Garden Grove City Council
September 9, 2025

AGENDA

Garden Grove City Council

Tuesday, September 9, 2025
6:30 PM

Community Meeting Center
11300 Stanford Avenue
Garden Grove, California 92840
Stephanie Klopfenstein
Mayor
Joe DoVinh
Mayor Pro Tem – District 4
George S. Brietigam
Council Member – District 1
Phillip Nguyen
Council Member – District 2
Cindy Tran
Council Member – District 3
Yesenia Muñeton
Council Member – District 5
Ariana Arestegui
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 th e 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 b e 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 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.
1

AGENDA

ROLL CALL: COUNCIL MEMBER BRIETIGAM, COUNCIL MEMBER NGUYEN, COUNCIL MEMBER TRAN, COUNCIL MEMBER MUÑETON, COUNCIL MEMBER ARESTEGUI, MAYOR PRO

TEM DOVINH, MAYOR KLOPFENSTEIN

INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PRESENTATIONS

1. Community Spotlight in recognition of Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe for being named the 2025-2026 Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year.

[Item 319/2025]

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (TO BE HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OTHER

LEGISLATIVE BODIES)

RECESS

CONDUCT OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODIES' BUSINESS

RECONVENE

CONSENT ITEMS (WILL BE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ONE MOTION

UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY A

COUNCIL MEMBER)

2. Adoption of a Proclamation recognizing Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe for being named the 2025-2026 Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year. (Action Item)

[Item 326/2025]

3. Adoption of a Proclamation adopting September 15, 2025 through October 15, 2025, as National Hispanic Heritage Month. (Action Item)

[Item 325/2025]

4. Adoption of a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Garden Grove and the Orange County Employee's Association, Garden Grove Employees League. (Action Item)

[Item 317/2025]

5. Adoption of a Resolution approving the updated employee salary schedule. (Action Item) [Item 318/2025]

2

6. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cities of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana for planning and development of a Little Saigon Business Improvement District Program; Award a contract to New City America, Inc. to provide Community Business District formation services (Cost: $205,000); and, Award a contract to Clarity of Place to conduct market research on Little Saigon. (Cost: $95,000)(Action Item)

[Item 323/2025]

7. Authorization for the the issuance of a purchase order to Uber Inc., dba Riflegear for 55 new Benelli shotguns. (Cost: $86,668.31)(Action Item)

[Item 311/2025]

8. Authorization for the issuance of a purchase order to South Coast Bobcat for the purchase of twelve (12) new small trailers for the Public Works Department. (Cost: $217,208.56)(Action Item)

[Item 315/2025]

9. Award a contract to Saitech Inc. to provide network switch and wireless access point equipment. (Cost: $256,464.58)(Action Item)

[Item 308/2025]

10. Receive and file warrants. (Action Item)

[Item 314/2025]

PUBLIC HEARINGS (MOTION TO APPROVE WILL INCLUDE ADOPTION OF EACH

RESOLUTION UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)

11. Approval of the 2025 Water Public Health Goals Report. (Action Item)

[Item 256/2025]

ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION

12. Approval of an agreement with Silverstone Property Management Company to provide comprehensive property management services for the Central Cities Navigation Center. (Cost: Not to exceed $100,000/year)(Action Item)

[Item 316/2025]

13. Award contracts to Willdan Engineering, NV5, Inc., and Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects, LLC, for on-call construction inspection services. (Cost: Not to exceed $400,000/per contract)(Action Item)

[Item 312/2025]

14. Award a contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc. for the roof replacement at the Community Meeting Center and H. Louis Lake Senior Center building located at 11300 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove. (Cost: $614,750)(Action Item)

[Item 257/2025]

3

MATTERS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY MANAGER

15. Discussion on adopting a Proclamation recognizing September as National Service Dog Month as requested by Mayor Klopfenstein.

[Item 327/2025]

16. Discussion of a proposed Smoke Free Park Ordinance as requested by Council Member Muneton.

[Item 320/2025]

ADJOURNMENT

The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Meeting Center, 11300 Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove, California, 92840. 4 Item 326/2025
Final

City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

To:

Lisa L. Kim From: Johnathan Garcia
Dept:

City Manager Dept: Community Relations
Date: 9/9/2025

Subject: Adoption of a Proclamation recognizing Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe for being named the 2025-2026 Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year. (Action Item)

OBJECTIVE

For the City Council to adopt a Proclamation celebrating Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe as the Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year for 2025-2026.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

Annually, the Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce selects a man and woman who have given volunteer hours for the benefit of the community. Mark and Maria, each long time Garden Grove residents and business owners, are active with local civic organizations and both have been recognized and celebrated at the Chamber’s 118 th annual Chamber Gala Dinner and Awards Ceremony.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council:
 Adopt a Proclamation celebrating Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe as the Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year for 2025-2026.

ATTACHMENT(S)

Proclamation

5 Proclamation
Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe
Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce
2025 Man and Woman of the Year

WHEREAS, The Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce named Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe as the 2025 Garden Grove Man and Woman of the Year for their lifetime of dedicated volunteerism and leadership in the city of Garden Grove. Their reign began July 1, 2025, and continues through June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Mark Surmanian has dedicated the past 18 years to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Garden Grove, serving as Chief Executive Officer since 2016.

Under his leadership, the organization has grown to serve over 6,200 youth daily, at 67 sites across Garden Grove and surrounding cities; and
WHEREAS, Mark’s service extends beyond his professional achievements, serving in leadership roles with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America commissions and councils, California Alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs, and Garden Grove Host Lions Club. He has simultaneously volunteered in advisory councils with the Garden Grove Police Department, Orange County Department of Education STEAM Hub, and OneOC; and
WHEREAS, Maria Stipe is the current secretary of the Garden Grove Rotary Club, with over a decade of service in projects supporting students, families in need, and citywide initiatives. She served a 26 year-career with the City of Garden Grove, and as the Assistant City Manager, she played a significant role in eliminating the City’s structural budget deficit, leading public education on District Elections and Measure O, guiding the City’s Emergency Operations Center during the COVID-19 pandemic, and securing over $55 million in federal recovery and grant funding; and
WHEREAS, Maria is happily retired and continues to serve the community through Garden Grove Rotary Club projects. She also enjoys playing pickleball at the Chapman Sports Complex, supporting local businesses, and arts.

NOW, THEREFORE, WE, the Garden Grove City Council, do hereby proclaim Mark Surmanian and Maria Stipe as the 2025 Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year and deeply commend their outstanding achievements and lasting contributions to the community.

September 9, 2025

6 Item 325/2025
Final
City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

To:

Lisa L. Kim From: Lizabeth Vasquez
Dept:

City Manager Dept: City Clerk
Date: 9/9/2025

Subject: Adoption of a Proclamation recognizing September 15, 2025 through October 15, 2025, as National Hispanic Heritage Month. (Action Item)

OBJECTIVE

For the City Council to adopt a Proclamation recognizing September 15, 2025 through October 15, 2025, as National Hispanic Heritage Month.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

First adopted by the City Council in 2018, and adopted annually every year thereafter, this Proclamation celebrates and recognizes the histories, cultures, and significant contributions of Hispanic and Latino communities in the United States of America.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council:
 Adopt a Proclamation recognizing September 15, 2025 – October 15, 2025, as Hispanic Heritage Month.

ATTACHMENT
Proclamation

7 Proclamation
National Hispanic Heritage Month
WHEREAS, September 15 to October 15, 2025, is recognized nationally as Hispanic Heritage Month to celebrate the significant contributions Hispanic/Latino Americans have made in the United States;
WHEREAS, The 2025 Hispanic Heritage Month theme is , “Herencia Colectivo :

Honrando el Pasado, Inspirando el Futuro ” – “Collective Heritage :

Honoring the Past, Inspiring the Future;
WHEREAS, September 15 th is significant because it marks the anniversary of independence for the Latin American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras , and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico, Chile and Belize celebrate their independence days on September 16th, 18th, and 21st, respectively.

WHEREAS, California is home to more than 15 million Latinos, and where more than 64,000 are residents of Garden Grove;
WHEREAS, The Latino communities have made innumerable contributions to the advancement of business, education, medicine, the arts, and public service; and
WHEREAS, The Hispanic/Latino community has been an integral part of Garden Grove’s diverse and vibrant culture , bringing with them a deep commitment to family, faith, and community;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Garden Grove City Council does hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2025 , as Hispanic Heritage Month in Garden Grove , to celebrate the history, culture, and contributions that Hispanic and Latino communities have made to American society and the City of Garden Grove.

September 9, 2025
8 Item 317/2025
Final

City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

To:

Lisa L. Kim From: Jany Lee
Dept:

City Manager Dept: Human Resources
Date: 9/9/2025

Subject: Adoption of a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Garden Grove and the Orange County Employee’s Association, Garden Grove Employees League. (Action Item)

OBJECTIVE

To obtain City Council approval for a new two (2) year Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter “MOU”) with the Orange County Employee ’s Association, Garden Grove Employees League (hereinafter “Union”).

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

At the direction of the City Council, the City met and conferred with the Union and agreed to an MOU that will expire on June 30, 2027. The current MOU expired on June 30, 2025.

The City and the Union agreed to a new MOU with the term of July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2027.

The City and Union agreed to the following terms:

 A three percent (3%) base salary increase effective August 2, 2025;  Elimination of step “A” from the salary schedule, effective September 27, 2025;  Establishment of step “J” (5% step) and elimination of step “B” from the salary schedule, effective in July 2026;
 Elimination of step “C” from the salary schedule, effective in June 2027;  Medical benefit contribution increases in January 2026 and January 2027;  Vacation Accrual Tier restructuring in January 2026;
 Include steam roller used by the Streets Section to the Heavy Equipment Pay; and 9 Item 317/2025

 Increase of Tool Allowance to $1 ,000 and $500 for the Equipment Mechanic and Equipment Service Worker, respectively.

The final language of this MOU is still being worked out and the document may not be finalized until after the September 9, 2025 City Council meeting. In order to not delay implementation of the provisions in the MOU, it is requested that the City Council give the City Manager authorization to agree to any final language revisions agreed to by the parties. There would not be any financial changes, only language changes.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The estimated cost increase associated with the proposed MOU provisions related to base salary and step adjustments is approximately $402,000 for Fiscal Year 2025 -26, compared to current sal aries and benefits. For Fiscal Year 2026 -27, the estimated increase is an additional $354,000. Over the proposed two-year MOU term, the cumulative cost increase is projected at approximately $1.2 million when compared to current compensation levels for members of the OCEA League.

These estimates exclude merit increases, changes in eligibility for specialty or longevity pay, promotions, or pension cost variations. In addition, medical benefit contribution and certain special compensation, such as Heavy Equipment Pay and Tool Allowance, are not included in the above cost estimate, as such information was not readily available at the time the costing was prepared.

The cost increase attributable to base salary and step adjustments are largely incorporated in the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council:
 Adopt the attached Resolution that approves the Memorandum of Understanding between the Orange County Employee ’s Association, Garden Grove Employees League and the City of Garden Grove; and  Authorize the City Manager to finalize any last minute language changes that may occur between the parties.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution - League MOU 2025-27

10 GARDEN GROVE CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON SALARIES, WAGES, AND FRINGE BENEFITS FOR THE TERM 2025-2027 BY AND BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEE’S ASSOCIATION, GARDEN GROVE EMPLOYEES LEAGUE, AND

THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:

1. That the Memorandum of Understanding on Salaries, Wages, and Fringe Benefits 2025 -2027, by and between The Orange County Employee’s Association, Garden Grove Employees League, and the City of Garden Grove, and signed by the President on behalf of the Orange County Employee’s Association, Garden Grove Employees League , and the Human Resources Director on behalf of the City of Garden Grove, is hereby approved.

2. That the City Manager is authorized to approve language revisions to the Memorandum of Understanding that does not affect compensation or cause financial impacts to the City.

3. That all prior Resolutions in conflict herewith are herby repealed so as to avoid all conflict.
11 Item 318/2025
Final

City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

To:

Lisa L. Kim From: Jany Lee
Dept:

City Manager Dept: Human Resources
Date: 9/9/2025

Subject: Adoption of Resolution approving the updated employee salary schedule. (Action Item)

OBJECTIVE

To obtain City Council approval of a resolution to amend the Salary Schedule for the City of Garden Grove, effective retroactively to August 2, 2025, to reflect the updated agreement with the Orange County Employee’s Association, Garden Grove Employees League.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires governing bodies of local agencies contracting with CalPERS to approve and adopt a publicly available pay schedule in accordance with public meeting laws.

In order to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements for publicly available pay schedules, Garden Grove City Council is required to amend the salary schedule to reflect the current pay rate for each job classification. Retroactively effective August 2, 2025, this updated salary schedule is in accordance with the Memoranda of Understanding with the Garden Grove Employees League.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact. Personnel costs have been included in the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council:

 Adopt the attached Resolution that amends the Salary Schedule of the City of Garden Grove, effective retroactively to August 2, 2025.

12 Item 318/2025

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution - Salary Schedule 8-2- 2025

2. Salary Schedule 2025-08-02

13 GARDEN GROVE CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDEMENT TO THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CITYWIDE SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE AUGUST 2, 2025, AS REQUIRED BY CALPERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026

WHEREAS, the City of Garden Grove (“City”) contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) to provide retirement benefits for its employees; and

WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires governing bodies of local agencies contracting with CalPERS to approve and adopt a publicly available salary schedule in accordance with public meeting laws; and

WHEREAS, the salary schedule must identify each position by title, the individual pay rate amount or ranges for that position, and the time base upon which the amounts are based; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City now desires to amend the salary schedule in accordance with agreements in effect with the Garden Grove Employee’s League.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE , CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the Salary Schedule contained in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby amended and adopted in accordance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 effective upon the City Council’s approval of Amendment to the Salary Schedule for the Garden Grove Employee’s League.

SECTION 2 That the Salary Schedule is hereby effective August 2, 2025.

SECTION 3. That the Salary Schedule will be made available for public viewing via the City website for no less than five (5) years.
14 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 3,897 1,798.39 22.4799
B 4,091 1,888.26 23.6033
C 4,296 1,982.81 24.7851
D 4,511 2,082.02 26.0253
E 4,736 2,185.91 27.3239
F 4,973 2,295.00 28.6875
G 5,221 2,409.80 30.1226
H 5,482 2,530.32 31.6289
I 5,757 2,657.07 33.2133
A 6,281 2,899.14 36.2392
B 6,595 3,044.07 38.0509
C 6,925 3,196.27 39.9534
D 7,271 3,355.75 41.9468
E 7,634 3,523.54 44.0442
F 8,016 3,699.64 46.2455
G 8,417 3,884.56 48.5570
H 8,837 4,078.84 50.9856
I 9,281 4,283.52 53.5439
A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
A 7,222 3,333.42 41.6677
B 7,584 3,500.16 43.7520
C 7,963 3,675.22 45.9402
D 8,360 3,858.59 48.2323
E 8,779 4,051.83 50.6479
F 9,218 4,254.42 53.1803
G 9,678 4,466.88 55.8360
H 10,162 4,690.26 58.6282
I 10,671 4,925.06 61.5632
A 5,801 2,677.32 33.4666
B 6,091 2,811.35 35.1419
C 6,395 2,951.61 36.8951
D 6,716 3,099.65 38.7456
E 7,051 3,254.45 40.6806
F 7,404 3,417.04 42.7131
G 7,774 3,587.95 44.8494
H 8,162 3,767.17 47.0896
I 8,571 3,955.73 49.4466

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

SALARY SCHEDULE
053 ACCOUNT SPEC E 112
054 ACCOUNTANT E 160
039 ACCOUNTING MGR M 194
015 ACCOUNTING SUPV M 176
060 ACCOUNTING TECH E 152

