Monterey Park City Council
May 18, 2022

Exhibit F

- 1 -
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION DATE 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
KARL H. BERGER, State Bar No.
178458
City Attorney, City of Monterey Park
TIMOTHY E. CAMPEN, State Bar No. 197941
Assistant City Attorney
JOAQUIN VAZQUEZ, State Bar No. 282528
Deputy City Attorney

HENSLEY LAW GROUP
2600 W. Olive Ave., Ste. 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (818) 333-5120; Fax: (818) 333-5121
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner, THE PEOPLE

OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ex rel., MARK D. HENSLEY, City Attorney
for the City of Monterey Park,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
v.

CENTER INT’L INVESTMENTS, INC., a
California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants/Respondents.

Case No.: BC605788
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Mel Red Recana – Dept. 45
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY

SET MOTION TO ENFORCE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO CCP § 664.6;

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION; [PROPOSED]

ORDER SETTING DATE
[Declarations of Timothy E. Campen and
Jonathan Turner, and Compendium of
Evidence with Exhibits filed Concurrently]
DATE: May 9, 2022
TIME: 11:00 a.m.

DEPT: 45
Res. #: 308635144412
Complaint Filed: Dec. 31, 2015
Exempt from fees pursuant
to Government Code § 6103

- 2 -
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION DATE

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by the City Attorney1 for the City of Monterey Park, applies ex parte for an order specially setting the hearing on its Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 (the “Motion”), currently reserved for Monday, May 9, 2022, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule

3.1200 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a). The People requests such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and appropriate.

This application is made on the grounds that the public’s safety is at risk and the May 9, 2022 date was the earliest possible hearing date available on the Court’s online reservation system. The case at hand involves a hillside slope with a history of failure that requires permanent stabilization. The People of the State of California filed a public nuisance abatement lawsuit in 2015 against the owners of the subject property with the goal of the owners implementing permanent stabilization measures. A settlement agreement was reached in 2017, wherein, inter alia, if the property owners failed to construct permanent stabilization measures, the People, utilizing the City of Monterey Park, would enter the property and abate the nuisance itself.

Despite exhaustive attempts by the People, and the City of Monterey Park, to obtain the voluntarily compliance by CII to abate the public nuisance, the People’s efforts failed.

Consequently, the People obtained a 75-day abatement warrant to itself implement temporary, winterization measures for the current rainy season. Because the abatement warrant only provides temporary relief, the People seek to move up the currently set Motion date to January 26, 2022, to ensure commencement of permanent slope remediation measures before the abatement warrant expires on February 1, 2022.

Proper ex parte notice was provided as set forth in the Declaration of Assistant City Attorney Timothy E. Campen. This application will be based on this Ex Parte Application, the Declarations of Assistant City Attorney Timothy E. Campen and Acting City Planner

1 Karl H. Berger was appointed City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park in 2020; the original case caption identifies Mark D. Hensley as the City Attorney. Mr. Hensley is now an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park.

- 3 -
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION DATE

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Jonathan Turner, P.E., the Memorandum of Points and Authorities served and filed herewith, exhibits filed herewith, the records and files herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this ex parte application.

Dated: December 14, 2021 KARL H. BERGER, CITY ATTORNEY

FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK

By:_________________________________
Timothy E. Campen, Assistant City Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-1-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by the City Attorney of Monterey Park, is applying, ex parte, to advance the hearing for a motion to enforce settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. The case at hand involves a hillside slope with a history of failure that requires permanent stabilization. This application is made on the grounds that the public safety is at risk, and the May 9, 2022 date that was the earliest possible hearing date available on the Court’s online reservation system is too late to properly address the required hillside stabilization.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The subject Property consists of 6.22 acres of undeveloped land on a hillside along West Garvey Avenue located at 1688 West Garvey, Monterey Park, California (APN 5254- 002-031). (Declaration of Timothy E. Campen (“Campen Decl.”), Para. 3, filed concurrently herewith.) The hillside rises approximately 150 feet above West Garvey Avenue to a graded plateau where a residential development approved in the late 1970s was to be built. (Campen Dec., Para. 3.) Over the years, the hillside on the Property has become increasingly unstable, with the City and the People taking various enforcement actions over 40 years against successive property owners including, without lim itation, the Property owners to perform remedial measures. (Campen Dec., Para. 3.)
In or about 1979, the Monterey Park City Council approved a 31 residential dwelling unit project on Property. (Campen Dec., Para. 4.) That development project commenced, but was never completed. (Campen Dec., Para. 4.)
In 1984, the hillside experienced catastrophic failure, requiring the City to remove soils debris from the roadway and install a soils debris impact wall that is located along a portion of the Property line along West Garvey Avenue. (Declaration of Jonathan M. Turner, P.E. (“Turner Decl.”), Para. 4, filed concurrently herewith.) In or about 2009, CII purchased the Property ostensibly for the purpose of a residential

-2-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

development involving 16 luxury homes. (Campen Dec., Para. 5.) Because the People determined that the Property owner is unable to perform its obligations pursuant the Settlement Agreement as to permanent abating the public nuisance identified in the Settlement Agreement, that development project is currently stalled indefinitely (as explained more fully below). (Campen Dec., Para. 5.)
On December 31, 2015, the People initiated an action against CII in the Los Angeles County Superior Court captioned The People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D.

Henlsey, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int’l Investments, Inc., Case No. BC605788 (“Action”). (Campen Dec., Para. 6.) In this Action, the People sought to permanently abate the public nuisance on the Property. Specifically, the Property is unsafe, unsightly and dangerous for all of the reasons stated in the Action including, without limitation, geologic instability of the hillside. (Campen Dec., Para. 6.) In April of 2017, that Action resulted in a settlement agreement between the parties (“Original Agreement”), wherein, inter alia, CII agreed to a number of terms and conditions, including the following:
a. Complete a “Restoration Plan” to permanently stabilize the hillside and obtain a Permit to execute that plan “with all due speed.”
b. Complete the hillside restoration by December 31, 2017. c. Pending the completion of the Restoration Plan, regularly monitor and maintain the hillside with “winterization measures” according to plans approved by the City of Monterey Park.
(Campen Dec., Para. 7.)
The parties, in a writing and signed by each of them, stipulated to the Court’s retention of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 to ensure enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (the “Stipulation”). In particular, the agreed upon Stipulation states:

[T]he Parties to this Action request and agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties and this Action to enforce this settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 until

-3-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

there is full performance of all terms of the written Settlement Agreement.
(Campen Dec., Para. 7.)
On or about April 26, 2017, this Court issued an order retaining its jurisdiction to enforce the agreed upon, written Settlement Agreement and dismissing the Action (the “Order”). In relevant part, the Order states:
[I]t is further ordered that, pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulated Judgment and Settlement Agreement and Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and any other relevant statutory provisions, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties personally and over this Action for such further orders, hearings and other proceedings as may be appropriate to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Judgment.
(Campen Dec., Para. 7.)
In the event of CII’s failure to perform the abatement of the public nuisances, which is specifically part of the Original Agreement, the People could commence its own abatement action – at CII’s cost – to remove the public nuisances. Should the People determine the need to assume abatement of the public nuisance, CII voluntarily waived any judicial or administrative right to notice or hearings including, without limitation, abatement warrants:

CII hereby agrees to waive any and all rights of notice and hearing, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, that it may under the principles of Rooney v. Vermont (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351… (Campen Dec., Para. 8; see Original Settlement Agreement, filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit A.)
In March of 2019, and after no action had been taken to permanently stabilize the hillside, the People and CII entered into a First Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement (“First Amended Agreement”). (Campen Dec., Para. 9.) The First Amended Agreement included two courses of action CII could take to abate the public nuisances upon the Property:
“Plan A” would involve CII seeking discretionary land use approvals from the City of Monterey Park (which consented to participated in the Settlement Agreement as to processing such land use approvals) for a residential development of the Property that would incorporate

-4-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

the abatement of the public nuisances identified in the Settlement Agreement; and “Plan B” which provides for abatement of the public nuisances only if CII failed to obtain the approvals for Plan A or failed to implement Plan A if it were approved by the City of Monterey Park. (Campen Dec., Para. 9.) Should CII fail to implement Plan A or Plan B voluntarily, then the People would assume control over Plan B to abate the public nuisances identified in the Settlement Agreement (at CII’s cost). (Campen Dec., Para. 9.) Whether CII implemented Plan A or Plan B, the First Amended Agreement included a timeline with specific, intermediate deadlines towards completion of Plan B by November 25, 2020. (Campen Dec., Para. 10) Among the timeline requirements of the First Amended Agreement is for CII to have winterization measures completed not later than September 30, 2019, and properly maintain said winterization measures. (Campen Dec., Para. 10.) In June 2020, the People and CII entered into a Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement (“Second Amended Agreement”) which, inter alia, accommodated CII’s desire to obtain a new timeline to stabilize the hillside after it failed to comply with the timeline of the First Amended Agreement.
2 (Campen Dec., Para. 11.) Section H of the
Second Amended Agreement further requires as follows:

During the time that Plan A is considered by CITY, CII must construct and maintain erosion control and slope stabilization plans approved by CITY to temporarily abate the Nuisance ("Interim Maintenance Program"). The Interim Maintenance Program must be completed at CII's cost and will be monitored by CITY (also at CII's cost) to ensure compliance.

(Campen Dec., Para. 11.)

Additionally, CII has agreed in section 2.B.v. of the Second Amended Agreement that “[i]n the event Plan B is not underway by the deadline set forth in the Amended Project Schedule, CITY may (1) enter the Property, abate the Nuisance, and/or complete Plan B…”

2 This was, in part, because of the COVID- 19 Pandemic’s interference with the anticipated timelines for processing the Plan A considerations.

-5-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

(Campen Dec., Para. 12.) This term is complimentary to a related provision in the First Amended Agreement, which states:

Should CITY be required to implement Plan B, CII grants CITY an irrevocable license to enter onto the Property to abate the Nuisance in accordance with this Agreement. CII agrees that neither Plaintiff nor CITY will be required to obtain an abatement warrant in accordance with applicable law in order to exercise Plaintiff’s rights, by and through CITY, to implement Plan B.

Accordingly, CII specifically waives any rights it may have to prevent CITY’s access to the Property under applicable law should it fail to voluntarily perform Plan B in accordance with the Project Schedule.

(Campen Dec., Para. 12.)
On June 16, 2021, the Monterey Park City Council approved CII’s requested Plan A.

Separately, the Monterey Park City Council adopted Resolution No. 12255. (Campen Dec., Para. 13.) With Resolution No. 12255, the City Council found and declared that an “emergency exists as to abating the Property which constitutes an imminent threat to public health and safety that requires immediate action.” (Campen Dec., Para. 13, emphasis added.) The City Council further directed that if CII failed to “commence substantial progress” towards abatement of the hillside by August 1, 2021, then the City, on behalf of the People, was authorized to itself commence with “Plan B” permanent remediation of the hillside – consistent with the Second Amended Agreement. (Campen Dec., Para. 13.) Resolution No. 12255 restated the Second Amended Agreement in that the determination of “substantial progress” was in the “the sole discretion of the City Manager.” (Campen Dec., Para. 13.) CII representatives were present at this City Council meeting on June 16, 2021, and were fully informed of these terms. (Campen Dec., Para. 13.) On August 25, 2021, City Manager Ron Bow served CII with written Notice of Breach and Opportunity to Cure regarding its failure to commence substantial progress towards fulfillment of Plan B, namely to obtain a grading permit. (Campen Dec., Para. 14.) The Notice of Breach further informed CII of the City’s intent to carry out Plan B on its own. (Campen

-6-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Dec., Para. 14.) In a show of good faith, the City provided CII with an additional five day grace period, until August 31, 2021, to obtain the grading permit necessary t o demonstrate commencing with substantial progress. (Campen Dec., Para. 14.) CII failed to submit all the required documentation for the permit in that time. (Campen Dec., Para. 14.) On October 13, 2021, City Manager Ron Bow served CII with written Notice of Default of the Settlement Agreement, noting that all the required documentation for the grading permit had not been submitted until September 23, 2021 – a full 53 days after the original deadline. (Campen Dec., Para. 15.) Specifically, CII had not submitted the necessary storm water protection plan information, which is legally required for the grading permit. (Campen Dec., Para. 15.) The Notice of Default further detailed a list of CII’s failures to live up to its obligations under the entire Settlement Agreement and informed CII of the People’s intention to itself carry out Plan B to remediate the hillside. (Campen Dec., Para. 15.) Although the City is actively engaged in selecting a qualified contractor to initiate Plan B, this process may take several months. (Campen Dec., Para. 17.) In the meantime, temporary measures, referred to in the Second Amended Agreement as the “Interim Maintenance Program” were necessary to winterize the hillside. (Campen Dec., Para. 17.) The months of November through April are generally recognized as the “rainy season” in California and for Los Angeles County in particular. (Declaration of Jonathon M. Turner, P.E. (“Turner Dec.”), Para. 4.) The months of November through April are recognized by the regulatory agencies as the rainy season for the purposes of implementation of storm water “best maintenance practices” (“BMPs”) for construction sites. (Turner Dec., Para. 4.) The Property’s hillside was previously subject to catastrophic failure in 1984, requiring the City to remove soils debris from the roadway and install a soils debris impact wall that is located along a portion of the Property line along West Garvey Avenue. (Turner Dec., Par a.

5.) The anticipated El Niño rainfall in 2015-16 is what, in part, prompted the People to file the Action that ultimately resulted in the Settlement Action. There has been no substantive remediation since that time, and implementation of Plan B as approved by the City of

-7-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Monterey Park for new, permanent retaining walls is necessary to secure the hillside . (Turner Dec., Para. 5.) The People’s concerns regarding the Property’s threat to public health, safety, and welfare continues.

CII developed an approved winterization plan for the parcel on or about May 2018, to be implemented until permanent retaining walls are constructed. (Turner Dec., Para. 6.) On or about September 2019, CII was required to update its winterization plan for the Property, which was signed and submitted in November 2019. (Turner Dec., Para. 6.) The term “winterization” refers to measures taken to mitigate erosion and risk of slope failure due to water infiltration from seasonal rain and weather. (Turner Dec., Para. 6.) (A true and accurate copy of the winterization plan is filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit D.) On February 20, 2019, the Acting City Planner issued to CII a letter of noncompliance of the required winterization, noting that, among other things, soils debris from the hillside had fallen onto West Garvey Avenue. (Turner Dec., Para. 7.) A year later on February 12, 2020, the Acting City Planner issued to CII another letter of noncompliance concerning winterization of the hillside and warned CII that failure to comply with the approved winterization plan could result in default of the Settlement Agreement. (Turner Dec., Para. 7.) On October 20 and November 10, 2021, the Acting City Planner re-inspected the Property concerning the condition and erosion mitigation of the hillside slope of the Property facing Garvey Avenue. (Turner Dec., Para. 8.) He observed that plastic sheeting intended to minimize water intrusion into the slope was blown apart in multiple locations. (Turner Dec., Para. 8.) Further, sandbags have degraded to the point where the sand is leaking out of the bags in multiple locations. (Turner Dec., Para. 8.) The efforts intended to act as erosion and water intrusion control measures have not been properly maintained, which exacerbating the potential failure of the hillside slope. (Turner Dec., Para. 8.) (True and accurate photos of the condition of the Property on October 20 and November 10, 2021, are filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit E.)
The existing hillside plastic tarps need to be removed and replaced, as they have reached

-8-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

their lifespan due to exposure and failure to be property secured. (Turner Dec., Para. 9.) All of the existing sandbags onsite need to be removed and replaced with gravel filled bags to avoid sand migration and clean up issues after failure. (Turner Dec., Para. 10.) CII appears to have placed more sandbags over the failed bags, which is an unacceptable practice. (Turner Dec., Para. 10.) Further, the existing sandbags direct the flow of water in an uncontrolled manner which results in storm water flowing at a high velocity into the vehicle lanes on West Garvey Avenue. (Turner Dec., Para. 10.)
The failure of CII to commence with any physical progress towards abating the hillside on the Property since formal complaints and litigation on this issue commenced beginning six years ago has left the People with no reasonable expectation CII will ever complete this project. (Campen Dec., Para. 16.) As a result, the People can no longer risk the health and safety of the community and its residents on the baseless hope CII will finally abate this hillside . (Campen Dec., Para. 16.)
On November 17, 2021, the People obtained an abatement warrant from the Hon.

Suzette Clover specifically to implement the temporary mitigation measures to the hillside until Plan B could be implemented by the People. (Campen Dec., Para. 17; Exhibit X filed concurrently herewith.) The abatement warrant granted the People unobstructed access to the Property for 60 days, February 1, 2022, to effect the mitigation measures, with periodic status reports to the court and the opportunity to request an extension as may be necessary. (Campen Dec., Para. 17.)
On December 8 and 9, 2021, the People – through the efforts of the City – commenced clearance of the Property to begin the temporary mitigation measures authorized by the abatement warrant. (True and accurate photographs of the condition of the Property on those dates, before and after clearance, are filed concurrently herewith as Exhibit D.) (Campen Dec., Para. 18.)
On December 8, 2021, the People attempted to reserve a date for this Court to hear the People’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6. (Campen

-9-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Dec., Para. 19.) The soonest date available through the court’s online system was May 9, 2022. (Campen Dec., Para. 19.) The People’s aspiration is to obtain an order from this Court enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement to commence with Plan B before expiration of the abatement warrant. (Campen Dec., Para. 19.) This will provide the best opportunity to have seamless oversight of the hillside and minimize the threat of slope failure. (Campen Dec., Para. 19.)
It is the People’s position that obtaining an order from the Court to enforce its terms and implement Plan B is the only remaining means to properly protect the community from the public nuisance and immanent threat. (Campen Dec., Para. 20.) The temporary measures currently underway are inadequate to provide long term protection from slope failure . (Campen Dec., Para. 19.) It is in the public interest to commence with Plan B as soon as practicable and before the abatement warrant expires. (Campen Dec., Para. 20.) Accordingly, the People request that this Court specially set the People’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to C.C.P. § 664.6 for the date of January 26, 2022. (Campen Dec., Para.

20.)
III. ARGUMENT
A. There is Good Cause to Specially Set the Hearing Date.

The People provided CII with every opportunity to voluntarily implement the agreed upon plan to stabilize the hillside. Without direct action by the People, there is no reason to think Plan B will ever be realized. The health and safety of the community requires the People to act without any preventable delay to implement these permanent measures.

The current abatement warrant is set to expire on February 1, 2022. While the People could request an extension with good cause and would likely be granted at least some additional time, an extension of an abatement warrant through May of 2022 is not something the People can reasonably rely on.

Moving up the hearing date for the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to C.C.P. § 6646.6 would provide the opportunity to render an order before the abatement

-10-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

warrant is set to expire, should this Court find good cause to do so. With an order in place affirming the People’s right to implement Plan B before the abatement warrant expires will provide seamless protection to the community from the unstable hillside.

B. There is No Prejudice to CII in Moving Up the Hearing Date.

The requested hearing date of January 26, 2022 will still provide ample time for full compliance with the filing deadlines of Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b). In fact, CII being notified of this ex parte application now effectively provides an additional three weeks to prepare its opposition than it would otherwise have.

C. Ex Parte Relief is Proper Because Counsel Has Fully Complied With California Rules Of Court, Rules 3.1203 And 3.1204.

Among other provisions, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1203 provides as follows: “A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1203(a).) An ex parte application must be accompanied by a declaration regarding notice stating: (1) The notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is expected and that, within the applicable time under rule

3.1203, the applicant informed the opposing party where and when the application would be made. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(b).)
As set forth in the Declaration of Timothy E. Campen attached hereto, notice of this ex parte application was provided by both email and personal service to CII’s attorneys on December 14, 2021 for this December 15, 2021 ex parte hearing. (See Campen Dec., Para

20.) Thus, Counsel has duly complied with the notice requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1203(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(b).

Rule 3.1202(c) of the California Rules of Court also requires a showing that there is “irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” Applied to this case, the Property presents a risk of health and safety to the

-11-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

community. The hillside at issue abuts a major thoroughfare with residential homes on the other side. It has a has a history of failure. The People have been attempting in good faith since 2015 to obtain voluntary compliance from the owners to bring the property into compliance. Repeated efforts to accommodate CII to allow it complete Plan B since the settlement agreement was executed in 2017 have failed to produce any results.

Although the People are in the process of implementing mitigation measures to minimize the threat of slope failure, these efforts are only temporary and under the authority of an abatement warrant that is currently set to expire on February 1, 2022. The People and the community risk suffering irreparable harm if commencement of permanent mitigation measures is not authorized soon, and most preferably before the abatement warrant expires.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the People respectfully request that this Court specially set the hearing date on their Motion, currently scheduled for May 9, 2022, to instead be heard on January 26, 2022, or as soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Court. The People also request such other and further relief as is necessary and appropriate.

DATED: December 14, 2021

KARL H. BERGER

CITY ATTORNEY

FOR THE PEOPLE AND CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK

HENSLEY LAW GROUP

By:

Timothy E. Campen
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK

-12-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court having reviewed the foregoing application, and good cause appearing therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the People’s request to specially set the date for a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 is GRANTED.

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all filings for said Motion be in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:__________________ _________________________________ Hon. Mel Red Recana
Judge of the Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

-13-
PLANTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING ON CCP 664.6 MOTION 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 2600 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91505.

On December 14, 2021, I served a copy of the within document(s): PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP § 664.6; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING DATE on the interested parties:
 by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Diamond Springs, California addressed as set forth below.
 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery.
 by causing to be personally delivered the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.
 by transmitting via e-mail or electronic transmission the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth below.

Afred Frajio, Jr., Esq.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
333 South Hope Street Forty-Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[email protected]
I dec
lare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on December 14, 2021 at Diamond Springs, California. ____________________________________
Ann
ette Kramer

1 SECOND STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

KARL H. BERGER, State Bar No. 178458 Exempt from fees pursuant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park to Government Code § 6103 TIMOTHY E. CAMPEN, State Bar No. 197941
Assistant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park

HENSLEY LAW GROUP
2600 W Olive Ave Ste. 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (818) 333-5120; Fax: (818) 333-5121

Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN RE PROPERTY AT: 1688 WEST

GARVEY AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK,

CALIFORNIA

Property Owner: Center Int’l Investments, Inc.

SECOND STATUS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY THE CITY

ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF

MONTREY PARK ON BEHALF OF

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK

This Second Status Report is submitted in accordance with the Abatement Warrant issued by the Honorable Suzette Clover on November 17, 2021 affecting the above-captioned real property. Please refer to the First Status Report filed with the Court on December 15, 2021 for activities occurring up to December 14, 2021.
• On December 15, 2021, the City contracted with The Dirt Yard, Inc. dba L.A.

