Monterey Park City Council
July 1, 2026

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 - Amended to add staff report to Item No. 12B Monterey Park City Hall Council Chambers
320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754

Wednesday, July 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.

Visit www.montereypark.ca.gov/agendas for agenda documents, policies, procedures, and instructions for remote participation.

Special Accommodation
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.

Viewing a Live Broadcast Meeting
• City’s Cable Channel – MPKTV: AT&T U-verse Channel 99 or Charter Communications Channel 182
• City’s Website – http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/133/City-Council-Meeting-Videos • Zoom – https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83333642600, Meeting ID: 833 3364 2600

Public Participation
• In Person – Council Chambers, 320 W. Newmark Ave, Monterey Park, CA 91754.

Complete a guest’s speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk. When called upon, approach the podium.
• Zoom – https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83333642600, Meeting ID: 833 3364 2600 To join the speaking queue, use the “raise hand” feature if using a device. Speakers will be unmuted and called on to speak.
• Telephone – Dial 1(669) 444-9171 or 1(253) 205-0468, enter Meeting ID: 833 3364 2600 and press #. To join the speaking queue, press *9 to raise hand and press *6 to unmute when called on to speak.
• Written Public Comment – 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 and filed as part of the City’s administrative record but not read during the council meeting.

Addressing the Council
Pursuant to Rule 4 of Resolution No. 2026-R23, public comments for all agenda items will be taken at the beginning of the meeting, except public hearing which will be taken at the time it will be heard using the same method for each item. The time allotted is determined by the number of speakers in accordance with the format listed below. If desirable, the Mayor and City Council may change the time limits.

Requests to speak will be accepted until the start of the public comment period. Requests to speak on public hearing items will be accepted until the start of the public hearing. No additional requests may be accepted after those times.
• 5 or fewer speakers: 5 minutes each.
• 6–20 speakers: 3 minutes each.
• 21–40 speakers: 2 minutes each.
• 41 or more speakers: 1 minute each.

Live Translation
Meetings may be translated (transcribed or audio) to the language selected. Availability may vary by language and technology platform.
• Wordly – Go to https://attend.wordly.ai/join/ERPR-7201, click on the arrow to select language and then click Attend. Use captions on your device or listen with a headset. • Zoom – Click More (…), select Show Captions, then hover over the Gear icon to choose your language.

Standard of Decorum
Any person addressing the Council who disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or otherwise renders infeasible the meeting’s orderly conduct, who, after a request by the presiding officer, refuses to cease such behavior may be removed from the City Council chambers or remote participation platform.

1. Call to Order
Mayor

2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Police 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. Presentation

6.A. Ware Customer Survey Results

7. Public Comments

8. Staff Communications

8.A. Bruggemeyer Library

8.B. Fire Department

8.C. Recreation & Community Services

9. Old Business

9.A. Discussion of Updated Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Study Findings

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 March 4, 2026, March 7, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 1, 2026, April 15, 2026 and April 20, 2026; the regular meetings of March 4, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 1, 2026 and April 15, 2026; and the special community meetings of March 23, 2026 and April 9, 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. Second Amendment to Agreement No. 2527-AA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a second amendment to agreement no.

2527-AA with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn), in a form approved by the City Attorney, for civil engineering services as part of the January 21, 2023 memorial project; and

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

10.D. Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Sewer Rehabilitation – Award of Contract

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a public works contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Ramona, Inc. in the amount of $1,927,467.50 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Sewer Rehabilitation, Specification No. 2026-005;

2. Authorizing the Public Works Director to approve change orders in an amount not to exceed $289,120, representing approximately 15% of the contract amount; and

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

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities).

10.E. Service Club & Sierra Vista Doors - Award of Contract

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a public works contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Vortex Industries, LLC. in the amount of $71,742 for the Sierra Vista and Service Club Door Replacement Project, Specification No. 2025- 004;

2. Authorizing the Public Works Director to approve change orders in an amount not to exceed $7,174 over the total contract amount; and

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

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Class 1 – Existing Facilities) because it involves the replacement of existing doors with no expansion of the existing use.

10.F. Identifying a tax rate for collecting voter authorized property taxes for employee retirement benefits based on the assessed property valuation established by the County Assessor’s Office

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution identifying the tax rate and amount of tax revenue required to fulfill the voters’ intent in funding the City’s retirement system; and

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

10.G. Professional Services Agreement with Mainstream Unlimited, LLC to provide Safety

Training and Risk Management Consulting Services

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a standard professional services agreement with Mainstream Unlimited, LLC in a form approved by the City Attorney, to provide safety training and risk management consulting services; and

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

10.H. Parks Make Life Better Month Resolution

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution declaring the month of July as “Parks Make Life Better” Month in the City of Monterey Park; and

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

11. Public Hearing

11.A. HUD Program Year 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Conducting a public hearing and receiving public comments and testimony on the Program Year (PY) 2026-2027 Annual Action Plan (AAP);

2. Approving and authorizing the submittal of the PY 2026-2027 AAP, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding recommendations;

3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute all appropriate and necessary documents to receive funding, implement approved use, and make necessary budget adjustments based on the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) final allocation amount;

4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute sub-recipient agreements with the non-profit organizations receiving CDBG and HOME allocations in the Annual Action Plan;

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

11.B. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Opening the public hearing, receiving public testimony, and closing the public hearing; and

2. Adopting the resolution approving the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, including the Water Shortage Contingency Plan contained therein, and finding consistency with the City’s General Plan.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The proposed action is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Water Code Section 10652 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(v), as adoption of the 2025 Urban Water

Management Plan, and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan contained therein, does not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

12. New Business

12.A. Los Palos Incident Local Emergency Update

12.B. Adopting a Resolution certifying the results of the June 2, 2026 Special Municipal Election

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a resolution certifying the results of the June 2, 2026 Special Election;

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

12.C. Ballot Proposition to amend the existing Monterey Park Transient Occupancy Tax

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting, by at least four affirmative votes, a Resolution placing a proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot, which, if adopted by a majority of voters, would amend the City’s existing Transient Occupancy Tax;

2. Determining whether to designate person(s) for filing an argument favoring the ballot proposition;

3. Adopting a Resolution requesting that the City Attorney prepare an impartial analysis for the ballot proposition;

4. Adopting a Resolution establishing requirements for ballot arguments for City measures;

5. Adopting a Resolution supporting the ballot measure; and

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

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

These actions are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because they establish rules and procedures related to government funding mechanisms and election administration; do not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and constitute organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Accordingly, the proposition proposed and related actions do not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review (see specifically, 14 CCR § 15378(b)(4-5)).

13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items

14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce)

15. Adjournment

City Council Staff Report

Date: July 1, 2026
Agenda Item Number: 9.A.

To: City Council
From: Timothy Hou, Director of Community Development
Subject: Discussion of Updated Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Study Findings

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the report and presentation;

2. Providing direction to staff; and

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

Executive Summary:

This report provides the findings of an updated Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) feasibility study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) evaluating the financial impact of the City’s IHO (Attachment 1). EPS presented prior studies to Council in 2024 and 2025, and their analysis tests whether typical new residential projects—townhomes, condominiums, and multifamily rental apartments—can feasibly support the City’s inclusionary requirements under 2026 market conditions.

The study finds that most residential development prototypes are not currently financially feasible even without inclusionary requirements. Only townhomes show adequate feasibility at market rates, but even the townhome product type becomes infeasible when the current IHO requirements are applied.

EPS concludes that, under current conditions, the City’s IHO requirements are likely to pose significant financial challenges to new multifamily rental and ownership development. The report provides several policy considerations for the City Council including a recommended in- lieu fee calculation and strategic considerations for implementation.

Background:

Program 15 of the City’s certified 2021–2029 Housing Element requires the City to consider an

inclusionary housing program requiring certain residential and mixed-use projects to provide a percentage of affordable units. To implement Program 15, the City Council adopted an IHO on September 6, 2023, requiring 15% affordable units for rental projects (composed of 9% Low- Income and 6% Moderate-Income), and for-sale projects (composed of 15% Moderate-Income units). The IHO also included a formula for calculating in-lieu fees based on the “affordability gap” between market-rate and affordable prices.

As part of this action, the City Council also directed staff to conduct an evaluation of the City’s IHO to determine whether it was financially feasible and recommend in-lieu fees in cases where an IHO was feasible. Subsequently, the City partnered with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, who offered sub-regional technical assistance through its consultant EPS to address affordable housing issues, to conduct an IHO feasibility study for Monterey Park. EPS completed an initial analysis in early 2024 and updated the study in 2025 and 2026 to reflect current construction costs, land values, rents, and sale prices. • January 17, 2024: EPS presented findings indicating that IHO requirements could pose financial challenges for new residential projects, especially smaller and mid-sized developments. Council voted to pause enforcement for one year. • January 15, 2025: EPS updated its analysis, concluding that IHO requirements remain financially challenging and may deter new housing development, despite some improvement in market conditions. Council extended the pause for another 12 months. • February 18, 2026: Staff provided a status report regarding a Supreme Court ruling and litigation settlement involving the City of East Palo Alto that highlighted potential legal challenges associated with applying inclusionary housing requirements to certain residential projects.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

EPS evaluated five prototype development types:

1. Citywide Townhomes (ownership)

2. Citywide Garden-Style Condominiums (ownership)

3. Citywide Garden-Style Apartments (rental)

4. Mixed-Use Multifamily Condominiums (ownership)

5. Mixed-Use Multifamily Apartments (rental)

For each prototype, EPS estimated development costs (land, site preparation, hard and soft costs), market-rate sale prices or rents, and affordable unit values based on California income limits.

SUMMARY FINDINGS
• Market-rate development feasibility is limited. Only the citywide townhome prototype meets the return thresholds at market rates. All other prototypes fail to meet feasibility benchmarks, even without an inclusionary requirement.
• Under the City’s current inclusionary requirements, all prototypes, including

townhomes, fall below feasibility thresholds. Townhome feasibility drops from

24.3% (well above the 15% feasibility threshold) to approximately 13% (below the 15% feasibility threshold). All condominium and apartment prototypes remain below feasibility thresholds, with insufficient profit margins and yields. • Affordability gaps are large. Affordable units would cost more to build than they are worth at regulated prices. For example:
• Townhome moderate-income affordability gap: approximately $500,000 per unit. • Garden-style condo moderate-income gap: $291,000 per unit. • Garden-style apartment low-income gap: $194,000 per unit. • Mixed-use apartment moderate-income gap: $193,731 per unit. • In-lieu fees, if set to match the affordability gap, would be significant and would worsen existing feasibility challenges. Equivalent in-lieu fees per square foot range from $30.33 (garden-style apartments) to $58.91 (mixed-use multifamily condominiums).
• Future pipeline of housing development is uncertain. While the City has a robust number of approximately 1,400 units in the pipeline, EPS notes it is unknown whether these projects will proceed due to market conditions. Additionally, since accessory dwelling units (ADUs) account for most recent housing production, few projects that can trigger an IHO requirement have been built.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Based on EPS’s findings, the City faces a challenging development environment in which most residential prototypes do not pencil out financially. Inclusionary requirements would further constrain feasibility. To ensure that the City does not inadvertently deter new housing production, the City Council should carefully consider the following policy options.

EPS outlines several actions the City Council may consider:

1. Continue the temporary pause on IHO implementation.

Allow one to two more years for market recovery, tracking rents, construction costs, developer interest, and other feasibility indicators.

2. Phase in inclusionary requirements.

Gradually implementing inclusionary requirements (as practiced in Long Beach and San Jose) can ease the transition for developers while signaling future expectations.

Note that phasing would not by itself address feasibility challenges.

3. Adjust requirements to align with automatic State Density Bonus (SDB) eligibility.

For example, increasing the Low Income rental requirement from 9% to 10% would automatically qualify projects for a 20% density bonus, potentially offsetting development costs.

4. Adopt a reduced in-lieu fee.

Charging an in-lieu fee below the affordability gap may improve feasibility for townhome projects (feasible up to ~$34.71/sf) and still generate revenue for affordable housing.

However, for multifamily rental/ownership projects, even very low fees (e.g., $2–$5/sf)

may exceed what projects can realistically bear under current conditions.

5. Combine the above strategies.

A hybrid approach (pause + phased-in standards + reduced fees) may best balance affordable housing objectives with economic feasibility.

Staff will return with draft amendments should the City Council direct changes to the IHO program.

Fiscal Impact:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with the presentation of findings of the IHO feasibility study, other than the cost of preparing any subsequent studies if directed.

Attachments:

1. City of Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Study

ATTACHMENT 1
City of Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing
Feasibility Study

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

FEASIBILITY STUDY

DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for: Prepared by:

City of Monterey Park Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

May 29, 2026
EPS #254044

OAKLAND OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE LOS ANGELES OFFICE DENVER OFFICE 1330 Broadway, Suite 450 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 701 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 410 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1850 Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95814 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Denver, CO 80202 510 841 9150 916 649 8010 213 489 3838 303 623 3557
epsys.com

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Summary of Findings 4
Study Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Overview of Feasibility Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 5

2. Market Context 7
Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Real Estate Market Activity ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Development Feasibility Analysis 9
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Affordability Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Feasibility Thresholds ................................................................................................................................................... 24 Feasibility Analysis Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 25

4. In-Lieu Fee Calculation 28
xxx Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. Strategic Considerations 31
Appendix A A-1

Appendix B B-1

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Introduction and Summary of Findings List of Tables
Table 1 2021- 2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for Monterey Park ...................................................7 Table 2 Citywide T ownhome Pr ototype Development Cost Assumptions .................................................... 11 Table 3 Citywide Garden -Style Condominium Prototype Development Cost Assumptions .................... 12 Table 4 Citywide Garden -Style Apartment Prototype Development Cost Assumptions .......................... 13 Table 5 Mixed Use Multifamily Condominium Prototype Development Cost Assumptions .................... 14 Table 6 Mixed Use Multifamily Apartment Prototype Development Cost Assumptions .......................... 15 Table 7 Citywide T ownhome Pr ototype Affordability Gap Analysis ................................................................ 19 Table 8 Citywide Garden -Style Condominium Prototy pe Affordability Gap Analysis ................................ 20 Table 9 Citywide Garden -Style Apartment Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis ...................................... 21 Table 10 Mixed Use Multifamily Condominium Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis ................................ 22 Table 11 Mixed Use Multifamily Apartment Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis ...................................... 23 Table 12 Feasibility of Market -Rate Product Prototypes ....................................................................................... 25 Table 13 Financial Gap f or Inclusionary Units ............................................................................................................ 29 Table 14 Inclusionary Housing Program Equivalent In -Lieu Fees for Prototy pes........................................... 30 Table 15 Feasibility of Product Prototypes with Inclusionary Program in Monterey Park .......................... 31

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Introduction and Summary of Findings

1. Introduction and Summary of Findings
Study Background
The City of Monterey Park (City) adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) in August 2023 and it became effective in September 2023. Per the City’s IHO, developers of new residential projects are required to provide 15 percent of the new units built as affordable to lower income households. For rental developments, the 15 percent requirement consists of nine percent of units affordable to households earning the Low Income level for Los Angeles County and six percent of units affordable to households earning the Moderate Income level. For ownership developments, 15 percent of units are required to be affordable to households earning the Moderate Income level.

Following adoption of the IHO, the City sought to study how the ordinance could impact the financial feasibility of new market-rate housing developments in the City. The City initially engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to conduct a feasibility study of the City’s IHO in January 2024, which was followed by the City Council’s decision to pause implementation of the IHO. EPS reassessed the IHO’s feasibility in early 2025, but the City Council opted to continue the pause. For this update to the analysis, EPS updated assumptions regarding the analyzed residential prototype products, including cost and revenue assumptions that reflect current market conditions. The updated assumptions and findings are detailed in this document.

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

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Introduction and Summary of Findings The impacts of inclusionary housing policies on the financial feasibility of market- rate housing projects can manifest in one of two ways:

1. On-site inclusionary affordable units typically cost the same to build as the market-rate units but are sold or rented at below-market rates, thus lowering the overall project’s revenue generation; OR

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

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

Key Findings and Recommendations
The key findings and recommendations stemming from the feasibility analysis for inclusionary housing in Monterey Park are summarized below. It is important to note that the analysis is a point-in-time assessment of typical new market-rate development projects as if they were completed in 2026. The findings are not deterministic of all development feasibility in the city, as there are many variables that can impact costs and values and resulting feasibility of any individual project.

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

Key Findings
Residential projects appear financially challenging to build in the City, except for townhome projects, which appear financially feasible.

The feasibility analysis indicates that the development of rental residential products, such as apartments, and for-sale residential products, such as condominiums, would be challenging even at market rates, because the income that can be generated by typical product types does not yield a sufficient return on the estimated costs of construction. By contrast, the townhome product appear to be feasible at market rates, and demonstrate sufficient development feasibility to absorb the additional impact of an inclusionary requirement.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Introduction and Summary of Findings The City’s current inclusionary housing requirements will likely be financially challenging for new residential development projects under current market conditions.

Although the townhome product seemed to be financially feasible at market rates, with the addition of the City’s inclusionary requirements, all residential products appear financially challenging. Chapter 5 of this report outlines a number of options the City may consider to improve the efficacy of the IHO in developing affordable units in the community while also supporting new residential development overall. These options are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may be used in combination with each other.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Market Context

2. Market Context
Housing Needs
The State of California requires every jurisdiction to adequately plan for its community’s housing needs, as specified by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA. The RHNA breaks down the amount of housing units each jurisdiction should plan for by income category, ranging from Extremely-Low Income to Above Moderate Income. As shown in Table 1 below, the City of Monterey Park has a RHNA of 5,257 units for the current Housing Element cycle (spanning 2021 to 2029), for a range of income levels . Therefore, it is important to adopt policies that both advance affordable housing opportunities and support the development of new market-rate housing.

Table 1 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for Monterey Park

Real Estate Market Activity
To evaluate the impacts of a potential inclusionary program on future residential development, EPS first sought to answer the following questions:
(1) Is market-rate development occurring in Monterey Park? (2) What are the market-rate rents and sales prices of new development? These questions are critical, as an inclusionary program is only effective if new market-rate residential development is occurring and can achieve prices or rents that can support the additional costs of including affordable units. In order to understand the local development landscape and the extent of new residential development activity in the City and subregion, EPS researched several key local Afforability Category RHNA Percentage
Extremely Low Income 653 12%
Very Low Income 671 13%
Low Income 822 16%
Moderate Income 848 16%
Above Moderate Income 2,263 43%
Total 5,257 100%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Market Context
residential market activity indicators, utilizing a variety of data sources including the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Progress Reports (APRs), CoStar, and Redfin.1
To the greatest extent possible and to maximize transparency, EPS aimed to use publicly available data, such as information collected and posted by HCD, the US Census, and local planning documents and zoning codes. EPS additionally vetted and confirmed assumptions through discussions with City planning staff and residential developers active in the City (as identified by City staff).

Housing Affordability
Households in the City have a median annual income $81,855 and an average household size of 2.85 people per household. According to the 2025 State Income Limits for Los Angeles County, a three-person household with earnings of $109,050 or less (i.e., close to the “typical” household in Monterey Park) would be considered a Low Income household.

Based on standard thresholds for housing affordability, a household earning median income in the City can afford a home price of approximately $213,000 2 or
a monthly rent of approximately $2,050. 3 As of early 2026, the median sales price in the City for a detached single-family home is approximately $955,000, while the median apartment rent in the City is approximately $1,620 per month.4 Given these price points, the “typical” household in Monterey Park could not afford the “typical” single-family for-sale home, but the “typical” household in Monterey Park could afford the “typical” multifamily rental apartment in the City.

Residential Development Trends
There has been limited new residential development in the City in the past several years. According to available APR data, of the 268 units completed between 2021 and 2024 within the City, the vast majority (211 units) have been accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that are typically exempt from inclusionary requirements under California law. The City does have several residential projects in the pipeline that would yield approximately 1,403 new market-rate units, including townhomes, condominiums, and multifamily apartments, although it is uncertain if and when these projects will proceed to construction.

1 CoStar reports rents for multifamily housing units based on data provided by property management companies. Redfin reports sale prices for sold housing units based on publicly available data, such as MLS and County Assessor records . 2 Assumes that no more than 30 percent of an owner-occupied household's income is spent on housing costs, home insurance costs $100 monthly, $533 in monthly HOA fees, tax rate of 1.1%, and that the house is purchased with 30-year mortgage with a fixed

6.46 percent interest rate and a 10 percent downpayment. 3 Assumes that no more than 30 percent of a renter -occupied household's income should be spent on housing costs. 4 EPS utilized the subregional median rent given the limited inventory of new multifamily rental apartments in the City.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Development Feasibility Analysis

3. Development Feasibility Analysis
The development feasibility analysis detailed in this study tests whether new market-rate residential development in the City can absorb the financial impact of an inclusionary housing requirement. Inclusionary programs are a method to develop affordable units without public funding. This assessment reflects that building affordable housing units represents a cost to market-rate housing projects by way of reduced sale or rental revenue, and it is possible that the reduced revenue will cause the project to be financially infeasible.