EXHIBIT A
15 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 4,900 2,261.75 28.2719
B 5,145 2,374.48 29.6810
C 5,402 2,493.43 31.1679
D 5,673 2,618.10 32.7263
E 5,956 2,749.01 34.3627
F 6,253 2,886.15 36.0768
G 6,566 3,030.56 37.8820
H 6,895 3,182.25 39.7781
I 7,240 3,341.73 41.7716
A 6,283 2,899.65 36.2457
B 6,597 3,044.59 38.0574
C 6,926 3,196.79 39.9598
D 7,272 3,356.27 41.9533
E 7,635 3,524.06 44.0507
F 8,018 3,700.67 46.2584
G 8,419 3,885.60 48.5700
H 8,840 4,079.88 50.9985
I 9,282 4,284.03 53.5504
A 6,283 2,899.65 36.2457
B 6,597 3,044.59 38.0574
C 6,926 3,196.79 39.9598
D 7,272 3,356.27 41.9533
E 7,635 3,524.06 44.0507
F 8,018 3,700.67 46.2584
G 8,419 3,885.60 48.5700
H 8,840 4,079.88 50.9985
I 9,282 4,284.03 53.5504
A 5,858 2,703.81 33.7977
B 6,152 2,839.40 35.4925
C 6,459 2,981.21 37.2652
D 6,782 3,130.30 39.1288
E 7,121 3,286.66 41.0832
F 7,477 3,450.81 43.1351
G 7,852 3,623.80 45.2975
H 8,243 3,804.56 47.5570
I 8,655 3,994.69 49.9337
A 4,850 2,238.38 27.9797
B 5,092 2,350.06 29.3758
C 5,346 2,467.46 30.8432
D 5,614 2,591.09 32.3887
E 5,894 2,720.44 34.0056
F 6,189 2,856.54 35.7068
G 6,499 2,999.39 37.4924
H 6,823 3,149.00 39.3625
I 7,165 3,306.92 41.3365
060 ACCOUNTING TECH E
024 ADMIN AIDE E 135
016 ADMIN ANALYST M 162
063 ADMIN SECRETARY M 162
202 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFCR E 153
073 ASSIST BUYER E 134
16 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY B 16,890 7,795.32 97.4416
C 17,735 8,185.36 102.3170
D 18,621 8,594.36 107.4296
E 19,553 9,024.45 112.8056
F 20,530 9,475.62 118.4452
G 21,556 9,948.92 124.3616
H 22,634 10,446.48 130.5810
I 23,766 10,968.80 137.1101
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
A 7,293 3,366.14 42.0767
B 7,657 3,533.93 44.1741
C 8,041 3,711.06 46.3883
D 8,442 3,896.51 48.7064
E 8,865 4,091.32 51.1414
F 9,308 4,295.98 53.6997
G 9,773 4,510.52 56.3815
H 10,261 4,735.97 59.1996
I 10,776 4,973.36 62.1670
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
A 7,978 3,681.97 46.0246
B 8,377 3,866.38 48.3298
C 8,796 4,059.62 50.7453
D 9,236 4,262.73 53.2842
E 9,697 4,475.72 55.9465
F 10,182 4,699.60 58.7450
G 10,691 4,934.40 61.6800
H 11,226 5,181.15 64.7644
I 11,786 5,439.85 67.9981
073 ASSIST BUYER E
027 ASSIST CITY MGR C 255
286 ASSIST COMM SVCS SUPV E 150
214 ASSIST ENGINEER E 175
271 ASSIST PLANNER E 150
012 ASSIST TO CITY MGR M 186
17 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 8,898 4,106.89 51.3362
B 9,344 4,312.61 53.9076
C 9,811 4,528.18 56.6023
D 10,301 4,754.15 59.4269
E 10,816 4,992.06 62.4008
F 11,358 5,241.93 65.5241
G 11,925 5,503.74 68.7967
H 12,521 5,779.06 72.2382
I 13,147 6,067.88 75.8485
A 6,343 2,927.71 36.5964
B 6,661 3,074.20 38.4275
C 6,994 3,227.96 40.3495
D 7,343 3,389.00 42.3625
E 7,710 3,558.34 44.4792
F 8,096 3,736.52 46.7065
G 8,501 3,923.52 49.0441
H 8,925 4,119.36 51.4920
I 9,372 4,325.59 54.0699
A 7,222 3,333.42 41.6677
B 7,584 3,500.16 43.7520
C 7,963 3,675.22 45.9402
D 8,360 3,858.59 48.2323
E 8,779 4,051.83 50.6479
F 9,218 4,254.42 53.1803
G 9,678 4,466.88 55.8360
H 10,162 4,690.26 58.6282
I 10,671 4,925.06 61.5632
A 6,281 2,899.14 36.2392
B 6,595 3,044.07 38.0509
C 6,925 3,196.27 39.9534
D 7,271 3,355.75 41.9468
E 7,634 3,523.54 44.0442
F 8,016 3,699.64 46.2455
G 8,417 3,884.56 48.5570
H 8,837 4,078.84 50.9856
I 9,281 4,283.52 53.5439
A 10,646 4,913.63 61.4204
B 11,179 5,159.33 64.4917
C 11,738 5,417.51 67.7188
D 12,324 5,688.15 71.1019
E 12,941 5,972.81 74.6602
F 13,587 6,270.99 78.3874
G 14,267 6,584.75 82.3094
H 14,981 6,914.09 86.4261
I 15,729 7,259.53 90.7441
012 ASSIST TO CITY MGR M
215 ASSOC ENGINEER E 195
272 ASSOC PLANNER E 161
130 BENEFITS SUPV M 176
230 BLDG INSPCTR E 160
238 BLDG OFFICIAL M 215
18 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
A 5,303 2,447.72 30.5965
B 5,569 2,570.32 32.1290
C 5,847 2,698.63 33.7329
D 6,140 2,833.69 35.4211
E 6,447 2,975.50 37.1938
F 6,769 3,124.07 39.0509
G 7,108 3,280.43 41.0053
H 7,463 3,444.58 43.0572
I 7,836 3,616.52 45.2065
A 6,537 3,017.06 37.7132
B 6,864 3,168.22 39.6027
C 7,207 3,326.14 41.5767
D 7,568 3,492.89 43.6611
E 7,946 3,667.43 45.8429
F 8,343 3,850.80 48.1350
G 8,760 4,043.00 50.5375
H 9,198 4,245.08 53.0635
I 9,658 4,457.54 55.7192
A 5,917 2,730.83 34.1353
B 6,213 2,867.46 35.8432
C 6,522 3,010.30 37.6288
D 6,849 3,160.95 39.5119
E 7,191 3,318.86 41.4858
F 7,551 3,485.10 43.5637
G 7,928 3,659.12 45.7390
H 8,325 3,842.49 48.0311
I 8,742 4,034.69 50.4336
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
238 BLDG OFFICIAL M
031 BUDGET SVCS MGR M 194
241 BUSINESS TAX INSPCTR E 143
029 BUSINESS TAX SUPV M 166
072 BUYER E 154
019 CABLE PROD COORD E 150
19 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,537 3,017.06 37.7132
B 6,864 3,168.22 39.6027
C 7,207 3,326.14 41.5767
D 7,568 3,492.89 43.6611
E 7,946 3,667.43 45.8429
F 8,343 3,850.80 48.1350
G 8,760 4,043.00 50.5375
H 9,198 4,245.08 53.0635
I 9,658 4,457.54 55.7192
A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
A 11,645 5,374.40 67.1799
B 12,226 5,642.96 70.5370
C 12,838 5,925.02 74.0628
D 13,480 6,221.64 77.7705
E 14,153 6,532.28 81.6535
F 14,861 6,859.02 85.7378
G 15,604 7,201.87 90.0234
H 16,384 7,561.86 94.5233
I 17,205 7,940.56 99.2569
A 0 0.00 0.0000
B 0 0.00 0.0000
C 0 0.00 0.0000
D 0 0.00 0.0000
E 0 0.00 0.0000
F 0 0.00 0.0000
G 0 0.00 0.0000
H 0 0.00 0.0000
I 26,855 12,394.74 154.9343
019 CABLE PROD COORD E
038 CABLE PROD SUPV M 166
240 CHIEF OF COLLECTIONS M 171
020 CITY CLERK M 204
200 CITY ENGINEER M 224
120 CITY MGR C 900
20 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 3,746 1,728.78 21.6098
B 3,933 1,815.01 22.6877
C 4,129 1,905.92 23.8240
D 4,335 2,000.98 25.0123
E 4,553 2,101.24 26.2654
F 4,780 2,206.17 27.5771
G 5,019 2,316.30 28.9537
H 5,270 2,432.14 30.4017
I 5,534 2,554.21 31.9277
A 5,858 2,703.81 33.7977
B 6,152 2,839.40 35.4925
C 6,459 2,981.21 37.2652
D 6,782 3,130.30 39.1288
E 7,121 3,286.66 41.0832
F 7,477 3,450.81 43.1351
G 7,852 3,623.80 45.2975
H 8,243 3,804.56 47.5570
I 8,655 3,994.69 49.9337
A 7,441 3,434.19 42.9274
B 7,812 3,605.61 45.0701
C 8,203 3,785.87 47.3234
D 8,614 3,975.47 49.6934
E 9,043 4,173.91 52.1739
F 9,496 4,382.73 54.7841
G 9,971 4,601.95 57.5243
H 10,469 4,832.07 60.4009
I 10,993 5,073.62 63.4203
B 15,289 7,056.38 88.2048
C 16,053 7,408.99 92.6124
D 16,856 7,779.51 97.2439
E 17,698 8,168.49 102.1061
F 18,583 8,576.97 107.2121
G 19,513 9,006.00 112.5750
H 20,488 9,456.12 118.2015
I 21,513 9,928.90 124.1112
A 6,281 2,899.14 36.2392
B 6,595 3,044.07 38.0509
C 6,925 3,196.27 39.9534
D 7,271 3,355.75 41.9468
E 7,634 3,523.54 44.0442
F 8,016 3,699.64 46.2455
G 8,417 3,884.56 48.5570
H 8,837 4,078.84 50.9856
I 9,281 4,283.52 53.5439
120 CITY MGR C
058 CLERICAL ASSIST E 108
235 CODE ENFORCE OFFCR E 153
243 CODE ENFORCE SUPV M 179
034 COMM DEV DIR C 245
085 COMM SHIFT SUPV E 160
21 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 4,709 2,173.45 27.1681
B 4,944 2,282.01 28.5251
C 5,191 2,395.78 29.9472
D 5,451 2,515.77 31.4472
E 5,723 2,641.48 33.0185
F 6,009 2,773.42 34.6678
G 6,310 2,912.12 36.4016
H 6,625 3,057.57 38.2197
I 6,958 3,211.34 40.1417
A 4,661 2,151.11 26.8889
B 4,895 2,259.16 28.2395
C 5,139 2,371.88 29.6485
D 5,396 2,490.32 31.1290
E 5,666 2,614.99 32.6874
F 5,949 2,745.90 34.3237
G 6,247 2,883.03 36.0379
H 6,558 3,026.93 37.8366
I 6,886 3,178.09 39.7262
B 14,548 6,714.31 83.9289
C 15,275 7,050.05 88.1256
D 16,039 7,402.66 92.5332
E 16,841 7,772.66 97.1582
F 17,682 8,161.12 102.0139
G 18,566 8,569.07 107.1133
H 19,495 8,997.56 112.4696
I 20,469 9,447.16 118.0895
A 7,222 3,333.42 41.6677
B 7,584 3,500.16 43.7520
C 7,963 3,675.22 45.9402
D 8,360 3,858.59 48.2323
E 8,779 4,051.83 50.6479
F 9,218 4,254.42 53.1803
G 9,678 4,466.88 55.8360
H 10,162 4,690.26 58.6282
I 10,671 4,925.06 61.5632
A 6,343 2,927.71 36.5964
B 6,661 3,074.20 38.4275
C 6,994 3,227.96 40.3495
D 7,343 3,389.00 42.3625
E 7,710 3,558.34 44.4792
F 8,096 3,736.52 46.7065
G 8,501 3,923.52 49.0441
H 8,925 4,119.36 51.4920
I 9,372 4,325.59 54.0699
085 COMM SHIFT SUPV E
099 COMM SVC OFFCR E 131
289 COMM SVCS COORD E 130
035 COMM SVCS DIR C 240
287 COMM SVCS SUPV M 176
228 CONSTR INSPCTR E 161
22 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY B 8,191 3,780.42 47.2552
C 8,600 3,969.44 49.6180
D 9,030 4,167.91 52.0989
E 9,482 4,376.30 54.7038
F 9,956 4,595.12 57.4390
G 10,454 4,824.88 60.3110
H 10,977 5,066.12 63.3265
I 11,416 5,268.76 65.8596
B 8,396 3,875.06 48.4382
C 8,816 4,068.81 50.8601
D 9,257 4,272.25 53.4031
E 9,719 4,485.86 56.0733
F 10,205 4,710.15 58.8769
G 10,716 4,945.66 61.8208
H 11,251 5,192.95 64.9119
I 11,701 5,400.66 67.5083
A 6,159 2,842.51 35.5314
B 6,467 2,984.85 37.3106
C 6,790 3,133.94 39.1742
D 7,129 3,290.29 41.1287
E 7,486 3,454.97 43.1871
F 7,861 3,627.95 45.3493
G 8,253 3,809.24 47.6156
H 8,665 3,999.36 49.9921
I 9,100 4,199.88 52.4985
A 3,747 1,729.30 21.6163
B 3,934 1,815.54 22.6942
C 4,131 1,906.44 23.8305
D 4,337 2,001.50 25.0187
E 4,554 2,101.76 26.2720
F 4,781 2,206.69 27.5836
G 5,021 2,317.33 28.9667
H 5,272 2,433.18 30.4147
I 5,535 2,554.73 31.9342
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
228 CONSTR INSPCTR E
306 CORPORAL P 181
330 CORPORAL II P 183.5
447 CUSTODIAL SUPV M 160
445 CUSTODIAN U 108
110 CYBERSECURITY OFFCR M 204
23 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,303 2,447.72 30.5965
B 5,569 2,570.32 32.1290
C 5,847 2,698.63 33.7329
D 6,140 2,833.69 35.4211
E 6,447 2,975.50 37.1938
F 6,769 3,124.07 39.0509
G 7,108 3,280.43 41.0053
H 7,463 3,444.58 43.0572
I 7,836 3,616.52 45.2065
A 5,976 2,758.36 34.4795
B 6,275 2,896.02 36.2003
C 6,589 3,040.95 38.0119
D 6,919 3,193.16 39.9145
E 7,264 3,352.63 41.9079
F 7,628 3,520.42 44.0053
G 8,009 3,696.51 46.2064
H 8,409 3,880.93 48.5116
I 8,830 4,075.21 50.9401
B 14,548 6,714.31 83.9289
C 15,275 7,050.05 88.1256
D 16,039 7,402.66 92.5332
E 16,841 7,772.66 97.1582
F 17,682 8,161.12 102.0139
G 18,566 8,569.07 107.1133
H 19,495 8,997.56 112.4696
I 20,469 9,447.16 118.0895
A 11,760 5,427.90 67.8487
B 12,349 5,699.58 71.2447
C 12,966 5,984.24 74.8030
D 13,614 6,283.45 78.5432
E 14,295 6,597.73 82.4717
F 15,010 6,927.60 86.5950
G 15,760 7,274.07 90.9259
H 16,548 7,637.70 95.4713
I 17,376 8,019.59 100.2449
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
110 CYBERSECURITY OFFCR M
062 DEPT SECRETARY E 143
021 DEPUTY CITY CLERK M 157
037 DEPUTY CITY MGR C 240
046 DEPUTY DIR M 225
049 DIVISION MGR M 204
24 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY B 15,289 7,056.38 88.2048
C 16,053 7,408.99 92.6124
D 16,856 7,779.51 97.2439
E 17,698 8,168.49 102.1061
F 18,583 8,576.97 107.2121
G 19,513 9,006.00 112.5750
H 20,488 9,456.12 118.2015
I 21,513 9,928.90 124.1112
A 10,646 4,913.63 61.4204
B 11,179 5,159.33 64.4917
C 11,738 5,417.51 67.7188
D 12,324 5,688.15 71.1019
E 12,941 5,972.81 74.6602
F 13,587 6,270.99 78.3874
G 14,267 6,584.75 82.3094
H 14,981 6,914.09 86.4261
I 15,729 7,259.53 90.7441
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
A 4,568 2,108.51 26.3564
B 4,797 2,213.97 27.6746
C 5,038 2,325.13 29.0641
D 5,289 2,440.97 30.5121
E 5,553 2,563.04 32.0381
F 5,831 2,691.35 33.6419
G 6,123 2,825.89 35.3236
H 6,429 2,967.18 37.0898
I 6,750 3,115.24 38.9405
A 7,978 3,681.97 46.0246
B 8,377 3,866.38 48.3298
C 8,796 4,059.62 50.7453
D 9,236 4,262.73 53.2842
E 9,697 4,475.72 55.9465
F 10,182 4,699.60 58.7450
G 10,691 4,934.40 61.6800
H 11,226 5,181.15 64.7644
I 11,786 5,439.85 67.9981
049 DIVISION MGR M
028 ECON DEV DIR C 245
269 ECON DEV MGR M 215
259 ECON DEV SPEC E 150
273 ELIGIBILITY TECH E 128
501 EMER OPS COORD M 186
25 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
B 14,548 6,714.31 83.9289
C 15,275 7,050.05 88.1256
D 16,039 7,402.66 92.5332
E 16,841 7,772.66 97.1582
F 17,682 8,161.12 102.0139
G 18,566 8,569.07 107.1133
H 19,495 8,997.56 112.4696
I 20,469 9,447.16 118.0895
A 4,436 2,047.21 25.5901
B 4,657 2,149.55 26.8694
C 4,889 2,256.55 28.2069
D 5,135 2,369.80 29.6225
E 5,391 2,488.24 31.1030
F 5,660 2,612.40 32.6549
G 5,944 2,743.30 34.2912
H 6,241 2,880.44 36.0055
I 6,554 3,024.85 37.8106
A 5,630 2,598.37 32.4796
B 5,912 2,728.76 34.1094
C 6,207 2,864.85 35.8107
D 6,518 3,008.22 37.6028
E 6,843 3,158.35 39.4794
F 7,185 3,316.27 41.4534
G 7,545 3,482.50 43.5312
H 7,922 3,656.52 45.7065
I 8,318 3,838.85 47.9856
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
501 EMER OPS COORD M
502 EMER OPS MGR M 194
042 EMPLOYEE DEV DIR C 240
274 EMPLOYMENT SPEC E 125
211 ENGINEERING TECH E 149
262 ENVIRO SVCS MGR M 204
26 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,303 2,447.72 30.5965
B 5,569 2,570.32 32.1290
C 5,847 2,698.63 33.7329
D 6,140 2,833.69 35.4211
E 6,447 2,975.50 37.1938
F 6,769 3,124.07 39.0509
G 7,108 3,280.43 41.0053
H 7,463 3,444.58 43.0572
I 7,836 3,616.52 45.2065
A 5,202 2,400.97 30.0121
B 5,462 2,520.97 31.5121
C 5,736 2,647.20 33.0900
D 6,023 2,779.66 34.7458
E 6,323 2,918.35 36.4794
F 6,639 3,064.33 38.3041
G 6,971 3,217.57 40.2196
H 7,320 3,378.61 42.2326
I 7,686 3,547.43 44.3429
A 4,098 1,891.38 23.6422
B 4,303 1,985.92 24.8240
C 4,518 2,085.14 26.0642
D 4,744 2,189.55 27.3693
E 4,981 2,299.15 28.7394
F 5,230 2,413.96 30.1745
G 5,492 2,534.99 31.6873
H 5,766 2,661.22 33.2653
I 6,054 2,794.21 34.9276
B 15,289 7,056.38 88.2048
C 16,053 7,408.99 92.6124
D 16,856 7,779.51 97.2439
E 17,698 8,168.49 102.1061
F 18,583 8,576.97 107.2121
G 19,513 9,006.00 112.5750
H 20,488 9,456.12 118.2015
I 21,513 9,928.90 124.1112
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
262 ENVIRO SVCS MGR M
236 ENVIRO SVCS SPEC E 143
422 EQUIP MECH U 141
421 EQUIP SVC WRKR U 117
041 FINANCE DIR C 245
030 FINANCE MGR M 204
27 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 7,221 3,332.89 41.6612
B 7,583 3,499.64 43.7455
C 7,962 3,674.70 45.9337
D 8,359 3,858.07 48.2259
E 8,778 4,051.31 50.6414
F 9,216 4,253.39 53.1674
G 9,677 4,466.36 55.8295
H 10,161 4,689.73 58.6217
I 10,669 4,924.01 61.5501
A 4,015 1,852.93 23.1616
B 4,216 1,945.91 24.3239
C 4,427 2,043.06 25.5382
D 4,648 2,145.39 26.8174
E 4,880 2,252.40 28.1551
F 5,124 2,365.13 29.5641
G 5,381 2,483.57 31.0446
H 5,650 2,607.71 32.5964
I 5,931 2,737.58 34.2197
A 4,900 2,261.75 28.2719
B 5,145 2,374.48 29.6810
C 5,402 2,493.43 31.1679
D 5,673 2,618.10 32.7263
E 5,956 2,749.01 34.3627
F 6,253 2,886.15 36.0768
G 6,566 3,030.56 37.8820
H 6,895 3,182.25 39.7781
I 7,240 3,341.73 41.7716
A 5,202 2,400.97 30.0121
B 5,462 2,520.97 31.5121
C 5,736 2,647.20 33.0900
D 6,023 2,779.66 34.7458
E 6,323 2,918.35 36.4794
F 6,639 3,064.33 38.3041
G 6,971 3,217.57 40.2196
H 7,320 3,378.61 42.2326
I 7,686 3,547.43 44.3429
A 4,900 2,261.75 28.2719
B 5,145 2,374.48 29.6810
C 5,402 2,493.43 31.1679
D 5,673 2,618.10 32.7263
E 5,956 2,749.01 34.3627
F 6,253 2,886.15 36.0768
G 6,566 3,030.56 37.8820
H 6,895 3,182.25 39.7781
I 7,240 3,341.73 41.7716
030 FINANCE MGR M
107 GIS COORD E 174
088 GRAPHICS ASSIST E 115
089 GRAPHICS DESIGNER E 135
414 HEAVY EQUIP OPERATOR U 141
234 HOUSING ASSIST E 135
28 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,148 2,376.04 29.7005
B 5,406 2,494.99 31.1874
C 5,676 2,619.66 32.7458
D 5,960 2,750.57 34.3822
E 6,258 2,888.23 36.1028
F 6,571 3,032.64 37.9080
G 6,898 3,183.80 39.7975
H 7,244 3,343.28 41.7910
I 7,606 3,510.55 43.8819
A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 6,283 2,899.65 36.2457
B 6,597 3,044.59 38.0574
C 6,926 3,196.79 39.9598
D 7,272 3,356.27 41.9533
E 7,635 3,524.06 44.0507
F 8,018 3,700.67 46.2584
G 8,419 3,885.60 48.5700
H 8,840 4,079.88 50.9985
I 9,282 4,284.03 53.5504
B 14,548 6,714.31 83.9289
C 15,275 7,050.05 88.1256
D 16,039 7,402.66 92.5332
E 16,841 7,772.66 97.1582
F 17,682 8,161.12 102.0139
G 18,566 8,569.07 107.1133
H 19,495 8,997.56 112.4696
I 20,469 9,447.16 118.0895
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
234 HOUSING ASSIST E
232 HOUSING SPEC E 140
261 HOUSING SUPV M 171
127 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST M 162
026 HUMAN RESOURCES DIR C 240
131 HUMAN RESOURCES MGR M 204
29 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY B 14,548 6,714.31 83.9289
C 15,275 7,050.05 88.1256
D 16,039 7,402.66 92.5332
E 16,841 7,772.66 97.1582
F 17,682 8,161.12 102.0139
G 18,566 8,569.07 107.1133
H 19,495 8,997.56 112.4696
I 20,469 9,447.16 118.0895
A 11,191 5,165.05 64.5631
B 11,750 5,423.22 67.7903
C 12,338 5,694.38 71.1798
D 12,955 5,979.04 74.7381
E 13,603 6,278.26 78.4782
F 14,283 6,592.02 82.4002
G 14,996 6,921.36 86.5170
H 15,747 7,267.84 90.8480
I 16,534 7,630.95 95.3869
A 7,588 3,502.24 43.7780
B 7,967 3,677.30 45.9662
C 8,366 3,861.19 48.2649
D 8,785 4,054.42 50.6803
E 9,224 4,257.02 53.2127
F 9,684 4,469.49 55.8686
G 10,169 4,693.37 58.6671
H 10,677 4,927.65 61.5956
I 11,211 5,174.40 64.6800
A 5,630 2,598.37 32.4796
B 5,912 2,728.76 34.1094
C 6,207 2,864.85 35.8107
D 6,518 3,008.22 37.6028
E 6,843 3,158.35 39.4794
F 7,185 3,316.27 41.4534
G 7,545 3,482.50 43.5312
H 7,922 3,656.52 45.7065
I 8,318 3,838.85 47.9856
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
131 HUMAN RESOURCES MGR M
044 INFO TCHNLGY DIR C 240
105 INFO TCHNLGY MGR M 220
108 INFO TCHNLGY PROGMR E 179
103 INFO TCHNLGY TECH E 149
081 INSURANCE PROG COORD E 150
30 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 4,306 1,987.48 24.8435
B 4,521 2,086.69 26.0837
C 4,747 2,191.10 27.3888
D 4,985 2,300.71 28.7589
E 5,234 2,415.51 30.1939
F 5,496 2,536.55 31.7069
G 5,770 2,663.30 33.2912
H 6,059 2,796.28 34.9536
I 6,363 2,936.54 36.7068
A 5,049 2,330.33 29.1291
B 5,301 2,446.68 30.5836
C 5,567 2,569.28 32.1160
D 5,845 2,697.58 33.7198
E 6,137 2,832.64 35.4081
F 6,444 2,973.94 37.1742
G 6,765 3,122.50 39.0313
H 7,104 3,278.87 40.9859
I 7,460 3,443.02 43.0378
B 8,039 3,710.13 46.3766
C 8,441 3,895.63 48.6954
D 8,863 4,090.42 51.1302
E 9,306 4,294.94 53.6867
F 9,771 4,509.69 56.3711
G 10,260 4,735.17 59.1896
H 10,773 4,971.93 62.1492
I 11,203 5,170.80 64.6350
B 8,239 3,802.56 47.5319
C 8,651 3,992.69 49.9086
D 9,083 4,192.32 52.4040
E 9,538 4,401.94 55.0242
F 10,014 4,622.03 57.7753
G 10,515 4,853.13 60.6642
H 11,041 5,095.79 63.6974
I 11,483 5,299.62 66.2453
081 INSURANCE PROG COORD E
061 JAILER/FLEET SUPV M 171
416 MAINT REPAIR HELPER U 122
415 MAINT REPAIR WRKR U 138
301 MASTER OFFCR P 179
325 MASTER OFFCR II P 181.5
31 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 7,588 3,502.24 43.7780
B 7,967 3,677.30 45.9662
C 8,366 3,861.19 48.2649
D 8,785 4,054.42 50.6803
E 9,224 4,257.02 53.2127
F 9,684 4,469.49 55.8686
G 10,169 4,693.37 58.6671
H 10,677 4,927.65 61.5956
I 11,211 5,174.40 64.6800
A 3,935 1,816.05 22.7006
B 4,132 1,906.95 23.8369
C 4,338 2,002.02 25.0252
D 4,555 2,102.28 26.2785
E 4,782 2,207.21 27.5902
F 5,021 2,317.33 28.9667
G 5,272 2,433.18 30.4147
H 5,536 2,555.25 31.9406
I 5,813 2,683.04 33.5380
A 4,527 2,089.29 26.1161
B 4,753 2,193.71 27.4213
C 4,991 2,303.31 28.7914
D 5,239 2,418.11 30.2264
E 5,501 2,539.15 31.7394
F 5,777 2,666.42 33.3303
G 6,065 2,799.40 34.9925
H 6,369 2,939.66 36.7457
I 6,688 3,086.67 38.5834
A 3,564 1,645.15 20.5644
B 3,742 1,727.22 21.5903
C 3,929 1,813.46 22.6682
D 4,126 1,904.36 23.8045
E 4,332 1,999.43 24.9928
F 4,548 2,099.16 26.2396
G 4,777 2,204.61 27.5576
H 5,015 2,314.74 28.9342
I 5,266 2,430.48 30.3810
A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
325 MASTER OFFCR II P
109 NETWORK ADMIN E 179
066 OFFICE ASSIST E 113
406 PARK MAINT WRKR U 127
494 PARKING CONTROL SPEC U 103
133 PAYROLL SUPV M 171
32 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 7,081 3,267.96 40.8495
B 7,434 3,431.07 42.8884
C 7,807 3,603.02 45.0377
D 8,196 3,782.74 47.2843
E 8,607 3,972.35 49.6544
F 9,037 4,170.79 52.1349
G 9,488 4,379.09 54.7387
H 9,963 4,598.31 57.4788
I 10,462 4,828.43 60.3554
A 5,148 2,376.04 29.7005
B 5,406 2,494.99 31.1874
C 5,676 2,619.66 32.7458
D 5,960 2,750.57 34.3822
E 6,258 2,888.23 36.1028
F 6,571 3,032.64 37.9080
G 6,898 3,183.80 39.7975
H 7,244 3,343.28 41.7910
I 7,606 3,510.55 43.8819
A 8,466 3,907.42 48.8428
B 8,889 4,102.74 51.2843
C 9,334 4,307.93 53.8491
D 9,801 4,523.51 56.5439
E 10,291 4,749.48 59.3685
F 10,805 4,986.87 62.3359
G 11,345 5,236.21 65.4526
H 11,912 5,498.02 68.7253
I 12,508 5,772.82 72.1603
A 7,221 3,332.89 41.6612
B 7,583 3,499.64 43.7455
C 7,962 3,674.70 45.9337
D 8,359 3,858.07 48.2259
E 8,778 4,051.31 50.6414
F 9,216 4,253.39 53.1674
G 9,677 4,466.36 55.8295
H 10,161 4,689.73 58.6217
I 10,669 4,924.01 61.5501
A 10,646 4,913.63 61.4204
B 11,179 5,159.33 64.4917
C 11,738 5,417.51 67.7188
D 12,324 5,688.15 71.1019
E 12,941 5,972.81 74.6602
F 13,587 6,270.99 78.3874
G 14,267 6,584.75 82.3094
H 14,981 6,914.09 86.4261
I 15,729 7,259.53 90.7441
133 PAYROLL SUPV M
213 PERMIT CENTER SUPV M 174
210 PERMIT TECH E 140
201 PLAN CHECK ENGINEER E 190
267 PLANNER E 174
263 PLANNING SVCS MGR M 215
33 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,281 2,899.14 36.2392
B 6,595 3,044.07 38.0509
C 6,925 3,196.27 39.9534
D 7,271 3,355.75 41.9468
E 7,634 3,523.54 44.0442
F 8,016 3,699.64 46.2455
G 8,417 3,884.56 48.5570
H 8,837 4,078.84 50.9856
I 9,281 4,283.52 53.5439
B 14,395 6,643.97 83.0496
C 15,114 6,975.90 87.1988
D 15,870 7,324.47 91.5559
E 16,663 7,690.69 96.1337
F 17,497 8,075.62 100.9452
G 18,372 8,479.24 105.9905
H 19,290 8,903.12 111.2890
I 20,062 9,259.47 115.7434
B 17,400 8,030.93 100.3866
C 18,271 8,432.55 105.4069
D 19,184 8,854.21 110.6776
E 20,143 9,296.95 116.2118
F 21,151 9,761.81 122.0227
G 22,208 10,249.88 128.1235
H 23,318 10,762.19 134.5273
I 24,483 11,299.79 141.2474
A 8,385 3,870.02 48.3753
B 8,805 4,063.78 50.7973
C 9,245 4,266.89 53.3362
D 9,706 4,479.87 55.9983
E 10,193 4,704.29 58.8036
F 10,701 4,939.07 61.7384
G 11,237 5,186.34 64.8293
H 11,799 5,445.55 68.0694
I 12,388 5,717.76 71.4720
B 12,526 5,781.14 72.2642
C 13,152 6,069.96 75.8745
D 13,810 6,373.85 79.6731
E 14,500 6,692.28 83.6534
F 15,225 7,026.81 87.8352
G 15,987 7,378.49 92.2312
H 16,786 7,747.31 96.8414
I 17,457 8,056.91 100.7114
263 PLANNING SVCS MGR M
270 PLANS EXAMINER E 160
304 POLICE CAPTAIN Q 232.1
305 POLICE CHIEF C 258
076 POLICE COMM MGR M 191
303 POLICE LIEUTENANT Q 220.1
34 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY B 7,655 3,533.04 44.1631
C 8,038 3,709.70 46.3712
D 8,440 3,895.18 48.6897
E 8,862 4,089.93 51.1242
F 9,305 4,294.43 53.6804
G 9,770 4,509.16 56.3645
H 10,258 4,734.61 59.1827
I 10,669 4,924.00 61.5499
B 7,847 3,621.58 45.2697
C 8,239 3,802.66 47.5333
D 8,651 3,992.79 49.9099
E 9,084 4,192.43 52.4054
F 9,538 4,402.05 55.0256
G 10,015 4,622.16 57.7770
H 10,515 4,853.26 60.6658
I 10,936 5,047.39 63.0924
A 8,385 3,870.02 48.3753
B 8,805 4,063.78 50.7973
C 9,245 4,266.89 53.3362
D 9,706 4,479.87 55.9983
E 10,193 4,704.29 58.8036
F 10,701 4,939.07 61.7384
G 11,237 5,186.34 64.8293
H 11,799 5,445.55 68.0694
I 12,388 5,717.76 71.4720
A 5,148 2,376.04 29.7005
B 5,406 2,494.99 31.1874
C 5,676 2,619.66 32.7458
D 5,960 2,750.57 34.3822
E 6,258 2,888.23 36.1028
F 6,571 3,032.64 37.9080
G 6,898 3,183.80 39.7975
H 7,244 3,343.28 41.7910
I 7,606 3,510.55 43.8819
A 4,436 2,047.21 25.5901
B 4,657 2,149.55 26.8694
C 4,889 2,256.55 28.2069
D 5,135 2,369.80 29.6225
E 5,391 2,488.24 31.1030
F 5,660 2,612.40 32.6549
G 5,944 2,743.30 34.2912
H 6,241 2,880.44 36.0055
I 6,554 3,024.85 37.8106
303 POLICE LIEUTENANT Q
300 POLICE OFFCR P 174
320 POLICE OFFCR II P 176.5
075 POLICE RECORDS MGR M 191
074 POLICE RECORDS SHIFT SUPV E 140
057 POLICE RECORDS SPEC E 125
35 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY B 9,837 4,540.26 56.7533
C 10,329 4,767.28 59.5910
D 10,846 5,005.64 62.5705
E 11,388 5,255.93 65.6991
F 11,957 5,518.72 68.9841
G 12,555 5,794.66 72.4333
H 13,183 6,084.40 76.0550
I 13,710 6,327.77 79.0971
A 6,537 3,017.06 37.7132
B 6,864 3,168.22 39.6027
C 7,207 3,326.14 41.5767
D 7,568 3,492.89 43.6611
E 7,946 3,667.43 45.8429
F 8,343 3,850.80 48.1350
G 8,760 4,043.00 50.5375
H 9,198 4,245.08 53.0635
I 9,658 4,457.54 55.7192
A 4,755 2,194.74 27.4343
B 4,993 2,304.35 28.8044
C 5,241 2,419.15 30.2394
D 5,504 2,540.18 31.7523
E 5,779 2,667.46 33.3432
F 6,069 2,800.96 35.0120
G 6,372 2,940.69 36.7587
H 6,690 3,087.70 38.5963
I 7,025 3,242.50 40.5313
A 7,978 3,681.97 46.0246
B 8,377 3,866.38 48.3298
C 8,796 4,059.62 50.7453
D 9,236 4,262.73 53.2842
E 9,697 4,475.72 55.9465
F 10,182 4,699.60 58.7450
G 10,691 4,934.40 61.6800
H 11,226 5,181.15 64.7644
I 11,786 5,439.85 67.9981
A 8,385 3,870.02 48.3753
B 8,805 4,063.78 50.7973
C 9,245 4,266.89 53.3362
D 9,706 4,479.87 55.9983
E 10,193 4,704.29 58.8036
F 10,701 4,939.07 61.7384
G 11,237 5,186.34 64.8293
H 11,799 5,445.55 68.0694
I 12,388 5,717.76 71.4720
057 POLICE RECORDS SPEC E
302 POLICE SERGEANT P 199.2
056 POLICE SVCS SUPV M 166
052 PRIN ACCOUNT SPEC E 132
059 PRIN ACCOUNTANT M 186
036 PRIN ADMIN ANALYST M 191
36 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,869 3,170.30 39.6287
B 7,212 3,328.73 41.6092
C 7,574 3,495.49 43.6936
D 7,952 3,670.02 45.8753
E 8,350 3,853.91 48.1739
F 8,767 4,046.11 50.5764
G 9,206 4,248.71 53.1088
H 9,666 4,461.18 55.7647
I 10,149 4,684.03 58.5503
A 8,385 3,870.02 48.3753
B 8,805 4,063.78 50.7973
C 9,245 4,266.89 53.3362
D 9,706 4,479.87 55.9983
E 10,193 4,704.29 58.8036
F 10,701 4,939.07 61.7384
G 11,237 5,186.34 64.8293
H 11,799 5,445.55 68.0694
I 12,388 5,717.76 71.4720
A 4,805 2,217.59 27.7199
B 5,045 2,328.24 29.1031
C 5,297 2,444.61 30.5576
D 5,561 2,566.68 32.0835
E 5,839 2,694.99 33.6874
F 6,132 2,830.05 35.3756
G 6,438 2,971.34 37.1418
H 6,760 3,119.91 38.9989
I 7,099 3,276.27 40.9533
A 6,281 2,899.14 36.2392
B 6,595 3,044.07 38.0509
C 6,925 3,196.27 39.9534
D 7,271 3,355.75 41.9468
E 7,634 3,523.54 44.0442
F 8,016 3,699.64 46.2455
G 8,417 3,884.56 48.5570
H 8,837 4,078.84 50.9856
I 9,281 4,283.52 53.5439
A 9,542 4,404.03 55.0503
B 10,019 4,624.28 57.8035
C 10,520 4,855.44 60.6931
D 11,047 5,098.55 63.7319
E 11,598 5,353.09 66.9136
F 12,179 5,621.13 70.2642
G 12,788 5,902.17 73.7771
H 13,427 6,197.22 77.4653
I 14,098 6,506.83 81.3353
036 PRIN ADMIN ANALYST M
208 PRIN ENGINEERING TECH E 169
129 PRIN HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST M 191
064 PRIN OFFICE ASSIST E 133
023 PROG SPEC E 160
209 PROJECT ENGINEER M 204
37 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 7,978 3,681.97 46.0246
B 8,377 3,866.38 48.3298
C 8,796 4,059.62 50.7453
D 9,236 4,262.73 53.2842
E 9,697 4,475.72 55.9465
F 10,182 4,699.60 58.7450
G 10,691 4,934.40 61.6800
H 11,226 5,181.15 64.7644
I 11,786 5,439.85 67.9981
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
A 7,222 3,333.42 41.6677
B 7,584 3,500.16 43.7520
C 7,963 3,675.22 45.9402
D 8,360 3,858.59 48.2323
E 8,779 4,051.83 50.6479
F 9,218 4,254.42 53.1803
G 9,678 4,466.88 55.8360
H 10,162 4,690.26 58.6282
I 10,671 4,925.06 61.5632
B 15,289 7,056.38 88.2048
C 16,053 7,408.99 92.6124
D 16,856 7,779.51 97.2439
E 17,698 8,168.49 102.1061
F 18,583 8,576.97 107.2121
G 19,513 9,006.00 112.5750
H 20,488 9,456.12 118.2015
I 21,513 9,928.90 124.1112
A 5,859 2,704.34 33.8042
B 6,153 2,839.92 35.4990
C 6,460 2,981.73 37.2717
D 6,783 3,130.82 39.1353
E 7,122 3,287.18 41.0897
F 7,479 3,451.85 43.1481
G 7,853 3,624.31 45.3039
H 8,245 3,805.61 47.5701
I 8,657 3,995.73 49.9466
209 PROJECT ENGINEER M
265 PROJECT PLANNER M 186
083 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHR E 150
126 PUBLIC SAFETY FISCAL ANALYST M 176
033 PUBLIC WORKS DIR C 245
420 PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN M 155
38 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 7,222 3,333.42 41.6677
B 7,584 3,500.16 43.7520
C 7,963 3,675.22 45.9402
D 8,360 3,858.59 48.2323
E 8,779 4,051.83 50.6479
F 9,218 4,254.42 53.1803
G 9,678 4,466.88 55.8360
H 10,162 4,690.26 58.6282
I 10,671 4,925.06 61.5632
A 5,411 2,497.59 31.2199
B 5,682 2,622.26 32.7783
C 5,965 2,753.17 34.4146
D 6,263 2,890.83 36.1354
E 6,577 3,035.76 37.9470
F 6,906 3,187.44 39.8430
G 7,252 3,346.92 41.8365
H 7,614 3,514.18 43.9273
I 7,996 3,690.28 46.1285
A 3,674 1,695.54 21.1942
B 3,857 1,780.21 22.2527
C 4,051 1,869.56 23.3695
D 4,253 1,963.06 24.5382
E 4,465 2,060.72 25.7590
F 4,689 2,164.09 27.0512
G 4,923 2,272.14 28.4018
H 5,169 2,385.91 29.8238
I 5,428 2,505.20 31.3150
A 8,385 3,870.02 48.3753
B 8,805 4,063.78 50.7973
C 9,245 4,266.89 53.3362
D 9,706 4,479.87 55.9983
E 10,193 4,704.29 58.8036
F 10,701 4,939.07 61.7384
G 11,237 5,186.34 64.8293
H 11,799 5,445.55 68.0694
I 12,388 5,717.76 71.4720
A 6,406 2,956.80 36.9600
B 6,727 3,104.85 38.8106
C 7,064 3,260.17 40.7521
D 7,416 3,422.76 42.7845
E 7,787 3,594.18 44.9273
F 8,177 3,773.92 47.1740
G 8,585 3,962.48 49.5311
H 9,014 4,160.40 52.0050
I 9,466 4,368.70 54.6088
420 PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN M
204 PUBLIC WORKS SUPV M 176
244 PUBLIC WORKS TECH E 145
402 PUBLIC WORKS TRAINEE U 106
070 PURCHASING AGENT M 191
222 REAL PROPERTY AGENT E 162
39 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 9,081 4,191.05 52.3882
B 9,535 4,400.91 55.0114
C 10,011 4,620.65 57.7581
D 10,512 4,851.81 60.6476
E 11,038 5,094.39 63.6799
F 11,589 5,348.94 66.8618
G 12,169 5,616.46 70.2058
H 12,778 5,897.50 73.7187
I 13,416 6,192.03 77.4004
A 3,781 1,744.88 21.8110
B 3,970 1,832.16 22.9020
C 4,169 1,924.10 24.0512
D 4,377 2,020.20 25.2525
E 4,595 2,120.98 26.5123
F 4,825 2,226.95 27.8369
G 5,067 2,338.64 29.2330
H 5,320 2,455.52 30.6940
I 5,586 2,578.11 32.2264
A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 4,758 2,195.78 27.4472
B 4,995 2,305.38 28.8173
C 5,245 2,420.71 30.2589
D 5,507 2,541.74 31.7718
E 5,782 2,668.49 33.3562
F 6,071 2,801.99 35.0249
G 6,375 2,942.25 36.7782
H 6,693 3,089.26 38.6158
I 7,029 3,244.06 40.5507
222 REAL PROPERTY AGENT E
221 REAL PROPERTY MGR M 199
092 REPRO EQUIP OPERATOR E 109
032 REVENUE MGR M 194
132 RISK MGMT SUPV M 171
460 SEWER MAINT WRKR U 132
40 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,468 2,523.56 31.5445
B 5,741 2,649.79 33.1224
C 6,028 2,782.26 34.7782
D 6,330 2,921.48 36.5185
E 6,646 3,067.44 38.3431
F 6,978 3,220.68 40.2586
G 7,327 3,381.72 42.2715
H 7,693 3,550.55 44.3819
I 8,078 3,728.21 46.6026
A 6,280 2,898.62 36.2327
B 6,594 3,043.55 38.0443
C 6,923 3,195.23 39.9404
D 7,270 3,355.23 41.9404
E 7,633 3,523.01 44.0377
F 8,015 3,699.12 46.2390
G 8,415 3,884.04 48.5505
H 8,836 4,078.32 50.9790
I 9,279 4,282.47 53.5309
A 4,304 1,986.43 24.8304
B 4,519 2,085.66 26.0707
C 4,745 2,190.07 27.3759
D 4,981 2,299.15 28.7394
E 5,231 2,414.48 30.1810
F 5,492 2,534.99 31.6873
G 5,767 2,661.74 33.2717
H 6,055 2,794.73 34.9341
I 6,359 2,934.98 36.6873
A 7,009 3,234.71 40.4339
B 7,360 3,396.78 42.4598
C 7,728 3,566.65 44.5831
D 8,114 3,744.83 46.8104
E 8,519 3,931.83 49.1479
F 8,946 4,128.71 51.6089
G 9,392 4,334.94 54.1867
H 9,862 4,551.56 56.8945
I 10,355 4,779.08 59.7385
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
460 SEWER MAINT WRKR U
463 SEWER PUMP STATION ELEC U 146
312 SPECIAL OFFCR E 157
051 SR ACCOUNT SPEC E 122
055 SR ACCOUNTANT E 171
014 SR ADMIN AIDE E 150
41 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 6,536 3,016.54 37.7067
B 6,862 3,167.18 39.5898
C 7,206 3,325.62 41.5702
D 7,566 3,491.85 43.6481
E 7,944 3,666.39 45.8298
F 8,341 3,849.76 48.1220
G 8,759 4,042.49 50.5311
H 9,197 4,244.56 53.0569
I 9,657 4,457.02 55.7127
A 6,939 3,202.50 40.0313
B 7,285 3,362.50 42.0312
C 7,650 3,530.81 44.1351
D 8,033 3,707.43 46.3428
E 8,433 3,892.35 48.6544
F 8,856 4,087.15 51.0894
G 9,298 4,291.30 53.6413
H 9,763 4,505.84 56.3231
I 10,252 4,731.81 59.1476
A 10,231 4,721.94 59.0243
B 10,743 4,958.30 61.9787
C 11,280 5,206.08 65.0760
D 11,844 5,466.34 68.3292
E 12,436 5,739.57 71.7447
F 13,058 6,026.84 75.3355
G 13,711 6,328.13 79.1017
H 14,396 6,644.48 83.0560
I 15,116 6,976.43 87.2053
A 6,281 2,899.14 36.2392
B 6,595 3,044.07 38.0509
C 6,925 3,196.27 39.9534
D 7,271 3,355.75 41.9468
E 7,634 3,523.54 44.0442
F 8,016 3,699.64 46.2455
G 8,417 3,884.56 48.5570
H 8,837 4,078.84 50.9856
I 9,281 4,283.52 53.5439
014 SR ADMIN AIDE E
017 SR ADMIN ANALYST M 171
203 SR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFCR E 164
231 SR BLDG INSPCTR E 170
216 SR CIVIL ENGINEER M 211
242 SR CODE ENFORCE OFFCR E 160
42 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 4,947 2,283.05 28.5382
B 5,193 2,396.81 29.9602
C 5,453 2,516.81 31.4601
D 5,725 2,642.52 33.0315
E 6,012 2,774.98 34.6873
F 6,313 2,913.68 36.4210
G 6,628 3,059.13 38.2392
H 6,960 3,212.37 40.1547
I 7,308 3,372.89 42.1611
A 6,406 2,956.80 36.9600
B 6,727 3,104.85 38.8106
C 7,064 3,260.17 40.7521
D 7,416 3,422.76 42.7845
E 7,787 3,594.18 44.9273
F 8,177 3,773.92 47.1740
G 8,585 3,962.48 49.5311
H 9,014 4,160.40 52.0050
I 9,466 4,368.70 54.6088
A 4,900 2,261.75 28.2719
B 5,145 2,374.48 29.6810
C 5,402 2,493.43 31.1679
D 5,673 2,618.10 32.7263
E 5,956 2,749.01 34.3627
F 6,253 2,886.15 36.0768
G 6,566 3,030.56 37.8820
H 6,895 3,182.25 39.7781
I 7,240 3,341.73 41.7716
A 6,217 2,869.53 35.8691
B 6,528 3,012.90 37.6612
C 6,854 3,163.54 39.5443
D 7,198 3,321.98 41.5248
E 7,558 3,488.21 43.6027
F 7,935 3,662.23 45.7779
G 8,332 3,845.60 48.0700
H 8,749 4,037.80 50.4726
I 9,185 4,239.36 52.9920
A 5,858 2,703.81 33.7977
B 6,152 2,839.40 35.4925
C 6,459 2,981.21 37.2652
D 6,782 3,130.30 39.1288
E 7,121 3,286.66 41.0832
F 7,477 3,450.81 43.1351
G 7,852 3,623.80 45.2975
H 8,243 3,804.56 47.5570
I 8,655 3,994.69 49.9337
242 SR CODE ENFORCE OFFCR E
098 SR COMM SVC OFFCR E 136
091 SR ECON DEV SPEC E 162
226 SR EMPLOYMENT SPEC E 135
212 SR ENGINEERING TECH E 159
246 SR ENVIRO SVCS SPEC E 153
43 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
A 6,217 2,869.53 35.8691
B 6,528 3,012.90 37.6612
C 6,854 3,163.54 39.5443
D 7,198 3,321.98 41.5248
E 7,558 3,488.21 43.6027
F 7,935 3,662.23 45.7779
G 8,332 3,845.60 48.0700
H 8,749 4,037.80 50.4726
I 9,185 4,239.36 52.9920
A 4,348 2,006.69 25.0837
B 4,565 2,106.95 26.3369
C 4,794 2,212.41 27.6551
D 5,032 2,322.53 29.0316
E 5,284 2,438.89 30.4861
F 5,549 2,560.96 32.0121
G 5,826 2,688.75 33.6094
H 6,117 2,823.30 35.2912
I 6,423 2,964.59 37.0574
246 SR ENVIRO SVCS SPEC E
294 SR HOUSING SPEC E 150
128 SR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST M 171
104 SR INFO TCHNLGY ANALYST M 194
106 SR INFO TCHNLGY TECH E 159
067 SR OFFICE ASSIST E 123
44 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,000 2,307.46 28.8433
B 5,249 2,422.79 30.2849
C 5,512 2,543.82 31.7978
D 5,787 2,671.09 33.3887
E 6,077 2,804.60 35.0575
F 6,381 2,944.85 36.8107
G 6,699 3,091.86 38.6483
H 7,034 3,246.66 40.5833
I 7,387 3,409.26 42.6157
A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
A 6,871 3,171.34 39.6418
B 7,216 3,330.29 41.6286
C 7,576 3,496.52 43.7066
D 7,955 3,671.58 45.8948
E 8,352 3,854.96 48.1870
F 8,770 4,047.67 50.5959
G 9,209 4,250.26 53.1283
H 9,669 4,462.73 55.7842
I 10,152 4,685.58 58.5698
A 8,641 3,987.94 49.8492
B 9,073 4,187.41 52.3427
C 9,526 4,396.76 54.9595
D 10,002 4,616.50 57.7062
E 10,502 4,847.13 60.5892
F 11,028 5,089.72 63.6215
G 11,578 5,343.74 66.7968
H 12,158 5,611.26 70.1408
I 12,766 5,891.78 73.6472
A 7,011 3,235.75 40.4469
B 7,362 3,397.82 42.4728
C 7,730 3,567.69 44.5961
D 8,116 3,745.86 46.8233
E 8,522 3,933.39 49.1674
F 8,948 4,129.75 51.6219
G 9,396 4,336.50 54.2062
H 9,865 4,553.12 56.9140
I 10,358 4,780.64 59.7580
067 SR OFFICE ASSIST E
407 SR PARK MAINT WRKR U 137
266 SR PLANNER M 194
025 SR PROG SPEC M 171
264 SR PROJECT PLANNER M 194
223 SR REAL PROPERTY AGENT M 173
45 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 3,670 1,693.98 21.1748
B 3,854 1,778.64 22.2331
C 4,046 1,867.48 23.3435
D 4,249 1,960.98 24.5122
E 4,462 2,059.16 25.7395
F 4,684 2,162.01 27.0252
G 4,918 2,270.06 28.3758
H 5,164 2,383.31 29.7913
I 5,423 2,502.78 31.2848
A 4,900 2,261.75 28.2719
B 5,145 2,374.48 29.6810
C 5,402 2,493.43 31.1679
D 5,673 2,618.10 32.7263
E 5,956 2,749.01 34.3627
F 6,253 2,886.15 36.0768
G 6,566 3,030.56 37.8820
H 6,895 3,182.25 39.7781
I 7,240 3,341.73 41.7716
A 5,000 2,307.46 28.8433
B 5,249 2,422.79 30.2849
C 5,512 2,543.82 31.7978
D 5,787 2,671.09 33.3887
E 6,077 2,804.60 35.0575
F 6,381 2,944.85 36.8107
G 6,699 3,091.86 38.6483
H 7,034 3,246.66 40.5833
I 7,387 3,409.26 42.6157
A 5,000 2,307.46 28.8433
B 5,249 2,422.79 30.2849
C 5,512 2,543.82 31.7978
D 5,787 2,671.09 33.3887
E 6,077 2,804.60 35.0575
F 6,381 2,944.85 36.8107
G 6,699 3,091.86 38.6483
H 7,034 3,246.66 40.5833
I 7,387 3,409.26 42.6157
A 6,474 2,987.96 37.3496
B 6,797 3,137.05 39.2132
C 7,137 3,293.93 41.1742
D 7,494 3,458.60 43.2325
E 7,868 3,631.58 45.3948
F 8,262 3,813.39 47.6674
G 8,675 4,004.04 50.0505
H 9,109 4,204.04 52.5505
I 9,565 4,414.42 55.1802
223 SR REAL PROPERTY AGENT M
253 SR RECREATION SPEC E 106
090 SR REPRO EQUIP OPERATOR E 135
462 SR SEWER MAINT WRKR U 137
419 SR STREET MAINT WRKR U 137
412 SR TRAFFIC SIGNAL ELEC U 163
46 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,099 2,814.99 35.1873
B 6,404 2,955.76 36.9470
C 6,724 3,103.29 38.7911
D 7,060 3,258.61 40.7326
E 7,413 3,421.20 42.7651
F 7,784 3,592.62 44.9078
G 8,172 3,771.84 47.1480
H 8,581 3,960.40 49.5051
I 9,011 4,158.84 51.9855
A 6,601 3,046.66 38.0833
B 6,931 3,198.87 39.9858
C 7,278 3,358.86 41.9858
D 7,641 3,526.65 44.0832
E 8,023 3,702.75 46.2844
F 8,424 3,888.20 48.6025
G 8,845 4,082.48 51.0310
H 9,288 4,286.63 53.5829
I 9,753 4,501.17 56.2646
A 5,468 2,523.56 31.5445
B 5,741 2,649.79 33.1224
C 6,028 2,782.26 34.7782
D 6,330 2,921.48 36.5185
E 6,646 3,067.44 38.3431
F 6,978 3,220.68 40.2586
G 7,327 3,381.72 42.2715
H 7,693 3,550.55 44.3819
I 8,078 3,728.21 46.6026
A 4,348 2,006.69 25.0837
B 4,565 2,106.95 26.3369
C 4,794 2,212.41 27.6551
D 5,032 2,322.53 29.0316
E 5,284 2,438.89 30.4861
F 5,549 2,560.96 32.0121
G 5,826 2,688.75 33.6094
H 6,117 2,823.30 35.2912
I 6,423 2,964.59 37.0574
A 3,897 1,798.39 22.4799
B 4,091 1,888.26 23.6033
C 4,296 1,982.81 24.7851
D 4,511 2,082.02 26.0253
E 4,736 2,185.91 27.3239
F 4,973 2,295.00 28.6875
G 5,221 2,409.80 30.1226
H 5,482 2,530.32 31.6289
I 5,757 2,657.07 33.2133
412 SR TRAFFIC SIGNAL ELEC U
437 SR WATER PROD OPTR U 157
255 SR WATER QUALITY TECH E 165
431 SR WATER SVC WRKR U 146
078 SR WORD PROC OPERATOR E 123
451 STOCK CLERK E 112
47 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 4,900 2,261.75 28.2719
B 5,145 2,374.48 29.6810
C 5,402 2,493.43 31.1679
D 5,673 2,618.10 32.7263
E 5,956 2,749.01 34.3627
F 6,253 2,886.15 36.0768
G 6,566 3,030.56 37.8820
H 6,895 3,182.25 39.7781
I 7,240 3,341.73 41.7716
A 4,758 2,195.78 27.4472
B 4,995 2,305.38 28.8173
C 5,245 2,420.71 30.2589
D 5,507 2,541.74 31.7718
E 5,782 2,668.49 33.3562
F 6,071 2,801.99 35.0249
G 6,375 2,942.25 36.7782
H 6,693 3,089.26 38.6158
I 7,029 3,244.06 40.5507
A 7,441 3,434.19 42.9274
B 7,812 3,605.61 45.0701
C 8,203 3,785.87 47.3234
D 8,614 3,975.47 49.6934
E 9,043 4,173.91 52.1739
F 9,496 4,382.73 54.7841
G 9,971 4,601.95 57.5243
H 10,469 4,832.07 60.4009
I 10,993 5,073.62 63.4203
A 10,231 4,721.94 59.0243
B 10,743 4,958.30 61.9787
C 11,280 5,206.08 65.0760
D 11,844 5,466.34 68.3292
E 12,436 5,739.57 71.7447
F 13,058 6,026.84 75.3355
G 13,711 6,328.13 79.1017
H 14,396 6,644.48 83.0560
I 15,116 6,976.43 87.2053
A 5,633 2,599.92 32.4991
B 5,915 2,729.79 34.1224
C 6,209 2,865.89 35.8236
D 6,520 3,009.27 37.6159
E 6,846 3,159.91 39.4988
F 7,189 3,317.83 41.4729
G 7,548 3,483.54 43.5443
H 7,926 3,658.07 45.7259
I 8,322 3,840.98 48.0122
451 STOCK CLERK E
450 STOREKEEPER E 135
411 STREET MAINT WRKR U 132
233 SUPERVISING BLDG INSPCTR M 179
237 TRAFFIC ENGINEER M 211
405 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ELEC U 149
48 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 6,537 3,017.06 37.7132
B 6,864 3,168.22 39.6027
C 7,207 3,326.14 41.5767
D 7,568 3,492.89 43.6611
E 7,946 3,667.43 45.8429
F 8,343 3,850.80 48.1350
G 8,760 4,043.00 50.5375
H 9,198 4,245.08 53.0635
I 9,658 4,457.54 55.7192
A 3,898 1,798.90 22.4863
B 4,092 1,888.78 23.6097
C 4,297 1,983.32 24.7915
D 4,512 2,082.53 26.0317
E 4,737 2,186.43 27.3304
F 4,975 2,296.04 28.7005
G 5,223 2,410.84 30.1355
H 5,485 2,531.36 31.6420
I 5,758 2,657.59 33.2199
A 5,049 2,330.33 29.1291
B 5,301 2,446.68 30.5836
C 5,567 2,569.28 32.1160
D 5,845 2,697.58 33.7198
E 6,137 2,832.64 35.4081
F 6,444 2,973.94 37.1742
G 6,765 3,122.50 39.0313
H 7,104 3,278.87 40.9859
I 7,460 3,443.02 43.0378
A 6,474 2,987.96 37.3496
B 6,797 3,137.05 39.2132
C 7,137 3,293.93 41.1742
D 7,494 3,458.60 43.2325
E 7,868 3,631.58 45.3948
F 8,262 3,813.39 47.6674
G 8,675 4,004.04 50.0505
H 9,109 4,204.04 52.5505
I 9,565 4,414.42 55.1802
A 5,523 2,549.02 31.8627
B 5,800 2,676.80 33.4600
C 6,089 2,810.31 35.1288
D 6,394 2,951.08 36.8886
E 6,714 3,098.62 38.7327
F 7,049 3,253.41 40.6677
G 7,401 3,416.01 42.7001
H 7,772 3,586.91 44.8363
I 8,160 3,766.12 47.0765
405 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ELEC U
040 UTILITIES REVENUE SUPV M 166
410 UTILITY WRKR U 112
429 WATER CUST SVC WRKR U 138
433 WATER PROD ELEC U 163
438 WATER PROD MECH U 147
49 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 5,254 2,424.87 30.3109
B 5,517 2,546.42 31.8303
C 5,793 2,673.69 33.4211
D 6,082 2,807.19 35.0899
E 6,386 2,947.45 36.8431
F 6,706 3,094.98 38.6872
G 7,041 3,249.78 40.6222
H 7,393 3,412.37 42.6546
I 7,763 3,582.76 44.7844
A 5,686 2,624.35 32.8043
B 5,970 2,755.25 34.4406
C 6,268 2,892.90 36.1612
D 6,582 3,037.84 37.9730
E 6,911 3,189.52 39.8690
F 7,256 3,348.99 41.8624
G 7,620 3,516.78 43.9598
H 8,000 3,692.36 46.1545
I 8,401 3,877.29 48.4661
A 4,758 2,195.78 27.4472
B 4,995 2,305.38 28.8173
C 5,245 2,420.71 30.2589
D 5,507 2,541.74 31.7718
E 5,782 2,668.49 33.3562
F 6,071 2,801.99 35.0249
G 6,375 2,942.25 36.7782
H 6,693 3,089.26 38.6158
I 7,029 3,244.06 40.5507
A 10,646 4,913.63 61.4204
B 11,179 5,159.33 64.4917
C 11,738 5,417.51 67.7188
D 12,324 5,688.15 71.1019
E 12,941 5,972.81 74.6602
F 13,587 6,270.99 78.3874
G 14,267 6,584.75 82.3094
H 14,981 6,914.09 86.4261
I 15,729 7,259.53 90.7441
A 7,221 3,332.89 41.6612
B 7,583 3,499.64 43.7455
C 7,962 3,674.70 45.9337
D 8,359 3,858.07 48.2259
E 8,778 4,051.31 50.6414
F 9,216 4,253.39 53.1674
G 9,677 4,466.36 55.8295
H 10,161 4,689.73 58.6217
I 10,669 4,924.01 61.5501
438 WATER PROD MECH U
436 WATER PROD OPERATOR U 142
115 WATER QUALITY TECH E 150
430 WATER SVC WRKR U 132
409 WATER SVCS MGR M 215
102 WEBMASTER E 174
50 Garden Grove City Council
Resolution No. XXXX-XX
Effective 7/5/2025
Revised 8/2/2025