County Sandbags to secure 15,000 sandbags and 50 rolls of plastic sheeting for the hillside. The total contract amount is $28,207.50.
• On December 17, 2021, the City received the following communication from C.A. Rasmussen (“Rasmussen”): “We are committed to doing this project for the City. Currently, the City and Rasmussen are working out the contractual details. Dependent on the execution of the Contract with the City and the availability of our subcontractors and materials, we antic ipate mobilization to

2 SECOND STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

the site occurring no sooner than February 2022.”
• On December 18, 2021, the City contracted with Rasmussen to implement the Winterization Measures, using the sandbags and plastic sheeting secured by the City. The not to exceed cost of the contract is $100,000. • Commencing at 7:00 a.m. on December 20, 2021, Rasmussen began installing the Winterization Measures utilizing best management practices (“BMPs”) as required by applicable law. Photographs showing the progress of those efforts are set forth in attached Exhibit A.
• Dashcam video of the overall site, from 4:00 p.m. on December 20 th, may be
viewed at https://youtu.be/4DfHBvqAbJc.
• Commencing at 7:00 a.m. on December 21, 2021, Rasmussen con tinued implementing the BMPs. Photographs showing its progress are set forth in attached Exhibit B.
• On December 22, 2021, Rasmussen informed the City that it completed installation of the sandbags and plastic sheeting to comply with BMPs in accordance with applicable law. Photographs showing the property after Rasmussen’s efforts are set forth in attached Exhibit C. • On December 30, 2021, the City started contract discussions with Geosyntec Consultants for design and geotechnical services for implementing Plan B. • On January 5, 2022 , the City successfully changed the hearing date for the motion in the underlying case to March 16, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. (from May 22, 2022) for a permanent order enforcing the Settlement Agreement. • On January 13, 2022, the City inspected the property. Photographs showing the site are set forth in Exhibit D.
• On January 14, 2022, the City is expected to execute a design/build contract with Rasmussen to construct Plan B. The contract is not to exceed $12,000,000. • Also on January 14, 2022, the City is expected to execute a contract with Geosyntec Consultants for design and project management to oversee Plan B.

3 SECOND STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

The contract is not to exceed $714,000.

The People anticipate filing a request to extend the abatement warrant until March 31, 2022 to secure a permanent court order regarding Plan B. If the extension is granted, the People would file additional Status Reports on February 15, 2022 and March 15, 2022.

DATED: January 14, 2022 _______________________________ Karl H. Berger
City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park
Ex rel. the People of the State of California

Exhibit A
1

Exhibit A
December 20, 2021
2

Exhibit B
3

Exhibit B
December 21, 2021
4

Exhibit B (cont.)
December 21, 2021
5

Exhibit B (cont.)
December 21, 2021
6

Exhibit B (cont.)
December 21, 2021
7

Exhibit C
8

Exhibit C
December 22, 2021
9

Exhibit C (cont.)
December 22, 2021
10

Exhibit C (cont.)
December 22, 2021
11

Exhibit D
12

Exhibit D
January 13, 2022
13

Exhibit D (cont.)
January 13, 2022
14

1 THIRD STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

KARL H. BERGER, State Bar No. 178458 Exempt from fees pursuant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park to Government Code § 6103 TIMOTHY E. CAMPEN, State Bar No. 197941
Assistant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park

HENSLEY LAW GROUP
2600 W Olive Ave Ste. 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (818) 333-5120; Fax: (818) 333-5121

Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN RE PROPERTY AT: 1688 WEST

GARVEY AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK,

CALIFORNIA

Property Owner: Center Int’l Investments, Inc.

THIRD STATUS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY THE CITY

ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF

MONTREY PARK ON BEHALF OF

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK

This Third Status Report is submitted in accordance with the Abatement Warrant issued by the Honorable Suzette Clover on November 17, 2021 affecting the above -captioned real property. Please refer to the First and Second Status Reports previously filed with the Court for December 2021 and January 2022 for activities occurring up to January 14, 2022. Since the Second Status Report was filed, the City undertook the following activities:
• On January 18, 2022, the City’s geotechnical consultant, GeoSyntec, undertook a drone survey of the subject property to assist with final design of the Goodviews Abatement Project (“GAP”);
• On January 19, 2022, the City executed a contract with KCM Group for project management not to exceed $355,000;
• On January 21, 2022, the City issued a Notice to Proceed (effective January 24, 2022) to C.A. Rasmussen (“Rasmussen”) to commence with the GAP which will

2 THIRD STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

result in permanent nuisance abatement of the subject property. Among other things, Rasmussen will continue the best management practices (“BMP”) required by applicable law to secure the property from inclement weather and other runoff. A copy of the NTP is attached as Exhibit A; • On January 27, 2022, the City obtained updated appraisals for real property burdened with performance trust deeds securing the Settlement Agreement; • On February 2, 2022, the Acting City Planner gave a presentation to the Monterey Park City Council regarding the GAP. Among other things, th at presentation noted that a new webpage (www.montereypark.ca.gov/goodviews) was added to the City ’s website to provide public notification regarding GAP events. A copy is included as Exhibit B;
• On February 3, 2022, Rasmussen implemented traffic control measures; • The City will be publishing the article attached as Exhibit C in the Cascades Newspaper for purposes of public notification; and
• Pictures from February 9, 2022 and February 11, 2022 are attached as Exhibit D showing the progress for the GAP.

The next Status Report will be filed on or about March 15, 2022.

DATED: February 14, 2022 ______________________________ Karl H. Berger
City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park
Ex rel. the People of the State of California

Exhibit A
1

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
320 West Newmark Avenue• Monterey Park• California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov
Mr. Adam Rasmussen
C.A Rasmussen, Inc.
28548 Livingston A venue
Valencia, CA 91355
City Council
Yvonne Yiu
Henry Lo
Fred Sornoso
Hans Liang
Peter Chan
City Clerk
Vincent D. Chang
City Treasurer
Joseph Leon
January 21, 2022
Re: 1688 West Garvey, Hillside Stabilization Project PW21-00424 - Notice to Proceed Dear Mr. Rasmussen -
This letter will constitute the City of Monterey Park Notice to Proceed with construction of the Hillside Stabilization Project PW21-00424. The effective date for this Notice to Proceed is January 24, 2022.

On the effective Notice to Proceed date, you are authorized by the City of Monterey Park to commence work on the subject project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.

Please sign and return a signed copy of this letter to the Project Manager, Jon Turner at [email protected]
Jon/Turner, PE
Ading City Pl
DaLanumy 21, 2022
Notice to Proceed accepted by:

C.A. Rasmussen
Adam Rasmussen
President
Date:-~\ /_ 2_' J_-z_z __ _

Exhibit B
3

Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website.html[2/11/22, 08:57:53] Enable Google
Translate
Enable Google
Translate
Home › Government › Departments › Community Development › Planning › 1688 West Garvey Avenue A A
Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing
the 1688 West Garvey Hillside
Current Status
The City selected a team of contractors to complete the Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP.) C.A. Rasmussen will be the contractor responsible for constructing the GAP. It will begin mobilizing in early February, 2022.

Construction Updates and Notices:

The long-awaited GAP hillside stabilization is set to commence in early February, 2022. Work during the initial phase will include demolition, clearing, and grubbing of the hillside. Most work is anticipated on weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 7:00 p.m. with weekend work occurring Featured Projects
1688 West Garvey Avenue
South Garfield Village Specific Plan
San Gabriel Valley Regional Bicycle
Master Plan
Health & Sustainability in Monterey
Park
►
General Plan ►
Housing Element 2021-2029
Climate Action Plan
Pedestrian Linkages Plan
Government Services Residents Visitors Business How Do I...

Create an Account Sign In
City Hall Open on Appointment Basis. Other Library/Rec Indoor Programs Suspended Read On...

Boost Your MPK Business with Our Rewards App
Read On...

ALERTS

Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website.html[2/11/22, 08:57:53] intermittently. There will be an increase in truck traffic in the area along Ramona Rd., Garvey Ave. and Atlantic Ave. as large amounts of dirt/debris will be removed from the site to make space for the stabilization work and sidewalk to be completed. Construction activities should be anticipated and work will continue through December 2022.

Lane closure: The parking lane, sidewalk and #2 eastbound lane on West Garvey Avenue from east of Campanita Court to west of Abajo Drive will be closed for the duration of the project.

Metro Bus Service: There are two eastbound Garvey Avenue L.A. County Metro bus stops (Route 106) at St. Steven’s Serbian and Abajo Drive that will not have service for the duration of the project. According to L.A. County Metro, patrons can access eastbound service at Casuda Canyon
Drive and at Hitchcock Drive.

For up-to-date information, please visit Metro’s site at www.metro.net/service/advisories/.

Planning Commission
Design Review Board
Zoning Information - Development
Standards
Property Development ►
Forms
Electronic Cigarette Information

Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website.html[2/11/22, 08:57:53] For more information, please contact the City Manager's Office at (626) 307-1485 or at [email protected].

Background
The site of the Goodviews Abatement Project was originally approved for development in 1978 and 1979 for 31 residential dwelling units. That original project was developed by the Good Views Land Development Company.

Consequently, during the 40 years since that time, the GAP site is commonly
referenced as the “Good Views” property.

The Good Views property is historically unstable. In 1983, Garvey Avenue was damaged and blocked by a slope failure resulting in the City taking emergency action to construct various soil stabilization and drainage infrastructure. In 1986,
the City entered into an agreement with the Good Views developer to construct permanent structures intended to stabilize the hillside that was to be completed by December 5, 1986. In 1987, 1988, and 1989, a number of City consultants advised the City regarding what measures were required to stabilize the hillside.

The Good Views property owner failed to implement any of those recommendations. As a result, the City in 1991 issued a notice of violation to Good Views that the Project site constituted a public nuisance requiring abatement.

After providing notice on an annual basis, the City in 1994 was unable to contact Good Views representatives. It is unclear what happened to Good Views by that time.

In 1997, the City Council declared the property to be a public nuisance and commenced abating the property. Among other things, it installed a gate on the abandoned private road. The City took additional abatement action in 2000 and 2002. In sum, the City expended an estimated $200,000
to $300,000 to abate
nuisances on the property in the years before 2013.

Starting in 2013, the City again undertook various code enforcement actions against the new property owner of 1600-1688
West Garvey Avenue. Among other
things, the City directed the property owner to submit an erosion plan; remove trash, junk and debris; abate weeds and overgrown vegetation; and maintain slope drainage. Between 2013 and 2015, the City issued six different

Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website.html[2/11/22, 08:57:53] Next
Economic Dev. Employment Library Online Services Pay Utilities administrative citations regarding the property in response to various issues related to the property including, without limitation, a tree that fell onto West Garvey Avenue in 2014 that both blocked the street and brought down power lines owned by Southern California Edison.

Concerned that the El Niño storms in 2015 would result in significant slope failure
at the property, the City filed a civil lawsuit against the property owner to abate the nuisances on the property. That lawsuit allowed the City to immediately take action to temporarily stabilize the
hillside. Those efforts, however, did not
constitute a permanent solution to the overall issue of hillside stability.

On April 25, 2017, the City entered into a settlement agreement with the property owner which includes a plan for a long-term solution to the hillside. In short, the
Settlement Agreement requires the property owner to stabilize the hillside through a series of retaining walls and other geotechnical solutions.

On June 16, 2021, the City Council approved a residential development for the GAP site. Had the property owner commenced construction by August 1, 2021, the property owner could have voluntarily implemented the measures needed to stabilize the hillside.

On October 13, 2021, the City informed the property owner that it had defaulted on the settlement agreement and that the City would construct the GAP.

Construction is expected to begin on this project February 1, 2022.

Notable Documents
Below are links to download public documents regarding the GAP including the Settlement Agreement(s); the City's abatement warrant; the City's Status Reports (filed with the Superior Court); and various staff reports submitted to the City Council.

Historical Document links:

Goodviews Project History and FAQ, April 26, 2021
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) - 1688 W. Garvey Avenue Technical Appendices - DEIR - 1688 W, Garvey Avenue
Notice of Completion - 1688 W. Garvey Avenue
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for 1688 West Garvey Avenue
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1688 West Garvey Avenue Residential Project
Initial Study for 1688 West Garvey Avenue Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - 1688 W. Garvey Avenue 1688 W. Garvey Ave Specific Plan
Monterey Park Geologic Hazard Abatement District (MPK GHAD) - Engineer's Report

Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP) - Stabilizing the 1688 West Garvey Hillside | Monterey Park, CA - Official Website.html[2/11/22, 08:57:53] Contact Us
City of Monterey Park
320 West Newmark Ave.

Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 626-307-1458
Fax: 626-288-6861
Popular Links
Coronavirus Updates
Municipal Code
Passport Services
Library
Parking
Job Openings
Site Links
Home
Disclaimer/Terms of Use
Site Map
Contact Us
Accessibility
Government Websites by
CivicPlus®
City Hall Hours: Monday through Thursday: 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. | Friday: 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Exhibit C
8

West Garvey Avenue Hill Stabilization Project Commences

Project expected to complete in late 2022

By City Manager’s Office Staff

A team of contractors have begun the Goodviews Abatement Project (GAP), which seeks to stabilize the hillside in the 1600 block of West Garvey Avenue.

The initial phases of construction will include demolition, clearing, and grubbing of the hillside.

Most project work is anticipated on weekdays from 7 a.m. to approximately 7 p.m., with weekend work occurring intermittently. There will be an increase in truck traffic in the area along West Ramona Road, Garvey Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard as large amounts of dirt/debris will be removed from the site to make space for the stabilization work and for the sidewalk to be completed. Construction activities are anticipated through December 2022. Additional information, including project updates and property history is available at www.montereypark.ca.gov/goodviews.

Street Lane Closures and Transit Alerts

Lane closure: The parking lane, sidewalk and #2 eastbound lane on West Garvey Avenue from east of Campanita Court to west of Abajo Drive will be closed for the duration of the project.

Metro Bus Service: There are two eastbound Garvey Avenue L.A. County Metro bus stops (Route 106) at St. Steven’s Serbian and Abajo Drive that will not have service for the duration of the project. According to L.A. County Metro, patrons can access eastbound service at Casuda Canyon Drive and at Hitchcock Drive. For up-to-date information, please visit Metro’s site at www.metro.net/service/advisories/.

For more information on the GAP project, please contact the City Manager's Office at 626-307- 1485, [email protected] or visit www.montereypark.ca.gov/goodviews.

# # #
Print project map inline with article.

Exhibit D
12

Pictures dated February 9, 2022

Pictures dated February 11, 2022

Pictures dated February 11, 2022

1 THIRD STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

KARL H. BERGER, State Bar No. 178458 Exempt from fees pursuant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park to Government Code § 6103 TIMOTHY E. CAMPEN, State Bar No. 197941
Assistant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park

HENSLEY LAW GROUP
2600 W Olive Ave Ste. 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (818) 333-5120; Fax: (818) 333-5121

Attorneys for Plaintiff CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN RE PROPERTY AT: 1688 WEST

GARVEY AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK,

CALIFORNIA

Property Owner: Center Int’l Investments, Inc.

FOURTH STATUS REPORT

SUBMITTED BY THE CITY

ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF

MONTREY PARK ON BEHALF OF

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF

MONTEREY PARK

This Fourth Status Report is submitted in accordance with the Abatement Warrant issued by the Honorable Suzette Clover on November 17, 2021 affecting the above-captioned real property. Please refer to the First through Third Status Reports previously filed with the Court for activities occurring up to February 14, 2022. Since the Third Status Report was filed, the City undertook the following activities:
• On February 28, 2022, purchase orders were issued to obtain lumber for the retaining walls at the Goodviews Abatement Project (“GAP”) site. • On March 3, 2022, purchase orders were issued to obtain steel for the retaining walls at the GAP site.
• On March 3, 2022, Rincon Consultants was retained as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) consultant to maintain the GAP weekly inspections in accordance with California law.

2 THIRD STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

• On March 3, 2022, C.A. Rasmussen updated a new construction schedule reflecting that the GAP would take 205 days to complete. • On March 3, 2022, the City of Monterey Park issued an Emergency Demolition Order to all entities engaging in the GAP including, without limitation, demolition and removal of existing infrastructure at the GAP site for purposes of removing underground transite pipe (i.e., pipe with asbestos) discovered during earthmoving at the site on or about February 25, 2022. • Pictures demonstrating the progress of the GAP (with drone captured pictures from June 2021 to show comparison) are attached as Exhibit “A” for reference; • On March 7, 2022, a cultural monitor for the K izh Nation started observations at the GAP site.
• On March 8, 2022, the People’s representatives met with representatives from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“AQMD”) regarding the transite pipe.
• On March 9, 2022, Mr. Chris Conkle, P.E. (from Geoysntec Consultants) filed a declaration in support of the People’s related nuisance abatement action stating, in part, that the property owner’s construction plans – as submitted to the City of Monterey Park in 2021 – cannot be used. All engineering and construction plans for the GAP must be restarted. A true and correct copy of that Declaration is attached as Exhibit “B” for reference.
• On March 10, 2022, the Acting Public Works Director and City Planner, Mr. Jon Turner, met petitioners in a separate action for a review of the GAP construction site.
• During Mr. Turner’s March 10
th meeting, one of the petitioners informed Mr.

Turner that a private outdoor deck at the top of the GAP site appeared to be shifting. As a result, Mr. Turner ordered inclinometers to be installed at the GAP site to measure any soil movement.
• A proposal for inclinometers, dated March 11, 2022, in the amount of $49,800

3 THIRD STATUS REPORT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

was approved for installation.
• Removal of the transite pipeline commenced March 11, 2022. • A court hearing in the underlying nuisance abatement case is scheduled for March 16, 2022 (LASC Case No. BC605788) at 8:30 a.m. The People’s Reply is attached as Exhibit “C” for reference which summarizes the matter.

While no additional Status Reports are currently scheduled in this matter, the People may seek to extend the time for this Abatement Warrant before its expiration on March 31, 2022.

DATED: March 14, 2022 ______________________________ Karl H. Berger
City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park
Ex rel. the People of the State of California

Exhibit A
1

“Before”
Pictures dated on or about June 10, 2021

Pictures dated March 3, 2022

Pictures dated March 3, 2022

Exhibit B
3

1 DECLARATION OF CHRIS CONKLE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

DECLARATION OF CHRIS CONKLE, P.E., G.E.

I, CHRIS CONKLE, P.E., G.E., hereby declare as follows:

1. I am a licensed civil engineer (P.E.) with the State of California, Credential No. 70923 since 2007, and a licensed ge otechnical engineer (G.E.) with the State of California , License No. 2926, since 2011. I am empl oyed by Geosyntec Consultants as a Principal Geotechnical Enginee r, which has been retained by the C ity of Monterey Park to provide engineering consulting services concerning stabilization measures, including retaining walls, of a hillside located at 1688 W. Garvey in the City of Monterey Park, California 91754 (APN 5254-002-031) (the “Property”) . I have 17 years of experience focused on geotechnical investigation, evaluation, design and quality assurance monitoring for a variety infrastructure projects, including retaining walls for hillside stabilization. I specialize in g eotechnical infrastructure and foundation engineering, and have extensive experience in the area of analyzing and drafting geotechnical reports, construction plans, and engineering plans regarding the stability and remediation of slopes. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. This Declaration is made in support of the City of Monterey Park on behalf of the People of the State of California’s (“City”) Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement concerning the Property.

3. I have person ally, and in consultation with qualified colleagues, reviewed hillside stabilization plans submitted by Center Int’l Investments , I nc. (“CII”) for hillside stabilization of the Property, including proposed retaining walls and related features.

4. The construction plans submitted by CII for the hillside stabilization did not incorporate sufficiently the relevant geotechnical recommendations. First, required remedial grading was not represented in the construction plans. Second, recommended geogrid materials that are placed in the soils for stabilization were not included in the plans.

5. Engineering of the retaining walls in CII’s plans was inadequate. Specifically, CII’s plans applied inappropriate assumptions regarding lateral earth pressure distribution assumptions in designing the features of the retaining walls intended to hold the hillside in

Exhibit C
8

- i -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

KARL H. BERGER, State Bar No. 178458
City Attorney, City of Monterey Park
TIMOTHY E. CAMPEN, State Bar No. 197941
Assistant City Attorney, City of Monterey Park
JOAQUIN VAZQUEZ, State Bar No. 282528
Deputy City Attorney, City of Monterey Park

HENSLEY LAW GROUP
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (818) 333-5120
Fax: (818) 333-5121
Exempt from fees by
Attorneys for Plaintiff Government Code § 6103

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex.
rel., MARK D. HENSLEY, City Attorney for the
City of Monterey Park,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CENTER INT’L INVESTMENTS, INC., a
California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC605788

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PEOPLE’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP §
664.6

[Filed concurrently with; Declaration of Karl H.

Berger, Jonathon X. Turner, and Chris Conkle;
Compendium of Evidence and Exhibits.]

Date: March 16, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.

Judge: Mel Red Recana
Dept: 45

Res # 308635144412
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

- 1 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

I. INTRODUCTION
The City Attorney1for the City of Monterey Park (“City”), on behalf of the People of the state of California (the “People”), submits this Reply in rebuttal to Center Int'l Investments’ (“CII”) Opposition to People’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 (“Opposition”).

CII is confused. This is not a contract dispute. It is a law enforcement proceeding by the City Attorney on behalf of the People of the State of California to abate a public nuisance. The public nuisance is an ongoing threat that presents a very real and continuing danger to public health and safety. The People utilized every reasonable effort to cause CII to permanently abate the nuisance that is present on its property – even to the extent of causing the City of Monterey Park to process a residential development to accommodate CII’s requests and promised performance. At no point over 12 years of ownership has CII fixed its property despite it having every opportunity to voluntarily do so. CII could have voluntarily abated the nuisance on its property at any time during the seven years since the People filed its civil public nuisance complaint. Its persistent and obstinate failure to act left the People with no choice but to step in and protect the community without further delay. “CII waive[d] any and all rights of notice and hearing” in this case (Settlement Agreement, section 3; Exhibit B2). Simply because the People, in an abundance of caution, sought a court order to enforce the Settlement Agreement, does not void that waiver. In fact, this Court can completely disregard CII’s Opposition and any arguments made under their waiver. The ultimate reason for the People’s action in bringing this Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is to obtain a court order providing clear direction to sworn law enforcement officers who are securing the property in the event that CII’s representatives interfere with the People’s abatement of the public nuisance. The People already have the right to enter the subject property and abate this public nuisance.

