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
Special Meeting
Monterey Park City Hall, Room 266
320 W. Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754
Wednesday, September 2, 2026
5:30 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 8 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.
Addressing the Council
Pursuant to Government Code § 54954.3(a), members of the public may address the City Council only on matters listed on this Agenda. No other public comment will be accepted. Pursuant to Rule 4 of Resolution No. 2026-R23, the speaker time limits will be determined based on the number of speakers requesting to speak. If desirable, the Mayor and City Council may change the time limits.
Instructions for public participation are available on the City's website at www.montereypark.ca.gov/agendas. Written Communication will be accepted up to three (3) hours before the meeting by completing an online form available at www.montereypark.ca.gov/writtencomm.
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.
The City Council will recess into Closed Session following public comment and any Open Session items. Public participation is not allowed during Closed Session.
1. Call to Order
Mayor
2. Roll Call
Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang
3. Telecommunications Announcement, if requested
4. Public Comments
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.
5.A. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)). Case:Chan, et al. v. City of Monterey Park, et al. (filed June 25, 2026) USDC Case No. 2:26-cv-06953.
5.B. Conference with Legal Counsel, Initiation of Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4)). Number of Potential Cases: One. Facts and Circumstances:
Administrative Hearing Order dated August 28, 2026.
6. Adjournment
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
ADR SERVICES, INC.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BETWEEN
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK,
Claimants,
v.
EDWARD CHAN, et al.
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ADRS NO: 26-3962-SPP
DECISION AND ORDER RE
ABATEMENT
Hearing Officer: Hon. Stephen P. Pfahler
Hearing Dates: June 29, 2026 (continued);
July 20, 2026
Property: 795 West Garvey Avenue
Monterey Park, California
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter came on for hearing before the undersigned, an independent, retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, sitting as Hearing Officer pursuant to the Los Angeles County Superior Court's June 1, 2026 order granting the Chans' petition for writ of mandate (the "Writ Order") and Monterey Park Municipal Code ("MPMC") § 4.30.110. The Writ Order set aside a prior Order of Abatement issued by the Monterey Park City Council on September 17, 2025, following an administrative hearing at which the Council found the property at 795 West Garvey Avenue (the "Property") to be a public nuisance. The Honorable Judge Lipner's order directed that the matter be reheard, de novo, before an independent hearing officer.
This Hearing Officer has no prior involvement in this matter, and no decision-maker in this proceeding prejudged the merits in advance of the hearing. This Decision is based solely on Hon. Stephen Pfahler
ADR SERVICES, INC.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90067
(310) 201-0010 PH
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
the evidence and testimony admitted at the July 20, 2026 hearing and does not rely upon, and gives no weight to, any finding, determination, or order issued at the September 17, 2025 hearing.
The Hearing Officer first convened the hearing on June 29, 2026, at which time the parties stipulated to continue the matter. The continued hearing was held on July 20, 2026. Two witnesses testified under oath: Reymundo Lozano, Supervising Code Compliance Officer, for the City of Monterey Park (the "City"); and Edward M. Chan, for the Responsible Persons/Respondents (the "Chans"). The parties stipulated that all exhibits offered were deemed admitted. (Hearing Transcript [“Tr.”], p. 34.)
In lieu of oral closing argument, the parties agreed to submit written closing briefs. Both parties timely submitted their closing briefs on August 12, 2026, and, thus, the matter was taken under submission.
The City bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a public nuisance exists on the Property. (Tr. 28; 153:19–25.) This is a clean-slate, de novo hearing on the merits.
II. NOTICE AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
Notice of this hearing was provided pursuant to MPMC § 4.30.110 and the Writ Order, including a notice dated June 5, 2026, served by USPS mail, certified mail, electronic mail to the Responsible Persons, and posting on the Property. The notice was addressed to Raymond Man- Shu Chan and Cindy Chung Chan (individually and as trustees of the Chan Family Trust and Chan Family Living Trust); Howard M. Chan; Patricia Yu Chan; Edward M. Chan (individually and as trustee of the Chan Family Living Trust); and Man Fei Chan (a.k.a. Man Fei Gold). The notice identified the date, time, location, and alleged violations to be heard, consistent with the Writ Order.
The Chans submitted written Objections to the notice on June 26, 2026, and subsequently submitted amended Objections. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the Objections in their entirety and heard argument from both sides.
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
As a general matter, the Hearing Officer finds that the City provided more than the legally required notice. While nothing prevented the parties from agreeing to a different hearing date, the City was not required to continue the hearing or set it for a later date. The Objections to Notice in its entirety are OVERRULED.