Methodology
To support an inclusionary requirement, a development project must demonstrate positive return on investment in excess of a feasibility “threshold,” described in more detail below. Based on this criterion, the feasibility analysis is intended to demonstrate if an inclusionary housing program is an appropriate tool to adopt at this time given current market conditions and, if so, to identify inclusionary requirements that could be feasibly absorbed by different types of new market- rate projects in the City. The analysis utilizes information on market rents and sale prices in the City, affordable rents and sale prices in the region, and development costs for new residential units in the region.

EPS utilized a variety of data sources including data from Annual Progress Reports (APRs) available on the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Dashboard, CoStar, Redfin, and input from City staff.

Additionally, EPS vetted the financial assumptions used in the analysis with multiple housing developers active in and around the City.

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

The analyzed prototypes include three Citywide prototypes, reflecting residential zoning designations across the City; and two Mixed Use Zone prototypes reflecting the City’s Mixed Use zoning designation. Prototypes for the Mixed Use Zone are considered separately as the Mixed Use zoning designation provides

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Development Feasibility Analysis zoning allowances distinct from other residential zones in the City, specifically a significantly higher density limit (1.50 to 2.0 FAR) on density for projects in the MU Zone. Since the Mixed Use Zone is expected to absorb a significant amount of future residential development in the City, it is particularly important to understand the impact of the IHO on future projects in the Mixed Use Zone area.

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

The Mixed Use prototypes include one rental multifamily apartment prototype and one for-sale multifamily condominium prototype. The difference between the two Mixed Use prototypes is the tenure and that the for-sale prototype is slightly larger at 1,000 square feet per unit compared to the rental prototype, which is 900 square feet per unit.

The unit characteristics for each prototype are meant to represent average unit sizes, with the resulting analysis demonstrating feasibility for an average residential project. The findings of this analysis assume that the unique unit mix of any particular project will, in aggregate, conform to these average unit sizes.

However, any specific project will have its own cost and revenue factors that may be impacted in part by its unit mix. These inputs are explicitly shown in the development program, development cost, and development calculations on Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6.

Development Cost Assumptions
Development cost categories include land acquisition, site preparation, direct or “hard” costs (e.g., construction labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture/engineering, entitlement, permitting, financing, and marketing).

EPS assumed that the townhome would have garage parking (with the garage costs factored into the cost of the unit itself rather than as a separate cost item), the garden-style condominiums would have tuck under parking, and the garden- style apartments would have surface parking. EPS assumed that both Mixed Use prototypes would have structured parking. Data from published cost estimating

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Development Feasibility Analysis services, as well as local recent developments and land transactions informed the development cost assumptions, which were vetted by developers who are active in the City. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 below detail the cost assumptions and estimated costs per unit of all five of the prototypes.

Table 2 Citywide Townhome Prototype Development Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 20 units per acre
Unit Size 1,800 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 3 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 spaces per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $200,000
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $87,120
Subtotal, Land $287,120
Direct Construction Costs $199 per net sq.ft $358,736
Parking Costs $0 per space $0
Subtotal, Direct Costs $358,736
Indirect Costs 35% of direct costs $125,558
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $125,558
Total Construction Costs $771,414
Developer Profit Threshold 15% of total development costs $115,712 Total Development Costs (rounded) $887,126
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Townhome
Assumptions
Ownership
[1] Prototype assued to have garage parking. Parking costs are factored into direct construction costs of the unit rather than a separate cost item.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 3 Citywide Garden-Style Condominium Prototype Development Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units per acre
Unit Size 1,000 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2 per unit
Amount of Parking 1.5 spaces per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $133,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $191,413
Direct Construction Costs $253 per net sq.ft $253,000
Parking Costs $10,000 per space $15,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $268,000
Indirect Costs 35% of direct costs $93,800
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $93,800
Total Construction Costs $553,213
Developer Profit Threshold 15% of total development costs $82,982 Total Development Costs (rounded) $636,195
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Garden-Style Condominium
Assumptions
Ownership

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 4 Citywide Garden-Style Apartment Prototype Development Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units per acre
Unit Size 900 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2 per unit
Amount of Parking 1.5 spaces per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $133,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $191,413
Direct Construction Costs $226 per net sq.ft $202,950
Parking Costs $8,000 per space $12,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $214,950
Indirect Costs 35% of direct costs $75,233
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $75,233
Total Construction Costs $481,596
Total Development Costs (rounded) $481,596
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Garden-Style Apartment
Assumptions
Rental

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 5 Mixed Use Multifamily Condominium Prototype Development Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 70 units per acre
Unit Size 1,000 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2 per unit
Amount of Parking 1.5 spaces per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $6,000,000 per acre $86,088
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $25,000
Subtotal, Land $111,088
Direct Construction Costs $318 per sq.ft $317,895
Parking Costs $50,000 per space $75,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $392,895
Indirect Costs 35% of direct costs $137,513
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $137,513
Total Construction Costs $641,496
Developer Profit Threshold 15% of total development costs $96,224 Total Development Costs (rounded) $737,720
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Multifamily Condominium
Assumptions
Ownership

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 6 Mixed Use Multifamily Apartment Prototype Development Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 77 units per acre
Unit Size 900 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2 per unit
Amount of Parking 1.5 spaces per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $6,000,000 per acre $77,922
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $22,629
Subtotal, Land $100,551
Direct Construction Costs $302 per sq.ft $271,800
Parking Costs $50,000 per space $75,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $346,800
Indirect Costs 35% of direct costs $121,380
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $121,380
Total Construction Costs $568,731
Total Development Costs (rounded) $568,731
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Multifamily Apartment
Assumptions
Rental

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Development Feasibility Analysis Value Assumptions
Market-Rate Residential Values
For the market-rate for-sale prototypes, the value of the dwelling unit is equal to the estimated sale price. Based on current and recent listings and transactions, the assumed price points for new for-sale prototypes in the City are about $959,000 for a townhome unit, $612,000 for a garden-style condominium unit, and $703,000 for a Mixed Use condominium unit. These price points reflect expectations for newly constructed units, which are assumed to achieve higher prices than the overall existing housing inventory of the same unit types.

The value for market-rate rental apartments is based on annual net operating income (NOI), which is calculated as the annual rent minus the annual operating expenses. Both prototypes are assumed to have two bedrooms with annual operating expenses assumed at $12,000 per unit. For the garden-style apartment prototype, the annual rent is assumed at $35,640 per unit (equivalent to $2,970 per month). For the Mixed Use multifamily apartment prototype, the annual rent is assumed at $40,986 per unit (equivalent to $3,416 per month). This rental rate reflects market rents for the most newly constructed apartment projects in the subregion.

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

Income levels for households in Los Angeles County are set by HCD each year.

The income level for each category differs by household size. This analysis assumes a two-bedroom unit is occupied by a three-person household, and a three-bedroom unit is occupied by a four-person household. 5 For 2025, the Area
Median Income (AMI) in Los Angeles County is defined as $95,950 for a household of three and $106,600 for a household of four.

In general, Very Low Income households are defined as those earning up to 50 percent of AMI; Low Income households earn up to 80 percent AMI; and Moderate Income households earn up to 120 percent of AMI. However, within Los Angeles County, HCD adjusts the maximum income defining Very Low- and Low Income households upwards from the associated mathematical percentage of AMI. This adjustment occurs in counties with relatively high housing costs and/or relatively high or low household incomes. Due to this adjus tment, the current maximum income for a Low Income household—$109,050 for a three- person household and $121,150 for a four-person household—is actually higher than the area median income for the same household sizes.

5 Household size is based on California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Development Feasibility Analysis Based on the maximum household income for each income category, EPS calculated the maximum spending towards housing costs that would be considered affordable. Per State standards, the analysis assumes that households in affordable units spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs.

For the purposes of this analysis, housing costs for rental units include rent and utilities only, while housing costs for for-sale units include mortgage and interest payments, insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees.

The property taxes are assumed to be 1.1 percent of the home price. According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, the typical California homeowner spent $1,200 per year on insurance, equivalent to $100 per month. 6 To calculate
the maximum affordable sale price for the for-sale units, EPS assumed that insurance and HOA fees are collectively approximately $633 per month for townhome units ($100/month for insurance, and $533/month for HOA), and $588 per month for both condominium prototypes ($100/month for insurance, and $488/month for HOA).
7 Subtracting the costs for insurance, property taxes, and HOA fees from the 30 percent of gross income available for housing costs yields the remainder available for mortgage payments (principal and interest). This annual mortgage payment was converted into an affordable home sale price assuming a 10 percent downpayment and a 30-year mortgage with a fixed interest rate of 6.46 percent, consistent with current mortgage lending practices.

For rental apartments, the rent that a household is able to pay is again determined at 30 percent of their gross household income, but this figure includes both rent and utilities. The net rent payable by the household subtracts out an average of $286/month in utility costs for a two-bedroom unit, based on utility allowances published by the Los Angeles County Development Authority. Operating expenses estimated at $12,000 per unit per year are then subtracting from the net rent to yield the net operating income associated with the rental apartments.

Under current market and financing conditions and expected “yield on cost” investment standards, EPS estimates that annual net operating income represents

6.0 percent of the maximum amount that a developer would be able to finance to construct the building.

6 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “ The California Home Insurance Challenge in Eight Charts ”. See The California Home Insurance Challenge in Eight Charts - Terner Center.
7 Redfin reports HOA fees for sold housing units based on publicly available data, such as MLS and County Assessor records .

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Development Feasibility Analysis Affordability Gap Analysis
An “affordability gap analysis” estimates the implicit or explicit subsidy required to develop an affordable housing unit by comparing the cost of development (including land acquisition, “direct” development costs for construction labor and materials, and “indirect” costs for entitlement, design, financing, impact fees, etc.) to the value of the unit based on its specific income restriction for affordable housing. The affordability gap is thus an estimate of, for example, whether the sale price of a three-bedroom townhome priced for a family of four earning a “Low Income” wages falls short of the cost to develop that unit, and by how much. The greater the affordability gap per unit and/or the greater number of units required at those below-market prices, the greater the overall impact on a project’s feasibility.

Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11 summarize the product prototype, cost assumptions, and value assumptions to show the estimated subsidies for construction of affordable units for Very Low, Low and Moderate Income households. As shown, the lower the income level, the greater the affordability gap, meaning that a developer’s revenues are impacted more materially by providing a unit at Very Low Income than at Moderate Income.

However, even at Moderate Income levels, EPS estimates that each of the five prototypes would cost more to develop than their value as rental or for-sale affordable housing at income-restricted prices.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 7 Citywide Townhome Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis

Item
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)
Development Program Assumptions
Density (units/acre) 20 20 20
Gross Unit Size (sq. ft.) 1,800 1,800 1,800
Number of Bedrooms 3 3 3
Occupants per 3-bedroom Unit [1] 4 4 4
Parking Spaces / Unit 2.0 2.0 2.0
Development Cost Assumptions
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements [2] $287,120 $287,120 $287,120 Direct Development Costs [3] $358,736 $358,736 $358,736 Indirect Development Costs [4] $125,558 $125,558 $125,558 Developer Profit $115,712 $115,712 $115,712
Total Development Costs (rounded) $887,000 $887,000 $887,000 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income [5] $75,750 $121,150 $127,900
Supportable Housing Payment [6] $22,725 $36,345 $38,370 Supportable Mortgage [7] $171,418 $325,347 $348,233
Supportable Home Price (rounded) [8] $190,000 $361,000 $387,000 Affordability Gap $697,000 $526,000 $500,000
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[6] Assumes that no more than 30% of household income is spent on housing payments, including mortgage, insurance, property tax, and HOA fees. Assumes the unit pays $100 monthly in insurance and $533 monthly in HOA fees. Property tax is assumed to be 1.1% of home value.
[7] Assumes a 30-year mortgage with a fixed 6.46% interest rate. Assumes that the supportable mortgage payment is 30% of the household income subtracted by payments for insurance, property tax, and HOA. [8] Assumes a 10% down payment.

Townhome- Citywide
[1] Consistent with guidance in State law (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5), a 3-bedroom unit should be assumed to be occupied by a 4-person household.
[2] Based on recent data on land transactions data from in Monterey Park from CoStar and data provided by City staff. [3] Includes on-site work, offsite work, vertical construction, general requirements, overhead and builder fees. [4] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and permitting fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [5] Reflects 2025 HCD Income Limits. Incomes are calculated for a four-person household.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 8 Citywide Garden-Style Condominium Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis

Item
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)
Development Program Assumptions
Density (units/acre) 30 30 30
Gross Unit Size (sq. ft.) 1,000 1,000 1,000
Number of Bedrooms 2 2 2
Occupants per 2-bedroom Unit [1] 3 3 3
Parking Spaces / Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5
Development Cost Assumptions
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements [2] $191,413 $191,413 $191,413 Direct Development Costs [3] $268,000 $268,000 $268,000 Indirect Development Costs [4] $93,800 $93,800 $93,800
Developer Profit $82,982 $82,982 $82,982
Total Development Costs (rounded) $636,000 $636,000 $636,000 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income [5] $68,150 $109,050 $115,100
Supportable Housing Payment [6] $20,445 $32,715 $34,530 Supportable Mortgage [7] $151,753 $290,425 $310,937
Supportable Home Price (rounded) [8] $169,000 $323,000 $345,000 Affordability Gap $467,000 $313,000 $291,000
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[6] Assumes that no more than 30% of household income is spent on housing payments, including mortgage, insurance, property tax, and HOA fees. Assumes the unit pays $100 monthly in insurance and $488 monthly in HOA fees. Property tax is assumed to be 1.1% of home value.
[7] Assumes a 30-year mortgage with a fixed 6.46% interest rate. Assumes that the supportable mortgage payment is 30% of the household income subtracted by payments for insurance, property tax, and HOA. [8] Assumes a 10% down payment.

Garden-Style Condominium - Citywide
[1] Consistent with guidance in State law (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5), a 2-bedroom unit should be assumed to be occupied by a 3-person household.
[2] Based on recent data on land transactions data from in Monterey Park from CoStar and data provided by City staff. [3] Includes on-site work, offsite work, vertical construction, general requirements, overhead and builder fees. [4] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and permitting fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [5] Reflects 2025 HCD Income Limits. Incomes are calculated for a four-person household.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 9 Citywide Garden-Style Apartment Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis

Item
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)
Development Program Assumptions
Density (units/acre) 30 30 30
Gross Unit Size (sq. ft.) 900 900 900
Number of Bedrooms 2 2 2
Occupants per 2-bedroom Unit [1] 3 3 3
Parking Spaces / Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5
Development Cost Assumptions
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements [2] $191,413 $191,413 $191,413 Direct Development Costs [3] $214,950 $214,950 $214,950 Indirect Development Costs [4] $75,233 $75,233 $75,233
Total Development Costs (rounded) [5] $482,000 $482,000 $482,000 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income [6] $68,150 $109,050 $115,100
Monthly Utility Allowance for 2-bedroom Unit [7] $286 $286 $286 Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [8] $17,019 $29,289 $31,104 (less) Operating Expenses per Unit/Year [9] ($12,000) ($12,000) ($12,000) Net Operating Income $5,019 $17,289 $19,104
Yield on Cost Requirement [10] 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Total Supportable Unit Value Price (rounded) [11] $84,000 $288,000 $318,000 Affordability Gap $398,000 $194,000 $164,000
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[5] Excludes developer profit, which is reflected in capitalized value.

Garden-Style Apartment- Citywide
[1] Consistent with guidance in State law (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5), a 3-bedroom unit should be assumed to be occupied by a 4-person household.
[2] Based on recent data on land transactions data from in Monterey Park from CoStar and data provided by City staff. [3] Includes on-site work, offsite work, vertical construction, general requirements, overhead and builder fees. [4] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and permitting fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [9] Operating expenses are generally based on EPS feasibility studies in the region. [10] The yield on cost requirement is used to determine the supportable cost to develop a property based on estimated future operating income, and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk. [11] The total supportable unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. [6] Reflects 2025 HCD Income Limits. Incomes are calculated for a three-person household. [7] Sourced from Los Angeles County Development Authority, which establishes an utility allowance schedule that provides reasonable allowances for utilities and appliances, used in calculating gross rent of unit. [8] Assumes that no more than 30% of a household's income should be spent on housing costs, including utilities.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 10 Mixed Use Multifamily Condominium Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis

Item
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)
Development Program Assumptions
Density (units/acre) 70 70 70
Gross Unit Size (sq. ft.) 1,000 1,000 1,000
Number of Bedrooms 2 2 2
Occupants per 2-bedroom Unit [1] 3 3 3
Parking Spaces / Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5
Development Cost Assumptions
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements [2] $111,088 $111,088 $111,088 Direct Development Costs [3] $392,895 $392,895 $392,895 Indirect Development Costs [4] $137,513 $137,513 $137,513 Developer Profit $96,224 $96,224 $96,224
Total Development Costs (rounded) $737,720 $737,720 $737,720 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income [5] $68,150 $109,050 $115,100
Supportable Housing Payment [6] $20,445 $32,715 $34,530 Supportable Mortgage [7] $151,753 $290,425 $310,937
Supportable Home Price (rounded) [8] $169,000 $323,000 $345,000 Affordability Gap $568,720 $414,720 $392,720
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[6] Assumes that no more than 30% of household income is spent on housing payments, including mortgage, insurance, property tax, and HOA fees. Assumes the unit pays $100 monthly in insurance and $488 monthly in HOA fees. Property tax is assumed to be 1.1% of home value.
[7] Assumes a 30-year mortgage with a fixed 6.46% interest rate. Assumes that the supportable mortgage payment is 30% of the household income subtracted by payments for insurance, property tax, and HOA. [8] Assumes a 10% down payment.

Multifamily Condominium - Mixed Use
[1] Consistent with guidance in State law (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5), a 2-bedroom unit should be assumed to be occupied by a 3-person household.
[2] Based on recent data on land transactions data from in Monterey Park from CoStar and data provided by City staff. [3] Includes on-site work, offsite work, vertical construction, general requirements, overhead and builder fees. [4] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and permitting fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [5] Reflects 2025 HCD Income Limits. Incomes are calculated for a four-person household.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Development Feasibility Analysis Table 11 Mixed Use Multifamily Apartment Prototype Affordability Gap Analysis

Item
Very Low Income
(50% AMI)
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)
Development Program Assumptions
Density (units/acre) 77 77 77
Gross Unit Size (sq. ft.) 900 900 900
Number of Bedrooms 2 2 2
Occupants per 2-bedroom Unit [1] 3 3 3
Parking Spaces / Unit 1.5 1.5 1.5
Development Cost Assumptions
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements [2] $100,551 $100,551 $100,551 Direct Development Costs [3] $346,800 $346,800 $346,800 Indirect Development Costs [4] $121,380 $121,380 $121,380 Total Development Costs (rounded) [5] $568,731 $568,731 $568,731 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income [6] $68,150 $109,050 $115,100
Monthly Utility Allowance for 2-bedroom Unit [7] $286 $286 $286 Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [8] $17,019 $29,289 $31,104 (less) Operating Expenses per Unit/Year [9] ($12,000) ($12,000) ($12,000) Net Operating Income $5,019 $17,289 $19,104
Yield on Cost Requirement [10] 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%
Total Supportable Unit Value Price (rounded) [11] $98,000 $339,000 $375,000 Affordability Gap $470,731 $229,731 $193,731
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[5] Excludes developer profit, which is reflected in capitalized value.

Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
[1] Consistent with guidance in State law (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5), a 3-bedroom unit should be assumed to be occupied by a 4-person household.
[2] Based on recent data on land transactions data from in Monterey Park from CoStar and data provided by City staff. [3] Includes on-site work, offsite work, vertical construction, general requirements, overhead and builder fees. [4] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and permitting fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [9] Operating expenses are generally based on EPS feasibility studies in the region. [10] The yield on cost requirement is used to determine the supportable cost to develop a property based on estimated future operating income, and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk. [11] The total supportable unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. [6] Reflects 2025 HCD Income Limits. Incomes are calculated for a three-person household. [7] Sourced from Los Angeles County Development Authority, which establishes an utility allowance schedule that provides reasonable allowances for utilities and appliances, used in calculating gross rent of unit. [8] Assumes that no more than 30% of a household's income should be spent on housing costs, including utilities.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Development Feasibility Analysis Feasibility Thresholds
The assessment of financial feasibility for real estate development products is based on calculating financial return metrics for the products and comparing them against typical industry target thresholds. In the case of residential development, relevant return metrics are based on comparing total project revenues to total project development costs, as follows:
• For the for-sale market-rate housing prototypes, which in this analysis includes townhomes, garden-style condominium units, and multifamily condominium units, the estimated cost of development is subtracted from the estimated value, or sale price, in order to calculate profit. The profit is then divided by the estimated development cost to calculate the relevant feasibility metric, profit margin, which is the percentage by which total project value exceeds total project cost.

Based on EPS research and feedback from the developer community, the analysis assumes that developers in the region will require a projected profit margin of at least 15 percent to move forward with a for-sale development project. Therefore, a prototype attaining a profit margin at or above 15 percent at market sale prices would be considered feasible in this analysis. A profit margin in excess of 15 percent would be required to support any additional costs, such as an inclusionary requirement.
• For rental market-rate housing prototype, which in this analysis includes garden-style and multifamily apartments, the feasibility threshold is based on the return metric of yield on cost, which is calculated by dividing the annual net operating income (NOI) by the total costs of development. 8 Based on EPS research and experience, the analysis assumes that developers in the region will require a projected yield on cost of at least 6 percent in order to move forward with a multifamily rental development project. A yield on cost in excess of 6 percent would be required to support any additional costs, such as an inclusionary requirement.