With this proper context, the People submit this Reply to CII’s Opposition. / / /

1 Karl H. Berger was appointed City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park in 2020; the original case caption identifies Mark D. Hensley as the City Attorney. Mr. Hensley is now an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park. 2 Exhibits A-H referenced herein refer to those submitted with the People’s original Motion.

- 2 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

II. CII FAILED TO ABATE THE PUBLIC NUISANCE
CII dismisses its long history of refusing to abate the public nuisance on its property as irrelevant. (Opposition, fn. 1.) This is objectively absurd. The People first notified CII of this public nuisance and requirement to abate it in March 2013. (Campen Dec., Para. 9.3) Every day that the public nuisance exists unabated is a “separate offense.” (Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 4.10.010 (b)). From the date of the first administrative citation issued to CII (Campen Dec., Para. 9.) through just August 1, 2021, amounts to 3,068 separate violations of the Monterey Park Municipal Code. Providing the Court with the history of this case, and the virtually countless opportunities provided CII to stabilize the hillside, is absolutely relevant to understanding why the People are compelled to now abate this public nuisance.

After CII failed to meet the deadlines of the Original Settlement Agreement, the People accommodated CII with a First Amended Settlement Agreement with new deadlines. When CII failed to meet those new deadlines, the People again accommodated CII with new deadlines in the Second Amended Settlement Agreement.

In the revised timeline of the Second Amended Settlement Agreement, CII failed to meet the following deadlines:
• January 15, 2021 – “Horizontal permits issues.”
• February 2, 2021 – “Final Map Recorded.”
• March 8, 2021 – “Mobilize for Horizontal Improvements.” (Declaration of City Attorney Karl H. Berger (“Berger Dec.”), ¶ 47; Exhibits B, RR.) Additionally, the Second Amended Settlement Agreement required CII to submit its Plan A plans and seek City Council approval not later than November 4, 2020; that did not happen until a full eight months later on the June 16, 2021 Council meeting. (Exhibit B; On Decl., ¶ 8.) Any one of these failures, by itself, was sufficient for the People to commence with abating the hillside pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Still, the People provided yet another accommodation for CII to voluntarily abate the public nuisance by demonstrating substantial

3 All reference s to “Campen Decl.” herein refer to the Declaration of Timothy Campen, submitted with the People’s Original Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.

- 3 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

performance under the Settlement Agreement by August 1, 2021, as determined by the City acting on behalf of the People. (Berger Dec., ¶ 21.)
Despite extensive warnings from the City Attorney (see, e.g., Exhibit T.), CII still could not get Plan B underway, even after this deadline expired. (Berger Dec., ¶ 26-44.) The People provided CII with notice it was not fulfilling its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and gave it more time to voluntarily comply. When CII again failed this,4 the People determined that there was no reason to expect CII would ever voluntarily abate the hillside and consequently invoke its rights under the Settlement Agreement and its police powers to abate this public nuisance.

As noted above, the People and the City could have filed a new public nuisance abatement case every day since 2013 to seek compliance. This is in addition to multiple civil and criminal actions the People and City could have undertaken to compel compliance with the MPMC and California law. Instead, the People chose to take the “civil” route by filing a civil lawsuit in 2015 to encourage voluntary compliance. (Berger Dec., ¶ 3.) This is in accordance with an underlying philosophy that achieving voluntary compliance from property owners is in the public interest. . (Berger Dec., ¶ 3.) Entering into the original Settlement Agreement after CII’s failure to abate, amending it twice after its failure to abate, and then providing more opportunities to follow through after failing to meet its obligations are all accommodations to CII’s benefit only – which it repeatedly squandered. (Exhibit B.) The Settlement Agreement provides nothing to the People or the City that is not alternatively available to it through applicable law. Because CII refuses to comply with its obligations under applicable law including, without limitation, the Settlement Agreement, the City, on behalf of the People, is abating the public nuisance on its own and at CII’s cost.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

4 Declaration of Acting City Planner, Jonathan Turner, P.E., is attached hereto as Exhibit X, which directly rebuts CII’s contentions that the City was responsible for CII’s failures to obtain grading permits by the established deadlines.

- 4 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

III. CII FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

A. CII waived its rights to any hearing as a prerequisite to the City, on behalf of the People, to abate this public nuisance.
“CII waives any and all rights of notice and hearing, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Agreement...” (Original Settlement Agreement, Section 3(C); Exhibit B.) “In the event that Plan B is not underway by the deadline set forth in the Amended Project Schedule, CITY [on behalf of the People] may…enter the Property, abate the Nuisance, and/or complete Plan B…” (Second Amended Settlement Agreement, Section 3(C), Exhibit B (emphasis added).) B. Resolution No. 12255 merely restates the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which authorizes abatement by the City, on behalf of the People.

As CII readily admits, it attended the June 16, 2021 meeting where the City Council approved the residential development for Plan A. (On Dec., ¶ 8) At that same meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12255. (Exhibit D.), attached to People’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.) The reasons for adopting that Resolution are set forth in the Recitals contained in Section 1 of Resolution No. 12255. In sum, the Resolution declares an emergency as to the hillside on the Property and delegates authority to the City Manager to determine, in the City Manager’s sole discretion, whether CII would make “substantive progress toward completing the Project as required by the Settlement Agreement by August 1, 2021.” (Resolution No. 12255, Section 3(B); Exhibit D.) The “Project” is defined in Section 1(D) and constitutes stabilization of “the hillside through a series of retaining walls and other geotechnical solutions.” (Resolution No. 12255, Section 1(D); Exhibit D).

CII’s Opposition complains that the City Council unilaterally amended the Settlement Agreement and that the People must prove a breach before moving forward with Plan B. (Opposition, page 13, lines 6-28.) Neither assertion is supported by the four corners of the Settlement Agreement.

Section 1(a) of the Original Settlement Agreement5 requires CII to “[w]ork in good faith

5 Copies to the Original Settlement Agreement and its amendments, as referenced herein, are included in Exhibit B.

- 5 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

with the City … and obtain a Permit with all due speed” (emphasis added). Section 1(b) of the Original Settlement Agreement provides:

[f]or good cause shown, such as a delay in permit issuance caused by the City … the City Attorney will extend the time for completing construction … and such good cause shall be determined in the exercise of his reasonable discretion . The progress of the Project shall not be deemed good cause because the obligation to complete the hillside restoration is independent from the City’s obligation to process the Project in the normal course of business. (Emphasis added).

Section 1(D) of the First Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement states that:

[t]he Parties intend for the Original Agreement to be merged and consolidated by reference into this Agreement. To the extent … there is a conflict between the Original Agreement and this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will prevail.”
Section 1(H) of the First Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement states that:

[t]he Project Schedule … provides the critical path Schedule for Plan A and Plan B as contemplated in this Ag reement. CII understands and agrees that absent good cause, as determined by CITY in its sole discretion (and contemplated below), the Project Schedule will not be altered. (Emphasis added).

Section 2(B)(iii) of the First Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement states that:

[f]or good cause shown, such as a delay in CITY reviewing CII’s proposed development plans, CITY processing or issuing a grading or building permit … the Project Manager may extend the time set forth in the Project Schedule by a perio d of time equal to the length of the delay. Such an extension of time must be in writing, executed by both Parties, and included as an operational memorandum ancillary to this Agreement.

Section 3(B) of the First Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement states that:

Nothing in this Agreement obligates CITY to exercise its discretion in any particular manner with respect to Plan A. Any exercise of CITY’s discretion regarding Plan A in accordance with applicable law cannot be deemed to constitute a breach of Plaintiff’s duties under this Agreement.” (Emphasis added).

Section 4 of the First Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement states that:

Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor can it, act as a limitation on CITY’s present or future exercise of municipal powers in accordance with the California Constitution and applicable law.

Section 1(D) of the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement provides, in part, that:

The Parties intend for the Original Agreement and the First Amended Agreement to

- 6 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

be merged and consolidated by reference into this Agreement. To the extent … there is a conflict between the Original Agreement, the First Amended Agreement, and this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will prevail.

Section 1(I) of the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement provides, in relevant part, that:

CII understands and agrees that absent Good Cause, as determined by CITY in its sole discretion (and contemplated below), the Amended Project Schedule will not be altered. “Good Cause” shall mean demonstrated progress and effort by CII in its performance , delays attributable to the CITY’s review of Plan A project materials, CITY processing or issuing a grading or building permit, or because of unusual inclement weather impeding construction.” (Emphasis added).

Section 2(B) of the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement provides, in part, that:

[i]n the event that Plan B is not underway by the deadline set forth in the Amended Project Schedule , CITY may (1) enter the Property, abate the Nuisance, and/or complete Plan B, and (2) foreclose on the Liens recorded in its favor … to recover the cost of completing Plan B.” (Emphasis added).

In short, no specific “breach” of some discrete aspect of the Settlement Agreement, including any final completion deadline, is required for the People take over remediation of the hillside. As noted by the emphasized language above, the People and CII have always agreed that the City of Monterey Park (acting on the People’s behalf) would have sole discretion regarding whether CII was progressing toward completion of abatement of the hillside. Performance issues could be mitigated by a determination of “good cause” by the City Attorney or the City’s project manager.

However (and even assuming that CII had not waived all appeals rights via the Settlement Agreement, which it has), the only recourse CII would have regarding the People’s (or City’s) decisions on “good cause” of whether the Plan B was “underway” would, theoretically, be to seek a writ petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6. Yet, CII did not attempt such action. Nor does CII dispute in its Opposition that it never provided public comment regarding Resolution No. 12255 or made a single objection to the People’s use of August 1, 2021 as the deadline for determining CII’s substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

The relevant, written record is very plain that the People and City gave CII every reasonable opportunity to comply with the Settlement Agreement. For example, even reading just the project schedule for the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement shows that the Plan A public hearing was supposed to have been held November 4, 2020. (Second Amended Settlement

- 7 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Agreement; Exhibit B.) CII did not bring it before the City Council until June 16, 2021 – eight months later. (Exhibit D.) Even the COVID-19 pandemic cannot account for this delay.

As noted in Resolution No. 12255 (see Sections 1 and 3), the City Council considered the entire history of CII’s property and the entire administrative record. (Exhibit D.) Its decision to establish a deadline for substantial compliance was entirely reasonable given the totality of circumstances. Moreover, the written record unambiguously demonstrates the People’s and City’s restraint in exercising the discretion delegated by the City Council (and other applicable law). In the end, however, the only conclusion that could be drawn as to determining CII’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement was that enough was enough (see, Berger Dec., ¶ 44).

IV. CII’s OPPOSITION PRESENTS IRRELEVANT ARGUMENTS
A. Failure to complete slope stabilization by either April or September 2022 is not required for the People to abate the public nuisance.

CII contends that “so long as the slope stabilization was completed by the 2022 deadlines (i.e., either April 5, 2022 [for Plan B] or September 8, 2022 [for Plan A]), CII would be in compliance with the Settlement Agreement.” (Opposition, p. 12, lines 21-23.) This is simply wrong.

As stated above, Section 2(B) of the Second Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement provides, in part, that

[i]n the event that Plan B is not underway by the deadline set forth in the Amended Project Schedule, CITY may (1) enter the Property, abate the Nuisance, and/or complete Plan B.” (Emphasis added).

The timelines provided in the amended agreements were obviously put in place to ensure that CII remained on schedule to complete abatement by specific deadlines (see, e.g., Berger Dec., ¶, para. 9.) CII’s interpret the Settlement Agreement to allow it to fail to meet interim deadlines, yet neither the People nor the City could take any action for failing to perform until the September 8, 2022 deadline to see if Plan A remediation was completed, is patently absurd, directly contradicts the Settlement Agreement, and violates the People’s continuing obligation to protect public health and safety.
/ / /

- 8 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

B. The Development Agreement is irrelevant to this Motion.

This case is a nuisance abatement case brought by the People of the State of California. It is not – as CII would have the court believe – a breach of the Development Agreement between CII and the City of Monterey Park. (see generally Opposition.) Even discussing the Development Agreement is a red herring for the court particularly since the City of Monterey Park is not a party to this action. The City’s involvement with the matter is based on the fact that it is the only public entity that could process or approve any of CII’s plans and permits for Plan A. It did so.

The People do not have the power to approve such plans and permits and is not a party to the Development Agreement. CII’s reliance upon the language in the Development Agreement here is misleading and inappropriate. If it wishes to file suit against the City of Monterey Park for breach of contract, then it is free to do so after complying with the Government Claims Act.

C. The writ petition filed against the City of Monterey Park is irrelevant to this Motion.

CII would further like the court to believe that the writ petition (Save Our Slopes v. City of Monterey Park et seq., LASC Case No. 21STCP02365) filed against CII and the City of Monterey Park (but not the People) really challenging the residential development aspect of the City’s approvals is relevant to this case. It is not. This is a fact that was told to CII more than once, i.e., the writ petition did not suspend the timelines in the Settlement Agreement (see, Berger Dec., ¶ 25 [“[w]e continue to move forward with reviewing matters for Plan B since that is an abatement of a public nuisance.”]; and Berger Dec., ¶ 27 [“if there was a pause on CII’s part because the writ was filed, that should have not happened and will not change the timeline for Plan B in the settlement agreement”).

Simply put, the writ petition did not prevent CII from proceeding with constructing the hillside stabilization according to Plan B – or in such a manner that would accommodate a future residential development.

D. The People’s abatement warrant was strictly for temporary “winterization” measures, and is irrelevant to this Action.

CII asserts that when the People obtained an abatement warrant in November of 2021 to implement temporary winterization measures before the oncoming rainy season, amounted a

- 9 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

violation of the Settlement Agreement and “precluded CII from having notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the status of CII’s abatement efforts.” (Opposition, p. 16, lines 19-26.) Setting aside (once again) the fact that CII waived all rights to notice or a hearing and that the People were not required to even obtain an abatement warrant (see, Settlement Agreement; Exhibit B.) the abatement warrant obtained by the People was strictly to implement temporary measures to protect the hillside from the upcoming rainy season. (Exhibit F.) This was done after CII failed to properly maintain the Property and after CII’s representatives interfered with the People’s access to the Property in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. (Declaration of Jonathon Turner, ¶ 5, filed concurrently herewith.) Much like the instant Motion, the People sought and obtained an abatement warrant expressly for the purpose of ensuring that sworn law enforcement officers could detain and, if required, arrest persons interfering with the People’s nuisance abatement activities. The warrant is limited in time and scope (such as sandbags and tarps) and does not involve any actions related to the permanent abatement of the hillside. CII’s argument is irrelevant to the case at hand.

E. Neither the People nor the City are interfering with CII’s Ability to Proceed by engaging with their project management company.

CII contends that “[t]he City is now interfering with CII’s contractual relationships with its project manager (KCM Group), hindering CII’s ability to proceed.” (Opposition, page 17, lines 22-26.) This is inaccurate and irrelevant.

The People informed CII in the October 13, 2021 Notice of Default that the City, on behalf of the People, was taking over the project to abate the hillside, and directed CII not to interfere. (Exhibit E.) The City did not contact KCM Group until late December 2021; the contract for services was executed January 19, 20226 – months after CII was no longer able to proceed on the project anyway. (Berger Dec., ¶¶ 18 & 19.) Whether KCM Group breached a

6 The City contracted with KCM to reduce costs and construction timelines for the Goodviews Abatement Project (“GAP”). The City’s initial cost estimates for creating construction drawings to implement the GAP were significant and led to longer delays in constru cting the GAP. It was the City’s understanding that KCM Group possessed the plans and specifications for “Plan B2” and could provide them to the City’s contractor for construction. As it turns out, this was incorrect. Contrary to the assertions by CII in its Opposition, there are no usable plans and specifications (see, Declaration of Chris Conkle, filed concurrently herewith; see also, Berger Dec., ¶¶ 18 and 19).

- 10 -

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

contract with CII is beyond the scope of this Motion and a civil matter between those entities.

F. The People took all reasonable steps to assist CII
CII asserts that it “approached the City and asked if could start the remediation process in anticipation of the approvals being given by the City to gain some time” (see, Opposition, p.8, ln.18-20). It is unclear what CII is relying upon to make this assertion. The written record makes it plain that the City was asking CII to submit paperwork well before the June 16, 2021 City Council hearing (see, Berger Dec., ¶ 15 [communication June 2, 2021]; Berger Dec., ¶ 16 [communication June 3, 2021]; Berger Dec., ¶ para 17 [communication June 14, 2021:
“completion of the infrastructure is September 2022. Your client should have been working on this earlier this year.”]; Berger Dec., ¶ 17 [communication June 15, 2021 “[y]ou and I both know what caused the hearing delays. And we both know that is not the City’s problem. Just so we are clear.”].)
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons and those stated in the People’s Original Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the People of the State of California request this Court’s acknowledgement that City of Monterey Park, on behalf of the People, may proceed without interference from CII to abate the hillside slope on Property, which is a public nuisance and presents a continuing threat to public health and safety.

DATED: March 9, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

HENSLEY LAW GROUP

By: Timothy E. Campen, Assistant City Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff, THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Resolution
Attachment 2

1 DECLARATION OF JONATHON M. TURNER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

DECLARATION OF JONATHON M. TURNER, P.E.

I, JONATHON M. TURNER, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am a credentialed civil engineer with the State of California, Credential No.

CE60214, by State Board of Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists, and have been so licensed since February 2000 . I am also credentialed as a Qualified SWPPP (stormwater pollution prevention plan) Developer, Certificate 00807, with the California State Water Resources Control Board. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from California Polytechnic State University , San Luis Obispo . I am the President and Principal Engineer for Phoenix Civil Engineering, Inc., based out of Santa Paula, California. I have extensive experience in the area of analyzing geotechnical reports, construction plans, and engineering plans regarding the stability and remediation of slopes , as well as project management and implementation of slope stability and remedi ation. I have prepared Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans for numerous projects public and private and am well versed in the requirements of the SWRCB with respect to Best Management Pr actices (BMPs) implementation and maintenance . I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration, unless stated on information and belief, in which case, I believe the facts to be true, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. This Declaration is made in support of the City of Monterey Park on behalf of the People of the State of California’s (“City”) ex parte Application for an Abatement Warrant for the property commonly known as 1688 W. Garvey in the City of Monterey Park, California 91754 (APN 5254-002-031) (the “Property”).

3. I have been duly appointed and authorized to act as the Acting City Planner on behalf of the City of Monterey Park concerning the slope abatement and propose d

2 DECLARATION OF JONATHON M. TURNER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
development of the Property since January 2019.

4. The months of November through April account for the vast majority of average annual rainfall in Los Angeles County. The dates of November through April are recognized by the regulatory agencies as the rainy season for the purposes of implementation of storm water “best maintenance practices” (“BMPs”) for construction sites.

5. Based on information and belief, the Property’s hillside has previously been subject to catastrophic failure in 1984, requiring the City to remove soils debris from the roadway and install a soils debris impact wall that is located along a portion of the Property line along W. Garvey Avenue. There has been no substantive remediation to the hillside since that time, and implementation of plans approved by the City of Monterey Park for new, permanent retaining walls is necessary to secure the hillside.

6. Based on information and belief, the property owner had developed an approved winterization plan for t he parcel on or about May 2018, to be implemented until permanent retaining walls are constructed. On or about September 2019, CII was required to update the winterization plan for the Property, which was signed and submitted in November 2019. The term “winterization” refers to measures ta ken to mitigate erosion and risk of slope failure due to water infiltration from seasonal rain and weather. A true and accurate copy of the winterization plan is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

7. On February 20, 2019, I issued to CII’s representative a letter of noncompliance of the required winterization, noting that, among other things, soils debris from the hillside had fallen onto W. Garvey Avenue. A year later on February 12, 2020, I issued another letter of noncompliance of the required winterization of the hillside and w arned CII that failure to comply with the approved winterization plan could result in default of the Settlement

3 DECLARATION OF JONATHON M. TURNER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Agreement with the City. True and accurate copies of the letters of non-compliance are attached hereto as Exhibit H.

8. On October 20 and No vember 10, 2021, I re-inspected the Property concerning the condition and erosion mitigation of the hillside slope, of the Property facing Garvey Avenue. I observed that plastic sheeting intended to minimize water intrusion into the slope was blown apart in multiple locations. Sandbags have degraded to the point where the sand is
leaking out of the bags in multiple locations. The efforts intended to act as erosion and water intrusion control measures have not been properly maintained since I have been appointed Acting City Planner for the Property, which is contributing to exacerbate the potential failure of the hillside slope. True and accurate photos of the condition of the Property on October 20 and November 10, 2021, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

9. The existing hillside plastic tarps need to be removed and replaced, as they have reached their lifespan due to exposure and f ailure to be property secured.

10. All of the existing sandbags onsite need to be removed and replaced with gravel filled bags to avoid sand migration and clean up issues after failure. The Property owner appears to have plac ed more sandbags over the failed bags, which is an unacceptable practice.

Further, the existing sandbags direct the flow of water in an uncontrolled manner which results in storm water flowing at a high velocity into the vehicle lanes on W. Garvey Avenue.

11. On November 10, 2021, I inspected the Property with a representative of Gothic Landscape, whom the City intends to hire for winterization services concerning the Property.

Gothic Landscape is a n established industry contractor that specializes in installation, maintenance and removal of storm water BMPs for construction sites. I have provided Gothic Landscape with the appr oved Erosion Control Plan that is to be employed for the hillside

4 DECLARATION OF JONATHON M. TURNER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

stabilization project. The Erosion Control Plan (“Mitigation Plan”) is appropriate for the hillside slope pending permanent remediation.

12. Fulfilling the Mitigation Plan will require hundreds of gravel-filled sandbags strategically placed on the hillside. Further, approximately two acres of tarp will need to be secured along the slope. It is anticipated this initial effort will take up to 10 working days.

13. On going maintenance will require returning to the site on a weekly basis, or as required by inclement weather, to ensure the integrity of the Mitigation Plan. Maintenance of these temporary mitigation measures will cease once work begins by a grading contractor to begin implement ation of Plan B, at which time the grading contractor will assume responsibility of the hillside. This is expected to occur anywhere between January and April of 2022, at which time the need for this abatement warrant will not longer be necessary.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

EXECUTED on this 15th day of November, 2020 at Santa Paula, California.

