivors and victims’ affected by the tragedy and emphasized his support to the proposed concept for the January 21 memorial design. • Abner Ramos, Pastor of the River of Life Church spoke about the three years that have passed since the tragedy, and the meaning of peace. He provided a prayer and paid respect to the ones lost on the night of the tragedy. • Pastor Eric Chen shared his experience with Star Ballroom and read a letter entitled to him by former President Joe Biden. He spoke on behalf of the victims and the survivor's family’s opinion regarding the proposed memorial design. He suggested to the council not to vote on the item to allow more time for input on the location and potential fund allocation for the memorial.
Discussion: Assistant City Manager Garcia briefly spoke about the partnership with CSC and the Monterey Park Hope Resiliency Center (MPK Hope) and the timeline of events leading to the proposed concept presented to the City Council. She introduced Landscape Architect Michael Madsen from Kimley-Horn to elaborate on the proposed memorial design.
Landscape Architect Madsen shared a PowerPoint presentation emphasizing the proposed memorial design background/city stakeholder experience, an overview and evolution of the concept and provided feedback received by guests.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Andrea Tseng, Director of MPK Hope Resiliency Center, shared her perspective on the benefits memorials bring to the community.
The City Council engaged in a discussion about the proposed memorial concept.
Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendations.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Lo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
5. New Business (From January 21, 2026 6:30 p.m. Special Meeting Agenda)
5.A. Consideration and possible action to adopt an urgency ordinance implementing interim development regulations for data centers within Saturn Park upon a four-fifths vote.
This Agenda Item was heard after Regular Meeting Agenda Item No. 9.A. and was amended to reflect the new author of the item.
On November 6, 2024, the City Council adopted new zoning regulations for Saturn Park based upon recommendations from the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC). The draft ordinance proposed to the City Council at that time included regulations for design and studies governing data centers. Following City Council consideration of those draft regulations, however, the Council ultimately decided that requiring a development agreement for all data centers would ensure comprehensive City oversight of such projects.
Since then, it is apparent that the City Council may wish to reconsider regulations governing data centers. While the City Council generally considered all issues identified by recent public communications in 2024, it is apparent that it is in the public interest to revisit those issues.
To give the City Manager and City Attorney additional time to craft refined regulations that the City Council may wish to reconsider, I request that the City Council adopt interim regulations and a moratorium on processing land use applications for any data center within Saturn Park. If adopted, the draft urgency ordinance included with this report would prohibit the City from processing any pending applications for a data center and prevent acceptance of any new applications. Additionally, it would require the City Manager, or designee, to prepare a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for any pending application once the City Council considers and, hopefully, adopts new land use regulations for data centers. This initial moratorium would last at least 45 days but may be extended up to a total of two years.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
Adopting the draft Urgency Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes temporary rules and procedures for minor alterations in land use. The Urgency Ordinance, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15305. Further, the adoption of the Urgency Ordinance is also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance is for general policies and procedure-making. This Ordinance does not authorize any new development entitlements. Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this Ordinance is subject to environmental review as part of the entitlement review of the project. The Ordinance will not adversely impact the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting an Urgency Ordinance upon 4/5 vote pursuant to Government Code § 65858 establishing a moratorium on new data centers within Saturn Park for 45 days; and
2. Taking such additional, related action that may be desirable.
Public Speakers:
Mayor Yang announced the speakers in groups of five.
• Laziza Lambert, Community Engagement Representative for the applicant of the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project, reiterated their goal to communicate with the residents to develop a data center with the community's needs in mind.
• Angelica Salazar spoke about her frequent visits to Monterey Park as a neighboring resident and commented on the potential harmful environmental effects a data center can bring to the community if it is built.
• Anna Yeh, resident, expressed her strong opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
• Oscar Uribe, resident, reiterated the audience's disdain for the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and proposed a permanent ban on all data centers in the City.
• Luka Uribe voiced their opposition to data centers in the City, as they believed its concept and origin was through systematic racism.
• Cindy Alvarado, resident, emphasized her opposition to data centers in the City and provided her opinion on the negative effects of data centers.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Christina Cisneros submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Randy and Jalina, residents, spoke together. Jalina talked about the young advocates in Monterey Park. Randy explained his experience working in a data center, claiming it is isolating, does create economic fluidity and is not representative of the needs of the community.
• Jen, resident, reminded the community's opportunity to reelect the City Council during the 2026 election season.
• Ronan Rock provided a written correspondence to the City Clerk and the City Council to be filed in the record. He
elaborated on his opposition to the idea of
data centers in Monterey Park and emphasized the potential negative effects it brings to the community.
• Charles Stapleton voiced the necessity of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and emphasized the community's daily use of data centers.
• Mike Rudholm shared his appreciation of the proposed moratorium and the need for an EIR to allow the applicant the opportunity to state their case.
• Scarlett commented on her opposition to a data center in Monterey Park and requested an EIR for a more detailed analysis.
• Yun, resident, stated his opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and expressed his disappointment at the lack of information provided to the community regarding the proposed project.
• Jeremy, resident and member of the Amazon Teamsters Union, communicated his opposition to the proposed 1977 Data Center project.
• Caleb, resident, vocalized his opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. He requested the EIR to be done ethically as the data center development may lead to potential health risks to the community.
• Teresa, resident, spoke about the City Council's alleged miscommunication to the public and explained the potential long-term physical effects of data centers on the residents.
• Samuel Taylor, resident, advocated against the development of any data center in Monterey Park and elaborated on his wish to protect the community.
• Carrie L. provided a written correspondence to the City Clerk and the City Council to be filed in the record. She relayed her concerns about the negative environmental effects caused by data centers. She requested a different company, one chosen by the residents to develop the EIR and provided amended recommendations to the proposed Urgency Ordinance.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Debra Shibuyama Simone advocated her love for Monterey Park and expressed her disdain towards data centers. She questioned the City Council's intentions and their legacy once their terms end.
• Miranda Sharp commented on the potential health effects data centers cause for the communities.
• Joan Tu elaborated her opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and talked about her experience growing up in Monterey Park.
• Christian Duran, resident, vocalized his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park.
• Emily Chu, resident, expressed her disapproval of data centers in Monterey Park and reiterated her support for an EIR but believed it was insufficient. She commented on the previous SPARC meetings and asked the City Council to listen to their constituents.
• Hrag Balian, resident, spoke about the petition he helped create to oppose the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. He commented on how neighboring cities would view Monterey Park if the proposed project was approved and reiterated the importance of clarity and transparency.
• Steve Scharf communicated his disdain towards the idea of data centers in Monterey Park and articulated the misinformation allegedly provided by City Council regarding the proposed data center project.
• Ebony Guerrero, a California Youth Leadership Fellow, urged the City to vote yes to the proposed moratorium and recommended Council Member Wong to recuse himself regarding the decision of the proposed 1977 data center project as it may be a potential conflict of interest.
• Paul Lange, resident, recommended that Saturn Park should be developed into mixed-use housing and expressed his opinion on private institutions developing residential land for economic benefit.
• Melissa Michelson, representing the San Gabriel Valley Progressive Alliance, spoke about her opposition to the proposed data center and recommended a permanent ban on data centers.
• Dora Leung submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Vincent Chang commented that most elderly residents in Monterey Park have limited technology experience and as such were not informed of the proposed
1977 Saturn data center project.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Josue Morales, alongside American Sign Language translators Jasmine Salazar and Ana Maritza Rivera talked about his experience living in Monterey Park and expressed his confusion as to why a data center would be interested in a small city like Monterey Park.
• Roxanna Farhani vocalized her opposition towards data centers in Monterey Park, claiming the city was chosen for its socioeconomic demographics. She believed the results from the SPARC meetings were not representative of what the residents want.
• Maximillian Reed expressed his opinion on the City Council's need to better communicate with the residents on what is needed for the City and voiced his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park.
• Felicia Marquez shared the potential harmful environmental impacts data centers bring to residential communities.
• Youssef Ghasham submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Jesse Damon spoke about his experience as a public health practitioner and claimed the idea of an EIR was only considered due to community advocacy.
• Joyce Vega declared her opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
• Priscilla Isip submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Scarlett Orta submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Daiquelin Frumento commented on her recent notification of the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. She expressed her opinion on the lack of job creation a project of this scale would provide.
• Carlos T. Navarrette submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Virginia Cruz submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• A registered public speaker provided her family's history of residing in Monterey Park and voiced her opposition towards any data centers in Monterey Park.
• Brandon Solorzano submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Jon Tran expressed his concerns regarding the City Council's decision- making process and vocalized his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park.
• Domino submitted a speaker card but was not present when their name was called.
• Janice Yee submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Christine Harsono provided her opinion on data centers and opposed the idea of one in Monterey Park.
• Kary Ramirez submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Nikole Liang, resident, spoke about the potential harmful effects data centers will bring on the residents and the environment.
• Irma Gorrocino and Hagar Benitez spoke about their experiences living in Monterey Park and opposed the idea of data centers in Monterey Park.
• Kristenne Reidy submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Agatha Rodriguez submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Catherine Horlick Wilson submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Wyatt Stiles submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• David Hanson, representing United Association Plumbers Local Union 3, spoke in favor of the moratorium and the EIR, as he believes it is important to hold the developer accountable.
• Christina Cisneros, resident, spoke later as she was not present when her name was first called. She reminded the City Council of their duty to serve the community members and claimed the City Council is misinforming the public.
She reiterated the potential negative effects data centers cause on the environment and on communities.
• Rico Rivera submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Valerie Lizarraga submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Jessica Ju submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Sebrina Phan submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Steven Kung commented on the proposed moratorium and provided recommendations on how the City should proceed with the EIR. He gave his opinion about the decision-making process of the City Council and City management.
• Madeline Ocampo submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Aurora Mireles submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• A registered public speaker talked about her generational family ties to Monterey Park and voiced her opposition to the project.
• Eric Morales, resident, expressed his disapproval of any data centers in Monterey Park and relayed his interest in economically developing the community with small businesses.
• C aleb Shimke, resident, approved the moratorium, and expressed interest in affordable housing.
• Alex Leon commented on the potential negative effects of data centers and questioned what the future of Monterey Park would look like if a data center was developed.
• Richard T. Kamei submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Yoko submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Sam Kahan detailed his opinions about the previous December 3, 2025, regular City Council meeting and commented on the written correspondence provided by the developer to the City Council. He elaborated on his disapproval of the data center.
• Alice Li urged the City Council to vote yes on the proposed moratorium and recommended City Council to find a more permanent solution to ban data centers entirely.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Grace Young submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Mimi Li, resident, explained her recent findings regarding data centers and voiced her opposition to the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project.
• Haley submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Nancy Nguyen expressed her concerns regarding a zone change on a property she was developing and expressed her disappointment to the City Council about the proposed data center project.
• Mitchel Del Rio vocalized his opposition to the moratorium and provided details on the negative effects of data centers.
• Aaron Reveles submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Jenny Talia Dal submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• A registered public speaker emphasized the City Council's alleged lack of respect for the community during Public Communications. She believed there is no benefit to building a data center.
• Logan Bell, resident, spoke in favor of the moratorium, believing an EIR is important to the community.
• Godfrey Wachira, representing the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development, Los Angeles (CREED LA) communicated his support for the data center project as it will benefit career outreach and provide opportunities to people who need second chances.
• Dave Jones provided a written correspondence to the City Clerk and the City Council to be filed in the record. He expressed his approval of the amount of citizen advocacy received regarding the data center project. He talked about the proposed moratorium and recommended it be permanent as he believed a data center does not belong in the City.
• Bryan Mercke commented on the late addition of the moratorium and recommended there be an addition to the agenda to ban data centers entirely.
He provided his opinion on Mayor Yang and Council Member Wong regarding their outside employment and urged the public to vote no for data centers.
• Vivian Romero detailed her legacy in Monterey Park and spoke about the environmental injustices she has seen over the decades and believed approving a data center will worsen its effects entirely.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• Helene Ly, resident, explained her opposition to the proposed data center project.
• Angelica expressed her support for the EIR and opposed the proposed data center project.
• Teresa submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Amy L. submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Lilly Huang talked about the recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in nearby cities and compared it to the proposed data center project.
• Emily Leang elaborated on her long-time residency in Monterey Park and expressed her opposition to the proposed data center project.
• Dolores Roque submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Maychelle Yee commented on the residents' requests and recommended environmentally friendly modifications to the proposed data center. She mentioned the previous SPARC meetings, addressed comments made about Council Member Wong and expressed the importance of respecting the communities' right to speak regardless of opinion.
• Aliya Fang submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Ismael submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Angela Hong submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Samuel Taylor submitted a speaker card but was not present when he was called.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Extension of Council Meeting
Action Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 12:00 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Public Speakers, continued:
• Sam Mau, resident, commented on the research conducted into the potential electricity usage in the City if a data center were to be built in Monterey Park.
• Jorg Correga submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Thomas Fernandez submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Cady Cole vocalized her disapproval of data centers as she does not want her family and friends to be contaminated by the negative effects of their development.
• Felicia Sandoval submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Katherine Torres relayed her concerns regarding the concept of data centers and requested to hear more from the developer and alleged hearing Council Member Ngo's approval of the proposed data center project.
• Shayda Jalali articulated her disapproval of the data center and explained how research is conducted for private projects such as the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. She claimed the potential negative impacts may be worse than they appear.
• Jack Chen submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Meredith Lepe, resident, expressed her opposition to the proposed data center project. She detailed that data centers consume large amounts of water, which contradicts Monterey Park's citywide issued water restriction.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
• A registered public speaker spoke about receiving news about the proposed data center through social media. He conveyed his disapproval of data centers and talked about respecting the opinions of others.
• Robert Lopez articulated his objection to the proposed data center project and expressed his care for the people.
• Jessica Chou commented on her personal experience living in Monterey Park and conveyed her concerns about the potential environmental effects data centers may bring to the community.
• Anne Kageyama urged the City Council to reconsider their decision regarding the proposed data center project and asked them to step into the resident’s shoes to see the negative effects of data centers.
• The City Clerk's office received and filed written communications from K.
Shen, O Shen, J Gonse, E. Shen, Elizabeth Mercado, Vincent Cheng, Evelyn Moreno, Kelly McNeill, Karen Z, Natalie Wong, Nikita Bitra, Janice Wong, Noelle Wong, Sally Smith, Elizabeth Mercado, Richard Kamei, Siew Low, Erica Yu, Vi Chen, Lisa Dott, Pui-Yuk Dorothy Ko, Madeline Ocampo, Kai Ebens, Zen Tran, Wesley Reutimann, David Diaz from Active SGV, Kimberly Phung, Victoria Landeros-Lopez from the Montebello Teachers Association and James Pugh regarding Special Meeting Agenda Item No. 5.A.
• During the City Council's discussion regarding special meeting Agenda Item No. 5.A Eric Chen submitted a speaker card. He expressed his support for the moratorium and proposed a city-wide ban on data centers entirely. • The Applicant provided its informational sheet that was available to the public.
Discussion: The City Council ensued in a discussion regarding Agenda Item No.
5.A. and commented on the residents' concerns about data centers in the City.
Extension of Council Meeting
Action Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 1:00 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Action Taken: The City Council approved and waived Urgency Ordinance 2272 upon a unanimous vote as amended, to remove the language in Section 4(C) “Accordingly, the City Manager, or designee, is directed to require that any applicant with a pending data center application prepare an EIR in accordance with applicable law to fully inform decision-makers regarding potential significant impacts of such land uses.” and amended to replace the language in Section (E) of “The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to draft regulations that are substantially similar to those previously considered on November 6, 2024 to govern data centers within Saturn Park” to “The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to draft regulations that prohibit data centers within the City’s jurisdiction.”, and directed staff to research housing into the zoning code.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Sanchez, motion by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Recessed and Reconvened
The City Council recessed at 12:20 a.m. and reconvened with all Council Members present at 12:42 a.m.
10. Consent Calendar
This Item was heard after Staff Communications.
All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.
Action Taken: The City Council approved Agenda Item Nos. 10.A, 10.B., 10.C., 10.D. and 10.E. reading resolutions and ordinances by the title only and waiving further reading thereof.
Motion:
Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
10.A. Minutes
The minutes are a record of the official actions taken at the City Council meeting.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the minutes from the special meetings of November 19, 2025 and December 3, 2025 and the regular meetings of November 19, 2025 and December 3, 2025; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.
10.B. Monthly Investment Report - November 2025
As of November 30, 2025, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $89,634,451.86.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
3. Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and
4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the Monthly Investment Report, on Consent Calendar.
10.C. Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or Designee, to apply for, submit applications for, receive, and appropriate funds for SGVMWD Grants for which the City is eligible
The San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (“SGVMWD”) awards grant funding to its member cities for water conservation and water-
related projects that reduce the
SGVMWD’s groundwater replenishment obligations. These grants require that the City first spend its funds, then submit invoices to SGVMWD for reimbursement.
These grants are reimbursement-based and require the City to first expend its own funds and then submit invoices to SGVMWD for reimbursement. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit applications to SGVMWD, execute all necessary grant documents, and accept and administer any awarded grant funds, and to amend or supplement the City’s budget to appropriate the grant funds for the project described herein, including, without limitation, the City of Monterey Park Business District Smart Irrigation Controller Retrofit Project.
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to submit applications to the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District for all grants for which the City is eligible, and to execute all grant documents and accept and administer any awarded grant funds, consistent with the Resolution;
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 2026-R1, on Consent Calendar.
Resolution No. 2026-R1
Resolution authorizing submittal of applications for SGVMWD grants for which the City of Monterey Park is eligible
10.D. Amendment to Agreement No. 2395-AA with Knight Leadership Solutions, LLC The City of Monterey Park has worked with Marie Knight of Knight Leadership Solutions, LLC since late 2023. In that time, Ms. Knight has provided a variety of professional services, such as City Council Strategic Goal planning sessions and City-wide customer service and leadership trainings. The Assistant City Manager recommends extending the current agreement through June 30, 2027, to continue to provide these services.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a third amendment to agreement no. 2395-AA with Knight Leadership Solutions, LLC., in a form approved by the City Attorney, to provide miscellaneous City Council and staff development seminars through June 30, 2027; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.
10.E. Receive and File Regarding Council Member Thomas Wong's Participation on the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC)
This item was rolled over from the January 21, 2026 Special Meeting Agenda originally named Agenda Item No. 5.B.
Recent social media posts allege that Council Member Thomas Wong may not participate in crafting land use regulations governing Saturn Park because of a perceived conflict of interest. The narrative is that Mr. Wong’s participation in the Saturn Park Advisory Committee (SPARC) and subsequent vote implementing new zoning regulations for Saturn Park constituted a legal conflict of interest under applicable law (the Political Reform Act and rules promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission).
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
A review of the record, however, shows there is ample evidence demonstrating that Council Member Wong’s service on the SPARC and his subsequent decision-making regarding zoning for Saturn Park are legally permissible. Those same rules apply to Item No. 5A on the Special Meeting Agenda for January 21st.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the attached staff report regarding Council Member Thomas Wong's participation on the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC); and
2. Taking such additional, related action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the staff report, on Consent Calendar.
11. Public Hearing
None.
12. New Business
12.A. A Resolution appointing City Councilmembers to Specific Organizations The City Council generally appoints representatives to various regional and community organizations annually. Appointments are recommended by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting a Resolution appointing representatives to specific organizations; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council approved the adopted Resolution No. 2026-R2
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Ngo, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Resolution No. 2026-R2
A Resolution appointing City Councilmembers to specific organizations
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
12.B. Consideration and possible introduction and first reading of an Ordinance amending Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 1.10, 2.56, 4.20, and 4.30 to designate the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals to consider appeals arising from application of the California Building Standards Code Title 16 to the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) codifies the California Building Standards Code (24 Cal. Code of Regs. § 1.1, et seq.) with local amendments (collectively, the “CBSC”). This Ordinance is proposed in response to Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 456 to make it plain that the Planning Commission is designated to be the board of appeals for matters arising from enforcement of the CBSC.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): The Ordinance is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq
., the “CEQA Guidelines”) because it
consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing code of construction- related regulations and specification of procedures related thereto and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings required therefor, and therefore does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Reading by title only, waiving further reading, and introducing an Ordinance amending Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 1.10, 2.56, 4.20, and
4.30 to designate the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals to consider appeals arising from application of the California Building Standards Code; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Discussion: Director of Community Development Hou presented a staff report detailing the proposed ordinance.