It is important to note that these return metrics do not explicitly account for the time value of money and are not based on any assumption regarding project timeline, other than that the housing will be constructed without significant delays and will be sold or rented within a market-typical timeframe upon completion.

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

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Development Feasibility Analysis Feasibility Analysis Findings
Market-Rate Feasibility
EPS assumptions for prototype revenues and costs detailed above were used to calculate the relevant return metrics for each prototype category at market rates (without the current inclusionary requirements). The calculated return metrics for each prototype are detailed below in Appendix A and summarized in Table 12.

Table 12 Feasibility of Market-Rate Product Prototypes

Item
Feasibility
Threshold Results

CITYWIDE
Townhome - Citywide
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $771,000
Average Sale Price $959,000
Profit $188,000
Profit Margin 15% 24.3%
Garden-Style Condominium - Citywide
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $553,000
Average Sale Price $612,000
Profit $58,000
Profit Margin 15% 10.5%
Garden-Style Apartment - Citywide
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $482,000
Net Operating Income per Unit $24,000
Yield on Cost 6.00% 4.91%

MIXED USE
Multifamily Condominium - Mixed Use
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $641,000
Average Sale Price $703,000
Profit $62,000
Profit Margin 15% 9.6%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $569,000
Net Operating Income per Unit $29,000
Yield on Cost 6.00% 5.10%
[1] Development costs excluding developer profit.

Key
Feasible
Infeasible
Source: Economic & Planning Systems

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Development Feasibility Analysis As shown, the analysis indicates that only the for-sale townhome prototype meets feasibility thresholds at market rates, and shows sufficient returns to support the additional cost of a modest inclusionary requirement.

The remaining prototypes, both rental and for-sale, fall short of meeting feasible return thresholds at current market rates and development costs. The estimated returns for the condominium and apartment prototypes suggest that it would be challenging to develop with an inclusionary requirement under current market conditions. The additional cost of an inclusionary requirement would exacerbate development challenges and potentially discourage this type of new housing development in the near term.

Inclusionary Feasibility
EPS conducted a survey of inclusionary requirements in cities in the San Gabriel Valley with IHOs, which include the cities of Alhambra, South Pasadena, Pasadena, Arcadia, and Claremont. Appendix B displays a table summarizing inclusionary requirements across these surveyed jurisdictions, as well as other parameters, such as size of project that triggers the inclusionary housing requirements, and a few common alternative means of compliance. The inclusionary requirements, zoning ordinances, and implementation programs adopted by these jurisdictions vary based on local program preferences, including factors such as the number of dwelling units in the development or the type of housing (i.e., rental apartments, medium-, or small-lot single family detached units). The household income level required for new inclusionary dwelling units also differs.

EPS tested the feasibility of scenarios using Monterey Park’s inclusionary requirements, as well as additional scenarios testing low end and high end of the range of rental and for-sale inclusionary requirements of the surveyed cities with inclusionary housing programs. Appendix A also sh ows the feasibility scenarios for various inclusionary requirements for the different prototypes.

In the rental inclusionary scenarios, the low end of the range assumes a 15 percent total requirement that all units are affordable (7.5 percent for Low Income and 7.5 percent for Moderate Income), which is Alhambra’s inclusionary requirement; and the high end of the range assumes a 20 percent requirement that all units are affordable (five percent for Very Low Income, five percent for Low Income, and ten percent for Moderate Income), reflecting Pasadena’s inclusionary requirements. In the for-sale inclusio nary scenarios, the low end of the range assumes a five percent requirement affordable for Moderate Income households, which is Arcadia’s requirement, and the high end of the range assumes a 20 percent requirement that all units are affordable for Moderate Income households, reflecting Pasadena’s inclusionary requirements. Monterey Park’s current inclusionary requirements fall within the range of the jurisdictions surveyed.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Development Feasibility Analysis Across the potential inclusionary scenarios tested, the for-sale townhome prototype fell slightly short of meeting the feasibility threshold, except for the low end of the range, with a five percent requirement affordable for Moderate Income households. Overall, the estimated returns for for-sale condominiums and rental apartments suggest that, on average, it is challenging to develop these project types in the City under current market conditions. The additional costs of an inclusionary requirement would exacerbate those challenges and potentially limit the opportunities for new housing development in the community.

It is important to note that this analysis only reflects average prototypical projects and does not mean that the prototypes shown as infeasible above will never be built in the City. There are many factors that can impact the financial feasibility of any particular development project, such as development costs, land acquisition and entitlement, interest rates, operating expenses, capitalization rates, market demand, and other market conditions. For example, if a project can acquire land at a lower price or build at a higher density than what is represented in the above assumptions, the project may become financially feasible. Similarly, a developer may find that there is sufficient demand to achieve rents or sale prices higher than those assumed in this analysis.

Indeed, the City may find that even though this analysis shows specific types of development to be infeasible at market rates, they still receive proposals to build these types of projects. Therefore, as stated previously in this report, the analysis should not be considered deterministic regarding the future of housing development in the City. Rather, it should be taken as informative regarding the obstacles to housing development under current market conditions, and how inclusionary housing requirements might therefore impact the feasibility of the average project.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 In-Lieu Fee Calculation

4. In-Lieu Fee Calculation
In addition to evaluating the impacts of the City’s IHO on development feasibility, EPS was scoped to calculate an in-lieu fee that developers might pay instead of providing affordable units on-site. The City adopted a resolution in September 2023 regarding calculation of the in-lieu fee, which called for the fee to equal “the difference between the market-rate price and the defined affordable price… associated with each income restricted unit required to be produced.”9 While this is one possible approach for calculating an in-lieu fee, EPS recommends an alternative approach that would still reflect the City’s goal to establish a fee that reflects “the financial impact or ‘affordability gap’ that is created by the IHO,” and is commonly used in other jurisdictions across the State. 10 In EPS’s recommended approach, the in-lieu fee is set to equal (as closely as possible) the cost that developers incur in providing on-site affordable units. This cost manifests as a “financial gap” associated with inclusionary units, calculated as the cost of developing the inclusionary unit (which is the same as the cost to build a market-rate unit) minus the inclusionary unit’s value based on maximum affordable rents or sales prices. The in-lieu fee per required affordable unit would be based on that financial gap.

Using the financial gap approach described above, EPS calculated the financial gap for each modeled prototype unit at values associated with Low- and Moderate Income affordability levels. The calculation utilizes the development costs and affordable rents and sale prices detailed in Table 7 through Table 11.

These gaps are summarized in Table 13.

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

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 In-Lieu Fee Calculation Table 13 Financial Gap for Inclusionary Units

The financial gaps were then converted into a fee per market-rate square foot of a project, which is a standard basis for levying such fees. The fees per market-rate square foot are shown in Table 14.

Item
Low Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% AMI)

CITYWIDE
Townhome - Citywide
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $887,000 $887,000
Development Value Per Unit $361,000 $387,000
Financial Gap ($526,000) ($500,000)
Garden-Style Condominium - Citywide
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $636,000 $636,000
Development Value Per Unit $323,000 $345,000
Financial Gap ($313,000) ($291,000)
Garden-Style Apartment - Citywide
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $482,000 $482,000
Development Value Per Unit $288,000 $318,000
Financial Gap ($194,000) ($164,000)

MIXED USE
Multifamily Condominium - Mixed Use
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $737,720 $737,720
Development Value Per Unit $323,000 $345,000
Financial Gap ($414,720) ($392,720)
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Development Costs Per Unit [1] $568,731 $568,731
Development Value Per Unit $339,000 $375,000
Financial Gap ($229,731) ($193,731)
[1] Developer cost includes developer profit threshold.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 In-Lieu Fee Calculation Table 14 Inclusionary Housing Program Equivalent In-Lieu Fees for Prototypes

It is worth noting that while the approach of aligning the cost of the in-lieu fee with the cost of providing on-site units is considered the best practice, some cities make a policy decision to incentivize the production of on-site units over payment of the in-lieu fee (or vice versa). In these circumstances, a city’s on-site requirement and the associated in-lieu fee may be intentionally different from a development cost perspective. This approach is discussed in further detail in the following chapter.

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

CITYWIDE
Townhome - Citywide 15% Moderate Income $41.67
Garden-Style Condominium - Citywide 15% Moderate Income $ 43.65 9% Low Income;
6% Moderate Income

MIXED USE
Multifamily Condominium - Mixed Use 15% Moderate Income $58.91 9% Low Income;
6% Moderate Income
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Garden-Style Apartment - Citywide
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
$30.33
$35.89

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Strategic Considerations

5. Strategic Considerations
Based on the above analysis, EPS finds that the costs of Monterey Park’s inclusionary housing requirements will likely be challenging for average new market-rate residential development projects, particularly multifamily rental and ownership projects, to absorb under current market conditions. As summarized, in Table 15, most of the modeled prototypes do not achieve the thresholds for feasibility at market rates, and the addition of the on-site inclusionary requirements and associated in-lieu fee move the prototypes even further away from achieving these thresholds. Even the for-sale townhome prototype does not demonstrate sufficient feasibility to support the City’s inclusionary requirements, falling short slightly.

Table 15 Feasibility of Product Prototypes with Inclusionary Program in Monterey Park

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

Item On-Site Build Calculated In-Lieu Fee

CITYWIDE
Townhome - Citywide
Profit Margin 15% 24.3% 13.2% 13.3%
Garden-Style Condominium - Citywide
Profit Margin 15% 10.5% 3.3% 2.5%
Garden-Style Apartment - Citywide
Yield on Cost 6.0% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6%

MIXED USE
Multifamily Condominium - Mixed Use
Profit Margin 15% 9.6% 1.3% 0.4%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Yield on Cost 6.0% 5.10% 4.8% 4.8%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Current Program FeasibilityMarket Rate
(No Inclusionary)
Feasibility
Threshold

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Strategic Considerations

1. Continue to temporarily pause the inclusionary housing requirement.

The City may want to consider continuing the pause in enforcement of the IHO until there is more market evidence that the development economics of residential development, particularly multifamily development, are improving.

The City can continue to monitor several metrics in this regard, including developer interest and applications, residential production trends, development costs, and market prices/rents in the City. A reasonable timeframe for monitoring changing real estate and financial market conditions would be one to two years. When early indi cators, such as increased developer interest and multifamily rents, suggest improving market conditions, the City may then reevaluate the feasibility of its inclusionary program. While it would be a “best practice” to conduct another feasibility study at that time, the law does not require it.

2. Phase-in the IHO requirements.

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

A phase-in approach has been used in several jurisdictions, including in the cities of Long Beach and San Jose, as described below:
• The City of Long Beach phased in its inclusionary requirements over a three-year period, starting in 2021, which was only applied in certain areas of the City. In 2025, Long Beach adopted some more changes to its IHO, expanding the policy citywide and updating rental and for-sale requirements. The updated affordability requirements will be phased in over three years with full requirements in 2027. For rental developments, the inclusionary requirements vary dependent on the geographic area within the City, however, by 2027 all areas of the City will have 12 percent total inclusionary requirement at varying mixes of affordability levels. For for-sale developments, the affordability level starts at 200 percent of Area Median income, with the affordability level lowering every year or as housing development milestones are reached.
• The City of San Jose the City adopted its inclusionary housing ordinance in early 2010 but delayed implementation until 2013. The City also added a market-based “trigger” to allow for earlier implementation if the housing market picked up more quickly than expected. Specifically, the ordinance could go into effect if at least 2,500 building permits were issued within a 12-month consecutive period.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 Strategic Considerations

3. Adjust the housing requirements so that the complying projects automatically qualify for the State Density Bonus (SDB).

As written, the City’s inclusionary requirement for for-sale projects of 15 percent for Moderate Income households qualifies developers for a 10 percent density bonus through the SDB. For rental projects, the City’s current inclusionary requirements do not automatically align with requirements for using the SDB. However, if the City increases the current requirement of 9 percent of units for Low Income households to 10 percent of units, projects would automatically qualify for a 20 percent density bonus. The City could also lower or eliminate the requirement for Moderate-Income units in rental developments to offset the cost of the additional Low Income requirement.

While this adjustment to the rental inclusionary requirements may not completely resolve feasibility concerns under current market conditions, the additional density and other regulatory waivers and concessions allowed under the SDB have economic value and can improve the feasibility of a residential project.

4. Consider adopting an in-lieu fee that is lower than the equivalent subsidy of providing units on-site.

The City has discretion to adopt an in-lieu fee that is below the level calculated in the previous chapter. This approach would lessen the cost burden on developers while still generating revenue for the City to use specifically for affordable housing initiatives and opportunities. Jurupa Valley is just one example of a city that took this approach.

If the fee is offered at a discount, the City should anticipate that most developers will choose to pay the in -lieu fee instead of providing affordable units in their projects. However, even under this approach, some developers may still choose to build affordable units on-site to qualify for the extra density and the waivers/concessions available under the SDB, which may be more valuable to their project.

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

Specifically, it is estimated that the City could charge an in-lieu up to $34.71 per square foot for townhome projects (below the equivalent on-site cost level of $41.67 per square foot), and those projects could still generate a feasible profit return on average. By contrast, given the feasibility challenges demonstrated for multifamily development at market rates, even an in-lieu fee that is set well below the equivalent cost of the on-site inclusionary requirement (e.g., $2 to $5 per square foot) may be more cost than new projects of this type can absorb at this time.

It is also important to note that while cities do not often take this approach at the outset of establishing a new inclusionary housing program, it tends to

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 Strategic Considerations happen over time if cities do not regularly update their inclusionary housing in-lieu fees. For example, cities that have not updated their in-lieu fees in some time may find that the cost to a developer of complying with the inclusionary requirement by building affordable units on-site far exceeds the cost of paying the in-lieu fee, given changes in development costs over time.

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

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-1 Appendix A
Appendix A
Inclusionary Scenario Feasibility Test Results

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-2 Appendix A
Table A-1. Citywide Townhome Inclusionary Scenario Feasibility Test Results

Item
No Inclusionary
Requirement
Monterey Park
IHO
Monterey Park
IHO - Fee
Requirement
Scenario Low
Requirement
Scenario High
Total Units 100 100 100 100 100
M
arket Rate Units 100 85 100 95 80
Inclusionary Requirement 0% 15% 0% 5% 20%
Affordable Units 0 15 0 5 20
Very Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Moderate 0 15.0 0 5.0 20.0
Costs
Market Rate Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $77,141,414 $65,570,202 $77,141,414 $73,284,343 $61,713,131 Affordable Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $0 $11,571,212 $0 $3,857,071 $15,428,283 Affordable Housing Fee per SF n/a n/a $41.67 n/a n/a
Affordable Housing Fee Total $0 $0 $7,500,000 $0 $0
Total $77,141,414 $77,141,414 $84,641,414 $77,141,414 $77,141,414 Units by Price Point
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 95 80
Value/Unit $959,040 $959,040 $959,040 $959,040 $959,040 Aggregate Value of Market Rate Units $95,904,000 $81,518,400 $95,904,000 $91,108,800 $76,723,200 Moderate Income Units (120% of AMI) 0 15 0 5 20
Value/Unit $387,000 $387,000 $387,000 $387,000 $387,000 Aggregate Value of Moderate Income Units $0 $5,805,000 $0 $1,935,000 $7,740,000 Low Income Units (80% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 0
Value/Unit $361,000 $361,000 $361,000 $361,000 $361,000 Aggregate Value of Low Income Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VLI Units (50% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 0
Value/Unit $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 Aggregate Value of VLI Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Project Value $95,904,000 $87,323,400 $95,904,000 $93,043,800 $84,463,200 Profit $18,762,586 $10,181,986 $11,262,586 $15,902,386 $7,321,786 Profit Margin (target 15% for feasibility) 24% 13% 13% 21% 9% Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Townhomes with Garage Parking

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-3 Appendix A
Table A-2. Citywide Garden-Style Condominium Inclusionary Scenario Feasibility Test Results

Item
No Inclusionary
Requirement
Monterey Park
IHO
Monterey Park
IHO - Fee
Requirement
Scenario Low
Requirement
Scenario High
Total Units 100 100 100 100 100
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 95 80
Inclusionary Requirement 0% 15% 0% 5% 20%
Affordable Units 0 15 0 5 20
Very Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Moderate 0 15.0 0 5.0 20.0
Costs
Market Rate Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $55,321,333 $47,023,133 $55,321,333 $52,555,267 $44,257,067 Affordable Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $0 $8,298,200 $0 $2,766,067 $11,064,267 Affordable Housing Fee per SF n/a n /a $43.65 n/a n/a
Affordable Housing Fee Total $0 $0 $4,365,000 $0 $0
Total $55,321,333 $55,321,333 $59,686,333 $55,321,333 $55,321,333 Units by Price Point
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 95 80
Value/Unit $611,560 $611,560 $611,560 $611,560 $611,560 Aggregate Value of Market Rate Units $61,155,995 $51,982,596 $61,155,995 $58,098,196 $48,924,796 Moderate Income Units (120% of AMI) 0 15 0 5 20
Value/Unit $345,000 $345,000 $345,000 $345,000 $345,000 Aggregate Value of Moderate Income Units $0 $5,175,000 $0 $1,725,000 $6,900,000 Low Income Units (80% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 0
Value/Unit $323,000 $323,000 $323,000 $323,000 $323,000 Aggregate Value of Low Income Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VLI Units (50% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 0
Value/Unit $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 Aggregate Value of VLI Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Project Value $61,155,995 $57,157,596 $61,155,995 $59,823,196 $55,824,796 Profit $5,834,662 $1,836,263 $1,469,662 $4,501,862 $503,463 Profit Margin (target 15% for feasibility) 11% 3% 2% 8% 1% Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Garden-Style Condominiums - Citywide

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-4 Appendix A
Table A-3. Citywide Garden-Style Apartment Inclusionary Scenario Feasibility Test Results

Item
No Inclusionary
Requirement
Monterey Park
IHO
Monterey Park
IHO - Fee
Requirement
Scenario Low
Requirement
Scenario High
Total Units 100 100 100 100 100
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 85 80
Inclusionary Requirement 0% 15% 0% 15% 20%
Affordable Units 0 15 0 15 20
Very Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 5.0
Low 0 9.0 0 7.5 5.0
Moderate 0 6.0 0 7.5 10.0
Costs
Market Rate Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $48,159,583 $40,935,646 $48,159,583 $40,935,646 $38,527,667 Affordable Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $0 $7,223,938 $0 $7,223,938 $9,631,917 Affordable Housing Fee per SF n/a n/a $30.33 n/a n/a
Affordable Housing Fee Total $0 $0 $2,730,000 $0 $0
Total $48,159,583 $48,159,583 $50,889,583 $48,159,583 $48,159,583 Units by Price Point
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 85 80
Annual NOI/Unit $23,640 $23,640 $23,640 $23,640 $23,640 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $2,364,000 $2,009,400 $2,364,000 $2,009,400 $1,891,200 Moderate Income Units (120% of AMI) 0 6 0 7.5 10
Annual NOI/Unit $19,104 $19,104 $19,104 $19,104 $19,104 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $0 $114,624 $0 $143,280 $191,040 Low Income Units (80% of AMI) 0 9 0 7.5 5
Annual NOI/Unit $17,289 $17,289 $17,289 $17,289 $17,289 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $0 $155,601 $0 $129,668 $86,445 VLI Units (50% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 5
Annual NOI/Unit $5,019 $5,019 $5,019 $5,019 $5,019
Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,095
Total Project NOI $2,364,000 $2,279,625 $2,364,000 $2,282,348 $2,193,780 Weighted Avg. NOI/Unit $23,640 $22,796 $23,640 $22,823 $21,938 Yield on Cost (target 6.0% for feasibility) 4.91% 4.73% 4.65% 4.74% 4.56% Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Garden-Style Apartment- Citywide

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-5 Appendix A
Table A-4. Mixed Use Multifamily Condominium Inclusionary Scenario Feasibility Test Results

Item
No Inclusionary
Requirement
Monterey Park
IHO
Monterey Park
IHO - Fee
Requirement
Scenario Low
Requirement
Scenario High
Total Units 100 100 100 100 100
M
arket Rate Units 100 85 100 95 80
Inclusionary Requirement 0% 15% 0% 5% 20%
Affordable Units 0 15 0 5 20
Very Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Moderate 0 15.0 0 5.0 20.0
Costs
Market Rate Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $64,149,605 $54,527,164 $64,149,605 $60,942,125 $51,319,684 Affordable Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $0 $9,622,441 $0 $3,207,480 $12,829,921 Affordable Housing Fee per SF n/a n/a $58.91 n/a n/a
Affordable Housing Fee Total $0 $0 $5,890,807 $0 $0
Total $64,149,605 $64,149,605 $70,040,412 $64,149,605 $64,149,605 Units by Price Point
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 95 80
Value/Unit $703,294 $703,294 $703,294 $703,294 $703,294 Aggregate Value of Market Rate Units $70,329,395 $59,779,985 $70,329,395 $66,812,925 $56,263,516 Moderate Income Units (120% of AMI) 0 15 0 5 20
Value/Unit $345,000 $345,000 $345,000 $345,000 $345,000 Aggregate Value of Moderate Income Units $0 $5,175,000 $0 $1,725,000 $6,900,000 Low Income Units (80% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 0
Value/Unit $323,000 $323,000 $323,000 $323,000 $323,000 Aggregate Value of Low Income Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
VLI Units (50% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 0
Value/Unit $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 $169,000 Aggregate Value of VLI Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Project Value $70,329,395 $64,954,985 $70,329,395 $68,537,925 $63,163,516 Profit $6,179,790 $805,381 $288,983 $4,388,320 -$986,089 Profit Margin (target 15% for feasibility) 10% 1% 0% 7% -2% Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Multifamily Condominium - Mixed Use