Jonathon M. Turner

Exhibit G

”
Acting City Planner

Exhibit H

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov

City Council
Peter Chan
Mitchell Ing
Stephen Lam
Hans Liang
Teresa Real Sebastian

City Clerk
Vincent D. Chang

City Treasurer
Joseph Leon

Mr. Robert Garrison
Director of Consulting Services
Murow|CM
1151 Duryea Ave
Irvine, CA 92614
1688 W. Garvey Ave – Site Slope Winterization Remediation Requirements – Supplemental Visit I visited the project site boundary again after the first noncompliance letter was sent out on 2/11/19 regarding the slope winterization. This was after I was assured that the slope protection would be brought into compliance. I have included updated photos of the current condition of the slope. It appears that some work was performed; however, other areas were not completed. It is unclear why the identified deficiencies were not completely addressed. Additionally, there is soil d ebris that the site driveway on Garvey Ave.

This needs to be swept up and removed from the public right of way.

Based on the condition of the winterization measures at the time of my second site visit, it is my opinion that the erosion protection system is still not in compliance at the locations shown on the attached photo log. Please remediate these issues by Friday, February 22, 2019 and notify me when the effort is completed. Failure to comply with this requiremen t will result in additional code enfor cement action including, without limitation, the City issuing a notice of violation and notice of default under the settlement agreement. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney.

Sincerely,
______________________________
Jon Turner, PE
Principal Engineer
Acting City Planner
Enclosure
February 20, 2019

Slope Winterization Photo Log Date: 2/20/2019
1688 W. Garvey Site
1688 W. Garvey Development Page 1 2019 Winterization Photos

Slope View from Abajo Drive Looking North – Plastic Sheeting Remnants Still Present

Garvey Ave - Gaps in Slope Plastic Sheeting Requiring Repair

Slope Winterization Photo Log Date: 2/20/2019
1688 W. Garvey Site
1688 W. Garvey Development Page 2 2019 Winterization Photos

Garvey Ave - Gaps in Slope Plastic Sheeting Requiring Repair

Garvey Ave - Deteriorated Plastic Sheeting Still Present

Slope Winterization Photo Log Date: 2/20/2019
1688 W. Garvey Site
1688 W. Garvey Development Page 3 2019 Winterization Photos

Garvey Ave - Gaps in Slope Plastic Sheeting Requiring Repair and Deteriorated Sheeting Requiring Replacement Still Present

Garvey Ave - Gaps in Slope Plastic Sheeting Requiring Repair and Deteriorated Sheeting Requiring Replacement

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov

City Council
Peter Chan
Mitchell Ing
Stephen Lam
Hans Liang
Teresa Real Sebastian

City Clerk
Vincent D. Chang

City Treasurer
Joseph Leon

Mr. Gordon Kovtun
KCM Group
1900 Garnet Ave. #300
San Diego, CA 92109
1688 W. Garvey Ave – Site Slope Winterization Remediation Requirements – Site Visit I visited the project site on 2/09/20 to review the installation of the slope winterization. This was after I was notified by the City that the slope protection was a concern to nearby residents. I have included photos of the current condition of the slo pe. It appears that some work is needed on the slope to bring it into compliance with the approved project plans.

Based on the condition of the winterization measures at the time of my site visit, it is my opinion that the erosion protection system is not in compliance at the locations shown on the attached photo log. Please remediate these issues by Friday, February 14, 2020 and notify me when the effort is completed. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in additional code enforcement action including, without limitation, the City issuing a notice of violation and notice of default under the settlement agreement.

Sincerely,
______________________________
Jon Turner, PE
Principal Engineer
Acting City Planner
Enclosure
February 12, 2020

Exhibit I

1 1688 W. Garvey Photos – Nov. 10, 2021

2

3

Resolution
Attachment 3

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov
City Council
Peter Chan
Hans Liang
Henry Lo
Yvonne Yiu
City Clerk
Vincent D. Chang
City Treasurer
Joseph Leon
May 12, 2022
Sent via First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail
Center Int’l Investments, Inc.

Attn: Karrie On, Chief Executive Officer
501 West Garvey, Suite 207
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Re: Letter dated April 12, 2022 regarding Development Agreement Dear Ms. On:

This letter responds to that sent by Center Int’l Investments, Inc. (“CII”) attorneys dated April 12, 2022 regarding Development Agreement No. DA-21-01 adopted by Ordinance No. 2211 on July 17, 2022 (the “DA”). Pursuant to Section 21 of the DA, notices are sent to your attention at the above address with a courtesy copy to CII’s attorneys. Note that the City’s notices to the above address are being returned as undeliverable; absent an update to the DA, however, the City will continue sending notices to the above address.

CII’s attorneys originally sent prior version of the April 12th letter to the City Attorney only. Per Section 21 of the DA, however, all notices must be sent to the City with a courtesy copy to the City Attorney.

I am responding here on the City’s behalf since the properly served April 12 th letter alleges that the City is in breach of the DA as to issuing grading permits and cooperating with CII in existing litigation.

Unsurprisingly, the City disagrees with CII’s contentions. CII’s letter is an obvious misrepresentation of the truth, and its allegations are easily refuted with written documentation. ➢ Grading Permit
At the outset, note that the DA did not become effec tive until August 16, 2021. Any thing before that date, therefore, could not legally constitute a breach of contract. Identifying alleged actions or inactions as being breaches of the DA in June and July is nonsensical.

CII asserts it filed a grading permit application on June 18, 2021. That is inaccurate. The document “filed” by CII on June 18, 2021 was returned as it was incomplete. A complete grading permit application was not filed until August 19, 2021. This occurred only after the City Attorney emailed

CII – Notice of Default
May 12, 2022

CII’s representatives on August 9, 2021 and August 10, 2021. All documents are enc losed for your reference.

CII’s allegation of the City failing to process the grading permit in a timely manner is also inaccurate.

After
the Acting City Planner (and Project Manager) returned the grading permit application with comments on June 30, 2021, there was no response from CII for a month. In fact, on July 30, 2021 the Acting City P
lanner contacted CII’s project manager to inquire of the status of the application considering the grading permit deadline was August 1, 2021. CII still did not return the application until August 9, 2021, to which the City Planner returned it the very next day with more comments, repeating that deficiencies previously identified were not addressed. Issues with providing a required storm water pollution prevention plan compliant with California law followed a similar pattern of back and forth through September 23, 2021. At every turn, the City responded to CII’s permit application submissions in less time than the typical turn around for such permits, and often within a day or two.

In addition to multiple email communications from the City Attorney and the City’s Project Manager to CII’s representatives (including CII’s counsel) commencing at the beginning of July – all of which
urged CII to obtain a grading permit immediately – I issued a Notice of Breach dated August 25, 2021.

That letter provided CII an opportunity to cure its breach of the settlement agreement with the People by obtaining a grading permit not later than August 31, 2021. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience.

Even after CII failed to obtain a permit by the extended August 31, 2021 deadline, the City still exerted every reasonable effort to have CII obtain a grading permit. That includes email communications from the City Attorney to Mr. Alfred Fraijo dated August 31, 2021; a phone call with Mr. Fraijo on August 31, 2021; additional
email correspondence on September 1, 2021; more email correspondence on September 3, 2021; another email on September 7, 2021; and again on September 9, 2021. All of these communications
are in your counsel’s possession. Yet, CII did not submit the necessary paperwork with required corrections until on or about September 23, 2021 – long after the August 31 st extended deadline.

Pursuant to Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 16.21 and California Building Code (“CBC”) § 105.3.2, CII’s application for a grading permit expired either on December 20, 2021 (if one uses CII’s erroneous claim of June 18, 2021) or March 18, 2022 (if one uses the September 23, 2021 date on the completed application). In either event, CII’s permit application expired well before the April 12th letter alleging a breach of the DA. The City cannot issue a permit for which no application exists.

The April 12th letter also complains that CII’s project manager “inquired about the status of the grading permits” on October 5, 2021. It is unclear why that would have occurred since CII was well-informed that it was required to obtain grading permits not later than August 31st. Even if, however, one accepts CII’s rendition of events – which is easily contradicted – the City does not have any record of CII filing the administrative appeal required by CBC § 113, as adopted by the MPMC. An appeal of any permit decision must be perfected to the Construction Appeals Board within 20 days from the date of that decision. In Monterey Park, the Planning Commission acts as the Construction Appeals Board. By any calculation of time, therefore, CII waived its objections to the City’s processing of the grading permit application since it failed to file an administrative appeal.

CII – Notice of Default
May 12, 2022

In sum, the City cannot be in breach of the DA for failing to issue a grading permit as there are currently no pending permit
applications for processing. Additionally, CII failed to pursue the necessary a
dministrative remedies required to appeal any contention of a permit denial, obviating any requirement for reconsideration.
➢ Third-Party Lawsuit
The April 12th letter also complains that the City did not cooperate in the pending case captioned Save Our Slopes v. City of Monterey Park, et al. (filed July 21, 2022) LASC Case No. 21STCP02365 (“SOS Case”). Again, CII’s complaints and revisionist history are directly contradicted in writing.

In a series of email and other correspondence (all of which CII and its attorneys possess), it is plain that (1) the City Attorney tendered the defense of the SOS Case to CII on July 20, 2021 along with the recommendation regarding a joint defense agreement; (2) the City Attorney followed up on August 3, 2021 confirming the tender; (3) on August 9 and August 1 0, 2021, the City Attorney demanded execution of the joint defense agreement that still had not been completed; (4) the City Attorney’s office was informed on or about September 17, 2021, that CII had not accepted the City’s defense tender; (5) this was c onfirmed in writing by CII’s counsel on September 21, 2021; (6) on September 21, 2021, the City Attorney noted that the SOS Case should have been already resolved and that the City “will simply part company with CII and settle on its own” if CII did not fulfill its obligations by the end of September; (7) on October 13, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Default which, among other things, noted that because CII failed to defend and indemnify, the City would “separately and independently” settle the SOS Lawsu it; (8) on October 20, 2021, the City Attorney noted that CII ’s failure to defend and indemnify the City was “astounding.” The City is defending its rights in the SOS Lawsuit since CII refused to do so. Neither an actual court nor the court of public scrut iny will view such action as a breach of the DA.

CII was provided ample opportunity to act in good faith as to its obligations to abate the public nuisance on its property independent of any residential development. It failed to fulfill its legal duties despite years of being warned about the consequences. The City’s actions, on behalf of the People of the State of California, cannot be characterized as anything but foreseeable. Apparently, notwithstanding the written record, CII seeks to engage in altern ative facts to fit its own narrative. In doing so, it misrepresents itself to the City Council and to the public.

Sincerely,
Ron Bow
City Manager
C: Mayor and City Council Members
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Alfred Fraijo, CII Counsel

Pride in the Past • Faith in the Future

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

320 West Newmark Avenue • Monterey Park • California 91754-2896 www.montereypark.ca.gov

City Council
Yvonne Yiu
Henry Lo
Fred Sornoso
Hans Liang
Peter Chan

City Clerk
Vincent D. Chang

City Treasurer
Joseph Leon

Sent via First Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail

Center Int’l Investments, Inc.

Attn: Karrie On, Chief Executive Officer
501 West Garvey, Suite 207
Monterey Park, CA 91754

Re: Notice of Breach – Opportunity to Cure
1688 Garvey Avenue aka the “Goodviews” project

Dear Ms. On:

As you are aware, on June 16, 2021 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12255. Section 3 of that Resolution delegated authority to me for determining whether CII was making substantive progress toward completing Plan B as required by the Settlement Agreement. CII’s deadline was August 1, 2021.

Despite repeated efforts by the City’s representatives, CII’s team failed to even obtain a grading permit to commence work on Plan B. Indeed, the City still has not received all of the plans needed to issue permits. It is apparent that CII is in breach of the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, I am selecting a contractor to complete the Plan B construction on the City’s behalf in accordance with Resolution No. 12255.

Since the selection of a contractor will t ake a few days, the City is offering CII a five day opportunity to cure. Accordingly, all required documents must be filed with the City – and a grading permit must be issued – not later than end of business on August 31, 2021.

Sincerely,

Ron Bow
City Manager

C: Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Councilmembers Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Mr. Alfred Fraijo, Jr., Esq.

August 25, 2021

From: Karl Berger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 9:59 AM
To : Alfred Fraijo Jr. <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon Turner <[email protected]>; Whitney Hodges <[email protected]>; Tim Campen
<[email protected]>; Bow, Ron <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: MP - Goodviews Development

Good morning –

Given the radio silence on this, I guess I will need to crack the whip – again.

1. JDA must be executed today;

2. Permit applicaYon (2 pages!!) must be submiked by end of business tomorrow;

3. Status report regarding all outstanding makers – if you don’t know what they are, Jon will be happy to provide them – must be provided by end of day Wednesday;

4. If, by Friday, none of these deadlines are implemented, the City will issue the noYce of breach on Monday and take over Plan B as a public project. That means it will be selecYng its own contractor, etc.

As I’ve said for years now, I expect open communicaYon on this and substanYve progress.

Also, FYI, the City will be engaging affected neighbors regarding truck traffic, dirt hauling, etc. I anYcipate that happening within the next 1-2 weeks.

I trust that I’ve made myself clear . Thanks.

Karl H. Berger

<image003.jpg>

2600 W . Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, California 91505
818-333-5120 Office
661-644-5476 Mobile
[email protected]
www.hensleylawgroup.com

This is a transmission from the Hensley Law Group. The information contained in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work- product privileges. This information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed . If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

On Aug 10, 2021, at 8:35 AM, Karl Berger <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Alfred –
I do not understand why we are once again in the foot dragging stage of things; I had such high hopes. Yet, no JDA provided. And, since that simple item was not completed, I’m not holding my breath for the permit applicaWon.

I will be preparing the noWce of breach for Ron’s signature.

Sigh.

Karl H. Berger
2600 W . Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, California 91505
818-333-5120 Office
661-644-5476 Mobile
[email protected]
www.hensleylawgroup.com

Resolution
Attachment 4

People of the Slate of California v. Center Int'/ Investments, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
Agreement No. 2020-AB

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANO MUTUAL RELEASE
I. PARTIES
The parties to this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (hereinafter "Agreement") are Plaintiff the People of the State of California (the "People") and Defendant Center Int'l Investments, Inc. ("CII''). The People and CII are sometimes referred to individually herein as a "Party" and may be referred to collectively herein as the "Parties." II. RECITALS

1. On December 31, 2015, the People commenced an action against CII in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles entitled The People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney/or the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int 'I Jm;estments, Inc., and Does I through 25, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788 (hereinafter the "Action").

2. In the Action the People sought to abate a nuisance involving an unsafe, unsightly and dangerous condition ofreal property in the City of Monterey Park, including an unstable hillside, approximately located between 1600-1688 W. Garvey Avenue and more particularly described in the Complaint in this case
(''Property"), and sought to recover the costs
incurred by the People for abating such nuisance from CII, the owners of said real property.

3. CII has implemented a City-approved interim erosion control and slope stabilization plan to prevent erosion of the hillside until such time that the hillside can be permanently remediated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

4. CII on February 28, 2017, submitted to the City for review a geotechnical study with recommendations purporting to address all slope stability/public safety issues for the Property (the "Report") as well as site slope restoring improvement plans addressing the remediation of same 1 but the currently submitted plans are not adequate for development ("Restoration Plan").

5. The City estimates that the review of the Restoration Plan and the correction process between CD and the City will take approximately two months, and at that time CU will be granted a permit to begin slope restoration pursuant to the Restoration Plan (''Permit'').

6. CII plans to develop the Property for residential use (the "Project''). The Parties acknowledge that the construction of the Project requires certain discretionary approvals by the City, including without limitation, a subdivision map to subdivide the Property into developable lots (the ''Project Approvals").

7. Regardless of the status of the Project, CII will continue to process and finalize the Restoration Plan. Cll, in consultation with the City, may submit revisions to the Restoration MRH:48116697[ 9 -1-

People of the State of California v. Center Int'[ Investments, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
Plan to be reviewed by the City to further address slope stability so long as such does not affect the deadline for restoration set forth below (the "Supplemental Plan"). The City estimates that the review and correction of the Supplemental Plan will require approximately two months.

8. The Parties now intend and desire to settle all claims alleged in the Action and to compromise the disputes now existing among them. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions of the settlement and compromise between the People, on the one hand, and CTI, on the other hand.
111. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
[n consideration of the execution ot: and as a condition of, the Releases herein, the Parties agree to the following terms:

I. CII must comply with the following tasks below:

SMRil:481166971 9
a. Work in good faith with the City to complete the review and correction process of the Restoration Plan (as rnay be amended by the Supplemental Plan) and obtain a Permit with all due speed;
b. Following the City's approval of the Restoration Plan, or any amendmem thereto approved by the City under the Supplemental Plan, CII shall complete the hillside restoration before December 31, 2017; for good cause shown, such as a delay in permit issuance caused by the City or inclement weather impeding construction, the City Attorney wi 11 extend the time for completing construction past the December 31, 2017 date, and such good cause shall be determined in tne exercise of his reasonable discretion. The progress of the Project shall not be deemed good cause because the obligation to complete the hillside restoration is independent from the City's obligation to process the Project in the normal course of business.
c. No later than May 31, 2017, en will submit applications to the City for the Supplemental Plan and Project Approvals;
d. By May 5, 2017, CII must obtain and provide to the People Performance Bonds, in substantially the form of Exhibit A attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference into this Agreement, totaling$ I Million Dollars ($1,000,000), such Bonds to be to the benefit of the People and to guarantee the remediation of the hillside on tbe Property pursuant to the Restoration Plan or the Supplemental Plan approved by City acting on the People's behalf; the Performance Bonds must further provide that:
i. The Performance Bonds amount may be reduced and/or partially cancelled by CII with the People's written consent, such consent -2-

People of the State of California v. Center Int'/ Investments, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
SMRJ-1:481166971,9
not to be unreasonably withheld, if the actual bid by contractors for the remediation of the Property pursuant to approved plans is less than $1 million;

11. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, if Cll defauJts on its obligation to remediate the Property, the People may use a]\ or part of the Performance Bonds to remediate the Property through any means determined by City, acting on behalf of the People; 111. The Performance Bonds will be cancelled once CII remediates the hillside on the Property and such remediation is accepted by the People as may be evidenced by a certificate of completion recorded by City on the People's behalf;
iv. As the remediation proceeds, the Performance Bonds amount may be reduced or cancelled by CU with the People's written consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, in an amount commensurate to the amount that the People would need to complete the remediation if CII abandoned the work.
e. If the estimated cost oftbe remediation of the Property by the City once the Restoration Plan is approved is reasonably estimated by the City to be more than $ I million, the Performance Bonds amount must be increased by CU to an amount reasonably required by the People to cover the costs of remediation by the City;
f. As part of its obligations, CII must regularly monitor and maintain all of the following until the pennanent remediation of the slope pursuant to approved Restoration Plan (as may be amended by the Supplemental Plan), as the case may be, is complete as determined by the People:
g.

1. Maintain winterization measures and temporary erosion control plan in place as shown on City-approved plans or as approved in the slope remediation construction Permit;

2. Maintain and remove vegetation such that it does not become ov.ergrown and become a fire hazard·

3. Expeditiously remove debris in the public right-of-way that may slough off of the unstable hillside; and

4. Remove graffiti within two business days of notice by the People.

On or before April 15, 2016, CH paid the City the sum of $35,000.00 to reimburse the City for the costs incurred by the People for the prosecution

People of the State of California v. Center Int 'l Jnvestmenls, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
ofthis abatement action up until that point. On or before April 28, 2017, CU must reimburse the People an additional $22,600.00 for additional costs incurred as a result of prosecuting this action since that time.

2. If Cll fails to perform the obligations described in the preceding paragraph number I, en will be in default of this Agreement. In the event of CII's default, the People may lodge with the Court for immediate entry against Cll the Stipulated Judgment which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B.

3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall obligate the People or the City to exercise its discretion in any particular manner with respect to the alternative Restoration Plan, and any exercise of discretion reserved hereunder or required by law, shaU not be deemed to constitute a breach of the People's duties under this Agreement.

4. CIJ hereby agrees to waive any and aH rights of notice and heating, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, that it may have under the principles of Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., l O Cal.3d 351 (1973), or otherwise concerning the Stipulated Judgment. CII does further agree hereby to forever waive the right to move for a new triaf, to request findings of fact and conclusions of law, and/or to appeal from the Stipulated Judgment.

5. The Parties expressly agree that thjs Agreement is admissible to enforce this settlement pursuant to Evidence Code section J 123.

6. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the Parties request and agree that the Court retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce this Agreement until there is full performance of the terms herein.

7. Attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C is a Stipulation Re: Dismissal, [Proposed) Order. Upon the People's receipt of the fully-executed Agreement and the fully­ executed Stipulation Re: Dismissal from CIT, the People will cause to be filed the Stipulation re Dismissal in the Action.

IV, RELEASES
(. Jhe People·s ReJe_a_s_e. The People hereby forever and fully release, acquit, and discharge CII, its predecessors, principals, parents, heirs, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, affiliates, commonly controJled entities, companies, enterprises, ventures, partners, insurers, investors, attorneys, officers, shareholders, directors, agents, representatives employees, clients, administrators, executors, personal representatives, and each of them, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, liens, debts, obligations, promises, agreements, costs, damages, liabilities, and judgments of any kind, nature, or amount whether in law or equity, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, liquidated or unliqu_idated, including any and all claimed or unclaimed compensatory damages, consequential damages, interest, costs, expenses and fees (including reasonable or actual attorneys' fees), arising out of or related to the Action and the claims raised therein.

SMRH:481166971.9 -4-

People of the State of California v. Center Int'! Investments, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release

2. Cfl's Release. CII hereby forever and fully releases, acquits, and discharges the People, and the City of Monterey Park, their predecessors, principals, parents, heirs, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, affiliates, commonly controlled entities, companies, enterprises, ventures, partners, insurers, investors, attorneys, officers, shareholders, directors, agents, representatives employees, clients, administrators, executors, personal representatives, and each of them, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, liens, debts, obligations, promises, agreements, costs, damages, liabilities, and judgments of any kind, nature, or amount whether in law or equity, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, liquidated or unliquidated, including any and all claimed or unclaimed compensatory damages, consequential damages, interest, costs, expenses and fees (including reasonable or actual attorneys' fees), arising out of or related to the Action and the claims raised therein.

3. Unkno~ Claims. The releases contained in this Article IV, RELEASES, release all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, liens, debts, obligations, promises, agreements, costs, damages, liabilities, and judgments of any kind whether known, unknown, unforeseen, patent or latent which any of the Parties may have against any other Party, arising out of or relating directly or indirectly to the Action, except those obligations otherwise set forth in this Agreement, notwithstanding Section 1542 of the California Civil Code which provides that:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her tnust have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor." The Parties understand and acknowledge the significance and consequence of such a specific waiver of Section 1542 and hereby assutne full responsibility for any injuries, damages and losses which they may incur from or by reason of any of the above-mentioned matters.