Action Taken: The City Council introduced and waived the first reading of the proposed ordinance.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Sanchez, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
xx-xx
January 21, 2026
Ordinance 1st reading
An Ordinance amending Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 1.10, 2.56, 4.20, and 4.30 to designate the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals to consider appeals arising from application of the California Building Standards Code
13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items Council Member Ngo spoke about attending the Monterey Park Resiliency Day with his fellow Council Members, mentioned his attendance alongside Mayor Pro Tem Lo to the ribbon-cutting ceremony at La Diosa De Los Moles and commented on his participation in hosting town hall meetings in District 5 regarding the topic of data centers.
Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the same events as his fellow Council Members, wished City Clerk Yee a Happy Birthday and a Happy New Year to the residents. He proposed to staff to research potential ordinances for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) free zones on government property as a Future Agenda Item.
Council Member Sanchez commented on the recent ICE activity in neighboring cities and reiterated Monterey Park's stance on immigration.
Mayor Pro Tem Lo talked about working with City staff and the community to improve Monterey Park.
Mayor Yang announced an opportunity for the public to attend and converse with her at an event hosted by the Monterey Park Chamber of Commerce on January 29, 2026. She spoke about her upcoming trip to Sacramento to support Senator Sasha Renée Pérez's proposed resolution to recognize Resiliency Day.
14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce)
15. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m.
__________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk
Approved on MM DD, 2026 at the regular City Council Meeting
xx-xx
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.
Minutes
Monterey Park City Council
Financing Authority (MPFA)
Housing Authority (MPHA)
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Successor Agency (SA)
Special Meeting
January 27, 2026
The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council in Room 266, Second Floor of City Hall, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Tuesday, January 27, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Roll Call
City Manager Inez Alvarez called the roll:
Council Members Present: Henry Lo virtually present, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez arrived at 5:05 p.m., Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Council Members Absent: None.
Also Present:
Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Virtually Present:
City Attorney Karl Berger
Assistant City Attorney Timothy Campen
3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.
4. Public Communications
None.
5. Closed Session
Upon conclusion of Closed Session, the Mayor and/or City Attorney will announce any reportable actions in accordance with the Brown Act.
The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:01 p.m.
5.A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2): 1 matter. Facts and Circumstances: Electronic Mail dated January 21, 2026, attached)
xx-xx
January 27, 2026
5.B. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(d) - Number of Cases: 1
Chan v. City of Monterey Park, LASC Case Number: 25STCP04378 (filed 11/13/2025)
6. Adjournment
The City Council reconvened from Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. with all Council Members present.
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Action Taken: No reportable action taken in Closed Session.
__________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk
Approved on MM DD, 2026 at the regular City Council meeting
xx-xx
Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.
Minutes
Monterey Park City Council
Financing Authority (MPFA)
Housing Authority (MPHA)
Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Successor Agency (SA)
Regular Meeting
February 4, 2026
The City Council, the Financing Authority (MPFA), the Housing Authority (MPHA), the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), and the Successor Agency (SA) of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 6:30 PM.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m.
2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Fire Explorers led the Flag Salute. Pledge of Allegiance was presented by Civic Superstar Alex Zhou.
3. Roll Call
City Clerk Maychelle Yee called the roll:
Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Council Members Absent: None.
Also present:
City Treasurer Amy Lee
City Manager Inez Alvarez
City Attorney Karl Berger
Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Director of Finance Martha Garcia
Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Christine Tomikawa Director of Community Development Timothy Hou
Director of Recreation and Community Services Robert Aguirre City Librarian Kristin Olivarez
Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Police Captain Gus Jimenez
Finance Manager Laura Borjon
Fire Marshal Jessica Estrella
Code Enforcement Supervisor Rey Lozano
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang
Virtually present: None.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.
5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
City Manager Alvarez requested to hear Agenda Item No. 8.A. before Public Communications and to hear Agenda Item No. 9.A. before Staff Communications.
6. Public Communications
Public Communications were heard after Agenda Item No. 8.A. • Paul Isozaki conveyed his disapproval of data centers, criticized the City Council's decision-making process as he believed public input is necessary before developing large-scale projects, provided his opinion on the City Attorney, emphasized the need to include the community and commented on the Barnes Park pool.
• Edlyn Takahashi, representing the San Gabriel Valley Power-Up Beacon (SGVPUB), advocated for the Barnes Park Pool. She shared her appreciation at the recent Barnes Park Pool Revitalization Community Meeting and provided recommendations for the proposed pool designs that cater to the diving community.
• Aaron, Chair of the Los Angeles Peace and Freedom Party, spoke about the recent United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in neighboring cities, requested the City Council to enforce a ban on ICE activity in Monterey Park and detailed
the Police Department's need to serve and protect the
community.
7. Staff Communications
Staff Communications were heard after Agenda Item No. 9.A.
7.A. City Manager's Office
Assistant City Manager Garcia announced the City's partnership with Chinatown Service Center (CSC) to strengthen the immigrant support services in the City. She emphasized their goal to increase accessible information/services, improve immigrant health/wellness and provide direct assistance to immigrant families and seniors.
7.B. Fire Department
Code Enforcement Supervisor Lozano shared a PowerPoint presentation describing the divisions newly found partnership with CSC to develop equitable pathways to voluntary compliance for specific residents that are experiencing language barriers and behavioral health barriers. He articulated their goals for public safety, access to services and community engagement.
7.C. Public Works
Public Works Director Shawn Igoe presented a PowerPoint presentation announcing the Community Transportation Survey, the dates for the Monthly Compost Giveaway and the WARE Disposal Customer Survey.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
7.D. Library
City Librarian Olivarez showed a PowerPoint presentation detailing the previous events hosted by the library during the month of January and presented the upcoming events occurring in February which include: Happily Ever After, a romance author panel; Lunar New Year Craft Storytime; a Lunar New Year Plushie Workshop and the registration dates for the English as a second language classes for the spring semester. She announced the Library's celebration of Black History Month with the opportunity to stream Canopy and participate in programming such as the Take and Make Art Class and the Soul Food Program.
7.E. Recreation and Community Services
Director of Recreation and Community Services Aguirre displayed a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the success of the 2026 Lunar New Year Festival and thanked the residents and City staff for their collaboration. He spoke about the recent resurfacing of the Barnes Park tennis and pickleball courts and their plan to resurface the rest of the parks. He provided an update on the Barnes Park Pool Revitalization Survey and encouraged the community to provide input on the conceptual designs for the proposed pool and announced the Monterey Park Night at the Clippers Game Event where they will be celebrating Japanese Heritage Night.
Extension of Council Meeting
Action Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 1:00 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo and seconded by Council Member Wong, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Recess and Reconvened
The City Council recessed at 12:30 a.m. and reconvened with all Council Members present at 12:37 a.m.
8. Presentation
8.A. Recognition of 2025 Congressional App Challenge Third Place Winners: Drexel Ngo, Alina Ramos, Evan Lau and Athicha Chanpradub
This Agenda Item was heard after Agenda Additions and Deletions.
The third-place winners of the 2025 Congressional App Challenge, Drexel Ngo, Alina Ramos, Evan Lau and Athicha Chanpradub, voiced their appreciation to the City Council, their teachers, and families for their long-time support of their project. The City Council presented the team with certificates signifying their achievement and showcased a video about their app, EyeMax.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
9. Old Business
9.A. Consideration and possible action to direct the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a ballot proposition to prohibit data centers citywide and allow housing development within Saturn Park
This Agenda Item was heard after Public Communications.
On January 21, 2026, the City Council unanimously adopted a 45-day moratorium prohibiting the further processing or acceptance of data center applications. It is my (Council Member Ngo) understanding that a public hearing to consider extending the moratorium will be scheduled for March 4, 2026.
While our direction to the City Manager and City Attorney on January 21st was to draft new zoning regulations for City Council consideration which would implement the intent of the moratorium, i.e., a complete ban of data centers within the City, it seems that this is not enough. A voter-approved ban on data centers seems like the only way to ensure that the City is protected from future data center developments.
Additionally, the Saturn Park Innovation/Technology Zone (“SPITZ”) already allows for mixed use and live/work land uses (Ordinance No. 2270, adopted September 17, 2025). When the City Council added these land uses to the SPITZ, we generally agreed that a residential component is an important facet of the Saturn Park area.
After hearing public comment on January 21st, which heavily favored housing in this area, I think we need more residential options.
Accordingly, I ask that the City Council join me in directing the City Manager and City Attorney to draft a ballot proposition that would (1) ban all data centers within the City; and (2) expand the residential options within Saturn Park beyond mixed use and live/work. On March 4th, we should consider all residential oriented land uses that make sense in the Saturn Park area.
To give the City Manager and City Attorney additional time to draft a ballot proposition for consideration, I will be asking the City Council on March 4th to extend the moratorium until we can discuss whether City Council enacted zoning regulations or a ballot proposition approved by voters make the most sense to protect public health and safety. Since municipal elections are scheduled for November 2026, I will be asking the City Council in March to extend the moratorium adopted on January 21st to at least January 2027.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Directing the City Manager and City Attorney to draft a ballot proposition for City Council consideration at the March 4, 2026 City Council Meeting; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
Public Speakers:
M
ayor Yang announced the speakers in groups of five.
• Vincent Chang expressed his neutralism towards the development of a data center, shared his disappointment with the division between the City and the residents, and wished to see a fair system between the developer and the residents.
• Dora Leung submitted a speaker card but did not speak. • Amy Smith detailed the idea of setting standards for the future of Citywide development and requested not to let the opportunity go to waste. • Marc Gonzalez, a resident, conveyed his concerns about the potential negative effects a data center could have on the health of his family. • Amy, a resident, talked about her opposition to the idea of implementing a ballot measure regarding the prohibition of data centers and provided information on the potential negative effects data centers could bring to a residential area.
• Megan, a resident, elaborated on her disappointment and disapproval of a potential data center in Monterey Park.
• Carrie, a resident, commented on the number of Monterey Park residents who were uninformed about the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. She recommended the topic be on a future agenda to allow further discussion and asked the City Council to consider the appeal of Ordinance 2253. • Skywalker, a resident, expressed his frustrations regarding the division between the residents of Monterey Park and the union workers and explained the potential health risks of data centers.
• Skylar, a resident, alongside his two daughters, spoke about the potential increase in utility bills if a data center is developed. His daughters provided information on the risk of wildlife leaving their habitats due to the loud construction of a data center.
• Maria submitted a speaker card but did not speak as she was not present when her name was called.
• Jeremy submitted a speaker card but did not speak as he was not present when his name was called.
• May, a resident, voiced her opposition to a data center in Monterey Park, as she believed it was incompatible with the City and talked about the alleged lack of communication received between the City and the residents.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Joy Rowe talked about her educational background in public health and the potential health risks data centers bring to a community and how it will affect their quality of life.
• Jesse Damon, a resident, shared his appreciation to the City Council for their willingness to listen to the residents’ concerns and recommended different avenues the City can take to protect the health and wellness of the community. He requested local town hall meetings to discuss the language of what the proposed ballot measure would look like, and commented on the Applicant's alleged lack of communication with the residents regarding the proposed data center project on 1977 Saturn St.
• Anne Kageyama expressed confusion about the topic of housing in the proposed ballot measure. She articulated her opinion on the temporary jobs the union workers would receive if a data center was built and provided business recommendations that could bring in revenue for the City.
• Jim Pugh, from the Sheppard Law Firm, representing the Applicant, articulated his disapproval of the proposed ballot measure and the ban on data centers in the City. He commented on the Applicant's efforts to address the resident's concerns and potential litigation risk with the City. He provided written correspondence.
• Lauren submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Mark Rudholm, a resident, provided his experience working in data centers, believed a ballot measure was premature and a missed opportunity for future revenue for the City.
• Cindy Alvarado, a resident, commented on her love for Monterey Park and expressed her opposition towards zone changes that do not benefit the quality of life of the residents.
• Jessica Jy, a resident representing an extended network of residents throughout the City, conveyed her disapproval of the development of a data center and would like to support small business in the City.
• Dave Jones, resident, thanked Mayor Yang, Council Member Sanchez and Council Member Ngo for their efforts to communicate to the public regarding the proposed data center project on 1977 Saturn Street. He expressed his opposition to data centers and to the concept of a ballot measure, as he believed it provides the opportunity for the applicant to sway the votes in their favor.
• Andres Abarca articulated his viewpoint on the potential harm data centers could bring to the community and requested to have the ballot measure represent the desires of the residents.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Valerie Lizarraga submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Frida I, a resident, conveyed her experience and support of unions, but spoke in opposition to the concept of data centers in Monterey Park. She claimed data centers are detrimental to the environment, and the potential project will only bring in temporary jobs.
• Christine Rodriguez, a resident, talked about her disapproval of a data center and the proposed ballot measure, as she believed it brings the developer the opportunity to sway the votes in their favor. She reminded the City Council of their actions reflecting the residents' viewpoint of them.
• Paul Lange, a resident and union member, opposed the idea of a data center, as he believed it would cause irreparable harm to the environment. He showed his respect to the union members and their attempts to obtain jobs but claimed there would be no long-term profits if the project was developed.
• Gordon Huang, a resident, spoke about his respect for the advancement of technology but on ethical grounds. He provided different options for revenue and growth in Monterey Park.
• Jazmin Gonzalez reiterated the residents' opposition towards the Applicant and his project and not the union workers.
• Juan De Lara provided his opinion on data centers and spoke of different alternatives that could improve the development of a data center in Monterey Park.
• Jeffrey Munoz conveyed his opposition to data centers.
• Tommy Favaee representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 11, spoke in opposition to the ballot measure as he believed it would prevent the production of jobs for the community. He commented on the opportunity to work and grow in the community of Monterey Park.
• Christina Johnyn submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Diana Limon, representing IBEW Local 11, opposed the proposed ballot measure and urged the City Council to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to determine the best decision for the City.
• Jorge Hernandez, representing IBEW Local 11, requested an EIR to provide facts about the project before the City Council decides on the future of the project.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Emily Chu, a resident, thanked the City Council for hearing the community and commented on the City Council's initial action to approve the development of a data center until massive public input was received. She claimed it has caused a lack of trust between the residents and the City Council and requested the City Council to approach the data center ban with accountability and transparency.
• Charlie Ly, a resident, described the City Council as fighters and requested them to fight, listen and serve the people.
• Evelyn Moreno shared her opposition to the idea of data centers and opposed the added language of housing in the proposed ballot measure. She believed the subject of data centers should be a stand-alone option for the residents to vote on.
• Brenda Campos voiced her opinion against the moratorium. She claimed it would prevent union-based families the affordability to live.
• Madeline Ocampo asked the City Council to explore multiple options to ban data centers as they are potentially detrimental to public health and only benefit the corporations funding their development.
• Deb Simone, a resident, vocalized her hesitance towards a ballot measure and instead inquired about the repeal of Ordinance No. 2253. She suggested developing projects that are beneficial to the community.
• Jackie Waltman, representing IBEW Local 11, commented on the strong opinions presented to the City Council and recommended an EIR before a final decision is made.
• Fabian Nuñez, representing the Applicant of the proposed 1977 Saturn St data center project, presented to the City Council flyers created to educate the public on their project. He articulated his respect for those in opposition to the project, voiced his opposition to the proposed ballot measure, and talked about the necessity of an EIR to allow debate and discussion.
• Tommy Zelinski, representing IBEW Local 11, opposed the proposed ballot measure and moratorium since the Applicant has agreed to conduct an EIR.
He requested the Council to look at the facts before deciding the future of the project.
• Hrag Balian, a resident, commented on the petition that was launched a few weeks ago and provided an update on the number of signatures they have received since then. He spoke in support of the ballot, raised concerns regarding the language about housing, reiterated the idea of transparency within the City Council and recommended the appeal of Ordinance 2253.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Yvonne Wong, a resident, shared her disappointment upon learning about the proposed data center project through a flyer in Montebello. She believed there was alleged favoritism to the Applicant from the City Council and requested the City Council to think about the needs of the residents.
• Bosco Woo questioned whether the City Council trusted the Applicant more than the residents. He agreed there would be temporary jobs for the union, but it would lead to long-term effects on the community and requested a ban on data centers entirely.
• Nate Brotton submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Robert Castro, a resident, voiced his opposition to the development of a data center in the City as he is worried about the future children who will grow up in Monterey Park and reiterated the idea of developing projects in the City that would benefit the union workers.
• Rolan Gutierrez representing Sprinkler Fitters U.A. Local 709, spoke in support of the development of data centers, and understood the concerns residents have regarding the development of the project. He emphasized the professionalism his union workers bring to ensure craftsmanship and integrity are implemented during the development of a project.
• Eduardo Lemus, a resident, asked the City Council to consider the future of technology in the City and to take the necessary steps to ensure it is done efficiently.
• Claudia Vera explained the City’s need to move towards progress that would provide opportunities for the Hispanic community.
• David Hansen spoke about democracy and shared his appreciation for the debates shown at the meeting. He claimed the anger felt by the community is justified and reiterated the idea of educating the community to ensure accurate information is being presented about data centers.
• Chris Perry, Superintendent for Clune Construction Company, shared his experience working in data centers, showed his support towards an EIR in opposition to a ban and commented on the need to respect others when stating their opinion to the City Council.
• Eleanor Lee submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Christa Lee submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Randye Kaye, an Alhambra resident, reiterated the community’s opposition to a data center in Monterey Park and stated the importance of having an i
ndependent engineering firm perform the EIR to prevent biased opinions on the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project. She spoke about her ex
perience as an immigrant and advocacy for the community. • Jeremy, member of Amazon Teamsters, shared his opinion on the union workers’ support towards data centers and the suggested developing a project that has nothing to do with data centers.
• Anna Yeh reiterated her opinion of being pro-business but anti data center. • Susan Halfbreed submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was
called.
• Rene Palacios, representing the Ironworkers Local 433 Union, detailed the benefits projects such as the data center provide to the local workforce as it provides opportunities for people and brings a civic and economic boost to the City.
• Tyler
Byrd, representing Ironworkers 433 Union, elaborated on the idea of developing a good project with qualified standards to ensure its completion. • Max Reid, a resident, articulated his opinion on the Applicant and their alleged goal to harm the City.
• Clotilde Jang submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Kevin Crow submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.
• Joel
Greenfield submitted a speaker card but was not present when his n ame was called.
• Alice Li
submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Laziz
a Lambert, in association with Actum LLC and the Applicant, spoke about
their outreaching efforts to the community and requested an EIR to allow concrete facts to be presented for the City Council’s decision. • Xochitl
Medrano, Political Coordinator of the District Council of Ironworkers, shared her youth experience in the San Gabriel Valley and detailed the importance of
implementing safety regulations to ensure the successful development
of a data center.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Veto Basulto, representative of Anchor Church, claimed data centers are powerful tools for schools, jobs and worldwide communication. • Kira Hum, a resident, asked the City Council to listen to the concerns of the r
esidents for the City Council decisions will affect the families in the City. • Nicole Garaldon submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.
• Zach Strasters acknowledged the concerns presented by the residents and r
equested an EIR as it would provide concrete facts in the decision-making process for the City Council.
• Godfrey Wachira, representing Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA), requested an EIR as he believed it is necessary for the City Council's consideration of the proposed 1977 Saturn dat
a center project.
• Roxana Farahani, resident, articulated her opinion on the Applicant and A
ctum LLC, claiming they do not have the resident's best interests in mind and urged the community to remain strong and diligent in their advocacy against data centers.
• Harrison Kwok, a resident, spoke about the residents' advocacy during the City Council meetings and claimed the City Council lacked the leadershi p
needed t
o ban data centers entirely.
• George Bocanegra, representing the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America union in Los Angeles County, talked about the passion the residents have exuded about data centers. He showed his support to develop a dat
a center and his opposition to the proposed ballot measure as he believed banning potential development would hurt the construction industry and economic growth of the City.
• Bryan Mercke, a resident, voiced his approval of the proposed ballot measure, appraised the implementation of housing, allowing the City to be more aligned with the State’s regulations.
