AGENDA
Garden Grove City
Council
Tuesday, August 8, 2023
6:30 PM
Community Meeting
Center 11300 Stanford
Avenue Garden Grove
California 92840
Steve Jones
Mayor
George S. Brietigam
Mayor Pro Tem - District 1
John R. O'Neill
Council Member - District 2
Cindy Tran
Council Member - District 3
Joe DoVinh
Council Member - District 4
Stephanie Klopfenstein
Council Member - District 5
Kim B. Nguyen
Council Member - District 6
Meeting Assistance: Any person requiring auxiliary aids and services, due to a disability, to address the City Council, should contact the City Clerk's Office 72 hours prior to the meeting to arrange for accommodations. Phone: (714) 741-5040.
Agenda Item Descriptions
: Are intended to give a brief, general description of the item. The City Council may take legislative action deemed appropriate with respect to the item and is not limited to the recommended action indicated in staff reports or the agenda.
Documents/Writings
: Any revised or additional documents/writings related to an item on the agenda distributed to all or a majority of the Council Members within 72 hours of a meeting, are made available for public inspection at the same time (1) in the City Clerk's Office at 11222 Acacia Parkway, Garden Grove, CA 92840, during normal business hours; (2) on the City's website as an attachment to the City Council meeting agenda; and (3) at the Council Chamber at the time of the meeting.
Public Comments
: Members of the public who attend the meeting in-person and would like to address the City Council are requested to complete a pink speaker card indicating their name and address, and identifying the subject matter they wish to address. This card should be given to the City Clerk before the meeting begins. General comments are made during "Oral Communications" and should be limited to matters under consideration and/or what the City Council has jurisdiction over.
Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding a Public Hearing matter will be called to the podium at the time the matter is being considered.
Manner of Addressing the City Council
: After being called by the Mayor, you may approach the podium, it is requested that you state your name for the record, and proceed to address the City Council. All remarks and questions should be addressed to the City Council as a whole and not to individual Council Members or staff members. Any person making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing the City Council shall be called to order by the Mayor.If such conduct continues, the Mayor may order the person barred from addressing the City Council any further during that meeting.
Time Limitation
: When any group of persons wishes to address the City Council on the same subject matter, the Mayor may request a spokesperson be chosen to represent the group, so as to
GARDEN GROVf
avoid unnecessary repetition.At the City Council's discretion, a limit on the total amount of time for public comments during Oral Communications and/or a further limit on the time allotted to each speaker during Oral Communications may be set.
PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING.
AGENDA
COUNCIL MEMBER O'NEILL, COUNCIL MEMBER TRAN, COUNCIL
MEMBER DOVINH, COUNCIL MEMBER KLOPFENSTEIN, COUNCIL
MEMBER K. NGUYEN, MAYOR PRO TEM BRIETIGAM, MAYOR JONES
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
1. PRESENTATIONS
1.a. Community Spotlight in recognition of Serena Doan Trang Nguyen, CEO of dtn.tech for being selected by the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Orange County/Inland Empire District Office as the 2023 Small Business Week District’s Woman Owned Business.
1.b. Drowning Prevention Presentation from Orange County Fire Authority Division Chief Covey.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (to be held simultaneously with other legislative bodies)
RECESS
CONDUCT OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODIES' BUSINESS
RECONVENE
3. CONSENT ITEMS
(Consent Items will be acted on simultaneously with one motion unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Council Member .)
3.a. Consideration and approval to submit a response to the Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood” Are cities
responsibly managing the integration of group homes? (Action Item)
3.b. Acceptance of City Project No. CP-1292000 for Traffic Signal Installation and Modifications at Various Locations - FY 2021-22 as complete (Action Item)
3.c. Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Stanton for the FY 2023/24 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project. (Cost:
$7,690) (Action Item)
3.d. Approval of an agreement with Performa-Labs to provide subscription-based training course software for the Police Department. (Cost: $94,600) ( Action Item)
3.e. Award a Three (3) Year Contract to W.M. Curbside, LLC, for the Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program. (Cost: $150,000) (Action Item)
3.f. Authorize issuance of purchase orders to Econolite Control Products and JTB Supply Company, Inc., for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Traffic Control Operations. (Cost: $75,000 Econolite; $125,000 JTB Supply Company) (Action Item)
3.g. Receive and file warrants. ( Action Item)
4. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MATTERS
4.a. Appointments to the Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission and Traffic Commission to fill vacancies. ( Action Item continued from the July 25, 2023, City Council Meeting. )
4.b. Appointment of a City Council Member to the Orange County Sanitation District. ( Action Item continued from the July 25, 2023, City Council meeting.)
5. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
5.a. Approval of the appropriation of asset forfeiture funds for allocation to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Police Department budget. (Amount: $250,000) ( Action Item)
5.b. Approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement with LT Properties, LP for the purchase of property located at 12966 Euclid Street. (Cost: $12,189,000) ( Action Item)
6. MATTERS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND CITY
MANAGER
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 22, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Meeting Center, 11300 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92840.
Agenda Item - 3.a.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: Niki Wetzel
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Community Development
Subject: Consideration and approval
to submit a response to the
Grand Jury Report,
“Welcome to the
Neighborhood” Are cities
responsibly managing the
integration of group homes?
(Action Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider and approve the attached response to the 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood” Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?, and authorize submittal to the Orange County Superior Court presiding judge.
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2023, the Orange County Grand Jury released its 2022-2023 Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood” Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? (see Attachment 1). The purpose of the report was to study the challenges Orange County cities often experience in regulating group homes due to federal and state laws, particularly with unlicensed sober living or recovery facilities; the challenges cities experience with locating and tracking group homes, and responding to community complaints; and the challenges with successfully integrating group homes into a neighborhood.
Based on its investigation, the Orange County Grand Jury arrived at eleven (11) findings and five (5) recommendations. In compliance with Penal Code 933.05 (a) and (b), the City is required to provide a response to the findings and recommendations directed to the City Council by September 13, 2023.
DISCUSSION
The City has responded to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report (see Attachment 2). In summary, the City agrees with nine (9) of the findings (F1, F2, F3, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11), and disagrees partially with two of the
findings (F4 and F5). In response to the recommendations, the City will not be implementing recommendations R1, R2 and R3, and the City is fully committed to implementing recommendations R4 and R5 in the future. These recommendations include participation in a County task force to develop a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved State regulations and management standards to ensure the health/safety for Group Home residents; and collection of data to enable the identification of a residence operating as a group home.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Approve the attached responses and authorize the submittal to the Orange County Grand Jury.
By: Maria Parra
Planning Services Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload
Date Type File Name
Attachment
1: 2022-
2023
Orange
County
Grand Jury
Report on
Group
Homes
7/17/2023 Backup
Material 2022-2023_Orange_County_Grand_Jury_Report_on_Group_Homes.pdf Attachment
2:
Response
to Grand
Jury Report
7/25/2023 Backup
Material Response_to_OC_Grand_Jury_Report_on_Group_Homes__8_8_2023_FINAL.docx
•
Welcome to the Neighborhood
Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?
County of Orange
Grand Jury 2022-2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 4 REASON FOR STUDY ........................................................................................................................ 6 METHOD OF STUDY......................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7 OC Group Home Density ............................................................................................................. 8 Tracking Challenges .................................................................................................................. 10 Common Nuisances .................................................................................................................. 11 Lead Cities ................................................................................................................................. 12 Cities Are Standing Alone .......................................................................................................... 12 Fear of Litigation Costs ............................................................................................................. 13 State Actions ............................................................................................................................. 17 Housing Element ....................................................................................................................... 18 Educating the Public ................................................................................................................. 19 How Has This Issue Evolved? .................................................................................................... 23 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 24 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 25 RESPONSES .................................................................................................................................... 25 90 Day Response Required ....................................................................................................... 27 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 29 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 34 NOTICE .......................................................................................................................................... 40 END NOTES .................................................................................................................................... 40
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 3 of 42
SUMMARY
Group homes are an important component in the healthcare and/or recovery of many people. These homes provide, among other things, Substance Recovery, Hospice Care, Residential Care for the Elderly, and Sober Living. When group homes are operated for the well-being of their residents and with respect for their neighbors, they can be an asset to their host community. However, they can occasionally become disruptive and the motivation for nuisance calls to local code enforcement. In extreme cases, the “curbing” of residents can contribute to the homeless population.
Negative interactions with disruptive group homes often lead to neighborhood opposition and anger towards city officials. How cities respond to the anger of their constituents impacts their ability to successfully integrate group homes. Residents are more likely to respond positively when cities offer townhall style meetings with police, fire, code enforcement, legal, and subject matter expert involvement, especially where the subject is discussed objectively, and public input is encouraged and respected.
Issues and concerns neighborhood residents have with group homes stem primarily from an over-concentration of homes in residential areas. Multiple cities in Orange County have attempted to manage integration of group homes into neighborhoods by enacting ordinances that include setting a minimum distance between group homes to avoid the problems associated with over-concentration. Most cities with such ordinances have not enforced them due to the fear of incurring litigation costs.
The Grand Jury reviewed the challenges of successfully integrating group homes into neighborhoods, including pressures exerted on Orange County cities by residents, group home operators, and the State of California.
The State of California has recently joined the group home debate, has altered the conversation, and raised the stakes. The State wields a large club with its power of approval of the required Housing Element. The California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) is withholding approval for cities that have ordinances attempting to place limits or impose oversight on group homes. Cities are then vulnerable to a loss of control over zoning and permitting, as well as loss of State and regional funding.
Some cities have decided to push back on the pressures put on them from HCD and the fight has been carried out on an individual city basis. The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the County of Orange and cities join forces to create ordinances, pool resources for defense of lawsuits, and work together to generate awareness among legislators to improve regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for group home residents.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 4 of 42
BACKGROUND
Orange County has 42 miles of beautiful coastline, three harbors, and 25 urban and wilderness parks - including 230 miles of riding and hiking trails. Orange County also has the dubious honor of having more than its share of our State’s total number of group recovery and sober living residences. Frequently referred to as “The Rehab Riviera”, several cities in Orange County have been dealing with pockets of over- concentration of these types of group homes. This has posed challenges for the residents in whose neighborhoods they are located, as well as the occupants of the recovery and sober living homes.
Many of
the homes in
question are privately
owned, unlicensed,
unsupervised, and a
challenge to monitor and
regulate. When a
neighborhood has multiple
group homes, it becomes
a more institutional
environment; this alters
the character of the
neighborhood and defeats
the purpose of the
“integration” of people who
are recovering.
The Orange County coast is a magnet for sober living homes
To address these shortcomings, multiple cities, and the County, on behalf of unincorporated areas, have enacted ordinances that manage the permitting and tracking of group homes.
Several significant pieces of legislation have played a part in the expansion of group homes. These include California’s Lanterman Mental Retardation Act (1988), the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Community Care Facilities Act, and California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36). The resulting deinstitutionalization has had a positive effect on the lives of many people but has created a challenge for cities as they work towards the responsible integration of the group living arrangements necessary to accommodate the impacted population.
1
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 5 of 42 Since deinstitutionalization, the State of California has resisted appeals from local cities to pass permitting laws, distancing requirements, or any type of regulation at all. There is a misconception that these regulatory ordinances are intended to discriminate against people who are disabled due to alcohol and drug addiction, and the State of California has cited this misconception as the guiding principle for its dogged challenge of most attempts by cities to manage the responsible integration of group homes into residential neighborhoods. Rather, such city ordinances are intended to protect those people who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction, as well as the neighborhoods where group homes are located.
Licensed residential rehab programs are subject to the same local laws as single-family homes, and no more. State law imposes fewer restrictions on licensed rehab programs than other licensed group homes. The Community Care Facilities Act, from which alcohol and drug rehab facilities are exempt, imposes restrictions that protect the character of residential neighborhoods. Under this act, cities receive written notice of a proposed facility, and any city or county may request denial of the license based on overconcentration of residential care facilities. While alcohol and drug programs that provide 24-hour residential non-medical services to adults recovering from drug or alcohol abuse must obtain a State license, they cannot be regulated any differently from a single-family home if they serve six or fewer people.
California Health & Safety Code Sections 1520.5 and 1267.9 state it is a policy of the State to prevent overconcentration of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Section 1520.5 states that the department shall deny an application for a new residential facility license if the department determines the facilities location is proximate to an existing residential facility therefore resulting in overconcentration. The statute recognized the need for a balanced policy to prevent overconcentration of residential care facilities which indicates an awareness and understanding of the impact of overconcentration on the integrity of residential neighborhoods. The statute defines overconcentration as less than 300 feet for some types of group homes and up to 1000 feet for others. At the time the statute was enacted it was specific only to certain types of group homes. However, the recent emphasis on providing more housing in California has eroded the intent of this act.
Federal and State fair housing laws protect people with disabilities from housing discrimination. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are disabled for purposes of anti- discrimination laws. When people in recovery live together in a “sober living” home, cities cannot discriminate based on such disabilities, therefore an ordinance cannot treat sober living homes differently than other similar uses in single-family residential zones.
Sober living homes are not required to be licensed and are not limited to six or fewer residents. Because no treatment is provided in these substance-free, mutually supportive living environments, no license is required. The limitation of most other group
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 6 of 42 homes to six residents is part of the State statute; however, confusion arises because the statute does not apply to sober living homes.
There is only so much a city can do to respond to the complaints of its residents when dealing with an overconcentration of group homes in a neighborhood. It is important for city residents to be educated on the barriers faced by cities, and to work with their city to overcome these barriers.
Current laws do not adequately address the need to manage the integration of group homes into neighborhoods. Courts should not be where the solutions are found.
REASON FOR STUDY
Many cities within Orange County have neighborhoods with a dense concentration of group recovery and sober living residences. In most circumstances, cities do not know where these group homes are located unless the homes generate a backlash from neighbors due to various types of disturbances. The Grand Jury examined how Orange County cities are managing the distancing of all types of group homes, and the impact group homes have on neighborhoods and group home residents when the homes are in close proximity to one another.
Group homes, most often Recovery and Sober Living homes, and the nuisances that are commonly associated with them, are not new to Orange County. Neighborhood complaints, concerns from individuals living in or related to residents of group homes, the litigious nature of the relationship between cities and group home operators, and abuse of the healthcare system have been in play in Orange County for well over a decade.
The Grand Jury began this study by looking at how cities are managing the influx and locations of group homes and identifying best practices where they are found. The working premise was that each city is responsible for the integration of group homes, which would serve to protect the residents of group homes while maintaining the existing neighborhood atmosphere.
Has there been success addressing the issues associated with group homes and what does that look like? Are cities going it alone or are there county-wide efforts? Has there been progress made in this area? The Grand Jury approached the topic of group home integration seeking answers to these questions with the expectation that there were some systems in place resulting in the successful integration of group homes. The investigation took a winding road which revealed that, despite countless attempts at change, many of the problems that surfaced over a decade ago are still present. The Grand Jury found that successfully implemented solutions have become even more impactful in light of the State of California’s heavy-handed entry into the debate.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 7 of 42
METHOD OF STUDY
The Grand Jury has evaluated official documents, examined news articles, visited multiple recovery/sober living websites, and assessed secondary sources.
The Grand Jury reviewed
numerous documents, including
the 2022 State of California’s
Group Home Technical Advisory2
and the 1990 State of California
Health and Safety Code.
3 To better understand the impact
of density, jurors attended
townhall and city council meetings
virtually, through recordings, and
visited neighborhoods in several
cities where there is a heavy
concentration of group homes.
The Grand Jury interviewed numerous subject matter experts, city managers, County and city officials, legislators, city attorneys, group home operators, and legal and real estate professionals. It also examined local, state, and national media reports and opinion pieces regarding group recovery and sober living residences. The Findings and Recommendations herein are based on this work.
INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Orange County has some of the heaviest concentrations of group homes and sober living residences in the nation.4 The densities are more than the local population can bear and residents believe the influx of the group home residents seriously impacts their neighborhoods. Similarly, group home and sober living industry experts cite negative impacts on the group home residents themselves.
Operators can open a group home where they desire, without having a license or State- endorsed certification, and they can open as many group homes as they desire regardless of local need. Because regulation is slack, cities are challenged to track and regulate the density without any guidance or support from the State. Adding to these concerns is a recent State of California memorandum titled “Group Home Technical Advisory” that characterizes any attempts to regulate the homes as discriminatory.5 It seems that method of thinking has no positive effect on how the homes are run or on how the vulnerable residents in these homes are treated, and quite possibly has the opposite effect.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 8 of 42 “Residents of these homes are moving in and
out at an alarming, transitory rate”
OC Group Home Density
Reportedly, Orange County has more than its share of group homes in California, and the country for that matter, specific to housing individuals in need of Recovery/Sober Living Homes.6 There are no existing requirements for sober living homes with six or fewer residents to identify or register themselves as such.
It is estimated that up to 36% of houses required to be licensed (those providing services) by the State of California as group homes for six or fewer residents are located in Orange County. In addition, there are hundreds of group homes not requiring licensing that exist in Orange County neighborhoods. This lack of identification makes it extremely difficult to estimate the total number of sober living homes in our communities.7
As documented in numerous city council and townhall meetings, residents and activists have raised concerns about over-saturation and common nuisances to local community governing bodies (see Common Nuisances section). In many cases, these are neighborhoods in which multiple group homes are in close proximity (for example three in one cul-de-sac) or individual homes are run with little to no on-site supervision.
Neighborhoods are losing their original character and familial aspect, with some becoming increasingly institutional and others experiencing more of a “frat house” feel.
Residents of these homes are moving in and out at an alarming, transitory rate.
Neighbors describe some of these group homes as taking no responsibility for the actions of their inhabitants. Rules and responsibilities are either not imposed or not enforced by the group home operators. The complaints are predominantly related to non-regulated group homes.
Over the last several years, multiple cities in Orange County have sought to find a solution to alleviate these concerns. Several have performed due diligence to ensure that any action taken will provide for neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods, and that both the disabled and the recovering addicts needing to live in these types of group homes are in fact living in a normalized residential environment that provides the best opportunity to be successful in their recovery.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 9 of 42 This is not simply a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) issue or reaction as evidenced by the large number of homes that receive few or no complaints. The need for well-run Recovery/Sober Living Homes is not in dispute. Concerns arise when these homes are poorly run and/or when multiple homes are in close proximity, contributing to the problem of over-concentration. These two circumstances cause changes in the local neighborhood, and it is questionable whether they are aiding the very residents that they are meant to be assisting and whether residents of these homes are integrating into a normalized environment.
To that end, various cities have introduced ordinances toward resolving the problem.
Some of these include distancing requirements between group homes ranging from 300 to 1000 feet. Some ordinances require group homes to register or self-identify as such.
California Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9 provides specific requirements for distancing of most types of group homes settings.
8 These requirements are similar to
the local city ordinances in that they provide certain spacing restrictions of between 300 and1000 feet. Sober Living Homes, however, are excluded from any distancing requirement by the State.
The State imposes licensing requirements on most types of group homes and provides for oversight by one or more State or County agency. Sober Living Homes with six or fewer residents are not required to be licensed by the State and have no regulatory
annel
ands
nal Park
+
Los Padres
National Forest
!,
I a Island
ential
abitat...
Victorville ,.,
•-~-~
•
•
-.~ . •
Anza-Borrego
Desert
State Park
Ampoy
S1
w
S
•:!, 1.,, ,, ~-!: Cleveland
L.:.:M.:::•:i:P.::d.:;at::::•.::Cl:.::2:::.02:;:3:..;G:::o:::o:l!g:::I•:.:• 1:.:N.:;EG::;I_T:.::e:.:rm:.:s::...__!;;20::..:.:.m:.:1 -====:..1 ------------ -' a1 • >:'a,~• ,••· " ' ,otinn" I ~n,oc t G o gle My Maps El
Keyboard shortcuts
Points show the primary addresses of all non-medical alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities licensed and/ or certified by the California Department of Health Care Services as of May 4, 2017. (Map by Jan Wheeler, Orange County Register/SCNG)
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 10 of 42 oversight. These two factors alone allow anyone to set up, open, and advertise this type of group home anywhere in California. Orange County seems to be the favored location, yet has no say in the siting or quantity of group homes in our residential neighborhoods.
Tracking Challenges
Just where are these sober living homes? All over. How do we know? We actually don’t.
There are few local ordinances requiring the registration, licensing, or declaration of any type of unlicensed sober living or recovery residence that has been established in a neighborhood. There are no widely adopted methods to track or monitor any aspect of such dwellings – their location, number of people residing in them, on-site management, or their ownership.
The Grand Jury’s research found that most sober living homes are not required by law to have any kind of State license. Some cities have enacted ordinances that require a permit or registration. When a sober living establishment is registered and a complaint is received, the complaint may be recorded and could be tracked, at least for the location of that specific home.
Except for the few cities with ordinances regulating sober living homes and the few homes that applied for registration or received ministerial permits, accurate tracking and monitoring remains challenging. Tracking is attainable if cities’ code and law enforcement establish and actively utilize a searchable database that includes
WHERE THE REHABS ARE
California has l.854 rehab facil ties, and moie than half (l.l 17) are m Los Angeles, San 8ernard1no, Orange and Rivers de cou ties. The map below shows the concentrations of these centers and the ratio of rehabs per resident 1n some of our cities.
1/00 Rehabs per res1den
(00) Tota l rehabs
Rehab ce er
L
ce: C 0,n1a 11,11,•1 c PubOt i ◄ ~
de
1/12,885
,(25)
h San Juitn Capl r no
111,236
(29) ul
1/5,932
(1:8}
Pa Springs
1/3,857
(12 )
y
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 11 of 42 information about police and fire calls, nuisance complaints or code infractions, and identification of type of establishment. The use of this information can help identify the location and density of group homes.
Common Nuisances
Residents living in cities with neighborhoods having a significant number of recovery and sober living homes complain that the proliferation of these group homes in recent years has become unmanageable, and that overconcentration is impacting the quality of life for everyone.
For years, many citizens living in neighborhoods with an unrestrained growth of sober living homes have been voicing their concerns and frustrations over the lack of protection their communities are given. While many of these group homes adopt rules and regulations and attempt to be good neighbors, a citizen’s primary method for reporting concerns about a disruptive home is initiating a nuisance complaint to their local law enforcement.
The outcry is that unregulated sober living residences make for bad neighbors. Sober living homes are not always bad neighbors, but when they are concentrated in a small geographic area or neighborhood, the common nuisances can become more visible and disruptive. Ultimately, this raises concerns about the potential or actual diminished character of the neighborhood.
Common Nuisances
Secondhand
SmoRing
Vomiting in
Driveways
Higher Noise
Levels
Curbing
Increased Foot
Traffic
Box Trud~
Deliveries
Increased Street
ParRing
Substantial
Rubbish @ Front
Lawns
Relapsing in
Public
Increased Traffic
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 12 of 42 “The well-funded operators are supported by
industry organizations and associations
in their lawsuits…”
Lead Cities
Although the City of Costa Mesa has been front and center in the legal fights related to group homes, it was Newport Beach that first stepped into the arena in 2008. Three companies sued the City over an ordinance that was approved by the City Council in 2008 that regulated group homes for recovering addicts. 9 Pacific Shores Properties,
Newport Coast Recovery, and Yellowstone Women’s First Step House sued Newport Beach for a total of $5.24 million. Still in place today, this ordinance was the first of its kind in Orange County and it established quiet hours, parking and smoking areas, and van routes. It also required the City’s approval for new unlicensed homes for recovering addicts in certain neighborhoods. In 2015, the City reached the end of its seven-year legal battle over sober-living homes with a settlement agreement. 10 11
According to the Orange County Register, which cites its own archives, Newport Beach spent at least four million dollars in legal costs on the cases. In 2008, there were 81 facilities and 614 total beds identified in Newport Beach. In 2021, there were a known 30 facilities with 210 total beds. Where did all those facilities and beds go?12 Perhaps to the City of Costa Mesa. In 2015, the City of Costa Mesa enacted their own ordinance (amended in 2017) after seeing a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes followed by a steep increase in the number of community complaints. On the heels of the ordinance came the legal challenges, and Costa Mesa prevailed in all challenges until January 2023 when two sober living homes, embroiled in litigation against the city, were handed a legal victory in federal court. The earlier dismissal was reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that asking operators of sober living facilities for proof of disability violates federal law barring discrimination against those with disabilities and bars discrimination in housing.
As the legal battle waged on, other local governments explored, advanced, or enacted regulation of sober living homes, including the County of Orange (2015), and Cities of Laguna Hills (2015), San Clemente (2016), Laguna Niguel (2016), San Juan Capistrano (2016), Anaheim (2020), and Huntington Beach (2020). Most of these entities, perhaps all, have chosen not to enforce their ordinances out of concern of potential litigation, and are waiting for Costa Mesa’s litigation to conclude.
Cities Are Standing Alone
Multiple cities in the County have executed ordinances to regulate unlicensed group homes. With the exception of the newly formed South Orange County Sober Living and
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 13 of 42 Recovery Task Force, cities have not collaborated on solutions to shared and common problems. This has been done on an individual basis, with little collaboration among cities. Prior to drafting an ordinance, some cities study the details and effectiveness of other cities’ actions, particularly the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinance, and use that as a template to draft their own.13
Once enacted, few of the ordinances are being enforced. This lack of enforcement is due to a small number of very specific impediments and concerns. These include:
• Fear of litigation costs due to lawsuits filed by group home operators against cities that have enforced ordinances. (The City of Costa Mesa has reportedly incurred over ten million dollars in legal fees in relation to group home litigation.) • Fear of the State of California withholding approval of the Housing Element for cities that have ordinances related to the management of group homes, resulting in the potential loss of state funds and local zoning control.