JOB CODE CLASSIFICATION TITLE SCHEDULE RANGE STEP MONTHLY BI-WEEKLY HOURLY A 3,935 1,816.05 22.7006
B 4,132 1,906.95 23.8369
C 4,338 2,002.02 25.0252
D 4,555 2,102.28 26.2785
E 4,782 2,207.21 27.5902
F 5,021 2,317.33 28.9667
G 5,272 2,433.18 30.4147
H 5,536 2,555.25 31.9406
I 5,813 2,683.04 33.5380
077 WORD PROC OPERATOR E 113
102 WEBMASTER E
51 Item 323/2025
Final

City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

To:

Lisa L. Kim From: Ursula Luna-Reynosa
Dept:

City Manager Dept: Economic Development &
Housing Department

Date: 9/9/2025

Subject: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cities of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana for planning and development of a Little Saigon Business Improvement District Program; Award a contract to New City America, Inc. to provide Community Business District formation services (Cost:
$205,000); and Award a contract to Clarity of Place to conduct market research on Little Saigon. (Cost: $95,000)(Action Item)

OBJECTIVE

For the City Council to 1) Approve a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the Cities of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana (collectively, the “Parties”) to support economic revitalization, job creation, and the cultural preservation of Vietnamese -American communities within their jurisdiction; 2) Award of contract to New City America, Inc. in the amount of $205,000 for the investigation and, if feasible, formation of a multi -jurisdictional business improvement district under Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500 et seq in the Parties’ respective Vietnamese business communities; and 3) Award a contract to Clarity of Place in the amount of $95,000 to conduct market research on Little Saigon as follows i) Cultural Visitor Profile, ii) Tourism Infrastructure Inventory, iii) Comparative Analysis, iv) Economic Opportunity Forecast, v) Stakeholder Engagement, and vi) Marketing Assessment, (collectively, “Destination Opportunity Assessment”).

BACKGROUND

The California Jobs First (CJF) state initiative, formerly the Community Economic Resilience Fund, is a major statewide economic development effort launched in 2021 that aims to build equitable, sustainable economies across California’s 13 distinct economic regions. Orange County was identified as one o f the 13 regions and the Orange County Business Council (OCBC) was selected to serve as the regional convener, coordinating efforts among businesses, labor, tribal representatives, academia, local government, and community organizations. CJF prioritizes c reating good -paying jobs and provides significant grant funding to advance the Governor’s Regional Investment Initiative (RII), which focuses on disadvantaged communities. Orange County received $14 million through the RII Catalyst (RIIC) phase of CJF to s upport pre-development activities, helping regional projects move from concept to implementation readiness.
52 Item 323/2025

In January 2025, Garden Grove in partnership with Fountain Valley and Santa Ana (collectively, the “Parties”) partnered to apply for RIIC – Round 1 funding to understand the opportunity to establish Little Saigon as a premiere statewide destination for cultural tourism that celebrates diversity and boosts the regional economy. This objective is to be accomplished through the investigation, and if feasible, formation of a Little Saigon Business Improvement District and Destination Opportunity Assessment (collectively, the “Project”).

DISCUSSION

With its rich history, dynamic Vietnamese -American culture, and concentration of dynamic eateries and restaurants, local markets, and cultural institutions , Little Saigon is a vibrant cultural and commercial hub that has since expanded into part of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana. Over the decades, it has become a vital economic engine for the region but also a symbol of resilience, identity, and community for generations of Vietnamese Americans in Orange County.

Little Saigon presents a significant opportunity as a premiere statewide destination for cultural tourism, drawing visitors seeking auth entic and immersive experiences. Building towards strategic investment in areas of infrastructure, signage, marketing and partnerships with travel and cultural organizations, the Project outcomes would strive to further position Little Saigon as a vibrant, year-round cultural destination that celebrates diversity and boosts the regional economy.

Cal State Fullerton’s Woods Center for Economic Analysis & Forecasting released its inaugural report, Little Saigon, Orange County: A Demographic and Economic Profile, in October 2024 (see Attachment 1). The comprehensive study paints the first-ever detailed portrait of Little Saigon that highlights population and growth trends, an economic snapshot, housing and income data, as well as economic shifts and opportunities. The Project is to build upon efforts made through the Cal State Fullerton landmark study that acts as both a benchmark and a roadmap – enabling policymakers, community leaders, entrepreneurs, and investors to build inclusive strategies that support economic parity, cultural vitality, and sustainable growth for Little Saigon.

In March 2025, the Parties were awarded $300,000 under the RIIC – Round 1 for the Project.

With this award, the MOU was developed to formalize the collaborative partnership between the Parties. The MOU designates Garden Grove as the lead agency responsible for overseeing administrative functions related to grant management, procur ement, and consultant oversight.

On July 3, 2025, the City issued two (2) Requests for P roposals (RFPs) to fulfill the Project scope of work:

1. Economic Market Assessment RFP;

2. Community Business District Formation RFP.

The City did n ot receive any proposal s for the Economic Market Assessment RFP. One (1) proposal was received from New City America, Inc. for the Community Business District Formation RFP which met all evaluation criteria. The RFP review committee consisted of one (1) representative from each city.
53 Item 323/2025

Due to the absence of proposals for the Economic Market Assessment RFP, the City moved forward with a sole source process and Clarity of Place was selected. The specific Scope of Work for both consultants are included as Exhibit “A” to their respective contracts and has been briefly described under the “OBJECTIVE” section of this staff report.

In May 2025, the Parties submitted another application for RIIC – Round 2 and were awarded an additional $250,000 to establish Design Guidelines for the Little Saigon Business Improvement District. The total funding awarded for the RIIC is $550,000. Staff will be soliciting proposals for this work and will return to the City Council for contract award.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact to the General Fund. Staff are asking that $300,000 of the total $550,000 RIIC grant be appropriated into the State Grant Fund (233) to fund the scope of work outlined above. The additional $250,000 in grant funding will be appropriated when the contract for Design Guidelines is brought to council.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council:

 Authorize the Finance Director to appropriate a total of $300,000 for the Project;
 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cities of Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana for planning, developing and eventual implementation of the Little Saigon Business Improvement District Program
 Award a contract to Clarity of Place in the amount of $95,000 to provide Destination Opportunity Assessment for Little Saigon;
 Award a contract to New City America, Inc. in the amount of $205,000 to provide Community Business District formation services for Little Saigon within the Parties’ respective Vietnamese-American communities; and  Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all agreements and any amendments to the MOU, Clarity of Place contract, and New City America, Inc. contract that may be necessary to carry out the Project.

By: Christy Le, Administrative Analyst

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Little Saigon, Orange County: A Demographic and Economic Profile

2. Memorandum of Understanding

3. Clarity of Place Agreement

4. New City America Inc. Agreement

54 LITTLE SAIGON,
ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND

ECONOMIC PROFILE
Presented by Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasting 55 iCalifornia State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

LITTLE SAIGON,
ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND

ECONOMIC PROFILE
Prepared by

Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasting
College of Business and Economics
California State University, Fullerton
Anil Puri, Ph.D.

Project Director
Aaron Popp, Ph.D.

Project Co-Director
Adrian Fleissig, Ph.D.

Project Co-Director
OCTOBER 2024
56 iiCalifornia State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

FOREWORD
(ZHMLSSV^I\ZPULZZHUKJVTT\UP[`SLHKLY0HTOVUVYLK[VZOHY L^P[O`V\[OLÄYZ[ ever economic report on Little Saigon—a historic moment for our community. Little Saigon has long been a symbol of resilience and entrepreneurial spirit, serving as a thriving center for Vietnamese Americans and a key part of our region's economy. The 3P[[SL:HPNVU6YHUNL*V\U[`!(+LTVNYHWOPJHUK,JVUVTPJ7YVÄSL THYRZHUPTWVY[HU[ TPSLZ[VULPUV\YLɈVY[Z[V\UKLYZ[HUKHUKN\PKL[OLM\[\YLVMV\YJVTT\UP[` I want to thank the teams at Cal State Fullerton—especially the University Advancement, College of Business and Economics, Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasting and the Small Business Development Center—for their support in producing this invaluable report.
;OPZZ[\K`VɈLYZJY\JPHSPUZPNO[ZPU[V^OLYL^LZ[HUK[VKH`OP NOSPNO[PUNRL`[YLUKZHUK opportunities that will shape our growth. Whether you’re a seasoned business owner or an aspiring entrepreneur, the data and analysis in this report will help you make informed decisions for the future and guide strategic actions to drive success and development within the community.

Little Saigon’s success has always been rooted in its people and our shared commitment to collaboration. I encourage all of us to use this analysis as a tool to drive collective growth and ensure that Little Saigon remains a beacon of cultural and economic vitality for years to come.

Together, we can continue building a prosperous future for our community.

Go Titans,
;oT;5N\`ҩU4+4)(
CSUF MBA Class of 2005
*OHPY*:<-7OPSHU[OYVWPJ-V\UKH[PVU)VHYKVM.V]LYUVYZ 7YV\K3P[[SL:HPNVU)\ZPULZZ6^ULY(K]HUJL)LH\[`*VSSLNL 
57 iiiCalifornia State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

FOREWORD
At the College of Business and Economics, we are guided by dual missions: an “academic” mission to provide thought leadership through research, and a “community” mission to drive positive impact in our region. The inaugural Little Saigon Demographic and ,JVUVTPJ7YVÄSLPZHÄYZ[VMP[ZRPUKZ[\K`OPNOSPNO[PUN[OLPU JYLKPISLWYVNYLZZTHKL I`=PL[UHTLZL(TLYPJHUZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`V]LY[OLWHZ[ÄM[``LH YZ0[HSZVZLY]LZHZH ILUJOTHYRHSSV^PUN\Z[VLɈLJ[P]LS`WSHUMVY[OLJVU[PU\LKNYV^ [OVM[OPZJVTT\UP[`PU the future.

The report provides a comprehensive look at the expanding geographical boundaries of Little Saigon, now encompassing Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and Westminster. It also captures key shifts in the demographic and economic landscape of Little Saigon, illustrating the strides made by the Vietnamese American community.

While this progress is impressive, there remains important work ahead to help this JVTT\UP[`HJOPL]LM\SSLJVUVTPJWHYP[`^P[OPU6YHUNL*V\U[`;O PZW\ISPJH[PVUVɈLYZ essential insights for policymakers, business leaders and other stakeholders to inform future actions and decisions.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Tam Nguyen for his leadership and for commissioning this project, as well as to Cal State Fullerton and the OCIE SBDC for their support. I am also incredibly proud of the team at the Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasting for their outstanding work on this report, which will serve as a cornerstone for the continued development of Little Saigon and our region. +Y:YPKOHY:\UKHYHT
Dean, College of Business and Economics
58 ivCalifornia State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1 II. LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY DEFINED ............................. 2 III. DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................... 9 IV. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS................................................... 12 V. SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS........................................................... 18 VI. HOUSING .......................................................................................... 21 VII. INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT.............................................................. 23 VIII. BUSINESS CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................... 26 IX. FUTURE TRENDS FOR LITTLE SAIGON........................................ 26 Data appendices are available upon request.

Please contact Anil Puri via email
([email protected]) for
more information.
59 1California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

LITTLE SAIGON,
ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND

ECONOMIC PROFILE
I. INTRODUCTION
After the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, 1.5 million to 2.5 million Vietnamese residents LTPNYH[LKHIYVHK;OLÄYZ[^H]LVMPTTPNYHU[ZHYYP]LKPU[OL<UP[LK:[H[LZPU


and the second wave was prolonged between 1978 and the early 1990s. Vietnamese communities became established throughout the U.S. The largest are in Orange County, San Diego and San Jose, California; Arlington, Garland and Houston, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Falls Church, Virginia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Seattle, Washington. These communities established their own restaurants, grocery stores, and small businesses in geographically concentrated areas and their own economic, social, and cultural identities.

Growth of Little Saigon, Orange County
The largest and oldest Vietnamese community in the U.S. is in Orange County, California.

Bolsa Avenue in the city of Westminster became a hub in the beginning and remains a center of activity, with many shops, restaurants, and businesses surrounding the Asian Garden Mall and Little Saigon Plaza. The city of Westminster passed Resolution No. 2661 in April 1988, to recognize the Little Saigon area as a commercial area of the Vietnamese JVTT\UP[`HUKKLZPNUH[LKH
TPSLZ[YL[JOVM)VSZH(]LU\LHZ[OL3P[[SL:HPNVU
Tourist Commercial District. Then California Governor George Deukmejian went to the (ZPHU.HYKLU4HSSVU1\UL
 [VVɉJPHSS`YLJVNUPaL[OL3P[[SL:HPNVU+PZ[YPJ[HZH commercial and tourism center in Orange County. Community activist and Westminster City Councilman Tony Lam played a prominent role in promoting the Little Saigon freeway signs. Governor Deukmejian introduced the directional signs to the Little Saigon HYLHMYVT0U[LYZ[H[L
HUK:[H[L9V\[LPU ;OL
MYLL^H`MYVT)VSZH*OPJH
to Magnolia Avenue was designated the “Little Saigon Freeway.” Little Saigon continued to expand into neighboring cities. In addition to multiple restaurants, delis, supermarkets, strip mall s, and banks (First Vietnamese American Bank and Saigon National Bank most noteworthy), media and entertainment industries began to grow in the area, including Vietnamese newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and Vietnamese language TV stations.

The Asian Garden Mall and Village Center is an iconic landmark in Little Saigon. This [^VZ[VY`I\PSKPUNOV\ZLZ(ZPHU.HYKLU4HSS7O̡ҿJ3ҽJ;Oұ^OPJOVWLULKPU 
on Bolsa Avenue. Developer Frank Jao built it for $15 million. The Asian Garden Mall has many shops, restaurants, and entert ainment businesses. During summer weekend nights, it hosts the Asian Garden Night Market.
60 2California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
News media and television stations led the growth of cultural and entertainment outlets.

Ethnic newspapers included The Little Saigon News, Vien Dong Daily News , =Pҫ[)mV Daily News, and the newspapers of Nguoi Viet. Little Saigon Radio and Radio Bolsa are two popular Vietnamese radio stations. There were also broadcasts of Little Saigon TV, SBTN TV, VietFace TV, VNATV, and Saigon TV.

The Vietnamese Lunar New Year, known as ;ң[-LZ[P]HS;ң[5N\`vUǘmU , stands as the pinnacle of Vietnamese cultural celebration each year. It celebrates the new spring season, marking a time for families to come together in joyous reunions. Amidst JVSVYM\SMLZ[P]P[PLZ;ң[VɈLYZHYLZWP[LMYVT[OL[YPHSZVM[OLWHZ[`LHYMVZ[LYPUNOVWL and anticipation for the year ahead. It is a cherished occasion where bonds are strengthened, and optimism reigns supreme.
;OLHUU\HS;ң[JLSLIYH[PVUZHYLOLSKHJYVZZ6YHUNL*V\U[`PUJS\KPUNH[[OL(ZPHU Garden Mall, Mile Square Regional Park in Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana. The Vietnamese American Chamber of Commerce has been celebrating it since 
;OL6*-HPYHUK,]LU[*LU[LYOHKP[Z[OHUU\HS;ң[MLZ[P]HSPUJLSLIYH[PUN the Year of the Dragon. Thousands of people attend the celebration, which is broadcast SP]LVUSVJHS=PL[UHTLZLSHUN\HNL;=HUKYHKPVZ[H[PVUZ)` [OLMLZ[P]HSH[[YHJ[LK over 15,000 attendees, with additional viewership estimated to be 250,000 globally across multiple streaming and TV channels. Orange County’s Little Saigon remains the SHYNLZ[HUKTVZ[PUÅ\LU[PHSJVTT\UP[`MVY=PL[UHTLZL(TLYPJHUZ PU[OL<UP[LK:[H[LZ II. LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY DEFINED
<ZPUNHWVW\SH[PVUIHZLKHWWYVHJO\ZLKPU[OLHJHKLTPJSP[LYH[\ YL[VKPZ[PUN\PZO L[OUPJLUJSH]LZ^LKLÄUL3P[[SL:HPNVUHZHJVSSLJ[PVUVMULPNOIVYOVVKZ^P[OH Z\IZ[HU[PHSWVW\SH[PVUVM=PL[UHTLZLYLZPKLU[Z:WLJPÄJHSS`^L\ZLK(TLYPJHU *VTT\UP[`:\Y]L`KH[HHUKKLJLUUPHSJLUZ\ZKH[HOPZ[VYPJHSS` [VÄUKHUHKQHJLU[ collection of census tracts, including the historical Little Saigon boundary, where the population of people who are Vietnamese alone or Vietnamese in combination with other races is 30% or more of the population1. These criteria yield the borders for Little Saigon using 2021 American Community Survey estimates in Figure 1. Table 2 lists the JLUZ\Z[YHJ[ZVM3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK[OLPY=PL[UHTLZLWVW\SH[PVUMVYJLUZ\Z[YHJ[ZPU Little Saigon according to 2021 American Community Survey data. ;OLHYLHPU[OLIV\UKHYPLZJVU[HPUZHULZ[PTH[LK

VM[OLWVW\SH[PVUPU6YHUNL
County describing themselves as Vietname se alone in the 2021 American Community :\Y]L`Ä]L`LHYLZ[PTH[LZ 

VM


2.
1;OL*LUZ\Z^HZ[OLÄYZ[[VHSSV^YLZWVUKLU[Z[VJOVVZL[^VVYTVYLYHJLZZVKH[HMYVT[OL  *LUZ\ZHUK *LUZ\Z\ZL[OLZOHYLVM[OLWVW\SH[PVU[OH[PZ=PL[UHTLZLHSVUL 2+7
SPUL
+L[HPSLK[HISLZYLMLYYLK[VPU[OLYLWVY[HYLH]HPSHISL\WVUYLX\LZ[ Orange County’s
Little Saigon remains
the largest and most
influential community for
Vietnamese Americans in
the United States.
61 3California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
The criteria we use do not require the ethnic Vietnamese percentage to be a majority of the area’s population, which is consistent with the literature on ethnic enclaves. For example, Logan et al. (2011)3 discuss that past studies have had a variety of criteria that LɈLJ[P]LS`YHUNLKMYVT
[V

VMH[YHJ[»ZWVW\SH[PVUHUKV\Y
JYP[LYPVUPZPU
the upper part of the range for similar criteria of ethnic enclaves. >LKVUV[Z\NNLZ[[OH[[OLIVYKLYZVM3P[[SL:HPNVU\ZLKPU[OPZYLWVY[KLÄULH neighborhood that excludes other large ethnic groups. Instead, the borders of 3P[[SL:HPNVUKLSPTP[HJVUULJ[LKHYLH^OLYLHZPNUPÄJHU[ZOHYL VM[OLWVW\SH[PVUPZ =PL[UHTLZL;OLKLÄUP[PVUVM3P[[SL:HPNVU^L\ZLKVLZUV[HZZ\ TL[OH[[OLHYLHPZ HUL[OUPJLUJSH]LZVSLS`PUÅ\LUJLKI`=PL[UHTLZLJ\S[\YLHUKSHUN\HNL-VYL_HTWSL 2VYLH[V^UPU.HYKLU.YV]LPZPUZPKL[OLIV\UKHY`^LKLÄULHUK[OLYLHYLSHYNL Hispanic neighborhoods on the west side of Santa Ana. Instead, the borders of Little Saigon have a substantial share of the population having Vietnamese heritage.