• Yun talked about Actum LLC's collaboration with the Applicant, and their alleged attempts to shape a narrative to minimize community resistance. H e
c
laimed the residents deserve transparency, and there must be a more r
esident-friendly solution to increase revenue for the City. • Felicia Marquez thanked the City Council for staying late with the community to hear their concerns and commented on the burden the State has given t o
l
ocal governments in implementing regulations on data centers. She believed t
here is no need for an EIR as the evidence and findings of the community are sufficient and announced her advocation for her fellow residents.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
• Teresa read an excerpt taken from January 21, 2026, City Council meeting video, conveyed her opinion about the City Council's lack of accountability, the potential consequences the City will have if a data center was developed and pr
esented the idea of implementing housing for it will create long-lasting j
obs and stability in the community.
• Bryant Phan, a resident, thanked Council Member Sanchez's stance on banning data centers. He believed there are plenty of projects the unions could work on that do not have to be a data center.
• Samuel articulated his experience of moving to Monterey Park as an immigrant and stated he would not have moved to Monterey Park had he
k
nown a potential data center would be built.
• Steven Kung voiced his opinion on the Applicant and Actum LLC and advocated for the residents’ desire to ban data centers. • Richard Chou’s name was announced earlier in the meeting, but he spoke near
the end. He provided his opinion on the residents' comments about the uni
on workers and spoke about his own experience as a union worker and gr
owing up as a Monterey Park resident.
• Casey Wong’s name was announced earlier in the meeting but spoke near the end. She provided her opinion about the speakers that were in favor of developing a data center in Monterey Park and commented on the City Council’s ability to repeal Ordinance No. 2253.
• The City Clerk’s Office received and filed written communications regarding A
genda Item No. 9.A. from Betty Hang, Janice, Andrew Liu, Bill Torbey, Kelsey Ko, Shanna Chau, Christopher Bao, Liane Tiet, Maggie K. Lee, Betsy Storm, Ashley Sere, Alex Arinsberg, Jimmy Chao, Georgianna Chan, Kai Knight, Stephen Vicuna, Carol Clemente, Samantha Vizcaino, Terrance Sy, Natalie Alvarado, Harold Tom, Karen T., Kysa Hayashi, Jacquelin Sun, Michelle Tom, Clotilde Jang, Carol Ono, Stella Dominguez, Malena Hoyos, Seleste Delgado, Isela Velazquez, Steven J. Kung, Alex Ventura, Michael Chan, Trinity Pike, Joni L Meyers, Joyce Vega, Yvette Morales, Phoi Tran Yan, Irene Ikeda, Meredith Alling, Cindy Teng, Deborah Bona, Katherine Yu, Maureen Krause, Grace Cavazos, Jenny Yang, Sharon Situ, Dorothy Wang, George and Jan Nishida, Victoria Mevs-
Lee, Annie Chuong, Samantha Wong,
Kevin Diep, Bosco Woo, Daniela Cruz, Bosco, Janice Yee, Kaitlin Neal, Anne Li
u, Taige Hao, Mark Shinohara, Kevin Ma, Kevin, Sofia Ruiz, Bina Takeuchi, Yennefer, Lauren Shen, Jim H. Dao, Ben Wong and Phuong Troung, Alice, Morgan Soloski, Angie Cung, Queenie Y., Brenda Martin Del Campo, Christine Huynh, Paul Minh Tran, Cheryl Tay, Gabbie Metheny, Joyce Truong, Jared Kuchinsky, Fernando and Leticia Flores, Caitlin Torres, Sara h
S
hultz, Ryan Cheung, Alexandria Alger, Roger Lin, Matthew Huang, Leslie Y
ick, Alex Lung, Felicity Hall, Debbie Carlos, Chadwick Arita, Victoria Wong, Christopher Lam and James Pugh.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
Extension of Council Meeting
A
ction Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 12:00 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo and seconded by Council Member Wong, the motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Public Speakers, continued:
• V
icente Ocampo, a resident, shared his opinion about the union allegedly becoming pawns for the Applicant and claimed the long-term consequences would affect the community greater than the benefits.
• Andrew Yip, organizer for the San Gabriel Valley Progressive Action, commented on the organization's goal to provide community defense and
announc
ed their plan to bring awareness to the residents about data centers. • Margaret Leung talked about the passion she has seen from the youth who are advocating for a ban on data centers and voiced her frustrations with the C
ity Council and the way business is conducted in the City. • Aurora Mireles, a resident, conveyed her viewpoint on the amount of positivity shown by the community and organizers, and stated there is fear from the r
esidents due to information allegedly provided by Actum LLC and the A
pplicant.
• M
eredith Alling commented on the lack of respect between the residents and t
he union members speaking and advocated for the idea of more jobs for projects that will benefit the City.
Discussion: Council Member Ngo provided an overview of the proposed staff report addressing the recent discussion amongst community members about their concerns regarding data centers in the City.
The City Council ensued in a discussion about the consideration of drafting a ballot proposition regarding data centers and the opportunity to have staff research other options for consideration.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
Extension of Council Meeting
A
ction Taken: The City Council extended the meeting to 12:30 a.m.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Sanchez, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation and directed staff to explore different options to prohibit data centers citywide for the City Council's consideration and to collect input from community members.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Council Member Sanchez, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None
10. Consent Calendar
This item was heard after Staff Communications.
All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.
A
ction Taken: The City Council approved Agenda Item No. 10.A., 10.B., 10.C., 10.D.,
10.E., 10.F., and 10.G. reading resolutions and ordinances by title only and waiving f
urther reading thereof. Mayor Yang declared a potential Conflict of Interest on Agenda Ite
m No. 10.F., recused herself and did not vote on the item.
Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo and seconded by Council Member Wong, motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None
Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: Elizabeth Yang for Agenda Item No. 10.F.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
10.A. Minutes
The minutes are a record of the official actions taken at the City Council meeting.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the minutes from the special meeting of December 17, 2025 and t
he regular meeting of December 17, 2025; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
A
ction Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.
10.B. Monthly Investment Report
As of December 31, 2025, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $79,773,412.67.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the report, on Consent Calendar.
10.C. Approve locations for a future mural celebrating the United States Semiquincentennial at Barnes Park and a mural honoring the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno/Tongva, at Sierra Vista Park.
The City Council has expressed interest in increasing public art in the City of Monterey Park. In an effort to expand access to art throughout the City, the Director of Recreation & Community Services is proposing two sites for future murals:
• Barnes Park - In celebration of the United States of America’s 250 years of independence, the Director is proposing the commission of a mural on the ex
terior wall of the Barnes Park Gymnasium facing McPherrin Avenue. The Dir
ector will work with a local artist to develop a design that honors the nation and creates a destination for residents and visitors alike. The design will be r
eviewed by the Community Participation Commission, and the final design w
ill be approved by the City Council.
• Sierra Vista Park – The Director is working with the City Engineer to develop a Tongv
a-themed playground with outdoor fitness equipment. To enhance this project and beautify the park, a future mural designed by a local Tongva ar
tist is being proposed for a wall facing the playground at the rear of the Sierra Vista Community Center. The City has received a letter of support from Chief Anthony Morales of the Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving locations for future murals celebrating the United States Semiquincentennial at Barnes Park and a mural honoring the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino/Tongva, at Sierra Vista Park; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
A
ction Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.
10.D. Consideration of Sending a Letter of Support on Behalf of Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment as a Sub-Applicant to the California Air Resources Board for their Application for the 2025 Planning and Capacity Building Grant The Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment (“PACE”) reached out to the City and desires to partner with the City for the 2025 California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) Planning and Building Capacity Grant. This grant seeks to assist communities plan for clean and equitable transportation solutions. Per the grant requirement, because PACE is a community-based organization, they need a sub-applicant to be a local government or tribal government. Similarly, the grant requires the following: the project budget for planning cannot exceed $500,000 and more than 50% of the Project Community must be in disadvantaged or low-income community census tracts.
PACE has identified the City of Monterey Park as a desired partner due to the City’s diverse and large population. PACE has a long history of serving the City of Monterey Park residents and businesses through small business assistance and lending, residential weatherization, and energy savings and efficiency outreach programs.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. If desirable, sending a letter of support on behalf of the Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment’s grant application to the California Air Resources Board’s 2025 Planning and Capacity Building Grant; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
A
ction Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.
10.E. Waive further reading and adopt an Ordinance amending Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 1.10, 2.56, 4.20, and 4.30 to designate the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals to consider appeals arising from application of the California Building Standards Code
Title 16 to the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) codifies the California Building Standards Code (24 Cal. Code of Regs. § 1.1, et seq.) with local amendments (collectively, the “CBSC”). This Ordinance is proposed in response to Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 456 to make it plain that the Planning Commission is designated to be the board of appeals for matters arising from enforcement of the CBSC.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
The Ordinance was introduced and received first reading at the January 21, 2026 City Council meeting (See Attachment 1 to the staff report). The staff report from January 21, 2026 is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of this Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the ordinance will take effect in 30 days.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
The Ordinance is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) because it consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing code of construction-related regulations and specification of procedures related thereto and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings required therefor, and therefore does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Waiving the second reading, and adopting the proposed Ordinance am
ending Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 1.10, 2.56, 4.20, and
4.30 to designate the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals to consider appeals arising from application of the California Building Standards Code; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
A
ction Taken: The City Council waived the second reading and approved and adopted Ordinance No. 2273, on Consent Calendar.
Ordinance No. 2273
An Ordinance amending Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 1.10, 2.56, 4.20, and 4.30 to designate the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals to consider appeals arising from application of the California Building Standards Code
10.F. Annual Weed Abatement Declaration List
The County of Los Angeles Department of Agriculture Commissioner/Weights and Measures (Weed Abatement Division) has submitted the annual Weed Abatement Declaration List to the City. (The Weed Abatement Declaration List (“Declaration List”) is a list of parcels in Monterey Park which have been identified by inspection to contain, or have the potential to contain weeds, brush or other flammable materials sufficient to be considered a fire hazard.) The accompanying Resolution seeks City Council approval to declare the properties on the annual Weed Abatement Declaration List to be public nuisances which may be abated. The authority to remove properties from the Declaration List, upon request and after investigation, will be assigned to the City Manager or designee.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). Adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Resolution may have a significant effect on the environment.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting the attached Resolution with the Declaration List; and/or
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Action Taken: Mayor Yang announced a potential Conflict of Interest as her property is listed on the Weed Abatement Declaration List, recused herself and did not participate on the item. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-R3, on Consent Calendar.
Resolution No. 2026-R3
A resolution adopted pursuant to Government Code § 39561 declaring that weeds, brush, rubbish, refuse and dirt upon and in front of certain public and private property in the city are a public nuisance, and declaring its intention to provide for abatement.
10.G. Black History Month Resolution
The attached resolution is being brought forth to the Council for consideration at the request of Council Member Sanchez.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the attached resolution; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
A
ction Taken: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-R4 on Consent Calendar.
Resolution No. 2026-R4
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, California, declaring and recognizing the month of February 2026 as National Black History Month
11. Public Hearing
None.
12. New Business
None.
xx-xx
February 4, 2026
13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items Council Member Ngo shared his appreciation to the community for their civic engagement during the previous City Council meetings and mentioned his attendance at the Lunar New Year Festival.
Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the Lunar New Year Festival and requested staff to research opportunities to increase the amount of immigration services in partnership with the Chinese Service Center, research language regarding U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Free Zones Ordinances and to provide an update on agenda management and speaker card operations during City Council meetings.
Mayor Pro Tem Lo mentioned his attendance at the Lunar New Year Festival.
Mayor Yang spoke in recognition to the Police Department and Fire Department for their efforts in keeping the community safe at the Lunar New Year Festival and at the City Council Meetings and announced upcoming holidays/celebrations which include:
Superbowl Sunday, Lunar New Year and Valentine's Day.
14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce) None.
15. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 12:42 a.m.
__________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk
Approved on MM DD, YYYY at the Regular City Council Meeting
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.B.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Amy Lee, City Treasurer
Subject: Monthly Investment Report
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
As of February 28, 2026, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $80,412,416.18.
Background:
In accordance with the City’s Investment Policy, a monthly investment report is presented to the City Council showing the types of investments, dates and maturities, amounts of deposits, rates of interest, and the current market values for securities with maturity more than 12 months. The attached monthly investment report includes a portfolio summary from Chandler Asset Management.
Strategic Plan Goal:
N/A
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Monthly Investment Report
Staff Report
April 1, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
Monthly Investment Report
INVESTMENTS PORTFOLIO PROFILE:
TOTAL BALANCE AT 2/28/2026 80,412,416.18 $
INVESTMENT COMPOSITION
(1)LA COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT FUND ON DEMAND 3.17% 27,091,827.45$ (2)LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND ON DEMAND 3.871% 18,465,599.11$ (3)CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT 4.43% 27,098,956.21$
Purchase Maturity Interest
(4)CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT Date Date Rate
1 RIZE FED CREDIT UNION 12/13/24 12/14/26 4.25% 245,000 2 FIRST SEACOAST BANK 01/27/25 01/27/27 4.15% 247,000
3 GOLDMAN SACHES BANK 01/28/25 01/28/27 4.15% 244,000
4 FIRST BUSINESS BANK 01/30/25 01/29/27 4.15% 244,000
5 FIRST KY BANK 01/30/25 02/01/27 4.15% 249,000
6 AUSTIN TELCO FED CREDIT UNION 01/31/25 02/01/27 4.25% 249,000 7 SOUND CREDIT UNION 01/31/25 02/01/27 4.20% 249,000
8 MORGAN STANLEY BANK 02/12/25 02/12/27 4.30% 244,000
9 MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK 02/12/25 02/12/27 4.30% 244,000 10 OREGON COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION 02/24/25 02/24/27 4.30% 249,000 11 MERRICK BANK 02/28/25 02/26/27 4.30% 249,000
12 FIRST WESTERN TRUST BANK 03/06/25 03/06/26 4.25% 249,000 13 SOUTHERN STATES BANK 03/21/25 03/22/27 4.15% 249,000 14 CORPORATE AMERICA FAMILY CREDIT UNION03/27/25 03/27/26 4.25% 249,000 15 PARKWAY BANK & TRUST 03/27/25 03/27/26 4.20% 239,000 16 TOYOTA FINANCIAL SAVINGS BANK 04/10/25 04/12/27 4.00% 245,000 17 UBS BANK 04/23/25 04/23/27 3.95% 249,000
18 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK 04/30/25 04/30/27 4.05% 245,000 19 STATE BANK INDIA 05/05/25 05/05/27 4.10% 244,000
20 TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE BANK 05/12/25 05/12/27 4.00% 249,000 21 FINWISE BANK 05/21/25 05/21/27 4.00% 249,000
22 CONNEXUS CREDIT UNION 07/23/25 07/23/27 4.10% 245,000 23 HARBORSTONE CREDIT UNION 08/06/25 08/06/26 4.25% 249,000 24 HOPE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 08/21/25 08/21/26 4.10% 240,000 25 CIVIC FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 08/29/25 08/28/26 4.15% 249,000 26 PREFERRED BANK 09/03/25 09/03/26 3.93% 113,033
27 OPTUM BANK 09/15/25 09/15/27 3.70% 245,000
28 FIRST BANK 09/19/25 03/19/27 3.70% 245,000
29 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CREDIT UNION 09/24/25 09/24/27 3.65% 249,000 30 DORT FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION 10/10/25 10/12/27 3.75% 247,000 31 ALLIANT CREDIT UNION 10/30/25 10/30/26 4.00% 249,000 32 DART BANK 01/30/26 02/01/28 3.65% 245,000 01/00/00
Total CDs (32) 4.076% 7,756,033.41$
OTHER INFORMATION:
BANK BALANCE: (1) $27,140,182.45
AVERAGE MATURITY DAYS 148
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE FOR THE MONTH 3.830%
THE CITY'S INVESTMENT HAS SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY TO MEET THE CITY'S EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEXT 180 DAYS. THE 180-DAY LIQUIDITY DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED PER GOVERNMENT CODE 53646.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO VARIANCES TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY.
(1) Bank balance is maintained to cover outstanding warrants, payroll checks and on-going operating costs.
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
INVESTMENT REPORT
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
City of Monterey Park | Account #11189 | As of February 28, 2026PORTFOLIO SUMMARYAccount SummaryCredit Quality*Total Rate of Return** 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS(03/12/24)City of Monterey Park 0.60% 1.16% 0.85% 5.09%Benchmark Return 0.52% 1.06% AA+1.99 End Values as of 01/31/2026End Values as of 02/28/2026Market ValueAccrued InterestTotal Market Value 27,499,815.90 27,661,542.340.00 0.00ParBook ValueCost ValueUnited StatesFarm Credit System 6.61%6.29%1.60%1.52%1.28%
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.C.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Martha Garcia, Director of Finance
Subject: Services Agreement First Amendment to Fifth Asset Inc, DBA Debtbook for Debt, Cash and Investment Management Software and Services
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to Agreement No. 2369-AI with Fifth Asset Inc., DBA Debtbook, in a form approved by the City Attorney. This first amendment will permit Fifth Asset Inc. to continue to provide the City with debt, cash and investment management software and services from May 20, 2026, through May 19, 2029, and increase the not-to-exceed amount to $80,500 for the term of the Agreement; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
On April 27, 2023, the City entered into a 3-year Services Agreement from May 20, 2023, to May 19, 2026, for an amount not to exceed $37,000 with Fifth Asset Inc., dba Debtbook.
It is recommended that Council authorize the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to Agreement No. 2369-AI with Fifth Asset Inc., DBA Debtbook, extending the expiration date from May 19, 2026 to May 19, 2029, for the continued subscription to debt, cash and investment management software and services and increase the not to exceed amount from $37,000 to $80,500 for the term of the Agreement.
Background:
Fifth Asset Inc., dba DebtBook, provides modern treasury and accounting software for debt, cash and investment management to governmental and nonprofit organizations. The City utilizes the software to ensure compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 87 lease management and GASB 96 subscription management.
The City requests that the Council authorize a First Amendment to Agreement No. 2369-AI with Fifth Asset Inc, DBA Debtbook, to extend the expiration date from May 19, 2026, to May 19, 2029, and increase the not-to-exceed amount by $43,500 from $37,000 to $80,500 for the term of the Agreement.
Strategic Plan Goal:
N/A
Fiscal Impact:
Funds for future fiscal years will be budgeted during the annual budget process. The cost for the proposed amendment is $43,500 for a total of $80,500 for the term of the Agreement.
Attachments:
None
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.D.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Rebecca Bojorquez, Principal Management Analyst
Subject: Creation of a Subcommittee on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' SGV Forward Project Proposal
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing this report;
2. If desirable, appointing two Council Members to serve on a subcommittee to discuss the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' SGV Forward Project Proposal; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
City Council Members have been interested in engaging with other adjoining cities regarding the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government’s (“SGVCOG”) SGV Forward Project. If interested, each city (Rosemead, Monterey Park, El Monte and South El Monte) may appoint two Council Members to create a subcommittee to discuss the proposed changes on Garvey Avenue as identified in the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government’s (“SGVCOG”) SGV Forward Project. The goal of this subcommittee is to hear from each city's representatives about potential impacts that may affect each jurisdiction and provide direct feedback to the COG about the proposed changes along Garvey Avenue.
Background:
In 2024, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government (“SGVCOG”), in partnership with LA Metro, released their San Gabriel Valley Transit Feasibility Study, which was a multi-year study about the region’s transportation needs. The study identified both short-term and long-term opportunities that could create an integrated transit network system for the entire San Gabriel Valley.
SGV Forward aims to implement transit improvement projects based on mobility gaps as identified in the Transit Feasibility Study. Some of the suggested changes are bus rapid transit lanes (“BRT”), traffic signal priority (“TSP”), and enhanced transit stops. The SGV Forward’s goal is to complete these projects prior to the 2028 Olympic Games. One of the first projects identified is proposed changes along Garvey Avenue, beginning in Monterey Park and ending in South El Monte. According to SGV Forward, the proposed changes will be driven by the results of parking and traffic studies, and community outreach with local jurisdictions.
Information on the SGV Forward Project is available on SGVCOG's website: https://www.sgvcog.org/sgvforward-theproject.