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-6 Appendix A
Table A-5. Mixed Use Multifamily Apartment Inclusionary Scenario Feasibility Test Results

Item
No Inclusionary
Requirement
Monterey Park
IHO
Monterey Park
IHO - Fee
Requirement
Scenario Low
Requirement
Scenario High
Total Units 100 100 100 100 100
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 85 80
Inclusionary Requirement 0% 15% 0% 15% 20%
Affordable Units 0 15 0 15 20
Very Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 5.0
Low 0 9.0 0 7.5 5.0
Moderate 0 6.0 0 7.5 10.0
Costs
Market Rate Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $56,873,065 $48,342,105 $56,873,065 $48,342,105 $45,498,452 Affordable Development Costs (Excl. Profit) $0 $8,530,960 $0 $8,530,960 $11,374,613 Affordable Housing Fee per SF n/a n /a $35.89 n/a n/a
Affordable Housing Fee Total $0 $0 $3,229,960 $0 $0
Total $56,873,065 $56,873,065 $60,103,025 $56,873,065 $56,873,065 Units by Price Point
Market Rate Units 100 85 100 85 80
Annual NOI/Unit $28,986 $28,986 $28,986 $28,986 $28,986 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $2,898,600 $2,463,810 $2,898,600 $2,463,810 $2,318,880 Moderate Income Units (120% of AMI) 0 6 0 7.5 10
Annual NOI/Unit $19,104 $19,104 $19,104 $19,104 $19,104 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $0 $114,624 $0 $143,280 $191,040 Low Income Units (80% of AMI) 0 9 0 7.5 5
Annual NOI/Unit $17,289 $17,289 $17,289 $17,289 $17,289 Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $0 $155,601 $0 $129,668 $86,445 VLI Units (50% of AMI) 0 0 0 0 5
Annual NOI/Unit $5,019 $5,019 $5,019 $5,019 $5,019
Aggregate NOI of Market Rate Units $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,095
Total Project NOI $2,898,600 $2,734,035 $2,898,600 $2,736,758 $2,621,460 Weighted Avg. NOI/Unit $28,986 $27,340 $28,986 $27,368 $26,215 Yield on Cost (target 6.0% for feasibility) 5.10% 4.81% 4.82% 4.81% 4.61% Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. B-1 Appendix B
Appendix B
Inclusionary Program Survey of Comparable
Jurisdictions

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. B-1 Appendix B
Table B-1. Inclusionary Program Survey of Comparable Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Very Low Low Moderate Total Low Moderate Total In-Lieu
Fee
Off-Site
Construction
Land
Dedication
Unit
Acquisition
Alhambra 7.50% 7.50% 15% 15% 15% 5+ Units x x x
South Pasadena 7.5% 7.5% 15% 15% 15% 10+ Units x x x x
Pasadena 5.0% 5.0% 10% 20% 20% 20% All Units x x x
Arcadia - Option #1 9% 9% 5% 5% 10+ Units x x
Arcadia - Option #2 5% 6% 11%
Arcadia - Option #3 14% 14%
Arcadia - Option #4 20% 20%
Claremont 5% 10% 15% 5% 10% 15% 5+ Units x x
M
onterey Park 9.0% 6% 15% 15% 5+ Units x x x
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Rental Requirement Ownership Requirement Size of Project That Triggers
IHO
Alternative Means of Compliance

City Council Staff Report

Date: July 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 March 4, 2026, March 7, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 1, 2026, April 15, 2026 and April 20, 2026; the regular meetings of March 4, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 1, 2026 and April 15, 2026; and the special community meetings of March 23, 2026 and April 9, 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 March 4, 2026, March 7, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 1, 2026, April 15, 2026 and April 20, 2026; the regular meetings of March 4, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 1, 2026 and April 15, 2026; and the special community meetings of March 23, 2026 and April 9, 2026.

Strategic Plan Goal:

N/A

Fiscal Impact:

N/A

Attachments:

1. Draft Minutes

Staff Report
July 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
March 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 Room 266, Second Floor of City Hall, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

2. Roll Call
City Manager 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

Virtually present:

None.

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 5:30 p.m.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

5.A. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation (Threat of litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2)): One matter.

Facts and Circumstances: See attached letters dated February 4, 2026 and February 10, 2026.

5.B. Conference with Legal Counsel, Initiation of Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4)). Number of Potential Cases: One.

Name of potential defendant (voluntarily disclosed): HMC Stratcap 1977 Saturn, LLC

6. Adjournment
The City Council reconvened from Closed Session at 6:07 p.m. with all Council Members present.

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

Action Taken: City Attorney Berger reported the City Council's unanimous decision to authorize him to initiate litigation against anyone, specifically HMC StratCap in the event that any litigation was filed against the City and to expend what is necessary to defend the City.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY 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
March 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 Regular Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Fire Explorers and Eagle Scout Troop 286 led the flag salute.

The City Council provided certificates of recognition to Eagle Scout Troop 286 and to Luke Littlefield, for his Eagle Scout project, the renovation of the Garvey Ranch Park sign.

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

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang

Virtually present:

None.

4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
City Manager Alvarez requested to remove Agenda Item No. 9.A. off the Agenda and to have Agenda No. 8.A. be heard before Public Communications. Mayor Yang requested the following agenda items to be heard in the following order after Public Communications: Agenda Item Nos. 12.A., 11.B., and 12.B.

6. Public Communications
This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 8.A.
• Joy Rowe submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

7. Staff Communications
None.

8. Presentation

8.A. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - Garvey Reservoir Rehabilitation Project
This Agenda Item was heard after Agenda Revisions and Additions.

Michael Serna, engineer for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Garvey Reservoir Project. He detailed the project background, goals, timeline and the next steps to completion.

9. Old Business

9.A. Solar, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Electrical Improvements Project – Award of Contract to Johnson Controls and Authorization of Lease Financing
This Agenda Item was tabled.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
The City’s FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) includes Solar Panels, Battery Storage Systems and EV Charging Stations Project as Project No. 95052. On April 16, 2025, the City Council awarded Johnson Controls, Inc. (“JCI”) a Project Development Agreement (“PDA”) with the sole consultant who responded to the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) advertised by the Director of Public Works. JCI prepared plans for various facilities and developed various pro forma cash flow models that were reviewed by the City’s third-
party financial advisor. Following various reviews, it was determined that the original scope of work should be reduced in order to meet the City’s financial goals.

While the recommended agreement is structured as a Public Works contract, the Project originated through an energy services performance contracting evaluation process that guided scope refinement and financial feasibility analysis.

The final scope includes solar panels and electrical upgrades at City Hall, Delta Water Plant and George Elder Park. EV charging stations are proposed at City Hall, Langley Senior Center and Bruggemeyer Library. The plans prepared by JCI cover the original larger scope and will be available to the City for possible future construction work.

The project cost is $17,571,525 before a Federal Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”) direct pay of $3,316,139. The project is estimated to result in the reduction of 1,101 metric tons of CO
2 annually for 30 years.

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Public Works contract with JCI in the amount of $17,571,525 for the Project and authorize the Director to approve change orders not to exceed $570,000 over the total contract amount.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed action 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”). The proposed activity contemplates installation, maintenance, repair of solar panels, and electric vehicle (“EV”) charging stations at various facilities. The recommended action constitutes a “project” under CEQA. However, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301, 15303, and 15311.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a public works contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Johnson Controls in the amount of $17,571,525 for the construction and installation of solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations and various electrical improvements at various City facilities (the “Project”);

2. Authorizing the Public Works Director to approve change orders and contingency up to $570,000, for a total Project cost of $18,141,525;

3. Adopting a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Master Equipment/Lease Agreement with a bank of city choice, for financing up to $18,141,525 million, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the construction and installation of solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations and various electrical improvements at various city facilities (the “Project”); and

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

Public Speaker:

• The City Clerk’s office received and filed a written communication from Jolene Kramer, of the Construction Industry Force Account Council who stated her opposition to the approval of the project.

Action Taken: By Consensus, Agenda Item No. 9.A. was tabled and was not heard for consideration.

10. Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar was heard after Agenda Item No. 12.B.

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., 10.E., 10.F., 10.H., 10.I., 10.J., 10.K., 10.L. and 10.M. except for Agenda Item No. 10.G. which was pulled for discussion, separate motion, reading resolutions and ordinances by the title only and waiving further reading thereof.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
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

10.A. Monthly Investment Report
As of January 31, 2026, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $80,238,803.06.

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 monthly investment report, on Consent Calendar.

10.B. Consideration of Letter of Support for California Assembly Bill 1786 The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (“SGVCOG”) is a sponsor of Assemblymember John Harabedian’s AB 1786 and has reached out to its membership cities for letters of support. The SGVCOG supports this legislation, as it provides local governments with greater flexibility in managing complex infrastructure projects by allowing best- value construction
contracting.

This bill was introduced in January 2026 and is currently pending before its respective policy committee in the Legislature; it has not been approved by both houses or signed into law. If the Council elects to send a letter of support at this time, staff will transmit the letters to the author and committee chairs prior to committee hearings and will monitor the bill’s progress through the legislative process.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. If desirable, sending a letter of support for California Assembly Bill 1786, the "Public Contracts: Best Value Construction Contracting for Counties, Cities, and Joint Power Authorities," on behalf of the City Council; and

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.C. Purchase of Conducted Energy Device for the Police Department from Axon Enterprises, Inc.

The Monterey Park Police Department (“Department”) recommends the acquisition of Axon Taser 10 conducted energy devices (“CED”) to replace the Department’s existing Axon X26P Tasers. Conducted energy devices are a critical less than lethal force option used to safely manage volatile encounters and reduce the risk of injury to officers, subjects, and the public.

The Department’s current conducted energy devices reached the end of their effective service life and are experiencing equipment failures that can no longer be resolved through manufacturer repair support. Transitioning to the Axon Taser 10 will allow the Department to modernize its less than lethal equipment, improve operational reliability, and ensure sworn personnel are equipped with current, industry-standard technology consistent with modern law enforcement practices and officer safety expectations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving bidding requirements pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code § 3.20.050(2), and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Axon Enterprises, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, to purchase Axon Taser 10 Conducted Energy Devices for $602,033.02; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.D. Acceptance of Emergency Operations Training Cadre Project The City of Monterey Park Fire Department acknowledges and accepted the subrecipient agreement for the EMG Emergency Management CADRE Training project under the 2022 ($76,185) and 2023 ($300,000) State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grants. This initiative is designed to strengthen the City’s and the region’s emergency preparedness and response capabilities by providing specialized training to members of the Community Assistance and Disaster Response Effort (CADRE). In accordance with Resolution No. 11740, adopted by the City Council on May 6, 2015, staff is reporting to the City Council the source of funds received and the associated project details.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing report;

2. Authorizing the appropriation of $76,185 grant funds to the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget in Account No. 3143201-5211; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the report and approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.E. Award of Professional Services Agreement to BOA Architecture for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Engineer’s estimates (“PS&E”) for Fire Station 61 Remodeling
Fire Station 61 was constructed in the early 1970s and is beginning to exceed its useful life. The living quarters are reminiscent of the time in which they were constructed, with communal showers and dorms. The City of Monterey Park was notified in November 2023 that United States Senator Alex Padilla had secured $1.5 million in federal funding for upgrades at Fire Station 61, which will be used to upgrade the living quarters at Fire Station 61. The Director requested proposals from three architectural firms, and selected BOA Architecture to provide the necessary architectural services to complete the development of PS&E for the remodeling.

The Director requests City Council approval to enter into a professional services agreement with BOA Architecture in an amount not to exceed $106,700; plus $11,000 contingency for unexpected work, for the preparation of PS&E for Fire Station 61 remodeling (the “Contract”)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services agreement with Black, O’Dowd & Associates, dba BOA Architecture, for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Engineer’s estimates (“PS&E”) for Fire Station 61 Remodeling in an amount not to exceed $106,700; plus $11,000 contingency for unexpected work; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

10.F. Authorize First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with BOA Architecture
The City Council, on July 16, 2025, awarded BOA Architecture a professional service agreement for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Engineer’s estimates (“PS&E”) for City Hall Council Chamber and restroom remodeling.

The scope of the proposal by BOA Architecture was limited to the Council Chambers and did not include any design of the back conference room including ensuring ADA compliance of the back restroom, the relocation of the AV room and incorporation of safety measures.

BOA Architecture provided a proposal for the additional scope in the amount of $15,000. The amendment will increase the total contract amount to a total not to exceed contract amount of $154,300.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a first Amendment to Agreement No. 2497-A with Black, O’Dowd & Associates, dba BOA Architecture, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for an additional amount not to exceed $15,000; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.G. Community Transportation Updates and Amendment to Via Transportation Inc. for on-demand services
In early 2024, the City implemented a pilot program for transportation services, which included restructured Spirit Bus routes and implementation of on-demand services, MPK Transit Express operated by Via Transportation Inc (“Via”). This report summarizes the status of the pilot program and also proposes the use of Via’s services to help augment the City’s current Dial-a- Ride services. The City currently operates Dial-a-Ride through its Recreation and Community Services department with limited availabilities due to staffing and program resources. Due to the success of MPK Transit Express’s on- demand service and Via’s staffing and technology resources, the Director of Recreation and Community Services recommends that City Council authorize a six-month term agreement with Via for Dial-a-Ride augmentation services.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Additionally, it is recommended that City Council adopt a Resolution approving the City of Monterey Park’s Zero Emission Bus Roll Out Plan. In December 2018, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) adopted the Innovative Clean Transit (“ICT”) (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 13 § 2023.1) regulation, which requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to 100-percent zero-emission bus (“ZEB”) fleets by 2040. The regulation requires transit agencies to publish ZEB Rollout Plans and has purchase requirements for transit agencies of different sizes by year.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and Filing this staff report summarizing the status of the City’s Community Transportation pilot and program updates;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment with Nomad Transit, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Via Transportation Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, adding a six-month pilot for Dial- A-Ride support services in the amount of $230,670 for the term of the pilot and extending on-demand services on a month-to-month basis beginning March 2026 in amount not-to-exceed $62,606 per month;

3. Adopting a Resolution approving the Monterey Park Zero Emission Bus Rollout Plan in compliance with the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) Innovative Clean Transit (“ICT”) Regulations; and

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

Discussion: Alex Lavoie, Co-Chief Operating Officer of Via Transportation Inc, was available for questions.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R9 and approved the recommendations.

Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem 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

Resolution No. 2026-R9
A Resolution approving the City of Monterey Park Zero Emission Bus Rollout Plan in compliance with the California Air Resources Board Innovative Clean Transit Regulation 13 CCR § 2023.1

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

10.H. Sole Source Procurement of Replacement UV Lamps for the Carbon Granular Treatment System (CGTS) from Trojan Technologies Corp.

The City’s Carbon Granular Treatment System (CGTS) relies on proprietary ultraviolet (UV) disinfection equipment manufactured and supplied by Trojan Technologies Corp. (Trojan). The UV lamp trains are mission-critical components of the water treatment process and are required to maintain compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water regulations and ensure continuous delivery of safe drinking water.

UV lamps have a defined service life. As operating hours accumulate, UV output declines, reducing treatment efficiency and potentially impacting regulatory compliance if not replaced in a timely manner. Based on manufacturer specifications and system operating data, staff has determined that replacement of lamps for two (2) of the three UV treatment trains is required during Fiscal Year 2025–2026. The remaining treatment train will be replaced in Fiscal Year 2026–2027 to strategically phase expenditures while maintaining full operational reliability. Because the existing UV system was designed and supplied by Trojan and utilizes proprietary lamps that are not manufactured or distributed by other vendors, this procurement qualifies as a sole source purchase pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code

3.20.050(2).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving bidding requirements pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code Section 3.20.050(2) and authorizing the City Manager to execute a two-year agreement with Trojan Technologies, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase of replacement ultraviolet (UV) lamps for the City’s Carbon Granular Treatment System (CGTS) in an amount not to exceed $555,000, covering replacement of all three UV treatment trains 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.I. Authorize First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 2483-AA with SPEC Services, Inc. for Scada Programming
Implementation and Support Services
On June 16, 2025, the City entered into Agreement No. 2483-AA (the “Agreement”) with SPEC Services Inc. (SPEC) in the amount of $45,700 to prepare a comprehensive SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) Master Plan (“Master Plan”) for the City’s water system.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
The Master Plan’s intent is to identify aging equipment, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and system weaknesses that could affect the reliability and security of the City’s water operations if left unaddressed. The Master Plan also prioritizes necessary upgrades to ensure continued delivery of safe, reliable drinking water.

During the plan’s development, the consultant identified several program updates that needed to be addressed to complete the Master Plan. In order to effectively and efficiently complete the Master Plan, it is recommended that the City approve an amendment to authorize SPEC to implement the priority improvements identified, including system programming updates, cybersecurity enhancements, system reconfiguration, and technical support.

The Amendment increases the contract amount by $125,000, for a total not- to-exceed amount of $170,700, and extends the Agreement term through June 30, 2027, to allow for phased implementation and system stabilization.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to Agreement No. 2483-AA with SPEC Services, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $170,700 for services 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.J. Women's History Month Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Sanchez)
The attached resolution (to the staff report) 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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R10, on Consent Calendar.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Resolution No. 2026-R10
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, California, declaring and recognizing the month of March 2026 as Women’s History Month, a national celebration that highlights the contributions of women to events in history and contemporary society

10.K. Read Across America Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Sanchez)
The attached resolution (to the staff report) 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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R11, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 2026-R11
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, California, declaring and recognizing March 2-6, 2026, as Read Across America Week

10.L. American Red Cross Month Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Wong)
The attached resolution (to the staff report) is being brought forth to the Council for consideration at the request of Council Member Wong.

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R12, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 2026-R12
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, California, declaring and recognizing the month of March 2026 as American Red Cross Month

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

10.M. Employee Appreciation Month Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Ngo)
The attached resolution (to the staff report) is being brought forth to the Council for consideration at the request of 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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R13, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 2026-R13
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park recognizing March 2026 as Employee Appreciation Month

11. Public Hearing

11.A. Annual Weed Abatement Protest Hearing
This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 10.G.

The Fire Chief recommends that this item be continued to the March 18, 2026, City Council meeting to allow for sufficient public hearing notice.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Continuing the public hearing to the March 18, 2026, City Council meeting; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved continuing the public hearing to the March 18, 2026 regular City Council meeting.

Motion: Moved by Council Member Wong and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem 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

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

11.B. Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to extend and amend Urgency Ordinance No. 2272 to place a general moratorium on data centers within the City of Monterey Park for 10 months and 15 days
This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 12.A.

On January 21, 2026, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2272 establishing a 45-day moratorium that would prohibit processing land use applications for any data center within Saturn Park (Attachment 1 to the staff report). That ordinance will expire on March 7, 2026, if not extended.

While the original Urgency Ordinance established a moratorium on land use applications for any data center in Saturn Park and any construction or operation in the City, the proposed extension of the Urgency Ordinance would establish a moratorium on processing any data centers within the City of Monterey Park (Attachment 2 to the staff report).

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(b), cities can extend the moratorium for 22 months and 15 days (for a total of two years) by a four- fifths vote of the legislative body. However, only a 10 and a half month time extension, with an expiration date of January 21, 2027, is proposed to allow City staff to analyze and conduct an adequate study within that time perio d (if
not sooner) and formulate new regulations to address data center use in the City of Monterey Park.

A copy of the January 21, 2026, staff report is attached and incorporated by reference (Attachment 3 to the staff report).

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 and extension
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.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

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

2. After closing the public hearing and considering the evidence, read by title only, waive further reading, and adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 22XX to amend Urgency Ordinance No. 2272 by at least a four-fifths vote to extend the general moratorium on data centers within the City of Monterey Park for 10 months and 15 days; and

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

Public Speakers:

Mayor Yang called the speakers in groups of five.
• LS Szeto conveyed her opinion that a project such as the proposed 1977 Saturn Street data center project would have never bypassed an environmental review.

• George Boca submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Joyce Vega submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Jon Chavira talked about the residents' request for a permanent ban on data centers in the City and reiterated his concerns about the development of a data center near his mother's residence.

• Paul Lange reiterated the residents' request to initiate a permanent ban on data centers instead of a temporary ban. He wished there was never a delay in the approval of a proposed ordinance in Agenda Item No. 12.A and asked the council to not stay silent on their plans for the City.