• Lack of enforcement resources. Most cities do not have the staff resources to enforce these ordinances.
While individual cities take a wait-and-see approach to follow the progress of other cities that are standing up to the State, little progress is being made. The cities and County of Orange would benefit by working in partnership with one another to garner resources and create a coalition to promote change. While the newly constituted South Orange County Sober Living and Recovery Task Force is a good start, and the first tangible recognition of the need to work together, the Grand Jury recommends a countywide cooperative taskforce.
Orange County’s cities and unincorporated areas are demographically diverse.The active sharing of ideas, experiences, and information will be valuable to the overall process of developing a worthwhile model ordinance and plan for moving forward in the efforts to protect both the individual characteristics of Orange County neighborhoods, and all individuals living in those neighborhoods.
Fear of Litigation Costs
Cities are concerned about the high cost of litigation and the time required to defend ordinances regulating group homes. Private entities have challenged ordinances and in some cases won, and in other cases continued to pursue lawsuits in spite of opposition.
In one case, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requested that the California Department of Justice file a “friend of the court” application to intervene on behalf the litigant in its case against the City.14
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 14 of 42
Two examples of cities being involved in lengthy and costly lawsuits include Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. In 2007, Newport Beach had numerous sober living homes and was facing increasing pressure by residents to regulate them. In January 2008, Newport Beach passed an ordinance regulating sober living homes. The ordinance was carefully crafted to comply with State and federal law.15
By November 2008, several legal actions occurred. These included:
1. A lawsuit from a residents’ group (the “Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach” or CCNB) arguing that the City did not go far enough in enacting Ordinance 2008-
05. CCNB also sued multiple operators and asked for $250 million in damages from the City;
2. Two group home operators (Pacific Shores Recovery and Sober Living by the Sea) filed complaints with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that the City’s ordinance and its practices have discriminated against disabled persons entitled to fair housing;
3. Multiple lawsuits were filed by Sober Living By the Sea (SLBTS) alleging that the City’s group residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery. The City reached an agreement with SLBTS;
4. T he City filed lawsuits against Morningside Recovery and Pacific Shores Recovery, alleging that some of their operations opened illegally during a short- term temporary moratorium against the establishment of new group residential uses. Pacific Shores Recovery has in turn alleged that the City’s group
Snapshot oi Litigation Costs
Cityol
Cost Mesa
$4 m1mon
City of
Newport Beach
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 15 of 42 residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery;
5. A cross-complaint by the City against Sober Living By The Sea and other operators that consolidated certain lawsuits in U.S. District Court.
Chairs are packed during a discussion on sober-living homes in San Clemente in 2016. (Photo by Matt Masin, Orange County Register, SCNG)
Subsequently, in 2009, three companies sued the City of Newport Beach over the ordinance, claiming it violated anti-discrimination and fair housing laws because individuals recovering from an addiction are a protected group. A federal judge ruled in favor of the City in 2011. The companies appealed the case and it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Court’s majority sided with the group homes, saying there was enough evidence to argue discrimination. The Court pointed to comments made during the 2008 hearing, which implied that the City Council was targeting recovery group homes.
The City of Newport Beach asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case in 2014, but the Court declined. The City settled with the group homes for $5.25 million in 2015.
The City’s estimated legal costs exceeded four million dollars, 16 for a total cost close to
ten million dollars.
The City of Costa Mesa waged a fierce and costly legal battle to regulate sober living homes for over five years. As noted in the section regarding the State’s actions and attitude, Costa Mesa fashioned an ordinance within the limits of State and federal laws
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 16 of 42 in 2014.17 The City ultimately spent over seven million dollars in litigation, and prevailed in State and federal courts; however, in January 2023, a federal appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s 2020 ruling.
Costa Mesa Ordinance 15-11 sets limited standards for three items that address important societal issues, none of which are discriminatory in nature:
1. Spacing (650 feet apart)
2. Background screening of the house manager
3. Process for evicting residents
Spacing between group homes maintains the purpose of the facility and residential character of the neighborhood. Screening protects the residents of the facility. Through interviewees, the Grand Jury learned of group home managers with criminal backgrounds and who are themselves currently substance abusers. Standards for evictions are needed. Through interviews and newspaper articles, the Grand Jury learned of the practice of “curbing,” putting residents out on the curb when their source of payment runs out or when they are in violation of house rules. This practice is believed to contribute to homelessness in Orange County.
Costa Mesa’s ordinance serves an important purpose, but the ordinance is still in litigation after several years and at an estimated cost of more than ten million dollars. 18 Other Cities in California and Orange County are similarly facing lawsuits and costs associated with group home and sober living ordinances. Cities could pool resources to mitigate litigation cost concerns. A coalition of cities to spread costs is highly recommended.
The Grand Jury learned that the lawsuits brought against cities are supported and enabled by an extremely profitable industry. According to John LaRosa at MarketResearch.com on February 5, 2020,19 the group home market is 42 billion dollars per year. Mr. LaRosa also noted that the industry needed to be cleaned up as many of the operators engaged in overbilling, patient brokering, and deceptive marketing.
The well-funded operators are supported by industry organizations and associations in their lawsuits. Industry organizations include large groups such as the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, Behavioral Health Associates, and National Sober Living Associates. The websites of any of these organizations and several others can be viewed to see the type of support often provided. The organizations not only provide support for lawsuits, but also assist in lobbying State and federal legislators.
Many group home operators do not want any type of regulation, as evidenced by the Costa Mesa and Newport lawsuits, though the Grand Jury found some operators who welcome additional regulation to protect the industry from bad operators. In summary, the industry represents a formidable foe in lawsuits due to funding and industry associations.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 17 of 42
State Actions
Zoning ordinances are the primary control local governments have over city land use.
The State of California has challenged the validity of group home ordinances, thereby inhibiting local governments in addressing group homes through zoning ordinances. If challenged, defense of the ordinances is costly and the alternative is to repeal them, a process that can be politically charged.
When Costa Mesa originally prevailed in the lawsuits filed against their 2014 sober living ordinance, the Cities of Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Anaheim and the County of Orange adopted similar ordinances for sober living facilities. In May 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the City of Encinitas stating its ordinance was in violation of statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use. HCD said the city must take immediate steps to repeal the ordinance.
HCD’s letter to the City of Encinitas noted “The Ci ty appears to take significant comfort from certain court opinions, several unpublished, appearing to reject specific, largely different and distinguishable challenges to a different group home ordinance in Costa Mesa, which were brought by private parties rather than the State of California. Those decisions are neither on point nor binding here.” This statement is misleading to the general public because it downplays judicial rulings favoring Costa Mesa’s ordinance.
In May of 2021, HCD sent a “Letter of Technical Assistance” to the City of Anaheim in which they discuss Anaheim’s land use regulations. One of the items discussed was a phone call they had with city staff to discuss concerns with the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for group homes. HCD’s concern was that the ordinance “potentially conflict(s) with statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use ”.
Also in May of 2021, HCD sent a “Notice of Violation: City of Anaheim Notice of Violations of Housing Element Law and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use” regarding the denial of a conditional use permit for transitional housing. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently joined a civil lawsuit regarding the same action. HCD believes the City has failed to implement goals, policies, and program actions included in the housing element and failed to act consistent with Government Code requirements in applying standards to the approval of the Project.
On December 21, 2022, HCD issued a document titled Group Home Technical Advisory.
20 The executive summary includes the following:
“In recent years, some local governments have amended their zoning ordinances to add new regulations for group homes, particularly for recovery residences- group homes that provide housing for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. These amendments have raised concerns that local governments are not complying with their affirmative obligations under state planning and
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 18 of 42 zoning laws to promote more inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). These amendments have also generated disputes and confusion over whether local governments are violating fair housing laws by discriminating against persons with disabilities or other protected characteristics.”
The document assumes the ordinances are not legally compliant and creates difficulties faced by cities trying to reasonably regulate group homes. The document is labeled a “technical advisory” but reads as a policy statement. There were apparently no public hearings regarding the document.
These actions by HCD and DOJ, as well as litigation, are challenges municipalities face in adopting ordinances regarding group homes when the courts have found these ordinances compliant with State and federal laws. This was made evident through interviews with representatives of cities. Interviewees also expressed concern that HCD interpreted the laws as being overly restrictive on zoning ordinances and failing to protect the inhabitants of group homes.
Housing Element
In the State of California, all cities are required to develop a General Plan. The General Plan serves as a blueprint for the future, prescribing policy goals and objectives to shape and guide the physical development of the city. The General Plan is a comprehensive policy document that informs future land use decisions, and it is comprised of multiple elements.21
The Housing Element is one important part of a city or county’s General Plan. Every eight years, every city, town, and county must update their Housing Element and have it certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The most recent cycle of the new Housing Element has been heavily impacted by the State’s laser focus on housing availability and affordability.
On September 28, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a suite of bills to boost housing production across California which accompanies the Governor’s $22 billion housing affordability and homelessness package and ongoing work by the State to spur more housing production, tackle barriers to construction, and hold local governments accountable. Taken together, the actions reflect the State’s focus on creating more “The document is labeled a “technical
advisory” but reads as a
policy statement…”
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 19 of 42 affordable housing, faster and cheaper. “The acute affordability crisis we are experiencing in California was decades in the making, and now we’re taking the necessary steps to fix it,” said Governor Newsom.22
Although this is a response to a real need in California, the real-world consequences to the “build-build-build” solution are many. One of those can be seen in the State’s myopic push for housing as it has mistakenly equated group homes with additional housing options. But housing is not increased by allowing the unbridled proliferation of recovery and sober living homes. The industry advertises heavily outside of California and brings many of their residents from out-of-state. It is not uncommon for some of these residents to be “kicked to the curb” (referred to as curbing) for various reasons, and because they are not local to Orange County, they have nowhere to go and ultimately face homelessness.
HCD wields its power to review and approve State housing elements as a threat to deter city and county efforts to regulate group homes. Approval of the Housing Element has a big impact on a city’s ability to enforce its general plan and to control what gets built and where it is built. Without the HCD’s approval of the housing element, a door is opened to developers to bypass local zoning ordinances by utilizing a seldom used loophole known as Builders Remedy. Under that law, a developer may sidestep city approvals to construct a housing development if 20% of the project’s homes are affordable housing.23
State funding programs for transportation, infrastructure, and housing often require or consider a local jurisdiction’s compliance with Housing Element Law. These competitive funds can be used for fixing roads, adding bike lanes, improving transit, or providing much needed affordable housing to communities. In some cases, funding from state/federal housing programs can only be accessed if the jurisdiction has a compliant housing element.24 25
Educating the Public
By the time the public has organized to bring their concerns to city leadership through a letter writing campaign, a joint written complaint, or a petition, their level of frustration has likely been building for quite a while. How city leadership deals with the concerns and frustrations of their constituency is likely to determine whether it will be a collaborative or an adversarial process to find a resolution. Educating the public on the reasons that cities have seemingly been unwilling to address the integration of group homes into Orange County neighborhoods is key to the success of collaborative problem solving.
Cities have been squeezed from above by a combination of intense pressure from group home operators citing federal protections for the disabled, and the State of California’s efforts to eliminate group home ordinances by withholding approval on cities’ mandated Housing Element submission. They are also squeezed from below by
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 20 of 42 “Some cities have used the multi-discipline,
educational, townhall type response to the public
outcry while others have not.
The outcome can be quite different.”
the people in neighborhoods which have been impacted by the over-concentration of group homes, and/or the level of nuisances generated by the group homes.
A lack of understanding of the challenges faced by cities leads to the perception that they are unwilling to step up and regulate the various group home types that are springing up in neighborhoods. Public education will reveal that there is not an unwillingness of cities, or the public, to find resolutions, but rather there are many hurdles promulgated by State and federal agencies that often prevent opportunities for reaching a solution. Cities should work together, and with State legislators and other stakeholders, to look for ways to affect change at the State level as well as provide more focused public education that addresses these issues.
In an effort to inform their citizens, some cities have used the multi-discipline, educational, townhall type response to the public outcry while others have not. The outcome can be quite different.
To illustrate, we need look no further than a tale of three cities: Anaheim, Newport Beach, and Laguna Hills. Anaheim’s group home issue heated up in October 2021 when Grandma’s House of Hope requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to use a large house as a transitional living home for 19 intractably mentally ill women. 26 It was not Grandma’s House of Hope’s first group home in Anaheim; it was the latest in many previously successful CUP requests. Local residents coalesced against this CUP request in a vocal and organized manner. Whether it was the number of residents impacted, the descriptor of the group home residents as intractably mentally ill, or just one group home too many in this neighborhood, this organized effort to prevent the approval of the large group home attracted hundreds of local citizens and activists from both sides of the issue. It seemed that the majority of these people attended the planning commission meeting to voice their opinions during the public comment portion of the agenda and to let the City’s Planning Commission see the strength of their numbers.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 21 of 42 The Planning Commission was seemingly prepared to accept the staff recommendation for approval. Public comment took over five hours, most of which was overwhelmingly against the approval of the group home. The applicant and the Planning Commission both expressed surprise at the public backlash. Ultimately, the approval recommendation was scrapped, and the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP.
Grandma’s House filed an appeal and the application for the CUP was heard by the City Council. The public attended that meeting in larger numbers than at the Planning Commission meeting and they were every bit as angry and frustrated as they were at the earlier meeting. In spite of robust response on the issue at the meeting of the Planning Commission just two months earlier, the Anaheim City Council was unprepared for the charged nature of the adversarial clash. Most speakers were passionate but respectful, while some were rude and offensive. It was essentially an angrier repeat of the first meeting and led to the same conclusion, a denial of the CUP.
27 The affected public walked away with no better understanding of the reasons why these group homes are hard to regulate due to the pressures put on cities by the State of California. The applicant ultimately filed suit against the city alleging violations of the Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, and statutes governing anti- discrimination in local land use laws.
Nearly 200 people packed the Mission Viejo City Council chamber on March 29 for a Town Hall meeting regarding sober living homes. (Tomoya Shimura, Orange County Register, April 1, 2016) The City of Anaheim has not responded to the public concerns in an organized manner.
It has not provided an opportunity for the public to come together in a townhall-like meeting where the City could address the issues and the challenges they face, have subject matter experts on hand for short presentations, and allow for comments and questions.28
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 22 of 42 In direct contrast to Anaheim’s response, we can look at the steps taken by the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Hills. Newport Beach was faced with a petition from its residents in 2007 after a rapid increase in the number of drug rehabilitation homes. The residents reported 103 treatment houses, nearly all on the Balboa Peninsula. There was a town hall hosted by (then) Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, and (then) State Senator Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, and an estimated 200 people attended. It was an opportunity for dialogue as well as to learn about the constraints placed on cities by the State of California. Newport Beach responded to resident concerns again in late 2021 by organizing a community meeting with speakers from several city departments, a State Assemblywoman, the District Attorney, and a County Supervisor.
29 30
Hundreds attend the Sober Living Homes Town Hall meeting at the at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Thursday (Christopher Yee, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 13, 2016) We can also look at the steps taken by the City of Laguna Hills. In 2016, the City responded to public outcry regarding group home issues by hosting a Town Hall on the subject. The Town Hall was hosted by (then) State Senator Pat Bates and several other State and local legislators. Also in attendance were attorneys with extensive knowledge of the issue as well as other subject matter experts. More than 600 people attended, and it was an opportunity for the residents in attendance to gain a better understanding of the challenges the City faces in regulating unlicensed group homes, as well as for the City to hear the concerns and frustrations of attendees. Proving that, when cities work to
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 23 of 42 inform their constituents, and allow for a robust but respectful dialogue, they create an opportunity for collaborative problem solving.31
How Has This Issue Evolved?
The timing of this investigation aligned with the required submission of the Housing Element portion of each city’s General Plan. The State’s disapproval of a city’s Housing Element carries heavy consequences, and the State of California has used the withholding of this needed approval to coerce cities to abandon their group home ordinances.
The Grand Jury was previously unaware of the power behind group home lobbyists and the number of proposed legislative bills that never made it to a vote. The State’s policy- making role limits a city’s ability to responsibly manage the integration of group homes and, as a consequence, the trajectory and focus of the study changed and widened with this knowledge. The Grand Jury looked at broader factors influencing the group home industry, its influence, its effect on communities and often its seeming lack of real concern about its clients. The group home industry is immense, requires improved relations with cities, and needs more effective local governmental oversight.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 24 of 42
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at eleven principal findings, as follows:
F1 Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.
F2 Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.
F3 Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.
F4 Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.
F5 Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.
F6 Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.
F7 Several cities have created an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, however many of these cities do not enforce their ordinances.
F8 City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.
F9 Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.
F10 Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.
F11 There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 25 of 42
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled, “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
R1 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group homes by providing an opportunity for an open dialog where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F3, F4)
R2 By December 31, 2024, Orange County cities and the County of Orange should collaborate in their efforts to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances. (F6, F7, F9) R3 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should pool resources for defense of lawsuits challenging group home ordinances. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F6, F8, F9)
R4 The County of Orange and Orange County cities should create a Task Force that includes representatives from OC cities, unincorporated areas, and other entities as appropriate and charge it with the responsibility of developing a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for Group Home residents. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F2, F10, F11) R5 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should modify code enforcement report data collection forms to include a searchable field that enables the identification of a residence operating as a group home. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F5, F7, F11)
RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 26 of 42 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.
Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows:
(a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 27 of 42 The Orange County Grand Jury requires and requests the following responses:
90 Day Response Required
County of Orange Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 County of Orange Board of Supervisors R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
City Councils of:
Aliso Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Aliso Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Anaheim F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Anaheim R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Brea F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Brea R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Buena Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Buena Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Costa Mesa F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Costa Mesa R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Cypress F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Cypress R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Dana Point F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Dana Point R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fountain Valley F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Fountain Valley R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fullerton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Fullerton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Garden Grove F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Garden Grove R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Huntington Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Huntington Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Irvine F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Irvine R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Habra F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Habra R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Palma F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Palma R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Hills F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Hills R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Niguel F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Niguel R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Woods F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 28 of 42 Laguna Woods R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Lake Forest F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Lake Forest R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Los Alamitos F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, Los Alamitos R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Mission Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Mission Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Newport Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Newport Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Orange F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Orange R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Placentia F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Placentia R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Rancho Santa Margarita F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Rancho Santa Margarita R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Clemente F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Clemente R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Juan Capistrano F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Juan Capistrano R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Santa Ana F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Santa Ana R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Seal Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Seal Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Stanton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Stanton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Tustin F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Tustin R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Villa Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Villa Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Westminster F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Westminster R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Yorba Linda F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Yorba Linda R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
GLOSSARY
ADU
An accessory dwelling unit, usually just called an ADU, is a secondary housing unit on a single-family residential lot. These may be converted garages, backyard cottages, or granny flats, for example.
Brokering
A referral system where money or other inducements are exchanged by owners of disreputable homes to get new clients. The recipients may be residents, clinics, or even members of self-help groups such as AA12-step programs.
Code Enforcement
Activity by local government agencies to identify and correct problems and abuses by citizens and businesses.
Congregate Care Living
A residential home that offers inpatient services to its residents. Generally, the care that this institution provides is more intense than what a skilled nursing care facility offers but less intense than what a general acute care hospital provides.
Curbing
The act of evicting residents, often done late at night, so-called because they and their belongings are sent to the curb. Eviction may occur when such residents’ insurance runs out or for violating house rules. They frequently have nowhere to go and often have no resources, essentially rendering them homeless.
Deinstitutionalization
The closing (or reduction of services) of residential facilities, often referred to as mental hospitals, and the reliance on smaller, more personal “homes” as a means of rehabilitation.
Detox
Program or facility for assisting a person undergoing treatment from an intoxicating or addictive substance.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 30 of 42
EBT
Ac
ronym for Electronic Benefit Transfer, previously known as Food Stamps, these are debit cards issued to eligible participants for the purpose of buying food and other necessities.
Emotional Wellness Homes
A facility where a person develops the ability to handle their emotions and varied experiences they encounter in life. Emotional wellness is an awareness, understanding, and acceptance of our feelings and the ability to manage and change challenges effectively.
Good Neighbor Policy
A set of principles and activities designed to provide a consistent means of communication between facilities that provide resident services and their respective neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policy is applicable for Residential Programs when residents and the services have a potential impact including but not limited to community safety, cleanliness, and security in the surrounding neighborhood(s).
Group Home (GH)*
A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal definition of disabled. Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical care, services, or treatment can take place in a Group Home. Only State-licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities)
Hospice
A type of health care that focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's pain and symptoms and attending to their emotional and spiritual needs at the end of life.
Hospice care prioritizes comfort and quality of life by reducing pain and suffering.
Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as a local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 31 of 42
Integral Facilities
Inte
gral facilities means any combination of two or more facilities located on the same or different parcels, collectively serving seven or more persons, not including the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff, that are under the control or management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and which together comprise one operation.
Integral facilities shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of housing in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services at another facility, or facilities, or by assigning staff, or a consultant or consultants, to provide services to or in more than one facility.
Licensing
A permit from an authority to own or use something or to do a particular thing or carry on a trade. In reference to this report’s subject matter, licensing from a State or county agency or department.
Like-for-Like
Identifying the spacing of group homes by type, e.g., sober living within a given distance of sober living, assisted living within a given distance of assisted living, etc. Sober living near assisted living does not meet the like-for-like criteria.
Model Ordinance
A common set of policies and procedures developed by a government agency to oversee the licensing and operation of group homes.
NIMBY
Acronym for “Not in My Backyard”. A term used, among other things, to identify citizens who object to having group homes in their neighborhood.
Referral Facility
Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or more person’s residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must follow the permit procedure according to the base use classification, and are not permitted in the RL (Residential Low Density) zone.
Rehab Riviera
The nickname given to some sober living facilities in Southern California, referring to the climate. Often used as a selling point in advertising to emphasize the outdoor appeal of homes in the region.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 32 of 42
Reh
abilitation
The action of restoring someone to health or normal life. Care that can help one get back, maintain or improve abilities.
Residential Care Facilities (RCF)*
A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to persons living in a community residential setting. Provide housing and care/treatment for the elderly, developmentally disabled, chronically ill, and chemical addiction treatment facilities, among others. RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol abuse treatment are licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and are known as alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.
Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.
Residential Treatment Centers
Sometimes known as rehab which is a live-in health care facility providing services for substance use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems.
Saturation
Having several group homes within a neighborhood.
Single Housekeeping Units
Individuals occupying a dwelling unit that have established ties and familiarity with each other; share a lease agreement, have consent of the owner to reside on the property, or own the property; jointly use common areas and interact with each other; and share the household expenses such as rent or ownership costs, utilities, and other household and maintenance costs activities.
Six or Under
Homes with six or fewer residents. Under State law these may not be required to be licensed or registered.
Sober Living Home (SLH)*
Sober Living Homes are also group homes, but specifically for people recovering from a chemical addiction that meets the legal definition of disabled. Provides “housing only” that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of rehab and need a
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 33 of 42
place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery. For the purposes of the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed. No medical care, services, or treatment can occur in a Living Home. Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities).
Tracking
A method to obtain data, monitor movements and a system to identify and map the location of group homes.
Treatment Center
A facility where a client or clients go under one roof for services to improve their physical or mental health. A residential treatment center (RTC), sometimes called rehab, is a live-in health care facility providing therapy for substances abuse use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems. Residential treatment may be considered the “last-ditch” approach to treating abnormal psychology or psychopathology.