In response to the proposed changes along Garvey Avenue, the creation of a subcommittee is being proposed, consisting of two council members from each of the cities along the corridor.
At their March 10, 2026, City Council meeting, the Rosemead City Council selected Mayor Sandra Armenta and Council Member Steven Ly to serve as their representatives on the subcommittee. The City of El Monte is interested in participating in the subcommittee and is looking to appoint council members in the near future. The subcommittee is still in its early stages of development, and as such, there is no defined meeting schedule. However, the hope is to have the first subcommittee meeting before the start of summer. Similarly, the goal of the subcommittee is to have the SGVCOG present directly to the subcommittee, as to allow the subcommittee to submit their feedback directly to the COG.
Strategic Plan Goal:
This item meets the City Council Strategic Goal of maintaining, building and modernizing infrastructure and facilities to support the current and future needs of our community. The representation on this subcommittee will allow for the needs of the Monterey Park community to be effectively communicated, as it relates to the current and future needs of community members that commute along Garvey Avenue.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
Attachments:
None
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.E.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Martha Garcia, Director of Finance
Subject: Waive Further Reading and Adopt an Ordinance to Expand the Lifeline Utility Rate Program and Clarify Billing, Collection, and Owner Responsibility for Water, Wastewater, and other City Billed Utility Charges
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
The Ordinance was introduced and received first reading at the March 18, 2026, City Council meeting. The original staff report is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of this Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the Ordinance will replace Urgency Ordinance (attached).
Background:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
N/A
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. March 18, 2026 Staff Report (without attachments)
Staff Report
April 1, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTERS 6.08 AND 14.12 AND ADDING CHAPTERS
14.14 AND 14.18 TO EXPAND THE LIFELINE UTILITY RATE
PROGRAM AND CLARIFY BILLING, COLLECTION, AND
OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, AND
OTHER CITY BILLED UTILITY CHARGES
The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 14.12.185 establishes a discretionary lifeline water rate program (the “Lifeline Program”), allowing the City Council to offer discounted water rates to eligible low-income seniors, disabled individuals, and households enrolled in certain assistance program; the Council sets the discount amount annually by resolution, based on projected city water fund revenues and the number of qualified applicants.
B. The City Council seeks to extend the Lifeline Program eligibility to other City utilities.
C. The City Council finds that consolidating utility billing, delinquency, and collection provisions into a single chapter improves clarity, consistency, and administrative efficiency for City-billed utility services.
D. This Ordinance is intended to expand the Lifeline Program, clarify its implementation, and establish uniform procedures governing City-provided utility services, including billing, collection, and enforcement.
SECTION 2: A new chapter 14.14 is added to the MPMC to read as follows:
“Chapter 14.14 LIFELINE UTILITY RATE PROGRAM
§ 14.14.010 Purpose.
This chapter’s purpose is to promote equity and affordability for vulnerable populations in Monterey Park by authorizing the City Council to establish and periodically review discounted “lifeline” rates for eligible utilities. This chapter is intended to enable access to essential utility services at reduced rates for income-qualified households, including low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities, thereby enhancing quality of life and supporting public health and welfare. The lifeline utility rate framework allows the City Council the flexibility to address community needs and fiscal constraints annually, ensuring the program remains responsive and financially sustainable.
§ 14.14.020 Rates.
A. On an annual basis, the City Council may determine by resolution whether to make lifeline rates available to qualified utility customers for any utility provided by or billed through the City, including, without limitation, water and wastewater services. The specific utilities subject to the lifeline rate program will be identified in any annual City Council resolution.
B. Nothing in this chapter creates, or is intended to create, a property right for qualified persons to a lifeline rate as described by this chapter. Rather, establishing a lifeline rate for any utility is a discretionary determination made by the City Council each year, and may depend, among other factors, on projected fund revenues as identified in the resolution.
C. Granting a lifeline rate under this chapter does not alter or limit the responsibility of any property owner for unpaid utility charges, or the City’s authority to collect delinquent charges.
§ 14.14.030 Eligibility and qualifications.
A. Customers meeting the qualifications in this section may pay a discounted rate equal to the monthly residential rates and charges established by City resolution minus a flat dollar amount, percentage reduction, or alternative formula as determined annually by the City Council for each designated utility. Customers who do not utilize this discounted rate will pay the regular rate.
B. In adopting a resolution determining the discount or rate structure, the City Council may consider factors including, without limitation:
1. The anticipated revenue and fiscal impacts on City utility funds.
2. The number of customers projected to qualify for the discounted rate for each utility
3. The residential rates and charges then established for each utility.
C. The City Council may amend any adopted resolution by the same method as initial adoption.
D. To qualify for the lifeline utility rate, the applicant must be the customer of record, reside primarily at the service address, and meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. Establish that the combined adjusted gross income of all household members, as used for California Personal Income Tax Law, was less than the figure in effect on the preceding first day of April as the “very low income” limitation for a family of two in the City of Monterey Park under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. For each fiscal year, the Director of Finance or designee will determine and utilize the prior calendar year’s adjusted gross income limitation based on such HUD guidelines;
2. Be a qualified participant in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program established by Public Utilities Code §§ 739.1 and 739.2, as determined by the most recent California Public Utilities Commission decisions; or
3. Be a qualified participant in the California Universal Telephone Service program established pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 871 et seq. § 14.14.040 Application.
A. Applications for the lifeline utility rate must be filed with the Director of Finance or designee. The Director, or designee, may require additional evidence as deemed necessary to process the claim. Only one applicant per household is permitted per utility. The City may at any time require continued proof of eligibility.
B. The lifeline utility rate will first appear on the next full billing cycle after approval for an eligible household.”
SECTION 3: MPMC §§ 6.08.090 through 6.08.140, inclusive, are deleted in their entirety.
SECTION 4: MPMC §§ 14.12.010, 14.12.020, 14.12.185, 14.12.210, and 14.12.240 through
14.12.370, inclusive, are deleted in their entirety.
SECTION 5: A new chapter 14.18 is added to the MPMC to read as follows:
“Chapter 14.18 UTILITY BILLING
§ 14.18.010 Purpose.
This chapter is adopted pursuant to the City’s police powers and applicable law and is intended to conform with state requirements governing municipal utility billing and service discontinuance.
§ 14.18.020 Definitions.
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter.
CUSTOMER: Any person who applies for utility service(s) and is responsible for payment of the utility bill.
DIRECTOR: The City Manager, or designee. Unless otherwise designated, the Finance Director.
NEW CUSTOMER: Any customer who does not have a payment history established with the city within the previous 24 months.
PERSON: Any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, company or corporation.
UTILITY: City-provided solid waste, wastewater, or potable water service, or any combination.
§ 14.18.025 Liability for utility charges.
Except as otherwise provided by applicable law, the owner of record of a parcel and any customer of record are jointly and severally responsible for all utility charges, fees, penalties, and lawful costs associated with that parcel. Utility charges may be imposed and collected as charges for service to real property, and, where permitted by applicable law, may be treated as property related charges enforceable through parcel-based remedies authorized by this code and California law.
§ 14.18.030 Application for service.
Each customer seeking utility service must file a written application with the Director in the form and manner prescribed by the Director. By applying for, and using, utilities, the customer agrees to be, and is, subject to the provisions of this chapter and all rules and regulations of the city.
§ 14.18.040 Creditworthiness.
To avoid paying a security deposit, persons seeking to establish a utility service account must establish credit, which may be established upon qualifying under anyone of the following criteria:
A. The applicant is a current utility customer with the city and paid all bills for service without being temporarily or permanently discontinued for nonpayment during a period of 12 consecutive months immediately before applying for a new utility account;
B. The applicant was a utility customer with the city in the past two years and during the last 12 consecutive months that service was provided paid for all bills for the service without having been temporarily or permanently discontinued for nonpayment;
C. The applicant owns the premises upon which the city is requested to furnish utility service; or is the owner of other local real estate. If the applicant is seeking to open a commercial account, the real estate must be owned by the business to which service would be provided;
D. The applicant furnishes proof of prompt payment of rent or other credit obligation a guarantor in a form satisfactory to the city attorney to secure payment of utility service bills;
E. The applicant provides proof of prompt payment of rent or other credit obligation; or
F. The applicant otherwise establishes credit to the city's reasonable satisfaction.
§ 14.18.050 Security deposits.
A. The city may require a customer to deposit a sum of money with the city to guarantee payment of all utility charges.
B. The Director may set the amount of the deposit up to three times the amount of the historic average monthly bill for the property served or for substantially similar property.
The city must credit the amount of the deposit, without an interest payment, to the customer's account upon the discontinuance of any service and after applying the deposit to any outstanding customer utility bill(s). Any balance of the deposit then remaining with the city will be returned to the person making the deposit, without interest.
C. Any applicant who is the property owner of record, or any applicant who has the written approval of the property owner of record, may choose to enter into a Lien Authorization Agreement, in the form and manner prescribed by the Director, in lieu of a cash deposit.
By doing so, the applicant and/or the property owner of record agree that, pursuant to applicable California law, and upon the direction of the City Council, the city is authorized to collect and annually transfer to the County Auditor for inclusion on the next year's tax bill of the respective property owner any delinquent fee or charge imposed by the provisions of this chapter, including interest and penalties. Alternatively, an action in the name of the city may be commenced in any court of competent jurisdiction for the amount of any delinquent fees or charges and if legal action is brought by the city or its assignee to enforce collection of any amount charged and due under this chapter, any judgment rendered in favor of the city will include costs of suit incurred by the city or its assignee including reasonable attorney’s fees.
§ 14.18.060 Billing and collection-generally.
Utility customers must pay the service charges imposed by the city on a periodic basis determined by the Director. Utility bills are due and payable at the place or places designated by the city and are legal debts of the customer owing and payable to the city. Failure to receive a bill does not relieve the customer from the responsibility of paying charges and/or penalties.
The payment for each current billing, if not received in the cashier's office on or before the nineteenth day following the date of presentation by the close of the business day, are delinquent. Postmarks will not be considered for the cancellation of delinquent charges.
§ 14.18.070 Late payment of utility bills.
A fee of 10% of the current delinquent charges applicable to a customer account will be imposed as of the date of delinquency if the delinquency date is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the charge becomes delinquent at the close of the next regular business day. The city may also charge a discontinuance processing fee on a delinquent account.
§ 14.18.080 Disputes.
A. The Director will review the accounts of customers who dispute charges within 30 days after receiving a bill or request additional time to pay a bill because of financial need, before the city terminates service. If an error is found after the review, the city will
promptly correct the error and, if required and at the city's sole discretion, either credit the customer account or give the customer a refund.
B. The review conducted by the Director will include consideration of whether to establish a payment plan for the customer to pay any unpaid balance of delinquent account over a reasonable time not to exceed 12 months. Unless otherwise required by this code, the city will not terminate service for customers fully complying with such a payment plan.
C. Water bills must contain information regarding dispute resolution procedures set forth in this chapter.
§ 14.18.090 Repayment plan.
Any customer may request in writing, in the form and manner prescribed by the Director, an extension of the payment period of a bill asserted to be beyond the means of the customer to pay in full within the normal period for payment. The application for a repayment plan must be filed with the Director before the date and time of discontinuance of service as is stated on the discontinuance notice. The Director must review the request for extension of payment and consider the customer's ability to pay, past payment history, and the amount due, and may approve a repayment plan, not to exceed 12 months. Any customer whose request for a repayment plan has resulted in an adverse determination by the Director may appeal the determination within five days to the City Manager, or designee.
§ 14.18.100 Retroactive adjustments.
Retroactive adjustments will be provided to a customer's utility bill when an error in customer billing has occurred. The maximum period for retroactive adjustments is 12 months before the date that the city is first notified in writing, in the form and manner prescribed by the Director, of the error. Any overpayment or under billing adjustments will be included as a credit or charge on the customer's future utility bill(s), unless other arrangements are requested by the customer and approved by the Director.
§ 14.18.110 Proration of charges.
Computations of the flat rate portion of any monthly service charges for less than a full billing cycle, is based on a daily rate. The daily rate will be determined by taking the monthly rate and dividing it by 30. The daily rate is carried to four decimal places. If a customer discontinues service and closes the customer's account, service charges will be computed at the applicable daily rate from the last billing date to the account closing date. Service charges for a new customer will commence on the account opening date. No proration will be made on short term utility service where the service is required for total periods of less than two months. These customers will be charged for two months service.
§ 14.18.120 Meters.
A. When calculating the charges for water, the city will not charge for water use that is less than 100 cubic feet per billing period. Water meters will ordinarily be read approximately every 30 days except for holidays and weekends. Meter readings may also be taken for
any reasonable purpose, as determined by the Director, including, without limitation, change of customer or changes of meter size. If a meter cannot be read or if a meter has not registered or has registered incorrectly, the quantity of water used will be estimated based on the average consumption at the property or substantially similar property during a like period of time.
B. Tampering with or breaking a meter or lock will result in assessment of a penalty consisting of a fixed amount plus expenses and other costs, as determined by the City Council.
§ 14.18.130 Notices.
A. The city will allow every customer at least 19 days from the date a bill was mailed to pay for utility services. The city will not discontinue service for nonpayment of a delinquent account unless the city first gives notice of the delinquency and impending discontinuance at least 10 days before the proposed discontinuance, by means of a notice mailed, postage prepaid, to the customer to whom the service is billed. The 10- day period will commence five days after the termination notice is mailed. The city will make a reasonable attempt to contact an adult person residing at the premises of the utility customer by telephone or personal contact at least 24 hours before any utility service is terminated, except that whenever telephone or personal contact cannot be accomplished, the city will give, either by mail or in person, a notice of discontinuance of service at least 48 hours before discontinuance.
B. The city will make available to its customers who are 65 years of age or older, or who are dependent adults as defined in California law, a third-party notification service.
Should the customers designate a third-party, the city will attempt to notify a person designated by the customer to receive notification when the customer's account is past due and subject to discontinuance. The notification will include information on what is required to prevent discontinuance of service. The residential customer must make a written request for third-party notification on a form provided by the city, and include the written consent of the designated third party. The third-party notification does not obligate the third party to pay the overdue charges nor prevent or delay service termination.
C. Every termination notice must include all of the following information:
1. The name and address of the customer whose account is delinquent.
2. The amount of the delinquency.
3. The date by which payment or arrangements for payment is required in order to avoid discontinuance.
4. The procedure by which the customer may initiate a complaint or request an investigation concerning service or charges.
5. The procedure by which the customer can petition for bill review and appeal.
6. The procedure by which the customer may request a deferred, reduced, or alternative payment schedule, including an amortization of the delinquent charges.
7. The procedure for the customer to obtain information on the availability of financial assistance, including private, local, state, or federal sources, if applicable.
8. The telephone number where the customer may request a payment arrangement or receive additional information from the city.
D. No termination of utility service may occur without compliance with this section. Any service wrongfully discontinued must be restored without charge for the restoration of a service and a notation of the restoration must be mailed to the customer at his or her billing address.
§ 14.18.140 Discontinuance of service.
A. No utility service will be discontinued by the city, by reason of delinquency, on any Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or at any time during which the business offices of the city are not open to the public. The city may not discontinue service for nonpayment of a delinquent account under any of the following situations:
1. During the pendency of an investigation by the city of a customer dispute or complaint, or request for extension of the period for the payment of a bill;
2. When a customer has been granted an extension of the period for payment of a bill, provided the customer keeps the account current as charges accrue in each subsequent billing period;
3. On the certification of a primary care provider that service termination would be life threatening or pose a serious threat to the health and safety of the customer or a member of the customer's household and the customer is financially unable to pay for service within the normal payment period and is willing to enter into a repayment agreement with the city with respect to all charges that the customer is unable to pay before the delinquency.
B. Service will be discontinued if payment has not been received or arrangements made to pay the delinquent bill for any account which is more than 60 days delinquent. If payment is not made within the specified time as identified above or for any other reason relating to nonpayment of an outstanding bill or charge, including, without limitation, checks returned for insufficient funds, credit card denial, or other, similar, type of payment problems, a service charge, in an amount determined by the City Council will be charged and due and payable with respect to each time service is processed for discontinuance.
C. Except as provided in California law, where utility service is shut off, service will not be restored until all required payments (including, without limitation, arrearage, penalties, deposits and service charges) are paid in full. Service will be reinstated only during
regular working hours and only after payment has been received or special payment arrangements were made with the Director.
D. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt a policy for discontinuance of residential water service for nonpayment. Such policy may include, without limitation, additional provisions concerning billing procedures, discontinuance of service, notification procedures, restoration of service, procedures to contest or appeal a water bill, extensions or other alternative payment arrangements, protections available to qualified low-income customers, procedures for becoming a customer of the city under specified circumstances, and related matters. To the extent a policy adopted pursuant to this section conflicts with any provisions of this chapter, the policy will control.
§ 14.18.150 Lien procedures.
A. Annually, the City Manager, or designee, will prepare a complete list of delinquent charges applicable to the service connection where the property owner is the customer for the period ending on January 31 of each calendar year.
B. The city will give at least 45 days’ notice before the public hearing of the delinquencies to the customer to which each such delinquency relates.
C. The City Council will schedule a noticed public hearing for its first meeting in May of each calendar year at which time delinquent charges together with penalties, will be placed on the equalized assessment roll for the fiscal year commencing on the July 1 following the conduct of the hearing for collection. Notice of the public hearing will be made in accordance with California law.
D. Thereafter, the delinquent charges, together with penalties, will be collected in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together and not separately from, general taxes collected on behalf of the city and other taxing authorities. The provisions of this section will only be applicable to delinquent charges where the customer is the property owner or has executed a Lien Authorization Agreement.
E. Civil debt: All charges and penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter are civil debts owed to the city by the customer as to the account to which the charges and penalties apply.
§ 14.18.160 Additional customer rights.
When the city furnishes service to residential occupants in a multi-unit residential structure, mobile home park, or permanent residential structures in a labor camp, as described in California law, where the owner, manager, or operator is listed by the city as the customer of record, the city will make a good faith effort to give written notice to the residential occupants at least 10 days before utility service termination regarding the utility account delinquency and utility service termination date. The notice will further inform the residential occupants that they have the right to become customers, to whom the service will then be billed, without being required to pay any amount which may be due on the delinquent account. The city is not required to make service available to the residential occupants unless each residential
occupant agrees to the terms and conditions of service and meets the requirements of law.
However, if one or more of the residential occupants are willing and able to assume responsibility for the entire account to the satisfaction of the Director, or if there is a physical means, legally available to the city, of selectively discontinuing service to those residential occupants who have not met the city's requirements, the city will make service available to those residential occupants who have met those requirements. Any residential occupant who becomes a customer of the city pursuant to this section whose periodic payments, such as rental payments, include charges for water service, where those charges are not separately stated, may deduct from the periodic payment, as provided by California law, each payment period all reasonable charges paid to the city for those services during the preceding payment period.”
SECTION 6: Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 7: Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the Monterey Park Municipal Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 8: Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
SECTION 9: Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 10: Recordation; Validity of Previous Code Sections. If this entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or amendment of the MPMC or other city ordinance by this Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such previous MPMC provision or other the city ordinance to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 11: Environmental Assessment. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) because, under CEQA Guidelines § 15378, the actions described herein do not constitute a CEQA “project.” Further, under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the actions described herein may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 12: Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park's book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
SECTION 13: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK THIS __TH DAY OF _______________ 2026.
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor
ATTEST:
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KARL H. BERGER, CITY ATTORNEY
Joaquin Vazquez, Assistant City Attorney
I, Maychelle Yee, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, hereby certify that the foregoing was introduced on the __th day of ________, 2026 and duly, passed approved, and adopted by the City Council of Monterey Park at its regular meeting of _______ __, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this __th day of 2026.
City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park
Staff Report
April 1, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2
March 18, 2026 Staff Report
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.F.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jason Hing, Fire Chief
Michelle Marquez, Principal Management Analyst
Subject: Amendment to Agreement No. 2444-A with MAK Fire Protection Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Agreement No.2444-A with MAK Fire Protection Engineering and Consulting, Inc., in the amount of $115,000 annually through June 30, 2027 in a form approved by City Attorney; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
The Fire Chief requests the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to Agreement No. 2444-A with MAK Fire Protection Engineering and Consulting, Inc. to continue and expand plan check services for the Fire Prevention Division. The amendment will ensure the Department can effectively meet the increased demand for plan review services associated with ongoing development throughout the City.