The borders of Little
Saigon delimit a
connected area where a
significant share of the
population is Vietnamese.
33VNHU1VOU9:L[O:WPLSTHU/VUN^LP?\HUK7OPSPW52SLPU 0KLU[PM`PUNHUKIV\UKPUNL[OUPJ ULPNOIVYOVVKZ <YIHU.LVNYHWO`UV! 
FIGURE 1: 2021 Borders of Little Saigon
62 4California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
*LUZ\Z;YHJ[ ;V[HS7VW\SH[PVU =PL[UHTLZL7VW \SH[PVU
=PL[UHTLZL
   3,852 78.8
889.05   3,558 72.0
998.03 5,893 
 65.6
889.02

   63.0
 5,167  60.8
992.23 5,538 3,116 56.3
890.01 6,083 3,329


889.01 6,729 3,592

889.03 
 
 52.6

2,836 


887.02 6,001 3,130 52.2
992.22




52.1 992.03 5,386 2,776 51.5
888.02
 2,759 51.1
997.01 6,550 3,306 50.5
 3,190 
  

997.02   

998.02 
 2,178 

881.07 6,175   

887.01
 2,696 
 5,737  
999.03 5,610  
880.01 

 1,911 
880.02 
 1,713 
881.05 

1,876 
992.26 3,777  37.8
886.01
  37.7
888.01 7,657 
 

883.01 5,797 2,078 35.8
881.06
 
 35.7
882.03 5,207 1,835 35.2
886.02 
 1,538 
996.01 7,510 2,573 
992.27 5,910 2,018 
 6,517 2,192 33.6
890.03 
 33.5
997.03


 1,881 33.2
992.25  1,307 32.3
992.02
  32.1
998.01 6,260 1,930 30.8
883.02 6,287 1,919 30.5
TABLE 2: CENSUS TRACTS OF LITTLE SAIGON, 2021
63 5California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
To see how Little Saigon has expanded in Orange County, the decennial census from 1980, 1990, and 2000, and American Community Survey data from 2005 and 2021 are used. Figure 3 below shows the boundaries of Little Saigon based on 2021 American Community Survey data.

FIGURE 3: POPULATION-BASED BORDERS OF LITTLE SAIGON OVER TIME 64 6California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
Comparison with Other Definitions of Little Saigon
Our delineation of Little Saigon over time broadly agrees with formal and informal OPZ[VYPJHSKLÄUP[PVUZVMP[
The Little Saigon business district designated by former Governor Deukmejian in 1988 was bounded by Euclid Street to the east, Magnolia Street to the west, Westminster Boulevard to the north, and Bolsa Avenue to the south. Today, the Vietnamese JVTT\UP[`OHZL_WHUKLKIL`VUK[OVZLIV\UKHYPLZ-PN\YLPZMYV THU Orange County Register article in 2013, and it shows the original Little Saigon boundaries and their assessment of the boundaries of Little Saigon businesses at that time. ¸3P[[SL:HPNVU[\YUZ
¹I`+V\N4VYPUVHUK2LUKYH(ISHaH;OL6YHUNL*V\U[`9LNPZ[LY 1\UL

FIGURE 4: APPROXIMATE BORDERS OF LITTLE SAIGON IN 2013 ACCORDING TO THE OC REGISTER

65 7California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
6\Y WVW\SH[PVUIHZLKLZ[PTH[LZVM3P[[SL:HPNVULUJVTWHZZ TVZ[VM[OLLHZ[LYU end of the original Little Saigon boundaries, and the western end of the original boundaries included many Vietnamese businesses and the Asian Garden Mall.

Compared to our map based on the 2015 population, the Orange County Register ’s assessment matches well, except that the Register’s review of Little Saigon business IV\UKHYPLZYLHJOLZSLZZMHYUVY[OPU.HYKLU.YV]L[OHUV\YZ;O PZKPɈLYLUJLTHRLZ sense since many neighborhoods in the northern part of Garden Grove are primarily residential, not commercial, and the Register’s assessment was based on areas with Vietnamese businesses.
>LILSPL]L[OH[HU`SHUN\HNLIHZLKKLÄUP[PVUVM3P[[SL:HPNVU^V\SKILZPTPSHY[VV\Y YLZ\S[ZZPUJLHSSJLUZ\Z[YHJ[ZPUV\YKLÄUP[PVUVM3P[[SL:HPN VUJVU[HPUHZ\IZ[HU[PHS share of residents who speak Vietnamese at home as illustrated in Figure 5 below.

FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING VIETNAMESE AT HOME (2022 ACS) 66 8California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
Estimation of Economic and Demographic Statistics for Little Saigon In sections below, we examine the economic and demographic characteristics of Little Saigon residents and compare them to Orange County residents. Little Saigon is not HUVɉJPHSS`KLZPNUH[LKJP[`VYV[OLYQ\YPZKPJ[PVUZV[OL<UP[LK:[H[LZ*LUZ\Z)\YLH\ HUKV[OLYNV]LYUTLU[HNLUJPLZKVUV[OH]LHU`VɉJPHSLZ[PTH[LZVMZ[H[PZ[PJZHIV\[P[ However, the Census Bureau conducts the American Community Survey (ACS), which estimates national, state, county, and local economic and demographic information HUU\HSS`;OL*LUZ\ZJVUZ[Y\J[Z[OLMVSSV^PUNKH[HWYVÄSLYLWVY[Z[VKPZ[YPI\[L JVTTVUS`YLX\LZ[LKPUMVYTH[PVUHIV\[KPɈLYLU[Q\YPZKPJ[PVUZ! 7!:LSLJ[LK:VJPHS*OHYHJ[LYPZ[PJZ
7!:LSLJ[LK,JVUVTPJ*OHYHJ[LYPZ[PJZ
7!:LSLJ[LK/V\ZPUN*OHYHJ[LYPZ[PJZ
7
!(*:+LTVNYHWOPJHUK/V\ZPUN,Z[PTH[LZ
We collected these reports for Orange County, and we constructed estimates of these statistics for Little Saigon building up from the census tract level 5. ;OLLZ[PTH[LZPU[OLKH[HWYVÄSLZOH]L[OYLLKPɈLYLU[[`WLZVMZ[H[PZ[PJZ!JV\U[ZTLHUZ and medians. We estimate counts for Little Saigon, such as the total Vietnamese WVW\SH[PVUVM3P[[SL:HPNVUI`Z\TTPUN[OLLZ[PTH[LZVM[OLJV\U[ZHJYVZZHSS3P[[SL Saigon census tracts in Table 2 from the American Community Survey. We estimate means, such as the mean commuting time, using the weighted mean of the estimates across the Little Saigon census tracts. We estimate medians, such as median household income, using the weighted median of the estimates across Little Saigon JLUZ\Z[YHJ[Z>LKVUV[OH]LHJJLZZ[V[OLJVUÄKLU[PHSYH^YLZWVUZLZVM[OL(*: ZV[OLLZ[PTH[LZ^LWYVK\JLMVY3P[[SL:HPNVUHYLUV[VɉJPHSLZ[PTH[LZMYVT[OL<: Census Bureau. Instead, they are our best estimates based on publicly available data.

Another common statistic in the report is the percentage, such as the percentage of the population that is Vietnamese. We estimate these percentages using the appropriate counts of those variables6.

We use the latest available data from the ACS as of the writing of this report, which are the 2022 ACS estimates while using mostly the latest 2021 Little Saigon boundaries. >L\ZL[OL
`LHYLZ[PTH[LZ^OPJOJVTIPULÄ]L`LHYZVMZ\Y]L`KH[HMVYIL[[LY accuracy at the local level.
5;OLKL[HPSLK[HISLZHYLH]HPSHISL\WVUYLX\LZ[
6-VYL_HTWSL[V[HS=PL[UHTLZLWVW\SH[PVU[V[HSWVW\SH[PVU Little Saigon is not an
officially designated
city or other jurisdiction,
so the United States
Census Bureau and other
government agencies
do not have any official
estimates of statistics
about it. However, the
Census Bureau conducts
the American Community
Survey (ACS), which
estimates national, state,
county, and local economic
and demographic
information annually.
67 9California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
III. DEMOGRAPHICS
Little Saigon’s population has grown over time at a rate faster than that of Orange County as a whole. Table 6 below shows the growth of Little Saigon and the Vietnamese population between 1980 and 2022:

The table shows that the Vietnamese population has grown substantially. As of 2022, the WVW\SH[PVUVM3P[[SL:HPNVUZ[VVKH[ ^OPSL[OH[VM6YHUNL*V\U[`^HZ



making Little Saigon’s population 7.2% of Orange County8. However, much of the population growth is due to immigration from Vietnam over this period, as explained later in this section. ;OLHNLWYVÄSLVM3P[[SL:HPNVUPZVSKLY[OHU[OH[VM6YHUNL*V\U[`ZPUJL[OLTLKPHUHNLVM WLVWSLPU3P[[SL:HPNVUH[`LHYZPZVSKLY[OHUMVY6YHUNL*V\U[` `LHYZ9 as of 2022. For L_HTWSL 
VM3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZWVW\SH[PVUPZILSV^`LHYZVMHNLJVTWHYLK[V 
for Orange County10;OLZOHYLVMHNLNYV\WPZ MVY3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK
MVY
Orange County110UV[OLY^VYKZ3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZWVW\SH[PVUZOHYLVM[OVZLILSV^HNL PZ
SV^LY[OHU[OH[MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`


]LYZ\Z

12. 3P[[SL:HPNVUOHZHSHYNLYZOHYLVM[OLWVW\SH[PVUPUTPKKSLHU KVSKLYHNLZMYVT `LHYZ
HUKVSKLY;OLNYV\W

PZ
VM3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZWVW\SH[PVU JVTWHYLK[V
PU
Orange County 13


VM3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZWVW\SH[PVUPZ

HUKVSKLYJVTWHYLK [V


for Orange County.
(NL:L_WVW\SH[PVUW`YHTPKZWYV]PKLHTVYLKL[HPSLKWYVÄSLMVYHNLHZ^LSSHZZL_HZ shown below in Figure 715.
7:V\YJLZ! *LUZ\Z *LUZ\ZHUK*LUZ\ZZ\TTHY`ÄSLZ"(*:+7 YV^Z
HUK

8;HISL+7
SPUL
9;HISL+7
SPUL

10;HISL+7
SPUL
11*VTW\[LKMYVT;HISL+7
SPULZHUK
12*VTW\[LKMYVT;HISL+7
SPULZHUK
13*VTW\[LKMYVT;HISL+7
SPULZHUK
;HISL+7
SPUL
15*VTW\[LK\ZPUN(TLYPJHU*VTT\UP[`:\Y]L`
`LHYLZ[PTH[LZMVYLHJOHNLWYVÄSL
@LHY
=PL[UHTLZL
7VWPU
3P[[SL:HPNVU
;V[HS7VWPU
3P[[SL:HPNVU
=PL[UHTLZL
7VWPU
6YHUNL*V\U[`
;V[HS7VWVM
6YHUNL*V\U[`

VM
=PL[UHTLZL
PU3P[[SL:HPNVU
=PL[UHTLZL

VM
6YHUNL*V\U[`
1980  19,333 1,932,709  1.0
1990 
 
 71,822 

 5.8 3.0
2000 

 109,562 

 
  33.0 
2010 57,771 127,213 170,256 2,965,525 33.9 5.7
2015   
  195,351 3,116,069  6.3
2022 99,585   


 3,175,227 
 6.8
TABLE 6: LITTLE SAIGON AND ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION, 1980-2022 7 68 10California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
)V[OYLNPVUZOH]LOLHS[O`^LSSKPZ[YPI\[LKWYVÄSLZ^OLYLUVZPUNSLJVOVY[KVTPUH[LZ the pyramid.

FIGURE 7: LITTLE SAIGON’S AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION PYRAMID, 2022 -4.4%
-5.4%
-6.1%
-6.8%
-5.8%
-7.9%
-7.2%
-6.2%
-5.5%
-8.0%
-7.3%
-7.4%
-6.8%
-5.2%
-3.6%
-2.3%
-2.1%
-2.1%

5.0%

4.8%

6.0%

7.0%

6.5%

6.9%

6.5%

5.3%

6.0%

7.7%

6.9%

7.1%

6.7%

5.1%

4.2%

3.4%

2.4%

2.7%
-10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% -
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years 10
to 14 years 15
to 19 years 20
to 24 years 25
to 29 years 30
to 34 years 35
to 39 years 40
to 44 years 45
to 49 years 50
to 54 years 55
to 59 years 60
to 64 years 65
to 69 years 70
to 74 years 75
to 79 years 80
to 84 years 85
years & over
Males Females
-*55-&
4"*(0/

"(&4&9

%*453*#65*0/
FIGURE 8: ORANGE COUNTY’S AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION PYRAMID, 2022 -5.7%
-5.8%
-6.6%
-6.8%
-6.7%
-7.5%
-7.2%
-6.9%
-6.4%
-6.7%
-7.0%
-6.9%
-6.1%
-4.6%
-3.7%
-2.4%
-1.5%
-1.6%

5.3%

5.5%

6.2%

6.5%

6.5%

7.0%

6.7%

6.4%

6.4%

6.7%

6.9%

6.7%

6.1%

5.0%

4.2%

2.9%

2.1%

2.7%
-10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% -
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years 10
to 14 years 15
to 19 years 20
to 24 years 25
to 29 years 30
to 34 years 35
to 39 years 40
to 44 years 45
to 49 years 50
to 54 years 55
to 59 years 60
to 64 years 65
to 69 years 70
to 74 years 75
to 79 years 80
to 84 years 85
years & over
Males F emales
03"/(&
$06/5:

"(&4&9

%*453*#65*0/
69 11California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
In terms of racial makeup, 92.3% of Little Saigon residents reported being of a single race, while the proportion was 88% for Orange County 16. Of these, 23.3% were White alone, 1.15% Black alone, and 52.8% Asian alone for Little Saigon, while the proportions for Orange County were 50.2% White alone, 1.7% Black alone, and 21.7% Asian alone170U3P[[SL:HPNVU
VM[OLWVW\SH[PVUYLWVY[LKILPUN=PL[UHTLZL
while the proportion was 6.8% for Orange County 18.

Finally, of the total population, 28.5% in Little Saigon reported being of Hispanic origin, while the proportion was 33.9% for Orange County 19. There is a substantial proportion of people of Hispanic origin in the Little Saigon area, though as a percentage, it is smaller than that for the county.

Place of Birth and Citizenship
Little Saigon makes up 7.2% of the Orange County population, of which 50.6% are UH[P]LIVYUJVTWHYLK[V


MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`0UV[OLY^VYKZ  
VM[OL3P[[SL
:HPNVUWVW\SH[PVUPZMVYLPNUIVYUJVTWHYLK[V 

MVY6YHUNL *V\U[`20. Of those
MVYLPNUIVYU

VM[OL3P[[SL:HPNVUWVW\SH[PVUPZUH[\YHSP aLKJVTWHYLK[V



of the overall county population 216M[OLMVYLPNUIVYU 

VM[OL3P[[SL:HPNVU
WVW\SH[PVUPZUVUJP[PaLUJVTWHYLK[V
MVY6YHUNL*V\U[` [OLZLJV\SKIL
people with immigrant or other kind of visas) 226M[OLMVYLPNUIVYUYLZPKLU[Z 

PU
Little Saigon come from Asia and 22.6% from Latin America, compared to 51.2% and

38.9%, respectively, for Orange County 23.

English as the only language spoken at home occurs in 28.7% of Little Saigon OV\ZLOVSKZJVTWHYLK[V

MVY6YHUNL*V\U[` . Where English is not the only
language spoken, 39.8% speak it “less than well” in Little Saigon compared to 18% in Orange County 25:WHUPZOPZZWVRLUH[
VM[OL3P[[SL:HPNVUOVTLZJVTWHYL K[V

MVY[OLJV\U[`26;OLZOHYLVM(ZPHUHUK7HJPÄJ0ZSHUKLYSHUN\HNLZWLHRLYZPZ 

PU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK

MVY[OLJV\U[` 27.
16*VTW\[LK\ZPUN;HISL+7
SPUL


17;HISL+7
SPULZ
HUK
18;HISL+7
SPUL

19;HISL+7
SPUL

20;HISL+7SPUL 
21;HISL+7SPUL

22;HISL+7SPUL

23;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK
;HISL+7SPUL
25;HISL+7SPUL

26;HISL+7SPUL

27;HISL+7SPUL

49.4% of the Little Saigon
population is foreign-
born compared to 29.5%
for Orange County.

The share of Asian and
Pacific Islander language
speakers is 46.8% in
Little Saigon and 15.3%
for the county.
70 12California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
IV. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE IN

LITTLE SAIGON
This section describes the general economic ch aracteristics of residents of Little Saigon compared to Orange County in 2022. A discussion of Little Saigon from businesses’ perspective is in Section VIII below.

Employment and Unemployment
Little Saigon has a weaker labor market than Orange County as shown by key labor market indicators. The unemployment rate calculates the percentage of the labor force (employed and unemployed) who do not have a job but are actively looking for one. Little Saigon had HOPNOLY\ULTWSV`TLU[YH[LHUKHSV^LYLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PV[OHU6YHUNL*V\U[` in 2022. The unemployment rate of Little Saigon was 6.7%, which was higher than the 6YHUNL*V\U[`\ULTWSV`TLU[YH[LVM


28. Figure 9 below shows the unemployment
rate in Little Saigon by census tract in 2022 with Little Saigon’s borders in purple:
28;HISL+7SPUL 
Little Saigon has a
weaker labor market
than Orange County
as shown by key labor
market indicators.

FIGURE 9: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY CENSUS TRACT
71 13California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
;OL\ULTWSV`TLU[YH[LZKPɈLY^P[OPU3P[[SL:HPNVU;OLOPNOLZ[\ULTWSV`TLU[YH[LZ within Little Saigon were in the southern parts east of Mile Square Regional Park and the neighborhood around and south of the Asian Garden Mall, where unemployment rates are above 15%. The lowest unemployment rates are in the northern part of Garden Grove and along Westminster Ave. in the eastern part of Little Saigon where unemployment rates are below 5%.
;OLLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVPZ[OLWLYJLU[HNLVM[OLWVW\SH[PVU `LHYZVYVSKLY
[OH[PZLTWSV`LKHUKHSV^LYLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVTLHUZ[OH[ML^LYHK\S[ZHYL ^VYRPUN;OLLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVPU^HZ


PU3P[[SL:HPNVU]LYZ\Z
62% in Orange County

29. ;OLSV^LYLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVPU3P[[SL:HPNVUYLÅLJ[ZSV^LYWHY[PJPWH[PVUI` Little Saigon residents in the workforce. Several factors could contribute to this lower participation. First, Little Saigon residents are older and more likely to be closer to retirement age than the typical Orange County residents. As noted above, 16.5% of 3P[[SL:HPNVUYLZPKLU[ZPU^LYL

`LHYZHUKVSKLY]LYZ\Z 

VM6YHUNL*V\U[`
residents30;OLTLKPHUHNLVM3P[[SL:HPNVUYLZPKLU[Z^HZ`LHYZ]LYZ\Z `LHYZ for Orange County residents 31. Second, Little Saigon residents of typical working age HYLTVYLSPRLS`[VILKPZHISLK0U3P[[SL:HPNVUHIV\[ 

VMYLZPKLU[Z[V
`LHYZ
old were disabled versus 6.2% in Orange County 32. Third, Little Saigon families with young children are more likely to have a parent staying at home than Orange County families. Of workers with children under 6 years old, 61.1% of them were in households with all parents in the labor force versus 65.6% in Orange County 333VUN[LYT KPɈLYLUJLZPUMLTHSLSHIVYMVYJLWHY[PJPWH[PVUJHUUV[L_WSHPUS V^LYV]LYHSSSHIVYMVYJL WHY[PJPWH[PVU>OPSL[OLLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVMVY^VTLUPZSV^LYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU compared to Orange County (52.1% vs. 55.8%), the gap between Little Saigon’s and 6YHUNL*V\U[`»ZLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVMVYTLUPZMHYSHYNLY 

]Z

.

Childcare, disability, and an aging workforce are all also reasons why the national LTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVUYH[PVOHZILLUMHSSPUN 35.
29*HSJ\SH[LKHZLTWSV`TLU[WVW\SH[PVU
HUKV]LY\ZPUN;HISL+7YV^ZHUK
30;HISL+7
SPUL
31;HISL+7
SPUL

32;HISL+7SPUL


33;HISL+7YV^

;HISL+7YV^ZHUK^P[OTHSL]HS\L$[V[HS]HS\L¶MLTHSL]HS\L 35(ZKPZJ\ZZLKPU(IYHOHT2H[OHYPUL.HUK4LSPZZH:2LHYUL` ,_WSHPUPUN[OL+LJSPULPU[OL <:,TWSV`TLU[[V7VW\SH[PVU9H[PV!(9L]PL^VM[OL,]PKLUJL 1V\YUHSVM,JVUVTPJ3P[LYH[\YL 
!

¶

The lower employment-
population ratio in Little
Saigon reflects lower
participation by Little
Saigon residents in
the workforce.
72 14California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
Occupations and Industries
This subsection describes the occupations, industries, and classes of the 108,266 workers who lived in Little Saigon in 2022 36. Occupation estimates describe the kind of work that people do on the job. Industry describes the kind of business conducted I`[OLPYLTWSV`LY;OLJSHZZVM^VYRLYKLÄULZ[OL[`WLVMV^ULY ZOPWVM[OL workers’ employers.
>VYRLYZ^OVSP]LPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHYLTVYLSPRLS`[VILLTWSV`LKPUZLY]PJLHUK WYVK\J[PVUYLSH[LKVJJ\WH[PVUZHUKSLZZSPRLS`[VILLTWSV`LKPU^OP[LJVSSHY VJJ\WH[PVUZ


VM^VYRLYZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`HYLLTWSV`LKPUTHUHNLTLU[ I\ZPULZZZJPLUJLHUKHY[ZYLSH[LKVJJ\WH[PVUZVUS`HIV\[ VM^VYRLYZPU
Little Saigon are employed in these occupations 37. On the other hand, 22.5% of Little :HPNVU^VYRLYZHYLPUZLY]PJLVJJ\WH[PVUZ]LYZ\Z

PU6YHUNL*V\U[`HUK


VM3P[[SL:HPNVU^VYRLYZHYLPUWYVK\J[PVU[YHUZWVY[H[PVUHUKTH[LYPHSTV]PUN occupations versus 10.1% in Orange County38;OPZKPɈLYLUJLTH`ILJH\ZLKI`[OL fact that fewer Little Saigon workers have a college degree which is more likely to be YLX\PYLKMVY^OP[LJVSSHYQVIZ(SZVTHU`VM[OLPUP[PHS^H]LVM=PL[UHTLZLYLM\NLLZ[V [OL<UP[LK:[H[LZ^LYL^LSSLK\JH[LKWYVMLZZPVUHSZI\[SHUN\HN LIHYYPLYZHUKV[OLY YLHZVUZMVYJLKTHU`MVYTLY^OP[LJVSSHY^VYRLYZPU[VYL[HPSZH SLZHUKIS\LJVSSHY work39. As later sections in our report show, manufacturing employment within Little Saigon’s boundaries has fallen substantially since 2002, forcing many of Little Saigon’s manufacturing workers to commute out of Little Saigon for work.

The industry employment in Little Saigon is consistent with the occupation data. 7YVMLZZPVUHSÄUHUJPHSOPNO[LJOHUKHKTPUPZ[YH[P]LPUK\Z[YPLZOH]LML^LY3P[[SL:HPNVU ^VYRLYZ
^OPSL[OLYH[PVPZ
MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`/V^L]LY[OLYLPZHOPNOLY
proportion of Little Saigon workers in services, 39.1% (excluding public administration), compared to 35.7% for Orange County. 16.8% of Little Saigon workers were employed in manufacturing versus 11.7% for Orange County in 2022.

Little Saigon workers are slightly less likely to be employed by the government than Orange County workers. 81.8% of Little Saigon workers were private wage and salary workers compared to 80.8% in Orange County, and 10.7% worked for the government in Little Saigon compared to 11.5% in Orange County:LSMLTWSV`TLU[YH[LZ^LYL ZPTPSHYPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK6YHUNL*V\U[`"Q\Z[V]LY

VM^VYRLYZ^LYLZLSMLTWSV`LK
in Little Saigon and Orange County.
36;HISL+7YV^
37;HISL+7YV^

38;HISL+7YV^ZHUK
39+L[HPSLKZ\Y]L`KH[HPZJVSSLJ[LKPU5N\`LU3PLT;HUK(SHU)/LURPU =PL[UHTLZLYLM\NLLZPU [OL<UP[LK:[H[LZ!(KHW[H[PVUHUK[YHUZP[PVUHSZ[H[\Z ;OL1V\YUHSVM,[OUPJ:[\KPLZ  ! *VTW\[LK\ZPUN;HISL+7SPULZHUK ;HISL+7SPUL

;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK
;HISL+7SPUL 
Workers who live in Little
Saigon are more likely to
be employed in service-
and production-related
occupations and less
likely to be employed in
white-collar occupations.
73 15California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
Income Profile
Little Saigon’s median household income lags Orange County’s but has been recovering since the Great Recession. Median household income was $79,911 in Little Saigon census tracts in 2022 compared to $109,361 in Orange County. In other words, median household income was 27.8% lower in Little Saigon compared to Orange County. Little Saigon households are about half as likely to be earning over $200,000 JVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`V]LYHSS^P[O
VM3P[[SL:HPNVUOV\ZLOVSKZLHYUPUN
more than $200,000 compared to 22.3% in Orange County. Median household incomes are the highest in the more recent expansions of Little Saigon in Fountain Valley to the south and Garden Grove to the north and the lowest in Westminster to the west:
;HISL+7YV^

FIGURE 10: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT (2022 ACS) 74 16California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
-HTPS`Z[H[\ZVMOV\ZLOVSKZJHUUV[L_WSHPUT\JOVM[OLKPɈLYLUJLPUOV\ZLOVSK income between Little Saigon and Orange County. The median household income of nonfamily households (i.e., roommates) in Little Saigon was 65.5% of nonfamily OV\ZLOVSKZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`



]Z




. Family households’ incomes
in Little Saigon also lag household incomes in Orange County. Little Saigon’s median family household (excludes people living together as roommates) income was $85,156, ^OPJO^HZ


VM6YHUNL*V\U[`»ZTLKPHUH[

.

Since household incomes are lower in Little Saigon, poverty rates here are higher compared to Orange County: 6.8% of Orange County families are in poverty, while the proportion is 11.1% for Little Saigon
. Poverty rates by household and population
groups are also consistently higher in Litt le Saigon for almost all demographic groups. /PZ[VYPJHSPUJVTLKH[HPU;HISLZ\NNLZ[Z[OH[3P[[SL:HPNVUZ\ɈLYLKTVYLPU[OL aftermath of the Great Recession. It has been recovering slowly and is catching up to the rest of Orange County, especially in areas where Little Saigon has recently expanded. Table 11 below shows the median household income data for 2010, 2015, and 2022 for Little Saigon. As Little Saigon has expanded over that period, we include TLKPHUOV\ZLOVSKPUJVTLLZ[PTH[LZIHZLKVUV\Y HUKKLÄUP[PVUZVM
Little Saigon to allow a comparison of the regions over time. 4LKPHUOV\ZLOVSKPUJVTLZPU3P[[SL:HPNVU^LYL


PU


PU
HUK
T\JOOPNOLYH[

 PU\ZPUNJVU[LTWVYHY`KLÄUP[PVUZVM3P[[SL:HPNVU4LKPHU household income fell between 2010 and 2015 while it rose in Orange County by this measure, and median household income grew at over a 5% rate in Little Saigon and Orange County between 2015 and 2022. This growth caused Little Saigon’s median OV\ZLOVSKPUJVTLHZHWLYJLU[HNLVM6YHUNL*V\U[`»ZPUJVTL[VMHSSMYVT 
PU
2010 to 67.2% in 2015. Little Saigon’s median household income recovered to 73.1% of Orange County’s level by 2022. The industries and occupations of Little Saigon workers could explain the slow recovery from the Great Recession since the recovery was Z[YVUNLZ[PU[OL[`WPJHSS`OPNOLYWH`PUN^OP[LJVSSHYHUKOPNO [LJOPUK\Z[YPLZ 
;HISL+7YV^ 

;HISL+7SPUL


;HISL+7SPUL 
)HZLKVUKPќLYLU[]LYZPVUZVM;HISL+7^LJHSJ\SH[LKMVYKPќLYLU[KLÄUP[PVUZVM3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK KPќLYLU[`LHYZ
Little Saigon suffered
more in the aftermath
of the Great Recession.

It has been recovering
slowly and is catching
up to the rest of Orange
County, especially in
areas where Little Saigon
has recently expanded.
4,+0(5/6<:,/63+05*64, (55<(30A,+.96>;/9(;,:

@LHY 3:HYLHPU
2010
3:HYLHPU
2015
3:HYLHPU
2021 OC 3:HYLHPU
2010
3:HYLHPU
2015
3:HYLHPU
2021 OC
2010


$55,536 $58,357


2015








 $76,509 



0.6 2022 $70,583 $75,982 $79,911 $109,361 5.5 5.7 6.5 5.2 TABLE 11: NOMINAL MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN LITTLE SAIGON AND ORANGE COUNTY, 2010-2022  75 17California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
The income data in Table 11 shows that the older core of Little Saigon (LS area in 2010) has had slower income growth compared to the newer areas of Little Saigon. While TLKPHUOV\ZLOVSKPUJVTL\ZPUN[OLSHYNLY3P[[SL:HPNVUIV\UKHY`^HZ 
OPNOLY
in 2010 compared to median household income in the 2010 boundary, it was 13.2% higher by 2022. The data suggests that Little Saigon is expanding into areas that have been growing faster in recent times.

Wealth
While we cannot observe the wealth of Little Saigon residents using American Community Survey data, we can use Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data for rough estimates of income from interest, dividends, and other assets that provide income, and we can infer some aspects of wealth in Little Saigon compared to Orange County.

The IRS’s Statistics of Income data provided tallies of the number of returns and amount on each return of income, deductions, and other tax information by zip code, from which we estimated how much of each zip code was in the Little Saigon area to attribute the tax data to Little Saigon.
6\YLɈVY[ZZ\NNLZ[[OH[Q\Z[HZ3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZPUJVTLSHNZ6YH UNL*V\U[`»ZP[Z wealth also lags Orange County as of 2021. Little Saigon residents have less than half [OLZOHYLVM[OLPYPUJVTLMYVTZV\YJLZV[OLY[OHU^HNLZHUKILULÄ[ZJVTWHYLK[V Orange County residents. While 11.8% of income in Little Saigon is from sources other [OHU^HNLZHUKILULÄ[Z6YHUNL*V\U[`YLZPKLU[ZLHYU


VM[OLPYPUJVTLMYVT
these sources
 . Fewer Little Saigon residents report interest and dividend income 50, and Little Saigon residents are also less likely to report cryptocurrency holdings than 6YHUNL*V\U[`YLZPKLU[Z

VMYL[\YUZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK


PU6YHUNL*V\U[`51.