*For the purposes of this report, the City of Huntington Beach’s definitions of group living homes is being used as published on the city’s website.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 34 of 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Teri Sforza, Will U.S. Supreme Court engage on Costa Mesa’s sober living rules?, Orange County Register, Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Teri Sforza, Addiction centers flee Costa Mesa, move to less regulated OC cities, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 19, 2023
David Zisser, Letter from CA Department of Housing and Development to City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - RE “Ordinance to Ban “Builder’s Remedy” Projects under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) – Notice of Potential Violation”, California Department of Housing and Community Development web site, Monday, February 13, 2023 Ring Bender Law, SoCal Recovery and Raw Recovery v City of Costa Mesa: Amici Curiae Brief Of The League Of California Cities, The Association Of California Cities Of Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, Mission Viejo, And Orange In Support Of Appellee’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Court Filings, Thursday, February 9, 2023
Teri Sforza, Sober homes gain some ground in fight with Costa Mesa, Orange County Register, Sunday, January 15, 2023
Covenant Hills, Day Patient and Outpatient Addiction Treatment in Orange County, YouTube Posting, Friday, November 4, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living l Sober Living Near You in SoCal (kaizenhouserecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes for Men & W General Information omen - Orange County Recovery, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living Homes | Sober Living Homes near me (ocsoberlivingbestsolution.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Drug Rehab Orange County - Lighthouse Treatment Center, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Huntington Beach Rehab | Drug & Alcohol Substance Abuse Recovery (orangecountyrecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes in Southern California - Elysium Health Care, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 35 of 42
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Zinn
ia Healing - Drug & Alcohol Rehab (serenitylodgelakearrowhead.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, California addiction rehab centers (sunshinebehavioralhealth.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Halfway Houses | ¾ way Houses | Sober Homes in California (addictionblog.org), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Requirements For California Rehabilitation and Sober Living Houses (hypogalblog.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, A Place for Mom, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Jeff Collins, These Southern California governments have approved housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Jeff Collins, Most Southern California cities miss complete new deadline to complete housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Wednesday, October 5, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Public Notice – City of Mission Viejo, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate with the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo web site Home | City of Mission Viejo, Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Public Notice, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate within the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo website https://cityofmissionviejo.org/, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: New law hopes to keep misleading rehabs from misleading patients, families patients, families, Orange County Register, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, California rehab doctor pleads guilty to insurance fraud, Orange County Register, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Vanessa Serna, Real-life Frankenstein' Beverly Hills surgeon and his girlfriend plead guilty to $600 Million fraud scheme: Used 'body brokers' to find drug addicts to get unnecessary shots so
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 36 of 42
they could bill insurance companies to fund their life of luxury, DailyMail.com, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
C
alifornia Codes, Various Codes, California Code Search “Text” of the following– using “sober” and “living”., Monday, August 8, 2022
City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development, City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element, City of Laguna Beach Web Site 638115638915170000 (lagunabeachcity.net), Thursday, July 21, 2022
Matt Meyer, What is ‘California sober’ — and does it actually work?, Nexstar Media Inc Fox News San Diego, Saturday, June 25, 2022
Website Information Idea Flight, 9 Different Types of Group Home in California, Idea Flight Web Site Page 9 Different Types of Group Home in California - ideaflight, Friday, April 1, 2022 City of Westminster, Adopted Housing Element 2021-202-, City of Westminster website https://www.westminster-ca.gov/ , Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Scott D. Tenley and Kelly M. Hagemann of Michelman & Robinson LLP, Federal Authorities Have Their Eyes On Sober Living Home Operators And Marketers, Especially In Orange County, Mondaq web site, Friday, November 19, 2021
City of Newport Beach, Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses Meeting Summary, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021
City of Newport.Beach, Power Point from Community Meeting Sober Living Homes, Group Homes, and State Licensed Residential Care Facilities, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021 City Newport Beach, Document comparing City of Newport Beach Group Home Ordinance to City of Costa Mesa Group Home Ordinance, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, September 24, 2021 Staff, How to Open a Sober Living Home in California, Blog Post at Sober Living App, Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Web Site Posting, How Much Profit Can Be Made From a Halfway House?, HALFWAY GROUP LLC website How Much Profit Can Be Made From A Halfway
House?.openupahalfwayhouse.com), Tuesday, February 2, 2021 County of Orange Press Release, Ending Rehab Riviera: Orange County First, County of Orange website, Thursday, October 1, 2020
County of Orange, County of Orange Group Home Ordinance, County of Orange website, Tuesday, July 28, 2020
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 37 of 42
David Gorn, Doing the ‘sober-living dance’ on the Orange County coast, CalMatters, Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Elysia Richardson, Do Drug Treatment Centers Increase Local Crime Rates?, California Highlands Vista Drug Treatment Centers Web Site https://californiahighlandsvistas.com/blog/crime- rates/, Monday, February 10, 2020
Orange County Public Works, Fact Sheet on Group Home Requirements, County of Orange website https://myoceservices.ocgov.com , Saturday, February 1, 2020 Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by regulating Group Homes, Glove, Friday, September 27, 2019
Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by Regulating Group Homes, California Globe, Friday, September 27, 2019
City of Newport Beach, Group Home List, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Thursday, September 19, 2019 Frank Kim, OC County Executive Officer, Memo regarding proposed ordinance to regulate Sober Living Homes, County of Orange Web Site, Wednesday, June 19, 2019 California Department of Social Services,.Overview of the Group Home Rate Classification Levels, DSS Website information sheet, Thursday, April 4, 2019 Miami-Dade County Form, Miami-Dade County Group Home Application, Miami-Dade County Website.Group Home Application-no aff disc 2019 (miamidade.gov), Monday, April 1, 2019 Steven P. Dinkin, Utilizing the Safe Streets Now playbook, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sunday, January 13, 2019
Brady P. Horn, Aakrit Joshi, Johanna Catherine Maclean, Substance Use Disorder Treatment Centers And Property Values, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Tuesday, January 1, 2019 Teri Sforza, New rehab laws may revamp addiction treatment in California, Orange County Register, Thursday, September 27, 2018
City of Laguna Niguel, Group Home Permit Application, City of Laguna Niguel website https://cityoflagunaniguel.org/ , Wednesday, July 4, 2018 William Leonard, Sober living homes in Orange County California, Sober Living Local, Saturday, May 5, 2018
Tony Saavedra, Teri Sforza, Death in rehab generates $7 million award, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 18, 2018
Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Quest for sobriety often ends in sexual assault at some rehabs in Southern California, Orange County Register, Friday, January 19, 2018
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 38 of 42
US Department of Health and Human Services, Ensuring Beneficiary Health and Safety in Group Hom
es Through State implementation, DHSS Web Site
https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/joint-report-ensuring-beneficiary-health-and-safety- group-homes-through-state , Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: California testing Vermont’s model to fight addiction, Orange County Register, Friday, December 29, 2017
Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Rehab Riviera: Industry struggling to get clean, Orange County Register, Friday, December 29, 2017
Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: Are drugs for drug addicts a solution or a crutch?, Orange County Register, Thursday, December 28, 2017
Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, How a multimillion-dollar empire built around urine drug tests exposes flaws in California’s rehab laws, Orange County Register, Sunday, December 17, 2017 Jordan Graham, Are drug rehab centers fueling homelessness in Southern California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, December 17, 2017
Teri Sforza, Are implants for opioid addicts a new hope or a new scam?, Orange County Register, Sunday, October 22, 2017
Teri Sforza, San Clemente’s ‘discriminatory’ rules on addiction treatment centers intact after suit settles, Orange County Register, Wednesday, July 5, 2017 Teri Sforza, California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment, Orange County Register, Friday, June 23, 2017
Teri Sforza, Addiction treatment: The new gold rush. ‘It’s almost chic’, Orange County Register, Friday, June 16, 2017
US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce, Letter to Thomas E. Price, M.D. Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regarding problems resulting from the dramatic surge of addiction treatment centers and “sober living” homes, Congressional Record, Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Scott Schwebke, Teri Sforza, Federal agents search Sovereign Health rehab in San Clemente, elsewhere, Orange County Register, Tuesday, June 13, 2017 California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, Power Point on Orange County Regional Office and what it does Newport Beach Meeting, Web Site of Department of Social Services www.ccld.ca.gov, Thursday, June 1, 2017 Teri Sforza, Detox can end in death at some ‘non-medical’ Southern California rehabs, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 39 of 42
Todd Harmonson, Sean Emery, O.C. District Attorney charges family, doctors with insurance fraud
related to sober living homes, urine tests, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Lori Basheda, Mindy Schauer, Jeff Gritchen, Ian Wheeler, How some Southern California drug rehab addiction centers exploit addiction, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Teri Sforza, Is there a link between neighborhood rehab programs and petty crime in California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017 Staff Report, The Southern California rehab industry spans the nation, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Jan Wheeler, Registered Rehabs Map, Orange County Register, Thursday, May 4, 2017 Mindy Schauer, Heroin’s hold: One man’s journey through the Southern California rehab industry, Orange County Register, Monday, May 1, 2017
CBS News, OC Neighbors Not Comfortable Next to Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Tuesday, November 29, 2016
California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/, Friday, October 7, 2016 Amy A. Mericle, Katherine J. Karriker-Jaffe,.Shalika Gupta, David M. Sheridan, Doug L. Polcin, Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles, American Journal of Community Psychology, Thursday, September 1, 2016 Teri Sforza, California argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions, Orange County Register, Saturday, December 19, 2015 J Murphy - City of La Mesa Fact Sheet, Residential Care Facilities (or “Group Homes”) in the City of La Mesa, City of La Mesa website http://www.cityoflamesa.com , Thursday, October 29, 2015 County of Orange published guideline, Orange County Adult Alcohol And Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Guidelines, County of Orange Sheriff Departments website, Monday, January 27, 2014
Sober Living by the Sea, Drug Rehab and Alcoholism Treatment OC CA by Sober Living by the Sea, YouTube Posting, Wednesday, May 23, 2012
You Get Me3, Santa Ana Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Saturday, July 3, 2010 Paul J. Weinberg, Alcohol And Drug Rehab Homes classic Nimbyism Or Everyone's Fair Share, Thomson Reuters/West
Zoning and Planning Law Report, Wednesday, October 1, 2008
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 40 of 42
City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Residential Group Home Permit, City of Newport Beac
h web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, February 1, 2008 David DeBerry, Group Homes in the Neighborhood, Western City, Friday, September 1, 2006 NOTICE
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
END NOTES
1 Group Homes in the Neighborhood David Debarry, Jeff Bellinger, Western City 09- 01-2006 https://www.westerncity.com/article/group-homes-neighborhood
2 Ibid. Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory- 2022.pdf
3 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9
4 Sforza, Terri. “California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment.” Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c4om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addiction- treatment
5 ibid . Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory- 2022.pdf
6 Sforza, Terri. “California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment.” Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c6om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addiction- treatment/
7 California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library Friday, October 7, 2016, https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/,
8 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 41 of 42
9Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes.
10 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober- Living homes.
11 Los Angeles Times Susannah Rosenblatt, May 22, 2008, Sober living homes rushing to meet Newport’s deadline.
12 Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses October 11, 2021 Meeting Summary https://nbpd.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70754/637703409585700000
13 New regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes,News Category, City of Mission Viejo Public Notices, September 1, 2022, new regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes | City of Mission Viejo
14 Grandma’s House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30- 2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC
15 Newport Beach Ordinance 2008-05
16 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes.
17 City of Costa Mesa Ordinance Chapter 13-3001
18 Orange County Register Article, May 21, 2021 – State argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions
19 $42 Billion U.S. Addiction Rehab Industry Poised for Growth, and Challenges (marketresearch.com)
20 Ca Department Of Housing And Community Development, Group Home Technical Advisory, dated December 2022
21 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf
22 www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legislation
23 Growing List of Penalties for Local Governments Failing to Meet State Housing Law, Association of Bay Area Governments, June 2021, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 06/Consequences%20of%20Non-Compliance%20with%20Housing%20Laws.pdf
24 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf
25 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 42 of 42
26 Walker, Theresa OC Register 10-25-2021 Housing for mentally ill homeless women draws heated Anaheim response
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/25/housing-for-mentally-ill-homeless-women-draws-heated-anaheim- response/
27 Grandma’s House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30- 2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC
28 City of Anaheim Planning Commission,PC Action Packets 8-30-2021 https://records.anaheim.net/CityClerk/DocView.aspx?id=2428318&dbid=0&repo=CITYOFANAHEIM
29 Many attend town hall on rehab houses,OC Register, 2-23-2007 Many attend Newport town hall on rehab houses – Orange County Register (ocregister.com)
30 Ibid. Many attend town hall on rehab houses
31 Sober Living Homes Town Hall
11222 Acacia Parkway P.O. Box 3070 Garden Grove, CA 92842 www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
_________________________________________________________________________
August 8, 2023
The Honorable Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California
County of Orange
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report , “Welcome to the Neighborhood” Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?
Dear Judge Hernandez,
In accordance with Penal Code 933 and 933.05(a) and (b), the City of Garden Grove submits the following response to the report, findings, and recommendations of the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report entitled, “Welcome to the Neighborhood” Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
FINDINGS
F1. Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F2. Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F3. Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F4. Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.
Response: The City of Garden Grove disagrees partially with the above finding . The City of Garden Grove has been successf ul in explaining the law to individuals when inquires or
GARDEN GROVE
11222 Acacia Parkway P.O. Box 3070 Garden Grove, CA 92842 www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us
complaints are received and has addressed community complaints in a manner that is satisfactory.
F5. Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.
Response: The City of Garden Grove disagrees partially with the above finding . The City utilizes complaints received through police and code enforcement to locate and track Group Homes until the complaint is resolved.
F6. Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F7. Several cities have created an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, however many of these cities do not enforce their ordinances.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F8. City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F9. Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F10. Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
F11. There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.
Response: The City of Garden Grove agrees with the above finding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group homes by providing an opportunity for an open dialog where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F3, F4)
Response: The City of Garden Grove will not be implementing the recommendation because the City has been successful in explaining the challenges cities are facing with group homes to residents when complaints are received.
11222 Acacia Parkway P.O. Box 3070 Garden Grove, CA 92842 www.ci.garden-grove.ca.us
R2. By December 31, 2024, Orange County cities and the County of Orange should collaborate in their efforts to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances. (F6, F7, F9)
Response: The City of Garden G rove will not be implementing the recommendation because the City’s zoning regulations are in compliance with State Law and current Housing Element mandates.
R3. Orange County cities and the County of Orange should pool resources for defense of lawsuits challenging group home ordinances. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F6, F8, F9)
Response: The City of Garden Grove will not be implementing the recommendation because the City’s zoning regulations are in compliance with State Law and current Housing Element mandates.
R4. The County of Orange and Orange County cities should create a Task Force that includes representatives from OC cities, unincorporated areas, and other entities as appropriate and charge it with the responsibility of developing a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for Group Home residents. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F2, F10, F11)
Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future when the County of Orange spearheads the effort. The City is fully committed to collaborating with the County and its fellow municipalities to support such an effort.
R5. Orange County cities and the County of Orange should modify code enforcement report data collection forms to include a searchable field that enables the identification of a residence operating as a group home. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F5, F7, F11)
Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented before July 1, 2024. The City is fully committed to implementing this recommendation, and will update the code enforcement system to create a searchable field to identify resi dences operating as a group home.
Respectfully Submitted,
Steven R. Jones
Mayor of Garden Grove
Agenda Item - 3.b.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: William E. Murray
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Public Works
Subject: Acceptance of City Project
No. CP-1292000 for Traffic
Signal Installation and
Modifications at Various
Locations - FY 2021-22 as
complete (Action Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
OBJECTIVE
For City Council to accept Traffic Signal Installation and Modifications at Various Locations FY 21-22 (Project) as complete and authorize the City Manager to execute the Notice of Completion of Public Improvement and Work.
BACKGROUND
Approved under the FY2021-22 Capital Improvement Plan, the Project consisted of the installation of a new traffic signal at Chapman Avenue/Lamplighter Street and traffic signal modifications at Euclid Street/Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove Boulevard/Casa Linda Lane, Garden Grove Boulevard/Gilbert Street and Brookhurst Street/Stanford Avenue. The scope of work involved installing new signal equipment, poles, cabinets, conduits, cables and vehicle video detection. As part of the improvements, striping was modified and curb ramps were constructed to meet ADA requirements.
DISCUSSION
The awarded contractor, Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., has completed the improvements in accordance with the plans, specifications, and other contract requirements. The project was completed within the project budget and schedule.
The retention payment will be released after recordation of the Notice of Completion.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the General Fund. This project is included in the Capital Improvement budget and is funded by traffic mitigation fees.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Accept Project No. CP-1292000 Traffic Signal Installation and Modifications at Various Locations FY 21-22, as complete;
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Notice of Completion of Public Improvement and Work; and
Authorize the Finance Director to release the retention payment when appropriate to do so.
By: Ken Vu, P.E., Associate Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type File Name
Notice of Completion 7/26/2023 Notice Notice_of_Completion_CP1292000.doc
•
•
•
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk
City of Garden Grove
P. O. Box 3070
Garden Grove, CA 92842
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND WORK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN th at the City of Garden Grove, Orange County, California, has caused a public improvement, to wit:
PROJECT NO. CP-1292000
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AND MODIFICATIONS
AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS FY 21-22
to be constructed upon the property hereinafter describe d. The contract for furnishing of all plant, labor, services, materials, and equipment, and all utilities and transportation, including power, fuel, and water, and performing all work necessary to construct and complete, in a good and workmanlike manner in strict accordance with the specifications, plans, and drawings therefore on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Garden Grove, for the construction, installation and completion of the above-described public improvement and work, was hereto fore made and entered into with Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. on the 8th day of March 2022, and filed for record in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Garden Grove; that the work upon said public improvement has been completed, and that the City Engineer has notified the City Council that he has made and completed a final inspection of the materials furnished and installed and the work performed in the construction, installation, and completion of said public improvement hereinabove more particularly described and set forth, and has certified in writing to the City Council that all the provisions of the contract and contract documents for the furnishing of all plant, labor, services, materials, and equipment, and the performing of all work necessary for the construction, installation, and completion of said public improvement above described have been fully complied with to his satisfaction as required by the contract document; that final acceptance of the construction, installation, and completion o f said public improvement above described was made on the 8th day of August, 2023 that the nature of the title to said property of said City of Garden Grove is as follows: That is to say, it owns said public improvement in fee except the right-of-way upon which it is constructed, and that it owns an easement upon, over, and along said right -of-way for the purpose of the construction, installation, and completion of said public improvement hereinabove described and the use thereof after said completion; tha t the property hereinabove referred to and on which said public improvement is situated is described as follows, to wit:
PROJECT NO. CP-1292000
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AND MODIFICATIONS
AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS FY 21-22
NAME OF SURETY on
Labor and Material Bond is:
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND
1299 ZURICH WAY, 5TH FLOOR
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196-1056
Tel No. (800) 626-4577
DATED this day of 20
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
By
City Manager of the City of Garden
Grove
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Garden Grove
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am the City Engineer of the City of Garden Grove.
I have read the foregoing Notice of Completion of Public Improvement and Work, and know the contents thereof; and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters, which are therein stated upon my information or belief, and as to those matters I believe to be true.
I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 8, 2023 at Garden Grove , California (Date) (Place)
Dan Candelaria, P. E., T.E.
City Engineer
Agenda Item - 3.c.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: William E. Murray
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Public Works
Subject: Approval of a Cooperative
Agreement with the City of
Stanton for the FY 2023/24
Citywide Street Resurfacing
Project. (Cost: $7,690)
(Action Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
OBJECTIVE
For City Council to approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Stanton and the City of Garden Grove for the FY 2023/24 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project (CP1380000).
BACKGROUND
The City of Stanton is preparing a citywide street resurfacing project which includes sections of Katella Avenue and Dale Street. A small, but important portion of the work lies within the intersection of the Katella Avenue/Dale Street intersection within the City of Garden Grove, estimated at approximately 4,300 square feet. The City of Stanton identified this need and has offered to complete the work in cooperation with the City of Garden Grove.
The proposed cooperative agreement is for construction costs and construction administration of Garden Grove's portion of the project. The City of Stanton will serve as lead agency on this project.
DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed the plans, specifications, and construction estimate of the project, and verified the location of Garden Grove's portion. The project cost for City of Garden Grove’s portion is estimated at $7,690.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. The funding for the City of Garden Grove’s portion of the City of Stanton FY 2023/24 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project is included in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 adopted Capital Improvement Plan budget and is
funded by Gas Tax Funds.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Approve the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Stanton for the FY 2023/24 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project (CP-1380000), and;
Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement, and make minor modifications as appropriate thereto, on behalf of the City.
By: Mark Uphus, Sr. Civil Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type File Name
Cooperative
Agreement_Cities of
Stanton and Garden Grove
7/31/2023 Agreement Stanton-GG_Coop_Agmt_-
_Katella___Dale_Final.docx
•
•
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated this _____ day of _________________, 2023, is made and entered into by and between the City of Stanton, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “STANTON” and the City of Garden Grove, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “GARDEN GROVE”.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, STANTON is contemplating the rehabilitation of the pavement surface of that portion of Katella Avenue and Dale Avenue intersection located in the City of Stanton, (hereinafter the “STANTON PORTION”); and,
WHEREAS, there is a portion of Katella Avenue and Dale Avenue located within the boundaries of GARDEN GROVE (hereinafter “GG PORTION”); and,
WHEREAS, GARDEN GROVE desires to have STANTON rehabilitate the GG PORTION of Katella Avenue and Dale Avenue in conjunction with the STANTON PORTION, collectively the “PROJECT”, and STANTON is willing to do so. The exact location of the GARDEN GROVE is described in detail in the document attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference. The estimated cost of the GG PORTION, including a ten percent (10%) contingency, is Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Dollars ($ 7,690.00) (the "Estimated Cost").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following promises, covenants, and conditions, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. DUTIES OF STANTON
a. Upon commencement of the PROJECT, STANTON shall include the GARDEN GROVE PORTION as a part of STANTON’s public works project, prepare the request for bids, hire the lowest responsible bidder (the “Successful Contractor”), and oversee and administer the PROJECT in the GARDEN GROVE PORTION in the same manner and to the same extent as the STANTON PORTION, all in accordance with all applicable laws governing construction of public works by STANTON, including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act, performance and labor- materialmen bonds, and laws governing public bidding and the payment of prevailing wages. If STANTON, in its sole discretion, determines not to proceed with the PROJECT at any time prior to commencement of actual work, this Agreement shall termi nate with no further action required by either party. In the event the projected actual cost of the GG PORTION, as reflected in the Successful Contractor's bid, exceeds the Estimated Cost by twenty percent (20%), STANTON shall not award a contract to the
Successful Bidder for the GG PORTION without prior written approval of GARDEN GROVE.
b. At least thirty (30) calendar days prior to release of the Notice Inviting Bids for the PROJECT, STANTON’S City Engineer shall provide GARDEN GROVE’s City Engineer a copy of the PROJECT’s plans and specifications for his approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If GARDEN GROVE’s City Engineer objects to the plans and specifications, and if his objections cannot be satisfied through discussions with STANTON’S City Engineer, the GG PORTION shall not be included in the PROJECT and STANTON shall proceed with the STANTON PORTION only.
c. STANTON agrees that it shall not permit nor cause any hazardous materials to be brought upon, kept, used, stored, generated or disposed of in, or, or about the GARDEN GROVE PORTION. “Hazardous Materials” shall mean any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, or any combination thereof, is deemed by a federal, state, or local governmental authority to pose a present or potential hazard to human health or safety or to the environment.
d. STANTON shall ensure that its contract with the Successful Contractor requires the Successful Contractor provide insurance acceptable to GARDEN GROVE as shown in Exhibit “B,” to name GARDEN GROVE as an additional insured, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GARDEN GROVE in the same manner and to the same extent as STANTON. STANTON shall not permit construction of any portion of the PROJECT to commence until evidence of the required insurance and additional insured endorsements have been provided to and approved by GARDEN GROVE.
2. GARDEN GROVE’S DUTIES
a. GARDEN GROVE shall pay STANTON for the actual cost of the work on the GG PORTION based upon unit prices bid of the Successful Contractor and quantities actually used on the GG PORTION. GARDEN GROVE shall pay STANTON the total amount due for the GG PORTION upon official final approval of the work by GARDEN GROVE provided that such final approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Garden Grove shall render payment to Stanton for the full amount of the Garden Grove Portion within 60 days of providing official final approval of the work.
b. GARDEN GROVE agrees that any permits required by the Successful Contractor for the work to be performed on the GG PORTION shall be issued to the Successful Contractor at no cost to STANTON or the Successful Contractor.
c. GARDEN GROVE shall provide its own inspection services for the GG PORTION of the work.
d. GARDEN GROVE agrees to fully cooperate with STANTON and the Successful Contractor in the prosecution of the work, traffic control, and any other matters required for completion of the PROJECT in the GG PORTION.
e. GARDEN GROVE acknowledges that STANTON is not the contractor for the PROJECT and that STANTON does not warrant any work performed by the Successful Contractor. Notwithstanding the above, STANTON shall require the Successful Con tractor to provide GARDEN GROVE with any and all warranties, insurance coverage, and indemnities and any other rights the Successful Contractor agrees to provide to STANTON under the construction contract and as provided by law.
f. In addition to the above, GARDEN GROVE also agrees to pay STANTON for all costs associated with any change orders pertaining to the GG PORTION, provided the change orders have been previously approved in writing by GARDEN GROVE’s City Engineer.
3. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This writing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all oral or written representations or written agreements that may have been entered into between the parties. No modification s or revisions shall be of any force or effect, unless the same is in writing and executed by the parties hereto.
4. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibit, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced.
5. ASSIGNMENT
Neither STANTON nor GARDEN GROVE may assign or transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement, or any part thereof, without the written consent of the other party.
6. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof.
7. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such portion only shall be deemed invalid. Venue shall exclusively be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange, California.
8. NO WAIVER
No waiver or failure to exercise any right, option, or privilege under the terms of this Agreement on any occasion shall be construed to be a waiver of any other right, option, or privilege on any other occasion.
9. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
The parties do not intend to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein.
10. NOTICES
Notices and communication concernin g this Agreement shall be sent to the following addresses:
GARDEN GROVE STANTON
City of Garden Grove City of Stanton
Attention: Dan Candelaria, P.E., T.E. Attention: Cesar Rangel, P.E.
City Engineer Public Works Director/City
Engineer
11222 Acacia Parkway 7800 Katella Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92842 Stanton, CA 90680
Either party may, by notice to the other party, change the address specified above.
Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement may b e provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth above. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered:
a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) five (5) calendar days after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail.
11. EFFECTIVE DATE
The effective date of this Agreement shall be the latest date of execution hereinafter set forth opposite the names of the signatures hereto.
12. INDEMNITY
STANTON and GARDEN GROVE each hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless the other party, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, representatives, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, workers’ compensation benefits, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses of any kind or nature, arising from the activities of the indemnitor or its officers, agents, or employees on the PROJECT, or any breach of contract, negligent acts, omissions or breach of law, or willful misconduct of the indemnitor, or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of the performance of, or failure to perform, any provisions of this Agreement.