Background:
Over the past eight years, MAK Fire Protection Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (“MAK”) has provided plan check services to the Fire Prevention Division under an existing agreement. The firm’s owner/operator brings over two decades of fire service experience, supported by a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering, a Master’s degree in Fire Protection Technology, and licensure as a Professional Engineer in Fire Protection Engineering. His additional experience with the Insurance Services Office (ISO), conducting fire safety and loss control engineering evaluations, has provided added value to the City.
MAK has consistently delivered services in a timely, efficient, and reliable manner. Due to an
increase in development activity throughout the City, the demand for plan check services has exceeded initial projections under the current agreement. Consequently, the Fire Chief recommends a modification to increase the contract amount to ensure continued service delivery without disruption.
All costs associated with MAK’s services are fully recovered through developer-paid fees, as outlined in the City’s Master Schedule of Fees. Current rates include $85 per hour plus $2 per fire device for standard plan checks, and $255 per hour (with a two-hour minimum) for architectural plan reviews. Expedited services are billed at the architectural rate plus an additional $100 fee. Fire protection system fees include one recheck, with additional rechecks billed at $100 each. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Strategic Plan Goal:
This agreement modification aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan by supporting several key priorities. It advances Goal #1, Ensure Public Safety with a Modernized and Community- Oriented Approach, by enabling the Fire Department to maintain timely and thorough plan check services that ensure fire and life safety compliance for new development projects.
Fiscal Impact:
The Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget has sufficient funds to support the proposed amendment.
The cost for these services is to be paid by the developer and charged as approved in the City of Monterey Park’s Master Schedule of Fees. Plan Check expenditures are derived from account 1013205-5211. The total cost for MAK Fire Protection Engineering and Consulting, Inc. will not exceed $115,000 in a fiscal year.
Attachments:
None
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.G.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Timothy Hou, Director of Community Development
Eliana Munoz, Senior Planner
Subject: 2025 Monterey Park General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Receiving and filing the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report;
2. Directing the City Manager, or designee, to forward a copy of the report to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) by April 1, 2026; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
This report is prepared in compliance with Government Code §65400(a)(2), which requires that the City prepare an annual report on the status and implementation of its General Plan. The report must be submitted by April 1 of each year to the City Council, OPR, and HCD.
The 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report summarizes the City’s progress towards implementing the Monterey Park General Plan from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. Throughout calendar year 2025, the City has been continuously implementing the policies and programs that help achieve goals contained within the General Plan. In 2025, the City issued building permits for 85 new residential units.
Background:
The City’s last comprehensive update to the General Plan occurred in 2001 and contained seven elements that met Government Code §65302, addressing land use, circulation, housing, noise, safety, conservation, and open space. Since that time, additional amendments to the
General Plan have included the following elements:
• New Sustainable Community Element (2014)
• New Healthy Community Element (2014)
• Updated Land Use Element (2020)
• Updated Safety and Community Services Element (2022)
• New Environmental Justice Element (2022)
• Updated Housing Element (2022) (“HE”)
The following sections provide an update of the status and implementation of each element of the Monterey Park General Plan.
Urban Design and Land Use Element
A comprehensive update to the Urban Design and Land Use Element (“LUE”) was adopted in 2019 and approved by voters in November 2020. Since this time, the City has processed a variety of new land use developments and adopted new land use regulations that have continually upheld the LUE.
The following ordinances related to land use were initiated and adopted in 2025:
• Amended standards to ensure Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU”) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (“JADU”) provisions are consistent with state law (Ordinance 2261) • Established a new municipal code section requiring the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of development on a nonvacant site (Ordinance No. 2261)
• Rezoned specific properties included in the current sites inventory to accommodate housing (Ordinance No. 2261)
• Amended standards to provide that residential and mixed-use development are permitted when allowed by the LUE designation (Ordinance No. 2263)
Addressing the inconsistencies between the LUE and the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”), which implements the LUE, is ongoing. In fall of 2023, the Community Development Department launched the Our City, Our Plan campaign to make changes to zoning and update the MPMC with the intention of revitalization of the downtown, expanding housing opportunities and streamlining development. The MPMC was amended in the last calendar year to ensure that residential and mixed-use development are permitted by Zoning when allowed by the LUE designation. The City continues to implement the Our City, Our Plan effort.
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element, last updated in 2001, helps guide City efforts to maintain an economically viable range of housing and employment opportunities that meet the needs of residents and workers. Following the City Council’s approval of the Monterey Park Economic Development Strategic Plan in August 2024, the City has pursued goals to foster a resilient and thriving local economy. These efforts build upon the City’s recognition as the 2024 Most Business-Friendly City award by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), demonstrating Monterey Park’s ongoing commitment to proactive business attraction, retention, and expansion.
In 2025, the City achieved several key milestones in supporting local small businesses and revitalizing commercial corridors:
• Small Business Financial Support: Launched the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded Small Business Assistance Program, providing critical financial support to help qualified startups and existing businesses scale and thrive. • Capacity Building & Education: Hosted a series of educational seminars and webinars designed to equip business owners with essential tools, from digital marketing strategies to navigating regulatory requirements and accessing business growth funding.
• Business Networking & Connectivity: Organized recurring networking events to facilitate collaboration and business-to-business procurement relationships among local business owners.
• Strategic Communication: Distributed monthly e-newsletters, delivering timely information on grant opportunities, specialized training, and regional economic resources to the City’s business community.
• Shop Local Initiatives: Launched the “Love Monterey Park” Shop & Dine Local campaign, a multifaceted marketing effort aimed at fostering civic pride and encouraging residents to support local businesses and reinvest in the local economy. • Downtown Revitalization: Implemented the “Taste of Downtown MPK” dining incentive program, successfully driving increased foot traffic to the Downtown area businesses.
Circulation Element
The purpose of the Circulation Element, last updated in 2001, is to define a safe, efficient, and adequate circulation system in the City. The element also focuses on identification and evaluation of local circulation needs, while balancing those needs with regional circulation, public transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the Monterey Park community.
The City has continued to make a variety of street and traffic improvements to its existing network of public streets and sidewalks including street resurfacing, sidewalk repair, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) compliance, installation of bike lanes, and traffic signal modifications.
These street and traffic improvements are identified as Capital Improvement Projects (“CIPs”) in which federal, state, and local funding sources are utilized to execute the projects. Some of the projects completed in 2025 include 7.8 miles of resurfaced streets and 4.5 miles of slurry sealed streets in several residential neighborhoods. The Monterey Pass Road Rehabilitation was closed out in 2025 and a Complete Streets Project design for Monterey Pass Road is currently underway. Additional improvements to the circulation system included Atlantic Avenue roadway improvements, the Garvey Avenue Improvement Project now at 60% design and development of an Adaptive Traffic Responsive Control System.
Related to transit services, the City concluded a one-year pilot program, MPK Transit Express, to assess the effectiveness of on-demand micro transit service and operations. Additionally, the City completed a comprehensive evaluation of the Spirit Bus and MPK Transit Express services and presented recommendations to the City Council to improve service efficiency and community accessibility.
Housing Element
The City’s HE underwent a comprehensive update in 2022 and was certified by HCD in March 2023. The HE describes actions the City took and will take to meet existing and future housing needs during the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) cycle which runs between 2021-2029. The HE outlines existing and proposed housing programs and text amendments that are needed to meet statutory requirements. The implementation of the housing programs was ongoing throughout the planning cycle.
The table below identifies the number of housing units which were allocated to the City for the 6th RHNA cycle:
6th RHNA CYCLE (2021-2029)
INCOME GROUP NUMBER PERCENT
Extremely Low 653 12.4%
Very Low (<50% of AMI*) 671 12.7%
Low (51% to 80% of AMI) 822 15.6%
Moderate (81% to 120% of AMI) 848 16.1%
Above Moderate (>120% of AMI) 2,263 43.0%
Total 5,257 100.0%
*AMI = Los Angeles County Area Median Income
The HCD Housing Element Implementation Tables (Attachment 1) detail the implementation status of housing programs contained in the adopted 2021-2029 HE during the 2025 calendar year, including a summary of residential units created in 2025. In short, the City issued building permits for 85 new residential units.
In the past year, the City worked on implementation of the HE to help reach RHNA goals. The City took steps to adopt ordinances that governed housing with the following actions in Program 7 of the HE:
• Aligning residential density standards consistent with the General Plan • Modifying parking requirements related to multi-family housing developments • Modifying emergency shelters regulations consistent with state law • Modifying supportive housing regulations consistent with state law
Other steps the City took to implement the HE included:
• Creating an interactive map of the City’s Sites Inventory (Program 6 and 8) • Hosting an affordable housing developers’ roundtable (Program 1) • Hosting Fair Housing and Tenant/Landlord Counseling events (Program 17)
The City continues to be a member of the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust (“SGVRHT”) in 2025. SGVRHT is a joint powers authority to help fund and finance the planning and construction of homeless housing, and extremely low, very low and low-income housing projects. As a member of SGVRHT, the City is best positioned to take advantage of
funding opportunities as projects develop in the City.
Safety and Community Services Element
A comprehensive update to the Safety Element was completed in 2022. Throughout 2025, the Fire Department conducted and completed trainings related to national disasters including trainings through the Standardized Emergency Management System (“SEMS”) and the National Incident Management System (“NIMS”). Trainings have also engaged the community through the Community Emergency Response Team (“CERT”), Community Preparedness Clinics, and Neighborhood Watch programs.
The latest adoption of the Safety Element also prioritized climate change and seismic hazards.
To better address climate change, the Monterey Park Going Green program continued throughout 2025.
Additionally, the City continued efforts to update its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (“LHMP”).
The LHMP assesses local hazard vulnerabilities and identifies mitigation actions that the City will pursue to reduce impacts in the case of hazardous events. The City Council adopted the Updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan on May 7, 2025. The City is now eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (“HMGP”) and other mitigation-related funding.
In 2025, the Monterey Park Police Department launched the Citizen RIMS crime information portal and held several Police Department Town Hall meetings. The RIMS portal allows the public access to interactive crime information. The system provides updated information on officer-initiated activities and incidents that impact public safety. In addition, the Police Department conducted multiple Town Hall meetings to engage with the community. These Police Department Town Hall Meetings were held on the following dates:
• February 27, 2025
• March 25, 2025
• May 5, 2025
• May 21, 2025
• June 12, 2025
The City sponsored multiple large scale community events in 2025 including Lunar New Year Festival (January 18-19), the Cherry Blossom Festival (April 12) and Play Days (May 8 – 11).
Resources Element
The Resources Element, last updated in 2001, addresses open space and conservation.
Because Monterey Park is a built-out urban community, there are few “natural” resources such as forests or wildlife habitat or agricultural land. The Resources Element, therefore, directs policy toward preserving those important resources in the urban environment of Monterey Park and is critical to preserving this City’s heritage for future generations. These resources include City parks and other improved open space areas, historic resources, water resources, and air quality.
To further the goals within the Resources Element, the City has diligently worked to preserve, enhance, and upgrade open space areas such as the updates and upgrades to playground equipment throughout the City. Maintenance and upgrade of the City’s park and open space
facilities are an ongoing extension of CIP’s that the City carries out. The following improvements were completed in 2025 to various City parks and facilities:
• Barnes Park – tennis and pickleball court resurfacing • Barnes Park Gym – flooring replacement, exterior painting, restroom rehabilitation • George Elder Pool – deck rehabilitation
• George Elder Gym – roof replacement, exterior painting • Cascades Park Waterfall – playground rehabilitation
• Bruggemeyer Library – flooring replacement, exterior painting and new generator • Langley Center – roof replacement, flooring replacement, restroom rehabilitation
Other efforts to implement the Resources Element included the launch and adoption of the City’s first Parks System Master Plan to help shape the future of the City’s open space network and recreation services. Efforts such as surveys, open house events, and other engagement activities were employed to help garner community input.
Healthy Community Element
A Healthy Community Element was adopted in 2014 and provides goals and policies to guide City’s efforts to support and promote a healthier community by “making the healthy choice the easy choice” for every community member. The City held numerous community health events over 2025 including:
• Immigrant Resource Fair in February 2025
• Mental Health Fair was held in May 2025
• Multiple Barnes Park Pool project meetings held throughout the year
The City completed the Parks System Master Plan on August 6, 2025. The plan is designed to support city officials in making decisions to enhance and sustain the City’s parks and programs. The plan provides a guiding framework for future planning and funding opportunities.
The City sponsored health related events throughout the 2025 calendar year:
• Garfield Health Center – Blood Pressure & Glucose Screening – 2025 all year — 2nd Thursday of each month
• YWCA- Depression & Anxiety – March 10
• Department of Mental Health Hoarding Seminar – June 19 • Seen Health- Mental Health Activity – June 25
• Department of Mental Health – Substance Abuse – July 3 • Department of Mental Health – Managing Mental Health – July 17 • Chinatown Service Center Free Flu Shot Clinics – September 23, November 12, and December 15
• AYC Senior Safety Series – October 7, 14, 21 and 28
• Community Health Fair – October 18
• Department of Mental Health – Mental Health Workshop – October 21 • Department of Mental Health – Social Isolation – October 23
• Department of Mental Health – Scams, Don’t Be a Victim – November 6 • Department of Mental Health – Emotional Intelligence — November 20 • Department of Mental Health – Stress Workshop – December 4
Sustainable Community Element
A Sustainable Community Element was adopted in 2014. This element establishes goals and policies to guide City efforts to become a more sustainable and resilient community through changes to municipal operations and by promoting and supporting sustainable behaviors of individual community members. The City held or partnered in events that featured electronic waste disposal, document shredding, landscape chipping, monthly mulch and compost giveaways, and ride-free public transportation days for a week in the spring and fall.
The Monterey Park Going Green program was introduced in 2022 and efforts to develop a plan to help the City and its residents be resilient to climate change culminated in the City’s new Sustainability Plan through the Going Green program. Efforts for Going Green in 2025 included asking residents to receive paperless utility bills and launching the SolarApp+ streamlined residential solar systems online permitting.
To promote low emission and circular development, the City rolled out new battery electric fleet vehicles for parking enforcement, electric lawn mowers for parks maintenance, installed water bottle fill stations at Bruggemeyer Library and offered organics waste buckets to residents.
Environmental Justice Element
An Environmental Justice Element was added to the General Plan in 2022. The Environmental Justice Element includes goals, policies, and objectives that aim to reduce health risks to any identified disadvantaged communities, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of disadvantaged communities. In 2025, the City promoted public opportunities for civic engagement including the following workshops and meetings:
• 2025-2029 HUD Community Meeting and Resident Survey – January 28 • The 2025-2029 CDBG and Home Funds Consolidated Plan hearing and adoption on June 4, 2025
• Housing Rights Center Workshops (January 13 and 23, February 11 and 13, and November 18 and 20)
• Parks Master Plan Community Workshop – May 5
• City Council adoption of the Parks System Master Plan – August 6
When possible, the meetings listed above have been conducted in both virtual and in-person platforms. In-person events were held at various locations around the City and specifically included presentations that were held in areas that are categorized as a disadvantaged community within the City.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Filing the Housing Element Annual Progress Report supports the 2025-26 Strategic Goal to Strengthen our Local Economy and Enhance Housing Opportunities by demonstrating the implementation of the Land Use Element to facilitate housing development and affordability.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing of the annual report.
Attachments:
1. HCD Housing Element Implementation Tables
ATTACHMENT 1
HCD Housing Element Implementation Tables
Jurisdiction Monterey Park
Reporting Year 2025
Housing Element Planning Period 6th Cycle
Current Year
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 0
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 45
Deed
Restricted 0
Non-Deed
Restricted 19
21 85
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
Single-family Attached 0 0 0
Single-family Detached 0 11 0
2 to 4 units per structure 0 0 0
5+ units per structure 6 0 0
Accessory Dwelling Unit 0 74 27
Mobile/Manufactured Home 0 0 0
Total 6 85 27
Infill Housing Developments and Infill Units Permitted # of Projects Units 81 85
00 80
466
82 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Acutely Low 00 0
Extremely Low 00 0
Very Low 00 0
Low 00 0
Moderate 00 0
Above Moderate 00 0
Total 0 0 0
Streamlining Provisions Used - Permitted Units # of Projects Units SB 9 (2021) - Duplex in SF Zone 00
SB 9 (2021) - Residential Lot Split 00
AB 2011 (2022) 00
SB 6 (2022) 00
SMAP 00
Ministerial and Discretionary Applications # of Units
Ministerial 76 82
Discretionary 43 8 4
Density Bonus Applications and Units Permitted
Number of Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 1 Number of Units in Applications Submitted Requesting a Density Bonus 159 Number of Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0
Number of Units in Projects Permitted with a Density Bonus 0 Housing Element Programs Implemented and Sites Rezoned Count 21 0
Programs Implemented
Sites Rezoned to Accommodate the RHNA
(Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Units Constructed - SMAP (formerly SB 35 / 423) - Permits Number of SMAP Applications Approved
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Total Housing Applications Submitted:
Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:
Total Housing Units Approved:
Total Housing Units Disapproved:
Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process or SMAP (formerly SB 35 / 423) - Applications Number of SMAP Applications
Above Moderate
Indicated as Infill
Not Indicated as Infill
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining Historic Sites Application
Status Project Type Notes
2 34 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Date
Application
Submitted
(see
instructions)
Acutely Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Acutely Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low-Income
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
PROPOSED
Units by
Project
Total
APPROVED
Units by
project
Total
DISAPPROVE
D Units by
Project
Please select
state
streamlining
provision/s the
application was
submitted
pursuant to.
Is this project
located on a
site with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
Table L?
Did the
housing
development
application
seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Were
incentives or
concessions
requested
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915
approved?
Please
indicate the
status of the
application.
Is the project
considered a
ministerial
project or
discretionary
project?