Fewer Little Saigon residents also report capital gains income (18.3%) compared to Orange County (27.8%)52.

Commuting
Little Saigon workers have a longer commute and are more likely to travel to work by car than the typical Orange County and American workers. On average, American workers spent 26.7 minutes per workday on their commute in 202253. Orange County workers had a longer average commute of 27.3 minutes, and Little Saigon residents had an even longer average commute of 28.3 minutes
.
 *HSJ\SH[LK\ZPUN;HISL@@@SPULZ HUK
50;HISL@@@SPULZHUK

51;HISL@@@SPUL 
52;HISL@@@SPUL
53O[[WZ!KH[HJLUZ\ZNV][HISL(*:+7
@+7

;HISL+7YV^

Little Saigon residents
have less than half the
share of their income
from sources other than
wages and benefits
compared to Orange
County residents.

Little Saigon workers have
a longer commute and
are more likely to travel
to work by car than the
typical Orange County
and American workers.
76 18California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
Commuting Destinations
Commuting destinations in 2021 can be described using data from LODES (The 3VUNP[\KPUHS,TWSV`LY/V\ZLOVSK+`UHTPJZVM[OL*LU[LYMVY,JVUVTPJ:[\KPLZH[[OL Census Bureau). LODES data shows Little Saigon residents are more likely to commute to somewhere within Orange County than the typical Orange County resident. Of [OL
 ^VYRLYZJVTT\[PUNMYVT3P[[SL:HPNVU


JVTT\[L[VHUV[OLY
location within Little Saigon, and 55,250 (57%) commute to somewhere in the rest of 6YHUNL*V\U[`6MV[OLY6YHUNL*V\U[`YLZPKLU[Z JVTT\[L[V3P[[SL
Saigon, and 795,985 (63.6%) commute to the rest of Orange County. About 92% of Little Saigon’s workers commute somewhere within Orange or Los Angeles counties, I\[KLZWP[L3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZHJJLZZ[V3VZ(UNLSLZ*V\U[`]PH0  HUK:93P[[SL
Saigon residents are less likely to commute to Los Angeles County than the typical 6YHUNL*V\U[`YLZPKLU[
]Z
(IV\[

VM3P[[SL:HPNVUZJVTT\[LYZ
travel to each of Riverside, San Bernardino, or San Diego counties.

Method of Commute and Working from Home
Little Saigon residents are more likely to commute by car, less likely to walk, and less likely to work from home than the typical Orange County resident. In 2022, 88% of Little :HPNVU^VYRLYZJVTT\[LKI`JHYJVTWHYLK[V
VM6YHUNL*V\U[`YLZPKLU[Z

55. While more Little Saigon workers drove to work, they were more likely to carpool (13.1%) than Orange County workers (9%)56.

Fewer Little Saigon workers work from home than Orange County workers, which L_WSHPUZT\JOVM[OLKPɈLYLUJLPUJVTT\[PUNTL[OVKZ0U VM3P[[SL:HPNVU
^VYRLYZ[LSLJVTT\[LKMYVTOVTLJVTWHYLK[V

VM6YHUNL*V\U[`^VYRLYZ57.

Little Saigon workers are less likely to work from home, partly because they are less likely to work in occupations that encourage work from home, like business and management, and more likely to work in occupations where telecommuting is less common, such as manufacturing 58.

V. SELECTED SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes some of the social characteristics of the Little Saigon population, those related to household livi ng arrangements, school enrollment, and educational attainment.
55;HISL+7YV^Z HUK
56;HISL+7YV^
57;HISL+7YV^
58;HISL+7YV^Z

HUK4VYLPUMVYTH[PVUVUVJJ\WH[PVUZTVYLSPRLS`[VIL^VYRMYVT OVTLOLYL!O[[WZ!^^^ISZNV]JHYLLYV\[SVVRHY[PJSL[LSL^VYRO[T Little Saigon residents are
more likely to commute
by car, less likely to
walk, and less likely to
work from home than the
typical Orange County
resident. Fewer Little
Saigon workers work from
home than Orange County
workers, which explains
much of the difference in
commuting methods.
77 19California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
Household Living Arrangements
Little Saigon has fewer unmarried women living on their own and cohabiting couples (living together in a relationship but unmarried) compared to Orange County. While the overall proportion of married couple households is similar in Little Saigon and Orange County (52.1% versus 53.7%), Little Saigon has fewer cohabitating couple OV\ZLOVSKZ[OHU6YHUNL*V\U[`

]LYZ\Z

59. There is a larger proportion of
male households with no spouse/partner (19.3%) in Little Saigon compared to Orange County (15.7%), but not for female households with no spouse/partner60. While there are fewer households of women living alone in Little Saigon, 8.9%, than male, 9.1%, [OLZOHYLVMSP]PUNHSVULMLTHSLOV\ZLOVSKZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUPZ Z\IZ[HU[PHSS`SV^LY[OHU PU6YHUNL*V\U[`
]LYZ\Z
61. There are also more households with one or
more people over 65 in Little Saigon (37.3%) than in Orange County (31.3%)62.

A somewhat larger share of Little Saigon residents over 15 have never married 
THSLZHUK

MLTHSLJVTWHYLK[V[OVZLPU6YHUNL*V\U [`HZH^OVSL (38.1% males and 32.2% females) 63. However, compared to Orange County, a larger proportion of Little Saigon males are divorced (7.1% versus 6.9%) than females (9.8% versus 11.1%)
.

The birth rate also is slightly higher in Little Saigon in Orange County. Per 1,000 women 
[V
`LHYZVSK
NH]LIPY[OPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[ V
PU6YHUNL*V\U[`
in 2022656M[OL^VTLUHNLK

^OVOHKHIPY[OK\YPUN[OLSHZ[`LHY PU3P[[SL
Saigon, 23.5% were widowed, divorced, or never married compared to 20.8% in Orange County 66.

Little Saigon’s grandparents are more likely to live with their grandchildren under 18 years since Little Saigon accounts for 11.1% of Orange County households living with their grandchildren compared to the share of the region’s households in Orange County (6.3%)67. However, fewer grandparents in Little Saigon are solely responsible for their NYHUKJOPSKYLUJVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`
]Z
68. Also, a much higher
proportion of grandparents responsible for their grandchildren under 18 are married 
PU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`

69.
59;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK
60;HISL+7SPULZHUK

61;HISL+7SPUL
62;HISL+7SPUL
63;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK

;HISL+7SPULZHUK

65;HISL+7SPUL
66;HISL+7SPUL
67;HISL+7SPULZHUK
68;HISL+7SPUL

69;HISL+7SPUL

Little Saigon has fewer
unmarried women
living on their own and
cohabiting couples (living
together in a relationship
but unmarried) compared
to Orange County.

Little Saigon’s
grandparents are more
likely to live with their
grandchildren under
18 years.
78 20California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
School Enrollment and Educational Attainment
Table 12 below shows the percentage of the population enrolled in school by the type of school. Fewer of those in school in Little Saigon attend preschool and kindergarten than in Orange County, though their shares are roughly equivalent to the rest of the county for higher grades. However, a much higher percentage attend college, 35.8% for Little Saigon compared to 33.9% for the county. It is possible that the parents in the Little Saigon area like to keep and teach younger children at home, though the cohort VMZ[\KLU[ZÄ]L`LHYZHUK`V\UNLYPZYLSH[P]LS`ZTHSSLYPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V Orange County as suggested by the population pyramid in the Demographics section. +PɈLYLUJLZPUZJOVVSH[[LUKHUJLZOV^\WPU[OLSL]LSVMLK\JH[PVUHSH[[HPUTLU[HZ shown in Table 13 below.

A much higher percentage of Little Saigon residents over age 25 have less than 9th grade education (13.7% versus 7.3% for Orange County) or no high school diploma (11.2% for Little Saigon versus 5.9% for Orange County). However, compared to the county, the region also has a larger proportion of its residents over age 25 with only OPNOZJOVVSNYHK\H[PVUVYLX\P]HSLUJ`

]LYZ\Z

)\[[OL3P[[SL:HPNVUHYLH
OHZML^LYYLZPKLU[Z^P[OJVSSLNLKLNYLLZH[HSSSL]LSZ;OLLɈLJ[ZVMZ\JOLK\JH[PVUHS H[[HPUTLU[WH[[LYUZHYLYLÅLJ[LKPU[OLYLZPKLU[Z»QVIZHZKPZ J\ZZLKPU[OL,JVUVTPJ Characteristics section of this report.
70;HISL+7SPULZ


71;HISL+7SPULZ


:JOVVS,UYVSSTLU[
7VW\SH[PVU`LHYZHUKV]LYLUYVSSLKPUZJOVVS 3P[[SL:HPNVU 6YHUNL*V\U[` Nursery school, preschool 3.7% 5.9%
Kindergarten 3.5% 

,SLTLU[HY`ZJOVVSNYHKLZ 35.0% 35.7%
/PNOZJOVVSNYHKLZ  21.9% 20.1%
College or graduate school 35.8% 33.9%
TABLE 12: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN LITTLE SAIGON AND ORANGE COUNTY, 2022 70 ,K\JH[PVUHS([[HPUTLU[
7VW\SH[PVU
`LHYZHUKV]LY 3P[[SL:HPNVU 6YHUNL*V\U[`
Less than 9th grade 13.7% 7.3%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 11.2% 5.9%
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 

17.3%
Some college, no degree 17.8% 19.2%
Associate's degree 8.0% 7.6%
Bachelor's degree 

26.9%
Graduate or professional degree


15.8%
TABLE 13: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT IN LITTLE SAIGON AND ORANGE COUNTY, 2022 71 79 21California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
-PUHSS`JVTW\[LYHUKPU[LYUL[\ZLHYLX\P[LOPNOPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUKJV\U[`^PKL 

VM
3P[[SL:HPNVUOV\ZLOVSKZHUK

VM[OLJV\U[`OV\ZLOVSKZOH]LHJVTW\[LYH[OVTL
HUK 

VM3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK 

VM[OLJV\U[`OV\ZLOVSKZOH]LZ\IZJYPW[PVUZ[V
IYVHKIHUKPU[LYUL[

VI. HOUSING
(OV\ZPUN\UP[PZ¸HUHWHY[TLU[HNYV\WVMYVVTZVYHZPUNSLYVVTVJJ\WPLKVYPU[LUKLK MVYVJJ\WHUJ`HZZLWHYH[LSP]PUNX\HY[LYZ¹
0U[V[HS[OLYL^LYL


OV\ZPUN\UP[ZPU
3P[[SL:HPNVUPU^OPJO^HZ

VM[OLOV\ZPUNZ[VJRPU6YHUNL*V\U[`
;OL]HZ[
THQVYP[`VM[OLZL

^LYLVJJ\WPLK 
MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`HUKYLU[HS]HJHUJ`
YH[LZ^LYLSV^LYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU
]LYZ\Z
MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`

:PUNSLMHTPS`
KL[HJOLKOVTLZTHRL\W

VM3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZOV\ZPUN\UP[ZJVTWHYLK[V 
PU
6YHUNL*V\U[`

(SZV3P[[SL:HPNVUOHZYLSH[P]LS`TVYLTVIPSLOVTLZJVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL *V\U[`


VMOV\ZPUN\UP[ZPU3P[[SL:HPNVU]Z

PU6YHUNL*V\U[`


Housing Size and Tenure
/V\ZPUN\UP[ZPU3P[[SL:HPNVU[LUK[VILZTHSSLYI\[OH]LOPNOLYVJJ\WHUJ`[OHU6YHUNL *V\U[`HUK[OL[`WPJHSOV\ZPUN\UP[PZVSKLY[OHUPU6YHUNL*V\U[`;OLH]LYHNLOV\ZLOVSK ZPaLPZSHYNLYPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`MVYIV[OV^ULYVJJ\WPLKHUK YLU[LYVJJ\WPLKOVTLZ;OLH]LYHNLOV\ZLOVSKZPaLPUVMV^ULYVJJ\WPLKOV\ZPUN \UP[Z^HZ
WLYZVUZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[VWLYZVUZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`HUK YLU[LYVJJ\WPLKOV\ZPUN\UP[ZH]LYHNLKWLYZVUZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V  WLYZVUZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`

3P[[SL:HPNVUOHZML^LYYVVTZWLYOV\ZPUN\UP[YLSH[P]L[V[OLJV\U[`^P[OHTLKPHUVM  YVVTZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V
PU6YHUNL*V\U[`



VM[OL3P[[SL:HPNVU
\UP[ZOH]LVYML^LYYVVTZJVTWHYLK[V 
MVY[OLJV\U[`80;OLZOHYLVMOV\ZLZ^P[O
MV\Y[VZP_YVVTZPZ

]LYZ\Z

HUK[OH[^P[OTVYL[OHUZP_YVVTZPZ
]LYZ\Z


81>P[OML^LYYVVTZHUKTVYLVJJ\WHU[ZWLYOV\ZPUN\UP[PU3P[[SL:HPNVU[OL VJJ\WH[PVUHSKLUZP[`PZOPNOLYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU^P[O VMOV\ZPUN\UP[ZOH]PUNTVYL[OHU
VULVJJ\WHU[WLYYVVTJVTWHYLK[V

MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`82
72;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK

73 O[[WZ!^^^JLUZ\ZNV]OV\ZPUNO]ZKLÄUP[PVUZWKM

;HISL+7SPUL
75;HISL+7SPULZHUK

76;HISL+7SPUL

77;HISL+7SPUL
78;HISL+7SPULZHUK 
79;HISL+7SPUL

80;HISL+7SPULZ

81;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK

82;HISL+7SPUL


Housing units in Little
Saigon tend to be
smaller but have higher
occupancy than Orange
County, and the typical
housing unit is older than
in Orange County. The
average household size
is larger in Little Saigon
compared to Orange
County for both owner-
occupied and renter-
occupied homes.
80 22California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
;OLOV\ZPUNZ[VJRPU3P[[SL:HPNVUPZVSKLYYLSH[P]L[V6YHUNL*V\U[`-VYL_HTWSL 

VM
[OL\UP[ZPU3P[[SL:HPNVU^LYLI\PS[IL[^LLU HUK JVTWHYLK[V



PU6YHUNL
*V\U[`;OLZOHYLVMYLSH[P]LS`UL^OV\ZPUNI\PS[ZPUJLPZ

VM[OL[V[HSOV\ZPUN
MVY3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK

MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`
Housing Values
:PUJLOV\ZPUN\UP[ZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHYLZTHSSLYHUKVSKLYJVTW HYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[` [OLTLKPHUOV\ZPUNWYPJLPZSV^LYPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V 6YHUNL*V\U[`/V^L]LY 3P[[SL:HPNVUYLZPKLU[Z^LYLYLSH[P]LS`TVYLSPRLS`[VOH]LWHP KVќ[OLPYTVY[NHNL JVTWHYLK[V[OVZLPU6YHUNL*V\U[`!


VM[OLV^ULYVJJ\WPLK OV\ZLOVSKZPU3P[[SL
:HPNVUOH]LHTVY[NHNLJVTWHYLK[V


PU6YHUNL*V\U[` 85;OLTLKPHUWYPJLVM
V^ULYVJJ\WPLKOV\ZPUNPU^HZ


PU3P[[SL:HPNVUJV TWHYLK[V

 
PU6YHUNL*V\U[`
6M[OLZL\UP[Z
^LYL]HS\LKILSV^
PU3P[[SL:H PNVU
JVTWHYLK[V
PU6YHUNL*V\U[`
;OLZOHYLVMOV\ZLZWYPJLKIL[^LLU

HUK

^HZ
MVY3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK 
MVY6YHUNL*V \U[`[OVZLIL[^LLU

HUK\UKLYVULTPSSPVU^HZ


HUK


HUKMVY[OV ZL
TPSSPVUVYTVYL
^HZ

HUK
YLZWLJ[P]LS` 88
Rents and Housing Costs
(ZOV\ZPUNWYPJLZHUK[OLZPaLVMOV\ZPUN\UP[ZHYLSV^LYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU[OHUPU6YHUNL *V\U[`YLU[ZHYLHSZVSV^LY


VM3P[[SL:HPNVUYLU[LYZWHPKSLZZ[OHU
PUTVU[OS`
YLU[WH`TLU[ZPUJVTWHYLK[V


MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`^OPSL

WHPKIL[^LLU

HUK

MVY[OLJV\U[`HUK
WHPKTVYL[OHU
JVTWHYLK[V


MVY[OLJV\U[`89;OLTLKPHUYLU[PU3P[[SL:HPNVU^HZ  WLYTVU[OJVTWHYLK
[V
WLYTVU[OPU6YHUNL*V\U[`90/V^L]LYKLZWP[L[OLSV^LYYLU[ZPU3P[[SL:HPNVU YLU[PZZ[PSSHSHYNLYI\YKLUVU[OLPYOV\ZLOVSKZ[OHUPU6YHUNL*V\U[`4VU[OS`YLU[HZH WLYJLU[HNLVMOV\ZLOVSKPUJVTLTLHZ\YLZ[OLÄUHUJPHSI\YKLUVMOV\ZPUN[OH[JVUZPKLYZ PUJVTL


VM3P[[SL:HPNVUYLU[LYOV\ZLOVSKZWH`TVYL[OHU

VM[OLPYPUJVTLPU
NYVZZYLU[JVTWHYLK[V

MVY[OLJV\U[`91
Vehicle Ownership
3P[[SL:HPNVUOV\ZLOVSKZHYLSLZZSPRLS`[VV^UH]LOPJSLJVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[` YLZPKLU[ZI\[PM[OL`V^U]LOPJSLZ[OL`HYLTVYLSPRLS`[VV^UTHU` 
VM[OLVJJ\WPLK
OV\ZPUN\UP[ZVM3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK

VM[OL6YHUNL*V\U[`KVUV[V^UH]LOPJSL92
83;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK

;HISL+7SPULZ

85;HISL+7SPUL 
86;HISL+7SPUL 
87;HISL+7SPULZ
88;HISL+7SPULZHUK

89;HISL+7SPULZ

90;HISL+7SPUL
91;HISL+7SPUL
92;HISL+7SPUL

Since housing units in
Little Saigon are smaller
and older compared to
Orange County, the median
housing price is lower in
Little Saigon compared to
Orange County. However,
Little Saigon residents
were relatively more likely
to have paid off their
mortgage compared to
those in Orange County.

As housing prices and the
size of housing units are
lower in Little Saigon than
in Orange County, rents
are also lower.
81 23California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

VM[OL3P[[SL:HPNVUV^UVUL]LOPJSLJVTWHYLK[V

MVY6YHUNL*V\U[`HUK

V^U[^V]LOPJSLZ

MVY[OLJV\U[` ;OLZOHYLVM[OVZLV^PUNTVYL[OHU[OYLL ]LOPJSLZPZSHYNLYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU[OHUPU6YHUNL*V\U[` ]LYZ\Z



VII. INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT
;OPZZLJ[PVUKLZJYPILZ3P[[SL:HPNVUMYVTP[ZI\ZPULZZLZ»WLYZWLJ[P]L >LOH]LKH[HMYVT[^VZV\YJLZ-PYZ[[OL*HSPMVYUPH,TWSV`TLU[+L]LSVWTLU[+LWHY[TLU[ ,++KH[HVU[OLU\TILYVMLZ[HISPZOTLU[ZLTWSV`TLU[HUK[V[HSWH`YVSSMVY[OLZLJVUK X\HY[LYVM^OPJOPZ[OLTVZ[YLJLU[KH[HH]HPSHISL:LJVUKPZ[OLLTWSV`TLU[KH[H MYVT[OL3VUNP[\KPUHS,TWSV`LY/V\ZLOVSK+`UHTPJZ36+,:VM[OL*LU[LYMVY,JVUVTPJ :[\KPLZH[[OL*LUZ\Z)\YLH\[VWYV]PKLOPZ[VYPJHSWLYZWLJ[P]L Employment Development Department Data
;HISL(=00HUK(=00ZOV^[OL,++KH[HMVY3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK6YHUNL*V\U[`;OL,++ KH[HPUJS\KLZ
LZ[HISPZOTLU[ZPU3P[[SL:HPNVU[OH[LTWSV` 
^VYRLYZHUKOH]L
HUHUU\HSPaLKWH`YVSSVM
IPSSPVU95;OLHUU\HSH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLY^VYRLYPUJS\KPUNM\SS HUKWHY[[PTL^VYRLYZ^HZ

 HUK[OLH]LYHNLLZ[HISPZOTLU[LTWSV`LK^VYRLYZ -VY6YHUNL*V\U[`[OLYL^LYL LZ[HISPZOTLU[ZLTWSV`PUN 

^VYRLYZ^P[O
HUHUU\HSPaLKWH`YVSSVM
 
IPSSPVU;OLHUU\HSH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLY^VYRLYPU6YHUNL *V\U[`PUJS\KPUNM\SSHUKWHY[[PTL^VYRLYZ^HZ



HUK[OLH]LYHNLLZ[HISPZOTLU[
LTWSV`LK
^VYRLYZ
3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZSHYNLZ[PUK\Z[Y`I`LZ[HISPZOTLU[ZPZ/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJL 
^P[O

LZ[HISPZOTLU[ZHSTVZ[[PTLZTVYL[OHU[OLUL_[[^VSHYNLZ[ZLJ[VYZ (JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZHUK9L[HPS;YHKL;OLMV\YPUK\Z[YPLZ^P[O[OLML^LZ[ LZ[HISPZOTLU[ZHYL,K\JH[PVUHS:LY]PJLZ"0UMVYTH[PVU"(Y[Z,U[LY[HPUTLU[HUK9LJYLH[PVU" HUK4HUHNLTLU[VM*VTWHUPLZHUK,U[LYWYPZLZ
;OL[VW[^VPUK\Z[YPLZMVY[V[HSWH`YVSS^LYL/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLHUK9L[HPS ;YHKL^P[OHYV\UK
TPSSPVUPU[V[HSWH`YVSS/V^L]LY[OLH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLYLTWSV`LL ^HZOPNOLZ[PU4HUHNLTLU[VM*VTWHUPLZHUK,U[LYWYPZLZ^P[O 
HUKJVUZ[Y\J[PVU
^P[O

>LJH\[PVU[OH[[OLZLU\TILYZHYLUV[M\SS[PTLZHSHYPLZHUK[OLWYL]HSLUJL VMWHY[[PTL^VYRLYZ^V\SKHќLJ[[OLH]LYHNLWH`YVSSVM[OLZLPUK\Z[YPLZ-VY6YHUNL*V\U[` /LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLPZHSZV[OLSHYNLZ[PUK\Z[Y`^P[O 
LZ[HISPZOTLU[Z
^OPJOPZTVYL[OHU[^PJLHZSHYNLHZ[OLZLJVUKSHYNLZ[ZLJ[VYVM7YVMLZZPVUHSHUK;LJOUPJHS :LY]PJLZ^P[O 
LZ[HISPZOTLU[Z
93;HISL+7SPULZ
HUK

;HISL+7SPUL

95>LT\S[PWS`[OLX\HY[LYS`WH`YVSSHTV\U[I`MV\Y[VJVU]LY[PU[VP[ZHUU\HSLX\P]HSLU[ 96/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLPZHZLJ[VYKLÄULKI`[OL5VY[O(TLYPJHU0UK\Z[Y`*SHZZPÄJH[PVU :`Z[LT5(0*:0[PUJS\KLZQVIZPUPUWH[PLU[HUKV\[WH[PLU[OVZWP[HSTLKPJHSJSPUPJKLU[HSHUK WZ`JOPH[YPJWVZP[PVUZHUKP[PUJS\KLZJOPSKHUKLSKLYJHYL!O[[WZ!^^^UHPJZJVTZP_KPNP[ UHPJZ&JVKL$

Little Saigon’s largest
industry by establishments
is Health Care and Social
Assistance
95, with 7,163
establishments, almost
10 times more than the
next two largest sectors,
Accommodation and Food
Services, and Retail Trade.
82 24California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZZOHYLVM6YHUNL*V\U[`»ZLZ[HISPZOTLU[ZLTWSV`TLU[HUK[V[HSWH`YVSSHYL PU;HISL0=-VY3P[[SL:HPNVU/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLWYV]PKL[OLSHYNLZ[ZOHYLVM 6YHUNL*V\U[`»ZLZ[HISPZOTLU[Z^P[O

(JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZHJJV\U[Z
MVY

^P[O9L[HPS;YHKL[V[HSPUN

VM[OLJVYYLZWVUKPUN6YHUNL*V\U[`PUK\Z[YPLZ
;OL[OYLLZLJ[VYZ^P[O[OLSV^LZ[ZOHYLZVM6YHUNL*V\U[`^P[O\UKLY HYL4HUHNLTLU[
VM*VTWHUPLZHUK,U[LYWYPZLZ"(Y[Z,U[LY[HPUTLU[HUK9LJYLH[PVU"HUK7YVMLZZPVUHS :JPLU[PÄJHUK;LJOUPJHS:LY]PJLZ
3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZI\ZPULZZLZKPќLYZPNUPÄJHU[S`MYVT[OVZLVM6YHUNL*V\U[`PUZL]LYHS YLZWLJ[Z-PYZ[[OLH]LYHNLLTWSV`TLU[VM3P[[SL:HPNVULZ[HISPZOTLU[ZPZSLZZ[OHUOHSM 
VM6YHUNL*V\U[`I\ZPULZZLZHUKH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLYLZ[HISPZOTLU[PU3P[[SL:HPNVU ^HZSLZZ[OHUHX\HY[LY
VM6YHUNL*V\U[`I\ZPULZZLZ^OPJOZ\NNLZ[Z[OH[3P[[SL :HPNVUOHZTVYLZTHSSI\ZPULZZLZJVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`36+,:KH[HKPZJ\ZZLK ILSV^Z\NNLZ[Z[OH[LTWSV`TLU[I`SHYNLLU[LYWYPZLZOHZMHSSLUPU3P[[SL:HPNVUV]LY[OL WHZ[[^VKLJHKLZ^OPSLP[OHZYPZLUPU6YHUNL*V\U[`,TWSV`LYZ^P[OSHYNLPUK\Z[YPHS LZ[HISPZOTLU[Z[`WPJHSS`SVJH[LPUSHYNLPUK\Z[YPHSWHYRZI\[[OLULPNOIVYOVVKZVM3P[[SL :HPNVUHYLTVYLYLZPKLU[PHS[OHUPUK\Z[YPHS:L]LYHSSHYNLPUK\Z[YPHSHYLHZPU-V\U[HPU=HSSL` *VZ[H4LZH/\U[PUN[VU)LHJO^LZ[LYU.HYKLU.YV]LZV\[OLYU(UHOLPT6YHUNLHUK 0Y]PULHYL[VWJVTT\[PUNKLZ[PUH[PVUZVM3P[[SL:HPNVUYLZPKLU[ZI\[SPLV\[ZPKLVM3P[[SL :HPNVU»ZIV\UKHYPLZ
:LJVUK3P[[SL:HPNVUI\ZPULZZLZWH`ZPNUPÄJHU[S`SLZZPUZVTLZLJ[VYZWLYLTWSV`LL JVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`I\ZPULZZLZ5VPUK\Z[Y`WH`ZTVYLWLYLTWSV`LLPU3P[[SL :HPNVU[OHUPU6YHUNL*V\U[`>OPSL[OLH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLYLTWSV`LLKPќLYLUJLZTH`IL JH\ZLKWHY[S`I`YLS`PUNVUTVYLWHY[[PTL^VYRLYZH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLYLTWSV`LLPZVUS` 
VM6YHUNL*V\U[`PU[OL0UMVYTH[PVUPUK\Z[Y`


]Z


(]LYHNLWH`YVSS
WLYLTWSV`LLPZSLZZ[OHU

VM6YHUNL*V\U[`PU7YVMLZZPVUHSHUK;LJOUPJHS:LY]PJLZ 

"


]Z


"/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJL

"



]Z


-PUHUJLHUK0UZ\YHUJL


"


]Z


"HUK4HU\MHJ[\YPUN




"



]Z



;OLH]LYHNLWH`YVSSWLYLTWSV`LLPU3P[[SL:HPNVUPZJSVZLZ[ [V6YHUNL*V\U[`PU[OL;YHUZWVY[H[PVUHUK>HYLOV\ZPUNPUK\Z[Y`  "

]Z



:PUJL/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLPZ[OLSHYNLZ[PUK\Z[Y`PU3P[[SL:HPNVUP[Z H]LYHNLWH`YVSSKPќLYLUJLZHYLVMWHY[PJ\SHYJVUJLYU;OPZWH`YVSSKPќLYLUJLPZWHY[S`JH\ZLK I`[OLSHJRVMSHYNLOVZWP[HSZ^P[OLTLYNLUJ`ZLY]PJLZHUKYLSH[P]LS`OPNOS`WHPKKVJ[VYZPU 3P[[SL:HPNVU5VULVM[OLOVZWP[HSZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`^P[OLTLYNLUJ`KLWHY[TLU[ZHYL ^P[OPU3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZIV\UKHY`
;OLSV^LYH]LYHNLWH`YVSSPU[OLV[OLYPUK\Z[YPLZJV\SKIL L_WSHPULKI`KPќLYLUJLZPULK\JH[PVUSL]LSZ6[OLYHYLHZSPRL0Y]PULOH]LHOPNOLYWLYJLU[HNL VM[OLWVW\SH[PVU^P[OH[SLHZ[HJVSSLNLKLNYLL^OPJO^V\SKH[[YHJ[TVYLOPNO[LJO THU\MHJ[\YPUNHUK^OP[LJVSSHYLTWSV`LYZ
97(ZVM(\N\Z[HJJVYKPUN[V[OL6YHUNL*V\U[`/LHS[O*HYL(NLUJ`!O[[WZ!VJOLHS[OPUMVJVT WYV]PKLYZWHY[ULYZLTLYNLUJ`TLKPJHSZLY]PJLZLTZZ`Z[LTWYV]PKLYZLTZOVZWP[HSZ;OL[^V JSVZLZ[OVZWP[HSZHYL<*0/LHS[O-V\U[HPU=HSSL`^OPJOPZQ\Z[ZV\[OVM[OLZV\[OLYUIV\UKHY`VM3P[[SL :HPNVUHUK.HYKLU.YV]L/VZWP[HSHUK4LKPJHS*LU[LY^OPJOPZLHZ[VM3P[[SL:HPNVU First, the average
employment of Little
Saigon establishments is
less than half (41.8%) of
Orange County businesses
and average payroll per
establishment in Little
Saigon was less than a
quarter (23%) of Orange
County businesses, which
suggests that Little
Saigon has more small
businesses compared to
Orange County.