Neither party assumes liability for the acts or omissions of persons other than each party’s respective officers, agents, or employees. In the event judgment is entered against both parties because of joint or concurrent negligence of both parties, or their officers, agents, or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be made by a court of competent jurisdiction. The respective obligations of the p arties pursuant to this Section shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
13. COOPERATION
In the event any claim or action is brought against STANTON relating to the performance rendered under this Agreement, GARDEN GROVE shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which STANTON might require.
14. COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein.
15. HEADINGS
Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or
interpretation of this Agreement.
16. CONSTRUCTION.
The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
17. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party, is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations.
18. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
19. CORPORATE AUTHORITY
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.
[Signatures on the following page.]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates hereinafter respectively set forth.
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, ATTEST:
a municipal corporation
By:___________________________ _________________________ Lisa Kim, City Manager Teresa Pomeroy, Garden Grove
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE OF EXECUTION:
_____________________________ _________________________ Omar Sandoval,
Garden Grove City Attorney
CITY OF STANTON, ATTEST:
a municipal corporation
By: _____________________________ __________________________ Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager Patricia Va zquez, Stanton City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE OF EXECUTION:
______________________________ __________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP,
Stanton City Attorney
Agenda Item - 3.d.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa Kim From: Amir El-Farra
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Police Chief
Subject: Approval of an agreement
with Performa-Labs to
provide subscription-based
training course software for
the Police Department.
(Cost: $94,600) ( Action
Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
OBJECTIVE
To obtain City Council approval to enter into an agreement with Performa-Labs to provide subscription-based training course software for the Garden Grove Police Department.
BACKGROUND
With modern law enforcement constantly evolving and requiring officers to adapt to new challenges, technologies and legal developments, Performa-Labs has produced a one-of-a-kind training software that is developed and produced solely by them. The training software is POST approved and will be utilized for all sworn Police personnel.
DISCUSSION
Performa Labs utilizes real-life body worn camera footage to create POST-approved training videos that cover a variety of topics, including de-escalation and use of force. This training will provide our officers with cutting-edge resources that will enable them to develop and refine their skills to effectively address the ever-evolving challenges they encounter in the line of duty. The programs offer unique features and benefits that align seamlessly with our Department’s specific training requirements.
Pursuant to Garden Grove Municipal Code Section 2.50.060(c) and (f), it is recommended that the City Council approve award of the contract as a sole source being that the software and services can only be obtained from the vendor and the contract is for professional services to be let based on the vendor's qualifications.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Total cost under this agreement shall not exceed the amount of Ninety Four Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($94,600) for the first fiscal year; Performa-Labs waived the initial implementation cost of $13,760.
After expiration of the initial one (1)-year subscription term, the agreement will automatically renew for additional one (1)-year terms unless the City delivers to Performa written notice of termination at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term.
The initial term of this agreement will be funded by a combination of available asset forfeiture and POST funding sources; there will be no burden on the General Fund.
Alternative funding sources may be pursued in subsequent fiscal years.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Approve an agreement with Performa-Labs for subscription-based training courses in the amount of $94,600 per year;
Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement, and make minor modifications as appropriate thereto; and
Authorize the City Manager to execute future amendments to the contract, including the authorization to enter into options years, provided sufficient funds are available.
Prepared by: Lieutenant Vincente Vaicaro
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type File Name
Agreement 7/28/2023 Agreement Performa_Labs_GGPD_Agreement.pdf Memorandum 7/28/2023 Backup Material Performa_Labs_Sole_Source_Memo.pdf
•
•
•
1 Performa SaaS Agreement
PERFORMA SOFTWARE-AS-A-SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS PERFORMA SOFTWARE-AS -A-SERVICE AGREEMENT (together with all attachments hereto, the “Agreement”), is made effective as of July 1, 2023 (the “Effective Date ”) and supersedes any previous agreements regarding PERFORMA SOFTWARE-AS-A-SERVICE, by and between PERFORMA LABS, INC., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 19600 Fairchild Rd, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92612 (“PERFORMA”) and the City of Garden Grove, a municipal corporation, by and through the Garden Grove Police Department, a municipal police department having its principal place of business at 11301 Acacia Pkwy, Garden Grove, CA 92840 (“Client”).
Recitals
WHEREAS, PERFORMA's App (as defined below) and proprietary training material provide to California peace officers self-study training that is approved and certified by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”); WHEREAS, the California state legislature requires California peace officers to complete certain POST-certified training courses during each POST Mandate Cycle (as defined below) (completion of each such training course, “POST Credit”); WHEREAS, the App allows law enforcement agencies to train peace officers using realistic scenarios based on actual body worn camera footage, allows App users flexibility to complete training at their convenience and in accordance with an agency’s policy, schedule, and allows agencies to monitor the progress and completion of training; and WHEREAS, Client desires to utilize the App in conjunction with in-person and other training programs to comply with POST requirements, to simplify and decrease the effort, time, and cost of training, and to increase the efficacy of Client’s training program.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, PERFORMA and Client agree as follows:
2 Performa SaaS Agreement
1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following capitalized terms have the meanings set forth below:
“Admin Console” is a function provided in connection with the App to allow designated Client Admin(s) to access Admin Reports electronically. “Admin Report” means data provided in electronic form created and compiled by PERFORMA for Client Admin(s) concerning the progress and completion of Modules by Users. “Anonymized Data ” means electronic data or information compiled or derived by PERFORMA based on User Data that has been deidentified, aggregated or anonymized such that it cannot reasonably be linked to Client or a particular User. “App” means the iOS and Android mobile application that PERFORMA provides to Client Admins and Users to access the Service.
“Client Admins” means the persons employed by Client who shall be PERFORMA’s primary points of contact regarding the Service. Client shall have at least one designated Client Admin. Each Client Admin shall have access to Admin Reports. “Module” means a proprietary self-study training module consisting of four (4) Training Courses available to authorized Users through the App.
“POST Mandate Cycle” means each two-year training period established by the California state legislature during which peace officers shall complete certain POST-certified training content for POST Credit, if applicable. A POST Mandate Cycle runs from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022; January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024; and so on and so forth every two (2) calendar years thereafter.
“Seat” means access to the Service via the App by a single unique User for the completion of one (1) Training Course or Module (as set forth on Attachment A), and such Training Course’s or Module’s associated POST Credit, if applicable, during the Subscription Term or Renewal Term then in effect.
3 Performa SaaS Agreement
“Service” means providing (i) those Training Courses and Modules set forth on Attachment A to Users via the App and (ii) Admin Reports to Client Admins via the App or electronically. The Service includes PERFORMA’s storing, hosting, managing, maintaining, and supporting the Software, App, and Admin Console.
“Service Fees” means the total fees charged for all Seats purchased during the Term of this Agreement.
“Software” means PERFORMA’s proprietary software (including algorithms and domain expertise) and associated third-party software used by PERFORMA to provide the Service. “Subscription Term” means the period during which PERFORMA shall make the Software available for use by Users as set forth on Attachment A. “Term of this Agreement” means the period commencing on the Effective Date and terminating upon termination of this Agreement. The Term of this Agreement shall include the Subscription Term together with all Renewal Terms (as defined below), if any. “Training Course ” means a single training course completed by a User during the Subscription Term or Renewal Term then in effect.
“Users” means those Client personnel authorized to use the App and the Service. “User Data” means all electronic data or information submitted by Client and Users to the Service, as well as any electronic data or information generated or recorded by Performa concerning Client or Users’ use of the Service.
2. Provision of the Service. PERFORMA shall make the Service available to Client and Users during the Subscription Term pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
3. Use of the Service.
3.1 POST Reporting. When a User completes or passes a Training Course or Module eligible for POST Credit, Client authorizes PERFORMA to report to POST the name of the User and the results of the Training Course or Module.
3.2 Client Responsibilities.
4 Performa SaaS Agreement
3.2.1 Client Admins. Client shall notify PERFORMA in writing of the name, title, telephone number, and email address of each of its Client Admins.
Client shall keep this information up to date during the Term of this Agreement. Client shall have at least one designated Client Admin at all times during the Term of this Agreement.
3.2.2 User Eligibility and Conduct. Client shall provide the names and email addresses (departmental or Client web domain email addresses only) of those persons who shall be Users of the Service. Client shall submit User information in an electronic format provided or specified by PERFORMA.
3.2.1.1 Client is responsible for determining the eligibility of persons who it designates as Users under this Agreement.
Users shall be employees of Client and at least 18 years of age.
3.2.1.2 Client shall be liable for any conduct or actions of its Users that violates this Agreement.
3.2.1.3 Client shall notify PERFORMA within five (5) days of any User who is no longer eligible or authorized to be a User, including but not limited to ineligibility by reason of termination of employment with Client.
3.2.2 Client Policies. Client shall establish a training schedule and policies governing its Users’ use of the Service, which policies shall not conflict with the terms set forth in this Agreement. As between Client and PERFORMA, Client shall be solely responsible for scheduling permitted times that Users may access the Service and ensuring that its Users complete all training in a timely manner (e.g., prior to the termination of a POST Mandate Cycle, the Subscription Term, or a Renewal Term, as applicable).
5 Performa SaaS Agreement
3.3 Usage Guidelines.
3.3.1 Permitted Use. Client and Users shall use the Service solely for training Users and monitoring Users’ training progress through the Admin Console as contemplated by this Agreement.
3.3.2 License Grant and Restrictions.
3.3.2.1 PERFORMA hereby grants a license to one (1) Seat to each User of the Service. Once a Seat is assigned to a User, (i) the User shall create a User ID and password, (ii) such Seat license may not be transferred to another User. Access to that Seat and its related training content, and the license granted thereto, shall automatically terminate upon the earlier of (A) the termination of the Subscription Term or Renewal Term then in effect, and (B) the date such User is no longer permitted to access the Service, including as a result of Client’s termination of User’s employment.
3.3.2.2 Upon commencement of a Renewal Term, each User shall be granted a new license to one (1) Seat to access the
Service, complete the associated Training Course or Module (as set forth on Attachment A), and obtain associated POST Credit, if applicable; provided that Client shall remit to PERFORMA Service Fees for each Seat during the Renewal
Term in accordance with Section 4.1.
3.3.3 Additional Seat Purchases. Client may, from time to time during the Term of this Agreement, elect to assign Seats in excess of that number of Seats purchased on Attachment A to Users through the Admin Console (such Seats, the “Additional Seats”). Each Additional Seat assigned to a User shall be subject to PERFORMA’s prices then- prevailing rates and Client shall remit payment for all such Additional Seats upon receipt of PERFORMA’s invoice therefor in accordance with
6 Performa SaaS Agreement
Section 4. Users of Additional Seats shall be subject to those terms and conditions set forth herein that are applicable to Seats.
3.3.4 Prohibited Uses.
3.3.4.1 Client, Client Admins, and Users shall not copy, reverse engineer, license, sublicense, sell, resell, rent, transfer, lease, assign, distribute, time share, or otherwise
commercially exploit or make the Service, App, Admin
Console, and Modules available to any third party. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Users and Client Admins may not take screenshots or screen captures or any other reproduction of the App or Modules.
3.3.4.2 Client, Client Admin(s), and Users shall not attempt to gain unauthorized access to the Service, App Modules, Admin
Console, and related systems or networks.
3.3.4.3 Client, Client Admin(s), and Users shall not share their login information to access the App, including User IDs and
passwords, with any other persons or display any content of the Modules to any other persons.
3.3.5 Compliance with Guidelines. Client shall be responsible for ensuring that all Client Admins and Users comply with the use guidelines set forth in this Section 3.3, as well as any additional reasonable guidelines and policies established by Client for their personnel regarding use of the App and Service as communicated to PERFORMA by Client from time to time during the Term of this Agreement. PERFORMA reserves the right to block access to the Service by any person who violates the terms of this Agreement or otherwise interferes with PERFORMA’s ability to provide the Service to any Client, Client Admin, or User.
3.3.6 Accessing the App. Client, Client Admins, and Users shall download the App using a private link provided by PERFORMA. Client, Client Admins,
7 Performa SaaS Agreement
and Users shall provide their own Internet service a nd mobile devices operating on either iOS or Android operating systems. No other operating systems are supported at this time. The Service is not available through a web browser.
3.3.7 Supported Software. PERFORMA supports use of the App only on devices using the most current version of the iOS or Android operating systems and the prior two versions of such operating systems. New releases of the iOS or Android operating systems may not be supported for up to three months after their public release.
4. Service Fees and Payments.
4.1 Minimum Purchase. Client shall pay in advance the Service Fees specified in Attachment A based on the number of Seats purchased by Client. Client shall purchase one (1) Seat during the Subscription Term and each Renewal Term, if applicable, for each of Client’s sworn peace officers and peace officer trainees or cadets. Client may purchase additional Seats for anticipated hiring during the Term of this Agreement.
4.2 Refunds. Service Fees are not refundable in whole or in part in the event that Users do not use, complete, or pass the Training Course or Module for which the Seat was purchased.
4.3 Invoicing & Payment. The Service Fees shall be invoiced by PERFORMA as set forth on Attachment A. Payments are due within 30 days of Client’s receipt of the invoice. Any invoices unpaid after 30 days will be subject to interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.
4.4 Automatic Renewal. After expiration of the Subscription Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for additional one (1)-year terms (each, a “Renewal Term”), unless Client delivers to PERFORMA written notice of termination at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term. Client shall advise PERFORMA of changes to the aggregate number of Client’s sworn peace officer s and/or peace officer trainees or cadets employed by Client upon commencement
8 Performa SaaS Agreement
of the Renewal Term and the information set forth in Section 3.2.2 so that each such person may have access to the App extended or removed as an authorized User.
4.5 Service Fee Adjustments. Service Fees shall adjust upon commencement of each Renewal Term to reflect PERFORMA’s then-prevailing rates. In addition, from time to time during the Term of this Agreement PERFORMA may adjust its Service Fees for all Seats purchased after the effective date of such adjustment upon written notice to Client.
4.6 Multi-Year Discount. Notwithstanding the terms set forth in Section 4.5, in the event PERFORMA has agreed to a multi-year Service Fee discount in exchange for Client’s agreement to commit to a Term of this Agreement in excess of one (1) year (a “Multi-Year Discount ”), such Multi-Year Discount shall remain in effect and any Service Fee price adjustments shall not take effect until the term for which such Multi-Year Discount applies terminates (the “Multi-Year Discount Term”).
The Multi-Year Discount and Multi-Year Discount Term, if any, shall be set forth in Attachment A. If Client terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 9.1 prior to termination of the Multi-Year Discount Term, PERFORMA shall be entitled to receive a true-up amount equal to the difference between (i) the Service Fees PERFORMA would have earned (including as a result of any price adjustments) had the Multi-Year Discount not been in effect, and (ii) the Service Fees subject to the Multi-Year Discount.
4.7 Suspension of Service . If the Service Fees (except fees then subject to Client’s good faith dispute) are 45 days or more overdue, then, in addition to any of its other rights or remedies, PERFORMA may suspend Client’s access to the Service, without liability to Client, until all such amounts are paid in full.
4.8 Taxes. Unless otherwise stated, PERFORMA’s fees do not include any local, state, federal, or foreign taxes, levies or duties of any nature (“Taxes”). Client is responsible for paying all Taxes, excluding taxes based only on PERFORMA’ s income. If PERFORMA has the legal obligation to collect or remit Taxes for which
9 Performa SaaS Agreement
Client is responsible under this section, the amount of such Taxes shall be invoiced to and paid by Client unless Client provides PERFORMA with a valid Tax exemption certificate authorized by the appropriate taxing authority.
5. Proprietary Rights.
5.1 Reservations of Rights. Client acknowledges that in providing the Service, PERFORMA utilizes (i) the PERFORMA name, the PERFORMA logo, the PERFORMA- LABS.com domain name, the product and service names associated with the Service, and other registered or unregistered trademarks and service marks; (ii) certain audio and visual information, documents, software and other works of authorship; and (iii) other technology, software, hardware, products, processes, algorithms, user interfaces, know-how, and other trade secrets, techniques, designs, inventions and other tangible or intangible technical material or information (collectively, “PERFORMA Technology”) and that the PERFORMA Technology is covered by intellectual property rights owned or licensed by PERFORMA (collectively, “PERFORMA IP Rights”). Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, no license or other rights in or to the PERFORMA Technology or PERFORMA IP Rights are granted to Client, Client Admins, or Users, and all such licenses and rights are and shall remain with PERFORMA and its licensors and are hereby expressly reserved.
5.2 License Grant. PERFORMA grants Client and its Users a worldwide, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable right to access and use the App and Software hosted by PERFORMA in connection with PERFORMA’s provision of the Service in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
5.3 Restrictions. Client and Users shall not (i) modify, copy, or create derivative works based on the Service or the PERFORMA Technology; (ii) create Internet “links” to or from the Service, or “frame” or “mirror” any content forming part of the Service; (iii) bypass or breach any security device or protection used by the Service or access or use the Service other than by a User through the use of his or her own then-valid access credentials; (iv) remove, delete, alter, or obscure any
10 Performa SaaS Agreement
trademarks, specifications, documentation, end-user license agreement, warranties, or disclaimers, or any copyright, trademark, patent, or other intellectual property or proprietary rights notices from the Service; or (v) disassemble, reverse engineer, decode, or decompile the Service or PERFORMA Technology, or otherwise attempt to derive or gain access to it, for any reason whatsoever, including to (A) build a competitive product or service, (B) build a product or service using similar ideas, features, functions or graphics of the Service, or (C) copy any ideas, features, functions or graphics of the Service. Client, Client Admins, and Users may not create, store, or disseminate screenshots or capture screen images from the App, Module(s), or Admin Console.
5.4 Suggestions. PERFORMA shall have a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to use or incorporate into the Service any suggestions, ideas, enhancement requests, feedback, recommendations, or other information provided by Client or its Users relating to the operation of the Service.
5.5 User Data and Anonymized Data. Client Admin(s) and User(s) may access electronically certain User Data and Anonymized Data that PERFORMA derives therefrom. The parties agree that all such User Data and Anonymized Data are the exclusive property of PERFORMA; provided, however, that PERFORMA shall maintain the confidentiality of all User Data and shall not disclose User Data to any third party without the written consent of Client unless required to do so in response to a subpoena, discovery request, document request, Public Records Act request, or any other valid court order, or as otherwise required by applicable law or regulation.
5.6 Compelled Disclosure. In the event PERFORMA is required by law, regulation, or a valid and effective subpoena or order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction to disclose User Data or any other information (with the exception of Anonymized Data) related to this Agreement (any such request, a “Compe lled Disclosure”), PERFORMA shall promptly notify Client in writing of the existence, terms and circumstances surrounding such Compelled Disclosure so that Client may take any
11 Performa SaaS Agreement
measures, at Client’s expense, that it deems appropriate to oppose or respond to the request. At Client’s request, PERFORMA shall provide all cooperation and assistance as may reasonably be requested by Client in responding to the Compelled Disclosure, or seeking a protective order or other appropriate remedy to prevent or limit the scope of any such Compelled Disclosure. Client shall promptly reimburse PERFORMA for all costs or expenses of whatever kind, including personnel-related costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses, and court sanctions or penalties, incurred by PERFORMA in responding to any Compelled Disclosure.
6. Warranties, Limitations, and Disclaimers.
6.1 PERFORMA Warranty. PERFORMA warrants that it will provide the Service in a manner substantially consistent with this Agreement and any documentation provided by PERFORMA in connection with the Service.
6.2 Sole Remedy for PERFORMA Warranty. In the event that PERFORMA provides the Service on the terms set forth in this Agreement in a manner that significantly affects the use of the Service, the App, or Admin Console and Client so notifies PERFORMA with a written report of such failure via email to [email protected], PERFORMA's sole obligation shall be to use commercially reasonable efforts to correct such failure promptly.
6.3 Limitations. Although PERFORMA has used its diligent efforts to ensure the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and accessibility of the Service, Module(s), App, and Admin Console, Client agrees that neither PERFORMA nor PERFORMA's third-party software or service providers sha ll have any liability whatsoever for the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or accessibility of the Service, Module(s), App, and Admin Console, or for any decision made or action taken by Client or Users in reliance upon information or data conveyed through the Service, Module(s), App, and Admin Console, or for interruption of any aspect of the Service, Module(s), App, and Client Console. Client agrees and acknowledges that PERFORMA shall in no event be held responsible for any problem s with the
12 Performa SaaS Agreement
Service, Module(s), App or Admin Console attributable to the public or private Internet infrastructure or Client’s and Users’ ability to connect to the Internet.
6.4 Authorization. PERFORMA is either (i) the owner of the Software, App, Admin Console, and Module(s) or (ii) authorized to provide the Service pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and has sufficient right, title, and interest in the Software, App, Admin Console, and Module(s) to grant the license contemplated by this Agreement, and (iii) PERFORMA is not currently engaged in any litigation or legal proceeding of any kind, the subject of which is the Service, Software, App, Admin Console, and Module(s); and to the knowledge of PERFORMA, no legal action pertaining in any manner to the Service, Software, App, Admin Console, and Module(s) is threatened.
6.5 Open-Source Software. The Service, Software, and App do not make use of Open- Source Software in any way that would otherwise make the Service, Software, or App Open-Source Software.
6.6 Disclaimer. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN SECTION 7.1, THE SERVICES ARE
PROVIDED BY PERFORMA AND ITS THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE AND SERVICE
PROVIDERS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXCEPT THOSE EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 6, AND PERFORMA AND ITS THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE
AND SERVICE PROVIDERS HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND A LL OTHER EXPRESS
AND/OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ANY
WARRANTIES ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. PERFORMA DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICE, MODULE(S), APP,
AND ADMIN CONSOLE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR FREE, OR COMPLETELY SECURE.
7. Limitation of Liability.
7.1 Limitation of Action. Except for actions for non-payment or breach of intellectual property rights, no action (regardless of form) arising out of this Agreement may
13 Performa SaaS Agreement
be commenced by either party more than two (2) years after the cause of action has accrued.
7.2 Limitation of Liability. EXCEPT FOR ACTIONS FOR NON-PAYMENT, BREACH OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, OR BREACHES OF SECTIONS 3. 3 OR 5.3, IN NO
EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE ENTITLED TO INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR RELIANCE DAMAGES, INCLUDING DAMAGES FOR LOST
PROFITS, UNDER ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION, WHETHER BASED ON LEGAL OR EQUITABLE DOCTRINES. IN NO EVENT WILL PERFORMA’S LIABILITY TO CLIENT
ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT,
FROM ALL CAUSES OF ACTION AND UNDER ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY, EXCEED THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID TO PERFORMA BY CLIENT IN THE 12 MONTHS
PRECEDING THE ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION THAT GIVES RISE TO THE CLAIM.
7.3 Data Charges. In no event shall PERFORMA be liable for data or connection charges incurred by Client, Client Admin(s), and Users to download, access, or use the App, Admin Console, or Service.
7.4 Basis of Bargain; Failure of Essential Purpose . Client acknowledges that PERFORMA has furnished access to the Service , App, Admin Console, and Module(s)in reliance upon the limitations of liability and the disclaimers of warranties and damages set forth herein, and that the same form an essential basis of the bargain between the parties. Client agrees that the limitations and exclusions of liability and disclaimers specified herein will apply and survive termination even if found to have failed their essential purpose.
8. Indemnification.
8.1 Client Indemnification . Subject to PERFORMA’s indemnification obligations in Section 8.2, and in addition to Client’s indemnification obligations set forth in Section 5.6, Client shall indemnify PERFORMA against, and hold PERFORMA harmless from, any claim, demand, cause of action, damage, liability, or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by PERFORMA arising out of: (i)
14 Performa SaaS Agreement
Client’s, Client Admins’ or Users’ use of the Service and App, or (ii) the acts or omissions of Client and its Client Admins, Users, employees, or agents.
8.2 PERFORMA Indemnification. PERFORMA expressly agrees to defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify Client from any and all third party claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, statutory penalties, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of or relating to any claims that the Service and App or use thereof infringe any patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, trade dress, mask work, utility design, or other proprietary right (collectively, "Intellectual Property Rights") of any third party, provided that Client gives PERFORMA prompt notice of such claim, suit or proceeding, and gives PERFORMA the full information and reasonable assistance in the defense or settlement of such claim, suit, or proceeding. PERFORMA shall be entitled to direct such defense and to settle or otherwise dispose of such claim, suit or proceeding as it sees fit, provided that PERFORMA shall not be entitled to agree to any judgment or settlement that imposes any monetary obligation on Client without the prior written consent of Client. If PERFORMA believes at any time that the services infringe a third party's Intellectual Property Rights, PERFORMA may, (i) replace an infringing item with a non-infringing item that meets or exceeds the performance and functionality of the replaced item; or (ii) obtain for Client the right to continue to use the infringing item; (iii) modify the infringing item to be non-infringing, provided that, following any replacement or modification made pursuant to the foregoing, the services continue to function in conformance with this Agreement, and (iv) if (i) through (iii) are not commercially practicable, PERFORMA may terminate the Agreement and refund on a pro rata basis any unused portion of the Service Fees paid upfront.
8.2.1 Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, PERFORMA shall not be liable under this Article 8.2 for any claim for infringement based on the following:
15 Performa SaaS Agreement
8.2.1.1 Client’s modification of the Service, Software, Modules, App, or Admin Console without the written permission of PERFORMA.
8.2.1.2 Use of the Service, Software, Modules, App, or Admin Console in a manner other than as contemplated by this
Agreement, or as authorized in writing by PERFORMA.
9. Termination.
9.1 Termination for Convenience. Client shall have the right to partially or completely cancel the Service upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to PERFORMA.