Notes+
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0000 0 0 0 4 0 1 6 0 4 1 0 4 6 6 8 2 0 5265025058 2001
POTRERO
GRANDE
OLSON DRB-25-131
5+ O
10/7/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 4 3 1 5 9 N O N EN o Y e s N / A P e n d i n g D i s c r e t i o n a r y 0 5354002016 816 W
HELLMAN HELLMAN DRB-24-040 5+ R
10/21/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 4 8 N O N EN o N o N / A P e n d i n g D i s c r e t i onary 5256003049 220 N
ATLANTIC SR COMM POOL SPR-25-64 5+ R
6/9/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 1 4 5 N O N EN o N o N / A P e n d i n g D i s c r e t i onary 5256002052 507 N
CHANDLER HAPPY DAYS SPR-25-67 5+ O
7/1/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 2 N O N EN o N o N / A P e n d i n g D i s c r e t i onary 5266010009 532 W
MARKLAND ADU DRB-25-153 ADU R
12/23/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o P e n d i n g M i n i s t e r i a l 5265016008 412
FERNFIELD ADU DRB-25-152 ADU R
12/23/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5251025015 1379 DORNER ADU DRB-25-147 ADU R 12/11/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5251015003 2344BLEAKWO
OD ADU DRB-25-142 ADU R
12/2/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5254012045 173 LADERA ADU DRB-25-141 ADU R 11/26/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5259004023 323 SEFTON ADU DRB-25-140 ADU R 11/25/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5273006005 2024 S
GRANDRIDGE ADU DRB-25-139 ADU R
11/24/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d Ministerial 5256008006 619 N MOORE ADU DRB-25-138 ADU R 11/20/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 NONE No No No A pproved Ministerial 5274007016
390 CORAL
VIEW ADU DRB-25-137
ADU R
11/20/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5263013004 232 MARONDE ADU DRB-25-135 ADU R 11/17/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5266018027 2105 FINDLAY ADU DRB-25-133 ADU R 11/6/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5259017032 311 S NEW ADU DRB-25-128 ADU R 10/29/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5262031013 1651
BRADSHAW ADU DRB-25-126 ADU R
10/29/2025
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 NONE No No No Approved Ministerial 5257007016 436 S YNEZ ADU DRB-25-125 ADU R 10/20/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5274013019 101 FLORAL ADU DRB-25-123 ADU R 10/9/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5257009006 240 S YNEZ ADU DRB-25-121 ADU R 10/6/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5273008029 2100
GRAYLOCK ADU DRB-25-119 ADU R
10/2/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5257021038 220 S LICOLN ADU DRB-25-118 ADU R 9/29/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5257020002 1950 AVE
CESAR
CHAVEZ
ADU DRB-25-117
ADU R
9/25/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5263025014 1691 S
GRANDRIDGE ADU DRB-25-111 ADU R
9/17/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 NONE No No No Approved Ministerial 5264008003 1460
TRUMBOWER ADU DRB-25-107 ADU R
9/2/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 NONE No No No Approved Ministerial 5252030017 809 BARNUM ADU DRB-25-106 ADU R 9/2/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5266007009 640 W RIGGIN ADU DRB-25-105 ADU R 9/2/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5255021003 631 N
ALHAMBRA ADU DRB-25-101 ADU R
8/21/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 NONE No No No Approved Ministerial 5257006038 424 S MOORE ADU DRB-25-100 ADU R 8/19/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5264021052 240 KEMPTON ADU DRB-25-099 ADU R 8/18/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o P e n d i n g Ministerial 5276004001 700 TAYLOR ADU DRB-25-097 ADU R 8/6/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5259010021 119 S
ALHAMBRA ADU DRB-25-095 ADU R
7/29/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o P e n d i n g M i n i s t e r i a l 5259010021 119 S
ALHAMBRA SFD DRB-25-094 SFD O
7/29/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5255015006 419 N
NICHOLSON ADU DRB-25-092 ADU R
7/25/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5263035017 1908 S
ISABELLA ADU DRB-25-086 ADU R
7/15/2025
0000 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5263033028 1832
FERNBANK ADU DRB-25-085 ADU R
7/15/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5255019017 330 N
NICHOLSON ADU DRB-25-081 ADU R
7/14/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5276008044 1700 S
ORANGE ADU DRB-25-080 SFD O
7/10/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5273016018 309 W
GLEASON ADU DRB-25-079 ADU R
7/9/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5252029038 1690 COLLEGE
VIEW ADU DRB-25-078 ADU R
7/8/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5263026009 1811 S
MCPHERRIN ADU DRB-25-077 ADU R
7/7/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5263003014 502 W GRAVES ADU DRB-25-075 ADU R
6/24/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o P e n d i n g M i n i s t e r i a l 5256010038 531 N YNEZ ADU DRB-25-074 ADU R 6/18/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5263017005 1033 S
ISABELLA ADU DRB-25-073 ADU R
6/17/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5266011033 513 W
MARKLAND ADU DRB-25-072 ADU R
6/12/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5256010003 511 N YNEZ ADU DRB-25-071 ADU R 6/11/2025 0000 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5276003008 535 HARRISON ADU DRB-25-069 ADU R 6/9/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5260004024 615 SEFTON ADU DRB-25-068 ADU R 6/9/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5255014020 534 N LINCOLN ADU DRB-25-066 ADU R
6/4/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5262021017 727 DIVINA
VISTA ADU DRB-25-065 ADU R
6/3/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5260020025 1723 TYLER ADU DRB-25-062 ADU R 5/13/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5263030017 1808 S
DONCREST ADU DRB-25-061 ADU R
5/12/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5258013024 717 HERSHEY ADU DRB-25-059 ADU R 5/5/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5259008045 307 POMELO ADU DRB-25-056 ADU R 5/2/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5255005027 223
GARCELON ADU DRB-25-053 ADU R
4/24/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5262008012 714 FORTINI ADU DRB-25-052 ADU R 4/23/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5265017010 448 E
MARKLAND ADU DRB-25-051 ADU R
4/23/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5237013002 514 CASUDA
CANYON ADU DRB-25-050 ADU R
4/21/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5257018052 529 S LINCOLN ADU DRB-25-044 ADU R 4/4/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5258007054 306 ELIZABETH ADU DRB-25-043 ADU R
4/3/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5257021030 229 RUSSELL ADU DRB-25-042 ADU R 4/2/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
51 Project Identifier Unit Types Density Bonus Law
Applications
11 Housing Development Applications Submitted
Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes
5260026003 715 METRO ADU DRB-25-039 ADU R 3/26/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5256011023 514 W
EMERSON ADU DRB-25-038 ADU R
3/26/2025
0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o P e n d i n g M i n i s t e r i a l 5257009004 228 S YNEZ ADU DRB-25-036 ADU R 3/26/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o P e n d i n g Ministerial 5262003002 632 HARDING ADU DRB-25-035 ADU R 3/21/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5259012004 236 S
ALHAMBRA ADU DRB-25-034 ADU R
3/21/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5258013019 809 HERSHEY ADU DRB-25-033 ADU R 3/21/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5257022032 219 S
NICHOLSON ADU DRB-25-025 SFD R
2/27/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5273013029 413 W
HAMMEL ADU DRB-25-024 ADU R
2/26/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5260007001 616 S ORANGE ADU DRB-25-022 ADU R 2/25/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5256010052 625 N YNEZ ADU DRB-25-021 ADU R 2/21/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5264006018 1348 S
GARFIELD ADU DRB-25-017 ADU R
2/7/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5266018020 2133 FINDLAY ADU DRB-25-015 ADU R 2/5/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5256010052 625 N YNEZ ADU DRB-25-014 ADU R 2/4/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5263041006 689 S
GRANDRIDGE ADU DRB-25-012 ADU R
2/3/2025
0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5262003005 622 HARDING ADU DRB-25-011 ADU R 2/3/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5273010029 2100 S
ISABELLA ADU DRB-25-010 ADU R
1/29/2025
0000 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 N O N EN o N o N o A p p r o v e d M i n i s t e r i a l 5274014016 232 E ARLIGHT ADU DRB-25-008 ADU R 1/24/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5260007001 616 S ORANGE ADU DRB-25-005 ADU R 1/16/2025 0000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 N O N EN o N o N o A pproved Ministerial 5256006027 215 N MOORE ADU DRB-25-001 ADU R 1/7/2025 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 N O N E N o N o N o A pproved Ministerial
1 2
3 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Table A2
23 56 89
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit Category
(SFA,SFD,2 to
4,5+,ADU,MH)
Tenure
R=Renter
O=Owner
Acutely Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Acutely Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Entitlement
Date Approved
# of Units
issued
Entitlements
Acutely Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Acutely Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Building Permits
Date Issued
# of Units Issued
Building Permits
Acutely Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Acutely Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Extremely
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 000000 0 0 00 6 600000 0 0 4 5 0 1 92 1 8 5 00000 5260005017 422 MOONEY DR MOONEY DRB-24-080 5+ O 0000000 0 0 06 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 5 6 00000 0 00 0 0 0 6 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 0 00000 5260006010 514 E GRAVES B24-1756 SFD O 0 00000 0 00 0 0 1 1 2 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 00000 5260006010 514 E GRAVES B24-1800 ADU R 0 00000 0 00 0 0 1 1 2 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 00000 526007081 1218 W
NEWMARK B25-1237 SFD O 0 21 2 / 8 / 2 0 2 5 2
5261007081 1218 W
NEWMARK B25-1237 ADU R 0 1 12/8/2025 1
5257006014 320 S MOORE B25-1545 ADU R 0 4 11/12/2025 4
5257006014 322 S MOORE B25-1546 SFD O 0 1 11/12/2025 1
5257005010 217 S YNEZ B24-1948 SFD O 0 19 / 2 / 2 0 2 5 1 5257005010 217 S YNEZ B24-1754 ADU R 0 19 / 2 / 2 0 2 5 1 5256014043 316 GARCELON B24-0627 SFD O 0 1 4/21/2025 1
5256016043 423 N
MCPHERRIN B24-0995 SFD O 0 1 4/16/2025 1
5256016043 423 N
MCPHERRIN B24-0996 SFD O 0 1 4/16/2025 1
5258009023 504 N SIERRA
VISTA B24-0883 SFD O 0 1 3/11/2025 1
5258009023 504 N SIERRA
VISTA B24-0882 SFD O 0 1 3/11/2025 1
5258009023 504 N SIERRA
VISTA B24-0776 SFD O 0 1 3/11/2025 1
5258016030 720 HERSHEY
AVE B24-1734 ADU R 0 1 1/13/2025 1
5251027005 264 CESAR
CHAVEZ B24-1084 ADU R 0 1 1/9/2025 1
5273007018 2004 BROCKWELL B24-0159 ADU R 0 1 1/27/2025 1 5265019015 2224 FULTON B24-1417 ADU R 0 1 1/30/2025 1
5259007056 504 E NEWMARK B24-1636 ADU R 0 1 1/16/2025 1 5260004023 607 SEFTON AVE B24-0731 ADU R 0 1 1/30/2025 1 5273007018 2004 BROCKWELL B24-0202 ADU R 0 1 1/30/2025 1 5263013012 1025 S GARFIELD B24-2102 ADU R 0 12 / 4 / 2 0 2 5 1 5262018012 1012 S YNEZ B24-0566 ADU R 0 1 2/13/2025 1
5273019022 223 W GLEASON B24-0262 ADU R 0 1 2/20/2025 1 5259013050 720 E MABEL B24-1781 ADU R 0 1 2/20/2025 1
5251016011 2356
BLEAKWOOD B24-1798 ADU R 0 12 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 5 1
5273011042 201 W RIGGIN B24-0639 ADU R 0 1 2/12/2025 1
5255005011 310 BALTIMORE B24-1665 ADU R 0 12 / 6 / 2 0 2 5 1 5258016025 816 HERSHEY B24-2057 ADU R 0 1 2/19/2025 1
5266010041 2433 HENDRICKS B24-1538 ADU R 0 1 3/18/2025 1 5266009043 645 W POMONA B24-1534 ADU R 0 1 3/17/2025 1
5266009039 617 POMONA B24-1539 ADU R 0 1 3/18/2025 1
5266009040 623 W POMONA B24-1535 ADU R 0 1 3/17/2025 1
5253016007 1061
BRIGHTWOOD B25-0263 ADU R 0 1 3/27/2025 1
5266005026 628 W FLORAL B24-0796 ADU R 0 1 3/18/2025 1
5259015003 112 S SIERRA
VISTA B24-0917 ADU R 0 1 3/5/2025 1
5257021026 218 S LINCOLN B24-2107 ADU R 0 1 3/27/2025 1 5274010024 397 E ANDRIX B24-1157 ADU R 0 14 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 1 5276006037 835 HOLLY OAK B24-1983 ADU R 0 1 4/17/2025 1 5260003003 612 RUSSELL B24-0580 ADU R 0 1 4/22/2025 1
5273021015 244 W FERNFIELD B24-1715 ADU R 0 1 4/30/2025 1 5259015028 120 S ALHAMBRA B24-1311 ADU R 0 1 5/22/2025 1 5251007023 2005 VANCOUVER B24-1341 ADU R 0 15 / 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 5257005026 218 S MOORE B24-1480 ADU R 0 1 5/27/2025 1
5257018052 529 S LINCOLN B25-0581 ADU R 0 1 6/10/2025 1 251003014 2041
BLEAKWOOD B25-0055 ADU R 0 16 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 5 1
5237013002 514 CASUDA
CANYON B25-0695 ADU R 0 16 / 1 7 / 2 0 2 5 1
5274014022 221 E ARLIGHT B24-1406 ADU R 0 1 6/26/2025 1 251005012 2046 VANCOUVER B24-0437 ADU R 0 16 / 4 / 2 0 2 5 1 5256006027 215 N MOORE B25-0228 ADU R 0 16 / 2 / 2 0 2 5 1 5266013030 536 W ANDRIX B24-1727 ADU R 0 1 6/17/2025 1
5273006006 2028 S
GRANDRIDGE B24-1577 ADU R 0 1 6/26/2025 1
5256010005 501 N YNEZ B24-1265 ADU R 0 17 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 1 5260021018 652 WILSON B24-1371 ADU R 0 1 7/23/2025 1
5266018020 2133 FINDLAY B25-0326 ADU R 0 17 / 2 / 2 0 2 5 1 5265021021 2415 FOXGLOVE B25-0488 ADU R 0 1 7/24/2025 1 5256010052 625 N YNEZ B25-0687 ADU R 0 1 7/29/2025 1
5256012040 516 N
MCPHERRIN B24-2074 ADU R 0 17 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 5 1
5260007001 616 S ORANGE B25-0492 ADU R 0 17 / 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 5255005027 223 GARCELON B25-0715 ADU R 0 17 / 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 5266005030 612 W FLORAL B24-1682 ADU R 0 1 8/26/2025 1
5273008016 2005 FERNBANK B24-1833 ADU R 0 1 8/25/2025 1 5260026003 715 METRO DR B25-0546 ADU R 0 1 8/12/2025 1
5260020025 1723 TYLER DR B25-0659 ADU R 0 1 8/20/2025 1 5257021030 229 RUSSELL B25-0757 ADU R 0 1 8/18/2025 1
5261017041 510 DE LA
FUENTE B24-1805 ADU R 0 1 9/23/2025 1
5260014028 1466 KEMPTON B25-1594 ADU R 0 1 9/23/2025 1
5265017010 448 E MARKLAND B25-0817 ADU R 0 19 / 3 / 2 0 2 5 1 5274014015 232 E ARLIGHT B25-0981 ADU R 0 1 9/30/2025 1 5258013024 717 HERSHEY B25-0852 ADU R 0 1 10/29/2025 1
5264002014 152 E GRAVES B24-1621 ADU R 0 2 10/20/2025 2 5263026009 1811 S
MCPHERRIN B25-1194 ADU R 0 1 10/8/2025 1
5256014026 312 GARCELON B25-1040 ADU R 0 1 10/6/2025 1
5260004024 615 SEFTON B25-1337 ADU R 0 1 10/13/2025 1
5263003010 512 W GRAVES B25-0493 ADU R 0 1 10/27/2025 1 5259003064 340 RUSSELL B24-1918 ADU R 0 1 10/27/2025 1
5257006038 424 S MOORE B25-1568 ADU R 0 1 10/22/2025 1
5268003005 622 HARDING B25-0820 ADU R 0 1 11/3/2025 1
5252033017 809 BARNUM B25-1523 ADU R 0 1 11/25/2025 1
5266011033 513 W MARKLAND B25-1223 ADU R 0 1 11/19/2025 1 5276007008 1875 HOLLY OAK B24-1269 ADU R 0 13 / 1 / 2 0 2 4 1 5257020058 320 S LINCOLN B24-1132 ADU R 0 1 10/16/2024 1 5259001027 423 EVERETT B24-1100 ADU R 0 1 8/28/2024 1
5266018017 2145 FINDLAY B24-0909 ADU R 0 16 / 3 / 2 0 2 4 1 5256014040 222 N
MCPHERRIN B24-0864 ADU R 0 1 7/31/2024 1
5274018013 316 E FLORAL B24-0772 ADU R 0 1 8/15/2024 1
5252005096 2220 COLLEGE
VIEW B24-0705 ADU R 0 1 7/22/2024 1
5274017018 353 E RIGGIN B24-0668 ADU R 0 1 6/25/2024 1
5251010007 2379 VANCOUVER B24-0661 ADU R 0 1 10/17/2024 1 5259006050 509 E GRAVES B24-0625 ADU R 0 1 8/28/2024 1
5259015014 205 SEFTON B24-0559 ADU R 0 16 / 3 / 2 0 2 4 1 5257021020 204 S LINCOLN B24-0604 ADU R 0 1 9/16/2024 1 5263033007 1857 S ISABELLA B24-0307 ADU R 0 1 7/29/2024 1 5266008007 624 W MARKLAND B24-0436 ADU R 0 1 10/16/2024 1 5273010020 2020 S ISABELLA B24-0307 ADU R 0 1 8/15/2024 1 5273008025 2028 GRAYLOCK B24-0246 ADU R 0 17 / 1 / 2 0 2 4 1 5273014032 337 W RIGGIN B24-0233 ADU R 0 16 / 3 / 2 0 2 4 1 5273006014 2025 BROCKWELL B24-0081 ADU R 0 1 8/28/2024 1 5237013008 526 CASUDA
CANYON B24-0046 ADU R 0 1 10/17/2024 1
5255005026 219 GARCELON B24-1079 ADU R 0 1 7/22/2024 1
5259001042 406 RUSSELL B24-0943 ADU R 0 1 6/25/2024 1
5237012019 1801 ARRIBA DR 5237012019 ADU R 0 1 7/31/2024 1 1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits Affordabi 4 7
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units
1 2
3 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD BE BF BG BH BI Streamlining Historic Sites Infill
Housing without
Financial Assistance or
Deed Restrictions
Term of
Affordability or
Deed Restriction
Notes
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income
Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
Please select the
state
streamlining
provision the
project was
APPROVED
pursuant to.
(may select
multiple)
Is this project
located on a site
with an
associated
historical
designation as
outlined in
Government
Code Section
65400(a)(2)(N)
and reported on
T
able L?
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance
Programs for Each
Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select
multiple - see
instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or
deed restrictions, explain
how the locality determined
the units were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction
(years) (if affordable in
perpetuity enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Destroy
ed Units
Demolished or
Destroyed
Units
Demolished/
Destroyed
Units Owner
or Renter
Total Density Bonus
Applied to the Project
(Percentage Increase in
Total Allowable Units or
Total Maximum Allowable
Residential Gross Floor
Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions,
Waivers, or Other
Modifications Given
to the Project
(Excluding Parking
Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the
incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding
Parking Waivers
or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive
a reduction or waiver
of parking standards?
(Y/N)
Notes+
0080 1 6 3 2 7 1
00 0 0 0 0 0 NONE No Y 1 Demolished O No
0 000 0 0 0 N O N E N o Y 0
0 000 00 0 N O N E N o Y 0
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 7/31/2025 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 9/17/2025 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 3/25/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 3/25/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 1/5/2026 1 NONE No Y
1 1/5/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 11/19/2025 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
11 0 / 7 / 2 0 2 5 1 N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 7/1/2025 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 1/26/2026 1 NONE No Y
1 3/2/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 3/11/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 3/9/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 3/16/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 2/12/2026 1 NONE No Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
0N O N E N o Y
1 4/2/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 9/4/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 11/26/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 8/11/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 9/15/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 6/3/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 4/8/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 4/16/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 7/24/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 5/7/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 4/29/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 9/30/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 7/29/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 9/17/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 4/9/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 2/20/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 6/5/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 6/26/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 4/30/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 1/16/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 1/6/2025 1 NONE No Y
1 11/12/2025 1 NONE No Y
Density Bonuslity by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 10 Housing with Financial
Assistance and/or Deed
Restrictions
Demolished/Destroyed Units
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Planning Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
1 Projection
Period 34
RHNA Allocation
by Income Level
Projection
Period -
06/30/2021-
10/14/2021
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Total Units
to Date (all
years)
Total Remaining
RHNA by
Income Level
Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - 3 - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - 1 45 - - - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - - - - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - 19 - - - - Above Moderate 2,263 31 10 67 64 44 21 - - - - 237 2,026 5,257
31 10 67 67 45 85 - - - - 305 4,952 Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
Acutely Low - - *For years prior to 2025, data on deed-restricted vs. non-deed restricted Extremely Low-Income units is approximated from whether the projects reported any deed-restricted Very Low-Income Units. If you wish to edit this historical data for accuracy or have any questions about the data, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected].
Total Units
*For jurisdictions that received RHNA determinations for the current cycle prior to the passage of AB 3093 (September 19, 2024):
- You were not allocated Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income RHNA targets, therefore the allocations in Field 1 are listed as "0" - If you wish to set your own targets in these income categories for informational purposes, contact HCD staff at [email protected]. - All Acutely Low-Income and Extremely Low-Income units reported during the cycle are counted towards Very-Low Income RHNA progress 829
Total RHNA
-
776 Low
*For years prior to 2025, Acutely Low-Income units are reported within the Extremely Low-Income category Please Note: Table B does not currently contain data from Table F or Table F2 for prior years. You may login to the APR system to see Table B that contains this data.
Extremely Low -
19 Moderate
1,324
822
848
46 3
Income Level
Very Low
3 -
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs.