None of the 24 hospitals
in Orange County with
emergency departments
are within Little Saigon’s
boundary.
83 25California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
LODES Industry Data
;OL36+,:KH[HMVJ\ZLZZVSLS`VULTWSV`TLU[I`I\ZPULZZLZ^P[OPU3P[[SL:HPNVU>L^PSS L_HTPULOPZ[VYPJHS[YLUKZPUTHQVYPUK\Z[YPLZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK6YHUNL*V\U[`IL[^LLU HUK>L\ZL[OLIVYKLYZVM3P[[SL:HPNVU[OYV\NOV\[[OLHUHS`ZPZZV [OH[[OLNYV^[OVM3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZIVYKLYZKVLZUV[JYLH[LZW\YPV\Z[YLUKZPUPUK\Z[Y` LTWSV`TLU[HUK[VLUOHUJLJVTWHYHIPSP[`HJYVZZ[PTL
Little Saigon
>OPSL[OL,++KH[HZOV^Z[OH[/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLPZ[OLSHYNLZ[PUK\Z[Y` PU3P[[SL:HPNVU[OH[OHZUV[HS^H`ZILLU[OLJHZL9L[HPS;YHKL^HZ[OLSHYNLZ[PUK\Z[Y` PU3P[[SL:HPNVU^P[O
VMLTWSV`TLU[PU*SHZZPÄJH[PVUJOHUNLZPUPUK\Z[Y` LTWSV`TLU[TLHU[[OH[HIV\[


VM3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZQVIZ^LYLYLJSHZZPÄLKMYVT6[OLY
:LY]PJLZ[V/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLPUZVPU[OLJ\YYLU[JSHZZPÄJH[PVU /LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLHUK,K\JH[PVUHS:LY]PJLZ^LYL[OLUKHUKYK SHYNLZ[PUK\Z[YPLZ^P[OHYV\UK

VMQVIZLHJO/V^L]LYLTWSV`TLU[PU9L[HPS;YHKL
OHZZ[HNUH[LKV]LY[OLWHZ[`LHYZHUK,K\JH[PVUHS:LY]PJLZOHZZLLUHKLJSPULPU LTWSV`TLU[>OPSL[OL*6=0+ WHUKLTPJJH\ZLKQVISVZZLZPUIV[OVM[OLZLPUK\Z[YPLZ LTWSV`TLU[PUIV[OZLJ[VYZOHKIHYLS`JOHUNLKIL[^LLUHUK  ;OLTHQVYPUK\Z[YPLZ[OH[OH]LNYV^U[OLMHZ[LZ[ZPUJLHYL(JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK -VVK:LY]PJLZHUK/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJL,_JS\KPUN[OLQVIZHKKLKILJH\ZL VMJSHZZPÄJH[PVUJOHUNLZPU/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLLTWSV`TLU[NYL^ H[H
H]LYHNLHUU\HSYH[LPU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK(JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZ LTWSV`TLU[NYL^H[H
HUU\HSYH[L3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZSVJH[PVUULHY+PZUL`SHUK2UV[[»Z )LYY`-HYTHUKV[OLY[V\YPZTKLZ[PUH[PVUZTH`OH]LOLSWLKNYV^[OPU(JJVTTVKH[PVU HUK-VVK:LY]PJLZHUKLTWSV`TLU[NYV^[OPU/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLPZ JVUZPZ[LU[^P[OJV\U[`SL]LSNYV^[OPU[OPZPUK\Z[Y`HZKLZJYPILKILSV^ ;OLTHQVYPUK\Z[Y`[OH[OHZKLJSPULK[OLTVZ[PU[OLSHZ[[^VKLJHKLZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUPZ 4HU\MHJ[\YPUN)L[^LLUHUK4HU\MHJ[\YPUNLTWSV`TLU[MLSSI`TVYL[OHUOHSM PU3P[[SL:HPNVUHUKP[ZZOHYLVMLTWSV`TLU[PU3P[[SL:HPNVUMLSSI`MYVT 

[V

VMLTWSV`TLU[;OLKH[HZ\NNLZ[ZHZLJ[VYHSZOPM[PU3P[[SL:HPNVUH^H`MYVTTHU\MHJ[\YPUN HUK[V^HYK/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLHUK(JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZ Orange County
;OL36+,:KH[HMYVT[VPU6YHUNL*V\U[`Z\NNLZ[Z[OH[ [OLSHYNLZ[[OYLL PUK\Z[YPLZI`LTWSV`TLU[HYL/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJL  VMLTWSV`TLU["
(KTPUPZ[YH[P]LHUK:\WWVY[HUK>HZ[L4HUHNLTLU[HUK9LTLKPH[PVU :LY]PJLZ 
VMLTWSV`TLU["HUKTHU\MHJ[\YPUN 
VMLTWSV`TLU[1\Z[WY PVY[V[OL*6=0+
WHUKLTPJPU (JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZ^HZHSZVHUV [L^VY[O`ZLJ[VY ^P[O 
VMLTWSV`TLU[
The major industries
that have grown the
fastest since 2002 are
Accommodation and Food
Services and Health Care
and Social Assistance.

The major industry that has
declined the most in the
last two decades in Little
Saigon is Manufacturing.

Between 2002 and 2021,
Manufacturing employment
fell by more than half in
Little Saigon.
84 26California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
;OLMHZ[LZ[NYV^PUNPUK\Z[YPLZIL[^LLUHUK^LYL/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS (ZZPZ[HUJL
H]LYHNLHUU\HSNYV^[OHM[LYHKQ\Z[PUNMVYJSHZZPÄJH[PVUJOHUNLZPU "7YVMLZZPVUHS:JPLU[PÄJHUK;LJOUPJHS:LY]PJLZ H]LYHNLHUU\HSNYV^[OHUK
*VUZ[Y\J[PVU

H]LYHNLHUU\HSNYV^[O;OL[^VTHQVYPUK\Z[YPLZ^P[O[OLMHZ[LZ[ KLJSPUL^LYL(Y[Z,U[LY[HPUTLU[HUK9LJYLH[PVU

H]LYHNLHUU\HSKLJSPUL"HUK
THU\MHJ[\YPUN
H]LYHNLHUU\HSKLJSPUL/V^L]LY(Y[Z,U[LY[HPUTLU[HUK9LJYLH[PVU ^V\SKILVULVM[OLMHZ[LZ[NYV^PUNPUK\Z[YPLZL_JS\KPUN[OLLќLJ[ZVM[OL*6=0+ WHUKLTPJZPUJLV]LYOHSMVM[OLQVIZPU[OPZPUK\Z[Y`^LYLSVZ[IL[^LLU HUKPU 6YHUNL*V\U[`4HU\MHJ[\YPUN»ZQVISVZZLZZPUJL OH]LILLUT\JOZTHSSLYZV[OL KLJSPULPUTHU\MHJ[\YPUNPZHTVYLZ[HISLSVUN[LYT[YLUK Comparison between Little Saigon and Orange County
>OPSL3P[[SL:HPNVUOHZZLLUHZLJ[VYHSZOPM[H^H`MYVT4HU\MHJ[\YPUNHUKPU[V (JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZHUK/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJL6YHUNL*V\U[` OHZZLLUYHWPKL_WHUZPVUVMZL]LYHSZLY]PJLPUK\Z[YPLZHUKSLZZVMHKLJSPULPU4HU\MHJ[\YPUN [OHUPU3P[[SL:HPNVU)V[O3P[[SL:HPNVUHUK6YHUNL*V\U[`OH]LZLLUPUJYLHZLZPU LTWSV`TLU[PU/LHS[O*HYLHUK:VJPHS(ZZPZ[HUJLHUK(JJVTTVKH[PVUHUK-VVK:LY]PJLZ /V^L]LY[OLNYV^[OPU7YVMLZZPVUHS:JPLU[PÄJHUK;LJOUPJHS:LY]PJLZPU6YHUNL*V\U[`OHZ UV[ILLUTH[JOLKPU3P[[SL:HPNVU
VIII. BUSINESS CHARACTERISTICS
;OPZZLJ[PVUZ\TTHYPaLZKH[HWYV]PKLKI`MV\YJP[PLZ[OH[JVTWYPZLTVZ[VM3P[[SL:HPNVU .HYKLU.YV]L-V\U[HPU=HSSL`>LZ[TPUZ[LYHUK:HU[H(UH;OLJP[PLZWYV]PKLKKH[HVU I\ZPULZZLZ^P[OHI\ZPULZZSPJLUZLPULHJOJP[`
IX. FUTURE TRENDS FOR LITTLE SAIGON

>OPSL3P[[SL:HPNVUOHZL_WLYPLUJLKZPNUPÄJHU[LJVUVTPJJOHUNLZHUKJOHSSLUNLZ^L L_WLJ[[OH[P[^PSSJVU[PU\L[VNYV^HUKOH]LZPNUPÄJHU[VWWVY[\UP[PLZMVYZTHSSI\ZPULZZLZ HUKLU[YLWYLUL\YZ
;OL=PL[UHTLZLJVTT\UP[`HUK3P[[SL:HPNVUPU6YHUNL*V\U[`OH]LJVUZPZ[LU[S`NYV^U ZPUJL[OL
ZHUKP[PZL_WLJ[LK[OH[P[^PSSJVU[PU\L[VL_WHUK>OPSLHIV\[OHSMVM[OL =PL[UHTLZLJVTT\UP[`PU6YHUNL*V\U[`SP]LZPU3P[[SL:HPNVUOHSMSP]LZV\[ZPKLVMP[HUK While Little Saigon has
experienced significant
economic changes and
challenges, we expect
that it will continue to
grow and have significant
opportunities for
small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
)<:05,::,:)@*0;@
;V[HS)\ZPULZZ3PJLUZLZ
Garden Grove 3,260
Fountain Valley 6,302
Westminster 3,265
Santa Ana 

TABLE 14: TOTAL NUMBER OF BUSINESSES
85 27California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
THU`HYLPUULHYI`ULPNOIVYOVVKZPU[V^OPJO[OLWVW\SH[PVUJV\SKL_WHUKM\Y[OLY-PN\YL 
ZOV^LK[OLU\TILYVM=PL[UHTLZLZWLHRLYZI`JLUZ\Z[YHJ[HUKP[ZOV^LK[OH[[OLYL^LYL TVYL[OHUWLVWSL^OVZWLHR=PL[UHTLZLH[OVTLSP]PUNPUJLUZ\Z[YHJ[ZV\[ZPKLVM 3P[[SL:HPNVUPU:[HU[VU-V\U[HPU=HSSL`LHZ[LYU.HYKLU.YV]LZV\[OLYU(UHOLPTHUK ^LZ[LYU:HU[H(UH;OLZLULPNOIVYOVVKZHYLJSVZL[VILPUNJVUZPKLYLKHWHY[VM3P[[SL :HPNVUI`V\YWVW\SH[PVUKLÄUP[PVU>OPSL3P[[SL:HPNVUPZL_WHUKPUN[V[OLUVY[OLHZ[HUK ZV\[OLHZ[P[ZIVYKLY[V[OLZV\[O^LZ[PZÄYTS`[OL0 MYLL^H`
3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZYLJLU[NLULYH[PVUVMJVSSLNLNYHK\H[LZHYLTVYLSPRLS`[VOH]L:;,4YLSH[LK KLNYLLZHUK[OPZWVVSVM[LJOUPJHS[HSLU[TH`LUJV\YHNLTVYLOPNO[LJOI\ZPULZZLZ[V TV]L[VVYILMV\UKLKPU3P[[SL:HPNVU;HISL
ILSV^ZOV^ZNYHK\H[LZȀYZ[JVSSLNL
KLNYLLI`HNL(TVUNHSSKLNYLLOVSKLYZ
VYVSKLY3P[[SL:HPNVUKLNYLLOVSKLYZHYL
TVYLSPRLS`[VILPUZJPLUJLHUKLUNPULLYPUNHUKYLSH[LKÄLSKZ 
[OHU6YHUNL*V\U[`
KLNYLLOVSKLYZ
(TVUN`V\UNLYKLNYLLOVSKLYZHNLK
[V 3P[[SL:HPNVU
NYHK\H[LZHYLL]LUTVYLSPRLS`[VOH]LHKLNYLLPUZJPLUJLHUKLUNPULLYPUNHUKYLSH[LK ÄLSKZ

JVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`KLNYLLOVSKLYZ 


3P[[SL:HPNVU»ZZTHSSI\ZPULZZLZOH]LZLLUYHWPKNYV^[OPUYLJLU[[PTLZ)L[^LLU HUKLTWSV`TLU[I`ZTHSSI\ZPULZZLZOHZILLUPUJYLHZPUNMHZ[LYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU JVTWHYLK[V6YHUNL*V\U[`HUK[OLQVISVZZLZZLLTJVUJLU[YH[LKPUSHYNLYÄYTZ (JJVYKPUN[V36+,:KH[HLTWSV`TLU[I`ZTHSSI\ZPULZZLZ\UKLYLTWSV`LLZNYL^ H[HUH]LYHNL
WLY`LHYPU3P[[SL:HPNVUJVTWHYLK[V
PU6YHUNL*V\U[`^OPSL
LTWSV`TLU[I`ÄYTZ^P[O
VYTVYLLTWSV`LLZMLSS
WLY`LHYPU3P[[SL:HPNVU
JVTWHYLK[VNYV^[OVM
WLY`LHYPU6YHUNL*V\U[`
>OPSL3P[[SL:HPNVUSHNZ6YHUNL*V\U[`I`ZL]LYHSLJVUVTPJPUKPJH[VYZ[OLYLHYL[H_ PUJLU[P]LZNYHU[ZHUKV[OLYWYVNYHTZ[OH[JV\SKH[[YHJ[TVYLPU]LZ[TLU[PU[V3P[[SL :HPNVU;OL*VTT\UP[`+L]LSVWTLU[-PUHUJPHS0UZ[P[\[PVUZ-\UK*+-0HIYHUJOVM[OL <:+LWHY[TLU[VM[OL;YLHZ\Y`HKTPUPZ[LYZZL]LYHSWYVNYHTZ[OH[[HPSVYYLZV\YJLZ[VOLSW Little Saigon’s recent
generation of college
graduates are more likely
to have STEM-related
degrees, and this pool
of technical talent may
encourage more high-
tech businesses to move
to or be founded in
Little Saigon.

Little Saigon’s small
businesses have seen
rapid growth in recent
times. Between 2012
and 2021, employment
by small businesses has
been increasing faster in
Little Saigon compared to
Orange County, and the job
losses seem concentrated
in larger firms.
3P[[SL:HPNVU 6YHUNL*V\U[` 3P[[SL:HPNVU
HZH
VM
6YHUNL*V\U[`=HYPHISL 5\TILY 7LYJLU[ 5\TILY 7LYJLU[
;V[HS7VW
HUKVSKLY^P[OH)HJOLSVYZKLNYLLVYOPNOLY 
 100.0 939,818 100.0 
Science and Engineering 16,617  382,179 

Science and Engineering Related Fields  10.7 77,823 8.3 5.6 Business 9,359 23.1   

Education 2,572


 5.8 

Arts, Humanities and Others 7,581 18.7 223,595 23.8  ;V[HS7VW
[V `LHYZ^P[OH)HJOLSVYZKLNYLLVYOPNOLY 
 100.0 312,279 100.0 5.3
Science and Engineering 7,022  
 5.5
Science and Engineering Related Fields 1,806 11.0 26,015 8.3 6.9 Business 3,631 22.1 66,077 21.2 5.5
Education  2.9 8,690 2.8 5.5
Arts, Humanities and Others  21.2 83,081 26.6 
TABLE 15: FIRST COLLEGE DEGREE OF COLLEGE GRADUATES BY AGE 86 28California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
KL]LSVWSVJHSJVTT\UP[PLZ-VYL_HTWSL[OL)HUR,U[LYWYPZL(^HYK7YVNYHTWYV]PKLZ H^HYKZ[VIHURZHUK[OYPM[Z[OH[PUJYLHZLSLUKPUNVYZLY]PJLHJ[P]P[`PULJVUVTPJHSS` KPZ[YLZZLKJVTT\UP[PLZ;OL5L^4HYRL[Z;H_*YLKP[WYVTV[LZPU]LZ[TLU[I`VќLYPUN H
[H_JYLKP[ZWYLHKV]LYZL]LU`LHYZVUHUPU]LZ[TLU[PUKPZ[YLZZLKJVTT\UP[PLZ ,SPNPIPSP[`MVY*+-0WYVNYHTZKLWLUKZVUZL]LYHSMHJ[VYZPUJS\KPUNSV^PUJVTLOPNOWV]LY[` YH[LZHUKOPNO\ULTWSV`TLU[YH[LZJVTWHYLK[V[OLHYLH;OLNYHWOILSV^ZOV^Z^OPJO VM[OL3P[[SL:HPNVU[YHJRZTLL[[OLZLJYP[LYPHIHZLKVU[OLPYTVZ[YLJLU[YL]PZPVUZ >OPSLUV[L]LY`WYVNYHT\ZLZHSS[OLZLJYP[LYPHWYVNYHTJYP[LYPHHUKLSPNPIPSP[`HYL\WKH[LKHZ LJVUVTPJKH[HPZ\WKH[LKHUK[OLYLTH`ULLK[VILHKKP[PVUHSJYP[LYPH[OH[OH]L[VILTL[ [VX\HSPM`MVYWYVNYHTZ
FIGURE 16: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR CDFI PROGRAMS BY CENSUS TRACT IN LITTLE SAIGON 87 29California State University, Fullerton COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

WOODS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS AND FORECASTING
LITTLE SAIGON, ORANGE COUNTY:

A DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

WOODS CENTER FOR

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

AND FORECASTING
California State University, Fullerton
College of Business and Economics
800 N. State College Blvd.

Fullerton, CA 92831
business.fullerton.edu
/woodscenter
88 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE CITIES OF

FOUNTAIN VALLEY, GARDEN GROVE, AND SANTA ANA

LITTLE SAIGON BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“Agreement”) is dated as of July__, 2025 (“Effective Date”), and entered into by and among the Cities of Fountain Valley, a municipal corporation (“FV”), Garden Grove, a municipal corporation (“GG”), and Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation (“SNA”), each of which is organized and existing under California law (cumulatively the “Parties,” and at times individually a “Party”), with reference to and in consideration of the following:

WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the value and imp ortance of regional collaboration to support economic revitalization, job creation, and the cultural preservation of Vietnamese - American communities within their jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the Parties propose to establish a multi -jurisdictional effort to enhance cultural tourism, support the formation of a business improvement district under Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500 et seq in the Parties’ respective Vietnamese business communities, and stimulate job growth and small business development across the Parties’ jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the Parties intend to proceed to identify and create the business improvement district in three phases—Concept, Accelerator, and Last Mile—involving comprehensive activities such as market assessments, stakeholder engagement, business improvement area development, and environmental compliance work necessary for long -term implementation and sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have received an Orange County Jobs First Catalyst Grant, which will assist in jump starting the Little Saigon Business Improvement District program (“Program”); and

WHEREAS, GG will act as the lead agency and fiscal agent responsible for overseeing all administrative functions related to grant management, procurement, budget coordination, and consultant oversight; and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to formalize their roles, contributions, and cooperative efforts under this Agreement to implement the Program in a coordinated, equitable, and efficient manner;

WHEREAS, each Party has caused this Agreement to be duly approved by its respective governing body, and by so doing, has found and determined that this Agreement furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of their respective residents and businesses.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

89 2

AGREEMENT

1. PURPOSE

This Agreement establishes a multi -jurisdictional memorandum of understanding for planning, developing, and eventual implementation of the Program . The purpose of this Agreement is to foster interjurisdictional alignment, streamline project activities, and ensure that the goals of economic equity, cultural preservation, workforce development, and sustainable infrastructure are met across each Party’s designated Little Saigon Business Improvement District area within their jurisdictional boundaries. Each Party affirms its support for the Program’s goal of transforming designated areas into cultural destinations reflective of Vietnamese -American identit y and heritage, and recognizes the opportunity to revitalize underinvested neighborhoods by creating new pathways for entrepreneurship, housing, and workforce mobility.

2. TERM

2.1. General Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date on which the last of the Parties has executed the same, which shall be inserted as the Effective Date in the first paragraph above, and shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, 2030 , at which point this Agreement shall automatically renew for one additional fiscal year, July 1st through June 30th of the subsequent year (each a “Renewal Term,” and cumulatively the “Term”).

2.2. Termination by a Party.

a) Notice and Effective Date. Any Party may terminate its participation in this Agreement by providing one fiscal year’s written notice to all other Parties on or before the last day of any fiscal year (June 30). As a way of example, a notice of termination issued on June 30, 2025, would be effective July 1, 2026, while a notice of termination issued on July 1, 2025, would be effective July 1, 2027.

b) Effect of Termination. Upon the effective date of termination by a Party , the remaining Parties may keep and reallocate to the remaining Program areas any funding paid by the terminating Party, except for business d istrict assessments collected from businesses within the terminating Party’s jurisdiction , which must be used for the benefit of said businesses, or refunded to them upon disestablishment of the business district in the terminating Party’s jurisdiction per Streets and Highways Code § 36551.

c) Continuing Enforceability. Following the effective date of termination, the terminating Party shall have no further obligations or rights with respect to this Agreement, except as expressly provided otherwise herein.

3. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

3.1. Lead Agency. GG wills serve as lead agency to manage Program administration and serve as the primary point of contact with funding agencies, oversee budget compliance, reporting, and manage consultant contracts. 90 3

3.2. Party Project Managers. Each Party will assign a project manager and a planner to coordinate implementation of the Program within the Party’s jurisdiction, provide Party- specific input on planning and zoning issues, and ensure community engagement within their jurisdiction.

3.3. Program Committee. The Parties will form a Program Committee to govern shared activities, with decisions to be made by consensus or majority consent among the representatives of the Parties. The Program Committee may further serve as the advisory board for the business improvement district.

3.4. Program Phases. The Program will be implemented in the following phases.

a) Concept Phase. The Concept Phase includes activities such as market analysis and community outreach.

b) Accelerator Phase. The Accelerator Phase includes stakeholder engagement and an in-depth economic feasibility study to evaluate development potential.

c) Last Mile Phase. The Last Mile Phase involves finalizing zoning and land use strategies, establishing design guidelines, and completing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), if required.

4. FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

4.1. Funding. Funding for the Program is comprised of a total pre -development cost of $1,376,500, with the Parties jointly procuring $1,050,000 in grant funding. The remainder will be covered through in -kind staffing and contributions from the Parties. Each Party agrees to allocate necessary resources, personnel, and support to fulfill their respective roles in a timely manner. Supplemental funding sources may include economic development funds, California GO- Biz grants, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI), and private sector sponsorships. A long -term revenue strategy will be established through the formation of the business improvement district to ensure sustainability. Business improvement district assessments will be allocated to Program Costs to benefit the businesses in each Party’s jurisdiction directly paying the assessments in accordance with law.

4.2. Program Treasurer. GG will assign a qualified GG employee to serve as the Program Treasurer.

a) Designation. The Program Treasurer shall be memorialized in writing . The Program Committee may replace the Program Treasurer at any time, and an incumbent Program Treasurer may resign at any time with at least 180 days’ notice to the Program Committee.

b) Costs. The Party employing the Program Treasurer shall be entitled to recover the costs associated with serving in such capacity, subject to approval of the Program Committee. In the initial fiscal year of the Program, the estimated cost is $20,000. 91 4

4.3. Program Accounts. The Program Treasurer shall establish and maintain Program Accounts separate from the ir Party’s accounts, or such other or different accounts as may be directed by the Program Committee from time to time, with a banking institution approved by the Program Committee , into which the Program Treasurer shall deposit all Program Funds. The Program Funds deposited i nto each Program Account will be used for the specific purposes of such account. The Parties have pre-approved US Bank as the banking institution for the Program Treasurer to establish initial Program Accounts.

4.4. No Comingling of Funds. Program Funds prov ided by the Parties for specific purposes under this Agreement shall be deposited into the designated Program Account, and shall not be comingled with funds provided for any other purpose, nor used for any purpose other than the specific purpose so designated, absent the approval of the Program Committee.

4.5. Permissible Use of Funds. Each Party represents and warrants to the other Parties that the funding source for the ir Party shares paid under this Agreement may be used for the purposes described herein, and their expenditure was duly authorized by the governing board of the Party. Any restriction or limitation on the use of fund s contributed by a Party under this Agreement shall be so designated and disclosed by the Party making the payment and, should such restrictions or limitations frustrate or hinder the purpose or administration of this Agreement, the Parties may require the Party share be paid from an alternative funding source; provided that the Parties shall work together cooperatively and in good faith to attribute restricted funds provided by the Parties towards authorized purposes that further the Program before request ing an alternative funding source.

4.6. Financial Contributions by the Parties.

a) Funding Sources and Party Shares. As set forth in Section 4.1, Program Costs are anticipated to be paid for from a combination of funding sources: (1) Grants, (2) in-kind contributions, (3) business improvement district assessments, (4) and Party Shares to be determined based on Program Costs associated with Program activities within each Party’s jurisdiction (the Party’s “Cost Allocation”). Should any of the alternative funding sources fail, in whole or in part, then the unfunded portion of Program Costs shall be paid by the Parties in accordance with their Cost Allocation.

b) Annual Meeting. No later than ninety (90) days before the commencement of each fiscal year , the Parties shall review the anticipated Program Costs to be incurred in coming fiscal year , and shall, cooperatively and in good faith:
negotiate and reach a mutual agreement as to any adjustments or revisions to the Program Costs necessary to finance and implement the Program; ensure that each Party Share fairly reflects the benefits and obligations to such Party under this Agreement; and to adopt and approve a new Program budget for the immediately ensuing fiscal year. The report may be us ed to fulfill the report required under Streets and Highways Code § 36533.

92 5
c) Notice of Party Shares. Not later than sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of each fiscal year, the Parties shall finalize the Party Shares for the ensuing fiscal year and notice of each Party’s Share shall be provided by the Program Treasurer not later than thirty (30) days immediately preceding commencement of the applicable fiscal year.

d) Timely Payment. Each Party shall pay the Party Share in consideration for its continuing right to continue participation in the Program. Each Party shall remit payment of its Party Share on or before the beginning of each fiscal year and set forth in the notice by the Program Treasurer. Late payments shall accrue interest at the m aximum interest rate permitted by law applicable to municipal corporations.

e) Funding Shortages. Should the Program experience a shortfall in funding during any fiscal year , the Program Treasurer, with the approval of the Program Committee, shall provide written notice to the Parties of the shortage, and the Parties shall remit payment of required amounts within thirty (30) days’ receipt of the same.

f) Reconciliation. If the Program Committee determines that past payments made by any Party were either in excess or less than the amount fairly attributable to that Party, that Party’s Share shall be adjusted in future fiscal years.

g) Public Benefit and Purpose. Each Party acknowledges that establishment and implementation of the Program is a substantial benefit to each such Party, and the residents, business, and communities residing within their respective jurisdictional boundaries. All Parties expressly declare that this Agreement, and all expenditures of public funds hereunder for the purposes described herein, furthers legitimate public purposes, including, but not limited to the following:

1. Enhancing cultural tourism in Program areas;

2. Stimulating economic growth in Program areas;

3. Promoting workforce development and job creation;

4. Advancing sustainable urban development in Program areas;

5. Acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining “improvements” described in Streets and Highways Code § 36510;

6. Implementing “activities” described in Streets and Highways Code § 36513.

h) Results of Nonpayment by Party. All Parties acknowledge that the failure of any Party to pay any amount hereunder will result in an increase in the operational costs of the Program. To that end, in the event any Party fails to pay, for any 93 6
reason, any amount required to be paid by that Party under this Agreement within fifteen (15) days of when such payment is due, Program activities in the Party’s jurisdiction may be limited or reduced commensurate with the amount of such nonpayment.

i) No Reimbursement. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, it is the intention of all Parties that no funds provided by any Party under this Agreement shall be reimbursed. The Parties acknowledge that the payments made or required under this Agreement represents a f air return and consideration in exchange for participation in the Program in the fiscal year to which the payment or payment(s) relate(s).

j) Budgeting Party Contributions. For each fiscal year , each Party shall make every effort to adopt all necessary budgets and make all necessary appropriations for all payments due hereunder. The covenant contained in this Section shall be deemed to be, and shall be construed to be, contingent upon the continuing offer by other Parties to participate in the Program and be a party to this Agreement.

k) Grant Funding. The Parties are encouraged to pursue local, state, federal, and other grant opportunities and funding sources in furtherance of the Program or towards a Party’s financial contributions under this Agreement. To the extent possible, the Parties agree to work together cooperatively and in good faith in pursuit of funding opportunities for the Program as a whole.

4.7. Program Property. The Program Treasurer shall track and keep an accurate list of all Program Property valued at more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) that is acquired with funds contributed by the Parties, including a record of which Party is in custody of such Program Property. Regardless of whether a Party holds legal title to any such Program Property, it shall be managed and utilized by the Party in custody and control of the same exclusively for purposes consistent with the Program and this Agreement.

4.8. Disposition of Program Property. In the event any Party is in possession of any item of Program Property that is not needed or currently being utilized for purposes consistent with the Program and this Agreement, the Party in possession shall, within a reasonable time of discovering the s ame: (1) provide written notice to the Parties; and (2) direct the transfer the Program Property to another Party for use in the Program, as approved by Party Representatives.

In the event the transfer of Program Property is unnecessary or infeasible, the Program Property shall be sold at fair-market value within a reasonable period of time, and the proceeds immediately transferred to the Program Treasurer for deposit into Program Accounts, or for reimbursement or reduction of Party Shares, as may be direct ed by the Program Committee. To the extent state, federal, or grant restrictions direct the disposition or sale of Program Property acquired with any such funding source, the same shall govern and prevail over the terms of this Section.

4.9. Annual Audit. The Program Treasurer shall cause an independent financial audit of the Program Accounts to be completed for each fiscal year (June – July), and the report shall be presented to the Parties (“Financial Audit”). The Financial Audit shall comply with Generally 94 7
Accepted Government Audit Standards, and shall be distributed to all Parties upon completion.

The Program Treasurer shall be the “contr acting party” for purposes of any third -party contract with an independent auditor.

5. DISPUTES, DEFAULTS, AND REMEDIES

5.1. General Disputes. Should the Parties be unable to reach a mutual agreement as to any matter necessary to effectively administer and operate the Program, such as the amount of any Party Share, as an alternative to terminating this Agreement or pursuing an alternative remedy, the Parties may mutually agree to refer the dispute to a neutral arbitrator for resolution, in which case the arbitra tor’s determination shall be binding unless and until this Agreement is otherwise amended by the Parties.

5.2. Defaults.

a) Notice and Time to Cure. The failure by any Party to perform any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement shall constitute a defa ult. Except as required to protect against further damages, the non-defaulting Parties may not institute legal proceedings against the Party in default until the non -defaulting Parties have provided the defaulting Party notice of the default and the cure p eriod has expired: The cure period for any default shall be thirty (30) days after the defaulting Party’s receipt of written notice from the non -defaulting Parties that such obligation was not performed. In the case of a default which cannot be cured withi n the cure periods set forth in this section, the defaulting Party shall commence efforts to cure within such time periods, and shall diligently thereafter pursue to cure the default to completion within a reasonable period of time.

b) Cooperative Resolution. During the cure period set forth in paragraph (a), and prior to pursing any remedies described in this Section, the Parties will attempt, in good faith, to find a mutually agreeable resolution through communicating with each other and attempting to resolve any substantive problems arising under this Agreement, including challenges arising from funding difficulties, and/or any difficulty with effectively implementing the responsibilities detailed in this Agreement. Communication and attempts to resolve such problems and difficulties prior to pursing remedies under this Agreement include, but are not limited to, meeting together, amending this Agreement, and/or seeking the assistance of a jointly agreed upon mediator.

c) Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any default, and following written notice and expiration of the time to cure, the non -defaulting Parties may, at their option: declare this Agreement null and void with respect to the defaulting Party, in which case the defaulting pa rty shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges of this Agreement or the Program; or pursue damages or specific performance or other legal and equitable remedies the injured Parties may have against the non-defaulting Party in accordance with appl icable law. Nothing herein shall be construed as the non-defaulting Parties’ exclusive remedy for the remediation of default by a Party, and the non-defaulting Parties reserve the right to pursue any and all available rights and remedies at law or in equity.

d) Non-refund of Contributions. The payments made by all Parties pursuant to this 95 8
Agreement shall be used for the Program in the manner described herein, and all Parties acknowledge and agree that the development, administration, and implementation of the Program provides an immediate benefit to each Party and that no payments made pursuant to this Agreement shall be refunded for any reason other than as specifically authorized herein.

6. INDEMNITY

Each Party shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the other Parties, and each of them individually and jointly, and their respective officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, or actions of every kind brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to any property of any kind whatsoever and to whomsoever belonging which arise out of a Party’s failure to fulfill any payment obligations of such Party arising pursuant to the performance or nonperformance of the Party’s covenants and obligations under this Agreement, and which result from the actively negligent or wrongful acts of the Party, or its officers, employees, or agents. This provision requiring a Party to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the other Parties shall not apply to claims, losses, liabilities, or damages arising from actions or omissions, negligent or otherwise, of any independent contractor providing services pursuant to a contract with any other Party. In the event of concurrent negligence of the Parties or any other Party, it s respective officers, or employees, and a Party, its officers and employees, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damages to persons and/or property or any other loss or cost which arises out of the terms, conditions, covenants or res ponsibilities of this Agreement shall be apportioned in any dispute or litigation according to the California theory of comparative negligence.