4. Voluntary Release. 'T'he releases contained in this Article lV, RELEASES, are freely and voluntarily executed by the Parties after having been apprised of all relevant information and data. Each Party, in executing this Agreement, has not relied on any inducements, promises or representations made by any Party hereto or his agents or attorneys except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.

5. Covenant Not to Sue. Each Party further agrees, promises and covenants that neither the Party, nor any person, organization or any other entity acting on its behalf will tile, charge, claim, sue or cause or permit to be filed, charged or claimed, any action for damages or other relief (including injunctive, declaratory, monetary relief or other) against any other Party for any claim released by the respective Party in this Article IV, RELEASES, including, but not limited to, any matter occurring in the past up to the date of this Agreement or involving any continuing effects of actions or practices which arose prior to the date of this Agreement.

SMIUN81166971 9 -5-

People of the State ofCalffornia v. Center lnL '/ Investments, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
V. MISCELLANEOUS
l. Attorney Fees, Injunctive ReLief. ln the event legal action arises by reason of any controversy claimed in a dispute relating to this Agreement, the interpretation thereof, or the failure of any Party to perform the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action is entitled, in addition to damages, to injunctive relief or other relief, to reasonable costs and expenses not limited to taxable costs, and reasonable attorney fees to be fixed by the court.

2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties whose signatures are affixed hereto relating to the rights and obligations contained herein and any representations, negotiations or agreements between the Parties are merged into this Agreement. No subsequent modification or amendment between the Parties shall be effective unless in writing signed by all Parties to this Agreement.

3. No Admission of Liability. This Agreement is the compromise of the above- mentioned disputed claim and shall never be treated as an admission of liability by any Party for any purpose.

4. Bi11ding. Effect. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof, shall bind and shall inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, personal representatives, successors-in­ interest, and assigns of the Parties hereto.

5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes.

6. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for perfonnance of all obligations under this Agreement.

7. Law ApplicabJe. This Agreement is entered into in the State of California and all questions concerning the validity, interpretation or performance of any of its terms or provisions or of any rights or obligations of the Parties hereto, are governed by and resolved in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If it becomes necessary for the court to interpret this Agreement, the Agreement shall be considered to have been jointly drafted by all the Parties hereto and the court shall not construe any ambiguities in the Agreement in favor of any Party.

VI. EXECUTION

1. Each Party hereto acknowledges that it has been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, that it has read the Agreement; that it is fully aware of its contents and of its legal effect, that the preceding paragraphs recite the sole consideration for this Agreement, that all agreements and understandings among the Parties are embodied and expressed herein; and that it has entered into this Agreement freely, without coercion, and based on its own judgment and not in reliance on representations or promises not contained in this Agreement or on a release other than the Mutual Releases contained herein.

SMRH:481166971 9 -6-

People of the State of California v. Center Int'[ Investments, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release

2. Each Party represents and warrants that it has the sole right and exclusive authority to execute this Agreement (and the Releases contained herein), that it is not restricted in doing so, and that it has not made or suffered any assignment, transfer, conveyance, encumbrance, hypothecation or other disposition, voluntary or involuntary, of any claim or demand relating to any matter covered by this Agreement (and the Releases contained herein).

3. Each Party whose signature appears below has read the Agreement in its entirety, and understands, and agrees to, and will perfonn eacb and every one of its provisions and conditions.

4. The effective date of this Agreement shall be April 24, 2017 ('Effective Date").

Signatwes on next page
SMRH:4811669719 -7-

/',,,.,,(,. ,~/ 1/1. \J,11, ,,,-, -,i',.-,,,,11• ,. 1 u,,.., /111 T r,, .. <!•tm, ,11, In, I., •. \11i;d~ 1_·,~111r;,· ',upcr1,11 (.\•u~ 1 111,.: ,-.;,, Ill Nl"fll:< I'!, 111• IJ 11.: l'rt•l'lc 111 llu: M,lh ul l altl,11 11 1li / ,
, \ilnil
--
~,,,
('11,, i\ll,1t!t~\

1 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK AND
CENTER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC.

THIS FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into this ______day of March 2019 by and between the CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, a general law city and municipal corporation (“CITY”) acting on behalf of Plaintiff, the People of the State of California , ex rel. Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney (“Plaintiff”), and CENTER INT’L INVESTMENTS, INC ., a California Corporation (“CII”) (collectively, the “Parties”) . Each of the undersigned representatives certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and to execute and bind to thi s Agreement the entity which he or she represents.

1. RECITALS. The Parties enter into t his Agreement with reference to the following facts and objectives:

A. On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff commenced an action against CII captioned People of the State of California, ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Center Int’l Investments, Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC605788 (the “Action”).

B. In the Action, Plaintiff sought to abate a nuisance involving an unsafe, unsightly and dangerous condition of real property in the City of Monterey Park, including an unstable hillside (the “Nuisance”), located approximately between 1600-1688 West Garvey Avenue and more particularly described in the Complaint in this case (“Property”), and sought to recover the costs incurred by Plaintiff for abating such nuisance from CII, the owners of said real property.

C. Because Plaintiff does not have land use authority within CITY’s jurisdiction, CITY has agreed to act on Plaintiff’s behalf in order to resolve the Action in accordance with this Agreement. Plaintiff believes that such action is in the public interest and consents to CITY’s implementation of this Agreement on Plaintiff’s behalf.

D. The Parties previously executed a Settlement and Mutual Release dated April 25, 2017

2 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
(the “Original Agreement”). The Parties intend for the Original Agreement to be merged and consolidated by reference into this Agreement. To the extent, however, there is a conflict between the Original Agreement and this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will prevail.

E. CII seeks to develop the Property for residential uses. CII’s plan requires certain discretionary approvals from CITY including, without limitation, a development agreement and subdivision map. To implement its plan and resolve the Action, CII also proposes to abate the Nuisance as part of its residential project (collectively, “Plan A”).

F. To resolve the Action, however, Plaintiff requires that CII also prepare a separate plan that, if required to be implemented, only abates the Nuisance regardless of any residential development (“Plan B”). Plan B may be voluntarily implemented by CII if Plan A is not pursued by CII or approved by CITY by the deadline set forth in the Project Schedule, as described below in Section 1(H) and attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference (the “Project Schedule”). Plan B may also be imposed by Plaintiff and CITY under the circumstances contemplated in this Agreement.

G. During the time that Plan A is considered by CITY, CII must construct and maintain erosion control and slope stabilization plans approved by CITY to temporarily abate the Nuisance (“Interim Maintenance Program”). Such Winterization Measures must be completed at CII’s cost and will be monitored by CITY (also at CII’s cost) to ensure compliance.

H. The Project Schedule attached as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated by reference, provides the critical path schedule for Plan A and Plan B as contemplated in this Agreement. CII understands and agrees that absent good cause, as determined by CITY in its sole discretion (and contemplated below), the Project Schedule will not be altered.

I. The Parties also understand and agree that a separate instrument dated December 11, 2018 and entitled “Planning and Processing Agreement” by and between CITY and CII will govern the manner of processing Plan A and also how CII will reimburse CITY for all costs associated with abating the Nuisance (“Processing Agreement”).

3 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

2. SPECIFIC TERMS OF AGREEMENT AND RELEASES. For and in consideration of the above- referenced recitals and the promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

A. CII agrees to:
i. Abate the Nuisance as contemplated in this Agreement including, without limitation, the Project Schedule, at its sole cost. While CII may abate the Nuisance pursuant to Plan A and the Project Schedule, it must perform Plan B should it fail to obtain CITY’s approval for Plan A. CII’s failure to voluntarily perform Plan A (if approvals are granted) or Plan B will result in CITY implementing Plan B on Plaintiff’s behalf at CII’s cost. ii. Maintain the Interim Maintenance Program in accordance with CITY approved plans and permit at CII’s cost.
iii. Implement weed abatement measures in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the Monterey Park Municipal Code, and at the direction of CITY’s Fire Marshal.
iv. Promptly remove debris in the public right-of-way that may slough off of the Property. If CITY notification is required, within two business days after being notified.
v. Remove graffiti within two business days after notification by CITY. vi. Provide Plaintiff, in CITY’S name, a performance bond in a penalty amount set forth in an operational memorandum, ancillary to this Agreement, to secure performance of Plan B. The Parties understand that the penalty amount is an engineering estimate based upon the industry-standard cost of plans and specifications for Plan B. The actual cost for constructing Plan B may be more.

If the penalty amount of the performance bond is expended, CII will be liable to Plaintiff and CITY for any excess costs associated with completing Plan B.

Upon determining the actual cost of the performance bond, CII must deliver to the CITY an executed performance bond in a form prescribed in these

4 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
documents as security for the performance of Plan B. The surety issuing the performance bond, and the form of the performance bond, are subject to the approval of the CITY.
vii. CII grants to CITY an irrevocable license to enter onto the Property to inspect and monitor compliance with this Agreement. CITY’s authorized representatives, including the Project Manager, may enter onto the Property as reasonably required. CII agrees to hold CITY harmless and to defend and indemnify CITY to the extent contemplated below for any claim or cause of action arising from entry onto the Property. CITY will strive to provide 24-hour notice to CII for any such entry onto the Property.
viii. Should CITY be required to implement Plan B, CII grants CITY an irrevocable license to enter onto the Property to abate the Nuisance in accordance with this Agreement. CII agrees that neither Plaintiff nor CITY will be required to obtain an abatement warrant in accordance with applicable law in order to exercise Plaintiff’s rights, by and through CITY, to implement Plan B. Accordingly, CII specifically waives any rights it may have to prevent CITY’s access to the Property under applicable law should it fail to voluntarily perform Plan B in accordance with the Project Schedule.
ix. Indemnify and hold CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees), injuries or liability arising from and directly related to CITY’s approval of Plan A or Plan B. Should CITY be nam ed in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of CITY approval of Plan A or Plan B , CII agrees to defend CITY (at CITY’s request and with counsel satisfactory to CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For purposes of this Section, “CITY” includes Plaintiff, CITY’s elected officials, appointed officials, officers and employees.

5 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. CITY agrees to:
i. Process Plan A as contemplated by and according to the Project Schedule. ii. Provide a project team to process Plan
A, the Interim Maintenance Program, and
(if required) implement Plan B (the project team is collectively referenced as “Project Manager”). The cost of such project team will be borne solely by CII. iii. For good cause shown, such as a delay in CITY reviewing CII’s proposed development plans, CITY processing or issuing a grading or building permit, or

because of unusual inclement weather impeding construction, the Project Manager may extend the time set forth in the Project Schedule by a period of time equal to the length of the delay. Such an extension of time must be in writing, executed by both Parties, and included as an operational memorandum ancillary to this Agreement.

3. DEFAULT; COURT ORDER.

A. If CII fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement, it will be in default. CITY may, but is not required to, provide CII with a five day notice to cure its default. In the event of CII’s default, Plaintiff may lodge with the Court for immediate entry against CII the Stipulated Judgment attached as Exhibit “B,” and incorporated by reference.

B. Nothing in this Agreement obligates CITY to exercise its discretion in any particular manner with respect to Plan A. Any exercise of CITY’s discretion regarding Plan A in accordance with applicable law cannot be deemed to constitute a breach of Plaintiff’s duties under this Agreement.

C. CII waives any and all rights of notice and hearing, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Agreement that it may have under the principles of Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d
351 or otherwise concerning the Stipulated
Judgment. CII also agrees to forever waive the right to move for a new trial, to request findings of fact and conclusions of la w, and/or to appeal from the Stipulated Judgment.

D. The Parties expressly agree that this Agreement is admissible to enforce this settlement pursuant to Evidence Code § 1123.

6 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
E. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, the Parties request and agree that the Court retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce this Agreement until there is full performance.

4. MUNICIPAL POWERS. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor can it, act as a limitation on CITY’s present or future exercise of municipal powers in accordance with the California Constitution and applicable law.

5. LEGAL ADVICE. Each Party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement, each Party sought legal advice from the attorney of its choice, that the terms of this Agreement and its consequences were completely read and explained to each Party by that attorney, and that each Party fully understands the terms of this Agreement.

6. FULL DISCLOSURE. Each Party acknowledges and represents that each Party was apprised of all relevant information and data relevant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, future risks, complications, and costs. Each Party further acknowledges and represents that, in executing this Agreement, the Party has not relied on any inducements, promises, or representations made by the other Party or any representative of the other Party.

7. WAIVER. CITY’s acceptance of payment from CII under this Agreement or the Processing Agreement and CII’s acceptance of approval for Plan A by the City Council will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the Parties may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from their performance. A waiver by either Party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different character.

8. WAIVER OF APPEAL. Notwithstanding any other part of this Agreement or applicable law, under no circumstances may CII appeal the design, cost, construction, or any other implementation of the Interim Maintenance Measures or Plan B by CITY to any of CITY’s legislative bodies or to any court of competent jurisdiction. CII specifically waives any rights it may have to perfect such appeals in order to compromise and settle the Action through this A greement and, specifically, to induce Plaintiff and CITY to consider Plan A as an alternative to abating the Nuisance.

7 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

9. NOTICES. All communications to either Party by the other Party must be in writing and will be deemed made when received by such Party at its respective name and address as follows:

CITY
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
City of Monterey Park
320 W. Newmark Ave
Monterey Park, CA 91754
CII
Center Int’l Investments, Inc.

Attn: Karrie On
Chief Executive Officer
501 West Garvey, Suite 207
Monterey Park, CA 91754
With copies to:

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Attn: Alfred Fraijo Jr.
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery.

Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this Section.

10. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this Agreement will be in Los Angeles County.

11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements, expressed or implied, oral or written.

12. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party.

13. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.

14. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties on any number of separate counterparts, and all such counterparts so executed constitute one agreement binding on all

I the Parties notwithstanding that al) the Parties are not signatories to the same COUDtel)at. bl 2 accordance with Government Code §16.5, the Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements 3 to this Agreement and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement, will 1,e. 4 considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by electronic transmission. Such 5 electronic signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. 6 15. CAPTIONS. The captions of the Sections of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only 7 and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 8 16. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement 9 10
11 12
13 Dated:
14 Dated:
15 16
J 7 Dated '} / :>:,... / 1 1
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Plaintiff the People of the State of California
By~arl H. Berger for ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney City of Monterey Park
Ron Bow. City Manager
Defendant Center lnt'l lnvestmeots, Inc.
15~~ By: Kame On, Chief Executive Officer
8 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AG

the Parties notwithstanding that all the Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. In 2 accordance with Government Code § 16.5, the Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements ancillary 3 to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement, will be 4 considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by electronic transmission. Such 5 electronic signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. 6 15. CAPTIONS. The captions of the Sections of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only 7 and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 8 16. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 9 10
11 12
13 Dated: 3/22/2019
14 Dated:
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Dated:

By: Karl H. Berger or ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney Defendant Center Int'l Investments, Inc.

By: Karrie On, Chief Executive Officer
8 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

SMRH:489861524.1 -1-

Option 2(A) Timeline1:

Residential Development (Plan A) with Slope Stabilization (Plan B) 17 SFD’s/14 Condos – Complying w/R3 Zoning
Updated 4-1-19
01/29/19 – First oversight meeting with Project Manager2 [CII/City] (Complete) 02/22/19 – Temporary winterization abatement to be confirmed [CII/City]. 02/22/19 – Investors’ review and comments regarding onsite street design and building footprints [CII]
02/25/19 – Rejection of Plan B documents as incomplete and unusable. CII has until 3/18/2019 to submit usable Plan B documents or City will design Plan B at CII’s cost. [CII/City] 02/25/19 – Commencement of new site grading and preliminary wall analysis per new building footprints and onsite street profile [CII]
03/07/19 – CII’s geotechnical consultant to complete its portion of work on Plan B [CII] 03/11/19 – Applicant commences drafting IS/EIR for City review [CII] 03/18/19 – Either usable Plan B documents submitted by CII or City commences design of Plan B documents at CII cost. [CII/City]
03/18/19– Meeting re Preliminary Residential Development design status and Plan B with Project Manager [CII/City]
03/18/19 – Completion of new site grading and preliminary wall analysis per new building footprints and onsite street profile [CII]
03/19/19 - Commencement of MSE wall, upper retaining wall preliminary designs, and update of soil report (incorporate cross sections) [CII]
03/28/19 - Either usable revised Plan B documents submitted by CII by 5pm or City commences design of Plan B documents at CII cost. [CII/City]
04/08/19 – Proposed Residential Development Design meeting with Project Manager [CII/City] 04/28/19 – Plan B Document Review Completed by City [City] 04/30/19 – Project Application documents status meeting with Project Manager [CII/City] 05/13/19 – File Project application with City [CII]

1 Substantial compliance required; Project Manager may determine reasonableness of any proposed alteration by CII.
2 City Project Manager may determine check-in meetings in his discretion. 3 Schedule assumes no DRB will be required, this process will be folded into the Planning Commission hearing.

SMRH:489861524.1 -2-

05/13/19 – File tentative map (TM) application with City [CII] 05/13/19 - Screencheck IS/EIR submitted to City [CII]
05/21/19 – City determination regarding Project application completeness [City] 05/21/19 – NOP issued for 30-Day Review of Initial Study [City] 06/24/19 - City returns comments on Screencheck IS/EIR [City] 06/30/19 – Submit draft Development Agreement (DA) to City [CII]. Discussions and revisions between City and CII re DA to be completed no later than 03/13/20. [CII/City] 08/08/19 – Draft EIR submitted to City [CII] (Tony Locacciato) 09/12/19 – City returns comments on Draft EIR [City]
9/30/19 – Winterization stabilization complete [CII]
10/10/19 – Applicant submits revised Draft EIR in response to City comments [CII] 11/14/19 – Completion of City review of Draft EIR [City] 11/15/19 – Publish DEIR/Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for Circulation (30 days) [City] 01/31/20 – Prepare response to comments on DEIR [CII]
02/7/20 – Submit Final EIR with Draft EIR comments addressed [CII] 03/6/20 – City completes review of Final EIR [City]
03/13/20 – City staff approval of TM/DA/Final EIR [City] 04/14/20 – Planning Commission public hearing [City]3
05/06/20 – City Council hearing: first reading (Plan A-DA ordinances) [City] 05/06/20 – If City Council denies Residential Development Project (Plan A) – Plan B Slope Stabilization Mobilization commences [CII/City]
05/20/20 – City Council: second reading (Plan A) [City] 05/21/20 – File Notice of Determination – 30 Day Period [City] 06/22/20 – Horizontal permits issued and Horizontal improvements commence [City/CII] 06/22/20 – Prepare Building Design package for submittal for Residential Development Project (Plan A) Building Permits [CII]
11/25/20 – If no go for Plan A: Plan B Slope Stabilization complete per City approved plan [CII] 11/30/20 – Submit Building Design package for approval for Building Permits [CII]

SMRH:489861524.1 -3-

12/30/20 – Completion of City review of Architectural Design Package – Project ready for Building Permits [City]
03/31/21 – Stabilization complete for the overall Residential Development Project [CII] 07/20/21 – Project complete – Horizontal Improvements [CII] TBD – Construction of Homes Commences – Phase 1

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2 THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK AND
3 CENTER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC.
4 TIIIS SECOND AMENDED ANO R ·STATED SETTLEMENT AGREEME T (this 5 "Agreement'') is entered into this 8th day of June 2020 by and between the CITY OF MONTEREY 6 PARK, a general law city and municipal corporation ("CITY") acting on behalf of Plaintiff, the People 7 of the State of California ex rel. Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney ("Plaintiff') and CE TER lNT'L 8 fNVESTMENTS, INC., a California Corporation ("CII") (collectivt:ly, the "Parties"). Each of the 9 undersigned representatives certifies that he or she is fully authorized lo enter into the terms and IO conditions of this Agreement, and to execute and bind to this Agreement the entity which he or she I I represents.
12 1. RECITALS. 'rhe Pa1ties enter into this Agreement with reference to the following facts and 13 objectives:
14 15
16 [7
18 (9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 A.

B.

C.

D.

On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff commenced an action against Cl r captioned Peuple of the Stale of alifornia, ex rel., Mark D. Hen Ley, City Attorney for the City of Monterey Park v. Genier Int 'I Investments. Inc., and Does I through 25, Los Angeles ounty Superior Cou1t, Case No. BC605788 (the 'Action"),
In the Action, Plaintiff sought lo abate a nuisance involving an unsafe unsightly and dangerous condition of real property in the City of Monterey Park, including an unstable hillside (the" uisance' ), located approximately between I 600-1688 West Garvey A venue and more particularly described in the omplaint in this case (<'Property") and soughl to recover the costs incurred by Plaintiff for abating such nuisance from Cll, the owners of said real property.

Because
Plaintiff does not have land use authority within CITY's jurisdiction, ClTY has agreed to act on P\aintifr s behalf in order to resolve the Action in accordance with this Agreement. Plaintiff believes that such action is in the public interest and consents lo CJTY's implementation of this Agreement on Plaintiff's behalf.

The Parties previously executed a Settlement and Mutual Release dated Apri I 25, 2017

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1 I
12 13
14 IS
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 '25
26 27
28 E.

F.

G.

H.
(the "Original Agreement"). The Parties then entered into the First Amended and Restated Selllement Agreement Between the City of Monterey Park and Center lnlernaliona/ Investments, inc. (the "First Amended Agreement'') on March 22, 2019.

The Parties intend for the Original Agreement and the First Amended Agreement to be merged and consolidated by reference into this Agreement. To the extent, however, there is a conflict between the Original Agreement, the First Amended Agreement, and this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will prevail.

As previously stated in the Original Agreement and the First Amended Agreement Cll seeks to develop the Property for residential uses. CII's plan requires certain discretionary approvals from CITY including, without limitation. a development agreement and subdivision map. To implement its plan and resolve the Action, Cll also proposes to abate the Nuisance as part of its residential project ("Plan A').

To resolve the Action, however, Plaintiff required that CII also prepare a separate plan that, if required to be imp \emented, only abates the Nuisance regardless of any residential development ("Plan B"). Under the Original Agreement and the first Amended Agreement, Plan B could be voluntarily implemented by Cll if Plan A was (1) not pursued by Cll or (2) not approved by CITY by the deadline set forth in the Project Schedule that had been attached to the First Amended Agreement.

Since the execution of the First Amended Agreement, CU has made progress toward the implementation of Plan A. However due to additional delays, the Parties are entering into this Agreement to among other things, amend the Project Schedule as described below in Section I (l) and attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by reference (the "Amended Project Schedule"). As in both the Original Agreement and the First Amended Agreement, Plan B may also be implemented by Plaintiff and ClTY under the. circumstances contemplated in this Agreement.