Moreover, all counsel and parties appeared at the June 29, 2026, hearing, at which no evidence was taken. Instead, that hearing was continued, per agreement of the parties, to July 20, 2026. This Hearing Officer finds that the Chans were provided sufficient notice of both hearings, and they fully knew and understood the specific nature of the allegations against them in the hearing.
As to specific statements identified in Items 5 through 10 of the Objections, they are OVERRULED: the introductory phrase "without limitation" does not deprive the Chans of notice of the enumerated violations that follow, and the City's PowerPoint presentation is demonstrative summary evidence — its omission of an asterisk denoting a "continuing violation" for MPMC §§
4.30.030(j)(3), (j)(4), 6.30.030(a), 6.30.050(d)(1), and (d)(5) does not narrow or waive those properly noticed violations, which the Chans remain free to contest on the merits.
The Objections listed in Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12 are OVERRULED IN PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART: any abatement order issued following this hearing will comply with MPMC §§ 4.30.100(a), 4.30.110(c), and 4.30.120, meaning the Chans will be afforded a defined cure period before the City may abate or demolish, and cost recovery will be limited to abatement costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as provided in MPMC § 4.30.110(c) — not the broader categories referenced in the Notice — and the Notice's blanket incorporation by reference of prior notices is disregarded, with only the allegations and evidence specifically identified in the Notice.
III. MOTION IN LIMINE
The Chans submitted a motion in limine seeking to exclude reference to, and evidence arising from, the September 17, 2025 administrative hearing, the resulting Abatement Order, and matters derived therefrom. The Hearing Officer reviewed the motion, heard oral argument from both sides, and took the matter under submission. The Hearing Officer now rules as follows:
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks to preclude the City from introducing evidence that the Property is presently a public nuisance. The motion is GRANTED to the extent either party seeks to introduce findings or orders from the September 17, 2025 administrative hearing. This distinction reflects that evidence bearing on the Property's present condition is properly before the Hearing Officer in this de novo proceeding, while findings or determinations made in the vacated 2025 proceeding are not, and carry no evidentiary weight here. As previously stated, this is a clean-slate, de novo hearing on the merits.
The point is moot in any event, as the City stipulated it does not rely on the prior Council's findings or Abatement Order as evidence in this proceeding. (Tr. 13–14.)
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Having considered the sworn testimony of Reymundo Lozano and Edward M. Chan, the admitted exhibits, and the parties' closing briefs, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact.
1. The Chans purchased the Property, a commercial parcel at 795 West Garvey Avenue, in 2007. The prior gas station on the Property was demolished in or about 2017–2018, and a foundation was poured in late 2018. (City's Ex. 11.)
2. Code enforcement activity concerning the Property began in late 2020. Officer Lozano became the lead code compliance officer for the Property in February 2021. By that time, no construction activity was occurring on the Property. (Tr. 51.)
3. A first building permit for the Property expired in September 2022 for failure to call inspections within the required six-month interval. A second permit, issued in February 2023, expired in August 2023. A third permit, issued in January 2024, expired in July 2024, was reinstated in February 2025, expired again in March 2026, and was reinstated on June 22, 2026. (City's Ex. 11; Chan's Exs. CHAN 000031–000032.) This history reflects at least six separate permit expirations for inactivity since 2022. (City's Ex. 11.)
4. The City issued notices concerning the partial-construction condition of the Property in May and December 2023. The December 2023 notice set construction milestones
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
developed with the City's building official; none of those milestones were met. (City's Exs. 3–4.)
5. Across years of monitoring the Property, the only construction activity Officer Lozano ever personally observed was excavation and trenching for a stormwater/low-impact- development ("LID") system, first observed shortly before the original hearing date. (Tr. 91, 139.)
6. As of the July 20, 2026 hearing, the only visible activity on the Property was recently dug trenches containing unconnected green pipe, placed the day before the hearing; no work had been performed on the building structure or roof. (Tr. 91.) Edward Chan conceded the pipe had been placed shortly before the hearing, that the LID plumbing remained incomplete, that the prior contractor had left the project, and that completion would require an additional six to twelve months of work at an estimated cost of $500,000 to $2,000,000. (Tr. 138–139, 148.)