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
1,321
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Date of
Rezone Rezone Type
2 4567 9 1 0 1 1
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of
Rezone
Very Low-
Income Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Rezone Type Parcel Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Realistic
Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of
Existing Uses
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
83 Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
Jurisdiction Monterey Park
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
1 2 3456 7 8 9
Name of Program Objective
Projected Completion
Date in Housing
Element
Applicable Cycle Status of Program
Implementation
Program
Implementation
Details
Quantified Outcomes:
Category
Quantified Outcomes:
Count Supporting Documents
PROGRAM 1:
RESIDENTIAL
REHABILITATION
PROGRAM
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Improve and maintain
safe, affordable housing for low- and
moderate-income residents by providing
funding, repairs, and partnerships while
preserving affordability and enforcing
housing standards.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle In Progress
IN ADDITION TO MEETING
OBJECTIVES #1-5 IN 2023
AND 2024, THE CITY
DILINGENTLY
MAINTAINED ITS CODE
ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM (OBJECTIVE #7
& 8).
Units 7
HOUSING:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/228/Housin
g
CODE ENFORCEMENT:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/223/Code-
Compliance
PROGRAM 2:
CONSERVATION OF AT-
RISK HOUSING
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Preserve existing
affordable housing and make it easier to
build new housing—especially for low-
income and vulnerable residents—while
reducing displacement and regulatory
barriers.
1/1/2031 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2024 THE CITY
MONITORED TWO
PROJECTS TO MAINTAIN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
STOCK: LIONS MANOR
AND PACIFIC BRIDGE
ADULT RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY. BOTH HAVE
LOW RISK OF BECOMING
MARKET RATE. THE
ESTIMATED
AFFORDABILITY END
DATE IS 2038 AND 2037,
RESPECTIVELY. CITY
WILL CONTINUE TO
MONITOR AND ASSIST
GOLDEN AGE VILLAGE TO
ENSURE AFFORDABILITY
IS MAINTAINED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY
HAS MAINTAINED AND
DILLIGENTLY CARRIED
OUT ITS CODE
ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM THROUGH
2025. CITY WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON
ALL OBJECTIVES UNDER
THIS PROGRAM.
Units 3
HOUSING:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/228/Housin
g
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.
Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583
PROGRAM 3: EFFICIENT
PERMIT PROCESSING
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Speed up and simplify
the housing permit process—especially for
affordable and special-needs housing—by
making approvals faster, clearer, and more
efficient
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2025, STAFF IMPROVED
THE GIS ZONING MAP TO
INCLUDE RECENTLY
REZONED PROPERTIES
AND OTHER INFO PER
RACEL BASIS (4).
THE CITY WILL CONTINUE
TO OFFER MINISTERIAL
PROCESSES TO ENSURE
EFFICIENCY, PRIORITIZE
AFFORDABLE AND
SPECIAL NEEDS
HOUSING, AND CONTINUE
TO ASSESS THE CITY'S
PERMIT STREAMLINING
PROCESS.
Other 4
UPDATED ZONING MAP:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/90a
0d56471f74bd0af834ad01c3c0ade/page/Pag
e?views=Legend#data_s=id%3AdataSource_
1-197fa180e68-layer-15-197fa180f1e-layer-
16%3A11876
PROGRAM 4: HOUSING
FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
POPULATIONS
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Expand and support
housing for people with special
needs—such as individuals with disab ilities,
low-income residents, and those
experiencing homelessness—by removing
barriers, updating policies, and providing
incentives for inclusive housing
development
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN ADDITION TO THE
ITEMS COMPLETED IN
2024, WHICH INCLUDED:
INCREASED RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY LIMITS,
DECREASED PARKING
STANDARDS, AND THE
ADOPTION OF
REGULATIONS FOR
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING,
EMERGENCY SHELTERS,
AND GROUP HOUSING, IN
2025, THE CITY
CONTINUED TO ADDRESS
HOMELESSNESS
THROUGH THE USE OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ENGAGEMENT TEAM
(NET). IN 2026, THE CITY
WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK TOWARDS ON ALL
OTHER OBJECTIVES
LISTED UNDER THIS
PROGRAM.
Persons 5
NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT TEAM
(NET):
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/1670/Neigh
borhood-Engagement-Team-NET
PROGRAM 5: FLEXIBILITY
IN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND FEES
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Make affordable
housing easier to build by allowing flexible
development standards and reducing costs
through fee incentives, relaxed regulations,
and lower parking requirements
1/1/2029 6th Cycle In Progress
THERE ARE 5
CATEGORIES IN THIS
PROGRAM. THE CITY MET
4 IN 2024. IN 2025, THE
CITY CONTINUED TO
REFINE THE AB 2097 MAP
AND CONTINUED TO
CARRY OUT THE
REMAINING PORTION OF
THE PROGRAM.
Other 4
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY:
https://ecode360.com/43882731
PARKING: https://ecode360.com/43884306
PROGRAM 6: LOT
CONSOLIDATION
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Encourage combining
smaller lots into larger sites to enable more
affordable and higher-density housing,
especially in areas with good access to
transit and amenities
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
CITY'S WEBSITE
PROVIDES A SITES
INVENTORY LIST. THE
CITY HAS ALSO
IMPLEMENTED NO MAX
DENSITY FOR MIXED USE
PROJECTS AND
DECREASED PARKING
FOR RESIDENTIAL. STAFF
CONTINUES TO
ENCOURAGE THE USE OF
THE BRDZ TO MAKE LOT
CONSOLIDATION
FEASIBLE. STAFF WILL
CONTINUE TO
ENCOURAGE LOT
CONSOLIDATION.
Units 4
SITES INVENTORY LIST:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5d2
1115a0ccf4901abdf4ec157a9db5d/page/Pag
e/?views=View-3
PROGRAM 7: MONTEREY
PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Update zoning and city
regulations to allow more
housing—especially affordable and higher-
density housing—by aligning local laws with
state requirements and making
development easier across the city.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle In Progress
THE CITY AMENDED THE
CODE BY INCREASING
RES DENSITY LIMITS,
DECREASED PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR
MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS
AND ADOPTED
REGULATIONS FOR
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING,
EMERGENCY SHELTERS,
AND GROUP HOUSING.
IN 2025, THE CITY
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
2261 WHICH ALLOWS A
BY RIGHT APPROVAL FOR
PROJECTS THAT
PROPOSE 20%
AFFORDABLE.
ORDINANCE 2261 ALSO
ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL
AND HOUSING
ANYWHERE WHERE THE
GP ALLOWS IT.
IN 2026, THE CITY WILL
CONTINUE TO TO WORK
ON THE OTHER
OBJECTIVES LISTED IN
THIS PROGRAM.
Units 8
AGENDA FOR ORDINANCE 2261:
https://montereyparkca.portal.civicclerk.com/e
vent/1388/files/agenda/1510
CODE SECTION FOR RIZ:
https://ecode360.com/46584381
PROGRAM 8: ENSURE
ADEQUATE SITES TO
ACCOMMODATE
REGIONAL FAIR SHARE
OF HOUSING GROWTH
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Ensure the City has
enough available sites and support to meet
its regional housing needs by maintaining a
site inventory, maximizing land use, and
helping developers build affordable housing
1/1/2029 6th Cycle In Progress
CITY'S WEBSITE
PROVIDES A SITES
INVENTORY LIST. THE
CITY HAS ALSO
IMPLEMENTED NO MAX
DENSITY FOR MIXED USE
PROJECTS AND
DECREASED PARKING
FOR RESIDENTIAL. CITY
WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK TOWARD THE
OTHER OBJECTIVES
LISTED UNDER THIS
PROGRAM.
Units 3
SITES INVENTORY LIST:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5d2
1115a0ccf4901abdf4ec157a9db5d/page/Pag
e/?views=View-3
PROGRAM 9:
RESIDENTIAL SITES
MONITORING PROGRAM
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Monitor and track
available housing sites to ensure the City
can meet its regional housing goals, and
take action to replace or rezone sites if
development reduces capacity for lower-
and moderate-income housing
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
CITY STAFF USES ITS
ENTITLEMENT AND
PERMIT TRACKING
SYSTEM TO KEEP AN
INVENTORY OF
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
APPROVED AND DENIED
THROUGH THE HOUSING
CYCLE WHICH WILL BE
REPORTED IN THE CITY'S
ANNUAL PROGRESS
REPORT. IN 2025, CITY
STAFF WILL CONTINUE
TO MEET WITH
DEVELOPERS TO
DISCUSS PROJECTS
OFFERING LOWER AND
MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS.
Units 3 NONE
PROGRAM 10: SITES
USED IN PREVIOUS
PLANNING PERIODS
HOUSING ELEMENTS
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Allow certain previously
identified sites to be developed “by right” for
housing, ensuring at least 20% of units are
affordable to lower-income households.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Completed
IN 2025, THE CITY
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
2261 WHICH ALLOWS A
BY RIGHT APPROVAL FOR
PROJECTS THAT
PROPOSE 20%
AFFORDABLE.
Units 1
AGENDA FOR ORDINANCE 2261:
https://montereyparkca.portal.civicclerk.com/e
vent/1388/files/agenda/1510
PROGRAM 11: MIXED-USE
SITES
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Encourage more
residential units—especially affordable and
senior housing—within mixed-use areas
downtown by increasing density, offering
flexibility in development, and providing
incentives for developers
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
1 AND 2: IN 2025, THE
CITY ADOPTED
ORDINANCE 2261 WHICH
ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL
AND HOUSING
ANYWHERE WHERE THE
GP ALLOWS IT.
3: CITY'S WEBSITE
PROVIDES A SITES
INVENTORY LIST.
Units 3
AGENDA FOR ORDINANCE 2261:
https://montereyparkca.portal.civicclerk.com/e
vent/1388/files/agenda/1510
CODE SECTION:
https://ecode360.com/43881968
SITES INVENTORY LIST:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5d2
1115a0ccf4901abdf4ec157a9db5d/page/Pag
e/?views=View-3
PROGRAM 12:
ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Promote the creation of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a
flexible, affordable housing option,
especially in higher-income areas, by
providing incentives, outreach, and
technical support to homeowners
1/1/2029 6th Cycle In Progress
IN 2025, THE CITY
CONTINUED TO TO
ALLOW ADUS ARE
PERMITTED BY THE
STATE. IN 2025, THE CITY
ALSO DEVELOPED A
WEBSITE INVITING
DESIGNERS TO SUBMIT
THEIR ADU DESIGNS FOR
THE CITY TO
EVENTUALLY ADOPT AND
OFFER AS PRE-
APPROVED ADUS. IN
2025, THE CITY ALSO
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
2261 WHICH UPDATED
THE ADU STANDARDS.
Units 3
ADU CODE: https://ecode360.com/43885368
ADU WEBSITE:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/1651/Pre-
Approved-ADU-Plans
PROGRAM 13:
REPLACEMENT HOUSING
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Ensure that when
existing affordable housing is replaced or
redeveloped, it is replaced with units that
remain affordable to the same or lower-
income households, preserving housing for
vulnerable residents
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Completed
IN 2025, THE CITY
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
2261 REQUIRING
REPLACEMENT HOUSING
Units 1 REPLACEMENT HOUSING CODE
SECTION: https://ecode360.com/46583967
PROGRAM 14:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Encourage and support
the development of affordable housing by
offering density bonuses, incentives,
funding, and technical assistance to
developers, especially in high-resource and
transit-accessible areas.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2025, THE CITY MET
WITH AT LEAST 1
DEVELOPER INTERESTED
IN INCORPORATING
DENSITY BONUS INTO
THEIR PROJECT.
CONCEPTUAL PLANS ARE
UNDER REVIEW.
Units 2 NONE
PROGRAM 15:
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REGULATIONS
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Increase the supply of
affordable housing by requiring or
incentivizing developers to include
affordable units in new projects or
contribute in-lieu fees for affordable
housing development.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Completed
IN 2023, THE CITY
ADOPTED AN
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
ORDINANCE
Households 1 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING CODE
SECTION: https://ecode360.com/43884126
PROGRAM 16: HOUSING
CHOICE VOUCHER
PROGRAM
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Help very low-income
households afford safe, standard housing
by providing tenant-based rental assistance
through the Housing Choice Voucher
Program and supporting housing mobility
and fair access.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2025, THE CITY
CONTINUED ITS
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS PROGRAM
THROUGH ITS
PARTICIPATION WITH
LACDA TO FUND THE
HOUSING
CHOICE VOUCHER
PROGRAM.
Households 1
HOUSING:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/228/Housin
g
PROGRAM 17: FAIR
HOUSING AND
TENANT/LANDLORD
COUNSELING
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Promote fair housing
and prevent discrimination by providing
tenant/landlord counseling, outreach,
education, and enforcement services to
ensure equal access to housing for all
residents, including protected and special
needs populations
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2025, THE CITY
CONTINUED TO WORK
WITH THE HOUSING
RIGHTS CENTER TO
ASSIST HOUSEHOLDS
AND REFER FAIR
HOUSING COMPLAINTS,
CONTINUED TO PROVIDE
INFORMTION ON THE
CITY'S WEBSITE
DEDICATED TO THE
HOUSING RIGHTS
CENTER, AND
CONTINUED TO COMPLY
WITH ALL STATE AND
FEDERAL LAWS RELATED
TO HOUSING.
Households 4
HOUSING RIGHTS CENTER:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/229/Housin
g-Rights-Center
PROGRAM 18:
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
AND ENGAGEMENT
PROGRAM
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Engage and educate all
community members—especially
vulnerable populations—about housing
opportunities and City programs through
accessible, multilingual outreach and
inclusive public participation.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2025, THE CITY
CONTINUED TO SHARE
AND DISTRIBUTE PUBLIC
ANNOUNCEMENTS
THROUGH A VARIETY OF
MEDIUMS SUCH AS
SOCIAL MEDIA, THE
CITY'S NEWSPAPER, AND
BY POSTING ON THE
CITY'S WEBSITE. IN 2025,
THE CITY ALSO
INCREASED
ACCESSIBILITY TO ITS
PUBLIC MEETINGS BY
POSTING ON ITS
YOUTUBE ACCOUNT. IN
2025, THE ENSURED
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT BY
TRANSLATING POSTED
MATERIAL IN ENGLISH,
SPANISH, AND CHINESE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY
CONTINUED TO WORK
ALONGSIDE THE
CHINESE SERVICE
CENTER WHICH IS A
NONPROFIT IN THE CITY
AND AN IMPORTANT
STAKEHOLDER.
Persons 4
CASCADES:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/576/Casca
des-Newspaper
CITY WEBSITE:
https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/
PROGRAM 19:
AFFIRMATIVELY
FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Promote fair and
equitable housing in Monterey Park by
removing barriers, supporting housing
mobility, preventing displacement, and
targeting investments in underserved
neighborhoods—through outreach,
education, incentives, affirmative
marketing, and place-based community
improvements.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle In Progress
IN A PREVIOUS APR THE
CITY NOTED THAT
THROUGH IT ADOPTION
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ELEMENT THE
CITY PROVIDED
OPPORTUNITIES TO
PARTICIPATE. THESE
OPPORTUNITIES
TARGETED THE AREAS
DESIGNATED AS
DISADVANTEGED
COMMUNITY WITHIN THE
CITY.
IN TERMS OF
FACILITATING MIXED USE,
IN 2025, THE CITY
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
2261 WHICH ALLOWED
RESIDENTIAL AND
HOUSING ANYWHERE
WHERE THE GP ALLOWS
IT.
IN TERMS OF
LINGUISTICS, IN 2025,
THE CITY EMPLOYED THE
COMPANY VOIANCE TO
ASSIST WITH
TRANSLATION SERVICES.
Persons 4 CODE SECTION:
https://ecode360.com/43881968
PROGRAM 20: PUBLICLY
OWNED SITES
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Facilitate the
development of city-owned sites to help
meet the City’s RHNA by proactively
marketing sites, offering incentives, and
streamlining approvals, while ensuring
compliance with the Surplus Land Act.
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
IN 2025, THE CITY
CONTINUED COMPLY
WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SURPLUS LAND ACT,
RELATED TO PUBLIC
OWNED SITES.
Other 3 NONE
PROGRAM 21: FAIR
HOUSING PROGRAM
OVERALL OBJECTIVE (SUMMARIZED
FOR SIMPLICITY): Ensure fair and
equitable housing in Monterey Park by
providing outreach, education, and support
to residents—especially lower- and
moderate-income households—while
promoting housing mobility, conserving
affordable and at-risk units, and targeting
investments to high-need areas to reduce
displacement and improve community
resources. This includes achieving
quantified housing goals across all income
levels, supporting ADUs and voucher
programs, and fostering inclusive, high-
opportunity neighborhoods
1/1/2029 6th Cycle Continuous
CONTINOUSLY ASSIST
RESIDENTS WITH FAIR
HOUSING ISSUES AND
CONCERNS.
Households 1 https://www.montereypark.ca.gov/229/Housin g-Rights-Center
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Description of
Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
34 APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Description of
Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
The description should adequately
document how each unit complies with
subsection (c) of Government Code Section
65583.1
+.
For detailed reporting requirements, see the
chcklist here:
Extremely Low
-
Income+
Very Low-
Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+
Extremely Low-
Income+
Very Low-
Income+ Low-Income+
TOTAL
UNITS+
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/docs/adequate-sites-checklist.pdf
Rehabilitation Activity
Preservation of Units At-Risk
Acquisition of Units
Mobilehome Park
Preservation
Total Units by Income
Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.
Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD at
[email protected] and we will unlock the form which enable you to populate these fields.
Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an
optional field
Reporting
Period 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Notes
23 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID
Unit
Category
(2 to 4,5+)
Tenure
R=Renter
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total Moderate Income
Units Converted from
Above Moderate
Date
Converted Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table F2
Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types
1 4
Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Moderate Income RHNA
Jurisdiction Monterey Park
Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
23 4
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Realistic
Capacity
Identified in the
Housing
Element
Entity to whom the site
transferred Intended Use for Site
1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting
year.
Jurisdiction Monterey Park Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Designation Size Notes
12 3 4 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of
Units
Surplus
Designation
Parcel Size (in
acres) Notes
NOTE: This table must contain an inventory
of ALL surplus/excess lands the reporting
jurisdiction owns
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31) Housing Element Implementation
Planning
Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
Project Type Date
23 APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(SH - Student Housing) Date
Very Low-
Income Deed
Restricted
Very Low-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Deed
Restricted
Moderate-
Income Non
Deed
Restricted
Above
Moderate-
Income
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note:
Cells in gre
Table J
Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Se Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4
NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS
ONLY. This table only needs to be completed if there
were student housing projects WITH a density bonus
approved pursuant to Government Code65915(b)(1)(F)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Jurisdiction Monterey Park ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Period 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 6th Cycle 10/15/2021 - 10/15/2029
NoDoes the Jurisdiction have a local tenant preference policy? If the jurisdiction has a local tenant preference policy, provide a link to the jurisdiction's webpage containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials.
Notes
Table K
Tenant Preference Policy
Local governments are required to inform HCD about any local tenant preference ordinance the local government maintains when the jurisdiction submits their annual progress report on housing approvals and production, per Government Code 7061 (SB 649, 2022, Cortese). Effective January 1, 2023, local governments adopting a tenant preference are required to create a webpage on their internet website containing authorizing local ordinance and supporting materials, no more than 90 days after the ordinance becomes operational.
Jurisdiction Monterey Park Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting
Period 2025
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Size Notes
34 APN Street Address/Intersection Date of
Designation
Designation
Level
Historic Site
Period
Areas of
Significance
Parcel Size (in
acres) Notes
Summary Row:
Historical Resources
Parcel Identifier
1 Designation
2 NOTE: This table needs to be completed with any sites within your jurisdiction that were newly added to a National, State, or Local register of historic places within the reporting year. If none, leave blank.
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table L
Jurisdiction Monterey Park
Reporting Year 2025 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto-populated based on amounts entered in rows 15-26.
Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement Requested Other Funding Notes
REZONING INVENTORY $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Local
General
Fund REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
PROPERTY OWNER/PUBLIC
OUTREACH $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Local
General
Fund REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
LEGAL DOC/PLAT & LEGAL
DESC. PREP $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Local
General
Fund REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
STAFF REPORT PREP & PUBLIC
HEARING $60,000.00 $60,000.00
Local
General
Fund REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
ANALYZE ZONING ORD &
PROCESS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Local
General
Fund REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
DEVELOPER WORKSHOP $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Other REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED ORD PREP AND STAFF $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Other REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED DEVELOPER WORKSHOP $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Other REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED STAFF TIME ALLOCATION $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Local
General
Fund REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Other REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Other REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED
ADOPTION OF PLAN WITH
HOUSING ELEMENT $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Other REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto-populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Completed
Completed
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable.