7. MISCELLANEOUS

7.1. Approval by Program Committee. Any term or provision of this Agreement that calls for the direction, approval, or consent of the Program Committee, shall mean and refer to the direction, approval, or consent of the majority of the members thereof (regardless of quorum) .

Except as specifically provided herein, all actions reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement and the Program may be performed by the Program Committee except as may otherwise be prohibited by state or federal law.

7.2. Notice. Any notices provided to any Party in connection with this Agreement shall directed to the Party representative of each of the Parties set forth in Exhibit “A.”

7.3. Parties as Independent Contractors. Each Party is, and at all times shall be deemed to be, an independent contract or of the other Parties. Nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee, or principal and agent, between any Party, or any Party's agents or employees. Each Party shall retain all authority for rendition of services, standards of performance, control of personnel, and other matters incident to the performance of the Program pursuant to this Agreement. Each Party, and its agents and employees, shall not be considered to be employees of any other Party.

7.4. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement has been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of 96 9
California. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction, located in Orange County, California, and the Parties agree to and hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court, notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. Furthermore, the Parties specifically agree to waive any and all rights to request that an action be transferred for trial to another county.

7.5. Amendments / Entire Agreement. Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the governing body of each Par ty. This Agreement, and the various Exhibits referenced herein which are incorporated fully by this reference, is the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and it supersedes any prior written or oral agreements with respect to the subject matter.

7.6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, term, or provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such section, subsec tion, paragraph, term, or provision, to the extent the same is valid and enforceable, and all other remaining provisions hereof, shall remain in full force and effect, to the fullest extent possible, and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby to the extent such are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.

7.7. Interpretation. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm's length and between persons sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with in this Agreement. In addition, each Party has been represented by experienced and knowledgeable independent legal counsel of its own choosing or has knowingly declined to seek such counsel despite being encouraged and given the opportunity to do so. Each Party further acknowledges that is has not been influenced to any extent whatsoever in executing this Agreement by the other Parties, or by any person representing the other Parties, or both. Accordingly, any rule or law (including Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the Party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to affect the purpose of the Parties and this Agreement.

7.8. Non-Waiver of Rights and Remedies. No term or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed waived and no breach excused, unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the Party clai med to have waived or consented. Any consent by any Party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other, whether express or implied, shall not constitute consent to, waiver of, or excuse for any other different or subsequent breach.

7.9. Authority. The Parties represent and warrant that this Agreement has been duly authorized by their respective governing boards, and executed by a duly authorized representative thereof, and constitutes the legally binding obligation of their respective Party, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

7.10. Assignment. Except as otherwise expressly provided for herein, no Party shall assign any of its obligations or rights hereunder without the consent of all other Parties, and any such assignment without consent shall be null and void. 97 10

7.11. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which, when the Parties have signed this Agreement, shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHERE OF, the Parties to this Agreement have caused the same to be executed by each of their duly authorized officers as follows:

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY

By:

City Manager

Attest:

City Clerk

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

By:

City Manager

Attest:

City Clerk

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA ANA

By:

City Manager

Attest:

City Clerk

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

98 11
Exhibit “A”
Notices and Designation of Party Representative(s)

Party Party Representative(s)
City of Fountain Valley

Maggie Le, City Manager
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
EMAIL: [email protected]

With Copy to:

Colin Burns, City Attorney
Harper & Burns LLC
453 S. Glassell Street
Orange, CA 92866
EMAIL: [email protected]

City of Garden Grove

Lisa L. Kim, City Manager
City of Garden Grove
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
EMAIL: [email protected]

With Copy to:

Omar Sandoval, City Attorney
Woodruff & Smart
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
EMAIL: [email protected]

City of Santa Ana

Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
EMAIL:

With Copy to:

99 1

C O N S U L T A N T S E R V I C E S

A G R E E M E N T

CLARITY OF PLACE

THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES (the "Agreement"), is made and entered into as of September 1 st, 2025, by and between the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal corporation of the State of California, (the "City"), and Clarity of Place, Inc. (the "Consultant").

RECITALS

A. The City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) by and among the Cities of Fountain Valley, a municipal corporation (“FV”), Santa Ana a charter city and municipal corporation (“SNA”), and itself (collectively, the “Parties”) to further regional collaboration to support economic revitalization, job creation, and cultural preservation of Vietnamese-American communities within their jurisdictions .

The MOU, in part, establishes the ability for the City to enter into contracts on behalf of the Parties to further such actions.

B. The Parties have been awarded a grant from the Orange County Business Council (“OCBC”), acting in their capacity as the California Jobs First (“CJF”) Regional Convener for Orange County. The funding was awarded, in part, to enhance cultural tourism by analyzing and crafting a market assessment/ study for Little Saigon.

C. The City and Consultant desire by this Agreement for Consultant to provide services as follows; 1) Cultural Visitor Profile, 2) Tourism Infrastructure Inventory, 3) Comparative Analysis, 4) Economic Opportunity Forecast, 5) Stakeholder Engagement, and 6) Digital and Marketing Assessment (collectively, “Destination Opportunity Assessment”). In addition, Consultant will prepare recommendations based on the outputs of the Destination Marketing Assessment.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, the City and Consultant agree as follows:

1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services . In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide services related to the preparation of a Destination Opportunity Assessment as more particularly described in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Consultant warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services.

100
2 1.2 Consultant's Proposal. The Scope of Services shall include the Consultant's proposal or bid, if any, which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of Garden Grove and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.

1.5 Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (c) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by the City, it shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Officer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof).

1.6 Care of Work. The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence. The performance of services by Consultant shall not relieve Consultant from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective work at no further cost to the City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Consultant.

1.7 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit "A") when directed to do so by the Contract Officer in writing, provided that Consultant shall not be required to perform any additional services without compensation.

2.0 COMPENSATION

2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, but not 101
3 exceeding the maximum contract amount of Ninety Five Thousand dollars ($95,000.00) (the "Contract Sum"), except as provided in Section 1.7. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance with the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in Exhibit "B", but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "B"). Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "B").

2.2 Method of Payment . Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to the City no later than the fifteenth (15th) working day of such month, in the form approved by the Contract Officer, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, and (2) indicate the total expenditures to date. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Consultant may retain the same due hereunder from program income received by Consultant.

3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence. T ime is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in a timely and diligent manner.

3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "C") for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquake, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental City other than City, and unusually severe weather, if the Consultant shall within (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his/her judgment such delay is justified, and the Contracting Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement.

3.4. Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with S ection 7.7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until March 31, 2026 and may be renewed for an additional six -month term by mutual written agreement of the Parties executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City prior to March 31, 2026.

102
4 4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representative of Consultant . David Holder, Principal, is the principal of Consultant hereby designated as being the representative of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principal was a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefor e, the foregoing principal shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder.

Consultant may not change the foregoing principal and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the services required hereunder without the express written approval of City.

4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be the Assistant City Manager/ Director of Economic Development and Housing or such other person, as may be designated in writing by the Assistant City Manager/ Director of Economic Development and Housing. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions, which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer.

4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into the Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City.

4.4 Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth.

Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent Consultant of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent Consultant with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City.

4.5 City Cooperation. The City shall provide Consultant with any plan, publication, report, statistics, records or other data or information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to the City. The City shall additionally provide Consultant staff assistance and shall take prompt and appropriate action when it will assist in ensuring and timely performance by Consultant hereunder.

5.0 INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
103
5 5.1 Insurance.

(a) Commencement of Work. Consultant 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.

(b) Workers Compensation Insurance. During the duration of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance in the amount and type required by law, if applicable.

(c) Insurance Amounts. Consultant shall maintain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement:

(1) Commercial general liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable.

Insurance companies must be acceptable to the City and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better, as approved by the City.

(2) Automobile liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Insurance companies must be acceptable to the City and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better, as approved by the City.

(3) Professional liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Insurance companies must be acceptable to the City and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A-Class VII or better, as approved by the City.

An On-Going and Completed Operations Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 5.1(c)(1) shall designate CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. An Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 5.1(c)(2) shall designate CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for automobiles, owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant. Consultant shall provide to the City proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to the City’s requirements, as approved by the City.

For any claims related to this Agreement, Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, age nts, and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

If Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, Consultant shall provide coverage for the higher insurance limits otherwise maintained by the Consultant.
104
6 5.2 Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by the City) and for errors and omissions committed by Consultant, its officers, anyone directly or indirectly employed by Consultant, any sub Consultant and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indirectly out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City’s own active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct, or that of its officers or employees.

5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies the City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to there extent and within the time herein required, the City may, at its sole option:

a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement.

b. Order the Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payments) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof.

c. Terminate this Agreement.

Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies the City may have and are not the exclusive remedies for Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Consultant's or its sub Consultants' performance of work under this Agreement.

6.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS.

6.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require, such as Cultural Visitor Profile, Tourism Infrastructure Inventory, Comparative Analysis, Economic Opportunity Forecast, Stakeholder Survey Results, Digital and Marketing Assessment, and Recommendations and Coordination for Implementation.

6.2 Records. Consultant shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit 105
7 and make records and transcripts from such records. These records shall be retained for three (3) years after the expiration of this Agreement, except for the following: If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action has been commended before the expiration of such three (3) year period, the records shall be retained until disposition of such action and resolution of all issues which arise from it.

6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Consultant, its employees, sub Consultants and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon the termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied herein. Consultant shall cause all sub Consultants to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby.

6.4 Release of Documents . The drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other material prepared by Consultant in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other private entity or person any information regarding the activities of the City, except as required by law or as authorized by the City.

7.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT

7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, or any other appropriate court in suc h county, and Consultant covenants and agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action.

7.2 Disputes. In the event of any dispute arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty- five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the default is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, the City may take such immediate action as the City deems warranted. Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City’s right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.7. 106
8 7.3 Retention of Funds . City may withhold from any monies payable to Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the default of Consultant in the performance of the services required by this Agreement.

7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City’s consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City’s consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City’s consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver or either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Excerpt with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement.

7.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term. This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section

7.8 for termination for cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, (i) without cause, upon ninety (90) days’ written notice to the other party, or (ii) upon the default of the other party, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the party alleged to be in default hereunder. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "B") or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3.

7.8 Termination For Default Of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for 107
9 the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated in Section 7.3.

7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party.

8.0 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION.

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

8.2 Conflict of Interest. No officer or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which effects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation.

The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

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

9.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first- class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty- eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section 9.1.

To City:

THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
Attention: Ursula Luna-Reynosa

To Consultant:
108
10 CLARITY OF PLACE, INC.
4030 Easton Station, Suite 300
Columbus, OH 43219
Attention: David Holder

9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understandings, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement.

9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties.

9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder.

9.5 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 so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

109
11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal
corporation

By: ____________________________
Its: City Manager
ATTEST:

By: ___________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

By: _____________________
City Attorney

By:_______________________

Its: David Holder, Principal

If CONSULTANT is a corporation, a Corporate Resolution
and/or Corporate Seal is required. If a partnership, a Statement of Partnership must be submitted to the City.

110
12 EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF SERVICES

111
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 1

August 22, 2025
Exhibit A – Scope of Work for Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment This scope of work for Clarity of Place, Inc (“Clarity”), based in Columbus, Ohio, covers the approach proposed to provide professional services to the City of Garden Grove (“Client”) for the purpose of analyzing and crafting a Destination Opportunity Assessment for the Little Saigon district as a premier destination for both daytrip and overnight cultural travelers.

Project Overview
Clarity will provide our client-centered, data-driven approach to help the City of Garden Grove develop market research to facilitate investment in and promotion of Little Saigon as a cultural district and destination. This project examines the cultural and commercial opportunities that make Little Saigon, the largest Vietnamese community outside of Vietnam, a vibrant destination through its markets, cuisine, cultural celebrations, events, and media. The process will examine market research on the Orange County cultural visitor, demographic and economic profiles compiled by Cal State Fullerton, destination assets and infrastructure including experiences, comparative concentrated cultural districts in other cities, economic opportunity projections, stakeholder input, and marketing presence to establish strategic recommendations for the direction of the district as a distinctive destination. The findings and resulting recommendations that emerge from this Destination Opportunity Assessment will help the District and its municipal partner, the City of Garden Grove, target and pursue grant funding and outside investors to further enhance the development and appeal of this alluring cultural district to attract and service more visitors and drive economic impact.

Clarity, collaborating with our parent firm, Longwoods International (“Longwoods”), would approach the destination opportunity assessment scope of work in six phases and provide biweekly updates with City leadership on progress and next steps. The six phases consist of the following:

I. Cultural Visitor Profile
II. Tourism Infrastructure Inventory
III. Comparative Analysis
IV. Economic Opportunity Forecast
V. Stakeholder Engagement
VI. Digital and Marketing Assessment
In addition to the assessment phases, the Clarity process includes a step entitled Recommendations and Coordination for Implementation to help the assessment outcomes be translated into recommendations and coordinated handoffs with other key vendors also assigned to help elevate Little Saigon’s presence as a destination. 112
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 2

Clarity has proven experience with conducting destination opportunity assessments for cities across the United States. Each of the following phases of Clarity’s process is detailed to provide clear understanding of how each step will contribute to the buildout of the Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment:

Phase I. Cultural Visitor Profile
Begun in 1990, Longwoods Travel USA® is a multi-client visitor research program surveying American travel habits. Travel USA® is the largest and longest on-going syndicated study of American domestic leisure and business overnight and day trips, with an average annual sample of approximately 250,000 trips. This ongoing study is conducted quarterly employing an online platform. A representative sample of respondents is selected and invited to participate in the research. The panel is geographically and demographically balanced to U.S. Census targets to provide an accurate picture of today's marketplace and to ensure projectability to the U.S. population.

Using data from Travel USA® study results, Longwoods International will develop a comprehensive visitor profile specifically of overnight and day-trip travelers to Orange County who engaged in cultural activities during 2024. This analysis will focus on travelers whose trip to Orange County included one or more of the following:
• Activities of special interest: Cultural activities/attractions, historic places, sites, or landmarks, and exceptional culinary experiences
• Dining activities: Unique or locally distinctive food • Main trip purpose: Touring a region to experience its scenic beauty, history, and culture
• Cultural activities: Visiting a landmark or historic site In addition to the full Orange County cultural visitor profiles for overnight and day trip visitors, Longwoods will provide estimates of visitor volume and associated expenditures for cultural travelers to the county.

Phase Outcome
The Orange County cultural visitor profile, both overnight and daytrip, will provide insights on what cultural visitors do while in Orange County, their “home” or place of origin for their trips, and their level of satisfaction with the overall visitor experience. The analysis results will provide a demographic profile of cultural visitors to the area and average length of stay.

Clarity will compare the Orange County cultural visitor profile with the results of the Cal State Fullerton’s Woods Center for Economic Analysis & Forecasting inaugural report, Little Saigon, Orange County: A Demographic and Economic Profile, to understand similarities and differences between the district’s populace and its potential visitors. This information will provide valuable insights into the potential cultural traveler market that could be targeted through future marketing and product development in Little Saigon.

Cost of Phase: $34,500
Timeline: September through October 2025
113
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 3

Phase II. Tourism Infrastructure Inventory
We will collaborate with the City of Garden Grove and its partners to gather the data needed for a comprehensive understanding of Little Saigon's tourism infrastructure and assets.

Given Little Saigon's significance as a dynamic cultural and commercial hub that spans multiple jurisdictions, we will perform an in-depth analysis of the existing visitor-facing assets and their ability to support enhanced cultural tourism. If the participating cities do not have the required data, we will work with local leadership to identify suitable proxy datasets, locate partners who may possess the necessary information, or compile the data needed.

Task 1: Cultural Landmarks Assessment
To augment data provided by the City of Garden Grove, we will assemble comprehensive inventories of Little Saigon's cultural assets, including temples, museums, art centers, community centers, and cultural institutions. We consider Little Saigon's destination assets as a subset of the area's overall cultural significance and a key component of what makes the district a compelling, competitive, and vibrant place to experience Vietnamese- American heritage.

These assets either serve as the primary reason and motivation for cultural tourism visits to Little Saigon or complement other attractions, offering additional experiences for visitors already in Orange County for different reasons—serving as indirect demand drivers.

Task 2: Accommodations and Transportation Analysis
Given Little Saigon's position within the greater Orange County tourism ecosystem, we will assess the current lodging supply near the cultural district, including hotels, motels, and short-term rental options. Additionally, we will evaluate group accommodation capacity, tour bus accessibility, and circulation patterns that support organized cultural tourism. This analysis will extend to public transit connections and multi-modal transportation options that enhance visitor access to the district's cultural offerings.

Task 3: Wayfinding and Accessibility Evaluation
Recognizing the importance of seamless visitor navigation and inclusive access, we will evaluate the current state of bilingual signage throughout Little Saigon, assessing both directional wayfinding and interpretive elements that enhance the cultural experience. This assessment will include pedestrian infrastructure evaluation, sidewalk conditions, crosswalk safety, and ADA compliance throughout the district. We will also assess public spaces, gathering areas, and their capacity to accommodate cultural programming and visitor engagement.

Phase Outcome
By overlaying existing cultural assets onto the area's hospitality infrastructure and accessibility, we will gain a deeper understanding of the physical elements needed to address any gaps in offerings that could affect Little Saigon's competitiveness as a cultural destination.
114
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 4

The outcome of these tasks will be a thorough, data-driven infrastructure inventory that provides Little Saigon's stakeholders with a clear, comprehensive understanding of the current tourism assets, including strengths, gaps, and development opportunities.

Cost of Phase: $13,000
Timeline: September through November 2025

Phase III. Comparative Analysis
Attracting cultural tourists to a destination is a competitive endeavor. Heritage visitors have a wide variety of options for where to spend their time and money, and cultural districts must clearly articulate their unique offerings to distinct visitor segments. Little Saigon's success will rely on differentiating its cultural tourism experience from other ethnic enclaves and cultural districts with which it competes, while leveraging best practices from successful peer destinations.

Task 1: Peer Destination Assessment
The comparative analysis will benchmark Little Saigon against three established cultural districts: Little Italy (San Diego), Olvera Street (Los Angeles), and Japantown (San Francisco/San Jose). We will employ high-level assessments of each peer destination's cultural programming, culinary offerings, heritage interpretation, infrastructure development, and marketing approaches. This analysis will evaluate how each destination has successfully positioned itself within its respective region's tourism landscape.

Task 2: Comparative Infrastructure and Accessibility Analysis The comparative study will examine how peer destinations have addressed infrastructure challenges, including parking and transportation access, wayfinding and visitor information systems, pedestrian circulation and safety, and accommodation of tour groups and organized visits. We will assess innovative solutions implemented by comparable districts and evaluate their applicability to Little Saigon's unique context.

Phase Outcome
We will synthesize findings into an analysis of Little Saigon's competitive position relative to comparable cultural districts. This analysis will highlight Little Saigon's unique differentiators while identifying opportunities to enhance competitiveness through strategic infrastructure investments, programming development, and collaborative marketing initiatives.

Cost of Phase: $7,500
Timeline: November through December 2025

115
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 5

Phase IV. Economic Opportunity Forecast
To provide context for the economic impact potential of enhanced tourism investment in Little Saigon, Clarity will leverage IMPLAN data to forecast the potential for economic growth across other key sectors in the area. Drawing on the foundational data from the Cal State Fullerton Woods Center study and supplementing with primary research and industry benchmarks, we will model realistic scenarios for economic growth based on different levels of strategic investment and development.

Task 1: Sector-Specific Economic Impact Modeling
Using county-level data for Orange County and the IMPLAN economic modeling system, we will assess how enhanced cultural tourism could impact key sectors, including retail establishments, restaurants and food services, hospitality and accommodations, transportation and tour services, and cultural and creative industries. We will analyze both direct economic impacts from increased visitor spending and indirect effects through supply chain activity and induced impacts from increased household income circulation within the local economy.

Task 2: Fiscal Impact Analysis
The economic modeling will project potential increases in local tax revenues, including sales tax generation, transient occupancy tax (where applicable), business license fees, and property tax impacts from increased commercial activity. We will also assess the potential for tourism-related economic activity to support broader community development goals, including infrastructure improvements, cultural preservation initiatives, and community programming that benefit both visitors and residents.

Phase Outcome
The economic opportunity forecast will deliver user-friendly projections with clear visualizations. The analysis will provide evidence for the economic potential of enhanced tourism investment while offering realistic expectations for different development approaches. This work will directly support grant applications, public-private partnership development, and long-term strategic planning for Little Saigon as a cultural tourism destination.

Cost of Phase: $12,500
Timeline: September through December 2025

Phase V. Stakeholder Engagement
Destinations are reflections of their community’s future vision and goals. Little Saigon’s public and private tourism stakeholders provide the backbone of the destination’s marketplace, as well as providing the support—both financial and tacit—to deliver the district’s future destination development initiatives. Engagement with stakeholders and tourism partners creates a framework for building a shared vision for destination direction, while establishing priorities that address the needs and opportunities to both enhance 116
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 6

current product offerings and focus the programs and operations of the future business improvement district.

Destination direction requires the establishment of a shared vision across the community to shape the direction. To build this vision, we will need to meet face-to-face with key destination and community stakeholders to understand opportunities and needs that can be translated into tourism impacts.

Task 1: Community Engagement
Time spent with Little Saigon’s community stakeholders within in-person small group discussions will produce a variety of high-level options for destination direction that can be translated into a shared vision for new destination marketing, visitor management, and product development initiatives. We will work with City of Garden Grove and Little Saigon leadership to identify key stakeholders to get involved in this process.

These individuals should include stakeholders who are able to provide perspectives on the district’s destination product mix and potential new opportunities to improve economic development, cultural preservation, and tourism growth – positioning Little Saigon as a flagship destination for Vietnamese-American culture in California. We anticipate that we will hold four visioning sessions to ensure we solicit input from a range of stakeholders, including local business owners, cultural organizations, nonprofit leaders, Vietnamese- American community leaders, City of Garden Grove tourism boards, area chambers of commerce, and other needed economic development or transportation planning entities.

During these conversations, we will explore destination development options that better support individual business needs while also evaluating potential strategies for a shared vision of Little Saigon’s future direction in destination development and marketing.

For those key members whose schedule will not allow focus group attendance, we will arrange up to ten one-on-one interviews either through phone calls or Zoom meetings.

Task 2: Stakeholder Survey
Recognizing that the perspectives of Little Saigon’s stakeholders who are not part of the above sessions are also invaluable, we will deploy a user-friendly online survey to solicit similar input on the priorities and future vision options gathered through the visioning sessions. This instrument will allow us to quantify the overall vision for Little Saigon’s future and insights into the impact and importance of destination development options. We will request assistance from the City of Garden Grove to both translate a version of the survey into Vietnamese and distribute both surveys to the needed potential respondents across the Little Saigon district.

Clarity will compile notes and takeaways from both the community engagement input and the stakeholder survey results to guide the recommendations.

Cost of Phase: $15,000
Timeline: November through December 2025

117
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 7

Phase VI. Digital and Marketing Assessment
Clarity understands the expectations placed on destination organizations and placemaking entities, including business improvement districts. At the core of those expectations is how the organization represents the destination’s assets, culture, and brand promise through its outreach and promotion. This Phase establishes an inventory of the digital and marketing footprint of Little Saigon to understand existing messages, content, and outreach. Clarity o will review existing websites, media relations, social media presence, physical collateral, and AI representation to build a clear understanding of how the various marketing media help shape the image of Little Saigon and deliver connections with potential daytrip and overnight visitors.

Clarity will report the results of this assessment in a visual summary that shows marketing content, marketing reach, and suggests opportunities for future positioning. This summary will play a valuable role in future research on the image of Little Saigon as a destination.

Cost of Phase: $5,000
Timeline: December 2025 through January 2026

Final. Recommendations and Coordination for Implementation The final task of the process will be to take the outputs of the six phases and create a set of recommendations to guide destination development, marketing, and organizational structures for Little Saigon’s future as a destination. The strategic recommendations will include phased goals to optimize the impact of future investments into programming, outreach and placemaking. The recommendations will contribute to a coordinated action plan tied to work both on the Little Saigon business improvement district and policies and investments in land use policy, architectural guidelines, and placemaking infrastructure.

The recommendations will include operational and internal structure needs to ensure the BID organization is best prepared and armed with the tools needed to deliver the destination opportunities identified through the assessment research.

Clarity will compile investment and development recommendations based on the findings from the overall destination opportunity assessment and to help facilitate implementation by the City of Garden Grove and other entities. Implementation of the recommendations will need to be coordinated with two other research initiatives taking place in Little Saigon.

Clarity will provide coordinated support and communications with New City America to provide information from the assessment phases that help with the research investigating the feasibility of a property assessment business improvement district covering an overlay of Little Saigon. Clarity will also provide coordinated support and communications with a future selected vendor of the City of Garden Grove tasked with planning architectural guidelines, land use policies, and infrastructure investments to foster placemaking across Little Saigon.

This coordinated support will include data sharing, discussion of recommendations, draft reviews, and monthly online process update meetings.

Clarity will draft the recommendations and work with City of Garden Grove and Little Saigon leadership to align the visuals, narrative, and direction with the existing message and tone.

Clarity will create and present a summary presentation of the recommendations. Once approved this presentation would be made available for translation by the City of Garden 118
City of Garden Grove – Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment page 8

Grove and Little Saigon leaders into Vietnamese. Both the English and Vietnamese versions would be available for future presentations to stakeholders, community leaders, and possible investors.

Cost of Phase: $7,500
Timeline: December 2025 through March 2026

119
13 EXHIBIT "B"

FEE SCHEDULE

Not to exceed $95,000

120
Exhibit B – Fee Schedule
Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment

Clarity of Place (“Clarity”) will provide professional services to the City of Garden Grove for the purpose of analyzing and crafting a Destination Opportunity Assessment for the Little Saigon district as a premier destination for both daytrip and overnight cultural travelers. Clarity, collaborating with Longwoods International (“Longwoods”), would invoice for this work using the following schedule tied to completion of key tasks:

Invoice # Completed Tasks Cost Billing Schedule
Invoice 1
Project set-up and data subscriptions:
• Travel USA data access
• IMPLAN use access
• Placer.AI use access
• CoStar market data
$37,500 September 15, 2025
Invoice 2 Travel USA data output and analysis $17,000 October 15, 2025 Invoice 3 Tourism Infrastructure Inventory $3,000 November 15, 2025 Invoice 4
Comparative Analysis
Stakeholder Engagement $22,500 December 15, 2025
Invoice 5 Economic Opportunity Forecast $2,500 January 15, 2026 Invoice 6 Digital and Marketing Assessment $5,000 February 15, 2026 Final Recommendations and
Coordination for Implementation $7,500 April 15, 2026
TOTAL $95,000

121
14 EXHIBIT "C"

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE

122
Exhibit C – Schedule of Performance
Little Saigon Destination Opportunity Assessment

Clarity of Place (“Clarity”) will provide professional services to the City of Garden Grove for the purpose of analyzing and crafting a Destination Opportunity Assessment for the Little Saigon district as a premier destination for both daytrip and overnight cultural travelers. Clarity, collaborating with Longwoods International (“Longwoods”), would approach the destination opportunity assessment scope of work in seven phases and provide biweekly updates with City leadership on progress and next steps. The seven phases consist of the following:

Phase
Number
Name Cost Timeline
Phase I. Cultural Visitor Profile $34,500 September through October 2025
Phase II. Tourism Infrastructure Inventory $13,000 September through November 2025
Phase III. Comparative Analysis $7,500 November through December 2025
Phase IV. Economic Opportunity Forecast $12,500 September through December 2025
Phase V. Stakeholder Engagement $15,000 November through December 2025
Phase VI. Digital and Marketing Assessment $5,000 December 2025 through January 2026
Final Recommendations and
Coordination for Implementation
$7,500 December 2025 through
March 2026

123
1 C O N S U L T A N T S E R V I C E S

A G R E E M E N T

NEW CITY AMERICA

THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES (the "Agreement"), is made and entered into as of September 1st, 2025, by and between the CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal corporation of the State of California, (the "City"), and New City America, Inc. (the "Consultant").

RECITALS

A. The City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) by and among the Cities of Fountain Valley, a municipal corporation (“FV”), Santa Ana a charter city and municipal corporation (“SNA”), and itself (collectively, the “Parties”) to further regional collaboration to support economic revitalization, job creation, and cultural preservation of Vietnamese-American communities within their jurisdictions. The MOU, in part, establishes the ability for the City to enter into contracts on behalf of the Parties to further such actions.

B. The Parties have been awarded a grant from the Orange County Business Council (“OCBC”), acting in their capacity as the California Jobs First (“CJF”) Regional Convener for Orange County. The funding was awarded, in part, to enhance cultural tourism by supporting the formation of a multi-jurisdictional business improvement district under Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500 et seq in the Parties’ respective Vi etnamese business communities.

C. The City and Consultant desire by this Agreement for Consultant to provide services for the investigation of, and if deemed feasible, establishment of a multi - jurisdictional Little Saigon Business Improvement District.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, the City and Consultant agree as follows:

1.0 SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services . In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide services related to the investigation and formation of a Business Improvement District as specified under Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500 et seq and in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "services" or "work"). Consultant warrants that all services will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner in accordance with the standards prevalent in the industry for such services.

124
2 1.2 Consultant's Proposal. The Scope of Services shall include the Consultant's proposal or bid, if any, which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law. All services rendered hereunder shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, regulations and laws of the City of Garden Grove and any Federal, State or local governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments. Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be impos ed by law and arise from or are necessary for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.

1.5 Familiarity with Work . By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that (a) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (b) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (c) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unk nown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by the City, it shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant's risk until written instructions are received from the Contract Of ficer (as defined in Section 4.2 hereof).

1.6 Care of Work. The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers and other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence. The performance of services by Consultant sha ll not relieve Consultant from any obligation to correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective work at no further cost to the City, when such inaccuracies are due to the negligence of Consultant.

1.7 Additional Services. In accordance with the terms a nd conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall perform services in addition to those specified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit "A") when directed to do so by the Contract Officer in writing, provided that Consultant shall not be required to perfor m any additional services without compensation.

2.0 COMPENSATION

2.1 Contract Sum. For the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the "Schedule of Compensation" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, but not 125
3 exceeding the maximum contract amount of Two Hundred Five Thousand dollars ($205,000.00) (the "Contract Sum"), except as provided in Section 1.7. The method of compensation set forth in the Schedule of Compensation may include a lump sum payment upon completion, payment in accordance w ith the percentage of completion of the services, payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant's rates as specified in Exhibit "B", but not exceeding the Contract Sum, or such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation (E xhibit "B"). Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, transportation expense, telephone expense, and similar costs and expenses when and if specified in the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "B").

2.2 Method of Payment . Any month in which Consultant wishes to receive payment, Consultant shall submit to the City no later than the fifteenth (15th) working day of such month, in the form approved by the Contract Officer, an invoice for services rendered prior to the date of the invoice. Such invoice shall (1) describe in detail the services provided, including time and materials, and (2) indicate the total expenditures to date. Such invoice shall contain a certification by a principal member of Consultant specifying that the payment requested is for work performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Consultant may re tain the same due hereunder from program income received by Consultant.

3.0 PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

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

3.2 Schedule of Performance. All services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in a timely and diligent manner.

3.3 Force Majeure. The time period specified in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit "C") for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, fires, earthquake, floods, epidemic, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, acts of any governmental City other than City, and unusually severe weather, if the Consultant shall within (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contracting Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contracting Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the forced delay when and if in his/her judgment such delay is justified, and the Contracting Officer's determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement.

3.4. Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 7.7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until September 30, 2026.

4.0 COORDINATION OF WORK

126
4 4.1 Representative of Consultant. Marco Li Mandri, President, is the principal of Consultant hereby designated as being the representative of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principal was a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the foregoing principal shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Consultant may not change the foregoing principal and no other personnel may be assigned to perform the services required hereunder without the express written approval of City.

4.2 Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall be the Assistant City Manager/ Director of Economic Development and Housing or such other person, as may be designated in writing by the Assistant City Manager/ Director of Economic Development and Housing. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions, which must be made by City to the Contract Officer.

Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer.

4.3 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignme nt. The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into the Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whol e or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or transferred, voluntarily or by operation of law, without the prior written approval of City.

4.4 Independent Consultant. Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth.

Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent Consultant of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent Consultant with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City.