7. Edward Chan's testimony concerning the existence and scope of a general contractor retained for the entire project was internally inconsistent. Chan did not identify the alleged general contractor by name, did not produce any contract establishing retention of a general contractor for the full scope of the project, and was careful in his phrasing not to attribute the estimated cost or timeline directly to any such contractor. (Tr. 138–140, 146–147.) When asked why roof work could not proceed concurrently with the LID work, Chan first attributed the constraint to site-access issues caused by the trenches, then admitted the roof assessment came from a separate, unidentified individual he had contacted — not from his general contractor — after having testified moments earlier that his general contractor had advised him on the roof. (Tr. 139, 141.) The Hearing Officer finds Edward Chan's testimony regarding the existence, scope, and advice of a general contractor for the entire project not credible on these issues.
8. The City took possession of the Property under an abatement warrant on September 29, 2025, and returned possession to the Chans on or about June 2–3, 2026 — a period of approximately 258 days. (Tr. 83–84, 121:23–122:10.) During that period, the City maintained the Property in or about the same condition than it received it. (Tr. 39.) The
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
condition giving rise to this proceeding — years of stalled, partial construction — predates the City's possession by approximately four to five years and was not created or caused by the City's temporary custody.
9. After taking possession, the City identified deficiencies including roof damage estimated at approximately $120,000 to repair, and mold and potential structural issues that require remediation as of the hearing date. (Tr. 83–84, 142; City's Exs. 6, 8.) Edward Chan testified the mold would be addressed only after construction is completed. (Tr. 142.)
10. The City received complaints from members of the public regarding the unsightly appearance of the Property, which sits on a prominent commercial corridor of the City at the corner of West Garvey Avenue and South Atlantic Boulevard. (Tr. 54–55.)
11. Following the return of possession in June 2026, the Chans repaired fencing, replaced sandbags, cleared vegetation, renewed the building permit, and resumed trenching work related to the LID system. (Tr. 128–135.) A current building permit is in effect. (Tr. 86.) The Property is fenced, is not currently a danger to the public, has no current graffiti, and has no outstanding citations, the last citation having issued in 2024. (Tr. 98–99, 104– 105.)
12. A Structural Observation Report dated July 23, 2026, prepared by the project's structural observer of record, notes no deficiencies in the rough framing, shear walls, and roof sheathing observed as of that date. (Chans' Ex. A attached to closing brief.) This report addresses framing-stage structural observation; it does not address the roof-covering repair estimate or mold conditions identified in City's Exhibit 6, and does not alter the findings below as to those separate conditions.
13. Notwithstanding the Chans' recent efforts, the Property remains, as of the date of hearing, in substantially the same condition of incompleteness that has persisted since construction activity effectively ceased around 2020–2021: an unfinished commercial structure with an unrepaired roof, unremediated mold, and no completed work beyond trenching for the LID system. The Chans' recent activity, while genuine, followed a pattern — documented in this record on at least two occasions, in May 2025 and again in
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
mid-2026 — of intermittent activity concentrated around scheduled hearings, followed by extended periods of inactivity. (Tr. 50–80.)
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Legal Standard
Both parties acknowledge in their respective briefs that the City bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a public nuisance exists on the Property. (MPMC § 4.30.110; Tr. 28.) Where a legislative body has declared a condition to be a nuisance by ordinance, that condition is a nuisance per se, and "no proof is required, beyond the actual fact of their existence, to establish the nuisance." (City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 378, 382.) The inquiry is narrow: whether the statutory violation occurred and whether the ordinance is constitutionally valid. (City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1087; City of Bakersfield v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 93, 100.)
B. MPMC § 4.30.050(c) — Partial Construction
MPMC § 4.30.050(c) declares it a public nuisance to maintain "[a]ny building or structure which is partially destroyed, damaged, abandoned, boarded up, dilapidated, or permitted to remain in a state of partial construction." The Chans argue, under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, that "permitted to remain in a state of partial construction" must be read as limited to buildings sharing the character of the preceding terms — destroyed, damaged, abandoned, dilapidated. (See Barrett v. Superior Ct. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1190; Busker v. Wabtec Corp. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1147, 1160 fn.11.)
The Hearing Officer need not resolve that interpretive question in the abstract, because the record clearly establishes conditions that fall squarely within the class the Chans themselves identify. This is not simply a project that is running long. The evidence shows a structure with a roof requiring approximately $120,000 in repair, unremediated mold, and potential structural issues — conditions consistent with "damaged" and "dilapidated" within the plain meaning of the ordinance — combined with a documented, years-long history of stalled work: three successive lapsed permits, missed milestones set by the City's own building official in December 2023, and
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
no construction activity of any kind observed by the City's code officer between 2021 and mid- 2026 other than recent trenching. On this record, the Property has been both "permitted to remain in a state of partial construction" and plainly reflects the indicia of disrepair the Chans contend the statute requires. The Hearing Officer finds the City has proven, by substantially more than a preponderance of the evidence, that the Property violates MPMC § 4.30.050(c), and that this condition is a nuisance per se. (City of Costa Mesa v. Soffer, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 382; see also County of Sacramento v. NKS Real Estate Holdings, Inc. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 390, 402.) The Chans' recent trenching activity does not defeat this finding. A public nuisance "can be continuing, can become worse[,] or can be abated in whole or part with the passage of time." (Clary v. City of Crescent City (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 274, 296.) A brief, last-minute effort — here, the placement of unconnected pipe in trenches the day before (or a few days before) the hearing — does not retroactively cure years of documented inactivity, particularly where the record reflects this same pattern of hearing-adjacent activity has recurred at least twice. (Finding 13, supra.)