During the time that Plan A is con idered by CITY, CII must construct and maintain erosion control and slope stabilization plans approved by CITY to temporarily abate the Nuisance ("Interim Maintenance Program"). The Interim Maintenance Program must be 2 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2 3
4 5
6 7
R
9 10
11 12
13 I.

J.
completed at Cll's cost and will be monitored by CITY (also at Cll's cost) to ensure compliance.

The Amended Project Schedule attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by reference, provides the critical path schedule for Plan A and Plan 8 as contemplated in this Agreement. CIJ understands and agrees that absent Good Cause, as determined by CITY in its sole discretion (and contemplated below), the Amended Project Schedule will not be altered. "Good Cause1' shall mean demonstrated progress and effort by CII in its performance, delays attributable to the CITY's review of Plan A project materials, CITY processing or issuing a grading or building permit, or because of unusual inclcmeht weather impeding construction.

The Parties also understand and agree that a separate instrument dated December I I~ 2018 and entitled ''Planning and Processing Agreement" by and between CITY and CII will govern the manner of processing Plan A and also how CII will reimburse CITY for 14 all costs associated with abating the Nuisance (' Processing Agreement"). 15 2. SPECIFIC TERMS OF AGREEMENT AND RELEASES. For and in consideration of the above- 16 referenced recitals and the promises and covenants contajned in this Agreement, the Original Agreement, 17 and the Pirst Amended Agreement (to the extent not altered by this Agreement), the Parties agree as 18 follows:
19 A. CJ! agrees. to:
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 I. Cause liens to be recorded in favor of CITY, on real property that is valued in the amount of at Least$ 6.8 million (the "Liens"). The Parties understand that the amount of the Liens ($6.8 million) is an engineering estimate based upon the industry-standard cost of work for Plan B. The Liens shall be documented through a Performance Deed of Trust on each of the real properties that CII is using to satisfy its obligations. A form of the Performance Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
3 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l 1
12 13
14 IS
]6
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B.

C.
ii. Complete either Plan A or Plan B by the dates set forth in the Amended Project Schedule and proceed in accordance with the interim deadlines contained therein.

CU, CITY and Plaintiff agree that:

1. CIT shall follow the Amended Project Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit «A," which hereby supersede any prior Project Schedules attached to the Original Agreement and/or the First Amended Agreement. The Amended Project Schedule may be amended by agreement between Cll, CITY, and Plaintiff without fu1ther need to amend this Settlement Agreement.

11. Ill.
iv.
v.

The scope and/or timing and implementation of Plan B may change subject to the Parties mutual agreement and ClTY approval.

The document attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a true and co1Tect copy of the project that will be implemented as Plan A and such project will serve to abate the Nuisance al the Property.

Staff for the City have reviewed Plan A and have accepted the plan as complete for purposes of taking final action upon completion of the environmental study.

In the event that Plan B is not underway by the deadline set forth in the Amended Project Schedule, CITY may (I) enter the Property abate the Nuisance, and/or complete Plan B, and (2) foreclose on the Liens recorded in its favor pursuant to Section 2(A)(i) to recover the cost of completing Plan B. ln the event that the actual completion cost is less than the amounts recovered by CITY through the foreclosure of the Liens, CITY will return all sums recovered exceeding the actual cost of completion of Plan B to CII.

CITY agrees to:
i. CITY consents to the cancellation of the performance bond in the amount of $ l 000 000 that Cll previously secured with respect to the slope stabilization work.
4 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9

11. ...
ll I.

IV.
v.
vi.

The recordation of the Liens will satis(y any and all ofCII's bonding obligations that were set forth in the First Amended Agreement.

Process Plan A, inclusive of the site plan as shown in Exhibit C, in accordance with the Amended Project Schedule.

Provide a project team to proces Plan A, the lnterim Maintenance Program, and (if required) implement Plan B (the project team is collectively referenced as "Project Manager"). The cost of such project learn will be borne solely by Cll.

For Good Cause shown. such as a delay in CITY reviewing Cll's proposed development plans CITY processing or issuing a grading or building permit, or because of unusual inclement weather impeding construction, the Project Manager may extend the time set forth in the Amended Project Schedule by a period of time equal to the length of the delay. Such an extension of time must be in writing, executed by both Parties, and or confirmed by tne legaJ representatives of both Patties.

Upon the completion of Plan B, CITY snail do everything required to release the Liens from the properties in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe Performance Deed of Trust and/or applicable law.
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 Dated: June 8, 2020
23 24 Dated: June 8, 2020
25 26
27 Dated:
28 June 02, 2020
r ex rel., Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
Defendant Center Jnt'l lnvestmcnts, Inc.

By: Karrie On. Chief Executive Officer
5 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

EXHIBIT A

Option 2(A) Timeline:

Residential Development (Plan A} with Slope Stabilization (Plan B/82) Updated 06/01/20
05/22/20 - File Plan A Project Application with Ci·ty [Cll] Received 05/22/20 - File Plan A vesting tentative map (VTM) application with City [CILJ Received (6/1) 05/29/20 - Submit Specific Plan to City fCII] Received
05/29/20 - Screencheck 1S/EIR submitted to City [Cll] Received 05/29/20 - NOP issued for 30-Day Review of Initial Study [CityJ Draft Received 06/22/20 - City determination regarding Project application completeness l City J 07/10/20- Submit Draft EIR rcIJ]
07 /10/20 - Pub I ish DEIR/Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for Circulation (30 days) L City J 08/21/20-Submit Final EIR with Draft EIR comments addressed [Cll] 09/28/20-City staff approval of VTM/DA/final EIR/Specific Plan [CityJ I 0/13/20 - Planning Commission Hearing (City J
11/04/20-City Council hearing: first reading LCity]
11105/20-Jf Cily Council denies Residential Development Project- Plan B2 Slope Stabilization Mobilization commences [CII/City}
12/02/20 - City Council hearing: second reading [City]
01/02/21 - Ordinance Effective [City]
01/15/21 - Horizontal permits issued lCity]
02/02/21 - Final Map Recorded [City]
03/02/21-File Writ Period Ends [City]
03/08/21 - Mobilize for Horizontal Improvements f Cll j 04/05/22 -Jf no go for Residential Development Project: Plan B2 Slope Stabilization complete per City approved plan [Cl!]
09/08/22 - Stabilization complete for the overall Residential Development Project [Clll

City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 18, 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert Aguirre, Director of Recreation & Community Services SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution approving the design and plans and authorizing the Montebello Unified School District to construct improvements at the George Elder Community Center.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting a Resolution to provide an approval of the design and plans pursuant to government code §830.6, and authorizing the Montebello Unified School District to construct improvements at the George Elder Community Center; and

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

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Monterey Park and Montebello Unified School District have a joint-use agreement for the use of the George Elder Community Center. Each party has the right to make improvements to the center at their own expense with the approval of the other entity. The Montebello Unified School District prepared pro forma bid specifications for certain improvements at the George Elder Community Center including updates to the fire alarm system and a renovation of the restrooms. Those specifications require approval by the California Division of State Architect but are sufficient to determine that the proposed improvements for the George Elder Community Center may be reviewed by City staff. City staff including the Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal, have reviewed the pre-construction design and plans for the Project and agree with the District that the project may be constructed following the approval by the California Division of State Architect.

Before submitting its design to the State Architect, the Montebello Unified School District needs a Resolution providing authorization to proceed from the City of Monterey Park.

Consent Calendar - 3G

Staff Report

May
18, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On January 18, 1979, the City of Monterey Park and Montebello School District executed an agreement for joint use of the George Elder Community Center. The agreement provides Macy Intermediate school with exclusive usage of the center during such times school is “in session,” between the hours of 7:00 am and 3:15 p.m., with the City having exclusive use at all other times. The agreement identifies that each party may make improvements to the center at its own cost and expense, provided that plans and specifications are submitted and approved by the other party and any other board or officer required by law.

The Montebello Unified School District contacted the City to get approval to proceed with plans for upgrading the existing fire alarm system and renovating the restrooms at the George Elder Community Center to meet the needs of their students.

As a subdivision of the state of California, the District is required to comply with competitive bidding requirements that are substantially similar to those governing City’s public works project. Based on the Agreement and District’s legal requirements as to competitive bidding, it is in the public interest for City to allow District to complete the Project in accordance with the Architect’s approved plans and specifications. The approval and authorization granted by this Resolution is intended to avail the City of the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact. The project will be funded by the Montebello Unified School District.

Respectfully submitted by:

Robert Aguirre
Director of Recreation & Community Services
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Ron Bow Karl H. Berger
City Manager City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution

Staff Report
May 18, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. __

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIGN AND PLANS PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 830.6, WAIVING CITY BID

REQUIREMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
GEORGE ELDER COMMUNITY CENTER.

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. Montebello Unified School District (the “District”) prepared specifications for certain improvements at the George Elder Community Center. Those specifications require approval by the California Division of the State Architect (“State Architect”) but are sufficient to determine that the proposed improvements for the George Elder Community Center (“Project”) may be reviewed by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal;

B. The City Engineer and Fire Marshal reviewed the design and plans for the Project and agrees with the District that the Project may be constructed following approval by State Architect;

C. The City Council wishes to obtain the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6 with regard to the plans and construction of the Project;

D. Ordinarily, the City would need to comply with the competitive bidding requirements set forth in the California Public Contracts Code for this type of project;

E. The purpose of such bidding requirements is to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption, to prevent waste of public funds, and to obtain the best economic result for the public;

F. The facts and circumstances of this Project, however, demonstrate that a competitive bid process performed by the City would be unavailing or would not produce an advantage, and the advertisement for competitive bid would thus be undesirable and impractical for the following reasons:

1. The District and City utilize an existing joint use agreement to regulate each entity’s utilization of the George Elder Community Center (the “Agreement”);

2. The Agreement provides that while City owns the George Elder Community Center, District is required to maintain its interior and surrounding grounds;

3. As a subdivision of the state of California, District is required to comply with competitive bidding requirements that are substantially similar to those governing City’s public works project;

4. Based upon the Agreement and District’s legal requirements as to competitive bidding, it is in the public interest for City to allow District to complete the Project in accordance with the Architect’s approved plans and specifications; and

5. To complete the Project, District must still comply with payment of prevailing wages in accordance with the California Labor Code.

G. In waiving the competitive bid requirements otherwise required by the Monterey Park Municipal Code and Public Contracts Code, the City Council takes note of the analysis and decisions set forth in Graydon v.

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) Cal.App.3d 631; Hodgeman v.

City of San Diego (1942) 53 Cal. App.2
nd 610; Orange County Water Dist.
v. Bennett (1958) 156 Cal. App.2nd 745; and Los Angeles G&E Corp. v.

City of Los Angeles (1922) 188 Cal. 307.

SECTION 2: Environmental Assessment. The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities). The project results in minor alterations to existing public facilities involving no significant expansion of the existing use. The project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts with regard to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. There are adequate utilities and public services to serve the project.

SECTION 3: Bid Waiver. For the reasons set forth in Section 1, bidding is not required for the Project. The City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to the Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to construct the Project.

SECTION 4: Design Immunity; Authorization.

A. The design and plans for the Project are determined to be consistent with the City’s standards and are approved.

B. The design approval set forth in this Resolution occurred before actual work on the Project construction commenced.

C. The approval granted by this Resolution conforms to the City’s General Plan.

D. The City Engineer, or designee, is authorized to act on the City’s behalf in approving any alterations or modifications of the design and plans approved by this Resolution.

E. The approval and authorization granted by this Resolution is intended to

avail the City of the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6.

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 7: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______________, 20 22.

________________________________
Henry Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:

_____________________________
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Consent Calendar - 3H

Staff Report
May 18, 2022

Teachers and Students Association (PTSA) and helps support music, drama, and academic decathlon programs. Ms. Woo is an active MKHS alumni and although both her daughters graduated over seven years ago, she continues to mentor and bring students together through her involvement with the MKHS Alliance, PTSA, Instrumental Music Booster, and the Alhambra Educational Foundation . She is a past recipient of a Service to Education Award and has impacted the lives of numerous students in the Monterey Park community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Tree Memorial plaque and ceremony costs approximately $300 and funding is included in the FY 21-22 adopted budget in the Community Participation Division fund, account no. 1016508-5242.

Respectfully submitted by:

Robert Aguirre
Director of Recreation & Community Services
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Ron Bow Karl H. Berger
City Manager City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 10485 and 11484

2. Nomination of Sharon Woo

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 10485 and 11484
Staff Report
May 18, 2022

ATTACHMENT 2
Nomination of Sharon Woo
Staff Report
May 18, 2022

City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 18, 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Anthony Antich, Interim Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with John L. Hunter & Associates for Storm Water Program Management and Used Oil Recycling Grant RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with John L. Hunter & Associates, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for professional services for the implementation of the City’s Storm Water Program and Used Oil Recycling Grant; and

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

John L. Hunter and Associates (JLHA) has administered the City’s Stormwater program since 1995. The proposed agreement would allow the company to continue to provide professional services for the implementation of the City’s Storm Water Program and Used Oil Recycling Grant.

BACKGROUND:

The California Water Resources Control Board adopted a new Storm Water permit in 2012 that mandates a series of new requirements including a long-term plan to meet pollutant reduction standards. The City participates in the City of Los Angeles multi- jurisdiction plan, known as the “Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) and Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) for the Upper Los Angeles River (ULAR) Watershed Management Area.” This plan brings cost savings to the City and is highly technical. JLHA assisted the City in completing the Trash Daily Generation Rate Study (conducted annually to determine compliance with the LA River Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)). The Trash TMDL is a regulatory mandate to reduce trash discharged to the Los Angeles River and its tributaries.

JLHA also assists the City in maintaining compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), by actively seeking and managing project opportunities on behalf of the City, representing the City at interagency meetings, assisting with the preparation of Consent Calendar - 3I

Staff Report

May 18, 2022
compliance reports; it also provides assistance with the City’s Safe Clean Water Program.

JLHA is currently providing stormwater consulting services to 38 cities and four watershed groups and is highly respected in the field. City staff has also had a positive experience with JLHA’s staff who are knowledgeable, reliable, and responsive to the City’s needs.

Given the consultant’s lengthy and successful service to the City, staff requests City Council approve a new five-year contract per Monterey Park Municipal Code (MPMC) §

3.20.090 for professional services.

The proposed agreement includes services for the City’s NPDES Program and Used Oil Recycling grant for FY22-23. Staff proposes to join the Los Angeles County regional used oil program beginning in FY23-24. The contract cost will be based on time and materials, providing services within the scope of work at the costs listed in Section 5 of the attached proposal. The proposed term of the agreement is for 5 years with an option to extend for an additional 2-year term.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City’s Storm Water Program is funded by Sewer Fund (411) and Measure W Fund (248). Measure W Funds would be used for funding storm water projects coordinated by JLHA, the FY22-23 Proposed Budget includes sufficient funds to cover costs for Year 1 of the contract. The annual allotment from the Used Oil Recycling Grant will be used to pay for the program administration cost included in Year 1 of the agreement. Future funding for Years 2 through 5 of the contract would be budgeted as part of the City’s annual budget process. There is no impact to General Fund.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Anthony Antich
Interim Director of Public Works
Xochitl Tipan
Principal Management Analyst
Reviewed by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Management Services

Staff Report

May 18, 2022
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Ron Bow
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. John L. Hunter & Associates Proposal

Staff Report
May 18, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
John L. Hunter & Associates Proposal

MS4 NPDES and Used Oil Recycling
Grant Programs

SERVICES PROPOSAL
2022.05.04
Prepared for: The City of Monterey Park
Attention: Ziad Mazboudi
Prepared by: John L. Hunter & Associates
6131 Orangethorpe Ave #300
Buena Park, CA 90620

Michelle Kim Cameron McCullough

Project Manager Program Manager
[email protected] 714.576.4793 [email protected] 562.726.4259

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e i

Table of Contents

1. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Relevant Firm Experience .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Relevant Staff Credentials ................................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Key Personnel .................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Scope of Services............................................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Municipal NPDES Program Services .................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1. Program Assistance, Compliance Planning, and Reporting ............................................................. 4

2.1.2. Program Funding Assistance ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1.3. Control Programs ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2. Used Oil Recycling Grant Program Services ..................................................................................... 4

3. Service Deliverable Schedule ............................................................................................................ 7

4. Resumes ............................................................................................................................................ 8

5. Rate Schedule, Assumptions, and Estimated Costs ........................................................................ 18

5.1. 2022 Rate Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 18

5.2. Assumptions for Cost Estimate........................................................................................................ 19

5.3. Estimate Not-to-Exceed Fee Proposal ............................................................................................. 19

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e1

1. Qualifications
John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. (JLHA) is an environmental consulting corporation founded in 1985.

We specialize in assisting municipalities implement water quality and conservation programs. These programs include NPDES, stormwater pollution prevention, watershed management, sewer overflow prevention, water conservation, and recycling. Services include program administration, planning, reporting, and funding, as well as inspections, engineering, monitoring, and public education.

1.1. Relevant Firm Experience
Our experience in Municipal NPDES begins with the inception of MS4 Permits in the 1990s. Table 1 is a complete list of NPDES services we provide to current municipal clients. This includes:
 38 cities, 4 watershed management groups: Program administration or technical support,  18 cities: Grant and SCWP Program project application or administration,  38 cities: Field services such as BMP compliance inspections,  23 cities: Plan review and approval, including LID Plans, WQMPs, and SWPPPs,  39 cities, 3 WMGs: Reporting (e.g., annual, TMDL, or watershed reports), and  37 cities and 3 watershed groups: Staff training.

Recent and relevant projects include:
 Submitting over 20 applications for SCWP infrastructure project funding (2019-current).  Applying for and obtaining a Prop 1 Stormwater grant (Urban Orchard in South Gate, 2018) and administering a Prop 1 grant (Ford Park in Bell Gardens, current).  Updating Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) for the Lower Los Angeles River (LLAR), Lower San Gabriel River (LSGR), Nearshore (Long Beach), and Peninsula Cities WMGs (2021).  Assisting with the implementation of the Statewide Trash Provisions for 22 local municipalities.  Representing the Cities of Glendale, Diamond Bar, and Villa Park in MS4 NPDES compliance audits conducted by the Regional Water Board and Federal EPA staff in 2019 and 2020.  Managing ongoing BMP inspection programs at over 10,000 sites.

Our interagency compliance planning experience includes serving as the lead consultant for the development of the WMPs for the LLAR, LSGR, Nearshore, and Peninsula Cities watershed management groups (WMGs). This included oversight of the development of Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs). Together the member agencies of these Watershed Groups represent 20 MS4 NPDES Permittees. We also serve as the consultant team lead for the Nearshore, LLAR, LSGR, and Peninsula Cities WMGs. Services include administering monitoring activities, overseeing the development of and submitting funding applications for Safe Clean Water Program projects, preparing watershed annual reports, holding technical committee meetings, and implementing other relevant tasks such as feasibility studies.

We also represent municipal clients in WMGs for the Upper Los Angeles River, Upper San Gabriel River, Dominguez Channel, Ballona Creek, Beach Cities, and Los Cerritos Channel. In Orange County we represent six municipal clients in WMG planning activities led by the Orange County Public Works.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e2

Table 1. Summary of Municipal NPDES Services Currently or Recently Provided Municipal NPDES Client
Years of service
Administrative or
Technical support
Plan Review
Field Inspections
Public Outreach
Training
Funding Assistance
Project or
Compliance Planning
Trash Studies
Monitoring oversight
Reporting
Arcadia 27 × - - × × × × - - × - - ×
Artesia 8 × - - × × × × × - - - - ×
Baldwin Park 2 × - - × × × × × - - - - ×
Burbank 5 × - - - - - - × × × × - - ×
Cerritos 7 - - - - × - - - - × - - - - - - ×
Compton 2 × - - - - - - × × - - - - × ×
Covina 14 × × × - - × - - - - - - - - - -
Diamond Bar 15 × × × × × × × - - - - ×
Downey 11 × × × × × × × × - - ×
Fullerton 5 × - - - - - - × × - - - - - - ×
Glendale 9 × - - × - - × × - - × - - ×
Hawaiian Gardens 10 × × × × × × × - - - - ×
Hawthorne 22 × - - × × × × - - - - - - ×
Hermosa Beach 2 × - - × × × × × - - - - ×
Inglewood 7 × - - × × × × - - × - - ×
La Habra 11 × × × × × × - - - - - - ×
La Mirada 5 × - - × - - - - × - - - - - - ×
Laguna Woods 2 - - × × - - - - - - × - - - - - -
Lakewood 7 - - - - × - - - - × - - - - - - ×
Lomita 7 × - - × × × × × - - - - ×
Long Beach 8 × - - × × × × × × × ×
LCC Watershed Mgmt. Group (WMG) 9 × - - - - - - × - - × - - × - - Lower LA River WMG 9 × - - - - - - × × × - - × ×
Lower San Gabriel River WMG 9 × - - - - - - × × × - - × × Lynwood 8 × × × × × × × × - - ×
Manhattan Beach 12 - - - - × - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monterey Park 17 × × × × × × × × - - ×
Norwalk 12 × × × × × × × - - - - ×
Paramount 8 × × × × × × × × - - ×
Pasadena 7 × × × - - × × × × - - ×
Palos Verdes Peninsula WMG 9 × - - - - - - - - - - × - - × × Pico Rivera 6 × - - - - × × × - - × - - ×
Placentia 9 × × × - - × × - - - - - - ×
Rancho Palos Verdes 28 × × × × × × × × - - ×
Rolling Hills 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - × - - ×
Santa Fe Springs 6 - - × × - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Seal Beach 17 × × × × × × - - - - - - ×
Signal Hill 37 × × × × × × × × - - ×
South El Monte 5 × × × × × × × × - - ×
South Gate 31 × × × × × × × × - - ×
South Pasadena 17 × - - × × × × × × - - ×
Stanton 15 × × × × × × - - - - - - ×
Temple City 19 × × × × × × × × - - ×
Upper Los Angeles WMG 2 × - - - - - - - - - - × - - - - - - Villa Park 9 × × × × × - - - - - - - - ×
West Covina 7 × × × × × × × - - - - ×
West Hollywood 27 × × × - - × × × × - - ×
Whittier 8 × - - × × × × × - - - - ×
TOTALS (out of 48)

42 24 37 28 39 39 29 20 6 42

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e3

1.2. Relevant Staff Credentials
Staff credentials include certified professionals in engineering, stormwater quality, BMP (Best Management Practice) inspection, erosion control, SWPPP development and implementation, and environmental assessment. Table 2 lists specialized credentials held by JLHA staff.