Termination for convenience does not entitle Client to a refund of any fees paid for the Service, whether or not the Service has been used in full or in part.
9.2 Termination for Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice of a material breach to the other party if such breach remains uncured at the expiration of such period.
9.3 Surviving Provisions. The following provisions shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect after any such termination or expiration for a period of three (3) years: Sections 5 (excluding Section 5.2), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
9.4 User Data after Termination. PERFORMA may retain User Data after termination, subject to the provision of Section 5.5 and 5.5.1 above. Client may request to receive an electronic copy of User Data upon termination.
10. Dispute Resolution.
10.1 Negotiation. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement by negotiation directly between executives of each party who have authority to settle the controversy. Any party may give the other party written notice of any dispute that arises under this Agreement. Within 15 days after delivery of the written notice, the receiving party shall provide a written response. The notice and response shall include with reasonable particularity (a) a statement of each party’s position and a summary of arguments
16 Performa SaaS Agreement
supporting that position, and (b) the name and title of the executive who will represent that party at the negotiation and of any other person who will accompany the executive. Within 30 days after delivery of the initial written notice, the designated executives of both parties shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place.
10.1.1 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the negotiating parties, the above-described negotiation shall end at the close of the meeting of designated executives (“Meeting”). Ending the Meeting without a resolution shall not preclude further negotiation or mediation, if mutually desired by the parties.
10.1.2 All offers, promises, conduct and statements, whether oral or written, made in the course of the negotiation and the Meeting by any of the parties, their agents, employees, experts and attorneys are confidential, privileged, and inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment, in an arbitration or other proceeding involving the parties, provided that evidence that is otherwise admissible or discoverable shall not be rendered inadmissible or non-discoverable as a result of its use in the negotiation.
10.1.3 At no time prior to the conclusion of the Meeting shall either side initiate an arbitration or other legal proceeding related to this Agreement except to pursue a provisional remedy that is authorized by law or by the JAMS Rules or by agreement of the parties. However, this limitation is inapplicable to a party if the other party refuses to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 10.1 above.
10.1.4 All applicable statutes of limitation and defenses based upon the passage of time shall be tolled while the procedures specified in Paragraphs 10.1 and 10.1.1 above are pending and for 15 calendar days thereafter. The parties will take such action, if any, required to effectuate such tolling.
17 Performa SaaS Agreement
10.1.5 If a party refuses to participate in the procedures and processes set forth in this Section 10.1, that party forfeits any right to recover prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs in any subsequent arbitration or legal proceeding.
10.2 Arbitration. If the procedure set out in section 10.1 above does not resolve the dispute, any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, or validity thereof, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined by arbitration in Orange County, California before one arbitrator. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The arbitrator shall issue a written decision setting forth the bases for the arbitrator’s ruling, and judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. This clause shall not preclude parties from seeking provisional remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
10.2.1 Except for claims for violation or breach of PERFORMA IP Rights, in any arbitration arising out of or related to this Agreement, the arbitrator may not award any incidental, indirect, consequential, or reliance damages, including damages for lost profits.
10.2.2 In any arbitration arising out of or related to this Agreement, the arbitrator is not empowered to award punitive or exemplary damages, except where permitted by statute, and the parties waive any right to recover any such damages.
10.2.3 In any arbitration arising out of or related to this Agreement, the arbitrator shall award to the prevailing party, if any, the costs and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred by the prevailing party in connection with the arbitration, unless the party failed to comply with the resolution procedures as set forth in section 10.1 above and as specified in section 10.1.5. If the arbitrator determines a party to be
18 Performa SaaS Agreement
the prevailing party under circumstances where the prevailing party won on some but not all of the claims and counterclaims, the arbitrator may award the prevailing party an appropriate percentage of the costs and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred by the prevailing party in connection with the arbitration.
11. General Provisions.
11.1 Records Requests; Audits. From time to time during the Term of this Agreement, Client or its nominee, authorized agent, or representative may, in Client’s reasonable discretion, (a) request documentation or records regarding Client’s or its Users’ use of the Service or User Data, including for Client to comply with governmental or regulatory requests or requirements (any such request, a “Records Request”); and (b) on at least three (3) business days’ notice, inspect and audit PERFORMA’s records solely as they relate to this Agreement (an “Audit” and, together with a Records Request, an “Inspection”). All Audits shall be conducted during regular business hours and no more frequently than once in any 12-month period (except as otherwise required to comply with applicable law), and in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with PERFORMA’s business operations. PERFORMA shall make available its books, records, equipment, information, and personnel as may be reasonably necessary to cooperate with any Inspection. Client shall only have access to and examine information directly related to Client’s or its Users’ use of the Service, and shall comply with all reasonable instruction communicated by PERFORMA in completing its Inspection.
Client shall promptly reimburse PERFORMA for all expenses incurred by PERFORMA in connection with any Inspection, including but not limited to time and materials costs incurred to comply with any such request.
11.2 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, exclusive of conflict or choice of law rules.
11.2.1 The parties acknowledge that this Agreement evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce. Notwithstanding the provision in the
19 Performa SaaS Agreement
preceding paragraph with respect to applicable substantive law, any arbitration conducted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C., Secs. 1-16).
11.3 No Benefit to Third Parties . The representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in this Agreement are for the sole benefit of the parties, and they are not to be construed as conferring any rights on any other persons.
11.4 Notices. All notices or other written communications required or permitted to be. given sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by overnight delivery, registered, or certified U.S. mail (return receipt requested) and addressed to the parties at the addresses first set forth above (or such other address as may be specified by like notice).
11.5 Waiver and Cumulative Remedies. No failure or delay by either party in exercising any right under this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that right. Other than as expressly stated herein, the remedies provided herein are in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other remedies of a party at law or in equity.
11.6 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, the provision shall be modified by the court and interpreted so as best to accomplish the objective of the original provision to the fullest extent permitted by law, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
11.7 Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer this Agreement or any right or obligation hereunder without the other party's prior written consent; provided, that PERFORMA may assign this Agreement in connection with a sale or transfer of substantially all of the assets of, or a majority interest in the voting shares of, PERFORMA to, or the merger or consolidation of PERFORMA with or into, any other person or company. Any assignment made in violation of this provision shall be void. Client agrees that PERFORMA may subcontract the hosting and other services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, provided that any
20 Performa SaaS Agreement
such subcontracting arrangement will not relieve PERFORMA of any of its obligations hereunder.
11.8 Force Majeure. Except for the obligation to pay money, neither party will be liable for failure or delay in performance under this Agreement due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including act of war, acts of God, earthquake, flood, embargo, riot, sabotage, labor shortage or dispute, civil or military authority; terrorists, civil disturbance, fire or other catastrophe, parts shortages, governmental act, or failure of the Internet, provided that the delayed party: (a) gives the other party prompt notice of such cause, and (b) uses its reasonable commercial efforts to correct promptly such failure or delay in performance.
11.9 Use of Client’s Name. Client agrees to allow PERFORMA to use Client’s name on client lists used for promotional purposes. PERFORMA is permitted to issue press releases or press statements concerning Client’s use of the service.
11.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its attachments constitute the entire agreement between the parties as to its subject matter, and supersedes all previous and contemporaneous agreements, proposals, or representations, written or oral, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. No modification, amendment, or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the party against whom the modification, amendment, or waiver is to be asserted. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary therein, no terms or conditions stated in a Client purchase order or in any other Client order documentation shall be incorporated into or form any part of this Agreement and all such terms or conditions shall be null and void.
11.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which taken together shall form one legal instrument.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
21 Performa SaaS Agreement
Dated: [Garden Grove Police Department]
By: ________________________
Amir El-Farra
[Print Name]
Chief of Police
[Title]
Dated: PERFORMA LABS, INC.
By: ________________________
Anderee Berengian
Chief Executive Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
[City Attorney/County Counsel/Deputy Attorney General for Client]
22 Performa SaaS Agreement
ATTACHMENT A
PRICE LIST AND SERVICE FEE CALCULATION
TRAINING MODULE DESCRIPTION SUBSCRIPTION
TERM SEATS UNIT PRICE TOTAL
Use of Force PSP (up to 4 hours
POST PSP-Use of Force credit)
7/1/2023 -
6/30/2024 172 $125.00 $21,500.00
Strategic Communications PSP (up
to 2 hours POST PSP-StratComm
credit)
7/1/2023 -
6/30/2024 172 $75.00 $12,900.00
De-Escalation Awareness &
Communication (up to 4 hours
POST CPT credit)
7/1/2023 -
6/30/2024 172 $175.00 $30,100.00
Advanced De-Escalation &
Awareness Communication (up to 4
hours POST CPT credit)
7/1/2023 -
6/30/2024 172 $175.00 $30,100.00
SUBTOTAL $94,600.00
IMPLEMENTATION COST $13,760.00
VIP CUSTOMER DISCOUNT ($13,760.00)
TOTAL $94,600.00
To:
Dept:
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
Lisa Kim From:
City Manager Dept:
Subject: Request for Sole Source Approval -Date:
Performa-Labs
Amir El-Farra
Police
July 21, 2022
The Police Department requests that Performa Labs be designated a sole source distributor for the purchase of their POST-approved training software.
The Police Department is looking to add the training software that is developed and produced by Performa Labs. Performa Labs is a sole-source product, developed, sold and distributed exclusively by Performa. The POST approved training will be utilized for all sworn Police personnel.
Performa Labs utilizes real life body worn camera footage to create POST approved training videos to cover a variety of courses that include De escalation and Use of Force. This will provide our officers with cutting-edge training resources that wlll enable them to develop and refine their skills to effectively address the ever-evolving challenges they encounter in the line of duty. The programs offer unique features and benefits that align seamlessly with our Department's specific training requirements.
No other vendor is authorized to sell Performa Labs products, therefore the Department requests the above-listed vendor be considered the sole source provider of Performa Labs training programs.
Amir El-Farra~
Chief of Police
By: Vincente Valcaro, Lieutenant
Professional Standards Division
Attachment -Sole Source Documentation
Approved:
~
Lisa Kim
City Manager
?ERFORM.Jll
su.t.ooc-.,a MINOS s.t.,co oureoul'J
July 12, 2023
Amir El-Fan-a
Chief, Garden Grove Police Department
I 130 I Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Re: Performa Labs -Sole Source Training Provider:
Chief El-FaJTa,
Performa Labs
Phone: 1.949.381.6200
19600 Fairchild Rd. Suite 300
t. +1.949.381.6200
Irvine, CA 92612
My name is Anderee Berengian, and I am CEO and an authorized representative of Performa Labs, Inc. ("Perfonna").
This letter is to confirm that the Performa Labs app ("Product") is a sole-source product, developed, sold, and distributed exclusively by Performa. No company known to our finn, makes a similar or competing product due to our software product being a first-of-its-kind. To this end, we have attached our extensive review of the California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) website and its catalog of available training (https://catalog.post.ca.gov/Default.aspx).
This Product would provide POST-approved, self-paced, mobile training to the Garden Grove Police Department. These services will allow the Garden Grove Police Department to complete interactive training on a mobile app on the users' schedule, and at the department's discretion.
As there are no other like products available for purchase that serves the same function, this Product must be purchased directly from Performa at the address listed above. There are no agents or dealers authorized to represent this product.
If you desire additional infomrntion, don't hesitate to contact me at (I) 949-381-6200 at any time. Thank you for your interest in our product.
Sincerely,
Andcrcc Bcrcngian
CEO, Performa Labs Inc.
[email protected]
Attachment: Comparison of Distance Learning Courses from California POST Commission Regulation 1053
Performa Labs Incorporated . 1487
ADVANCED OFFJCER COURSE (Mobile App-Based Self-Paced Course), CCN #00300 Secondary TiUe: Performa De-Escalation Awareness Mobile App Comparison of Distance Learning Courses from California POST Commission Regulation 1053 I. INTRODUCTION
This comparative research is intended to demonstrate Performa Labs sole source attributes towards aggregate training requirements as detailed by California POST Commission Regulation 1053 ("Reg 1053u).
a. Sole source attributes of Reg 1053 requirements are defined by:
i. Distance learning courses to specifically include self-paced modality; ii. Quality assurance program review;
iii. Certification of Continued Professional Training ("CPT") and Perishable Skills Program ("PSP") credit.
b. Additional attributes for sole source are qualified by:
i. Flexible mode of use, such as operating on a mobile platform; ii. Use of body-worn camera footage for real world scenario and interactive decision making;
m. Subjects of De-escalation and Use of Force led instructional objectives. c. Other requirements for Reg I 053, such as instructor-led online courses, blended learning courses, or hybrid courses, and factors of credit hours, were not considered in determining sole source eligibility, but were included in the research for comparison purposes.
II. METHOD
Database: California POST Catalog ("Catalog,,) for 2023-2024 cycle, beginning 1/1/23 to 12/31/25 (i.e., https://catalog.post.ca.gov/Default.aspx).
The Catalog does not define each course by CA Regulation title, so courses with location as Webinar was used to define Reg 1053 approved courses. The research uses Webinar only courses for comparison purposes. Webinar courses are offered more frequently than non-Reg 1053 courses, so course titles were deduplicated as a unique definition.
III. RE SUL TS
a. The Catalog showed a total of 5,648 courses, of which 3,739 courses meet Reg 1053 requirements.
b. 78 courses are unique courses under Reg 1053.
c. 20 courses have instructional objectives subject to De-escalation and Use of Force. d. 9 courses have been identified as self-paced, non-instructor-led online courses. All 9 courses have CPT and/or PSP credit.
e. 7 courses have been identified as usage of any body-worn footage. f. 4 courses contain only body-worn footage, interactive decision making, and the use of a mobile-based platfonn.
g. These 4 courses belong to Performa Labs and total 14 hours of training for CPT and PSP credit.
Revised; 12/13/2022 2
Agenda Item - 3.e.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: William E. Murray
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Public Works
Subject: Award a Three (3) Year
Contract to W.M. Curbside,
LLC, for the Used Motor Oil
Recycling Collection
Program. (Cost: $150,000)
(Action Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
OBJECTIVE
For the City Council to award a contract to W.M. Curbside, LLC, to administer the City’s Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program. The contract will be set with a fixed price amount of $150,000 for the first three-year term, with an option to extend the contract for an additional three (3) years, for a total performance period of six (6) years. Option years will be executed one (1) year at a time and will be valued at $50,000 per option year.
BACKGROUND
State law prohibits used hazardous waste from entering landfills due to toxicity levels, which include used motor oil. Over the past fifteen years, the City has received state grant funding from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) Oil Payment Program to help administer the City’s Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program, which includes a residential door-to-door collection program, grant administration, and public education. These services have been contracted out in the past due to the required level of expertise and certification in special handling, transportation, recycling, and hazardous waste storage from state and federal regulatory agencies.
DISCUSSION
The existing contract for the City's Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program will be expiring in August 2023. A Request for Proposal (RFP No. S-1310) was advertised on April 14, 2023. One proposal was received and opened on May 16, 2023. The Source Selection Committee (SSC) scores were completed on June 14, 2023. Based on the proposal score results, level of expertise in providing these services, and prior experience working with the City, W.M. Curbside, LLC, was
selected.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund. CalRecycle Used Oil Grant Program funds are used to cover all program costs.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Award the contract for RFP No. S-1310 to W.M. Curbside, LLC, to administer the Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program, in the fixed price amount of $150,000 for the first three-year term, with an option to extend said contract for an additional three (3) years. Each option year will be executed one (1) year at a time and will have a not-to-exceed value of $50,000; and Authorize the City Manager to sign the contract on behalf of the City, make minor modifications as appropriate thereto, and approve each option extension.
By: Ana V. Neal, Principal Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type File Name
Agreement 7/25/2023 Agreement Final_Contract_7-12-23.pdf Attachment B - Proposal
Pricing 7/25/2023 Exhibit Attachment_B_Pricing_Final.pdf
•
•
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2023, by the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal corporation, ("CITY") and WM Curbside, LLC, herein after referred to as “CONTRACTOR”.
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement:
1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Garden Grove COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION, DATED _____________________.
2. CITY desires to utilize the services of CONTRACTOR Provide the collection and disposal of the Motor Oil Recycling and Used Oil Filter Collection Program for the City of Garden Grove per the Scope of Work in Attachment A and RFP S-1310.
3. CONTRACTOR is qualified by virtue of experience, training, education and expertise to accomplish services.
AGREEMENT
THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Term and Termination. The term of the agreement shall be for period of three (3) fiscal years from full execution of the agreement, with an option to extend said agreement an additional three (3) fiscal years, for a total performance period of six (6) fiscal years. Option years shall be exercised one (1) year at a time, at the sole option of the CITY. This agreement may be terminated by the CITY without cause. In such event, the CITY will compensate CONTRACTOR for work performed to date in accordance with Proposal Pricing form (Attachment B). Contractor is required to present evidence to support performed work completion.
2. Services to be Provided. The services to be performed by CONTRACTOR shall consist of tasks as set forth in the Scope of Work which is attached as Attachment A, and is incorporated herein by reference. The Scope of Work and this Agreement do not guarantee any specific amount of work.
3. Compensation. CONTRACTOR shall be compensated as follows:
3.1 AMOUNT. Total Compensation under this agreement shall not exceed (NTE) amount of $150,000.00, for the first three years, payable in arrears and in accordance with the Proposal Pricing form, Attachment B. All work shall be in accordance with RFP No. S-1310.
3.2 Payment. For work under this Agreement, payment shall be made per invoice for work completed. Within 45 day of delivery of goods or completion of performance of services, CONTRACTOR must promptly render an invoice to CITY or payment may be significantly delayed. For extra work not a part of this Agreement, a written authorization by CITY will be required, and payment shall be based on schedule included in Proposal Pricing (Attachment B).
An annual CPI Index based on All Urban Consumers, CUURA421SA0 not seasonally adjusted, all items index (CPI -U) - Los Angeles County, Riverside County, Orange County average. An average for the twelve (12) month period ending on the date of May 31. The CPI Adjustment shall not exceed five percent (5%) in any given year. Two months prior to the contract renewal, the Contractor must provide documentation supporting this rate adjustment for the City's review.
3.3 Records of Expenses. CONTRACTOR shall keep complete and accurate records of all costs and expenses incidental to services covered by this Agreement. These records will be made available at reasonable times to CITY.
3.4 Termination. CITY shall have the right to terminate this agreement, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination. If the Agreement is terminated by CITY, then the provisions of paragraph 3 would apply to that portion of the work completed.
Section 4.0. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
4.1 COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this Agreement until all certificates and endorsements have been received and approved by the CITY. All insurance required by this Agreement shall contain a Statement of Obligation on the part of the carrier to notify the CITY of any material change, cancellation, or termination at least thirty (30) days in advance and provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City.
4.2 WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE. During the duration of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and all subcontractors shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance in the amount and type required by law, if applicable.
4.3 INSURANCE AMOUNTS. Throughout the term of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall maintain the following insurance coverages for the duration of this Agreement. Coverages are based on the services and/or operations agreed to in RFP S-1310. CONTRACTOR reserves the right to make any minor changes to the insurance terms in Section 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 herein, so it conforms to CONTRACTOR’s insurance policies but will continue to meet the CITY’s insurance limits.
(a) Commercial general liability in an amount of
$1,000,000.00 per occurrence ( claims made and
modified occurrence policies are not
acceptable); Insurance companies must be
acceptable to CITY and have a Best’s Guide Rating of
A-, Class VII or better, as approved by the CITY.
(b) Automobile liability in an amount of $1,000,000.00
combined single limit, and including auto pollution
liability and MCS-90 endorsement. ( claims made
and modified occurrence policies are not
acceptable); Insurance companies must be
acceptable to CITY and have a Best’s Guide Rating of
A-, Class VII or better, as approved by the CITY.
(c) Pollution legal liability in the amount of
$1,000,000.00. Insurance companies must be
acceptable to CITY and have a Best’s Guide Rating of
A-, Class VII or better, as approved by the CITY.
CITY shall be included as an additional insured.
Contractor shall maintain a self-insured retention of
not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for the
pollution legal liability policy for the term of this
contract.
An On-Going and Completed Operations Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 4.3 (a) and 4.3 (c) shall designate CITY, it’s officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall provide to CITY proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to CITY’s requirements, as approved by the CITY.
An Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 4.3 (b) shall designate CITY, it’s officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for automobiles, owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall provide to CITY proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to CITY’s requirements, as approved by the CITY.
An Auto Pollution Endorsement (MCS-90) for the policy under section 4.3 (b) shall also be provided for coverage under the auto pollution policy.
For a ny claims related to this Agreement, CONTRACTOR’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees,
agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the CONTRACTOR’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
5. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable to CONTRACTOR in the event of any default or breach by CITY, or for any amount which may become due to CONTRACTOR.
6. Non-Discrimination. CONTRACTOR covenants there shall be no discrimination against any person or group due to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, age, handicap, national origin, or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.
7. Independent Contractor . It is agreed to that CONTRACTOR shall act and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY, and shall obtain no rights to any benefits which accrue to CITY'S employees.
8. Compliance with Law. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations of the federal, state, and local government.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with, and shall be responsible for causing all contractors and subcontractors performing any of the work pursuant to this Agreement to comply with, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including, to the extent applicable, the prevailing wage requirements promulgated by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California Department of Labor. The City makes no warranty or representation concerning whether any of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement constitutes public works subject to the prevailing wage requirements.
9. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed to the below listed address, or to such other addresses as may be designated by written notice.
These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process.
a. (Contractor)
WM Curbside, LLC
Attention: Ilda Rodriguez ([email protected])
10633 Ruchti Road
South Gate, CA 90280
b. (Address of CITY) (with a copy to):
City of Garden Grove Garden Grove City Attorney
11222 Acacia Parkway 11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840 Garden Grove, CA 92840
10. CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL. This Agreement shall include CONTRACTOR'S proposal or bid which shall be incorporated herein by reference. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the proposal and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.
11. Licenses, Permits, and Fees. At its sole expense, CONTRACTOR shall obtain a Garden Grove Business License, all permits, and licenses as may be required by this Agreement.
12. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, CONTRACTOR warrants that: (1) it has investigated the work to be performed; (2) it has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) it understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions of the work under this Agreement.
Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY of this and shall not proceed, except at CONTRACTOR'S risk, until written instructions are received from CITY.
13. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
14. Limitations Upon Subcontracting and Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability, and reputation of CONTRACTOR, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for CITY to enter into this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR shall not contract with any other entity to perform the services required without written approval of the CITY. This Agreement may not be assigned voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of CITY. If CONTRACTOR is permitted to subcontract any part of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be responsible to CITY for the acts and omissions of its subcontractor as it is for persons directly employed. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor and CITY. All persons engaged in the work will be considered employees of CONTRACTOR. CITY will deal directly with and will make all payments to CONTRACTOR.
15. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement and that by executing this Agreement, the parties are formally bound.
16. Indemnification. CONTRACTOR agrees to protect, defend, and hold harmless CITY and its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, or damages of any nature, including attorneys' fees, for injury or death of any person, or damage to property, or interference with use of property, arising out of, or in any way connected with performance of the Agreement by CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR'S agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors hired by CONTRACTOR. The only exception to CONTRACTOR'S responsibility to protect, defend, and hold harmless CITY, is due to the sole negligence of CITY, or any of its elective or appointive boards, officers, agents, or employees.
This hold harmless agreement shall apply to all liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by CONTRACTOR.
17. Public Records Act. Unless otherwise stated, the CITY understands that the services provided by the CONTRACTOR hereunder contemplate collection, disposal of the Motor Oil Recycling and used oil filters Collection Program for the City of Garden Grove, and such services do not include “TRADE SECRET”, “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “PROPRIETARY” handling and/or destruction of the CITY’s confidential information. As such, CONTRACTOR, its employees, affiliates or agents will not be responsible for disclosure of the CITY, its affiliates, agents, employees, contractors, suppliers or any third party’s confidential and/or proprietary information contained in materials collected by CONTRACTOR, its employees, affiliates or agents during normal business operations. The CITY, its affiliates, agents, employees, contractors, suppliers or any third party shall be responsible to shred or otherwise destroy all its confidential or proprietary documents designated for and/or provided to CONTRACTOR for destruction.
18. Force Majeure. Neither the CITY nor CONTRACTOR shall be considered in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement should the parties be prevented from performing its services hereunder if delayed ore rendered impossible for reasons of acts of God, civil commotion, government action, pandemic, fire, storm, floods, explosion, war, riots, strikes, walkouts or any other significant events or causes of any nature which is beyond the reasonable control of either party, including changes in law. Parties shall be excused from the failure to perform such services to the extent and for the period that such performance is prevented by such condition or event. If CONTRACTOR is unable to perform its services under this Agreement due to Force Majeure event, the CITY will not be liable for payments under this Agreement, until the services continue. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Force Majeure event continues for a period exceeding thirty (30) days, the CITY shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to terminate the Agreement.
19. Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon funds being appropriated therefor by the Garden Grove City Council for each fiscal year covered by the term of this Agreement. If such appropriations are not made, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without penalty to the CITY.
\ \ \ \
(Agreement Signature Block on Next Page)
IN WITNESS THEREOF, these parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year shown below.