• Macy requested the City Council to be transparent regarding the issue with data centers and asked them to work together with the City residents as this decision will affect the next generation.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Jose Pina, with Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA) spoke about his support for responsible community benefiting developments and projects that come with strong rules and enforcement. He believed the City needs to have a consistent entitlement process so that the community can trust and evaluate every project fairly and consistently.

• Godfrey Wachira, with CREED LA voiced his opposition to the extension of a moratorium and requested the implementation of an Environmental Impact Review. He requested the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project go through the legal standard procedure.

He commented on the data centers built in Downtown Los Angeles and their lack of reported environmental issues.

• Sam Mao submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Tommy Zialomsai submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Robert Miranda submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Allan Rosso submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Jessica Jy submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Silvia Coss spoke on behalf of her son. She detailed her son's current employment in the fast-food industry and his current opportunity to become a union apprentice. She claimed such an opportunity would not arise for others if the extension of a temporary moratorium was placed.

• Juan DeLara asked the City Council to not approve the extension of the moratorium stating the project will bring in tax revenue that may not be available again.

• Patricia Poon submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Ben Steckler provided his opinion about the proposed 1977 Saturn data center project and articulated his support for continuing the moratorium to prohibit data centers in the City.

• Andrea Vega submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Cindy Alvarado submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Laura Cuellar-Marrish submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Mimi Li submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Yvonne Wong showed her support for the extension of the moratorium as she believed it would prevent future applications of data centers in the area.

• Veto Basulto, representative of Anchor Church, articulated his viewpoint that data centers are powerful tools of stewardship and service as they benefit schools, work, families and the community. He asked the City Council to remain open-minded regarding the development of new technology and opportunities.

• Samuel N expressed his disapproval of the moratorium as he believes technology is ever-growing.

• Carrie shared her opinion on the language of the moratorium and provided amendments to better suit the needs of the City and be consistent with the language of Urgency Ordinance 2272.

• Dave Jones expressed his support for the extension of the moratorium and claimed the initial study provided by the applicant was deeply flawed. He defended the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee, claiming the meetings were not an attempt to sneak data centers through the City, but rather an attempt to figure out the future of Saturn Park.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Richard Choi, member of the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105 Union, shared his experience growing up in Monterey Park and how the union was a great opportunity as a career due to the disabilities he received during his time in the military. He asked the City Council to vote “no” on the extension of a moratorium and to instead provide opportunities for several people.

• David Hanson submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Cathie Wilson submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Bryan Marsh submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Jim Pugh submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Amar Marwaha commented on his opposition to the extension of the moratorium. He detailed his organization called The Fighting Chance, a non-profit that works with impacted youth to provide them with real pathways to jobs and careers.

• John conveyed his viewpoint on a previous speaker's comment about facts and evidence shaping the City Council's decision. He claimed new evidence is being released constantly and believed the moratorium should be permanent.

• Deb Simone showed her support for the extension of the moratorium and reiterated her viewpoint of not dismissing the idea of the development data centers but rather not building one in a dense residential area such as Monterey Park.

• Rene Palacios provided context of his time as union member for Ironworkers Local 433 and expressed his disapproval of the extension of the moratorium as he believed it would pause development and economic growth in Monterey Park. He encouraged the residents to allow such projects to be approved to move forward so the City and unions can thrive together.
• The City Clerk’s office received and filed a written communication from Bryant Phan, in support of the item.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Discussion: Director of Community Development Hou provided a PowerPoint Presentation about the events leading up to the decision of the moratorium and its proposed extension.

City Attorney Berger and Director of Community Development Hou proposed the decision to include the recommended amendments to Sections 4C and 4E provided by Carrie, a resident who spoke during the public hearing.

Action Taken: The City Council opened the public hearing at 11:24 p.m., took testimonial and documentary evidence, closed the public hearing at 12:06 a.m. and waived and adopted Urgency Ordinance 2274 as amended to:

1. Remove the language in Section 4C "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;

2. Amend the language in Section 4E to state "The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to consider and study what regulations regarding data centers are necessary in Saturn Park as well as Citywide to protect the public interest, health, safety, and welfare.

Noticing for a public hearing to consider adopting such proposed regulations should occur in accordance with application law to ensure timely public input regarding such regulations and provide certainty to private property owners contemplating data center developments within Saturn Park or elsewhere in the City regarding the City’s expectations and regulation of such land uses."

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

Urgency Ordinance No. 2274
An Urgency Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2272 to extend the temporary moratorium prohibiting processing of pending, and acceptance of new, data center land use applications within the City of Monterey Park

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

12. New Business

12.A. Consideration and possible action to call for a special election on June 2, 2026 and adding a proposition to the ballot prohibiting data centers citywide
This Item was heard after Public Communications.

Pursuant to City Council direction, the proposed actions would call a June 2, 2026 special election and place a citywide prohibition on data centers on the ballot. These proposed actions are protected legislative activities that are not directed toward any
particular property or applicant. If approved by voters, the Proposition would amend the voter-approved Land Use and Urban Design Element to prohibit data centers in every zone. It is not recommended that the City Council undertake its own zoning amendments until after the June 2nd election date.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City Council is required to conduct environmental review of matters it places onto the ballot pursuant to Elections Code § 9222. Placing this matter onto the June 2, 2026 ballot is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) for the reasons stated in Section 4 of the draft Proposition. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a notice of determination.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting Resolution Nos. 2026-R5 through 2026-R8 which, collectively, call for a special election on June 2, 2026, add a proposition to the ballot prohibiting data centers citywide, request an impartial analysis, and establish procedures for ballot arguments;

2. Determining whether the City Council should submit an argument in favor of the ballot proposition;

3. Approving a budget adjustment and appropriation of $210,000 to pay for the special election costs;

4. Approving a budget adjustment and appropriation of $100,000 to pay for anticipated litigation costs; and

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

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Public Speakers:

Mayor Yang called the speakers in groups of five.
• Joyce Vega, resident, conveyed her opposition to data centers and showed her support for Agenda Item No. 12.A. She provided suggestions for closing potential loopholes in the proposed ballot measure and recommended passing an ordinance to ban data centers immediately.

• Carrie commented on the letter received by the City Council from Attorney Doug Carstens, spoke about Ordinance 2253 and conveyed her opinion on the alleged aggressive campaigning efforts demonstrated by the Applicant, who are in favor of a data center. She share
d her concerns regarding the language in the ballot measure and provided recommendations to amend the language. She submitted written correspondence to the City Clerk and City Council to be filed into the record.

• City Attorney Berger addressed the concerns relayed by the previous public speaker regarding the language of the ballot.

• Dave Jones, resident, spoke about the community's opposition to a data center, elaborating on the potential negative effects it would bring to the City. He recommended implementing a permanent ban, removing the potential loophole of less than one acre and amending the language of the initiative so that zoning changes are implemented automatically upon passage or failing, so that it forces the City Council to take action in one month. He articulated his thoughts on the Applicant's potential litigation threats to the city and addressed the union workers' potential exploitation by the Applicant.

• Jeremy provided his opinion on the Applicant's communication attempts with the community through a performance of satire.

• Sam provided written correspondence to the City Clerk and City Council to be filed into the record. He expressed his support for the proposed ballot measure, suggested the implementation of an ordinance that bans data centers citywide and asked the City Council to protect their City.

• Angelica asserted her support for no data centers in the City of Monterey Park and questioned what the data center would be used for if it were to be built.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Lorenzo Rodriguez, a resident of East Los Angeles, spoke in solidarity with the residents fighting against the data center. He relayed his concerns about the potential health risks data centers are prone to bring to the City and the potential misuse of artificial intelligence by billionaire companies.

• Bryan Marsh, with HMC StratCap, explained the company's efforts to work with the City in processing an application to develop a data center and commented on their participation in the Saturn Park Advisory Review Committee (SPARC) meetings. He articulated the company's preferred path to not pursue litigation and believed in formulating a solution to create a land-use plan with the community.

• Jim Pugh, with Sheppard Mulin and representing the Applicant, provided written correspondence to the City Clerk and City Council to be filed into the record. He highlighted the potential legal risks associated with proposed Agenda Item Nos. 11.A. and 12.A. and urged the City to reconsider their decision and instead, work with the Applicant to find a mutually acceptable outcome that pleases the community, City and Applicant.

• Caleb, a resident, spoke about the democratic process and elaborated about the different areas around the world that are dealing with the consequences of building a data center. He questioned the Applicant's claim about developing a safe data center for the community and stated the SPARC meetings did not represent the community's wants for the City.

• Samuel, resident, provided his perspective on HMC StratCap's alleged actions of convincing Union members to attend the previous City Council meeting to satisfy volunteer hours. He articulated the residents' stance in supporting unions but requested the union members to instead stand with their neighbors to build for the community, not against it. He provided his opinion on the previous town hall meetings and the lack of useful information/unanswered questions provided by HMC StratCap and conveyed his approval to proposed Agenda Item 12.A., with the amendment to close the alleged loopholes in the ballot measure.

• Kathleen Gomez provided context of her experience at the town hall meetings hosted by HMC StratCap and criticized the Applicant's proposed addition of small pocket park next to the proposed data center.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Tilda De Wolfe, resident, expressed her frustration on the idea of the construction of a data center. She stated it would be destructive and considered moving if it was built.

• Alma, a resident, detailed her career in communications and expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of effort the Applicant has had in engaging with the community regarding the proposed 1977 Saturn Data Center project. She conveyed her support for the proposed ballot measure and moratorium, emphasized the need to change the language to have it better understood by the voters and offered her company's services pro bono, to help keep the community clean and safe.

• Debra Simone talked about her vision of the City, showed her support for the proposed ballot measure with the amended potential loopholes, and proposed the opportunity to work with union workers in developing a mixed-use project that would benefit the City and encourage people to live here.

• Bosco articulated his viewpoint of big named companies pushing the need for more use of artificial intelligence and the recent articles about different states developing data centers without concern for the negative impacts on residents or the environment. He commented on the Applicant's purchase of two properties in Saturn Park, reiterated the community's opposition to any development of data centers in the City, showed his support towards the proposed ballot measure, with the amendment to close the potential loopholes, and recommended the City to take their time to develop the language of the ballot measure.

• Ben shared his career background in planning and expressed his disapproval of building a data center in the middle of a residential area.

He claimed that a development of such size does not belong in Monterey Park as it would contaminate the lives of the residents.

• Lance Williams showed his support for the proposed ballot measure as he has seen first-hand the development of data centers and the negative effects it has had on his previous home in Memphis, Tennessee. He commented on the world's current state of politics and relayed his hopefulness that the future actions of the City Council are beyond corporate interest.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Antonio Martinez conveyed his opposition to data centers in Monterey Park and questioned what the next steps are to initiate a complete citywide ban on data centers.

• Elijah Lim called for a citywide ban on data centers in Monterey Park, claiming they are destructive to the community. He elaborated on the forced implementation of artificial intelligence in daily life and the erosion of critical thinking skills.

• Andy Wu, resident, spoke in favor of the ballot measure and shared an evaluation of the process of building a data center in comparison to building a McDonalds fast food restaurant.

• Karen submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Luke Skywalker conveyed his support for Agenda Item Nos. 12.A,

12.B. and 11.B. He explained his reasoning as to why he does not support building a data center in Monterey Park.

• George Bocanegra provided information about his viewpoint on the importance of data centers in the community, especially union workers. He stated a proposed ban on data centers would prevent union workers from obtaining jobs.

• Teddy submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Yun commented on his opinion on the City's strong sense of community regarding the opposition to data centers and the alleged lack of answers during HMC StratCap's town hall meeting on February 28th.

• Madeline Ocampo shared her support of Agenda Item No. 12.A. with the amendment to remove the potential loopholes and to also implement an ordinance. She expressed her frustration at the constant need to meet at City Council meetings regarding this issue and asked the City Council not to neglect the wellbeing of the residents.

• Theodore Chao, resident, articulated his career experience as a professor and union member and provided context on the potential dangers data centers bring to the community.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Yolanda shared her family's history growing up in Monterey Park. She expressed gratitude towards the number of people that have shown up at the City Council meetings, questioned the Applicant's campaign strategies and ensured the fight was not against the union workers, but big corporations.

• Steven Kung talked about the Applicant's alleged miscommunication with the community. He requested the City Council to close the potential loopholes in the proposed ballot measure and to approve an ordinance banning data centers permanently.

• Robert Castro spoke about his viewpoint on the inherent danger of industrial heat that will affect the entire San Gabriel Valley if a data center were built.

• Jesse Damon, resident, commented on the Applicant's attempts to engage with the community alongside their litigation threats. He recommended the City Council to develop trust within the community by adopting an ordinance to ban data centers and stated Monterey Park is the leader in the fight against data centers in the San Gabriel Valley.

• Emily Chu, resident stated she is the co-founder of No Data Center Monterey Park (MPK), expressed her conditional support for the proposed ballot measure. She elaborated on the two potential loopholes, which include allowing data centers under one acre and not specifying timing for zoning update implementation.

• Hrag Balian, resident stated he is the co-founder of No Data Center Monterey Park (MPK) explained his conditional support for the proposed ballot measure and questioned the City Council's decision- making process to initiate a proposed ballot measure.

• Allan Rosso, resident of El Monte, shared information about a proposed data center in his city that is near his mother's business. He questioned the proposed data center's use of electricity and claimed voting for a data center would poison the people and the environment.

• Eleanor Lee talked about Attorney Doug Carsten and his efforts to assist the community with the fight against data centers.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
• Jessica Jy spoke representing the residents and neighboring communities. She expressed her conditional support for the proposed ballot measure but with modifications to the language to remove any loopholes regarding size, exemption and definition, and to make an explicit time frame to ensure the measure takes effect immediately upon voter approval. She believed it was important for the City Council to be reminded of who they serve, the residents.

• Felicia Marquez asked the City Council to vote yes on the moratorium and the proposed ballot measure. She claimed the Saturn Park Advisory Committee was not democratic and requested the City Council to lead by example and to make the change that the residents need.

• Christal Lee asked the City Council to pass a citywide ordinance to ban data centers and recommended changes to the proposed ballot measure to close existing loopholes. She encouraged the idea of union work in the city, but for a project that is beneficial to the community.

• John N recognized Mayor Yang's openness with the community and the City Council's consideration of the resident's concerns. He shared his opinion about alleged paid agitators that worked against the community by the weaponization of union workers. He reiterated Steven Kung's words and articulated his viewpoint that it was anti- human for union workers to focus on their own desire for cash. He spoke in admiration of the City Council for advocating for the community and the City Attorney's willingness to sympathize with the residents.

• Mike Romero submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Yvonne Wong claimed a data center belongs at a heavy industrial zone, not an innovative technology zone, as the potential increase in pollution would be detrimental to the health of the residents. She claimed it was undemocratic to allow nineteen people in SPARC to decide the future of an area in a city of 66,000 residents and believed the residents have a right to determine their own destiny.

• Adeline Marlin submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

• Mary stated her opinion that the Applicant has little regard for the residents as the recent town hall meetings were dismissive, demeaning and uninformative. She questioned whether the Applicant has truthfully addressed the potential risks and concerns with the community.

• Marcos, resident of Alhambra, voiced his belief to the audience that the issue of data centers is not just limited to Monterey Park but to the surrounding communities. He provided his opinion on the potential environmental disasters that have already occurred in nearby cities and expressed his support for the proposed ballot measure.

• Dominick Jaramillo conveyed his perspective on the fear and worry the residents have been feeling regarding the issue of data centers and requested the City Council to hear the community's voice.

• Casey Wong articulated her opinion on the number of residents who have participated in community engagement regarding data centers and questioned how HMC StratCap is obtaining community support regarding the matter.

• Tom Salonga provided an overview of his career background and showed his support to implement an ordinance that would ban the construction of data centers

• Andrea Vega, representing Food and Water Watch, spoke about the organization's recent action of sending a letter signed by twenty climate organizations throughout California that have urged the rejection of a data center project and to enact a permanent ban on data centers due to the potential health risks it poses to the community.

• Cameron Raasch articulated an example of the reality of AI in society, and believed large corporations should not be allowed to take over small cities.

• Mimi Li vocalized her support for protecting the community and the ban on data centers.

• Cindy Alvarado submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

• Hung Ha conveyed his thoughts on the shared concerns the residents spoke about and supports the ban on data centers in the City through the passing of an ordinance. He elaborated on the potential effects it would have on the community, such as a loss in property value.

• Alex Leon, resident, shared his support for placing a citywide ban on data centers on the June ballot and believed giving the residents a voice was a step in the right direction. He commented on the potential loopholes in the proposed ballot measure and claimed that threats of litigation should not dictate the future of Monterey Park.

• Luka Uribe submitted a speaker card but was not present when their name was called.

• Oscar Uribe submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Victoria Rivera spoke about the surrounding cities within Monterey Park and claimed they will also feel the potential negative effects of the construction of a data center.

• Daiquelin Frumento, resident, spoke about the language barrier with most residents in Monterey Park and claimed that although there is a barrier, the majority do not want a data center in the City. She requested to have the proposed ballot measure be approved with the amended potential loopholes.

• Deanna Lau-Ino submitted a speaker card but was not present when their name was called.

• Macy mentioned she was first informed about the proposed data center project through social media and expressed her gratitude for the passion the residents have exhibited and shared her opinion about the potential health and environment impacts data centers cause in different states. She provided written correspondence to the City Clerk and City Council to be filed into the record.

• Robert Miranda expressed his appreciation for standing alongside his fellow residents regarding data centers. He provided context about how Monterey Park became a city and quoted the City's motto, "Pride in the Past, Faith in the Future."

xx-xx
March 4, 2026

• Roxana Farahani believed the Applicant has not engaged with the community, claiming they will most likely never engage. She expressed her conditional support towards the proposed ballot measure and questioned why the City Council has yet to pass an ordinance to ban data centers citywide.

• Samuel T submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Christine Park shared her experience as a member of the 839 Animation Guild and commented on the difficulty of acquiring jobs due to AI taking over the industry. She asked the City Council to pass an ordinance banning data centers entirely.

• Eric Chen stated the issue regarding data centers will potentially affect the entire San Gabriel Valley and provided his opinion about the threat of litigation demonstrated by the applicant.

• Damian Joa provided details about his attendance at the town hall meetings hosted by HMC StratCap and the alleged
lack of answers he
received. He defended the City Council's actions in developing a ballot measure.

• Katherine Torres said the residents deserve transparency and expressed her opinion that the City Council were aware of the development of a data center before the residents were informed. She requested an ordinance be formed to stop the development of any data centers in the City.
• The City Clerk’s office received and filed written communications from Jude Gorski, John Quach, Gabby Niko, Barry C. Wong, Emily Duong, Liane Tiet, Bonnie Gu, Roberto Chavez, Bridget Bartels, Matthew Liu, James Tu, Lisa Dott, Kevin Ma, Tammy Luther, David Cisneros, Norma Martinez, Crystal Xie, Steven Yu, Maribel Martinez, David Abramovitch, April Perez, Erika Torres, Melody Bartels, Mary Kim, Laura Mason, Brodie Miles, Josephine Tang, Ching Sau, Kenix Tran, Michael Kurland, Morgan Soloski, Rose Scobie, E Mills, Han Dao, Jeremy Joudenback, Brenda Fung, Janice Yee, Jennifer Tang, Susan Hur, Johanna Vidaur, Mahala Nelson, Catrena Boylan, Bithia Govea, Kamilah, Hanah Morinaga, Allex B., Catalina Munguia, Sylvia Marina Martinez, Mykela Agojo, Daniel Huang, Irene Young, Phoi Tran, Kimberely Jane Ho, Brianna Mutuc, Michelle Morales, Michelle Moll, Stephanie Han, Justin Leung, Dorothy Dubrule, Lorena Bejarano, David and Jailuk Parrino, Jared Dyer, Andrew and Sheri Lee, Gino

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Lomeli, Ariannie Rodriguez, Maribel Zheng, Paul Yoon, Randy Mekdara, Raymond Warriner, Tony Gao, Kerry Gao, Christiane Wong, Zoe Blue Maestu, Jim Phit, Rebecca Fangue, Linnea Gong, Cheryl Tay, Wasai Phung, Yvette Morales, Reb, Joshua Lee, Camila Ryder, Linda Yang, Marisol Sanchez, Saskia Sani, Jenny Yang, Nathan Chen, Sue, Hemant Bhalla, Nicholas Capranica, Karen Ta, Jessica Lopez, Yvonne Wong, Mandy Liu, Jan Okabe-Wong, Aillie Hu, Jared Kuchinsky, Lisa Luu, Jerry Lara, Stephanie Parra, Jessica C., Vanessa Frey, Jessica C., Artuto Urista, Osula Lam, Eleanor Lee, Christina Rosholt, Andrea Castillo, Lauren Shen, Tiffany Rice, Tsam Wong, Mikayla Asevo, Sarah Hanna & Gus Puga, Leilani J. Hughes, Roxana Farahani, Anne Liu, Kim Tran, Joyce Vega, Wynter Cabral, Elizabeth Ann Lee, Garrett Chen, Mary Lei, Kristin Yoshima, Andy Kwong, Katherine Yu, Andy Kwong, Liane Tiet, Clotilde Jang and Family, Christina M. Cisneros, Sam Kahan, Margaret Vita, Kayla Chen, Lindsay Kui, Kristen Van Hala, Christopher Graham Roberts, Dana Standridge, Tabitha Chen, the Phoong Family, Irene Poon, Vincent Huynh, Michelle Zill, Dorothy Wang, Queenie Y, Tyra Chan, Erika Christianne Medina, Tony Fan, Kelsey Ko, Bennett Dean McCall, Kevin Diep, Lorenzo Benitez, Carmina Ileto, The Bosco and Zorrilla Family, Emilia Williams, Jeremiah Johnson, Ryan Yeung, Edward Ko, Andrea Siegel, Steve Sherman, Jennifer Amador, Debbie Carlos, Alex Lung, Joe and Kathy Chen, Harold Tom, Emily Chu, Jesse Damon, Meredith Alling, David, Hrag Balian, Steven J. Kung, Lavender Fung, Jessica Chow, Kathleen Gomez, Jordan Cheng, Annie Ng, Megan Lee, Kelly Chow, Carolyn Ao, Cassandra, Joan A, Michelle Fernandez, Sabrina Law, Sam Ly, Bosco Woo, Emily Ainslie, Juliece Losoya, SoFern Wu, Bill Kelly, Elissa, Alex Zheng, Ricky Lim, Nicholas Rabb, Agatha Rodriguez, Zerlinda Lee, Desmond Chen, Chris Hunt, Dustin Fung, Kevin Jiang, Chloe Tan, Eugene Lee, Leonard Lee, Louis Ng, Amy Tannenbaum, Samantha Perez, Cheryl Fung, Grace Cavazos, Joyce, Henry Tang, Kong Sham, Sandy Tang, Robert Miranda, Karyn Wong, Tommy Huynh, Jim Hunt, Alicia de Mello, Barbara Lee, Patina Hunt, Natalie Robles, Debbie Bona, Eva Wong, Joy Saavedra, Kin Kui, Doug Carstens, No Data Center MPK, Erica Harrell, Jill Saavedra, Bryant Phan, Kaylee Abad, and Eileen Lee.