Nor does the City's 258-day possession of the Property excuse the condition. This possession came the way of a valid Court order. The record establishes that meaningful construction ceased around 2020–2021 and that the permit history reflects inactivity predating the City's September 2025 possession by years. The City maintained the Property in substantially the same condition than it received it, and the Chans' own representative estimated, both before and after the City's possession, that six to twelve months of work remained — confirming the Property was far from complete before the City ever took possession. The 258-day period does not break the causal connection between the Chans' years of inaction and the condition found here.
C. MPMC § 4.30.050(k) — Unsightly or Defective Condition MPMC § 4.30.050(k) declares a public nuisance where building exteriors and roofs are "maintained in such condition so as to become defective, unsightly, cracked or no longer viable." The roof repair estimate of approximately $120,000, the unremediated mold, and the sustained public complaints regarding the Property's appearance on a prominent commercial corridor
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
together establish that the exterior and roof condition is "offensive to the senses" and constitutes a blight sufficient to support a nuisance finding under this subsection and under the general nuisance definitions of MPMC § 4.30.040 and Civil Code §§ 3479–3480. (Clary, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 292.)
The July 23, 2026 Structural Observation Report offered by the Chans addresses framing- stage structural conformance and does not rebut the separate roof-covering and mold conditions documented in the record. (Finding 12, supra.) The Hearing Officer finds the City has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Property violates MPMC § 4.30.050(k).
D. Present Nuisance
The Chans have been in possession of the Property for approximately nine years. In that time, and notwithstanding recent, increased but insufficient construction activity, progress toward completion has been minimal. The Hearing Officer finds that a present public nuisance exists on the Property under MPMC §§ 4.30.050(c) and (k).
VI. REMEDY AND ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Because the Property constitutes a public nuisance, MPMC § 4.30.070 directs that it be abated "by rehabilitation, demolition, repair, cessation of use or a combination thereof . . . reasonably required to abate the public nuisance." The Hearing Officer expressly finds that demolition is not an appropriate remedy on this record. The Property has been ever-so-slowly inching towards completion; neither party requested demolition, and the evidence supports a remedy directed at completion rather than destruction of the existing structure.
The Hearing Officer adopts a remedy combining the completion framework proposed by the Chans with the oversight mechanisms proposed by the City, as set forth below.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Property at 795 West Garvey Avenue, Monterey Park, California, is declared a public nuisance under MPMC §§ 4.30.050(c) and (k), and independently under MPMC §
4.30.040 and Civil Code §§ 3479–3480.
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
2. Demolition is not ordered as a remedy. Neither party requested demolition, and none is warranted on this record.
3. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of this Order, the Chans must complete repair of the roof to code and remediation of all mold and any related structural issues identified in the record.
4. Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, the Chans must complete construction of the Property to certificate-of-occupancy stage, including completion of the LID/stormwater system, parking lot, and all remaining structural, mechanical, and finish work under the currently approved building plans.
5. The Chans must permit inspection of the Property and construction progress by the City at intervals of not less than ninety (90) days. If the City reasonably determines that a ninety-day milestone has not been met, the parties may mutually agree in writing to continue said deadlines or to create new milestones, or, in the alternative, the City may apply to the Hearing Officer for further direction or relief; this paragraph does not itself impose forfeiture or penalty for a missed ninety-day milestone standing alone.
6. If construction is not completed to certificate-of-occupancy stage within twelve (12) months of the date of this Order, the Chans must, within thirty (30) days thereafter, either (a) obtain a construction performance bond in an amount sufficient to complete construction according to the currently approved building plans, or (b) place not less than $2,000,000 in an escrow account dedicated to financing completion of construction.
Should either the performance bond or escrow be activated under this paragraph, the City is then authorized to take control of the Property to supervise completion of construction according to the currently approved plans, pursuant to an abatement warrant as may be required by law.