Date: _____________ "CITY"
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
By:___________________________
City Manager
ATTESTED:
____________________________
City Clerk
Date: _______________________
"CONTRACTOR"
WM Curbside, LLC
By: ___________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:___________________________
Date: __________________________
Tax ID No. ______________________
Contractor’s License: _____________
Expiration Date:_________________
If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, a
Corporate Resolution and/or Corporate
Seal is required. If a partnership,
Statement of Partnership must be
submitted to CITY.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Garden Grove City Attorney
________________________
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
RFP S-1310
Provide All Labor, Material and Equipment Related to Administering the Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program for the City of Garden Grove
BACKGROUND
State law prohibits used hazardous waste from entering landfills due to toxicity levels, of which include used motor oil. Over the past 20 years, the City has received State grant funding from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery's (CalRecycle) Oil Payment Program to help administer the City's Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program (Program). This funding has fully supported the City's Program.
SCOPE OF WORK
Contractor will follow all current CalRecycle Used Motor Oil Recycling Grant Program requirements along with local, state and federal laws applicable to collection of hazardous waste (used motor oil and oil filters) throughout the scope of work.
Contractor will also assume all responsibility for ensuring that all licenses, permits and certificates required in connection with any and all services are obtained throughout the scope of this work.
CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS: Contractor must implement all California Code Regulations and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulations.
Contractor must provide proof of registration as a registered hazardous waste transporter with the Department of Toxic Substances Control in the bid package which the City will verify. Contractor must be registered with the DTSC on the bid submittal due date or the bid may be deemed as non-responsive.
CERTIFIED USED OIL COLLECTION CENTER SITE VISITS AND OIL FILTER
COLLECTION
Contractor shall verify City businesses registered as Certified Used Oil Collection Centers (Certified Center). This verification will include on-site visits to sixteen (16) Used Oil Collection Centers, completion of the Certified Center Site Visit Checklist Form (CalRecycle 664), required signage, inquiry and assist on any program issues, and complete the Site Visit Report to be included in the City's Used Oil Annual Reporting, as required by CalRecycle. At these Certified Centers, it is agreed that they collect used motor oil and oil filters. Contractor will collect oil filters at the Certified Centers. Used Oil Collection Centers will request pick up by Contractor on an as needed basis.
The 16 locations of the Certified Collection Centers are as follows:
No. Facility Name Address City
Postal
Code
1 Firestone Store #010979
10081 Chapman
Avenue
Garden
Grove 92840
2 O'Reilly Auto Parts #2837 13933 Harbor Blvd
Garden
Grove 92843
3 O'Reilly Auto Parts #3059 9851 Chapman Ave
Garden
Grove 92841
4 AutoZone #5526 12951 Nelson St
Garden
Grove 92840
5 AutoZone #2872
12056 Brookhurst
Street
Garden
Grove 92840
6 Jiffy lube #1991 13970 Harbor Blvd
Garden
Grove 92843
7 Morrison Tire, Inc.
12045 Valley View
Street
Garden
Grove 92845
8 Toyota Place 9670 Trask Avenue
Garden
Grove 92844
9 Volkswagen of Garden Grove 10800 Trask Ave.
Garden
Grove 92843
10 Tire Choice 9572 Chapman Ave.
Garden
Grove 92841
11 Garden Grove Nissan 9222 Trask Ave
Garden
Grove 92844
12 Garden Grove Kia 13731 Harbor Blvd.
Garden
Grove 92843
13 Garden Grove Hyundai 9898 Trask Ave
Garden
Grove 92844
14 Firestone Complete Auto Care
#024856
13961 Brookhurst
Street
Garden
Grove 92843
15 AutoZone #5527 13220-B Harbor Blvd.
Garden
Grove 92843
16 Valvoline Instant Oil Change IH0038 9001 Trask Ave
Garden
Grove 92844
RESIDENTIAL DOOR- TO-DOOR COLLECTION: Contractor must demonstrate experience in hazardous waste management and the operation of door- to-door household used motor oil program, transportation, waste analysis, waste collection, and storage and disposal operations. Contractor will provide all necessary services, qualified personnel, equipment, vehicles, facilities supplies, and documentation to collect, manage and dispose of waste for the program. The Contractor shall perform work under this Scope in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. Tasks to be performed include the following:
Hotline Operation and Management: Contractor will operate and manage a toll- free hotline for residents to obtain program information and to schedule appointments. The hotline should be staffed during normal business hours, Pacific Time, with an after-hours message and recording service where resident can leave information on how to be contacted the following business day.
Participant Screening: Each participant is eligible for pick-up of up to 10 gallons of used motor oil and 5 used oil filters. Contractor will screen residents for program eligibility. Business waste will not be accepted through this program. Waste must be derived from retail sales to the general public and related to reasonable activities of a homeowner or residents. Residents requesting less than 2 gallons of used motor oil will be directed to a Certified Center. Residents inquiring about other household hazardous waste (e.g. sharps, paint, etc.) will be directed to the County's household hazardous collection sites.
Collection: Contractor will provide instructions necessary to properly and safely package waste for collection. Vehicles must be appropriately licensed and suited to collect and transport used motor oil. All spills resulting from the collection shall be addressed and properly cleaned up by the Contractor.
Storage and Disposal: Waste shall be properly stored and disposed of according to all local, state and federal regulations. The selected Contractor shall assume generator status for all waste collected.
Reporting and Documentation: The selected Contractor shall maintain proper program documentation. Monthly invoice reports shall include addresses of participants and amount of each type of material collected for the month and total pounds collected. All manifest and waste tracking documents shall be provided upon request.
SUPPLIES: Contractor will provide all supplies, personnel, facilities and vehicles required for the program.
GRANT ADMINISTRATION
Contractor will assist City with grant administration of CalRecycle's Oil Payment Program, including, but not limited to the preparation of reimbursement requests to the State, assisting with administrative compliance issues, and preparation of required status reports along with the required annual grant reporting. Contractor will assist with creating a budget of anticipated expenditures to stay within City's grant funding.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
To increase public awareness of the benefits of recycling used motor oil, Contractor will create a Public Education Budget approved by the City and facilitate outreach efforts. The public outreach methods include, but are not limited to, City utility bill inserts, newspaper ads and flyers. All advertisements will be approved by the City prior to reaching the public. Related materials for public outreach purposes may be
purchased on behalf of the City and later billed to the City, which includes, but are not limited to, o il rags, and oi l funnels. Prior to purchasing outreach materials, Contractor must receive City approval to ensure purchased materials meet eligibility requirements under grant guidelines.
"ATTACHMENT B"
USED MOTOR OIL RECYCLING COLLECTION PROGRAM
PROPOSAL PRICING
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY
GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92840
To: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: The undersigned having carefully examined the Plans and Specifications to: Provide All Labor, Material and Equipment Related to Administering the Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program for the City of Garden Grove. HEREBY PROPOSE to furnish all labor, materials and transportation, and do all the work required to complete work in accordance with the Scope of Work.
Please list the pricing in the unit of measure indicated. DO NOT make any changes to this form or leave any lines blank. Incomplete Proposal Pricing forms will not be considered and may be deemed as non-responsive.
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
TYPE LOCATION ADDRESS UNIT
Used Motor Oil 16 Certified See List Provided in $ 285,00 Per Drum Collection Centers Scope of Work
Annual Site 16 Certified See List Provided in $ 150.00 Per Hour Inspections Collection Centers Scope of Work
Advertising -N/A -N/A $1,771.00 Bill Insert
Utility Bill Insert Done 3-6 times per
year (30,000 Qty.
printing/delivery;
insert size 8. S x
3.66"
Advertising N/A N/A $3,239.00 grocery ad
Done 4-9 times per
year (Direct mail
piece with grocery
ads-big sheet-
8.375"x12" double
sided
Two (2) Annual N/A N/A $ 349.00 for both
State Reports (CalRecycle Oil annual reports
Payment Program's
Annual Report and
CalRecycle 303
report for Household
Hazardous Waste
Collection
Information)
Used Motor Oil Residential Door-to-Various Locations $ 125.0D Per Stop Door Collection
PLEASE PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING SERVICES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY INCLUDED IN ITEMS 1-6 ABOVE.
Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program RFP No. 5-1310 25 Used Motor Oil Recycling Collection Program RFP No. S-1310 26 "ATTACHMENT B"
USED MOTOR OIL RECYCLING COLLECTION PROGRAM
PROPOSAL PRICING
PAGE 2 of 2
1. HOME COLLECTON PROGRAM FOR OIL AND OIL FILTERS
Residents will call the toll-free hotline to schedule their pickup. WM Curbside will pick up oil and oil filters once a month, or more depending on number of scheduled pickups. For each collection day, WM Curbside can pick up a maximum of 15 stops.
2. CERTIFIED CENTER PROGRAM
Certified Centers will call the toll-free hotline to schedule their pickup. WM Curbside will pick up oil and oil filters once a month, or more depending on number of
scheduled pickups. They will be included on the schedule and are included in the 15 stops.
3. OIL FILTER COLLECTION SERVICE
Oil Filter collections will call the toll-free hotline to schedule their pickup. WM Curbside will pick up oil and oil filters once a month, or more depending on number of
scheduled pickups. They will be included on the schedule and are included in the 15 stops.
4. GRANT REPORT
WM Curbside will assist the City of Garden Grove with grant administration of the Cal Recycle's Oil Payment program as described in the scope of work.
This Attachment B must be complete and pricing must be included for all six line items or your
proposal will be considered incomplete
and therefore non-responsive. Please do not alter this Attachment B in any way.
Agenda Item - 3.f.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: William E. Murray
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Public Works
Subject: Authorize issuance of
purchase orders to Econolite
Control Products and JTB
Supply Company, Inc., for
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Traffic
Control Operations. (Cost:
$75,000 Econolite; $125,000
JTB Supply Company)
(Action Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
OBJECTIVE
For City Council to authorize issuance of purchase orders with Econolite Control Products (Econolite) and JTB Supply Company, Inc. (JTB Supply) for the purchase of traffic control products.
BACKGROUND
Current purchasing policy requires informal quotes or competitive bidding for supply and equipment purchasing exceeding $5,000. Blanket purchase orders are used for various categories of items, such as hardware, electrical supplies, and minor equipment with the required individual items or quantities cannot be determined in advance.
Due to the nature of traffic control day-to-day operations, specifically staff’s obligation to respond rapidly to traffic signal outages, pole knockdowns, etc., Traffic Engineering is requesting purchase orders with JTB Supply and Econolite.
DISCUSSION
Econolite controllers exclusively support the City’s traffic signal system. These devices are located at each signalized intersection and are housed in an above- ground cabinet. The controllers ensure proper timing and coordination of all red, green, and yellow signal phases as well as pedestrian movements. Econolite controllers have proven reliable and have kept traffic flowing safely and efficiently throughout the City.
JTB Supply provides traffic signal hardware from 17 manufacturers, offering competitive pricing for most of their products. JTB Supply provides rapid turnarounds on our most urgent requests and their nearby distribution center in the City of Orange allows the City of Garden Grove’s traffic signal electricians to pick up any emergency orders quickly and within the same day.
Pursuant to Garden Grove Municipal Code 2.50.060(G), the Public Works Department requests that the City Council determine it to be in the best interest of the City to forego the bidding process and issue purchase orders with Econolite and JTB Supply to maintain equipment consistency.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds are available in Public Works' Fiscal Year 2023-24 Engineering budget to cover all purchase order costs. There will be no additional impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
Authorize the request to dispensing with bidding in the best interest of the City pursuant to Garden Grove Municipal Code 2.50.060(G);
Authorize the Finance Director to issue a purchase order to Econolite Control Products in the amount not to exceed $75,000 to purchase Econolite controllers; and
Authorize the Finance Director to issue a purchase order to JTB Supply Company, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $125,000 to purchase traffic control products.
By: Alexa Viramontes, Sr. Administrative Analyst
•
•
•
Agenda Item - 3.g.
City of Garden Grove
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: Lisa L. Kim From: Patricia Song
Dept.: City Manager Dept.: Finance
Subject: Receive and file warrants.
(Action Item)
Date: 8/8/2023
Attached are the warrants recommended to be received and filed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type File Name
Warrants 8/2/2023 Warrants 2023.06.09_PR.pdf
Warrants 8/2/2023 Warrants 2023.06.23_PR_revised.pdf
Warrants 8/2/2023 Warrants 2023.07.07_Warrant_Register.pdf Warrants 8/2/2023 Warrants 2023.07.21_PR.pdf
City of Garden Grove
Certificate of Warrants
Register Date:
Jun 15, 2023
This is to certify the demands covered by EFT numbers 00023936 through 00024580 and check numbers 00185390 through 00185417 inclusive as listed on this register and have been verified by the Finance Division as properly issued and bear all proper signatures.
Note:
Finance Director
Patricia Song
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 2
PY - Payroll
Check Type: CHK
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00185390 E00977 BELAIR, DIANE 06/15/2023 $2,453.28 00185391 E05110 BARAJAS, GEMMA A 06/15/2023 $647.34 00185392 E05043 BARRAGAN, AUDREY A 06/15/2023 $123.49 00185393 E05139 BONACHEA, BRANDON D 06/15/2023 $877.05 00185394 E05125 BUI, RUBY 06/15/2023 $269.51 00185395 E05121 CASTRO PEREZ, ANDREA 06/15/2023 $203.95 00185396 E05127 FLORES, ERIKA 06/15/2023 $349.63 00185397 E05133 GONZALEZ, NADIA V 06/15/2023 $843.64 00185398 E05143 HOANG, JOLYN DT 06/15/2023 $233.09 00185399 E05138 LOPEZ, ELIZABETH A 06/15/2023 $1,168.03 00185400 E04797 NADEAU, MICHAEL P 06/15/2023 $576.79 00185401 E05128 NAEA, IRIEANNA M 06/15/2023 $530.98 00185402 E04936 NGUYEN, BRENDAN L 06/15/2023 $47.80 00185403 E05124 NGUYEN, KAYLA H 06/15/2023 $650.65 00185404 E05144 NGUYEN, VALARIE K 06/15/2023 $247.66 00185405 E05120 NGUYEN, VICKY 06/15/2023 $302.74 00185406 E05137 PHAN, BRYAN L 06/15/2023 $444.32 00185407 E05105 RODRIGUEZ, ROGER 06/15/2023 $632.41 00185408 E05123 TRAN, VINCENT G 06/15/2023 $826.20 00185409 E05111 NGUYEN, HAU D 06/15/2023 $378.77 00185410 E05113 ARAUJO, ANTONIO 06/15/2023 $1,078.95 00185411 E05135 BARNHART, CHARLEY A 06/15/2023 $949.17 00185412 E05122 DORADO, ANTHONY 06/15/2023 $1,029.83 00185413 E03529 ROCHA, MICHAEL F 06/15/2023 $3,374.27 00185414 E05141 RODRIGUEZ, JOY R 06/15/2023 $289.63 00185415 E05067 SANCHEZ, MARTIN 06/15/2023 $685.02 00185416 E05134 VEGA, ERIC J 06/15/2023 $900.21 00185417 E03446 JIMENEZ, VIDAL 06/15/2023 $4,254.84 CHK - Total $24,369.25
Check Type: EFT
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00023936 E03973 AVILA, VERONICA 06/15/2023 $2,772.70 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 3
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00023937 E04755 BRIETIGAM III, GEORGE S 06/15/2023 $632.18 00023938 E02788 DAVIS, JEFFREY P 06/15/2023 $1,733.97 00023939 E05080 DOVINH, JOSEPH T 06/15/2023 $658.17 00023940 E04994 GREENUP, BREANNA C 06/15/2023 $778.25 00023941 E00803 HADDAD, PAMELA M 06/15/2023 $2,040.62 00023942 E03612 JONES, STEVEN R 06/15/2023 $306.56 00023943 E04442 KIM, LISA L 06/15/2023 $5,441.42 00023944 E04131 KIM, NOELLE N 06/15/2023 $3,080.09 00023945 E04536 KLOPFENSTEIN, STEPHANIE L 06/15/2023 $474.67 00023946 E05072 LOPEZ, CARLOS 06/15/2023 $1,787.59 00023947 E02787 MORAN, MARIE L 06/15/2023 $2,850.07 00023948 E04537 NGUYEN, KIM B 06/15/2023 $596.79 00023949 E04534 ONEILL, JOHN R 06/15/2023 $645.85 00023950 E04528 PARK, SHAWN S 06/15/2023 $2,792.35 00023951 E04443 POLLOCK, AMANDA M 06/15/2023 $2,027.58 00023952 E06945 POMEROY, TERESA L 06/15/2023 $3,831.37 00023953 E01964 PULIDO, ANA E 06/15/2023 $4,598.97 00023954 E05057 SATO, MICHI L 06/15/2023 $2,591.27 00023955 E00564 STIPE, MARIA A 06/15/2023 $6,033.48 00023956 E03715 THAI, KRISTY H 06/15/2023 $2,521.37 00023957 E05079 TRAN, CINDY NGOC 06/15/2023 $1,268.67 00023958 E03983 VASQUEZ, LIZABETH C 06/15/2023 $2,603.06 00023959 E04971 VITAL, ANDREA 06/15/2023 $1,789.03 00023960 E04230 WIMMER, MISSY M 06/15/2023 $1,653.32 00023961 E04944 ANDERSON CAMBA, ASHLEIGH R 06/15/2023 $2,190.95 00023962 E04764 BRADLEY, JANNA K 06/15/2023 $2,737.75 00023963 E03766 CERDA, MARY C 06/15/2023 $3,125.73 00023964 E04673 HART, BRANDI M 06/15/2023 $694.47 00023965 E04363 KWAN, LIANE Y 06/15/2023 $3,656.74 00023966 E01985 LEE, JANY H 06/15/2023 $4,291.29 00023967 E03420 PROCTOR, SHERRILL A 06/15/2023 $2,500.69 00023968 E05078 SANCHEZ, GIOVANNI P 06/15/2023 $2,101.63 00023969 E04417 STEPHENSON, CAITLYN M 06/15/2023 $2,192.15 00023970 E02115 STOVER, LAURA J 06/15/2023 $5,363.01 00023971 E05082 YIN, ARTHUR 06/15/2023 $2,106.46 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 4