Discussion: City Attorney Berger provided context about why the City Council decided to propose a ballot measure to ban data centers in the City.

He reported out of Closed Session, the City Council's decision to authorize him to initiate litigation against anyone, specifically HMC StratCap, in the event that any litigation was filed against the City and to expend what is necessary to defend the City.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
The City Council ensued in a discussion regarding the language of the proposed ballot measure and the concept of implementing an ordinance for a citywide ban on data centers.

Extension of City Council Meeting

Action Taken: The City Council extended the Council Meeting to 12:30 a.m.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lo 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

Action Taken: The City Council directed staff to draft an Ordinance for consideration to prohibit data centers in Monterey Park, requiring a 20-day notice and a public hearing.

Motion: Moved b
y Council Member Sanchez and seconded by Mayor 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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendations and approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026-R5, Resolution No. 2026-R6, Resolution No. 2026-R7, Resolution No. 2026-R8 as amended to remove the language "located on one or more acres of land" and "This definition does not apply to smaller data processing facilities that are located on less than one acre of land and where such facilities are accessory or incidental to another primary use." in Exhibit A, Section 1 of Resolution No. 2025-R6.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
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

Resolution No. 2026-R5
A R
esolution calling a Special Election on June 2, 2026 pursuant to Elections Code § 9222

Resolution No. 2026-R6
A Resolution adding a proposition to the ballot
prohibiting data centers for the
previously called June 2, 2026 Special Election pursuant to Elections Code § 9222

Resolution No. 2026-R7
A R
esolution directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the proposition prohibiting data centers

Resolution No. 2026-R8
A R
esolution establishing requirements for ballot arguments filed with the City Clerk to be included with voter information for the General Election on June 2, 2026

12.B. Consideration of Letter of Support for California Assembly Bill 1577, California Senate Bills 886, 887 and 978
This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 11.B.

The City Council has expressed interest in supporting California Legislature bills addressing data center regulation. February 20 was the last day for bills to be introduced. Four bills relevant to this topic have been introduced and are summarized below. Council may direct staff to submit letters of support for any or all of these bills.

These bil
ls were introduced in January 2026 and are currently pending before their respective policy committees in the Legislature; none has yet been approved by both houses or signed into law. If the Council elects to send letters of support at this time, staff will transmit the letters to the authors and relevant committee chairs prior to committee hearings and will monitor the bills’ progress through the legislative process.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. If desirable, sending letters of support for California Assembly Bill 1577, the “Data Center Energy and Water Transparency,” and California Senate Bills 886, the “California Technology Innovation and Ratepayer Protection Act,” 887, the “Data Centers and CEQA Clarity,” and 978, the “Large-Scale Energy Facilities and Electricity,” on behalf of the City Council; and

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

Public Speakers:

Mayor Yang called the speakers in groups of 5.
• Laura Cuellar-Morrish submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Ben Steckler expressed his support for the proposed agenda item as he believed it will ensure the solidification of no data centers and hopefully push the state to take similar action as well.

• Samuel N submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.

• Sam K thanked the City Council for their efforts and patience throughout the entire evening and shared his interest in being a part of the discussion that decided what will be developed in Saturn Park.

• Carrie shared her concerns about the language in Senate Bill 978 as it only applies to 74 megawatts of electricity for large scale energy users.
• The City Clerk’s office received and filed a written communication from Bryant Phan.

Discussion:

The City Council ensued in a discussion regarding the proposed Agenda Item.

Elisa Arcidiacono, Senior Associate from Townsend, virtually present, was available for questions.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem 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

Extension of Council Meeting

Action Taken: The City Council extended the City Council meeting to 1 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

13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items Mayor Ngo reported his and his fellow Council Member's attendance to many events which include: the American Museum Camp Gala at the NBC Seafood, the Chinese American Military Support Dinner, the ribbon cutting ceremony of Asayoru Maid Cafe, the Alhambra Unified School District's Asian American Alumni Association Dinner, the Monterey Park Police Department's town hall meeting at Brightwood Elementary, the Golden Dragon Parade at Chinatown, and the Monterey Park Volunteer Banquet at the Langley Center.

Council Member Wong requested staff to expedite the development of Fire S tation
61 to accommodate the firefighters in the City.

Council Member Sanchez requested to invite the Mark Keppel High School Decathlon
Team to a future City Council meeting to recognize their achievement in winning second place.

Mayor Pro Tem Lo requested to invite the Principal and Parent-Teacher Association members of Monterey Vista Elementary to a future City Council meeting to recognize the school for achieving their centennial milestone.

xx-xx
March 4, 2026
Mayor Yang reported her attendance at the opening ceremony of the Monterey Park Pony baseball and USA softball game, and announced upcoming events which include the Monterey Park Clippers Game Night, the Bridgerton Tea- Party at El Encanto and MPK Walks, an opportunity to walk the streets of Monterey Park to scope out improvements that are needed in the area.

14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce) During Agenda Item No. 12.A, City Attorney Berger reported out of the 5:30 p.m. special meeting the City Council's unanimous decision to authorize him to initiate litigation against anyone, specifically HMC StratCap, in the event that any litigation was filed against the City and to expend what is necessary to defend the City.

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.

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
March 7, 2026
The City Council of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Meeting of the Council at the Courtyard Marriott, Saturn-Mars Room, located at 555 N. Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park, CA 91754, Saturday, March 7, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.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 Manager Inez Alvarez
Deputy City Attorney Solange Zetta Fortenbach
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
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Deputy Fire Chief Ryan Weddle
Battalion Chief Jonathan Gin
Finance Manager Laura Borjon
Library Manager Linda Vera
Assistant Water Utility Manager George Noriega
Police Lieutenant Bob Hung
Police Lieutenant Brenda Iglesias
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Principal Management Analyst Michelle Marquez

xx-xx
March 7, 2026
Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang

Virtually present:

None.

3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

4. Public Communications
None.

5. New Business

5.A. Strategic Planning Workshop
This is a City Council workshop to prioritize the City’s legislative and project agenda. It is anticipated that the workshop will not result in the City Council taking any particular action. Instead, City Council Members and key staff members will be revie
wing the City Council’s previous strategic plan; updating it; and providing direction to the City Manager. Topics may include, without limitation, infrastructure improvements; revenue enhancement; land use challenges; sustainability efforts; redevelopment;
community engagement and
outreach; and municipal property needs assessment. Any direction provided by the City Council will appear on future meeting agendas. The anticipated outline of the workshop will follow this general order:
• Prouds and Sorries - Accomplishments and Opportunities for Improvement
• Challenges Ahead
• The Art of responsible vs Reactive Communication
• Check the Sails
• Potential Future Objectives
• New 6-12 month Objectives
• Next Steps

Discussion:

The City Council and City Staff ensued in a discussion regarding the City Council's previous strategic plan.

Marie Knight, owner of Knight Solutions and Doll Knight, Chief Financial Officer, were available for questions.

Recessed and Reconvened
The City Council recessed at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened with all Council Members present at 10:55 a.m.

xx-xx
March 7, 2026
Recessed and Reconvened
The City Council recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened with all Council Members present at 12:30 p.m.

6. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY 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
March 18, 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, March 18, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m.

2. Roll Call
City Manager Inez Alvarez called the roll:

Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang Council Members Absent: Jose Sanchez

Also present:

City Attorney Karl Berger
Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia

Virtually present:

None.

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 5:36 p.m.

xx-xx

5.A. Conference With Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation (Threat of litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2)): One matter.

Facts and Circumstances: See attached letters dated February 4, 2026, February 10, 2026, and March 4, 2026.

6. Adjournment
The City Council reconvened from Closed Session at 6:17 p.m. with all Council Members present except for Council Member Sanchez.

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Action Taken: No reportable action taken in Closed Session.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY 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
March 18, 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 Regular Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.

2. Flag Salute
The Flag Salute was led by the Monterey Park Police Explorers.

3. Roll Call
City Clerk Maychelle Yee called the roll:

Council Members Present: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang Council Members Absent: Jose Sanchez

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 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
Finance Manager Laura Borjon
Risk Management Manager Jule DeZiel
IT Manager Martin Dinh

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Engineering Manager/ Transtech Consultant Ziad Mazboudi Fire Marshal Jessica Estrella
Fire Battalion Chief Jon Gin
Adult and Teens Services Senior Librarian Leonie Jordan Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Principal Management Analyst Michelle Marquez
Human Resources Analyst Kathleen Camacho
Senior Account Clerk Nanette Thompson
Office Assistant Michelle Martinez

Virtually present:

None

4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
City Manager Alvarez requested the addition of Agenda Item No. 8.A., Youth of the Year award, and to have this item be heard after Public Communications, followed by Agenda Item No. 7.D. and 12.A.

6. Public Communications
• Robert Monroe-Ogawa expressed his gratitude to Cindy Yee for her dedication to the City over the decades. He shared the San Gabriel Valley Power Up Beacon's (SGVPUB) internal operations, which had led to alleged discord between its members, and spoke about the City's transparency in working with SGVPUB towards grant applications.

• Sharon Woo, president of the Mark Keppel High School Alliance, shared the nonprofit's dedication to enhancing educational and developmental opportunities for students. She relayed the organization's support for the rebuilding of the Barnes Park pool as it is a vital resource in supporting their student's pathway in life and urged its prioritization. She submitted written correspondence that was received and filed with the City Clerk’s office.

• Dawn Rock shared the Monterey Park Historical Society's gratitude to Mayor Yang, Council Member Ngo and Assistant City Manager Garcia's attendance at the Laura Scudder 100-year Celebration and thanked City Manager Alvarez for the care and thoughtfulness to restoring the Scudder family plaque. She invited the community to visit their booth at the Monterey Park Cherry Blossom Festival, congratulated the Recreation and Community Services Department for receiving one million from the Regional Park and Open Space Grant and requested the money be used for the rebuilding of the Barnes Park Pool.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
• Margaret Leung, board member of the Friends of the Seniors Foundation, shared an update on the work the foundation has been doing to strengthen long-term support for the senior community. She invited the community to attend the Save Barnes Park Pool Community Award event at the Barnes Park Amphitheater.

7. Staff Communications
Staff Communication Item Nos. 7.A., 7.B. and 7.C. were heard after Agenda Item No. 12.A.

7.A. Library
Adult and Teen Services Senior Librarian Jordan presented a PowerPoint presentation about the past events that occurred in the library. She announced upcoming programming which includes: the Herstory 3 exhibition in celebration of Women's History month, Bilingual story time, a BTS listening party, a CalFresh informational workshop, the 2026 volunteer income tax assistance clinic and released the Literacy for All Monterey Park spring session schedule.

7.B. Recreation & Community Services
Recreation and Community Services Director Aguirre shared a PowerPoint presentation on updates in the department. He thanked the residents who attended the Monterey Park (MPK) Night at the Clipper's event for Japanese Heritage night. He highlighted the parks that had their tennis courts resurfaced
and provided information on upcoming parks that will soon follow. He announced the awards given to the department, which include: an Award of Excellence for the Electric Park festival and the San Gabriel Valley Pride festival from the California Park and Recreation Society; a Service to Education Government Award from the Alhambra Educational Foundation; an award for the Love For Our Elders Program, in collaboration with Mark Keppel High School and an award for the Langley Senior Center's annual Lunar New Year event from the California Parks and Recreation Society, District 13 (CPRS). He announced upcoming events occurring throughout the next month, which include the Cherry Blossom Festival and the Spring Egg Hunt, and highlighted two grants that have been awarded to the City: the Garvey Ranch trail system grant and the Barnes Park revitalization grant.

7.C. Public Works
Director of Public Works Igoe curated a PowerPoint presentation detailing the Ware Disposal Satisfaction survey and encouraged the community to provide feedback on the trash services in the City.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026

7.D. Fire Department
This Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 8.A.

Fire Battalion Chief Gin showed a PowerPoint presentation about the Boys and Girls Club of the West, San Gabriel Valley and East Side's collaboration with the Random Acts of Kindness Foundation. He detailed the members act of serving coffee and donuts to the Monterey Park Fire Department and shared the upcoming date for the Disaster Preparedness Clinic.

Amber Giang, District Representative for Senator Sasha Renée Perez, alongside the City Council, presented certificates to the Boys and Girls Club members for their dedication to serving the community.

8. Presentation

8.A. Youth of the Year Award – Nathaniel Hernandez
This Agenda Item was added during Agenda Additions and Deletions and was heard after Public Communications.

Nathaniel Hernandez shared words of appreciation to the City Council and expressed his gratitude to Council Member Wong for his participation as a judge at the Youth of the Year event and his guidance to allow him to speak and make a change in his community as a youth advocate.

The City Council presented Nathaniel with a certificate of recognition for his achievement.

9. Old Business
None.

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved Agenda Item Nos. 10.A., 10.B. and

10.E. except for Agenda Item Nos. 10.C, 10.D., and 10.F. which were pulled for discussion, separate motion, reading resolutions and ordinances by the title only and waiving further reading thereof.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Motion: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lo and seconded by Council Member Wong, motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

10.A. J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Banking and Procurement Card Services
On September 3, 2025, the City posted a Request for Proposal (RFP) on the City’s webpage for banking and procurement card services. Five banking institutions responded. Following the evaluation and rating of each proposal received, City staff completed in-person interviews with Bank of Montreal (BMO) and J.P. Morgan Chase. J.P. Morgan was found to be fully qualified and offered better incentives, fees, and interest rates when compared to the City’s current bank, BMO.

It is recommended that Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with J.P. Morgan Chase for the City’s commercial banking and procurement card services for an initial five (5) year term.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with J.P. Morgan Chase for the City’s Commercial Banking and Procurement Card services. It is the City’s intent to establish an initial five (5) year contract with J.P. Morgan Chase with an option to renew every (5) years thereafter; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026

10.B. Authorize transfer of Unclaimed Monies to the General fund pursuant to Government Code §§ 50050-50056
Adopting the attached Resolution will transfer $4,020.83 in unclaimed money into the City’s General Fund, following statutory public notice, pursuant to California law, as described in the City’s Administrative Policy No. 20-26 (Attachment 2 to the staff report).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution authorizing the transfer of $4,020.83 in declared unclaimed monies into the City's General Fund pursuant to Government Code §§ 50050-50057 and Administrative Policy and Procedure No. 20-26; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R14, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 2026-R14
A Resolution declaring unclaimed monies as property of the City of Monterey Park and ordering transfer of such funds to the City’s general fund pursuant to Government Code § 50053

10.C. Amendment No. 1 The Pun Group
On May 17, 2023, City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a 3- year professional services agreement from May 17, 2023, to June 30, 2026, in an amount not to exceed $238,000 with The Pun Group, LLP.

It is recommended that Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a first amendment to The Pun Group LLP. Agreement No. 2369-AE from July 1, 2026, for continued auditing services for an amount of $430,792, for a total not to exceed $668,792 for the term of the Agreement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a first amendment to the professional auditing Agreement No. 2369-AE with the Pun Group, LLP to extend the term through June 30, 2031 and increase the not-to- exceed compensation from $238,000 to $668,792; and

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

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Discussion: Finance Manager Borjon shared a staff report recommending a five-year contract extension to ensure continuity, minimize disruption and reduce long-term costs.

The City Council ensued in a discussion regarding the potential options for a contract extension based on the best practices
presented by the Government
Finance Officers Association.

Action Taken:

The City Council approved the recommendation, as amended to extend the renewal of the contract for up to three years.

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, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

10.D. Approve the artwork submitted by Artist Giorgiko for a mural celebrating the United States Semiquincentennial at Barnes 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, and in celebration of the United States of America’s 250 years of independence, the Director has been w
orking with Monterey Park Artist Giorgiko (Darren and
Trisha Inouye) to develop a mural design that would be placed on an exterior wall of the Barnes Park Gymnasium.

On February 4, 2026, the City Council approved the Barnes Park Gymnasium as the location for a mural celebrating the United States Semiquincentennial, utilizing funds from the Recreation and Community Services Department’s General Fund, Community Beautification account.

On February 17, 2026, the Community Participation Commission voted unanimously to support installing the Artist’s design and narrowed the phase included in the mural to two choices: “All Created Equal” or “Faith in the Future”.

If the artwork (Attachment 1 to the staff report) is approved, the Artist, Giorgiko, will install the mural in time for unveiling on or before the city’s Independence Day Celebration on June 27, 2026. If approved, the City will enter into a Public Art Agreement with the artists governing the design and installation of the mural.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The City reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed action 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 Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15378 exempt activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, activities where there is possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and activities that do not constitute a “project” as defined, respectively. This activity contemplates administrative actions, including entering into an agreement and appropriating budget funds.

Accordingly, this activity is exempt from further review.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Approving the artwork submitted by Artist Giorgiko for a mural celebrating the United States Semiquincentennial at Barnes Park;

2. Providing direction regarding the phase to be included within the mural; and

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

Discussion: Director of Recreation and Community Services Aguirre introduced the Artists behind Giorgiko, Darren and Trisha Inouye, to elaborate on Agenda Item.

Darren and Trisha Inouye shared their experience working in children's art education and exhibited their
past murals that have been installed throughout
the country. They presented two phrases that will be placed on the mural for consideration, option 1: "All Created Equal" or option 2: "Faith in the Future"

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation and selected option 2 phrase, "Faith in the Future" to be included on the mural.

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

Ayes: Council Members: Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

xx-xx
March 18, 2026

10.E. Landscaping and Tree Maintenance Agreement Amendments On February 18, 2026, the City Council approved the FY 2025-2026 Mid- Year Financial Report, including additional budget appropriations for unanticipated landscaping needs throughout the City. It is recommended that the City Council approve a Seventh Amendment to Agreement 2136-A with Mariposa Landscape, Inc., a Fourth Amendment to Agreement 2368-AA with Priority Landscape Services, LLC, and a Sixth Amendment to Agreement 1284-A with West Coast Arborists, Inc. to support the City’s increase in landscaping and tree maintenance needs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Seventh Amendment to Agreement 2136-A with Mariposa Landscape, Inc., a Fourth Amendment to Agreement 2368-AA with Priority Landscape Services, LLC, and a Sixth Amendment to Agreement 1284-A with West Coast Arborists, Inc., in forms approved by the City Attorney, for continued commercial landscaping services through June 30, 2026; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.F. Notices of Completion for Various Capital Improvement Projects Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 11701, the Public Works Director is authorized to record a Notice of Completion for Capital Improvement Projects (“CIP”). The City recently completed various CIP’s included in the FY 2025-26 budget. Upon completion, the work was inspected and approved by the City Engineer. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Notices of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director for these projects.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on August 25, 2025 accepting the 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project completed by Onyx Paving Company, Inc.;

2. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on September 10, 2025 accepting the Emerson Parallel Sewer Line Project completed by GRBCON, Inc.;

3. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on September 11, 2025 accepting the Russell Street Reservoir Project completed by Crosno Construction Inc.;

xx-xx
March 18, 2026

4. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on October 3, 2025 accepting the PWC Elder Pool Improvements Project completed by Sebastian Waterworks, Inc. dba Mr. Rooter Plumbing;

5. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on October 21, 2025 accepting the George Elder Pool Epoxy Project completed by CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc.;

6. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on October 25, 2025 accepting the Cascades Park Epoxy Work Project completed by CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc.;

7. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Director on November 9, 2025 accepting the Langley Center, Garvey Ranch Museum, George Elder Gym Roof Replacement Project completed by BEST Contracting Services, Inc.;

8. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Department on December 8, 2025 accepting the Barnes Gym Exterior Painting Project, completed by U.S. National Corp. dba Jimenez Painting;

9. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Department on December 11, 2025 accepting the Langley Center & George Elder Flooring Project completed by JJJ Flooring;

10. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Department on February 2, 2026 accepting the Bruggemeyer Library Exterior Painting Project completed by U.S. National Corp. dba Jimenez Painting;

11. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Department on February 5, 2026 accepting the Concrete Improvements Project completed by Onyx Paving Co.;

12. Receiving and filing the Notice of Completion recorded by the Public Works Department on February 9, 2026 accepting the Library Generator Project completed by Pacific Power Engineering Technology, Inc.; and

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

Discussion:

Director of Public Works Igoe shared a PowerPoint presentation detailing the completion of projects done by the Public Works Department in the City.

Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the recommendations.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
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, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

11. Public Hearing

11.A. Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 Concerning Vacancies and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Government Code section 3502.3 requires the City to hold at least one public hearing per fiscal year to present the status of workforce vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts and identify any necessary changes to policies, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. The City's recognized employee associations were provided timely advance notice of the public hearing.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) require environmental review of discretionary projects that may result in a significant effect on the environment. The proposed action is not a “project” subject to CEQA because it constitutes an organizational and administrative activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060(c)(2), 15378(b)(5).) The City Council is receiving information and conducting a public hearing pursuant to Government Code § 3502.3 and is not approving or committing the City to any activity that may result in a physical change to the environment.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Conducting a public hearing to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts in accordance with Government Code section 3502.3; and

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

Discussion: Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Tomikawa, shared a staff report portraying Monterey Park's workforce vacancies and recruitment/retention efforts in accordance with Government Code Section 3502.3.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Action Taken: By Consensus, the City Council opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m., received no registered speakers, closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. and took no further action on this item.

11.B. Annual Weed Abatement Protest Hearing
The County of Los Angeles Department of Agriculture Commissioner/Weights and Measures (Weed Abatement Division) submitted to the City the annual Weed Abatement Declaration List and resolution declaring that weeds, brush, rubbish, refuse and dirt maintained on certain private properties in the City are a public nuisance. At the regular City Council meeting on February 4, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-R3 approving the 2026 Weed Abatement Declaration List as posted by the County. By adopting the Resolution, the Council declared its intention to provide for the abatement of said nuisances. To complete the process, the Council must hold a protest hearing to allow parcel owners identified on the Declaration List an opportunity to object to their inclusion thereon.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Adopting 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. Opening the continued public hearing, receiving public comment, closing the public hearing;

2. Adopting a Resolution declaring that weeds, brush, rubbish and refuse upon or in front of specified property in the City are a seasonal and recurrent public nuisance, and declaring its intention to provide for abatement; and

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

Discussion: Fire Marshal Estrella exhibited a staff report detailing the process of the weed abatement declaration list and noticing to the residents.

Action Taken: Mayor Yang declared a potential Conflict of Interest as her property is listed on the weed abatement declaration list, recused herself and left the dais at 8:42 p.m., returned to the dais at 8:48 p.m. and did not participate on the item. The City Council opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m., received no registered public speakers, closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. and approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026-R15.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
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, Thomas Wong Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: Elizabeth Yang

Resolution No. 2026-R15
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.

12. New Business

12.A. Barnes Park Pool Design Selection
This Agenda Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 7.D.

The City of Monterey Park is advancing the revitalization of the Barnes Park swimming pool, a community priority reaffirmed through the 2025 GROW Monterey Park Parks System Master Plan. The former Barnes Park pool was closed several years ago due to major leaks and structural failures, and the pool was subsequently filled for safety. In 2025–2026, the City retained Dahlin Group Architecture Planning, with Aquatic Design Group as subconsultant, to conduct community outreach and develop conceptual design options for a new aquatic center.

Dahlin conducted four community engagement events, multiple stakeholder meetings, and two citywide surveys. The final survey provided the community with an opportunity to select their preferred conceptual design. Over 1,200 survey responses were received. The community overwhelmingly favored Option B – a 50-meter competition pool with a 25-yard recreation pool, with 64% (828 responses) se
lecting this option. Many respondents also expressed
interest in incorporating a splash pad if feasible.

At this time staff is requesting City Council direction to select a preferred option for use in all future grant applications, funding pursuits, and to guide the development of final plans, specifications, and estimates once design funding becomes available.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Selecting a preferred design option for the Barnes Park Aquatic Center Project;

2. Directing staff to use the selected option in all future grant applications, funding pursuits, and project planning; and

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

Public Speaker:
• Margaret Leung commented on the long process of obtaining the pool conceptual design. She spoke in support of Option B and believed the concept can be improved further. She elaborated on her role in SGVPUB and the organization's goal to remain committed to transparency, cooperation, collaboration and responsible stewardship.

Discussion: Director of Recreation and Community Services Director Aguirre provided a timeline of events that had led to the current phase of selecting a design for the reconstruction of the Barnes Park Pool. He introduced members from Dhalin Architecture Interiors and Planning: Designer Nick Mcguire, Project Manager Jon Canedo and Principal Architect Daniel Berghauser, as well as Senior Project Manager Stephanie Fujimura from Aquatic Design Group to elaborate further on the designs.

Principal Architect Berghauser detailed the meetings held to inquire information on the wants of the community regarding the reconstruction of the Barnes Park pool.

Designer McGuire elaborated on the survey findings conducted throughout the research process and focused on the high points on interest presented in the surveys.

Senior Project Manager Fujimura presented the three pool conceptual designs for the City Council's consideration.

The City Council ensued in a discussion concerning the three conceptual designs for consideration and relayed their interest in developing a splash pad.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendations and selected Option B, a 50-meter competition pool and 25-yard recreation pool to be used in all future grant applications, funding pursuits, and project planning. By Consensus, the City Council directed staff to research potential locations for the development of a splash pad in the City.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
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, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

12.B. Consideration of the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance Expanding the Lifeline Utility Rate Program and Clarifying Utility Billing and Collection Procedures, a Resolution Establishing a Wastewater Lifeline Discount, and a Resolution Increasing Water Service Deposits Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 6.08 and 14.12 establish utility service rules, procedures and criteria, including both the City’s and customers’ responsibilities. The attached proposed ordinance amends several sections in Chapters 6.08 and 14.12, and adds chapters 14.14 and

14.18 to expand the Lifeline Utility Rate Program and clarify billing collections and owner responsibility for water, wastewater, and other city billed utility charges.

Attached resolutions (to the staff report) replace the existing $12.06 monthly Lifeline water discount with a discount equal to 100% of the wastewater charge, currently at $22.46, from the wastewater fund; and increase utility account deposit by $50 per meter size.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving first reading and introducing and ordinance to expand the lifeline utility rate program and clarify billing, collection, and owner responsibility for water, wastewater, and other City billed utility charges;

2. Adopting a Resolution authorizing a 100% discount of the wastewater charge for customers residing in a single-family dwelling and participating in the Lifeline program;

3. Adopting a Resolution authorizing a deposit increase of $50 per meter size; and

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

Discussion: Director of Finance Garcia presented a staff report explaining the amendments in the proposed ordinance and detailed the proposed resolutions for the City Council’s consideration.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Action Taken: The City Council introduced and waived the first reading of 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, and approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026-R16 and Resolution No. 2026-R17.

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, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: Jose Sanchez
Abstain: Council Members: None
Recusal: Council Members: None

Ordinance 1
st reading
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

Resolution No. 2026-R16
A Resolution setting water service account deposits

Resolution No. 2026-R17
A Resolution establishing a wastewater discount rate for eligible participants in the City’s Lifeline Program

13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items Council Member Ngo talked about his attendance at the Laura Scudder Centennial celebration at the Historical Society Museum in Garvey Ranch Park, the MPK Clipper's Night event, the welcoming and meet up with the Fire Department from Monterey Park's Sister City, Morelia, Mexico and the recent Strategic Planning meeting at the Courtyard Marriott.

Council Member Wong echoed Council Member Ngo's words.

Mayor Pro Tem Lo acknowledged his attendance at the City's Strategic Plan meeting and requested city staff to update the city's website to contain resources for survivors and victims of domestic violence. He commented on the importance of advocating against domestic violence due to the recent allegations concerning long-time labor leader, Cesar Chavez.

xx-xx
March 18, 2026
Mayor Yang reported her attendance at the ribbon-cutting event for Reework Me, a gym located on Atlantic Blvd and commented on her participation at the Bridgerton Tea Party hosted by the Library and the community walks that were hosted by Kimley-Horn. She announced upcoming city events which include the Monterey Vista Elementary's centennial celebration and the Meet up with the Mayor event at Jumping Lobster and wished Fire Chief Hing a Happy Birthday.

14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce) None.

15. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY, 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
Special Community Meeting
March 23, 2026

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Community Meeting of the Council at Jumpin’ Lobster located at 2120 S. Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, CA, 91754 on Monday, March 23, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order
City Manager Inez Alvarez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call

City Manager Alvarez called the roll:

Council Members Present: Elizabeth Yang, Henry Lo, Jose Sanchez Council Members Absent: Vinh Ngo, Thomas Wong

Also Present:

Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Director of Finance Martha Garcia
Director of Recreation and Community Services Robert Aguirre Director of Community Development Timothy Hou
Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Economic Development Manager Joseph Torres
Fire Battalion Chief Ryan Weddle
Economic Development Specialist Janice Huang
City Communications Fellow Citlali Tejeda

Meet Up with The Mayor

I. Welcome: The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.

II. Community members are invited for casual conversations and to learn more about the City with the Mayor of Monterey Park.

xx-xx
March 23, 2026
III. Adjournment at 6:30 p.m.

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Action Taken: No reportable action taken.

_________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY, 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
April 1, 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, April 1, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m.

2. Roll Call
City Manager 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

Virtually present:

None.

3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

4. Public Communications
None.

5. Open Session
None.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026

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 5:38 p.m.

6.A. Conference with City's Labor Negotiator (Gov't Code §54957.6): 1 Matter Employee Organizations: City Manager (unrepresented)
City Designated Representative: City Attorney

7. Adjournment
The City Council reconvened from Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. with all Council Members present.

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Action Taken: No reportable action taken in Closed Session.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY 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
April 1, 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 Regular Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, April 1, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

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.

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
City Librarian Kristin Olivarez
Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Finance Services Manager Laura Borjon
Economic Development Manager Joseph Torres
IT Manager Martin Dinh
Fire Marshal Jessica Estrella

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
Public Works Manager Xochitl Tipan
Senior Planner Eliana Muñoz
Senior Children’s Librarian Summer Blake
Principal Management Analyst Michelle Marquez
Recreation and Community Services Program Coordinator Alejandra Sauza Office Assistant Michelle Martinez

Virtually present:

None

4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
After Public Communications, Mayor Yang requested to have Agenda Item No.

8.A. heard before Staff Communications.

6. Public Communications
• Micah Shaw expressed his concerns about vehicle traffic caused at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Newmark Avenue. He recommended a turning signal to improve traffic flow and requested the placement of 988 crisis signs throughout the City street as additional mental health resources.

• Bill Lam provided written correspondence that was received and filed by the City Clerk's Office. Bill talked about the Spirit Bus services and provided suggestions to add bus routes that lead to Monterey Park Marketplace, City Hall, Schurr High School and to a connecting line towards Hellman Ave and Atlantic Blvd as it would facilitate bus transfers for students.

• Carla Smith Holtmere provided written correspondence that was received and filed by the City Clerk's Office. Carla spoke on behalf of her mother, Betty Smith, regarding the City's lack of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) for the construction of fences. She commented on her neighbor's recent construction of a fence that has allegedly obstructed her and her neighbors' view.

• Linda Woo provided written correspondence that was received and filed by the City Clerk's Office. She talked on behalf of herself and other concerned neighbors about the construction of a fence that has allegedly blocked their view and requested the implementation of a municipal code that regulates the construction of fences that could potentially obstruct views.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026

7. Staff Communications
Staff Communications were heard after Agenda Item No. 8.A.

7.A. Public Works
Public Works Manager Tipan depicted a PowerPoint presentation with information about the Ware Disposal survey, shared the date for the quarterly clean-up event on April 4, 2026 at Barnes Park, announced the department's celebration of Earth Day and Arbor Day in conjunction with the Cherry Blossom Festival and provided an update on the Garfield Water Main project.

7.B. Community Development
Economic Development Manager Torres shared a PowerPoint presentation detailing the previous events hosted by the department, which include: six formal ribbon-cutting ceremonies, five Meet-up with the Mayor events, community events to engage with the residents, and the Shopping Centers and Asset Managers
Roundtable. He announced the open nominations for the
second annual Community Choice Awards, their upcoming participation in the Los Angeles 28 (LA28) Supplier Readiness Webinar, the next Meet-up with the Mayor event and the grand opening of the East Los Angeles College Susan Rubio Entrepreneurship and Innovation Center

7.C. Library
Senior Children’s Librarian Blake demonstrated a PowerPoint presentation on previous events hosted by the Library for the month of March and announced upcoming events, which include: the celebration of National Library Week; the Bird Walk and Talk event with the Pasadena Audubon Society; a Spring Gardening Workshop; a Teen Preparedness Workshop; the Teens Visit the Vincent Price Art Museum event; Books and Buccaneers Pirate Party; craft story time in celebration of Dia de Los Niño’s and the announcement of the Play Days Read and Ride program.

7.D. Recreation & Community Services
Recreation and Community Services Coordinator Sauza exhibited a PowerPoint presentation thanking the community for their attendance at the Spring Egg Hunt event, invited the community to attend the Cherry Blossom Festival and announced upcoming events, which include: the Langley Mother's Day Treat, the Rock N Roll Dance, Play Days and the Cinco de Mayo celebration in conjunction with Play Days and the Farmer's Market.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026

8. Presentation

8.A. Miss Los Angeles Chinatown - Victoria Yip
This Agenda Item was heard after Public Communications

Victoria Yip shared her experience growing up in Monterey Park and how it shaped her into the woman she is today. She expressed her gratitude to the City Council for their dedication to the City and to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles for creating a space where young women like her are allowed to thrive and preserve their heritage. She relayed her concerns about the need to increase the time needed for pedestrians to cross the street to prevent pedestrian accidents.

The City Council provided Victoria with a certificate of recognition for her achievement as Miss Los Angeles Chinatown of 2026.

9. Old Business
None.

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved Agenda Items Nos. 10.A., 10.B., 10.C.,

10.E., 10.F., 10.H., 10.I. and 10.J. except for Agenda Item Nos. 10.D. and 10.G. which were pulled for discussion, separate motion, 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
April 1, 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 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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.B. Monthly Investment Report
As of February 28, 2026, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $80,412,416.18.

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 monthly investment report, on Consent Calendar.

10.C. Services Agreement First Amendment to Fifth Asset Inc, DBA Debtbook for Debt, Cash and Investment Management Software and Services 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.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
Recommendations:

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.D. Creation of a Subcommittee on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' SGV Forward Project Proposal
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.

Recommendations:

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.

Discussion: Assistant City Manager Alvarez presented a staff report explaining the subcommittee and the nomination process for representatives.

Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the report and appointed Mayor Pro Tem Lo and Council Member Sanchez as representatives and Mayor Yang as the alternate.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo and seconded by Council Member Wong, motion caried 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.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
Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapters 6.08 and 14.12 establish utility service rules, procedures and criteria, including both the City’s and customers’ responsibilities. The attached proposed ordinance amends several sections in Chapters 6.08 and 14.12, and adds chapters 14.14 and

14.18 to expand the Lifeline Utility Rate Program and clarify billing collections and owner responsibility for water, wastewater, and other city billed utility charges.

Attached resolutions (to the staff report of March 18, 2026) replace the existing $12.06 monthly Lifeline water discount with a discount equal to 100% of the wastewater charge, currently at $22.46, from the wastewater fund; and increase utility account deposit by $50 per meter size.

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 to the staff report).

Recommendations:

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.

Action Taken: The City Council waived the second reading and approved and adopted Ordinance No. 2275, on Consent Calendar.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
Ordinance No. 2275
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

10.F. Amendment to Agreement No. 2444-A with MAK Fire Protection Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

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.

Recommendations:

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.G. 2025 Monterey Park General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report
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.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
Recommendations:

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.

Discussion: Senior Planner Muñoz presented a PowerPoint presentation with an update to the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report.

Action Taken: The City Council received and filed the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report and approved the recommendation.

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

10.H. Amendment to Agreement No. 2529-A with Onyx Paving Company, Inc. concerning the 25-26 Street Rehabilitation at Various Locations Project 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.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
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.

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.

Recommendations:

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.I. Resolution Celebrating Earth Day and Arbor Day 2026 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.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
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.

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R18 and the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 2026-R18
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

10.J. National Pickleball Month Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Ngo)
The attached resolution (to the staff report) is being brought forth to the Council for consideration at the request of 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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R19, on Consent Calendar.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026
Resolution No. 2026-R19
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park, California, declaring and recognizing the month of April 2026 as National Pickleball Month

11. Public Hearing
None.

12. New Business
None.

13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items Council Member Ngo thanked the Recreation and Community Services department for the brand-new pickleball courts in the City, reported his and Mayor Yang's attendance at the Milk and Co restaurant and to the San Gabriel Valley Power Up Beacon's celebration for the local competitive swimmers at the Barnes Park amphitheater. He mentioned his appearance at the Olson Company's meeting at the Service Clubhouse where they engaged with the community regarding a potential project in the City, the Egg Hunt event and the Monterey Vista Elementary School Centennial celebration.

Council Member Wong wished the community a happy Earth Day and Arbor Day, spoke about the upcoming Cherry Blossom festival and expressed his desire to adjust the fees for Monterey Park (MPK) Transit due to its large demand.

Council Member Sanchez emphasized the dire need to implement housing in the City, commented on his attendance at the Olson meeting at Sierra Vista Park and a meeting regarding potential housing development at the Marie Calendars site.

He requested city staff to
remain updated regarding the recent allegations of Cesar Chavez and to invite the Mark Keppel and Garfield High School Academic Decathlon Teams to a future City Council meeting to recognize their achievements this year and wished the community a Happy Easter Holiday.

Mayor Pro Tem Lo echoed his attendance to the same events as his fellow Council Members and shared his appreciation to Monterey Vista Elementary School for their recent centennial celebration.

Mayor Yang reported
a letter received by the City from HMC Stratcap, detailing the applicant’s withdrawal to develop a data center. She announced the information being readily available on the City's website and the date for the next special City Council Meeting which will be held on April 20, 2026.

xx-xx
April 1, 2026

14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce) None.

15. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY, 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
Special Community Meeting
April 9, 2026

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park held a Special Community Meeting of the Council at Crystal Palace Restaurant (Courtyard Marriott Hotel) located at 555 N.

Atlantic Blvd, Suite A, CA, 91754 on Thursday April 9, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order
City Manager Inez Alvarez called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call

City Manager Alvarez called the roll:

Council Members Present: Elizabeth Yang, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez Council Members Absent: Henry Lo, Thomas Wong

Also Present:

Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia
Director of Community Development Timothy Hou
Police Chief Scott Wiese
City Librarian Kristin Olivarez
Economic Development Manager Joseph Torres
Fire Battalion Chief Ryan Weddle
Recreation and Community Services Manager Christina Alatorre Water Utility Assistant Manager George Noriega
Economic Development Specialist Janice Huang
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
City Communications Fellow Citlali Tejeda

Meet Up with The Mayor

I. Welcome: The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.

II. Community members are invited for casual conversations and to learn more about the City with the Mayor of Monterey Park.

III. Adjournment at 6:00 p.m.

xx-xx
April 9, 2026
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Action Taken: No reportable action taken.

_________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY, 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
April 15, 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, Wednesday, April 15, 2026, at 5:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 5:37 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
Police Captain Gus Jimenez
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez

Virtually present:

None.

3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

4. Public Communications
None.

5. Closed Session

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
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 5:37 p.m.

5.A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2): Facts and Circumstances: Not disclosed pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(e)(1).

6. Adjournment
The City Council reconvened from Closed Session at 6:16 p.m. with all Council Members present.

There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 6:16 p.m.

Action Taken: No reportable action taken in Closed Session.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY, 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
April 15, 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 Regular Meeting of the Council in the Council Chamber, located at 320 West Newmark Avenue in the City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, April 15, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 6:51 p.m.

2. Flag Salute
The Monterey Park Police Explorers led the flag salute.

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
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Police Captain Gus Jimenez
Finance Manager Laura Borjon
IT Manager Martin Dinh
Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang

xx-xx
April 15, 2026

Virtually present:

None.

4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
None.

5. Agenda Revisions and Additions
City Manager Alvarez requested to have Agenda Item Nos. 8.A., 8.B. and 8.C. to be heard before Staff Communications.