Table 2. Specialized Credentials held by JLHA Staff
Credential Credential Task
PE Professional Engineer
CPSWQ Certified Professional in Stormwater Quality
CESSWI Certified Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Inspector QSD/P Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner (Construction) QISP Qualified Industrial Stormwater Practitioner
CGP ToR Trainer of Record for the NPDES Construction General Permit IGP ToR Trainer of Record for the NPDES Industrial General Permit

1.3. Key Personnel
Table 3 lists the key personnel for this project and their typical project roles. See the Resumes Section for the experience, credentials, and education of the project team.

Table 3. Project Team Key Personnel and Roles
Program Title Team Member Information
Project Manager Name Michelle Kim, MSE, CPSWQ, QSD
Roles Point of contact, manages services implementation and budget Program Manager
Name Cameron McCullough, MS, CPSWQ, QSD/P, IGP ToR
Roles Point of contact, provides technical oversight
Principal in Charge Name John Hunter, PE
Roles Oversees project implementation
Project Engineer Name Chris Chew, PE
Roles Plan review and engineering oversight
Project Engineer Name Michelle Staffield, PE, MSE, CPSWQ, QSD Roles Plan review
Assistant Project Manager Name Hugo Garcia, CPSWQ, CESSWI, QSD/P Roles QA/QCs reports, assists PMs, and prepares project deliverables Inspector Name Glenn Cajar, CESSWI, QSP, QISP
Roles Field compliance inspections
Inspector Name Wilson Duong, CESSWI, QSP
Roles Field compliance inspections
Outreach Specialist Name Jacqueline Mak
Roles Outreach programs implementation

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e4

2. Scope of Services
Tables 4 and 5 list our scope of Municipal NPDES and Used Oil Recycling Grant Programs services.

Additional information on these services is provided below. The timeframe of this proposal is five years.

Our proposed services and cost estimate is valid for 90 days. The services are provided on an annual basis, to be repeated for the term of the services contract.

2.1. Municipal NPDES Program Services
Table 4 lists our services under this task. Additional information on these services is provided below.

2.1.1. Program Assistance, Compliance Planning, and Reporting Table 4 lists our services under this task. Note:
 Program status updates include regulatory updates and stakeholder group updates.  Interagency meetings include those held by Watershed Management Groups and the LA Permit Group, the County of LA, training workshops, and the Regional Board.  Programs assessed under Compliance Planning include provisions related to Monitoring and Reporting, Minimum Control Measures, Watershed Management, TMDLs, and statewide pollutant provisions (e.g., trash).

2.1.2. Program Funding Assistance
Table 4 lists our services under this task.

2.1.3. Control Programs
Table 4 lists our services under this task.

2.2. Used Oil Recycling Grant Program Services
Table 5 lists our services under this task.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e5

Table 4. Task 1: Scope of Municipal NPDES Program Services Task Description

1.1. Program Assistance, Compliance Planning, and Reporting Program updates Provide project and program status updates.

Interagency meetings Represent the City in meetings/correspondence with program stakeholders.

Technical assistance Share technical program information and expertise with City staff.

Program development Assist in preparing new program documents.

Program assessment Assess program compliance and recommend actions.

WMP and CIMP Assist with the development and implementation of the WMP and CIMP.

TMDLs Assist with TMDL compliance planning, implementation, and reporting.

Trash TMDL Study Assist the City with the Trash TMDL DGR Study Compliance Reports Assist with the preparation of the NPDES and TMDL compliance reports.

Database management Operate and maintain an accessible online databases of program records.

As-needed assistance As needed: Assist with Municipal NPDES services not listed in this scope.

1.2. Program Funding Assistance
SCWP Plans and Reports Prepare SCWP Annual Plan and Annual Reports.

Program updates As needed: Provide updates on the SCWP and other NPDES funding programs.

Meetings As needed: Represent the City in funding meetings and correspondence.

Funding applications As needed: Prepare SCWP and grant applications and assist in administration.

Fees, budgets, agreements As needed: Develop and administer fees, budgets, and cost share agreements.

1.3. Control Programs

1.3.1 Planning and Land Development
Tracking Update LID BMP records with available program information.

Reviewing Review LID Plans and related documents.

Inspections As needed: Verify BMP installation and O&M and issue enforcement.

1.3.2 Construction (focusing on sites that disturb ≥ 1 acre.) Tracking Update site records with available program inventory information.

Reviewing As needed: Review SWPPPs and ESCPs for BMP implementation.

Inspections Conduct BMP inspections, follow-ups, and issue enforcement.

1.3.3 Industrial/Commercial Facilities
SB205/IGP Non-filers As needed: Assist with the following subtasks related to SB205/IGP non-filers.

Tracking Update industrial/commercial facility records using available data sources.

Educating As needed: Distribute, develop, and purchase educational material.

Inspections Schedule and conduct BMP inspections, follow-up, and issue enforcement.

1.3.4 Municipal Activities and Training
Tracking Update records for inventoried city facilities with available information.

Inspections As needed: Inspect BMPs at City facilities and assist in selecting BMPs.

Training Develop and provide Municipal NPDES training for city staff as applicable.

Project Implementation As needed: Assist in implementing NPDES capital projects and programs.

1.3.5 Illicit Discharge Investigations
Investigations As needed: Conduct field investigations, follow-up, and issue enforcement.

1.3.6 Public Information and Participation
Tracking Update records for public outreach activities.

Events Assist with City community events to promote pollution prevention.

Material distribution Provide and distribute educational materials.

Material development As needed: Update and develop educational materials and content.

Applicable to All Tasks
Project Management Coordinate with project staff, report on progress, and QA/QC deliverables.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e6

Table 5. Task 2: Scope of Used Oil Recycling Grant Program Services Task and Description

2.1 Public Participation
Develop advertising program in the City media outlet to promote used oil and filter recycling.

Submit articles in the City media outlet providing tips and insights on environmental protections.

Attend City event and distribute tip cards and other recycling information.

Prepare quarterly press release articles and advertisements for City media outlet.

Provide printed materials such as calendars, brochures, flyers, and posters to inform commercial and industrial businesses about recycling.

2.2 Certified Collection Center (CCC) Survey, Support, and Administration Conduct CCC surveys at four (4) locations in city.

2.3 Grant Administration
Complete and submit all CalRecycle grant documents (Funding Request, Expenditure Report, Annual Report).

Communicate with CalRecycle for proportionate cost/rates, project approvals, and stormwater mitigation project implementation.

Project Management Applicable to All Tasks
Coordinate with project staff, report on progress, and QA/QC deliverables.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e7

3. Service Deliverable Schedule
Table 6 lists our service deliverables and the schedule of delivery.

Table 6. Service Deliverable Schedule
Deliverable by task Delivery date and/or frequency
1 Municipal NPDES Program

1.1 Program Assistance, Compliance Planning and Reporting MS4 NPDES Annual Reports Semi-annual drafts by 6/1 and 11/15, and finals submitted by 6/15 and 12/15.

Trash TMDL DGR Study and Report Study completed by 9/22, draft report completed by 12/1, and final report
submitted by 12/15. Date set by City and
JLHA.

1.2 Program Funding Assistance
SCWP Annual Plan Draft by 3/15 and final submitted by 4/1 SCWP Annual Report Draft by 12/15 and final submitted by 12/31

1.3 Control Programs

1.3.1 Planning and Land Development
As needed: Review LID Plans with comments ≤ 2 weeks from receiving LIDs Plans

1.3.2 Construction (For sites that disturb ≥ 1 acre.)
Inspections Varies per site from monthly to twice a
year

1.3.3 Industrial/Commercial Facilities
Updated facility inventory Updated at least once every 2 years Inspections Facilities are inspected once every 2 years

1.3.4 Municipal Activities and Training
Facility inventory Updated once during year 1 of services Training presentations (in person, virtual, or self-guided) Annually

1.3.5 Illicit Discharge Investigations
Investigations Same day if urgent, ≤ 3 days if not urgent

1.3.6 Public Information and Participation
Event attendance and/or providing materials At least annually Material distribution. At least annually
2 Used Oil Recycling Grant Program

2.1 Public Participation
Public participation Provided as requested by City staff, on schedule agreed upon by City staff and
JLHA

2.2 Certified Collection Center (CCC) Survey, Support, and Administration CCC Surveys Surveys are conducted annually at four
locations.

2.3 Grant Administration
Grant administration Provided within the timeframes required by CalRecycle and grant agencies.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e8

4. Resumes
The following section includes the resumes and certifications of key personnel.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e9

Cameron McCullough, CPSWQ, QSD/P, IGP ToR
Director
Cameron McCullough has eighteen years of experience in the environmental compliance field, specializing in municipal surface water quality. His experience includes municipal NPDES, TMDL, and SSO control programs administration and implementation, funding—including the Safe, Clean Water Program, compliance planning, staff training, and representing client interests in interactions with regulators and other stakeholders.

Recent experience and qualifications
Mr. McCullough currently serves as a contracted project manager and primary contact for nine local cities’ surface water quality programs and provides as-needed general technical assistance to 28 local cities. Programs administered include those for state NPDES stormwater discharge permits (MS4, IGP, CGP), state non-stormwater discharge permits and orders (e.g., sanitary sewer overflows and drinking water system discharges), and local ordinances related to these programs (e.g., for the Safe, Clean Water Program, stormwater and urban runoff pollution prevention, and FOG/Industrial Waste Control). The table below lists specific clients, roles, and tasks for relevant contracted services.

Relevant Experience Currently or Recently Provided
Project Manager for contracted Municipal NPDES Program implementation assistance Clients Arcadia, Burbank, Glendale, Inglewood, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Stanton, Villa Park, and West Covina (9 cities total)
Tasks Varies per client, including client representation with watershed groups and regulators, program administration, WMP/TMDL/trash prohibition compliance planning, training, reporting, studies, and oversight of control programs such as inspections and public outreach.

Budget $600,000/year total
Lead Technical Support for as-needed Municipal NPDES technical assistance Clients The clients listed above, as well as Artesia, Baldwin Park, Compton, Covina, Diamond Bar, Downey, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Long Beach, Monterey Park, Norwalk, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, RPV, Temple City, West Hollywood, and Whittier (28 total) Tasks Varies per client, including but not limited to staff training, NPDES Permit compliance inquiries, and assistance with strategic WMP/TMDL compliance planning.

Lead Technical Support for contracted Safe, Clean Water Program (SCWP) implementation assistance Clients The 28 clients listed above, and Hawaiian Gardens, La Mirada, and Lynwood (31 total) Tasks Varies per client, including Annual Plan and Expenditure Report development and preparation, and general technical assistance. For Burbank (2020), Diamond Bar (2020), and South Pasadena (2 in 2020, 1 in 2021), tasks included project concept planning and TRP application preparation.

Project Manager for Watershed Management Group Reporting and WMP Adaptive Management Clients Agencies within the Lower LA River and Lower San Gabriel River Watershed Management Groups Tasks Administering the preparation and adaptive management of WMPs and watershed reporting.

Client Representation for NPDES Program Audits
Clients Diamond Bar (2019), Glendale (‘20), Seal Beach (‘10, ‘06), Stanton (‘14, ‘10), Villa Park (‘19) Tasks Represented cities in MS4 NPDES Permit compliance audits from Cal EPA and Federal EPA. 18 years of project experience
Education
M.S., Applied Mathematics, CSULB
B.S., Physics, CSULB
Certifications
CPSWQ, EnviroCert (#0842)
QSD/QSP, CASQA (#22706)
IGP Trainer of Record, CASQA (#079)
Affiliations
Phi Beta Kappa Society
Society for Industrial & Applied Math

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e10

Michelle Kim, MSE, CPSWQ, QSD
Project Manager
Michelle Kim has fifteen years of experience in the
water quality industry, which includes potable water,
wastewater, and stormwater. Michelle serves as a
Project Manager and technical lead on various
stormwater infrastructure projects for municipalities
involving planning, review, implementation, and
funding (including the Safe Clean Water Program).

Her relevant experiences and tasks include
implementing and managing NPDES municipal
permit provisions such as watershed management
and TMDL compliance, Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and Low Impact Development (LID) for
planning and land development, construction,
industrial/commercial activities, and public information and participation. She is also involved in the development and review of Watershed Management Programs (WMPs), Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), and LID Plans. Her experience also includes compliance planning, staff training, and representing client interests in interactions with regulators and other stakeholders.

Michelle’s client-specific responsibilities at JLHA include:
 Reviewing LID Plans following the standards of the Los Angeles County area-wide MS4 Permit for the Cities of Covina, Diamond Bar, Downey, Hawaiian Gardens, Long Beach, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Norwalk, Pasadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill, South El Monte, South Gate, West Covina, West Hollywood, and Whittier.
 Reviewing WQMPs following the standards of the North Orange County area-wide MS4 Permit for the Cities of La Habra, Placentia, Seal Beach, Stanton, and Villa Park. (WQMPs are the Orange County- equivalent of Los Angeles County’s LID Plans.)
 Serving as point-of-contact with project engineers for the LID Plan and WQMP review process.  Conducting post-construction BMP verification inspections.  Conducting training to municipal staff on LID.
 Assisting in municipal TMDL compliance activities, including the preparation of Trash TMDL studies and compliance reports, and Bacteria TMDL studies and Load Reduction Strategy reports.  Assisting in MS4 Permit Project Management for the Cities of Diamond Bar, Downey, La Mirada, Long Beach, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Temple City, and Whittier. Tasks include serving as a point-of-contact with city staff, representing city interests at watershed meetings and other NPDES- related meetings and hearings, and preparing Annual Reports.  Assisting in Watershed Management efforts under the LA County area-wide MS4 Permit. This includes management of the Lower Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group (WMG), Lower San Gabriel River WMG, and Long Beach Nearshore WMG. Tasks include administering meetings, managing subcontractors, representing the groups in interactions with regulators, and preparing compliance reports, such as Watershed Annual Reports, WMP Progress Reports, and Adaptive Management reports.

15 years of project experience
Education
M.S., Civil Engineering, Loyola Marymount
B.S., Environmental Science, UC Berkeley
B.A., Public Health, UC Berkeley
Certifications
CPSWQ, EnviroCert (#1134)
QSD, CASQA (#26504)
EIT, NCEES (#141554)
Grade 3 Laboratory Analyst, CWEA (#130133001)

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e11

John L. Hunter, PE
Principal
Mr. Hunter serves as the Principal of JLHA. He has over 30 years of experience in municipal environmental programs and currently oversees or otherwise assists with: (1)
elements of over 40 separate municipal NPDES programs
that covers sub-programs such as: watershed and
stormwater management, TMDL implementation, plan
reviews, industrial and construction inspections, training, O&M activities, public outreach, and monitoring and
reporting; (2) elements of 30 municipal Safe, Clean Water Programs, (3) eleven municipal FOG or Industrial Waste programs encompassing permitting, inspections and enforcement; (4) six municipal Used Oil Recycling programs; (5) three municipal Beverage Container Recycling programs; and (6) two water conservation programs.

Related Experience
Representation, Advocacy, and Leadership
Since May 2016, Mr. Hunter has served as the chair for the LA Permit Group, which facilitates discussions and provides area wide Permit updates to affected parties within LA County that are under the Regional MS4 NPDES Permit. He coordinates this role with staff from the County of Los Angeles, as well as other Permit stakeholders.

Historically, he has also chaired the Los Angeles River Watershed Management Committee and the Santa Monica Bay Bacterial TMDL J7 Subcommittee.

For decades Mr. Hunter has regularly represented client interests in meetings with Regional Board staff and members, most recently regarding topics such WMPs, CIMPs, TMDLs, trash provisions, and other new Permit mandates. Most recently this included providing written and oral comments on the 2021 Regional MS4 NPDES Permit on behalf of the Lower San Gabriel River and Lower LA River Watershed Management Groups.

Through these experiences, Mr. Hunter has played a leadership role in the continued countywide development and implementation of the Municipal NPDES Program in the LA Region.

Watershed Management and Safe, Clean Water Program
Mr. Hunter serves as the Principal-in-Charge for contracted program administration and implementation assistance to the Lower Los Angeles River Watershed Group, the Lower San Gabriel River Watershed Group, the Peninsula Cities Watershed Group, and the Long Beach Near-shore watersheds. Services overseen include preparation and adaptive management of the WMPs, CIMP monitoring, annual compliance reporting, project concept planning, and SCWP application preparation. This includes presenting SCWP funding projects to the Watershed Area Steering Committees (WASCs). He also participates as needed in the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Group, the Dominguez Channel Watershed Group, and the Los Cerritos Channel Watershed Group.

Total Maximum Daily Loads and NPDES Permit Implementation Mr. Hunter oversaw development of the Reach 1 Metals TMDL Implementation Plan on behalf of nine local agencies. The Plan was used as a source document for the Compliance Schedule in the Lower LA River WMP.

He has also administered Trash TMDL studies and associated compliance reports for 19 cities, and continues to oversee the development and implementation of the federally required NPDES Municipal Permit Minimum Control Measures for over 30 cities.

Over 30 years of project experience

Education
B.S. Chemical Engineering, CSULB
B.S. Biological Sciences, UCI
Certifications and Licenses
CA Professional Chemical Engineer, 4724
CA Registered Environmental Assessor, 0900
CA Hazardous Substance Removal, A3382
CA General Engineering License, A-582340

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e12

Chris Chew, PE, QSD
Staff Civil Engineer
Overview
Mr. Chew serves as a Staff Civil Engineer. He has over 20 years of municipal experience reviewing structural and architectural plans. His specialty lies in reviewing such plans for compliance with Permits (including MS4), City ordinances (including LID and Green Streets /Erosion Control), Building Codes, and other State Laws.

Education
 M.S. Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University
 B.S. Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University
Certifications and Licenses
 CA Professional Civil Engineer (#47147)
 Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD)
Related Experience
With JLHA (Starting 2021)
 Reviews structural and architectural plans and residential and large and complicated buildings for compliance with the MS4 Permit, City Ordinances and State Law.
 Interacts with developers to facilitate completion of their projects.  Code Consultant.

City of Glendale, Principal Civil Engineer (2015-2020)
 Supervise and manage the Land Development, GIS, Surveying, Real Property, Stormwater and Wastewater Sections.
 Supervise and manage the review of grading and public improvement plans, encroachment plans, subdivision maps, covenant and agreements, street vacations and dedications.  Update City's ordinances relating to engineering requirements in the Glendale Municipal Code, Glendale Building Code and Low Impact Development Ordinance.
 Review development plans for construction and code compliance.  Represent the City of Glendale in meetings with other public agencies relating to wastewater and stormwater issues.
 Manage and implement the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program.  Responsible for the management of the Wastewater contracts with City of Los Angeles relating to the Amalgamated System and the Los Angeles Glendale Water Reclamation Plant.  Manage wastewater rate study involving cost of service analysis.  Solicit, prepare, and manage professional service agreements.  Coordinate with architects, engineers, contractors, and other City staffs on development projects.  Review City Council's staff report submittals.
 Review and evaluate employee's job performance.

City of Glendale, Senior Civil Engineer (2009-2015)
 Supervise and manage the Land Development, GIS, and Surveying Groups.  Review development plans for construction and code compliance.  Determine requirements for subdivisions, grading permits, construction permits and bonds.  Coordinate with architects, engineers, contractors, and other City staffs on development projects.  Review Council's staff report submittals.
 Response to citizen's requests and complaints.
 Manage the construction of federally funded slope repair project and supervise the analysis and reports on disputed construction costs, procedures, bids, and contract.  Oversee preparation and revision of maps, surveys, wastewater records, and the storage and filing of various records and project files.
 Develop a handbook that describes the permitting procedures for various permits.  Review and evaluate employee's job performance.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e13

Michelle Staffield, PE, MSE, CPSWQ, QSD
Project Manager/Project Engineer
Michelle Staffield has fifteen years of experience in the water quality field, specializing in surface water quality regulation in local regions including Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. Her experiences include
managing the development and implementation of point
and non-point source programs—including NPDES and
TMDL programs for municipalities—assisting and
training municipal staff in their in-house NPDES
programs, and representing client interests in
interactions with regulators and other stakeholders.

Recent Experience and Project Qualifications
Michelle serves as a Project Manager and technical lead on various stormwater infrastructure projects for municipalities involving planning, review, and implementation. In this role her relevant experiences and tasks include implementing and managing NPDES municipal permit provisions such as watershed management and TMDL compliance, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development (LID) for planning and land development, construction, and industrial/commercial activities, public information and participation, and general programs management and technical assistance. She is also involved in the development and review of Watershed and Stormwater Management Programs, Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), and LID Plans.

Municipal NPDES Permit Management: Some of Michelle’s current client-specific responsibilities include:
 Reviewing LID Plans following the standards of the Los Angeles County area-wide MS4 Permit for the cities of Covina, Diamond Bar, Downey, Hawaiian Gardens, Long Beach, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Norwalk, Pasadena, Rancho Palos Verdes, Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill, South El Monte, South Gate, West Hollywood, and Whittier.
 Reviewing WQMPs following the standards of the North Orange County area-wide MS4 Permit for the cities of Buena Park, La Habra, Placentia, Seal Beach, Stanton, and Villa Park. (WQMPs are the Orange County-equivalent of Los Angeles County’s LID Plans.)  Serving as point-of-contact with project engineers for the LID Plan and WQMP review process.  Conducting post-construction BMP verification and maintenance inspections for the cities of Covina, Diamond Bar, Downey, Hawaiian Gardens, La Habra, Placentia, Rancho Palos Verdes, Seal Beach, Signal Hill, Stanton, and West Hollywood.
 Assisting in municipal TMDL compliance activities, including the preparation of Trash TMDL studies and compliance reports, and Bacteria TMDL studies and Load Reduction Strategy reports.  Assisting in NPDES program management for the cities of Downey, South Gate and Signal Hill.

Tasks include serving as a point-of-contact with City staff, representing city interests at watershed meetings and other related meetings and hearings, and preparing the Individual Annual Report.

Watershed Management: Through representation of municipal clients’ stakeholder interests, Michelle also participates in the development and implementation of watershed management programs and monitoring programs for the Dominguez Channel, Los Cerritos Channel, Lower Los Angeles River, Lower San Gabriel River, and Peninsula Cities.

Education
M.S., Civil Engineering, Loyola Marymount
B.S., Ecology, Behavior, & Evolution, UCSD
Certifications
CA Professional Civil Engineer (#88904)
CPSWQ, EnviroCert (#1136)
QSD, CASCA (#26529)

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e14

Hugo Garcia, CPSWQ, CESSWI, QSD/P
Senior Project Analyst/Assistant Project Manager
Hugo Garcia has ten years of experience with John L. Hunter & Associates, specializing in NPDES and Industrial Waste/FOG Control regulations. His experiences include implementation of Municipal NPDES Programs for Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Development Construction, Municipal Activities, Planning and Land Development, Public Information and Participation, and Illicit Connections & Illicit Discharge Elimination Programs. In addition, Hugo provides TMDL implementation and reporting, and serves as JLHA’s lead GIS Specialist.