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00023972 E04445 BROWN, KAREN J 06/15/2023 $266.03 00023973 E03313 BUI, AI N 06/15/2023 $1,126.70 00023974 E05068 CASTELLON, ALVARO A 06/15/2023 $4,228.41 00023975 E04961 CHAO, VICTORIA 06/15/2023 $1,601.21 00023976 E03686 CHAVEZ, JAIME F 06/15/2023 $1,682.30 00023977 E03760 CHUNG, JANET J 06/15/2023 $4,110.09 00023978 E05094 CORTEZ, ELIZABETH M. 06/15/2023 $2,100.28 00023979 E04957 CURTSEIT, MARIA 06/15/2023 $2,010.94 00023980 E04960 FUKAZAWA, KEISUKE 06/15/2023 $2,085.56 00023981 E05055 GAMINO, LINDA M 06/15/2023 $1,411.24 00023982 E03134 GARCIA, SYLVIA 06/15/2023 $2,636.45 00023983 E03877 GOMEZ, STEVEN E 06/15/2023 $1,510.19 00023984 E03429 GULLEY, SUSAN J 06/15/2023 $84.91 00023985 E03016 HERNANDEZ, GARY F 06/15/2023 $1,774.99 00023986 E04569 HOFFMAN, CORINNE L 06/15/2023 $2,454.22 00023987 E04968 HONG, SEUNGBUM 06/15/2023 $1,721.66 00023988 E04959 LE, KENNETH H 06/15/2023 $1,488.66 00023989 E00057 MANALANSAN, NEAL M 06/15/2023 $2,135.42 00023990 E01668 MAY, ROBERT W 06/15/2023 $1,689.56 00023991 E01393 MENDEZ, ANGELA M 06/15/2023 $2,128.97 00023992 E03628 MENDOZA, CHRISTI C 06/15/2023 $1,964.89 00023993 E04958 NGO, TINA 06/15/2023 $2,687.13 00023994 E04838 NIGATU, SELAMAWIT 06/15/2023 $2,806.04 00023995 E02429 PHAM, ANH 06/15/2023 $1,858.09 00023996 E03610 RAMIREZ, EVA 06/15/2023 $2,105.07 00023997 E04973 RAMOS, NANCY 06/15/2023 $2,937.77 00023998 E05097 RODRIGUEZ, SEBASTIAN 06/15/2023 $2,004.04 00023999 E03539 SEGAWA, SANDRA E 06/15/2023 $3,823.72 00024000 E04780 SONG, YUAN 06/15/2023 $5,424.76 00024001 E04859 VO, MY TRA 06/15/2023 $3,110.60 00024002 E03433 WESTON, RETA J 06/15/2023 $1,107.62 00024003 E04674 WHITTAKER DEGEN, HELEN E 06/15/2023 $756.28 00024004 E04527 YOO, MEENA 06/15/2023 $2,259.57 00024005 E04493 ANDREWS, STEVEN F 06/15/2023 $2,648.19 00024006 E00845 CHANG, TERENCE S 06/15/2023 $3,148.51 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 5
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024007 E05091 ENCISO, MARIA VERONICA M 06/15/2023 $2,030.40 00024008 E03498 ESPINOZA, VERNA L 06/15/2023 $2,661.12 00024009 E04523 GALLO, CESAR 06/15/2023 $3,372.84 00024010 E04415 GOLD, ANNA L 06/15/2023 $2,187.01 00024011 E04713 HINGCO, ERNIE E 06/15/2023 $2,059.62 00024012 E02617 KLOESS, GEOFFREY A 06/15/2023 $4,330.82 00024013 E03571 MORAGRAAN, RACHOT 06/15/2023 $4,121.47 00024014 E05071 OCHOA, NICOLAS E 06/15/2023 $2,479.19 00024015 E01277 PROFFITT, NOEL J 06/15/2023 $3,882.77 00024016 E01901 RAO, ANAND V 06/15/2023 $7,851.29 00024017 E05027 SANCHEZ MENDOZA, ALFREDO 06/15/2023 $2,128.42 00024018 E05073 SEYMOUR, DAVID M 06/15/2023 $847.84 00024019 E04395 SWANSON, MATTHEW T 06/15/2023 $2,026.30 00024020 E01674 VALENZUELA, ANTHONY 06/15/2023 $1,749.94 00024021 E00809 VICTORIA, ROD T 06/15/2023 $2,559.17 00024022 E03014 WILDER, CANDY G 06/15/2023 $2,286.64 00024023 E03509 WINSTON, TERREL KEITH 06/15/2023 $3,208.95 00024024 E03725 ABU HAMDIYYAH, AMEENAH 06/15/2023 $2,099.21 00024025 E02996 ASHLEIGH, JULIE A 06/15/2023 $2,124.16 00024026 E05099 BECK, CRAIG A 06/15/2023 $3,686.74 00024027 E03601 CHUNG, CHRISTOPHER 06/15/2023 $3,160.51 00024028 E00128 CRAMER, RITA M 06/15/2023 $2,964.26 00024029 E04394 DAHLHEIMER, BRYSON T 06/15/2023 $2,974.15 00024030 E04879 DAKE, RYAN J 06/15/2023 $2,301.94 00024031 E04578 DENT, DAVID A 06/15/2023 $5,159.87 00024032 E03531 HERNANDEZ, RALPH V 06/15/2023 $2,392.94 00024033 E04855 HERRERA JR, ARMANDO 06/15/2023 $486.42 00024034 E03410 HODSON, AARON J 06/15/2023 $2,328.64 00024035 E04716 KASKLA, PRIIT J 06/15/2023 $2,364.91 00024036 E04490 LY, HUONG Q 06/15/2023 $2,389.45 00024037 E04194 MARTINEZ, MARIA L 06/15/2023 $2,843.87 00024038 E03044 MOORE, JUDITH A 06/15/2023 $2,237.85 00024039 E04635 NGUYEN, PHU T 06/15/2023 $4,000.71 00024040 E02842 PARRA, MARIA C 06/15/2023 $3,541.40 00024041 E04992 ROBLES, ALFONSO 06/15/2023 $2,487.45 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 6
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024042 E04862 TRAN, JAKE P 06/15/2023 $2,059.02 00024043 E05048 TUONG, NGHIA T 06/15/2023 $2,268.12 00024044 E05053 VU, VINNY X 06/15/2023 $1,757.22 00024045 E03643 ALVARADO, YOLANDA A 06/15/2023 $1,895.72 00024046 E05009 ALVAREZ, CYNTHIA 06/15/2023 $566.35 00024047 E04390 AMBRIZ, STEPHANIE 06/15/2023 $535.73 00024048 E04978 AVINA, MIKAYLA M 06/15/2023 $563.70 00024049 E04771 BAILOR, REBECCA J 06/15/2023 $961.74 00024050 E04988 BAUTISTA, BRENDA 06/15/2023 $2,485.34 00024051 E04262 BEARD, ALEX C 06/15/2023 $1,055.64 00024052 E04929 BENITEZ, LIZBETH 06/15/2023 $262.90 00024053 E02658 CAMARENA, RACHEL M 06/15/2023 $5,356.64 00024054 E01588 CAMARENA, RENE 06/15/2023 $2,393.63 00024055 E01902 CASILLAS, VICTORIA M 06/15/2023 $2,357.66 00024056 E05101 CASTANEDA, LILIANA 06/15/2023 $687.30 00024057 E05058 CATAQUIZ, CHARLIZE N 06/15/2023 $878.54 00024058 E03304 CHUMACERO, DEANNA M 06/15/2023 $1,191.64 00024059 E04611 CROSS, AMANDA D 06/15/2023 $2,026.17 00024060 E04814 DE ROSAS, VICTOR 06/15/2023 $449.64 00024061 E04688 DELGADO CHAVEZ, MARLY 06/15/2023 $326.64 00024062 E04653 DIAZ, GABRIELA 06/15/2023 $628.68 00024063 E05013 DINH, TIFFANY 06/15/2023 $932.84 00024064 E05107 DO, HUY T 06/15/2023 $661.12 00024065 E05090 ESCARENO, MELISSA 06/15/2023 $616.05 00024066 E02120 FRAUSTO, LUIZ F 06/15/2023 $143.95 00024067 E04679 FREEMAN, MARK C 06/15/2023 $3,646.73 00024068 E05019 FUENTES, DIANA 06/15/2023 $628.13 00024069 E04481 GARCIA, JARED D 06/15/2023 $543.71 00024070 E04253 GARCIA, VANESSA L 06/15/2023 $685.26 00024071 E05069 GARCIA, VERONICA 06/15/2023 $79.67 00024072 E03337 GODDARD, JENNIFER DANIELLE 06/15/2023 $2,766.79 00024073 E04982 GONZALEZ, KATHERYN 06/15/2023 $294.78 00024074 E00940 GRANT, JACOB R 06/15/2023 $2,168.17 00024075 E04967 HASHEMI, SETAREH 06/15/2023 $509.88 00024076 E01687 HOLER, KIMBERLY K 06/15/2023 $730.62 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 7
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024077 E05129 HUTCHINSON, ZOE M 06/15/2023 $382.41 00024078 E05032 LEE, JASON J 06/15/2023 $47.80 00024079 E04682 LOPEZ, KALYSTA N 06/15/2023 $262.22 00024080 E03603 MA AE, ELAINE M 06/15/2023 $3,132.36 00024081 E05014 MARIN, AMANDA T 06/15/2023 $269.51 00024082 E05140 MARTINEZ, ERICK 06/15/2023 $478.60 00024083 E01552 MEDINA, JESUS 06/15/2023 $1,804.06 00024084 E00455 MEDINA, JUAN 06/15/2023 $2,416.10 00024085 E04925 MENDOZA, JESSICA 06/15/2023 $43.70 00024086 E02808 MONTANCHEZ, JOHN A 06/15/2023 $5,942.24 00024087 E05022 MUNOZ, JULIANNE I 06/15/2023 $539.97 00024088 E05044 NADEAU, RYANN E 06/15/2023 $859.14 00024089 E05126 NGO, Y N 06/15/2023 $349.63 00024090 E04947 NGUYEN, ALEXANDER H 06/15/2023 $766.57 00024091 E05108 NGUYEN, JORDAN V 06/15/2023 $916.21 00024092 E05052 NGUYEN, RYAN N 06/15/2023 $47.80 00024093 E04391 NICHOLAS, NOEL N 06/15/2023 $1,497.62 00024094 E04931 NODAL, NATALIE 06/15/2023 $544.07 00024095 E00785 OCADIZ HERNANDEZ, GABRIELA 06/15/2023 $3,633.17 00024096 E04965 ORDUNO, SAMANTHA 06/15/2023 $453.94 00024097 E03361 PELAYO, JANET E 06/15/2023 $3,922.19 00024098 E04777 PHAN, EDOUARD T 06/15/2023 $199.13 00024099 E03893 PICKRELL, ARIELLE 06/15/2023 $1,766.73 00024100 E05116 PRADO, ALEXA 06/15/2023 $787.80 00024101 E05130 REYNOLDS, SARABETH A 06/15/2023 $550.61 00024102 E02754 REYNOSO, SUGEIRY 06/15/2023 $2,663.10 00024103 E05118 RODRIGUEZ, JOSHUA R 06/15/2023 $661.12 00024104 E05103 RODRIGUEZ, MATTHEW S 06/15/2023 $731.97 00024105 E03362 ROMERO, MARINA Y 06/15/2023 $2,088.12 00024106 E04684 ROSALES, MARIA D 06/15/2023 $702.66 00024107 E04614 ROSAS, TANYA 06/15/2023 $239.00 00024108 E04933 ROSAS, VANESSA 06/15/2023 $429.76 00024109 E04620 SALDIVAR, DIANA 06/15/2023 $145.68 00024110 E01893 SAUCEDO, DANA MARIE 06/15/2023 $3,115.58 00024111 E00925 SCHLUMPBERGER, EMERON J 06/15/2023 $1,079.81 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 8
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024112 E04926 SERNA, SAMANTHA M 06/15/2023 $254.94 00024113 E04795 SIEVE, MYCHAELLA J 06/15/2023 $517.53 00024114 E04927 SINGER, LAUREN ROSE EMIKO N 06/15/2023 $262.22 00024115 E04376 SMITH, SARAH L 06/15/2023 $1,041.49 00024116 E04798 TANG, ETHAN 06/15/2023 $585.35 00024117 E05131 TRAN, NGOC DIEM 06/15/2023 $437.04 00024118 E05030 TRIGGS, MARY SHANNON 06/15/2023 $1,118.78 00024119 E04924 TU, KATHY 06/15/2023 $356.92 00024120 E01396 VALDIVIA, CLAUDIA 06/15/2023 $3,496.96 00024121 E00015 VAN SICKLE, JEFFREY 06/15/2023 $2,660.19 00024122 E04687 VARGAS, SAMANTHA B 06/15/2023 $560.07 00024123 E05046 VARGAS-CABRERA, ARMANDO 06/15/2023 $437.04 00024124 E05017 VARGAS-SERNA, KELLY 06/15/2023 $462.53 00024125 E03085 VICTORIA, PAUL E 06/15/2023 $872.90 00024126 E05117 VILLALPANDO, MIA F 06/15/2023 $350.54 00024127 E05018 VILLEGAS, MIA A 06/15/2023 $116.54 00024128 E04609 VIRAMONTES, JACOB D 06/15/2023 $556.80 00024129 E04937 VO, ADRIAN K 06/15/2023 $47.80 00024130 E04274 WILMES, DAVID M 06/15/2023 $676.31 00024131 E05070 XOOL VARGAS, RUDY G 06/15/2023 $269.51 00024132 E05076 XU, CHARLIE 06/15/2023 $174.82 00024133 E03819 ALAMILLO, MARCOS R 06/15/2023 $3,787.09 00024134 E03712 ALARCON, CLAUDIA 06/15/2023 $3,920.45 00024135 E03616 ALCARAZ, MARIA A 06/15/2023 $2,629.88 00024136 E00121 ALLISON, WILLIAM 06/15/2023 $6,029.19 00024137 E04873 ALVARADO, MADELINE M 06/15/2023 $1,924.78 00024138 E04080 ALVAREZ BROWN, RICHARD A 06/15/2023 $0.00 00024139 E05028 AMAYA, JOSE J 06/15/2023 $2,477.25 00024140 E03011 ANDERSON, BOBBY B 06/15/2023 $4,105.80 00024141 E05040 ARCHULETA, ANDREW M 06/15/2023 $2,629.19 00024142 E01234 ARELLANO, PEDRO R 06/15/2023 $4,245.64 00024143 E04875 ARROYO, SANDRA M 06/15/2023 $2,405.39 00024144 E04497 ASHBAUGH, TIMOTHY R 06/15/2023 $3,460.34 00024145 E03397 ASHBY, PAUL W 06/15/2023 $3,917.80 00024146 E04719 ATWOOD, MARIA S 06/15/2023 $2,192.07 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 9
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024147 E04613 AVALOS JR, FRANCISCO 06/15/2023 $2,327.96 00024148 E04550 BAEK, SHARON S 06/15/2023 $2,926.58 00024149 E05062 BAEZ, JASMIN 06/15/2023 $593.15 00024150 E04209 BAINTO, JUDY A 06/15/2023 $578.01 00024151 E04778 BAKER, COLLIN E 06/15/2023 $2,963.70 00024152 E03005 BANKSON, JOHN F 06/15/2023 $4,607.23 00024153 E04645 BARRAZA, RENE 06/15/2023 $3,849.16 00024154 E05041 BARRIOS-ROA, JAYDE D. 06/15/2023 $2,894.92 00024155 E04432 BEHZAD, JOSHUA K 06/15/2023 $4,044.90 00024156 E04951 BELLO, ANGELICA 06/15/2023 $2,090.50 00024157 E03006 BELTHIUS, LISA A 06/15/2023 $46.43 00024158 E04976 BELTHIUS, TYLER E 06/15/2023 $757.50 00024159 E04753 BERENGER, BEAU A 06/15/2023 $4,620.25 00024160 E03296 BERESFORD, EVAN S 06/15/2023 $4,468.94 00024161 E01604 BERLETH, RYAN S 06/15/2023 $2,224.50 00024162 E03443 BLUM, JAMES A 06/15/2023 $3,424.38 00024163 E03363 BOWEN, GENA M 06/15/2023 $1,842.81 00024164 E04767 BOWMAN, TROY F 06/15/2023 $3,006.06 00024165 E04963 BOYENS III, ROBERT 06/15/2023 $3,890.63 00024166 E00946 BRAME, KAREN D 06/15/2023 $2,756.26 00024167 E04803 BRANTNER, BRITTANEE N 06/15/2023 $1,648.01 00024168 E05083 BRITTON, CODY W 06/15/2023 $1,832.76 00024169 E03380 BROWN, JEFFREY A 06/15/2023 $6,216.89 00024170 E03968 BRUNICK, CARISSA L 06/15/2023 $2,325.10 00024171 E05074 BUJANONDA, CHANON 06/15/2023 $3,874.04 00024172 E02031 BURILLO, RICHARD O 06/15/2023 $6,136.30 00024173 E03972 BUSTILLOS, RYAN V 06/15/2023 $4,399.83 00024174 E05077 CAGLE, RONALD L 06/15/2023 $2,087.80 00024175 E03964 CAMARA, DANIEL A 06/15/2023 $2,988.04 00024176 E04074 CAMPOS, JESENIA 06/15/2023 $2,274.58 00024177 E03739 CAPPS, THOMAS A 06/15/2023 $3,772.13 00024178 E05002 CARBALLO, MILTON A 06/15/2023 $2,577.30 00024179 E02372 CENTENO, JUAN C 06/15/2023 $4,612.93 00024180 E03607 CHANG, DAVID Y H 06/15/2023 $2,081.19 00024181 E04867 CHAPPELL, SHYLER R.D. 06/15/2023 $2,198.38 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 10
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024182 E03481 CHAURAN HAIRGROVE, TAMMY L 06/15/2023 $2,633.24 00024183 E04498 CHEATHAM, JEROME L 06/15/2023 $3,230.66 00024184 E01541 CHO, HAN J 06/15/2023 $3,418.72 00024185 E03423 CHOWDHURY, JACINTA F 06/15/2023 $1,830.97 00024186 E00003 CIBOSKY, COURTNEY P 06/15/2023 $3,462.84 00024187 E04539 CLASBY JR, BRIAN M 06/15/2023 $1,614.36 00024188 E04872 CORNETT, KRISTINA L 06/15/2023 $1,757.05 00024189 E04832 CORTEZ JR, DARRYL B 06/15/2023 $2,926.62 00024190 E04666 CORTEZ, JULIO C 06/15/2023 $3,259.70 00024191 E01875 COUGHRAN, ADAM B 06/15/2023 $241.52 00024192 E01796 COULTER, GARY L 06/15/2023 $3,556.07 00024193 E04555 CRUZ, REYNA 06/15/2023 $1,957.00 00024194 E01364 DALTON, BRIAN D 06/15/2023 $4,764.96 00024195 E04874 DANG, JOHN 06/15/2023 $433.21 00024196 E04503 DAVILA, ISAAC 06/15/2023 $2,771.38 00024197 E04431 DE ALMEIDA LOPES, NICHOLAS A 06/15/2023 $5,451.70 00024198 E04731 DE PADUA, TANNER C 06/15/2023 $2,976.47 00024199 E03691 DELGADO JR, JUAN L 06/15/2023 $4,839.43 00024200 E03395 DIX, JENNIFER A 06/15/2023 $3,194.94 00024201 E05088 DOAN, THOMMY 06/15/2023 $1,949.51 00024202 E02313 DOSCHER, RONALD A 06/15/2023 $3,227.66 00024203 E04586 DOVEAS, CHRISTOPHER C 06/15/2023 $125.68 00024204 E04281 DRISCOLL, RUSSELL B 06/15/2023 $2,001.78 00024205 E04844 DUARTE, TAYLOR M 06/15/2023 $3,374.21 00024206 E04720 DUDLEY, BROC D 06/15/2023 $3,775.09 00024207 E03625 EARLE, CHRISTOPHER M 06/15/2023 $3,802.52 00024208 E03740 EL FARRA, AMIR A 06/15/2023 $5,501.21 00024209 E03927 ELHAMI, MICHAEL K 06/15/2023 $5,213.84 00024210 E03933 ELIZONDO, BENJAMIN M 06/15/2023 $3,689.47 00024211 E04016 ELIZONDO, FLOR DE LIS 06/15/2023 $2,396.21 00024212 E01598 ELSOUSOU, HELENA 06/15/2023 $3,342.52 00024213 E02708 ENRIQUEZ, JOHN G 06/15/2023 $1,098.06 00024214 E02734 ESCALANTE, OTTO J 06/15/2023 $11,231.24 00024215 E04334 ESCOBEDO, JOSHUA N 06/15/2023 $3,661.32 00024216 E02724 ESTLOW, STEPHEN C 06/15/2023 $3,478.12 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 11
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024217 E04358 ESTRADA MONSANTO, MICHELLE N 06/15/2023 $4,017.94 00024218 E04748 FAJARDO, JESUS 06/15/2023 $351.04 00024219 E04303 FERREIRA JR, HECTOR 06/15/2023 $3,343.19 00024220 E01663 FERRIN, KORY C 06/15/2023 $4,556.69 00024221 E03976 FIGUEREDO, GEORGE R 06/15/2023 $4,333.20 00024222 E04774 FLINN, PATRICIA C 06/15/2023 $3,320.31 00024223 E02887 FOSTER, VICTORIA M 06/15/2023 $2,011.85 00024224 E04033 FRANCISCO, KATHERINE M 06/15/2023 $2,337.72 00024225 E02963 FRANKS, JAMES D 06/15/2023 $3,459.76 00024226 E04747 FRESENIUS, ROBERT D 06/15/2023 $3,221.93 00024227 E00903 FRUTOS, VERONICA 06/15/2023 $6,117.59 00024228 E04729 GARCIA, JOSEPH A 06/15/2023 $2,513.71 00024229 E03086 GARCIA, PETE 06/15/2023 $4,454.06 00024230 E03659 GARNER, AMANDA B 06/15/2023 $0.00 00024231 E02606 GEORGE, DAVID L 06/15/2023 $2,152.81 00024232 E04351 GERDIN, MICHAEL E 06/15/2023 $3,360.69 00024233 E04542 GIFFORD, ROBERT J 06/15/2023 $3,491.45 00024234 E04658 GIRGENTI, BRIAN C 06/15/2023 $4,646.76 00024235 E04401 GLEASON, SEAN M 06/15/2023 $3,164.15 00024236 E04917 GOMEZ, JESUS 06/15/2023 $2,490.34 00024237 E04863 GONZALEZ JR, GONZALO 06/15/2023 $2,945.48 00024238 E05003 HA, DANNY 06/15/2023 $3,418.67 00024239 E04732 HADDEN, TRAVIS J 06/15/2023 $3,141.13 00024240 E04787 HALEY, KYLE N 06/15/2023 $3,719.92 00024241 E03527 HALLER, TROY 06/15/2023 $4,966.02 00024242 E03402 HEINE, STEVEN H 06/15/2023 $5,857.25 00024243 E02469 HERRERA, JOSE D 06/15/2023 $4,210.83 00024244 E04244 HINGCO, PINKY C 06/15/2023 $3,713.39 00024245 E03713 HOLLOWAY, WILLIAM T 06/15/2023 $4,709.85 00024246 E04739 HOWARD, JASON A 06/15/2023 $3,583.25 00024247 E04654 HURLEY, KIRK P 06/15/2023 $3,182.60 00024248 E04089 HUTCHINS, DONALD J 06/15/2023 $4,084.38 00024249 E03815 HUYNH, AI KELLY 06/15/2023 $2,680.91 00024250 E03559 HUYNH, THI A 06/15/2023 $3,422.79 00024251 E04915 ITURRALDE, JENNIFER L 06/15/2023 $1,579.73 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 12
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024252 E04583 JENSEN, MICHAEL J 06/15/2023 $4,622.77 00024253 E02935 JENSEN, NICKOLAS K 06/15/2023 $4,304.26 00024254 E04587 JIMENEZ JR, EFRAIN A 06/15/2023 $3,596.39 00024255 E04781 JIMENEZ TAVAREZ, SERGIO J 06/15/2023 $2,475.96 00024256 E04655 JOHNSON, CODY M 06/15/2023 $2,537.98 00024257 E03368 JOHNSON, JASON L 06/15/2023 $4,360.34 00024258 E03831 JORDAN, GERALD F 06/15/2023 $4,119.46 00024259 E04610 JORDAN, VICTORIA A 06/15/2023 $229.57 00024260 E04444 JULIENNE, PATRICK R 06/15/2023 $3,593.91 00024261 E04460 KAISER, GEORGE R 06/15/2023 $1,234.31 00024262 E04559 KELLEY, KRISTOFER D 06/15/2023 $4,524.97 00024263 E04353 KEUILIAN, SHELBY 06/15/2023 $2,426.89 00024264 E04663 KIM, CHAD B 06/15/2023 $2,856.13 00024265 E04538 KIMBERLY, ALLYSON L 06/15/2023 $1,784.43 00024266 E03932 KIVLER, ROBERT J 06/15/2023 $2,947.42 00024267 E03389 KOLANO, JOSEPH L 06/15/2023 $3,147.54 00024268 E03294 KOVACS, LEA K 06/15/2023 $3,041.34 00024269 E05000 KOVACS, TIMOTHY M 06/15/2023 $3,010.50 00024270 E04669 KOVACS, TIMOTHY P 06/15/2023 $5,263.05 00024271 E03484 KUNKEL, PETER M 06/15/2023 $3,893.46 00024272 E04804 LADD, LAUREN M 06/15/2023 $2,171.77 00024273 E04857 LANG, MICHAEL J 06/15/2023 $3,903.04 00024274 E03511 LAZENBY, NICHOLAS A 06/15/2023 $3,651.03 00024275 E04877 LE, BAO TINH THI 06/15/2023 $2,012.72 00024276 E04021 LEE, RAPHAEL M 06/15/2023 $3,611.35 00024277 E04970 LEIVA, EDUARDO C 06/15/2023 $5,982.62 00024278 E03488 LEYVA, ERICK 06/15/2023 $4,698.28 00024279 E04541 LINK, DEREK M 06/15/2023 $4,196.58 00024280 E00030 LOERA JR, RAFAEL 06/15/2023 $4,614.35 00024281 E05033 LOFFLER, CHARLES H 06/15/2023 $5,243.32 00024282 E02645 LOPEZ, DAVID 06/15/2023 $4,028.87 00024283 E05066 LORD, MARK A 06/15/2023 $4,748.42 00024284 E04581 LOWEN, BRADLEY A 06/15/2023 $3,514.45 00024285 E04761 LUCATERO, JESSE A 06/15/2023 $3,469.85 00024286 E00027 LUKAS, STEVEN W 06/15/2023 $2,316.08 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 13
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024287 E04048 LUX, ROBERT D 06/15/2023 $2,302.54 00024288 E03663 LUX, RYAN M 06/15/2023 $5,400.76 00024289 E04772 LY, LINDALINH THU 06/15/2023 $1,767.11 00024290 E04661 MACHUCA, ROBERTO 06/15/2023 $3,538.40 00024291 E03752 MACY, TAYLOR A 06/15/2023 $3,615.96 00024292 E04532 MANIACI, GIANLUCA F 06/15/2023 $5,142.47 00024293 E04435 MARCHAND, MATTHEW P 06/15/2023 $6,444.86 00024294 E01359 MARTINEZ JR, MARIO 06/15/2023 $5,388.92 00024295 E04974 MARTINEZ, JUANITA PATRICIA 06/15/2023 $2,981.33 00024296 E02792 MATA, RAQUEL D 06/15/2023 $963.17 00024297 E04656 MAZON, JORGE L 06/15/2023 $3,121.01 00024298 E02796 MCFARLANE, MARIA C 06/15/2023 $2,605.83 00024299 E06761 MEEKS, REBECCA S 06/15/2023 $3,413.15 00024300 E03826 MEERS, BRYAN J 06/15/2023 $3,960.33 00024301 E02655 MENDOZA CAMPOS, MELISSA 06/15/2023 $3,810.53 00024302 E04402 MERRILL, KENNETH E 06/15/2023 $554.96 00024303 E03965 MIHALIK, DANNY J 06/15/2023 $5,469.98 00024304 E04865 MORIN, LINDA M 06/15/2023 $3,212.07 00024305 E04352 MORSE, JEREMY N 06/15/2023 $3,769.95 00024306 E01940 MORTON, NATHAN D 06/15/2023 $4,059.14 00024307 E04454 MOSER, MICHAEL A 06/15/2023 $2,209.65 00024308 E03929 MURILLO JR, RAUL 06/15/2023 $4,512.21 00024309 E04626 MURO, JASON M 06/15/2023 $3,673.05 00024310 E04577 MUSCHETTO, PATRICK J 06/15/2023 $2,456.37 00024311 E03422 NADOLSKI, THOMAS R 06/15/2023 $2,929.34 00024312 E05084 NAKANO HITZKE, SARAH V 06/15/2023 $1,522.17 00024313 E04111 NEELY, JACOB J 06/15/2023 $2,371.85 00024314 E02813 NGUYEN, TRINA T 06/15/2023 $1,919.02 00024315 E04540 NIKOLIC, ADAM C 06/15/2023 $5,336.40 00024316 E05054 NUNEZ, BREANNE S 06/15/2023 $2,692.81 00024317 E03350 OLIVO, JOSHUA T 06/15/2023 $4,709.05 00024318 E04035 ORTIZ, STEVEN TRUJILLO 06/15/2023 $3,923.48 00024319 E03427 PANELLA, JOSEPH N 06/15/2023 $2,999.43 00024320 E04910 PAQUA, BRANDON J 06/15/2023 $2,584.55 00024321 E01948 PARK, BRANDY J 06/15/2023 $2,874.75 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 14