300,000.00$
Task Status
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Non-Deed Restricted 0
6 6
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 45
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 19
21 85
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 8
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 16
3 27
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Total Units
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
Acutely Low
Extremely Low
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.H.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shawn Igoe, Public Works Director
Subject: Amendment to Agreement No. 2529-A with Onyx Paving Company, Inc. concerning the 25-26 Street Rehabilitation at Various Locations Project
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to Agreement No. 2529-A with Onyx Paving Company, Inc., to increase the contract amount by $445,665, plus $44,565 contingency; for a total of $4,381,665, $634,965 contingency, and new contract total of $5,016,630; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed Ordinance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). CEQA Guideline § 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, alteration of existing public or private structures which involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The proposed work will occur entirely within an existing structure. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.
Executive Summary:
Capital Improvement Project (“CIP”) No. 96057 – 2025-26 Street Rehabilitation at Various Locations (the “Project”) includes the application of Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix (ARHM) and Asphalt Concrete (AC) Overlay. The proposed project rehabilitates various streets in the residential area from south of El Repetto Drive to north of Floral Drive/ Grandridge Avenue between Atlantic Boulevard and Garfield Avenue.
The project was awarded to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. on December 17, 2025. During the paving operations, several old water lines failed on Mira Valle Street, Grandridge Place, & Keller Avenue and as an emergency action, the Public Works Director (“Director”) requested the assistance of Onyx to make the necessary repairs. In addition, there are other
improvements that were identified to be completed as part of the project.
The Director recommends amending the current agreement with Onyx Paving Company, Inc., increasing the contract amount by $445,665; for a total of $4,381,665, plus $44,565 contingency and executing an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Background:
The City Council awarded the construction agreement for the Project to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. on December 17, 2025. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the City experienced a water main break that resulted in the lifting and failure of the existing asphalt pavement along Keller Ave. The damaged pipeline segment was identified as extending from Whitehurst Dr. to Fulton Ave. City maintenance crews completed temporary repairs, however, this unforeseen condition requires immediate attention to prevent further deterioration of the roadway and to ensure public safety.
In response, the Director requested a proposal from Onyx Paving Company, Inc., to perform the necessary repairs. Utilizing the existing contractor allows the City to expedite the repair process, maintain project continuity, and minimize potential delays and additional mobilization costs that could result from procuring a separate contractor.
The proposed scope of work includes excavation along Keller Ave. to expose and address the affected areas, removal and disposal of the damaged asphalt pavement, and preparation and compaction of the underlying soil subbase to ensure structural stability. Following subgrade preparation, new asphalt pavement will be installed to restore the roadway to acceptable standards and ensure long-term performance.
In addition to the unanticipated pavement repairs on Keller Ave., the City has additional pavement needs for CIP 99031 – Garfield Ave./Atlantic Blvd. Water Improvement project. Due to unforeseen utilities at the project site, a vault needs to be relocated to the center of Garfield Ave. which requires the construction of a new median. The Director requested a proposal from Onyx to complete this additional work.
The proposed work also includes additional concrete improvements for CIP 96057 along South Garfield Ave. between Graves Ave. and Coral View St. These improvements consist of the removal and replacement of damaged or non-compliant concrete, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk sections, as necessary. The work will also incorporate upgrades to improve accessibility in compliance with current ADA standards.
Lastly, Onyx will be addressing pavement repairs on Mabel St. due to a recent trash truck fire in the area. The work will be reimbursed by the City’s trash hauler, Ware Disposal.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the amendment to the Onyx Paving Company, Inc Agreement in an amount of $445,665, plus $44,565 contingency.
Strategic Plan Goal:
The road overlay project supports the City’s goal to maintain City facilities to support the current and future needs of our City and community.
Fiscal Impact:
The FY 25-26 budget includes funding for CIP 96057 – 2025-26 Street Rehabilitation at Various Locations. If approved, the proposed Amendment to Agreement 2529-A with Onyx Paving Company, Inc. would result in a new contract amount of $4,381,665, plus $634,965 for a total of $ 5,016,630.
Onyx Paving Company, Inc. Contract No. 2529-A
Original Contract Amount
Additional
Scope of Work
Revised
Contract Amount
Total
Contract
Amount
$3,936,000 $445,665 $4,381,665
Contingency $590,400 $44,565 $634,965
CM/CI $10,000
Geotechnical
Testing
$20,000
Total $4,556,400 $519,918 $5,016,630
Available funds from the Water Fund and other project savings will be used to cover the increased costs for this project.
Attachments:
1. Onyx Paving Company, Inc. Proposal
Staff Report
April 1, 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
Onyx Paving Company, Inc. Proposal
Onyx Paving Company, Inc.
22707 La Palma Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92887
TEL: (714) 632-6699
LIC # 630360 Class A,C-12
Attn: Ashley Morales DIR #1000004798
Agency: City of Monterey Park 3/19/2026
Address: 320 W. Newmark Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754 25-086-01 No. Onyx Scope - Base Bid Description (Items Must Be Taken Together) Quantity Unit Unit Bid Total Bid 1 2" Cold Mill 20160 SF $1.28 $25,804.80
2 2" AC Overlay 245 TON $128.00 $31,360.00
3 Additional 2" Over-Excavation for Lifted AC 1 LS $4,120.20 $4,120.20 4 Remove Existing & Construct Type "A" Curb 235 LF $105.00 $24,675.00 5 Construct 4" PCC Over 2" CMB at Median 1080 SF $13.00 $14,040.00 FA Unforseen Soil Conditions 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $115,000.00
NOTE:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Notes:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Jay Kirschner
ACCEPTANCE (Signature/Print Name )
BY: / DATE:
Pot Holing, Clear & Grubb, SWPPP/BMP's/Erosion Control, Traffic Control Plans, CMS Boards, Notices & Posting Proposal Date:
Bid/Proposal No.:
Bid Schedule
Keller & Garfield Water Repair
Total:
A MINIMUM 8 WEEK NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION IS REQUIRED.
PLEASE CONTACT JUSTIN KIRSCHNER FOR ALL SCHEDULING QUESTIONS - [email protected] OR (714) 402-0904.
EXCLUSIONS:
Any and all items not listed above, Permits, Bonds, Fees, Testing, Inspections, Shop Drawing, Survey, Staking, Engineering Price is based on 1 Move-In and Single Phase. Each Additional move cost will be $15,000.00.
Monuments, Striping, Signs, Utility Adjust/Relocating, Loops ***Asphalt Concrete for Slot/Trench Patching at concrete improvements*** Placement of Pavement Fabric, Crack Sealing/Weed Kill, Slurry Seal/Seal Coat/Fog Seal, etc.
CONDITIONS:
Addendum numbers acknowledged: 0
This Proposal To Be Made Part of Any Future Contract/Agreement as Exhibit or all quantities/unit prices/notes/exclusions must be part of the scope in the contract.
This proposal is valid for 30 calendar days. All Base Bid items listed above must be included otherwise subject to price change.
All work to be performed Monday thru Fridays during normal working Hours 7:00am to 4:00pm. Weekends, evenings and Holiday work will be considered as extra work.
Work will need to be scheduled so Onyx operations has full access to the site and continuous operation of each scope.
Final payment will be based on Field measurement of all unit price items.
If Bond is Required, Please Add 1.5%
Onyx is Signatory to Operating Engineers, Laborers & Mason Unions Insurance Included in this Bid: Commercial Liability $1MM per occurrence / $2MM aggregate; $2MM Products and Completed Operations Base Bid Items Must Be Packaged Together or the Price is Void. Optional Bid Items May Be Added With Base Bid Items. Optional Bid Items Are Thank you for the opportunity.
Vice President
Office: (714) 632-6699 Cell: (714) 397-0400 Email: [email protected]
Onyx Paving Company, Inc.
22707 La Palma Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92887
TEL: (714) 632-6699
LIC # 630360 Class A,C-12
Attn: Ashley Morales DIR #1000004798
Agency: City of Monterey Park 3/19/2026
Address: 320 W. Newmark Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754 25-086-02 No. Onyx Scope - Base Bid Description (Items Must Be Taken Together) Quantity Unit Unit Bid Total Bid 1 Mobilization 1 LS $3,600.00 $3,600.00
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
3 2" Grind & Overlay 800 SF $10.50 $8,400.00 $13,500.00
NOTE:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Notes:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Jay Kirschner
ACCEPTANCE (Signature/Print Name )
BY: / DATE:
Thank you for the opportunity.
Vice President
Office: (714) 632-6699 Cell: (714) 397-0400 Email: [email protected] Onyx is Signatory to Operating Engineers, Laborers & Mason Unions Holiday work will be considered as extra work.
Work will need to be scheduled so Onyx operations has full access to the site and continuous operation of each scope.
Final payment will be based on Field measurement of all unit price items.
If Bond is Required, Please Add 1.5%
Insurance Included in this Bid: Commercial Liability $1MM per occurrence / $2MM aggregate; $2MM Products and Completed Operations Base Bid Items Must Be Packaged Together or the Price is Void. Optional Bid Items May Be Added With Base Bid Items. Optional Bid Items Are Addendum numbers acknowledged: 0
This Proposal To Be Made Part of Any Future Contract/Agreement as Exhibit or all quantities/unit prices/notes/exclusions must be part of the scope in the contract.
This proposal is valid for 30 calendar days. All Base Bid items listed above must be included otherwise subject to price change.
Price is based on 1 Move-In and Single Phase. Each Additional move cost will be $15,000.00.
All work to be performed Monday thru Fridays during normal working Hours 7:00am to 4:00pm. Weekends, evenings and Any and all items not listed above, Permits, Bonds, Fees, Testing, Inspections, Shop Drawing, Survey, Staking, Engineering Pot Holing, Clear & Grubb, SWPPP/BMP's/Erosion Control, Traffic Control Plans, CMS Boards, Notices & Posting Monuments, Striping, Signs, Utility Adjust/Relocating, Loops ***Asphalt Concrete for Slot/Trench Patching at concrete improvements*** Placement of Pavement Fabric, Crack Sealing/Weed Kill, Slurry Seal/Seal Coat/Fog Seal, etc.
CONDITIONS:
Proposal Date:
Bid/Proposal No.:
Bid Schedule
Atlantic Blvd. & Mabel Ave. Grind & Cap
Total:
A MINIMUM 8 WEEK NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION IS REQUIRED.
PLEASE CONTACT JUSTIN KIRSCHNER FOR ALL SCHEDULING QUESTIONS - [email protected] OR (714) 402-0904.
EXCLUSIONS:
Onyx Paving Company, Inc.
22707 La Palma Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92887
TEL: (714) 632-6699
LIC # 630360 Class A,C-12
Attn: Ashley Morales DIR #1000004798
Agency: City of Monterey Park 3/19/2026
Address: 320 W. Newmark Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754 25-086-03 No. Onyx Scope - Base Bid Description (Items Must Be Taken Together) Quantity Unit Unit Bid Total Bid 1 Remove Asphalt Subgrade to Depth of 10" 11200 SF $5.88 $65,856.00 2 Construct 4" Class II Base 270 TON $36.00 $9,720.00
3 Construct 6" Asphalt Concrete Pavement 410 TON $123.00 $50,430.00 4 Install 2"X6" Redwood Header 700 LF $20.00 $14,000.00 $140,000.00
NOTE:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Notes:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Jay Kirschner
ACCEPTANCE (Signature/Print Name )
BY: / DATE:
Thank you for the opportunity.
Vice President
Office: (714) 632-6699 Cell: (714) 397-0400 Email: [email protected] Onyx is Signatory to Operating Engineers, Laborers & Mason Unions Holiday work will be considered as extra work.
Work will need to be scheduled so Onyx operations has full access to the site and continuous operation of each scope.
Final payment will be based on Field measurement of all unit price items.
If Bond is Required, Please Add 1.5%
Insurance Included in this Bid: Commercial Liability $1MM per occurrence / $2MM aggregate; $2MM Products and Completed Operations Base Bid Items Must Be Packaged Together or the Price is Void. Optional Bid Items May Be Added With Base Bid Items. Optional Bid Items Are Addendum numbers acknowledged: 0
This Proposal To Be Made Part of Any Future Contract/Agreement as Exhibit or all quantities/unit prices/notes/exclusions must be part of the scope in the contract.
This proposal is valid for 30 calendar days. All Base Bid items listed above must be included otherwise subject to price change.
Price is based on 1 Move-In and Single Phase. Each Additional move cost will be $15,000.00.
All work to be performed Monday thru Fridays during normal working Hours 7:00am to 4:00pm. Weekends, evenings and Any and all items not listed above, Permits, Bonds, Fees, Testing, Inspections, Shop Drawing, Survey, Staking, Engineering Pot Holing, Clear & Grubb, SWPPP/BMP's/Erosion Control, Traffic Control Plans, CMS Boards, Notices & Posting Monuments, Striping, Signs, Utility Adjust/Relocating, Loops ***Asphalt Concrete for Slot/Trench Patching at concrete improvements*** Placement of Pavement Fabric, Crack Sealing/Weed Kill, Slurry Seal/Seal Coat/Fog Seal, etc.
CONDITIONS:
Proposal Date:
Bid/Proposal No.:
Bid Schedule
City Yard Reconstruction
Total:
A MINIMUM 8 WEEK NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO MOBILIZATION IS REQUIRED.
PLEASE CONTACT JUSTIN KIRSCHNER FOR ALL SCHEDULING QUESTIONS - [email protected] OR (714) 402-0904.
EXCLUSIONS:
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.I.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Shawn Igoe, Public Works Director
Subject: Resolution Celebrating Earth Day and Arbor Day 2026
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Adopting a Resolution proclaiming Arbor Day and authorizing staff to apply for “Tree City USA” community recognition;
2. Waiving Spirit Bus and MPK Transit Express fare for riders for one week, starting on April 20, 2026, through April 24, 2026, in celebration of Earth Day; and
3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing application for “Tree City USA” community recognition, proclaiming Arbor Day, and establishing its annual observance in conjunction with the City’s annual Earth Day celebration. On October 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, which provides guidance and best practices for maintaining and enhancing the City’s urban forest. This action supports the City’s efforts to obtain recognition as a Tree City USA community through the Arbor Day Foundation and reinforces the City’s commitment to responsible urban forest management and environmental stewardship.
Additionally, it is recommended that City Council waive the fare to the Spirit Bus starting on Monday, April 20, 2026, through April 24, 2026 in celebration of Earth Day which will be celebrated globally on April 22, 2026. Free rides on the Spirit Bus and MPK Transit Express will promote public transportation and reduce traffic and the City’s carbon footprint through the reduction of automobile emissions. Both actions support the City’s Going Green initiative to encourage the community to consider environmentally friendly activities such as using alternative forms of transportation. The Spirit Bus fare was also waived last year for an entire week, as requested by City Council, in honor of Earth Day 2025. In 2025, the City waived fares for the third year in a row, for the entire week and continued to see an increase in ridership
levels, with 1,407 riders using Spirit Bus services.
Background:
The City of Monterey Park has long recognized the importance of maintaining and enhancing its urban forest as a valuable community resource. Trees provide numerous environmental, economic, and social benefits, including improving air quality, reducing urban heat island effects, capturing stormwater, providing shade, enhancing neighborhood aesthetics, and supporting overall community health and well-being.
On October 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), which provides guidance, best management practices, and long-term strategies for maintaining and expanding the City’s urban forest. The UFMP establishes a vision for a healthy, diverse, and sustainable tree canopy throughout the community and identifies strategies for improving tree management, expanding tree planting programs, and strengthening public outreach and education related to urban forestry.
One of the goals identified in the UFMP is for the City to pursue recognition as a Tree City USA community, a national program administered by the Arbor Day Foundation that recognizes municipalities committed to responsible urban forest management. The program requires participating cities to meet several standards, including maintaining a tree management program, establishing a community tree ordinance or standards, allocating funding toward tree care, and formally observing Arbor Day each year.
The City has taken several steps toward achieving Tree City USA recognition, including adopting the Urban Forest Master Plan, maintaining a comprehensive inventory and management program for the City’s tree population, and continuing to promote tree planting and environmental stewardship initiatives within the community. Adoption of a resolution acknowledging the National Arbor Day Proclamation and establishing its annual observance will further support the City’s eligibility for Tree City USA designation.
If Monterey Park is designated as a “Tree City USA” community,[GD1.1] the City will receive and install official “Tree City USA” materials, including street signage to install at key locations throughout the City, and use of the “Tree City USA” logo in outreach material. This recognition promotes public awareness, civic pride, and community engagement related to the City’s urban forestry initiatives.
To promote environmental awareness and community participation, the City will celebrate Arbor Day in conjunction with its annual Earth Day event at the City’s Cherry Blossom Festival, scheduled for April 11, 2026, which will include environmental education, sustainability outreach, and activities that encourage residents to appreciate and care for the City’s urban forest. Combining these events provides an opportunity to highlight the importance of trees while advancing the City’s broader sustainability and urban greening goals.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Waiving fees during Earth Week 2026 will meet the City’s goals to expand access to community resources and services to residents; adopting this Resolution will meet the City’s goals in reaching “Tree City USA” recognition and reinforces the City’s commitment to responsible urban forest management and environmental stewardship.
Fiscal Impact:
The Spirit Bus fare is $0.25 per passenger per boarding. Based on the 2025 Earth Day week ridership count of 1,407 riders, the estimated revenue impact of waiving Spirit Bus fares for one week in honor of Earth Day is approximately $351.75.
The MPK Transit Express fare is $2.00 per ride, or $1.00 per ride for residents age 55 and over. Since the start of 2026, the average weekly ridership for MPK Transit Express is approximately 308 rides. Based on this ridership level, the estimated revenue impact of waiving MPK Transit Express fares for one week is approximately $616.00.
The total estimated fiscal impact of waiving fares for both Spirit Bus and MPK Transit Express for one week is approximately $967.75, which will be absorbed by the General Fund.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTEREY PARK,
CALIFORNIA, FOR APPLICATION AS A TREE CITY USA COMMUNITY AND DECLARING ARBOR DAY AS APRIL 24, 2026
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. Trees are a vital component of the City of Monterey Park’s urban environment, contributing to improved air quality, reduced urban heat, enhanced property values, and overall community well-being.
B. Trees help conserve energy, reduce stormwater runoff, provide wildlife habitat, and create a more sustainable and resilient community.
C. The City of Monterey Park is committed to preserving and enhancing its urban forest through responsible tree planting, maintenance, and community engagement efforts.
D. The City Council on October 16, 2024 adopted its Urban Forest Management Plan which among other things recommended that the City seek “Tree City USA” community recognition
E. The City Council now authorizes the City Manager or designee to submit an application to the Arbor Day Foundation to become a “Tree City USA” community with certain stipulations including annual declaration of Arbor Day in the City.
F. The City Council declares April 24, 2026 as Arbor Day and each year after on the last Friday in April. Arbor Day is nationally recognized observance that encourages individuals, communities, and organizations to plant and care for trees and to recognize the importance of trees in our daily lives.
G. The City of Monterey Park encourages residents, businesses, and community groups to participate in Arbor Day activities and support efforts to expand and maintain the City’s tree canopy.
H. This Resolution is adopted based upon the evidence submitted during the April 1, 2026, City Council meeting including, without limitation, all documents presented to the City Council and public testimony.
Resolution No.
SECTION 2: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
SECTION 3: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.
SECTION 4: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______________, 2026.
________________________________
Elizabeth Yang, Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
__________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
City Council Staff Report
Date: April 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 10.J.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
Rebecca Bojorquez, Principal Management Analyst
Subject: National Pickleball Month Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Ngo)
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1. Approving the attached resolution; and
2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
Executive Summary:
The attached resolution is being brought forth to the Council for consideration at the request of Council Member Ngo.
Background:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
N/A
Fiscal Impact:
There is no expected fiscal impact associated with adopting this resolution.
Attachments:
1. National Pickleball Month Resolution