4.5 City Cooperation . The City shall provide Consultant with any plan, publication, report, statistics, records or other data or information pertinent to services to be performed hereunder which are reasonably available to the City. The City shall additionally provide Consultant staff assistance and shall take prompt and appropriate action when it will assist in ensuring and timely performance by Consultant hereunder.

5.0 INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION.

5.1 Insurance.

127
5 (a) Commencement of Work. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until all certificates and endorsements have been received and approved by the City. A ll 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.

(b) Workers Compensation Insurance. During the duration of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain Workers Compensation Insurance in the amount and type required by law, if applicable.

(c) Insurance Amounts. Consultant shall maint ain the following insurance for the duration of this Agreement:

(1) Commercial general liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Claims made and modified occurrence policies are not acceptable.

Insurance companies must be acceptable to the City and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better, as approved by the City.

(2) Automobile liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Insurance companies must be acceptable to the City and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better, as approved by the City.

(3) Professional liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Insurance companies must be acceptable to the City and have a Best’s Guide Rating of A-Class VII or better, as approved by the City.

An On-Going and Completed Operations Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under s ection 5.1(c)(1) shall designate CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. An Additional Insured Endorsement for the policy under section 5.1(c)(2) shall designate CITY, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional insureds for automobiles, owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant. Consultant shall provide to the City proof of insurance and endorsement forms that conform to the City’s requirements, as approved by the City.

For any claims related to this Agreement, Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the 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 Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

If Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, Consultant shall provide coverage for the higher insurance limits otherwise maintained by the Consultant.

5.2 Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and 128
6 all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, demands, losses, costs, and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys' fees, for injury to or death of person(s), for damage to property (including property owned by the City) and for errors and omissions committed by Consultant, its officers, anyone directly or indirectly employed by Consultant, any sub Consultant and agents or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, arising directly or indire ctly out of or related to Consultant's performance under this Agreement, except to the extent of such loss as may be caused by City’s own active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct, or that of its officers or employees.

5.3 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies the City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to there extent and within the time herein required, the City may, at its sole option:

a. Obtain such insurance and d educt and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this Agreement.

b. Order the Consultant to stop work under this Agreement and/or withhold any payments) which become due to Consultant hereunder until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof.

c. Terminate this Agreement.

Exercise of any of the above remedies, however, is an alternative to any other remedies the City may have and are not the exclusive remedies for Consultant's failure to maintain or secure appropriate policies or endorsements. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property resulting from Consultant's or its sub Consultants' performance of work under this Agreement.

6.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS.

6.1 Reports. Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require, such as feasibility study(ies), district boundary definition, district management plan, etc.

6.2 Records. Consultant shall keep such books and records as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the cost and the performance of such services. Books and records pertaining to costs shall be kept and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all reasonable times, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. These records shall be retained for three (3) years after the expiration of this Agreement, except for the following: If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action has been commended before the expiration of such three (3) year period, the records shall be retained until disposition of such action and resolution of all issues which arise from it.
129
7 6.3 Ownership of Documents. Originals of all drawings, specifications, reports, records, documents and other materials, whether in hard copy or electronic form, which are prepared by Consultant, its employees, sub Consultants and agents in the performance of this Agreement, shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon the termination of this Agreement or upon the earlier request of the Contract Officer, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership of the documents and materials hereunder. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have an unrestricted right to use the concepts embodied herein. Consultant shall cause all sub Consu ltants to assign to City any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages suffered thereby.

6.4 Release of Documents . The drawings, specifications, r eports, records, documents and other material prepared by Consultant in the performance of services under this Agreement shall not be released publicly without the prior written approval of the Contract Officer or as required by law. Consultant shall not disclose to any other private entity or person any information regarding the activities of the City, except as required by law or as authorized by the City.

7.0 ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT

7.1 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpre ted both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Cou rt of the County of Orange, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action.

7.2 Disputes. In the event of any disput e arising under this Agreement, the injured party shall notify the injuring party in writing of its contentions by submitting a claim therefore. The injured party shall continue performing its obligations hereunder so long as the injuring party commences to cure such default within ten (10) days of service of such notice and completes the cure of such default within forty-five (45) days after service of the notice, or such longer period as may be permitted by the Contract Officer; provided that if the defa ult is an immediate danger to the health, safety and general welfare, the City may take such immediate action as the City deems warranted.

Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be a condition precedent to termination of this Agreement for cause and to any legal action, and such compliance shall not be a waiver of any party's right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing herein shall limit City’s right to terminate this Agreement without cause pursuant to Section 7.7.

7.3 Retention of Funds . City may withhold from any monies payable to Consultant sufficient funds to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities or damages it reasonably believes were suffered by City due to the d efault of Consultant in the performance of the services required by this Agreement. 130
8 7.4 Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. City’s consent or approval of any act by Consultant requiring City’s consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary City’s consent to or approval of any subsequent act of Consultant. Any waiver or either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative . Excerpt with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, at law or at equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement.

7.7 Termination Prior To Expiration Of Term . This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in the following Section

7.8 for termination for cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, (i) without cause, upon ninety (90) days’ written notice to the other party, or (ii) upon the default of the other party, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the party alleged to be in default hereunder. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation (Exhibit "B") or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3.

7.8 Termination For Default Of Consultant. If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder ex ceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of setoff or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated in Section 7.3.

131
9 7.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the losing party.

8.0 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION.

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

8.2 Conflict of Interest . No officer or employee of th e City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which effects his personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation.

The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

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

9.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first -class mail to the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the o ther party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated forty- eight (48) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section 9.1.

To City:

THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92840
Attention: Ursula Luna-Reynosa

132
10 To Consultant:

NEW CITY AMERICA
c/o 2011 W. California Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Attention: Marco Li Mandri

9.2 Integrated Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties and all previous understandings, negotiations and agreements are integrated into and superseded by this Agreement.

9.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing signed by both parties.

9.4 Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdi ction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not effect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder.

9.5 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 so executing this Agreement the parties hereto are formal ly bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

133
11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, a municipal
corporation

By: ____________________________
Its: City Manager
ATTEST:

By: ___________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

By: _____________________
City Attorney

By:_______________________

Its: President (Marco Li Mandri)

If CONSULTANT is a corporation, a Corporate Resolution
and/or Corporate Seal is required. If a partnership, a Statement of Partnership must be submitted to the City.

134
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF WORK
This scope of work outlines the necessary steps and deliverables for the formation of a Business Improvement District (BID) under the California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500–36551.

1. Project Planning and Management - $10,000
• Develop a detailed project timeline with milestones and deadlines • Coordinate with City staff and stakeholders
• Establish a Steering Committee or advisory group of property/business owners

2. Feasibility Study and District Boundary Definition - $20,000 • Conduct a land use and property ownership inventory within the proposed district • Analyze parcel data information
• Recommend geographic boundaries that are legally defensible and strategically viable • Evaluate economic feasibility (business mix, revenue projections, conceptual response to the survey)

3. Stakeholder Outreach and Consensus Building - $60,000 • Identify and engage property owners, tenants, and community organizations • Facilitate stakeholder meetings, listening sessions, and workshops • Distribute bilingual educational materials explaining the BID structure, benefits, and costs • Gauge support through preliminary petitions or surveys, log surveys by color coding the responses;

4. District Plan Preparation (Management District Plan) - $25,000 • Prepare the Management District Plan, as required under §36622, including:
• - Description of boundaries
• - List of special benefit improvements and activities (e.g., beautification, marketing, safety, maintenance)
• - Method and basis of levying assessments (square footage, linear frontage, etc.) • - Budget and duration (typically 5 years, renewable)
• - Governance structure (e.g., nonprofit association or city-administered)

135

5. Legal Compliance and Documentation - $25,000 (November 2025 – July 2026) • Prepare and submit documents in compliance with Proposition 218 and the Streets and Highways Code:
• - Preliminary Engineer’s Report
• - Management District Plan
• Assist the City Attorney and Clerk with legal review and adoption procedures

6. Petition Drive - $10,000 (January – March 2026)
• Design and implement a petition process (must represent at least 50% of total assessments) • Track petition submissions and validate property ownership data • Provide regular updates to designated stakeholder groups and City

7. Public Hearing and Formation Process - $20,000
• - Resolution of Intention
 Support City staff in scheduling and conducting required public meetings and hearings • Provide presentations and answer questions during council meetings • Assist in responding to written or oral protests as part of the protest hearing process

8. Formation Approval and Launch Support - $35,000
• Assist with BID ordinance adoption and finalization of the assessment roll for the County Tax Assessor
• Support creation or designation of the owners’ association (often a 501(c)(36) or similar) • Develop transition plan for BID launch: staffing, initial programs, and first-year budget Deliverables
• Project timeline and stakeholder engagement plan
• Proposed district map and benefit zone descriptions
• Draft and final Management District Plan
 Assessment Engineer’s report
• Petition tracking report
• Legal resolutions and hearing materials
• Formation summary and transition memo
 Creation of owners’ Association for management of the District (s) 136
ATTACHMENT 1 – NEW CITY AMERICA PROPOSAL DATED JULY 23, 2025 137

Corporate Office ▪ 710 W. Ivy Street ▪ San Diego, CA 92101 ▪ 619-233-5009 ▪ Fax 619-239-7105 New England Office: 42 Pearl Street ▪ New Bedford, MA ▪ 02740 [email protected] ▪ www.newcityamerica.com ▪ Facebook: New City America, Inc.

July 23, 2025

To: Ms. Christy Le, Administrative Analyst,
Ms. Ursula Luna Reynoso, Assistant City Manager
Garden Grove, California

SENT: Via e-mail
[email protected];
[email protected]

SUBJECT: Response to RFP Issued for Community Business Improvement District Assessment and Formation Services

Dear Ms. Le and Ms. Luna Reynosa:

New City America is a company based in Southern California which is pleased to respond to this important RFP for the Little Saigon multi-city district investigation in the 3 cities partnering in the process to market and promote their respective Little Saigons. Please consider the following benefits of considering New City America for this important task:

• New City America recently formed its 100th BID nationwide, reaching a status very few national companies have reached;
• The company has formed more ethnic business-based districts than any other company nationwide;
• The company currently manages 8 districts in the state of California, with its primary district being the historic Little Italy District in San Diego; • New City America has 16 employees, which gives us the ability to conduct multiple investigative tasks simultaneously;
• Marco Li Mandri received a City and County proclamation based upon its work in San Diego in December 2024, designating “Marco Li Mandri Day” in the City and County of San Diego.
• The company is the only one in the state which combines its success in forming and managing districts, with developing and managing popular public spaces to attach local residents to support the respective business districts and mixed-use communities.

138

2 We hope you find this proposal responsive to the RFP issued and we hope to be interviewed for this critical effort to build the Little Saigons in Orange County into a nationwide example of economic vitality and cultural tourism nationwide.

Sincerely,

Marco Li Mandri
President, New City America
New City Public Spaces
139

3 1. Proposal Summary Highlights, Key Features Distinguishing Points, Individuals Involved in the Process

New City America is one of the most successful companies in this field that understands all of the key elements to bring business and property owners together to generate more commerce and better districts for everyone involved.

For the past 30 years, we have successfully formed BIDS and CBIDs in the following ethnic business districts:

• Little Italy San Diego
• Chinatown Los Angeles
• Chinatown Oakland
• Koreatown Oakland
• Leimert Park Village/Los Angeles
• South Ward/Newark NJ
• Fillmore District/Los Angeles
• Diamond District/San Diego
• Downtown San Ysidro/San Diego
• Barrio Logan San Diego
• Lincoln Heights/Los Angeles
• Fruitvale/Oakland
• Highland Park/Los Angeles
• Downtown Glendale/Glendale CA

Working in these diverse business districts has given us the ability to work in multi- language settings which has resulted in Management District Plans, translated from English into Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean, to ensure that the constituents can communicate in their native languages and understand that the CBID model can be very beneficial to their commercial and neighborhood interests.

The individuals providing services on behalf of New City America, for this Little Saigon contract include the follow personnel. New City America has 16 staff members working throughout the state. Marco Li Mandri, President, would be the main point of contact for the Little Saigon project in Orange County. Our staff will handle all aspects of the district investigation and formation process.

Marco Li Mandri – Chief Executive Officer, Marco Li Mandri will be the main point of contact for the Little Saigon project.

Shirley Zawadzki – Chief Operating Officer
Laura Li Mandri – Controller and Chief Financial Officer Monica Montes – Database, survey compilation
Chris Gomez – Design and Layout
Jerry Klink – Mapping (sub-contractor)
Dominic Li Mandri – District Management support
140

4 Joey Li Mandri, Business Liaison, Communications
Ryan Huffman, Administration (Glendale)
Michelle Mercado – Communications
Nick Angulo – Event planning
Nick Yoo – Asst. District Manager, Hayward
Tammy De Luca – Asst Financing manager
Ed Henning – Independent Assessment Engineer

NCA Personnel who may work
on the Little Saigons Project
Title and involvement in
this investigation and
formation of a CBID in
Little Saigon, Orange County
Years in
this Field
Years with
New City
America
Marco Li Mandri
[email protected]
President, Project Manager,
Key personnel of the effort
30 Since 1995
Shirley Zawadzki
[email protected]
Assistant Project Manager 29 Since 1996
Chris Gomez
[email protected]
District Management Officer,
Graphics
24 Since 2001
Laura Li Mandri
[email protected]
Controller of Corporation,
Administration
20 Since 2005
Monica Montes
[email protected]
Database work, meeting
coordinator
22 Since 2003
Jerry Klink
[email protected]
Mapping, graphics, public
space design, assist in
meeting coordination
10 Since 2015
Rikki Gendron, Administration Providing administrative
support

Dominic Li Mandri District
outreach/Management
11 Since 2014

141

5 2. Profile of the firm: Proposers Firm Including Size Structure, Capacity and Resources

New City America is a family-owned company based in San Diego’s Little Italy District and has been in operation for 30 years, evolving into a national company in this field.

We have the capacity to investigate and form CBIDs, manage CBIDs and consult with CBIDs nationwide. Please consider the following unique features of the company:

New City America has managed San Diego’s Little Italy district in the past 30 years winning awards and acknowledgements as follows:
• Was identified as a “Smart Community” when San Diego was designated as National Geographic International Television series on World Smart Cities. Was designated in April 2010 as the “Smart Growth Community of the Decade” by the Urban Land Institute San Diego/Tijuana Chapter.
• Was named the 10th most popular neighborhood for Millennials in the US today (Forbes Magazine, April 2014);
• Was named the most kid friendly neighborhood in Downtown San Diego by Red Tricycle Magazine in May 2015
• Was featured in Entrepreneur Magazine as one of the most dynamic growing districts in the US today; (2017)
• Was considered to be the leader in COVID response for restaurants throughout San Diego County in the summer of 2021;
• Was one of the only districts in Southern California which did not lose one restaurant, café or bar due to the forced government shut down during COVID; • Was recently acknowledged as having the 4th best Certified Farmers Market in the US;
• Was recently acknowledged to have one of the most successful weekends “Art Walks” in the US today;
• Has created nearly 25 Charter City enabling ordinances that are considered superior to the current Property Business Improvement District laws allowable under the California Streets and Highway Code. • Formed one of the largest Tourism Improvement Districts in the state of California through San Francisco Travel;
• Has been the leader nationwide in designing, funding and managing new public spaces in the many districts it manages.

New City America is one of the only companies nationwide that has demonstrated its knowledge of conceptualizing a program, developing a strategy and creating the end result through a new financing mechanism and organization to achieve dynamic business dist rict goals. In terms of qualifications, please review following relevant facts:
• New City America has formed 100 similar districts throughout the United States over the past 24 years, perhaps more than any other company in the US. We anticipated forming five more similar districts by the beginning of 2026. 142

6 • The districts that are currently functioning throughout the country, formed by New City America, collectively generated over $1 20,000,000 in annual revenues a t the end of 2024.
• Being based in San Diego and our current work in the Los Angeles allows for direct access to business and property owners for a quick response to anyone’s questions for this Or ange County Little Saigon Project .

143

7 3. Qualifications: Public Agencies References

References
Public sector client references within the last 3 years

1. Mr. Kelly McAdoo, City Manager, City of Santa Barbara, (510) 209-2247

2. Ms. Christine Connelly, Deputy Mayor, City of New Bedford MA (508) 979-1410

3. Ms. Barbara Harb, Economic Development/City of Lathrop,, San Diego (209) 914-3519

4. Mr. Chris Corgas, Mayor’s Office of Economic Development/City of San Francisco, CBD Coordinator for the City, (415) 554-6661

5. Ms. Jennifer Hiramoto, Economic Development Director, City of Ontario (909) 816-8174

6. Mr. Alex Nguyen, City Manager of Oxnard, (510) 541-9941

7. Mr. Andy Mogheason, Economic Development Director,, (650) 259-2330

PBID/CBD District Management Corporations

1. Little Italy Association/San Diego- Mr. Steve Galasso, President (619) 234-6767

2. Downtown Hayward Association - Mr. Resti Zaballos, President (510) 719-5979

3. Downtown Glendale Association - Mr. Rick Lemmo, Vice President (805) 469-2255

4. Lincoln Heights Industrial Zone - Mr. Seth Polen, President (213) 595-5726

5. East Village Association - Ms. Sarah Potter, President (619) 860-1210

6. Downtown Chula Vista Association - Dr. Q, President (619) 791-5064

7. Downtown El Cajon PBID - Mr. Ron Nevels, President (619) 850-4006

144

8 4. Work Plan, Service Plan and Timeline Tasks and Sub-tasks

New City America has worked in well over 50 cities in the state of California over the past 30 years. We have used the Streets and Highway Code in General Law cities to create financing mechanisms for our respective clients as well as created new enabling ordinances for Charter cities in the State. The work would be divided into 3 sections for the Little Saigon effort in Orange County:

1. Investigation of the multi-City Little Saigon communities to determine which sections of the Vietnamese business districts would want to participate in this key economic development effort. If the investigation is successful in one or more of the different cities, come up with the concept of a multi-district entity that could manage the various needs of the different cities’ Little Saigons.

2. Once the investigation has demonstrated support for the concept, work with each city government to come up with a plan for financing improvements and special benefits in the respective communities. The districts could be formed under a yet to be considered Orange County Charter enabling ordinance or could use the current Streets and Highway Codes 1972 Act or 1994 act to fund beautification, commerce and marketing and promotion for the various city Little Saigons.

3. If the various formations are successful, craft multiple non-profit organizations to manage each district or bring all of the participating districts together in one central organization for efficiency and provide common special benefit services to the respective partners in this effort. The tasks and sub-tasks for this effort are summarized briefly as follows:

145

9 SCOPE OF WORK PROGRAM
Detailed Scope of Work and Budget for the
Little Saigons/Orange County Property Business
Improvement District/Community Benefit Improvement
District (CBID) Investigation Process

Task Comment Estimated Time

1. Prepare a feasibility analysis
for creating a successful Little
Saigons Stakeholders group to
include various options on the
district boundaries in the
participating cities
We would commence the process with one-
on-one meetings with key property owners
and businesses. Read documents related to
the current situation in the Little Saigons
(Study California State University in
Fullerton Demographic and Economic
Profile, October 2024)
TBD

2. Create a new Little Saigons
Community Benefit
Improvement District (CBID)
Steering Committee made up of
property and business owners,
conduct outreach meetings in
each participating City to obtain
feedback from property owners,
business owners and other key
stakeholders on the CBID effort.

NCA will work with the stakeholders and
the new Little Saigons CBID Steering
Committees and will present a written
survey for response by property owners.

The surveys will be distributed by mail, (and
e-mail if possible )in English and
Vietnamese once the respective study areas
have been reviewed. The survey will draw
out support and opposition to the concept
of a special assessments district and
provide critical data for contacting property
owners in the future.

TBD

3. Take in the results of the
survey of property owners and
present them to the City
Managers and the CBID
Steering Committee. Meet with
property owners as needed.

NCA has a unique program for showing the
levels of support and gauging which priority
services the City and property owners
would want to see. We will map it out and
present it to the Steering Committee and
City officials.

TBD

4. Write a report to the City
Managers on the results of the
investigation, recommended
timeline, and feasibility of
formation.

If the survey response supports the creation
of a new CBID, work with the City
Manager’s office to review the various
options, probably the PBID act of 1994, to
fund special benefit services in participating
cities respective Little Saigons.

TBD

The investigation phase is estimated to take at least 9 months to complete based upon the need to communicate with all of the participating city leaders and respective community leaders. If there is support for one or three different Little Saigons in the participating cities, we would then move to the formation stage based upon the level of demonstrated support per city. At that point, a specific set of tasks and timeline will be established to show the formation process month by month.

146

10 5. Proposal costs:

Billing and Compensation
The following hourly rates are proposed for this work. Marco Li Mandri would be the key representative for New City America and the main point of contact for the City staff, elected officials and Little Saigons stakeholders. Telephone calls would be billed for actual time spent preparing for and following up on the calls from City officials and others.

Mailing costs, FED Ex, mapping and other items will be billed directly as costs to the project.

On site work for New City America staff will be billed in a minimum of 4-hour increments.

New City America Personnel Hourly Rate

Marco Li Mandri President $400.00
Shirley Zawadzki, COO $150.00
Laura Li Mandri, CFO
Monica Montes, Database work $110.00
Rikki Gendron, Administration $ 90.00
Jerry Klink, mapping $ 80.00
Assessment Engineer (3 districts)

\ based
$3,500 per district report
Interns working on project $50.00
Local partner organization (Vietnamese) To be Determined

1. Billing shall be submitted monthly, based upon hours worked for this project.

Hours and work product or research shall be identified with personnel and the hours spent related to the task requested.

2. We also intend to partner with a local Vietnamese organization to do outreach and consulting with our staff to ensure that communication is done properly and community needs are met. We have yet to enter into any agreement since we will not negotiate anything until we are awarded a contract.

3. Once reviewed, payment shall be made via ACH or mailed check to New City America. Billings will be submitted at the beginning of each month with anticipation of being paid within 15 days of receipt.

4. Billings may provide reimbursable expenses including, but not limited to travel expenses, printing, postage, per diem expenses.

5. All billings shall be sent to: New City America, 2011 W. California Street, San Diego, CA 92110.

Total Quote for the Project assuming Investigation and Formation:

Investigation period (9 months) Not to exceed $85,000
Formation of 1 – 3 Districts) Not to exceed $85,000
Three Assessment Engineer reports: $10,500

Total Cost of investigation and formation: $180,500.00

147

11 6. Compliance and Potential Conflicts:

New City America is very familiar with all relevant statutes related to use of public funds including Section 1090/conflict of interest laws, the Brown Act as well as the California Public Records Act.

We have not been involved in any litigation proceedings or lawsuits over the past 5 years. 148

12 Scope of Work:

1. Project Planning and Management
• Develop detailed project timeline (included in this proposal and will be determined with City staff if we get the contract)
• Coordinate with city staff and stakeholders (based upon discussions with City staff)
• Establish a Steering Committee (that will be done with the cooperation of the City staff and the community partner organization for the participating cities)

2. Feasibility Study and District Boundary Definition
• Conduct land use and business inventory within the proposed district (this will be done once the participating city Little Saigons are coordinated with New City America)
• Analyze parcel data (once the boundaries in each city have been set) • Recommend geographic boundaries that are legally defensible and strategically viable (based upon the selected boundaries in each participating city)
• Evaluate economic feasibility (done as part of the mailed survey to each property owner)

3. Stakeholder outreach and consensus building:
• Identify and engage business and property owners, tenants and community organizations (this will be done in partnership between NCA and a local community organization)
• Facilitate stakeholder meetings, listening sessions and workshops (this will be done in partnership between NCA and a local community organization) • Distribute education materials explaining BID structure, benefits and costs. (this will be done as part of the investigation process) • Gauge support through preliminary petitions or surveys (the mailed bilingual survey will be done first to see what interest exists among the various participating city Little Saigons)

4. District plan Preparation (Management District Plan) (all of this will be done if one or more of the participating cities’ Little Saigons demonstrate support for the special benefits district and what services are desired) • Prepare management district plan as required.
• District boundaries
• List of improvements
• Methody and basis of levying assessments
• Budget and duration
• Governance structure

149

13 5. Legal compliance and documentation (all of this will be done if one or more of the participating cities’ Little Saigons demonstrate support for the special benefits district and what services are desired)
• Prepare and submit documents in compliance with S and H code. • Reso of intent, ER, management district plan
• Asst. the City Attorneys and Clerks with legal review

6. Petition drive: (all of this will be done if one or more of the participating cities’ Little Saigons demonstrate support for the special benefits district and what services are desired)
• Design and implement petition process.
• Track petitions
• Provide regular updates to the Steering Committee

7. Public Hearing and formation: (all of this will be done if one or more of the participating cities Little Saigons demonstrate support for the special benefits district and what services are desired)
• Support city staff in conducting public meetings and hearings. • Provide presentations and answer questions during council meetings. • Assist in responding to written or oral protests.

8. Formation and approval and launch support: (all of this will be done if one or more of the participating cities Little Saigons demonstrate support for the special benefits district and what services are desired) • Assist in BID ordinance adoption and finalization of assessment roll. • Support creation or designation of Owners association (c3) • Develop transition plan for BID launch, staffing initial programs and first- hand budget.

150
1 EXHIBIT "B"

FEE SCHEDULE

Not to exceed $205,000

Hourly rates and Personnel:

Personnel Role/Tasks Hourly rate
Marco Li Mandri Principal, key person working on this
contract
$ 380.00
Shirley Zawadzki Management District Plan
contribution, monitoring of contract
$ 150.00
Monica Montes Administration, database work,
mapping, outreach
$ 100.00
Rikki Gendron Clerical support $ 70.00
Laura Li Mandri Accounting, billing and financial
issues
$ 150.00

New City America (NCA) will subcontract with ArrowGTP, a multicultural marketing company, to assist with community outreach, education, and translation services.

ArrowGTP will work under the direction and supervision of NCA. NCA will submit ArrowGTP invoices for reimbursement. ArrowGTP’s services fall under the “Stakeholder Outreach and Consensus Building” task of the Scope of Work and their cost is inclusive of the $60,000 amount budgeted for this task but does not comprise the entire amount.

Billings will be submitted to the City of Garden Grove by the 15th of each month on a time and material basis consistent with the Scope of Work. Billings are due once reviewed and approved by the City staff.

151
EXHIBIT “C” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
For Property Business Improvement District beginning operation by January 2027

Month Activity
September 2025 Form Steering Committee to guide BID formation activities Commence informational sessions with property owners in potential BID boundary area September 2025 -
February 2026
Stakeholder outreach
Decide boundaries of new BID
Decide programs (security, maintenance, image, streetscape, administration) Decide budget
Work on potential assessment formulas (front footage, building square footage, parcel size, etc.) January 5, 2026 Submit 1st Draft of DATABASE to City for review and verification DATABASE Must contain, at minimum, 1) All APNs, 2) Property Owner Names, 3) Assessable measurements of property, and 4) Assessment calculations.

PARTIES will review, verify, and approve all information in Database January 19, 2026 Submit 1st Draft of MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN to City for review MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Must contain, at minimum, the 1) Boundary description, 2) Boundary rationale, 3) Service Description, 4) Budget, 5) Benefit Zones, & 6) Assessment Methodology MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Must also contain other legal & procedural requirements PARTIES will review Management District Plan to ensure compliance with State Law NOTE: Revisions may be needed to ensure compliance with legal statutes February 2, 2026 Submit revised Management Plan and ENGINEER'S REPORT to the City Finalize District Management Plan (boundaries, assessment formula, budget) Present finalized assessment roll to PARTIES who will audit/verify all parcel data (all assessment data for all parcels including: formula, calculations, footages and assessment amounts must be verified and agreed to by the PARTIES before petitions can be distributed.) February 17, 2026 Management District Plan & Engineer’s Report APPROVED by City MANAGEMENT PLAN & ENGINEER's REPORT MUST be approved prior to Petition Drive start date February 18, 2026 START PETITION DRIVE
February -
April
Mail out District Management Plan & START PETITION DRIVE Follow up campaign to secure signed petitions equal to 50% plus $1.00 of proposed assessment REACH 50% PETITION THRESHOLD
April 15, 2026
FINISH PETITION DRIVE: Submit final petitions to Parties Request City Council to adopt an "Ordinance of Intention" to form a BID for May meeting Management Plan, Engineer's Report, map and complete list of all stakeholders due to City.

PARTIES verifies petition signatures and affirmative percentage.

152
FORMATION TIMELINE: BEGIN OPERATIONS JAN. 1, 2027
Month Activity
May CITY COUNCIL STARTS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS (GG – May 12; FV & SA – May 19) City Council review and approval:

1. Reviews BID's proposed Management Plan.

2. Petition Sufficiency Finding.

3. Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Establish BID.

4. Authorization to set public meeting and hearing dates and begin Prop 218 process.

5. 6.

May Materials provided by the CONSULTANT:

1. Prepaid, preaddressed ballot return envelopes.*

2. Smaller, opaque secrecy envelopes to conceal ballot inside return envelopes.*

3. District Management Plan with budget, BID boundary map and APNs of all stakeholders.* *(Copies provided for each stakeholder)
May 25th PROP 218 REQUIRED 45-DAY PERIOD BEGINS
PARTIES to arrange for mailing of:

1. Notice of Public Meeting and Final Public Hearing.**

2. Proposition ballots**, ballot instructions and ballot return and secrecy envelopes.

3. Resolution of Intention (to establish BID).**

4. District Management Plan (legally considered part of the Ordinance).

5. Mailing labels (from stakeholder database) and mail-out envelopes

6. Stuff envelopes, seal and mail out from PARTIES mailroom.** **(PARTIES provides copies for each stakeholder)
Each PARTIES’ respective City Clerks to arrange for publication of:

1. Resolution of Intention
July CITY COUNCIL HOLDS PUBLIC HEARING (GG – July 14; FV & SA – July 21) City Council:

1. Council conducts Final Hearing for public comment on establishment of the BID.

2. Balloting officially closed.

3. City Clerk counts ballots and report results at next Council meeting.

4. Ballots opened and tallied in City Clerk's office (open to the public) July City Council:

1. Public announcement of Prop 218 ballot tabulation

2. 1st reading of Ordinance of Establishment

3. Council accepts the balloting results and passes the Ordinance of Establishment July -
August
City Clerk:

JULY: Publish BID establishment Ordinance
City Clerk:

Transmits received property assessments from each City to the County Tax Assessor.

August -
September

Consultant:

1. Support creation or designation of the owners’ association

2. Develop transition plan for BID launch: staffing, initial programs, and first -year budget Late December -
Early January 2027

First assessment received from the County Tax Assessor to each participating city treasurer’s office

January 2027 Begin BID operation

153
Item 311/2025
Final

City of Garden Grove

INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM

To:

Lisa L. Kim From: Chief El-Farra
Dept:

City Manager Dept: Police
Date: 9/9/2025

Subject: Authorization for the the issuance of a purchase order to Uber Inc., dba Riflegear for 55 new Benelli shotguns. (Cost: $86,668.31)(Action Item)

OBJECTIVE

To seek City Council approval in authorizing a purchase order to Uber Inc., dba Riflegear, for the purchase of 55 new Benelli shotguns.

BACKGROUND

The Garden Grove Police D epartment currently has 55 Benelli shotguns eligible for replacement. The shotguns were purchased in 1997 as a result of the LAPD North Hollywood shootout, which emphasized the need for a stronger firearms platform to address threats to public safety that a traditional police officers side arm could not handle. Our Department has a limited number of serviceable shotguns, many of which are outdated or need repair. As part of our on-going efforts to maintain a well -equipped and responsive force, there is a cr itical need to update our inventory of tactical firearms.

These shotguns have not been replaced, and the original guns purchased in 1997 have far exceed their lifespan in the rigorous conditions they are exposed to daily. These shotguns are used for field operations/patrol and training and they are utilized within our specialized units.

Currently, our armorers have a limited number of replacement parts to fix the aging fleet of shotguns. Replacement parts are over 30 years old and are no longer manufactured. Thus, they have been forced to take several shotguns out of service to use their parts to fix ot her shotguns in need of repair.

DISCUSSION

On July 29, 2025 , the Invitation for Bid (IFB No. S-1379) was opened and a total of six companies sent proposals for consideration. After reviewing the bids, Uber Inc. dba Riflegear was awarded the contract based on the lowest qualified bid.

154
Item 311/2025