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024322 E02995 PAYAN, CRISTINA V 06/15/2023 $2,933.48 00024323 E00824 PAYAN, LUIS A 06/15/2023 $5,428.73 00024324 E04843 PEREZ, EMMANUEL 06/15/2023 $3,020.01 00024325 E00145 PERKINS, JASON S 06/15/2023 $6,566.04 00024326 E04429 PHAM, PHILLIP H 06/15/2023 $3,974.99 00024327 E06938 PLUARD, DOUGLAS A 06/15/2023 $4,707.30 00024328 E03299 POLOPEK, COREY T 06/15/2023 $3,815.66 00024329 E05050 QUANG, DENNIS 06/15/2023 $3,127.75 00024330 E04788 QUIROZ, LUIS A 06/15/2023 $2,380.55 00024331 E05100 RAABE, MATTHEW A 06/15/2023 $2,472.42 00024332 E03967 RAMIREZ OROZCO, SINDY 06/15/2023 $3,490.64 00024333 E04955 RAMIREZ, KAYLYN C 06/15/2023 $2,299.87 00024334 E03390 RAMIREZ, LUIS F 06/15/2023 $4,348.99 00024335 E05021 RAMIREZ, TERRA M 06/15/2023 $3,602.25 00024336 E05049 RAMOS, DAVID N 06/15/2023 $2,939.16 00024337 E04914 RAMOS, RODOLFO B 06/15/2023 $550.61 00024338 E03217 RANEY, JOHN E 06/15/2023 $4,915.17 00024339 E04941 RASMUSSEN, TRENTON L 06/15/2023 $2,253.99 00024340 E04659 REED, THOMAS S 06/15/2023 $2,831.30 00024341 E03486 REYES, RON A 06/15/2023 $4,422.10 00024342 E04911 RICHARDS, BRYANT D 06/15/2023 $2,499.58 00024343 E04437 RICHMOND, RYAN R 06/15/2023 $3,361.54 00024344 E04860 ROCHA, RUDY A 06/15/2023 $393.34 00024345 E04738 RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL 06/15/2023 $3,395.21 00024346 E04082 RODRIGUEZ, JENNIFER M 06/15/2023 $9,120.13 00024347 E05001 RODRIGUEZ, RYAN ELIJAH 06/15/2023 $2,241.51 00024348 E04438 ROGERS, CHRISTIN E 06/15/2023 $5,478.35 00024349 E04385 ROJAS, ASHLEY C 06/15/2023 $2,220.29 00024350 E04507 ROMBOUGH, JENNIFER V 06/15/2023 $2,105.68 00024351 E04552 RUZIECKI, ERIC T 06/15/2023 $3,602.39 00024352 E02845 SALAZAR, SEAN M 06/15/2023 $3,829.98 00024353 E04845 SALGADO JR., ALFREDO 06/15/2023 $2,664.43 00024354 E03297 SAMOFF, TANYA L 06/15/2023 $2,638.27 00024355 E02646 SANTANA, LINO G 06/15/2023 $8,640.94 00024356 E05086 SEELY, BRITTANY L 06/15/2023 $509.88 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 15
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024357 E03035 SEYMOUR, SUSAN A I 06/15/2023 $2,627.31 00024358 E04282 SHELGREN, CHRISTOPHER M 06/15/2023 $3,991.10 00024359 E04616 SHIPLEY, AARON T 06/15/2023 $2,884.77 00024360 E02937 SHORROW, NICOLE D 06/15/2023 $3,279.52 00024361 E04864 SILVA, LEVI JOENIEL 06/15/2023 $2,969.00 00024362 E04576 SIMONS, SHAYLEN L 06/15/2023 $2,995.48 00024363 E04934 SLETTVET, HEATHER P 06/15/2023 $3,427.60 00024364 E02587 SOSEBEE, DANNY J 06/15/2023 $2,376.65 00024365 E03563 SPELLMAN, MARSHA D 06/15/2023 $2,773.18 00024366 E04500 STAAL, GAREY D 06/15/2023 $4,002.89 00024367 E03218 STARNES, CHARLES W 06/15/2023 $5,793.65 00024368 E03761 STEPHENSON III, ROBERT M 06/15/2023 $5,321.40 00024369 E04584 STROUD, BRIAN T 06/15/2023 $4,350.07 00024370 E02979 TESSIER, PAUL M 06/15/2023 $4,227.36 00024371 E04449 TRAN, SPENCER T 06/15/2023 $2,654.28 00024372 E02982 VAICARO, VINCENTE J 06/15/2023 $5,999.21 00024373 E03053 VALENCIA, EDGAR 06/15/2023 $4,142.92 00024374 E04667 VAUGHN, CALEB I 06/15/2023 $627.29 00024375 E04977 VAZQUEZ, BRIAN M 06/15/2023 $655.32 00024376 E04434 VELLANOWETH, KIMBRA S 06/15/2023 $2,684.08 00024377 E04903 VIGIL, DANIEL C 06/15/2023 $3,154.25 00024378 E03022 VU, TUONG-VAN NGUYEN 06/15/2023 $2,246.60 00024379 E04730 VU, TYLER D 06/15/2023 $1,893.50 00024380 E01905 WAINWRIGHT, JONATHAN B 06/15/2023 $4,004.16 00024381 E03220 WARDLE, DENNIS 06/15/2023 $3,996.35 00024382 E03213 WARDLE, SANTA 06/15/2023 $2,063.72 00024383 E04758 WEYKER, CHRYSTAL L 06/15/2023 $1,957.69 00024384 E03930 WHITNEY, CHERYL L 06/15/2023 $2,008.77 00024385 E03305 WIMMER, ROYCE C 06/15/2023 $4,922.82 00024386 E04762 WREN, DANIELLE E 06/15/2023 $3,217.74 00024387 E04763 WRIGHT, SARAH A 06/15/2023 $3,000.62 00024388 E04856 XU, DUO 06/15/2023 $2,154.91 00024389 E03543 YELENSKY, SHANNON M 06/15/2023 $1,872.01 00024390 E04156 YERGLER, JOHN J 06/15/2023 $3,506.33 00024391 E04722 YNIGUEZ, COLE A 06/15/2023 $2,656.05 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 16
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024392 E09942 YOUNG, DAVID C 06/15/2023 $834.24 00024393 E01978 ZMIJA, ADAM D 06/15/2023 $4,095.24 00024394 E04517 AGUIRRE, ALFRED J 06/15/2023 $4,264.82 00024395 E01626 AGUIRRE, ANSELMO 06/15/2023 $2,140.99 00024396 E04451 AGUIRRE, ANTHONY U 06/15/2023 $174.98 00024397 E05087 ALVAREZ, CARLOS J 06/15/2023 $1,729.11 00024398 E04631 ANDREI, IOAN 06/15/2023 $1,168.86 00024399 E04678 BABINSKI IV, SYLVESTER A 06/15/2023 $2,006.81 00024400 E05098 BARNESE, VINCENZO A 06/15/2023 $2,616.91 00024401 E04336 BECERRA, RODOLPHO M 06/15/2023 $3,237.60 00024402 E04972 BECERRA-SAMANIEGO JR, GABRIEL 06/15/2023 $1,863.01 00024403 E01255 BOS, MICHAEL C 06/15/2023 $2,256.71 00024404 E04650 BUCHLER, RAYMOND A 06/15/2023 $2,155.02 00024405 E01584 CANDELARIA, DANIEL J 06/15/2023 $4,557.76 00024406 E04300 CANO, EDGAR A 06/15/2023 $2,494.40 00024407 E03828 CANTRELL, JEFFREY G 06/15/2023 $2,860.97 00024408 E05063 CARRILLO, GEORGE 06/15/2023 $2,478.44 00024409 E03811 CARRISOZA, ALBERT J 06/15/2023 $2,190.44 00024410 E00916 CARTER, PHILLIP J 06/15/2023 $3,457.11 00024411 E04869 CHAVEZ, DAMIAN JESUS 06/15/2023 $543.23 00024412 E04551 CONTRERAS, GABRIELA R 06/15/2023 $2,530.86 00024413 E03518 COTTON, JULIE T 06/15/2023 $1,821.59 00024414 E03807 DE LA ROSA, VINCENT L 06/15/2023 $3,245.25 00024415 E03736 DIBAJ, KAMYAR 06/15/2023 $3,501.78 00024416 E02515 DUVALL, RICK L 06/15/2023 $2,652.92 00024417 E04514 ESPINOZA, ERIC M 06/15/2023 $2,090.31 00024418 E03733 ESPINOZA, JULIA 06/15/2023 $1,327.25 00024419 E03405 FERNANDEZ, CECELIA A 06/15/2023 $1,301.54 00024420 E04990 FLORES, MITCHELL C 06/15/2023 $1,522.78 00024421 E05064 FOX, LUCAS 06/15/2023 $741.60 00024422 E05037 GAINES, JEFFREY S 06/15/2023 $808.84 00024423 E05010 GALVAN, EDGAR 06/15/2023 $0.00 00024424 E04754 GARCIA, ALICIA R 06/15/2023 $1,610.04 00024425 E04677 GIROUARD, CASEY G 06/15/2023 $1,621.12 00024426 E04629 GOMEZ, DIANA 06/15/2023 $1,308.15 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 17
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024427 E03341 GONZALEZ, JORGE 06/15/2023 $1,255.97 00024428 E03400 GREENE, MICHAEL R 06/15/2023 $2,369.29 00024429 E03685 GUZMAN, JESSE 06/15/2023 $2,593.46 00024430 E04299 HANSEN, AARON R 06/15/2023 $2,046.85 00024431 E03523 HARO, GLORIA A 06/15/2023 $1,267.53 00024432 E03759 HERNANDEZ, HERMILO 06/15/2023 $2,786.06 00024433 E04622 HOFER, ALICIA M 06/15/2023 $1,987.49 00024434 E02874 HOLMON III, ALBERT J 06/15/2023 $4,021.90 00024435 E04347 HSIEH, NICOLAS C 06/15/2023 $3,601.46 00024436 E03588 HUYNH, HUY HOA 06/15/2023 $2,399.32 00024437 E04831 ILFELD, MATTHEW D 06/15/2023 $2,009.36 00024438 E01907 JACOT, ROSEMARIE 06/15/2023 $2,317.96 00024439 E04296 JOHNSON, ERIC W 06/15/2023 $1,700.55 00024440 E04979 JURADO, MICHAEL 06/15/2023 $1,339.42 00024441 E04470 KAYLOR, BRENT 06/15/2023 $3,036.65 00024442 E04728 KHALIL, MARK M 06/15/2023 $2,257.15 00024443 E05115 KOUTSOYANOPULOS, ALDOCHRIS V 06/15/2023 $1,522.75 00024444 E04382 KWIATKOWSKI, BRYAN D 06/15/2023 $2,086.06 00024445 E02852 LADNEY, MARK W 06/15/2023 $3,636.98 00024446 E04769 LAMAS, LEONEL A 06/15/2023 $1,058.38 00024447 E03813 LEWIS, SHAN L 06/15/2023 $3,149.60 00024448 E03301 LEYVA, RAUL 06/15/2023 $3,531.04 00024449 E05065 LOMELI, JONATHAN 06/15/2023 $273.48 00024450 E05006 MARQUEZ, STEVEN ADAM 06/15/2023 $1,399.16 00024451 E05364 MARU, NAVIN B 06/15/2023 $14,663.93 00024452 E04665 MEJIA, DIEGO A 06/15/2023 $2,136.11 00024453 E03493 MENDEZ, RIGOBERTO 06/15/2023 $2,179.23 00024454 E04998 MENDOZA, LAURA 06/15/2023 $1,014.27 00024455 E04724 MOORE, DOUGLAS A 06/15/2023 $2,754.64 00024456 E04827 MORELAND, ANDREW J 06/15/2023 $1,670.59 00024457 E04222 MOSS, DANIEL C 06/15/2023 $1,836.23 00024458 E01243 MURRAY JR, WILLIAM E 06/15/2023 $7,618.36 00024459 E04634 NAVARRO, JUAN C 06/15/2023 $2,910.18 00024460 E04969 ORNELLAS, MICHAEL 06/15/2023 $1,776.08 00024461 E03378 ORTIZ, STEVEN T 06/15/2023 $4,354.40 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 18
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024462 E04999 ORTUNO, ANIBAL 06/15/2023 $2,040.04 00024463 E05114 PACE, FRANK D 06/15/2023 $908.33 00024464 E03754 PINKSTON, RICHARD L 06/15/2023 $2,570.91 00024465 E05112 POE, HEIDI L 06/15/2023 $2,700.20 00024466 E04567 POWELL, AUSTIN H 06/15/2023 $2,720.78 00024467 E03799 QUIROZ, ROLANDO 06/15/2023 $3,165.02 00024468 E05031 RAMIREZ, AACIN 06/15/2023 $2,059.82 00024469 E04572 REED, MELVIN P 06/15/2023 $2,259.75 00024470 E02058 REYES, DELFRADO C 06/15/2023 $1,320.07 00024471 E04295 ROBLES, RAFAEL 06/15/2023 $3,203.98 00024472 E04563 RODRIGUEZ, ADRIANNA M 06/15/2023 $1,245.58 00024473 E05004 RUELAS, SERGIO 06/15/2023 $1,790.67 00024474 E04289 SALDIVAR, RICARDO 06/15/2023 $1,655.69 00024475 E04505 SANTOS, MICHAEL F 06/15/2023 $3,917.40 00024476 E04836 SOTO, WILLIAM A 06/15/2023 $1,780.24 00024477 E05089 STAIR, DEAN T 06/15/2023 $891.05 00024478 E03091 SUDDUTH, STEPHEN D 06/15/2023 $2,787.34 00024479 E01625 TAPIA, LUIS A 06/15/2023 $2,973.10 00024480 E04756 TARIN, ALEXIS P 06/15/2023 $2,654.08 00024481 E03239 TAUANU U, STEVE J 06/15/2023 $2,449.61 00024482 E04773 THURMAN JR, EDWIN O 06/15/2023 $1,079.03 00024483 E08679 THURMAN, RODERICK 06/15/2023 $1,946.43 00024484 E04825 TRUJILLO, JOSEPH E 06/15/2023 $2,332.66 00024485 E02482 UPHUS, MARK P 06/15/2023 $4,572.82 00024486 E03681 VASQUEZ, JOSE A 06/15/2023 $3,718.49 00024487 E02942 VERA, EVARISTO 06/15/2023 $2,129.56 00024488 E03727 VERGARA NEAL, ANA G 06/15/2023 $2,978.88 00024489 E05093 VIRAMONTES, ALEXANDRA 06/15/2023 $2,822.51 00024490 E01580 VU, DAI C 06/15/2023 $4,542.37 00024491 E04362 VU, KHANG L 06/15/2023 $3,786.04 00024492 E03414 WILLIAMS, HILLARD J 06/15/2023 $205.10 00024493 E04006 WILLIAMS, RICHARD L 06/15/2023 $2,503.48 00024494 E05023 YNIGUEZ, KARISSA N 06/15/2023 $2,963.32 00024495 E03436 ZIEGLER, RICK S 06/15/2023 $252.39 00024496 E03917 ALLEN, CHRISTOPHER L 06/15/2023 $72.59 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 19
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024497 E04163 AMBRIZ GARCIA, EDWARD D 06/15/2023 $1,469.91 00024498 E04784 BANUELOS, ALEJANDRO 06/15/2023 $5,601.68 00024499 E04063 BERGER, JAN 06/15/2023 $2,537.10 00024500 E00651 BERMUDEZ, ROBERT P 06/15/2023 $3,527.79 00024501 E03495 BLAS, VICTOR T 06/15/2023 $2,467.72 00024502 E00070 CANNON, TIM P 06/15/2023 $5,110.16 00024503 E04365 DAN, CARINA M 06/15/2023 $2,455.07 00024504 E04440 DAVIS, RYAN H 06/15/2023 $2,051.84 00024505 E03145 DE LA ROSA, FRANK X 06/15/2023 $2,379.00 00024506 E03051 DIEMERT, RONALD W 06/15/2023 $2,931.01 00024507 E02718 ESCOBAR, CHRIS N 06/15/2023 $2,863.05 00024508 E03688 GLENN, JEREMY J 06/15/2023 $64.48 00024509 E01618 GOMEZ, JOSE 06/15/2023 $2,524.85 00024510 E02701 GONZALEZ, ALEJANDRO 06/15/2023 $7,964.63 00024511 E03763 GRIFFIN, LARRY 06/15/2023 $1,672.50 00024512 E04828 GUERRERO, MICHAEL V 06/15/2023 $2,291.67 00024513 E04018 HAENDIGES, ROBERT A 06/15/2023 $2,199.91 00024514 E03575 HART, RYAN S 06/15/2023 $2,355.15 00024515 E03701 HAYES, WALTER B 06/15/2023 $3,995.89 00024516 E03399 HOWENSTEIN, FRANK D 06/15/2023 $2,664.00 00024517 E03406 HUY, EDWARD A 06/15/2023 $2,348.47 00024518 E04782 JIN, LIYAN 06/15/2023 $2,626.84 00024519 E03534 KIM, SAMUEL K 06/15/2023 $3,735.42 00024520 E03254 KIRZHNER, ALLEN G 06/15/2023 $3,433.28 00024521 E05095 LALLY, JASON T 06/15/2023 $2,255.14 00024522 E03988 LI, REBECCA PIK KWAN 06/15/2023 $4,113.06 00024523 E02063 MA AE, DAVID 06/15/2023 $2,203.50 00024524 E03249 MANSON, RAQUEL K 06/15/2023 $2,844.13 00024525 E04837 MARTINEZ, ALFREDO 06/15/2023 $1,987.11 00024526 E02124 MEISLAHN, TYLER 06/15/2023 $2,116.54 00024527 E04403 MONTGOMERY, JESSE K 06/15/2023 $2,651.31 00024528 E04707 MORRIS, JUSTIN M 06/15/2023 $1,987.79 00024529 E03590 MOYA JR, STEVEN J 06/15/2023 $2,466.20 00024530 E03519 MURAD, BASIL G 06/15/2023 $2,994.65 00024531 E03144 NATLAND, KIRK L 06/15/2023 $1,772.45 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 20
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024532 E04291 NGUYEN, DUC TRUNG 06/15/2023 $2,871.55 00024533 E04904 NGUYEN, LISA 06/15/2023 $199.95 00024534 E03221 NICOLAE, CORNELIU 06/15/2023 $3,374.47 00024535 E04210 NUNES, BRANDON S 06/15/2023 $2,316.97 00024536 E03923 ORNELAS, ANDREW I 06/15/2023 $2,645.34 00024537 E03582 ORTEGA, DAVID A 06/15/2023 $2,995.58 00024538 E03578 PASILLAS, CELESTINO J 06/15/2023 $3,139.53 00024539 E03170 PEARSON, WILLIAM F 06/15/2023 $3,520.33 00024540 E04805 POLIDORI, JESSICA J 06/15/2023 $3,613.40 00024541 E02500 PORRAS, STEPHEN 06/15/2023 $3,898.83 00024542 E07590 RUITENSCHILD, LES A 06/15/2023 $3,426.42 00024543 E03926 RUIZ, JONATHAN 06/15/2023 $3,148.19 00024544 E07690 SANTOS, ALEXIS 06/15/2023 $2,113.01 00024545 E07692 SARMIENTO, ADRIAN M 06/15/2023 $2,736.25 00024546 E04956 SON, TOMMY T 06/15/2023 $2,083.64 00024547 E04301 TALAMANTES JR, ALBERT 06/15/2023 $2,306.01 00024548 E04121 TRAN, MINH K 06/15/2023 $2,714.11 00024549 E08881 VALENZUELA, ALEJANDRO N 06/15/2023 $5,730.13 00024550 E01882 VIRAMONTES, JESSE 06/15/2023 $2,230.43 00024551 E04195 WOLLAND, RONALD J 06/15/2023 $2,167.34 00024552 E09940 YERGENSEN, VICTOR K 06/15/2023 $2,770.46 00024553 E09954 ZAVALA, JOHN 06/15/2023 $4,112.25 00024554 E00740 BLODGETT, GREG 06/15/2023 $4,158.64 00024555 E01338 CARRENO, SHAUNA J 06/15/2023 $2,220.50 00024556 E03808 CHENG, ALANA R 06/15/2023 $3,588.18 00024557 E03353 COVARRUBIAS, MONICA 06/15/2023 $3,708.42 00024558 E05102 FLORES CRUZ, LAURA 06/15/2023 $1,985.20 00024559 E03697 GUERRERO, PAUL 06/15/2023 $3,429.85 00024560 E04750 HO, VY D 06/15/2023 $1,879.10 00024561 E04096 HUYNH, DANNY 06/15/2023 $5,131.93 00024562 E02612 KLOESS, VILMA C 06/15/2023 $2,867.45 00024563 E01949 LE, IVY 06/15/2023 $2,354.99 00024564 E05092 LE, LINH D 06/15/2023 $2,185.99 00024565 E01280 LE, TAMMY 06/15/2023 $1,701.59 00024566 E03617 LEE, GRACE E 06/15/2023 $2,878.17 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Jun 15, 2023
Report Generated on Jun 15, 2023 8:07:51 AM Page 21
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024567 E05828 MIDDENDORF, LINDA 06/15/2023 $3,342.45 00024568 E02895 MOURE, SVETLANA 06/15/2023 $3,098.82 00024569 E04948 NGUYEN, HOAI THUONG H 06/15/2023 $1,730.46 00024570 E03255 NGUYEN, PHUONG VIEN T 06/15/2023 $2,260.99 00024571 E02560 NGUYEN, QUANG 06/15/2023 $2,760.47 00024572 E01286 NGUYEN, TINA T 06/15/2023 $2,176.89 00024573 E03541 PHI, THYANA T 06/15/2023 $2,829.64 00024574 E05106 ROMERO, ALEX 06/15/2023 $1,872.42 00024575 E04408 THRONE, TIMOTHY E 06/15/2023 $2,302.83 00024576 E02543 TO, TANYA L 06/15/2023 $1,696.07 00024577 E01971 TRAN, CUONG K 06/15/2023 $2,435.31 00024578 E02056 TRUONG, ELAINE 06/15/2023 $1,839.20 00024579 E02562 VO, THANH-NGUYEN 06/15/2023 $1,859.94 00024580 E05104 YANG, DAEUN 06/15/2023 $362.25 EFT - Total $1,699,743.96
Overall - Total $1,724,113.21
Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: victoriac
City of Garden Grove
Certificate of Warrants
Register Date:
Between Jun 15, 2023 and Jun 29, 2023
This is to certify the demands covered by EFT numbers 00024581 through 00025231 and check numbers 00185418 through 00185450 inclusive as listed on this register and have been verified by the Finance Division as properly issued and bear all proper signatures.
Note:
Finance Director
Patricia Song
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Between Jun 15, 2023 and Jun 29, 2023
Report Generated on Jul 17, 2023 5:32:42 PM Page 2
PY - Payroll
Check Type: CHK
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00185418 E05035 NGUYEN, TAN V 06/29/2023 $49.27 00185419 E00977 BELAIR, DIANE 06/29/2023 $2,453.28 00185420 E05110 BARAJAS, GEMMA A 06/29/2023 $1,104.24 00185421 E05043 BARRAGAN, AUDREY A 06/29/2023 $499.52 00185422 E05139 BONACHEA, BRANDON D 06/29/2023 $931.31 00185423 E05121 CASTRO PEREZ, ANDREA 06/29/2023 $495.31 00185424 E04930 CHOW, IRIS L 06/29/2023 $609.51 00185425 E05127 FLORES, ERIKA 06/29/2023 $509.88 00185426 E05133 GONZALEZ, NADIA V 06/29/2023 $597.24 00185427 E05152 HERNANDEZ, CLARISSA 06/29/2023 $393.34 00185428 E05143 HOANG, JOLYN DT 06/29/2023 $834.07 00185429 E05147 LE, WILSON D 06/29/2023 $495.31 00185430 E05148 MAZARIEGOS, ALEXA X 06/29/2023 $116.54 00185431 E04797 NADEAU, MICHAEL P 06/29/2023 $884.66 00185432 E04936 NGUYEN, BRENDAN L 06/29/2023 $278.84 00185433 E05124 NGUYEN, KAYLA H 06/29/2023 $880.98 00185434 E05144 NGUYEN, VALARIE K 06/29/2023 $959.63 00185435 E05120 NGUYEN, VICKY 06/29/2023 $478.01 00185436 E05137 PHAN, BRYAN L 06/29/2023 $1,082.90 00185437 E05105 RODRIGUEZ, ROGER 06/29/2023 $661.32 00185438 E05151 SORIANO, KIMBERLY A 06/29/2023 $286.80 00185439 E05123 TRAN, VINCENT G 06/29/2023 $597.24 00185440 E05149 VAZQUEZ, ELOISA E 06/29/2023 $211.24 00185441 E05146 NIZ, IXA N 06/29/2023 $1,029.62 00185442 E05145 VACCARO, CHRISTIAN L 06/29/2023 $509.88 00185443 E05135 BARNHART, CHARLEY A 06/29/2023 $961.41 00185444 E05122 DORADO, ANTHONY 06/29/2023 $973.19 00185445 E03529 ROCHA, MICHAEL F 06/29/2023 $2,493.34 00185446 E05141 RODRIGUEZ, JOY R 06/29/2023 $925.23 00185447 E05067 SANCHEZ, MARTIN 06/29/2023 $826.28 00185448 E05136 VASQUEZ, PEDRO 06/29/2023 $584.68 00185449 E05134 VEGA, ERIC J 06/29/2023 $1,058.42 00185450 E03446 JIMENEZ, VIDAL 06/29/2023 $1,812.03 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: amyv
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
GGFEFM002 Warrant Register Payroll
Check Dates Between Jun 15, 2023 and Jun 29, 2023
Report Generated on Jul 17, 2023 5:32:42 PM Page 3
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
CHK - Total $26,584.52
Check Type: EFT
Check Vendor # Vendor Name Issue Date Check Amount
00024581 E05079 TRAN, CINDY NGOC 06/21/2023 $2,192.12 00024582 E03973 AVILA, VERONICA 06/29/2023 $2,772.70 00024583 E04755 BRIETIGAM III, GEORGE S 06/29/2023 $778.36 00024584 E02788 DAVIS, JEFFREY P 06/29/2023 $1,733.97 00024585 E05080 DOVINH, JOSEPH T 06/29/2023 $736.14 00024586 E04994 GREENUP, BREANNA C 06/29/2023 $1,011.73 00024587 E00803 HADDAD, PAMELA M 06/29/2023 $2,040.63 00024588 E03612 JONES, STEVEN R 06/29/2023 $919.67 00024589 E04442 KIM, LISA L 06/29/2023 $5,441.42 00024590 E04131 KIM, NOELLE N 06/29/2023 $3,080.09 00024591 E04536 KLOPFENSTEIN, STEPHANIE L 06/29/2023 $616.09 00024592 E05072 LOPEZ, CARLOS 06/29/2023 $1,885.32 00024593 E02787 MORAN, MARIE L 06/29/2023 $2,850.07 00024594 E04537 NGUYEN, KIM B 06/29/2023 $717.63 00024595 E04534 ONEILL, JOHN R 06/29/2023 $793.68 00024596 E04528 PARK, SHAWN S 06/29/2023 $2,792.35 00024597 E04443 POLLOCK, AMANDA M 06/29/2023 $2,027.58 00024598 E06945 POMEROY, TERESA L 06/29/2023 $3,831.37 00024599 E01964 PULIDO, ANA E 06/29/2023 $4,598.97 00024600 E05057 SATO, MICHI L 06/29/2023 $2,777.90 00024601 E00564 STIPE, MARIA A 06/29/2023 $7,632.03 00024602 E03715 THAI, KRISTY H 06/29/2023 $2,521.37 00024603 E05079 TRAN, CINDY NGOC 06/29/2023 $793.89 00024604 E03983 VASQUEZ, LIZABETH C 06/29/2023 $2,603.05 00024605 E04971 VITAL, ANDREA 06/29/2023 $1,789.03 00024606 E04230 WIMMER, MISSY M 06/29/2023 $1,832.79 00024607 E04944 ANDERSON CAMBA, ASHLEIGH R 06/29/2023 $2,190.95 00024608 E04764 BRADLEY, JANNA K 06/29/2023 $2,737.75 00024609 E03766 CERDA, MARY C 06/29/2023 $2,240.07 00024610 E04673 HART, BRANDI M 06/29/2023 $987.16 00024611 E04363 KWAN, LIANE Y 06/29/2023 $4,056.99 00024612 E01985 LEE, JANY H 06/29/2023 $4,291.29 Server Name: cognos.ggcity.org User Name: amyv