6. Public Communications
• Dawn Rock, on behalf of the Monterey Park Historical Society, shared her appreciation for the people who visited the Society’s booth during the Cherry Blossom Festival and announced Align With Purpose (AWP), a new non-profit organization committed to strengthening the community's health and well-being, with their first project being the restoration of the Barnes Park pool.

• Jayro Queme, an outreach associate with Active San Gabriel Valley (SGV) a non-profit supporting sustainable and equitable livability in the San Gabriel Valley. He talked about their brand new SGV Bike Share Program where residents can rent bikes for a year for a discounted rate. • The City Clerk’s office received and filed five written communications from Joanne Kawai, Sarah McCormick, Loriann Horn, Nancy Morris and Chalisa Phiboolsook who are in support of an ordinance that prevents residential fences that block original house views of neighbors.

7. Staff Communications
Staff Communications were heard after Presentation Item Nos. 8.A., 8.B. and 8.C.

7.A. City Manager's Office
Assistant City Manager Garcia presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the surveys and events that have been circulating around the City, which include dates for the monthly compost giveaway; the Ware Disposal satisfaction survey; the opportunity to vote for the second annual Community Choice Awards and the Citywide Communication survey.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026

7.B. Recreation and Community Services Department
Director of Recreation and Communication Services Aguirre shared a PowerPoint presentation with an update to the upcoming programs and events in the City. He thanked the people who attended the Cherry Blossom Festival and the staff/volunteers who assisted in the preparation of the event. He announced the Monterey Park Birthday Play Days Festival that will be held in conjunction with the Cinco de Mayo celebration and announced the now sold out MPK Campout event and open registration period for the Kidventure Summer Camp.

8. Presentation
Presentation Item Nos. 8.A., 8.B. and 8.C. were heard after Public Communications.

8.A. Los Angeles Astronomical Society’s 100th Anniversary Recognition Keith Armstrong and Tim Thompson spoke about the history of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society, their principal roles throughout the decades, its
established partnership with Monterey Park and invited the City Council and the residents to visit the observatory to see their current projects.

The City Council presented the Los Angeles Astronomical Society with a certificate of recondition for their recent achievement of celebrating 100 years.

8.B. Mark Keppel High School Academic Decathlon Team
Tin Tran, Head Coach of the Mark Keppel High School Decathlon Team, spoke about the support system the team received throughout the academic year and expressed his gratitude to the team and their achievements.

Council Member Sanchez recognized Ivan Liu as the highest scorer and Amber Kuo as the third-highest scorer in LA County. The City Council presented the Decathlon team with certificates of recognition for their accomplishments.

8.C. Garfield High School Academic Decathlon Team
Brian Cheng, Head Coach for the Garfield High School Academic Decathlon Team, elaborated on his team's accomplishments in winning the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Academic Decathlon. He commented on the symbolic meaning behind his team's first place win and emphasized the ideology of not allowing stereotypes to dictate the path in a person's life.

Council Member Sanchez recognized Joseph Villa for the third-highest scorer in LAUSD. The City Council presented certificates of recognition to the Academic Decathlon team for their achievement.

9. Old Business
None.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026

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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved Agenda Items Nos. 10.A., 10.B., 10.C.,

10.D., 10.E. and 10.H. except for Agenda Item Nos. 10.F. and 10.G. which were pulled for discussion, separate motion, reading resolutions and ordinances by the title only and waiving further reading thereof.

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.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 February 18, 2026, the regular meeting of February 18, 2026 and the special community meeting of February 24, 2026; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.B. Professional Services Master Agreement for Sales Tax, Business License Tax, and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Auditing Services and Utility User’s Tax Administration
The City has two existing agreements with Hinderliter De Llamas and Associates/Hinderliter Software, LLC (HDL) for the sales and transaction tax consulting, business license tax operations, transient occupancy tax (TOT) and auditing services. The proposed master agreement will consolidate the two agreements and will add the utility user’s tax administration services.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
The two existing HDL agreements, No. 1704-AA and No. 2040-A, will terminate with the execution of the proposed HDL master agreement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Master Agreement in a form approved by City Attorney with Hinderliter De Llamas and Associates/Hinderliter Software, LLC (HDL), to approve task-based orders for the listed professional services for a term of five years, June 1, 2026 – May 31, 2031, in an amount not to exceed $500,000:
o Sales and Tax transaction sales,
o Business license tax operations and compliance,
o Transient occupancy tax (TOT) consulting, and
o Utility user’s tax administration services; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.C. Authorize Second Amendment to Agreement No. 2244-AA with E-Plan, Inc./e-PlanSoft for Electronic Plan Review Software
In 2021, the City entered into Agreement No. 2244-AA with E-Plan, Inc/e- PlanSoft (“Agreement”) for electronic building plan check review software, PlanREVIEW. The agreement’s initial five-year term is set to expire on June 15, 2026. It is recommended that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement to continue the software subscription through June 14, 2029 and add two additional licenses, for a total of 14 licenses, for an amount not to exceed $113,228.63 for the term of the Agreement.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to Agreement No. 2244-AA with E-Plan, Inc./e-PlanSoft, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to extend the term for three years through June 14, 2029, and add two additional licenses for digital plan check review software, for an amount not to exceed $113,228.63; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026

10.D. Data Center Ordinance - Notice of Public Hearing Date The City Council previously directed staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting data centers within the City of Monterey Park. Staff has prepared the ordinance and scheduled the required public hearing for City Council consideration.

The public hearing for the ordinance was originally anticipated to be scheduled for April 15. Due to noticing considerations, the public hearing has now been scheduled for April 20 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

This has been communicated via press release, website and social media.

Notice of the public hearing was posted at City Hall, Langley Center, and Bruggemeyer Library, and published in a local newspaper on Monday, March

30. Public notices were also given by mail to owners of property within a radius of 500 feet from the Saturn Park Innovation/Technology Zone and the Market Place Planned Development area. Staff has also added this brief report to the agenda so that the public is aware of the scheduled hearing date.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing this 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.E. Award of Contract for Street Sweeping Services
On May 12, 2025, the Public Works Director (“Director”) solicited bids for street sweeping services under Proposal No. 2025-M02. On August 6, 2025, City Council approved a rejection of all bids due to significant cost increases for service and authorized the City Manager to directly negotiate with a contractor for month-to-month services allowing staff additional time to explore cost-effective options for the City. On January 29, 2026, the Director issued bid No. 2026-M01 for street sweeping services and optional bid items.

Three bids were received by the bid submittal deadline of February 19, 2026.

Based on the evaluation and review of the bids received, the Director recommends an award of contract to the lowest bidder, CMAX Commercial Services, Inc., in the amount of $1,098,458 annually, with annual CPI increases after the first year of the agreement, for a 5-year term beginning July 1, 2026 through June 30, 3031.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities). The Project results in minor alterations to existing public facilities involving no significant expansion of the existing use. The Project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts regarding noise, air quality, or water quality.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with CMAX Commercial Services, Inc., in a form approved by the City Attorney, for street sweeping and catch basin maintenance services in the annual amount of $1,098,458 plus annual CPI increases, for an initial 5-year term beginning July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation, on Consent Calendar.

10.F. Professional Municipal Clerk's Week Resolution
The Office of the City Clerk is celebrating the week of May 3 – May 9, 2026 as Professional Municipal Clerks Week. This week, sponsored by the International Institute of Municipal Clerk’s (IIMC) and celebrated annually, honors and recognizes the Municipal Clerk profession as a vital part of local government celebrated throughout the world including the United States, Canada and 15 other countries. We are enlisting your support in the form of a resolution to honor Professional Municipal Clerks for providing supports to the Council, departmental staff, other agencies, and residents of Monterey Park.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution declaring the week of May 3 – May 9, 2026 as Professional Municipal Clerks Week in Monterey Park; and

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

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
Public Speaker:
• Maychelle Yee, City Clerk, recognized the hard efforts of the City Clerk's staff in Monterey Park and thanked them for their time and dedication to the City.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R20.

Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo 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

Resolution No. 2026-R20
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park declaring May 3 through May 9, 2026 as Professional Municipal Clerks Week in Monterey Park

10.G. National Library Week Resolution
The Monterey Park Bruggemeyer Library is celebrating the week of April 19- 25, 2026 as National Library Week. National Library Week is celebrated nationwide annually in April to highlight the valuable role libraries, librarians, and library workers play in transforming lives and strengthening our communities. Libraries serve as hubs for learning, creativity, and connection, helping people of all ages and backgrounds explore new ideas and opportunities.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a resolution declaring the week of April 19-25, 2026 to be National Library Week in Monterey Park; and

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

Discussion: City Librarian Olivarez shared a staff report detailing National Library Week and its intention to highlight the valuable roles libraries, librarians and library workers play in enhancing the community.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R21.

Motion: Moved by Council Member Ngo 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

Resolution No. 2026-R21
A Resolution declaring April 19 – April 25, 2026 as National Library Week.

10.H. California Cities Week Resolution (As Requested by Council Member Sanchez)
The attached resolution (to the staff report) 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.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R22, on Consent Calendar.

Resolution No. 2026-R22
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Monterey Park recognizing April 19–25, 2026 as California Cities Week

11. Public Hearing
None.

12. New Business
None.

12.A. Amendment to City Council Protocols pursuant to Senate Bill 707 (SB 707)
Updating the Rules of Procedure for conducting all meetings of the legislative bodies within the City, including the implementation of SB 707 requirements.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution revising the Rules of Procedure governing all meetings held by legislative bodies within the City of Monterey Park, including the City Council, to implement SB 707 and modernize existing procedures;

2. Providing guidance on public participation guidelines;

3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment with CivicPlus, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 plus an annual cost adjustment not to exceed 5% year over year, in a form approved by the City Attorney, and appropriate $30,000 for expenses related to Council Chambers audiovisual upgrades, agenda translation, outreach and website enhancements, and additional personnel costs associated with SB 707 compliance; and

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

Public Speaker:
• Maychelle Yee, speaking as a resident, believed there was no need to change the speaking time for public comment, as there normally aren't many people that attend the City Council meetings unless it is for a controversial item.

Discussion: Deputy City Clerk Trang presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing Senate Bill 707, its two phases of implementation and requested guidance from the City Council regarding public comment procedures during the City Council meetings.

Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia elaborated on the process of implementing SB 707 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance procedures staff has taken for the community.

Action Taken: The City Council approved and adopted Resolution No. 2026- R23, provided guidance to staff on public participation guidelines, which include: a registration deadline of 15 minutes after a meeting, five minute speaking time for five or fewer speakers, three minute speaking time for six to twenty speakers, two minute speaking time for twenty-one to forty speakers and one minute speaking time for forty-one or more speakers, and approved the recommendation.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
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

Resolution No. 2026-R23
A Resolution establishing procedural rules for conducting legislative meetings within the City of Monterey Park

12.B. Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the City Manager's Employment Agreement for a three-year term (with options for one to two year extensions) with Ms.

Inez Alvarez. Fiscal Impacts include, without limitation, a (1) base compensation for a total of $315,731.60 beginning the first full pay period after July 1, 2026; (2) vehicle allowance of $600 per month; and (3) medical, disability, an other fringe benefits included, without limitation, CalPERS retirement benefits substantially the same as other department directors. The total compensation package is approximately $1,040,838.70 for the initial three year term. An increase in base salary would occur upon the anniversary date based upon the percentage increase granted by the City Council to executive management employees.

Upon direction from the City Council, the City Attorney negotiated an amendment to the existing employment agreement with Ms. Inez Alvarez to serve as City Manager. This amendment includes a three-year initial term beginning July 1, 2026. Ms. Alvarez was appointed City Manager on November 15, 2023.

A summary of the Agreement (see Attachment 1 to the staff report) includes:
• A base salary of $315,731.60 beginning the first full pay period after July 1, 2026;
• $600 a month car allowance; and
• Substantially similar benefits (health, leave times, etc.) as other executive management employees.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the employment agreement with Ms. Inez Alvarez, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and

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

Action Taken: The City Council approved the recommendation.

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

13. City Communications (City Council) / Future Agenda Items Council Member Ngo talked about his attendance at the Cherry Blossom Festival and mentioned the City's first celebration of Arbor Day. He spoke about his appearance at Congresswoman Judy Chu's Women of the Year award ceremony where they celebrated Women of the Year nominee Cindy Kuo.

Council Member Ngo spoke about filing taxes before midnight.

Council Member Sanchez reported his attendance at the Metro Service Council Meeting and announced the upcoming free transit rates with Metro for Earth Day and the new Metro D-Line extension ribbon-cutting ceremony that will take place May 8, 2026.

Mayor Pro Tem Lo spoke in recognition for Cindy Kuo's nomination of Woman of the Year and reported his attendance to the Chinese American Alliance Dinner and to the American Chinese Cambodian Friendship Association for the celebration of Lunar New Year, and thanked staff for a successful Cherry Blossom Festival.

xx-xx
April 15, 2026
Mayor Yang thanked the Crystal Palace and to City staff for hosting another Meet- up with the Mayor event, commented on the recent community meetings about the Deerfield plaza and the upcoming community meeting about the potential Celedon project, and announced the upcoming special ribbon cutting ceremony of the Susan Rubio Entrepreneurship & Innovation Center at East Los Angeles Community College. She reminded the public of the upcoming special City Council meeting of April 20, 2026.

14. Closed Session (if Required; City Attorney to Announce) None.

15. Adjournment
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

_____________________
Maychelle Yee
City Clerk

Approved on MM DD, YYYY, 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
April 20, 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 Monday, April 20, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

The Agenda was amended to reflect the live translation information.

1. Call to Order
Mayor Yang called the meeting to order at 7:08 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 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
City Librarian Kristin Olivarez
Director of Public Works Shawn Igoe
Police Chief Scott Wiese
Fire Chief Jason Hing
Recreation and Community Services Manager Christina Alatorre Principal Management Analyst Rebecca Bojorquez
Deputy City Clerk Cindy Trang

Virtually present:

None.

xx-xx
April 20, 2026

3. Public Communications

4. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested

5. Public Hearing

5.A. Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to 1) adopt an urgency ordinance to enact a citywide prohibition on data centers; 2) introduce and waive first reading of a regular ordinance to enact a citywide prohibition on data centers; and 3) introduce and waive first reading of a regular ordinance that would implement Measure NDC and become effective the same date as Measure NDC, if adopted by voters on June 2, 2026
The City Council has considered regulating data centers since 2024. Since that time, the Council has made various policy choices including amending the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) to regulate data centers in Saturn Park; adopting interim moratoria on processing data center applications; and, most recently, placing a city-sponsored ballot measure onto the June 2, 2026 special election (designated as Measure NDC).

On March 4, 2026, the City Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate a process to consider a citywide prohibition on data centers before the voters consider Measure NDC. A public hearing was noticed for a special meeting on April 20, 2026, to consider proposed amendments to the MPMC prohibiting data centers citywide. If adopted, the three draft ordinances would make the same changes to the MPMC: converting the City Council’s recent interim actions into a permanent land use policy by prohibiting data centers citywide, declaring them a public nuisance, and removing them from Saturn Park zoning regulations and the Market Place Specific Plan. They would also make it apparent that server rooms are an accessory use to otherwise lawful primary land uses.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): This Ordinance is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) for the following reasons:

A. It will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15060(c)(2)). A prohibition on data centers means they cannot be constructed.

B. There is no possibility that the Proposition may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). A prohibition on data centers means they cannot be constructed.

C. This Ordinance, by itself, do not constitute a “project” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378).

xx-xx
April 20, 2026
D. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(2) provides that if a project is proposed which has been the subject of a prior certified EIR, and “[i]f the [City] finds that pursuant to [14 Cal. Code of Regs.] Section 15162, no new effects could occur or new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the … EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” The City Council finds that it certified a Final Environmental Impa
ct Report (“FEIR”) for the Monterey Park Land
Use and Urban Design Element (as adopted by Ordinance No. 2198 and approved by voters as Measure JJ on November 3, 2020) which was filed as State Clearing House No. 2001-01-1074. This Proposition will not result in any new environmental impact not already considered in the FEIR and no further environmental review is required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Opening a public hearing to receive written and testimonial evidence regarding a potential citywide prohibition on data centers;

2. After receiving such evidence, consider:
a. Adopting an urgency ordinance that would take effect immediately upon adoption to enact a citywide prohibition on data centers;
b. Introducing and waiving first reading of a regular ordinance to enact a citywide prohibition on data centers;
c. Introducing and waving first reading of a regular ordinance that would implement Measure NDC and become effective the same date as Measure NDC, if adopted by voters on June 2, 2026, in accordance with the Elections Code and Measure NDC; and

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

Public Speakers:
• David Moore, representing the Laborers International Union of North America, showed his support of responsible data center development jobs. He believed the development of a data center would provide tax revenue that supports public services and claimed rejecting projects before they are heard from the City Council was unfair.

• Ralph Velador, on behalf of the Southern California District Council of Laborers, stated projects should go through a vetting process and not be outlawed before they are heard for consideration.

xx-xx
April 20, 2026
• Dave Jones voiced his support for an ordinance to prohibit data centers city-wide and stated that other development opportunities would provide long-lasting jobs.

• Felicia Sandoval showed her support for a ban on data centers as she believed data centers would not provide anything beneficial for the community.

• Yun Wang urged residents to vote 'YES' on Measure NDC, provided context on the canvasing efforts from community members, and claimed most residents did not want a data center in Monterey Park.

• LS Szeto commented on the residents' desire not to develop a data center in the City and instead, develop a project that will benefit the community.

• Carrie urged the City Council to vote ‘YES’ on the proposed ordinances as she believed the public testimony received in previous City Council meetings was enough to decide what is right for Monterey Park.

• Madeline Ocampo showed her support for all three proposed ordinances and elaborated on the potential negative effects of data centers.

• Emily Chu expressed her support for Agenda Item No. 5.A. and shared her appreciation with the City Council for listening to the community.

She provided context about the negative effects of data centers and claimed the residents received a serious breach of trust by the City Council.

• Hrag Balian articulated the potential negative effects of data centers in a community and urged the City Council to pass the proposed ordinances for consideration.

• Larry Bustos, member of the Laborers Union, strongly and respectfully opposed
the proposed Citywide prohibition of data centers. He believed progress and construction meant good local union jobs that provide family wages, healthcare and retirement security.

• Jose Radillo spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance to ban data centers permanently. He stated it provides career pathways and allows working families to support themselves with dignity.

xx-xx
April 20, 2026
• Vicente Ocampo questioned the union's leadership and clarified that the residents’ welcome unions, but not for the development of data centers.

• Joyce Vega urged the City Council to pass the proposed ordinances to permanently ban data centers and claimed artificial intelligence was not a necessity in comparison to clean water and clean air.

• Sam K spoke hoping the City Council would continue to do the right thing and permanently ban data centers.

• Cesar Lamas, member of the Laborers International Union of North America, spoke about the importance of working to put food on the table.

• Chris Lai exhibited a video showcasing the alleged sound data centers produce and explained the potential pollution and water consumption a data center can bring to the community. He claimed property value would decrease and suggested the construction of Whole Foods or Trader Joe's.

• Eleanor showed her support for the proposed ordinances and requested the City Council to research more on the battery-centered storage system as she believed it is a potential fire hazard.

• An unidentifiable registered speaker commented on the resident’s decision to not implement a data center and claimed the City is not listening to the needs of the residents. She questioned who the City Council works for and requested the addition of affordable housing.

• Susan Garcia submitted a speaker card but was not present when her name was called.

• Steven Kung, a union member of the Directors Guild and Writers Guild, claimed the union members present at the meeting are special interests in the pockets of big technological corporations. He reiterated the residents' opposition to the development of data centers and showcased their support for unions. He elaborated on potential projects that provide better revenue and community solidarity.

• Humaira, Pasadena resident, showed her support for the proposed ordinance to ban data centers citywide as she believed the implementation of one would have negative impacts on the surrounding cities.

xx-xx
April 20, 2026
• Jayson Baiz from the Laborers International Union of North America spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinances. He claimed the project would provide a living wage for their families and taking it away would be detrimental to their lives.

• Paul Lange talked about the pros and cons of having job opportunities in a community. He provided his input on the amount of passion the residents have exhibited throughout the entire process.

• Alice Li expressed her support towards the three proposed ordinances and believed they were a crucial step to protecting families and children.

• Felicia Marquez articulated her gratitude to the residents who spent time fighting for the issue.

• Teresa encouraged the community members to vote 'yes' on Measure NDC and emphasized the City Council's need to act on what they believe in.

• Angelica thanked the City Council for the time given to the residents for public comment. She elaborated on her confusion regarding the Union members' claims about the job opportunities a development of a data center would bring for the residents.

• Christal Lee provided her input on the proposed ordinances and requested the residents to vote 'yes' on Measure NDC.

• Caleb shared his appreciation with the City Council for listening to the residents and taking the steps necessary to protect the residents. He requested the City Council to include the banning of battery energy storage systems as they may potentially lead to uncontrollable chemical fires.

• Patrick Chavira echoed Caleb's sentiments regarding the ban of battery energy storage systems, and the inclusion of the ban of any large operating systems that house illegal data. He claimed the philosophy of artificial intelligence is at the expense of others and will replace the workforce.

• Al Sanchez submitted a speaker card but was not present when his name was called.