7. The Hearing Officer retains jurisdiction over this matter to monitor compliance with this Order, to resolve disputes between the parties concerning construction progress, and to take further action, including additional abatement remedies, if the milestones set forth above are not met.
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
8. The City is the prevailing party in this proceeding. The City's entitlement to recover its costs of abatement, including reasonable attorneys' fees, under MPMC § 4.30.110(c) and Government Code § 38773.5(b), is confirmed; however, determination of the amount of any such costs and fees is held in abeyance pending completion of construction or further order of the Hearing Officer.
9. Upon the Chans' completion of construction to certificate-of-occupancy stage, as verified by the City's Building Division, this Order shall be extinguished, and the Hearing Officer's retained jurisdiction under Paragraph 7 shall terminate, except as to any then- pending dispute regarding costs and fees under Paragraph 8.
VII. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
This Decision and Order is a final order of the Hearing Officer pursuant to MPMC §
4.30.110(d). Any person aggrieved by this Decision and Order may seek judicial review by filing a petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6. The petition must be filed no later than the ninetieth (90th) day following the date this Decision and Order becomes final. There is no right of appeal to the Monterey Park City Council.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2026 ________________________ Hon. Stephen P. Pfahler (Ret.)
Hearing Officer
ADR Services, Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE
State of California
County of Los Angeles
I certify that I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, California, 90071.
On August 28, 2026, I served the foregoing document described as the DECISION AND ORDER RE ABATEMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows:
SEE SERVICE LIST
□
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the document(s) to be sent to the offices of the addresses via File & ServeXpress Electronic Service pursuant to the terms of the Case Management Order/Pre-Trial Order(s). The transmission was reported as complete and without error. ☒
BY EMAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from [email protected] to the persons at the email addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
□ BY U.S. MAIL: I caused such envelope with postage thereon to be placed in the United States mail in Los Angeles, California.
□ BY FACSIMILE: I caused such to be faxed to the attorneys on August 28, 2026. □ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the attorneys on August 28, 2026. ☒ STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. □ FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
□ BY CERTIFIED MAIL: I caused such envelope with postage thereon to be placed in the United States mail in Los Angeles, California.
Executed on August 28, 2026 in Los Angeles, California by
Greg Figueroa
Service List
RE: CHAN, et al. v. CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, et al.
ADRS Case No. 26-3962-SPP
COUNSEL REPRESENTING
Brandon Gilligan, Esq., Hannah Hamblin, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
Five Park Plaza, Suite 1600
Irvine, California 92614
[email protected], [email protected]
(949) 475-1500, (949) 475-1500
Representing Petitioner, Edward M. Chan, Howard M. Chan Patrick Bobko, Esq.
BOBKO LAW APC
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, California 92660-7908
[email protected]
(949) 432-9975
Representing Petitioner, Edward M. Chan, Howard M. Chan Timothy Campen, Esq., Alena Shamos, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1600
San Diego, California 92101
[email protected],
[email protected]
(619) 814-5800, (619) 814-5800
Representing Respondent, City of Monterey Park, Monterey Park City Council Karl Berger, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP
444 South Flower Street, 4000
Los Angeles, California 90071
[email protected]
(213) 236-0600
Representing Respondent, City of Monterey Park, Monterey Park City Council Patricia Chan, In Propria Persona
1560 Vía Del Rey South
Pasadena, California 91030
[email protected]
(800) 000-0000
Representing Interested Party, Patricia Yu Chan
Date: Aug. 28, 2026
Century City • Los Angeles • San Francisco • Oakland • San Jose • Orange County • San Diego
COUNSEL REPRESENTING
Man Fei Chan, In Propria Persona
15457 Eagle Tavern Lane
Centreville, Virginia 20120
[email protected]
(800) 000-0000
Representing Interested Party, Man Fei Chan aka Man Fei Gold Raymond Man-Shu Chan, In Propria Persona
5485 East Estate Ridge Road
Anaheim, California 92807
[email protected]
(800) 000-0000
Representing Interested Party, Raymond Man-Shu Chan
Cindy Chung, In Propria Persona
5485 East Estate Ridge Road
Anaheim, California 92807
[email protected]
(800) 000-0000
Representing Interested Party, Cindy Chung Chan
Edward Chan, In Propria Persona
1560 Vía Del Rey South
Pasadena, California 91030
[email protected]
(800) 000-0000
Representing Interested Party, Edward M. Chan as Trustee of the Chan Family Living Trust
Century City • Los Angeles • San Francisco • Oakland • San Jose • Orange County • San Diego