Recent Experience and Project Qualifications
Mr. Garcia currently serves as both a Senior Project Analyst and Compliance Specialist whose responsibilities include providing assistance with the implementation of several Watershed Management Programs in Los Angeles and Orange County, as well as conducting stormwater compliance inspections (e.g., La Habra, and South Gate). Specific examples of recent experience and project qualifications include:
 Assisting with the development, implementation, and compliance reporting components of Trash TMDLs for the Cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Burbank, Downey, Glendale, Inglewood, Long Beach, Lomita, Lynwood, Monterey Park, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Rancho Palos Verdes, Signal Hill, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Temple City, and West Hollywood.  Assisting with the development of the Lower Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group Trash Monitoring Reporting Plan (TMRP), Trash Minimum Frequency of Assessment and Collection (MFAC/BMP) Programs for the Cities of Arcadia, Burbank, Downey, Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Pico Rivera, and Plastic Pellet Management Programs (PMRPs) for the Cities of Arcadia, Burbank, Glendale, Monterey Park, Pasadena, San Gabriel, South El Monte, South Pasadena, and Temple City.  Assisting with Industrial General NPDES Stormwater Permit compliance activities and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for municipal facilities located in the Cities of Laguna Beach, La Mirada, San Gabriel, Signal Hill, and West Covina.
 Conducting over 3,000 NPDES compliance inspections at industrial/commercial facilities (e.g., food facilities, automotive repair facilities, and facilities subject to the Industrial General Permit) and construction sites.
 Developing and maintaining GIS databases of 1) potential sites for low impact development (LID) retrofit projects to comply with various Watershed Management Programs, 2) catch basin retrofit locations to comply with Trash TMDLs and the statewide Trash Provisions, and 3) MS4 outfall and non- stormwater discharges locations to comply with Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs).
 Reviewing preliminary plumbing plans for new development and tenant improvement projects at Industrial Waste/FOG facilities in the cities of Arcadia, Signal Hill, South El Monte, South Gate, and Stanton.
 Assisting with the review of small site Low Impact Development (LID) plans for conformance with city- specific LID standards for the Cities of Signal Hill, South Gate, and West Hollywood.  Developing retrofit opportunity inventories for multi-watershed/multi-jurisdictional grants.

Education
B.S., Environmental Science, UCR
Certifications and Training
CPSWQ, EnviroCert (#1183)
CESSWI, EnviroCert (#4769)
QSD/P, CASQA (#27064)
Professional Certificate in GIS
Basic Inspector Academy, Cal EPA
Spanish fluency

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e15

Glenn Cajar, CESSWI, QSP, QISP
Compliance Specialist II
Glenn Cajar has eight years of experience with John L. Hunter & Associates, specializing in municipal surface water quality and conservation regulations. His experiences include work in 1) the Municipal NPDES Programs for Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Construction, Public Outreach, and Illicit Discharge Elimination, 2) spill prevention through the Industrial Waste and Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Programs, and 3) conservation
through statewide drought emergency regulations and the Clean Bay Restaurant (CBR) Program in the Santa Monica Bay.

Recent Experience and Project Qualifications
Glenn currently serves as an Environmental Compliance Specialist II. Specific examples of recent and relevant experience under this role include the following:

NPDES
● Conducting NPDES compliance inspections at industrial/commercial facilities (e.g., food facilities, automotive facilities, and facilities subject to the NPDES Industrial General Permit) ● Assisting facilities under the NPDES Industrial General Permit with permitting and compliance. ● Conducting NPDES compliance inspections at construction sites, including those under the NPDES Construction General Permit.
● Serving as a QSP under the Construction General Permit. (Long Beach) ● Assisting industrial businesses with SB 205 compliance. ● Training municipal staff in the illicit discharge component of the Municipal NPDES Permit. (Signal Hill) ● Training municipal staff in the Drinking Water Systems NPDES Permit. (Signal Hill) ● Preparing NPDES permit applications under the Drinking Water Systems NPDES Permit. (Several Cities) ● Assisting with the implementation of Trash TMDL field studies, including the DGR and MFAC studies. ● Developing educational materials for use by municipal staff, industrial/commercial businesses, and construction site operators.

Industrial Waste and FOG
● Conducting Industrial Waste and FOG inspections at industrial and commercial facilities. (Several cities)
● Assisting with implementation and processing of Industrial Waste/FOG program permitting. (Signal Hill)
● Assisting with implementation of Industrial Waste/FOG program fee recovery billing. (Signal Hill) ● Assisting with reviewing preliminary plumbing plans for new development and tenant improvement projects at Industrial Waste/FOG facilities. (Signal Hill).

Conservation
● Conducting water conservation inspections. (Seal Beach) ● Assisting in the program management of the Clean Bay Restaurant (CBR) Program and conducting CBR inspections at restaurants. The CBR Program incorporates solid waste recycling requirements, as well as NPDES and FOG requirements.

Education
B.S., Earth and Environmental Science,
UCI
Certifications and Training
CESSWI, EnviroCert

QSP, CASQA

QISP, CASQA
Basic Inspector Academy, Cal EPA

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e16

Wilson Duong, CESSWI, QSP
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Wilson Duong has six years of experience with John L. Hunter & Associates, specializing in NPDES and Industrial Waste/FOG Control regulations. His experiences include implementation of Municipal NPDES Programs for Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Development Construction, Public Information and Participation, and Illicit Connections & Illicit Discharge Elimination Programs. In addition, Wilson provides TMDL implementation and reporting, and serves as one of JLHA’s GIS Specialists.

Recent Experience and Project Qualifications
Mr. Duong currently serves as an Environmental Compliance Specialist whose responsibilities include implementing compliance inspection programs for stormwater, industrial waste, and fats, oils, grease (FOG), as well as providing assistance with the implementation of several Watershed Management Programs in Los Angeles and Orange County, Specific examples of recent experience and project qualifications include:
● Conducting industrial waste and FOG inspections at industrial/commercial facilities (e.g. food service establishments, food processing, manufacturing, and automotive body/repair/wash). ● Assisting with implementation and processing of Industrial Waste/FOG program permitting. (Covina, El Monte, South El Monte).
● Assisting with implementation of Industrial Waste/FOG program fee recovery billing. (South El Monte). ● Assisting with reviewing preliminary plumbing plans for new development and tenant improvement projects at Industrial Waste/FOG facilities. (South El Monte). ● Conducting NPDES compliance inspections at industrial/commercial facilities (e.g., food facilities, automotive facilities, and facilities subject to the Industrial General Permit), and construction sites. ● Assisting with implementation of Senate Bill 205 (Business Licenses: Storm Water Discharge Compliance). (Artesia, La Mirada, Long Beach, Pico Rivera, Signal Hill, Stanton, West Covina). ● Training and supervising new JLHA inspectors on proper inspection procedures for the NPDES, and Industrial Waste/FOG programs.
● Developing and maintaining inspection facility databases for the NPDES, and Industrial Waste/FOG programs
● Assisting with the implementation component of Trash TMDLs. (Burbank, Monterey Park). ● Assisting with the implementation component of the Lower Los Angeles River Trash Minimum Frequency of Assessment and Collection (MFAC/BMP) Programs. (Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach, Pico Rivera). ● Assisting with the development of GIS-based implementation plans to comply with the Statewide Trash Provisions for 22 local municipalities.
● Developing and maintaining GIS databases of 1) potential sites for low impact development (LID) retrofit projects to comply with various Watershed Management Programs, and 2) catch basin retrofit locations to comply with Trash TMDLs and the statewide Trash Provisions.

Education
B.S., Environmental Science, UCR
Certifications and Training
CESSWI, EnviroCert (#5626)
QSP, CASQA (#27359)
Basic Inspector Academy, Cal EPA

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e17

Jacqueline Mak
Project Analyst
Education
B.S., Environmental Science, UCLA
Concentration: Geography/Environmental Studies

Jacqueline Mak has 5 years of experience in the water quality field, specializing in local water quality regulation and public education in Los Angeles and Orange County. Her experiences include implementation of Municipal NPDES programs, development and implementation of (Enhanced) Watershed Management Programs, coordinating NPDES, Used Oil Recycling and Beverage Container Recycling public outreach programs, developing funding applications, and representing client interests with regulators and other stakeholders.

Recent Experience and Project Qualifications
Jacqueline serves as a project lead and project analyst whose responsibilities include coordinating services implementation and contributing to deliverables for several (Enhanced) Watershed Management Programs ((E)WMPs)and paired Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs). Her relevant experience for this role includes implementing and coordinating NPDES municipal permit provisions such as watershed management, TMDL compliance, water quality monitoring, and public information and participation. She also serves as project lead for public outreach-focused state grant programs under CalRecycle: Used Oil Recycling Program and Beverage and Container Recycling Program for various municipalities in Los Angeles County. Her relevant experience for this role includes applying for grant funds, Certified Collection Center auto site visits, community outreach, and program development. Specific examples of recent experience and project qualifications include:
● Developing and implementing municipal NPDES and TMDL compliance activities, including representing city interests at meetings and hearings, preparing the Individual Annual Report, preparing Watershed Integrated Monitoring Compliance Reports, Adaptive Management Reports, Trash TMDL studies and compliance reports, TMDL reopener requests, and TMDL time schedule order requests.
● Developing and coordinating project funding applications for Los Angeles and Orange County cities (Safe Clean Water Program and OCTA Tier 1 Grant).
● Serving as point-of-contact for water quality monitoring consultants implementing the CIMP. ● Implementing and maintaining the Used Oil Recycling Programs for the Cities of Monterey Park, Seal Beach, South El Monte, and South Gate.
● Developing, maintaining, and implementing the Beverage Container Recycling Programs for the Cities of South El Monte and South Gate.

Watershed Management: Jacqueline participates in the development and implementation of (E)WMPs and CIMPs for the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Long Beach Nearshore and assists with the implementation of WMPs and CIMPs for the Lower Los Angeles River, and Lower San Gabriel River.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e18

5. Rate Schedule, Assumptions, and Estimated Costs

5.1. 2022 Rate Schedule
Principal $210 / hour
Director $185 / hour
Program Manager $185 / hour
Staff Engineer $185 / hour
Project Manager $175 / hour
Assistant Project Manager $160 / hour
Project Engineer $160 / hour
Compliance Specialist II $130 / hour
Project Analyst II $130 / hour
Compliance Specialist I $120 / hour
Project Analyst I $120 / hour
Administrative Assistant, Laborer (OSHA 40hr certified) $80 / hour Inspection – Combined NPDES and IW/FOG, or CBR and IWFOG $165 / unit Inspection – NPDES (industrial/commercial) or IW/FOG facility $130 / unit State Certified Laboratory Analysis Cost + 5%
Legal Consultation, Court Appearances/Document review, etc. $275 / hour Subcontracted equipment Cost + 5%
This rate schedule is subject to consumer price index (CPI) increases in subsequent years.

Proposal for MS4 NPDES and UO Recycling Grant Programs May 4, 2022 P a g e19

5.2. Assumptions for Cost Estimate
Table 7 lists the Municipal NPDES Program assumptions proposed for five years of service. These assumptions are used to calculate the annual not-to-exceed fee. If through program implementation it is determined that these quantities are underestimates, the City will be informed. In this event additional work will not be conducted without written approval from the City.

Tables 7. Annual MS4 NPDES Scope of Work Assumptions
Track 334 industrial/commercial facilities1
Inspect/Educate 167 industrial/commercial facilities
Conduct 17 follow-ups at industrial/commercial facilities Prepare 9 enforcement actions at industrial/commercial facilities Track/review/approve 4 LID Plan projects
Review/approve 4 SWPPPs
Track/inspect 6 CGP sites monthly (72 per year)2
Conduct 18 follow-ups at construction sites
Prepare 4 enforcement actions at construction sites
Hold 2 staff training sessions on five topics

5.3. Estimate Not-to-Exceed Fee Proposal
The annual not-to-exceed costs for the Municipal NPDES and Used Oil Recycling Grant Programs services are included in Table 8.

1 Assumptions are based on the City of Monterey Park 2020/2021 Individual MS4 NPDES Annual Report. The newest MS4 Permit requires all industrial/commercial facilities be inspected every two years. 2 Assumptions are based on the State Water Resources Control Board SMARTS Database. The newest MS4 Permit continues to require monthly inspections at state-permitted construction sites.

Cost Totals Cost Totals Cost Totals Cost Totals Cost Totals

1. MUNICIPAL NPDES PROGRAM SERVICES $87,901 $87,901 $87,901 $90,538 $93,254

1.1 Program Assistance, Compliance Planning and Reporting $27,753 $27,753 $27,753 $28,586 $29,443

1.2 Program Funding Assistance $4,340 $4,340 $4,340 $4,470 $4,604

1.3.1 Planning and Land Development $5,425 $5,425 $5,425 $5,588 $5,755

1.3.2 Construction $14,500 $14,500 $14,500 $14,935 $15,383

1.3.3 Industrial/Commercial Facilities $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,750 $26,523

1.3.4 Municipal Activities and Training $4,883 $4,883 $4,883 $5,029 $5,180

1.3.5 Illicit Discharge Investigations (as needed) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,030 $1,061

1.3.6 Public Information and Participation $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,150 $5,305

2. USED OIL RECYCLING GRANT PROGRAM SERVICES $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

2.1 Used Oil Recycling Grant Program $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Not to Exceed* $105,901 $87,901 $87,901 $90,538 $93,254 Grand Total for Three Years: $281,703 Grand Total for Five Years: $465,495 *This rate schedule is subject to 3% consumer price index (CPI) increases in subsequent years Table 8. Estimated Not-to-Exceed-Costs
Task name 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026* 2026-2027*

City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 18, 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Anthony Antich, Interim Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Third Amendment to Agreement No. 1636-A with First Transit, Inc for Fixed-Route Transit Service
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to Agreement No. 1636-A with First Transit, Inc, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for fixed- route transit service in an amount not to exceed $1,075,000; and

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City’s fixed-route transportation service, Spirit Bus, was suspended in 2020 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Prior to its suspension, the Spirit Bus contractor, First Transit, had been operating the system on a month-to-month agreement, after its contract with the City expired on June 30, 2019. The City recommends amending the First Transit agreement to resume Spirit Bus Services for one year with the option to extend for an additional one-year term. This will allow the City to continue evaluating its fixed-route system while continuing to provide this service to the Monterey Park community.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s fixed-route transit service, Spirit Bus, was suspended in 2020 due to the Covid- 19 pandemic. Prior to its suspension, the City contract ed with First Transit to operate Spirit Bus on a month-to-month basis. The City has been working on evaluating its fixed- route system to operate more efficiently, and recently contracted with a consultant to complete a thorough transit system evaluation. To better evaluate the system and provide transportation services to the community, staff entered into discussions with First Transit to resume Spirit Bus operations in the City. First Transit provided a proposal to restart the system by July 1, 2022 with modified service hours and an increased service rate.

First Transit, like many transit agencies industry-wide, has experienced challenges in hiring and retaining bus operators during the pandemic. Driver shortages have led transit agencies to raise wages and implement incentives such as hiring bonuses to attract potential drivers. Due to First Transit’s increase in operational costs, they have proposed an increased service rate of $104.01 per hour. Staff surveyed neighboring cities’ service rates, and several agencies expressed that they have recently experienced or are anticipating service rate increases for the same reasons stated above. Given the Consent Calendar - 3J

challenges in hiring bus operators and that the City’s previous service rate is over two years old, staff considers the proposed rate as reasonable compensation for providing transit services to the City.

The proposal also includes restarting the system with service on Monday through Friday, with no service on weekends. Previously, the 2019 contract included weekend service for Routes 1,2,3, and 4. Due to low ridership, and potential difficulty staffing a weekend shift, weekend service would not be provided. Weekly operational hours will not change.

Given that First Transit needs time to hire and train personnel and prepare service equipment to restart service, they have proposed a start date of July 1, 2022. The contract term would be for one year with the option to extend for an additional one-year term.

During this time, the City would continue to evaluate transit services including conducting additional community outreach and data collection to assess the system’s efficiency and areas of improvement. Staff anticipates releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new transit contract at the conclusion of the City’s transit system evaluation. The results of the RFP would be presented to City Council for review and approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost for the Third Amendment with First Transit, Inc will be funded with Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return funds. There are sufficient funds in the proposed FY22- 23 budget to execute this amendment. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Anthony Antich
Interim Director of Public Works
Xochitl Tipan
Principal Management Analyst
Reviewed by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Management Services
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Ron Bow
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
Staff Report

May 18, 2022

ATTACHMENTS:

1. First Transit Proposal
Staff Report

May 18, 2022

Staff Report
May 18, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
First Transit Proposal

1 First Transit, Inc.
600 Vine Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-241-2200
Fax: 513-684-8852
April 22, 2022
City of Monterey Park
Attn. Xochitl Tipan
320 W Newmark Avenue
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Re: Updated Pricing, City of Monterey Park Transportation Services Dear Ms. Tipan
Per your request, below is the updated pricing for Fixed Route services in the City of Monterey Park. Our updated fixed pricing includes several changes from our 2019 pricing, as detailed below. Conversely, if the City still has continued interest in exploring the option of converting the current Spirit bus program into an innovative “microtransit” service, then we are more than prepared to restart those conversations. The pricing provided is for a two-Year term which is in line with the remaining contract years from the 2019 award and allows for some costs to be amortized over the remining base term.

PRICE CHANGE FACTORS

START DATE
Our new pricing assumes a July 1, 2022, contract/service start date. This allows for the needed time to restart the system, hire/train the needed personnel and make sure that all service equipment is ready for start of the service.

OPERATING HOURS
Our 2019 bid inculded weekend service for a total of 19,000 annual revenue hours. Our new price proposal only is for service between Monday and Friday for a new annual revenue hour total of 10,320. Weekly operational hours will not change from our 2019 agreement.

WAGES
Driver shortages are a serious issue facing transit agencies across the country. As we begin to emerge from the pandemic, we have continued to refine our wage scale to ensure our ability to maintain a fully staffed operation. Based on our experience during the pandemic, our experience in the local marketplace and our expectation for future wage requirements, we have set our starting driver wage at $19.00 an hour (current drivers are at $16.50.) as well as

2 introduced a $2,500.00 hiring bonus for all new drivers. These two factors, along with a positive organizational culture led by our General Manager, Zack Deukmajian, have helped us continue to attract new driving talent for our other contracts. Because of this wage increase, our supporting staff (dispatchers, mechanics, utility, and road supervisors) have also all seen a slight increase to their wages. Attracting and retaining staff directly supports the City’s transportation service and is key to our joint success.

DOUBLEMAP SOFTWARE
The cost for the 2019 proposed Doublemap tracking software has been removed from our proposal. Over the last few years, this product line has struggled to meet the changing demands of our industry. Furthermore the legacy product that was proposed in 2019 has limited support from Doublemap. We welcome to work with the City to identify a better solution that may meet the City’s needs today and moving forward. There are many new and proven solutions, in the market today, that can help provide customers with real-time information as well as improve the overall rider’s experience. Examples of these new features can include mixed mode trip planning, payments and or booking a microtransit trip. First Transit has a wealth of knowledge and experience with these various system enhancements, and we look forward to working with the City to identify with solution(s) will meet the changing needs of its transit riders.

UPDATED PRICING
2-YEAR FIXED ROUTE PRICING (10,320 TOTAL HOURS)
Fixed 2-year cost Year 1 (July 2022) Year 2 (July 2023) Annual Cost $1,073,411 $1,078,211
Cost per Hour $104.01 $104.48

We look forward to commencing the restart of service and believe that it will be the right fit for the community. As your partner, and we will work with you to meet the expectations of the City Council and the mobility needs of the community.

If you should require additional information or clarification, please continue to contact Rashidi Barnes, Director of Business Development—Mobility as a Service, at (949) 400-4839 or [email protected]. Thank you for the opportunity to continue in this procurement.

Sincerely,

3 Rashidi Barnes
Director of Business Development, Mobility as a Service 949-400-4839
First Transit, Inc.

City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 18, 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 Grant RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Accepting grant funding in the amount of $1,367,000 from the California Department of Transportation Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 for the Monterey Park School and Crosswalk Safety Enhancement Project;

2. Authorizing the City’s Management Services Department to allocate $155,000 in grant funding to the FY21-22 budget; and

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City was awarded $1,367,000 from the California Department of Transportation Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 for the Monterey Park School and Crosswalk Safety Enhance Project. Staff requests the City accept the grant funds and authorize the City’s Management Services Department allocate $155,000 in grant funds to the City’s FY21-22 budget for the planning and design phase.

BACKGROUND:

The City was awarded approximately $1,367,000 from the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the Monterey Park School and Crosswalk Safety Enhancement Project. The proposed project involves pedestrian safety improvements around school sites at various locations Citywide. The proposed improvements include installation of crosswalk, pedestrian crossing signage, rapid flashing beacon signs, construction of ADA curb ramps, sidewalk, curb and gutter, overhead pedestrian flashing beacon system, installation of red curb, pavement markers, signage and striping.

Upon appropriation of funds, staff will complete the plan and design phase of the project. Staff anticipates receiving approval from Caltrans for the construction phase budget allocation in June 2022. The City will prepare a project bid package to proceed with the construction phase. The project is expected to be completed by December 2023.

Consent Calendar - 3K

Staff Report

May 18, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT:

The City’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 4 approved project budget is $1,367,000, which includes funds for Planning, Design, and Construction. $155,000 has already been allocated to the City for Preliminary Engineering, Plans Specifications & Estimates. Staff requests approval for the Management Services Department to appropriate $155,000 grant funding to the FY21-22 budget. The project will be added to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and the remaining $1,212,000 project budget for the Construction phase will be included in the City’s FY22-23 proposed budget.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Anthony Antich
Interim Director of Public Works
Xochitl Tipan
Principal Management Analyst
Reviewed by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Management Services
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Ron Bow
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. ATP Cycle 4 Agreement

Staff Report
May 18, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
ATP Cycle 4 Agreement

Acting City Engineer
04/16/2022
For
04/18/2022
4/18/22
12-176 7/1/2020
/ Okan Demirci, PE

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
07-LA-0-MONP
ATPL-5231(017)

1. A. This PROJECT will be administered in accordance with the applicable CTC STIP guidelines and the Active Transportation Program guidelines as adopted or amended, the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM), the Local Assistance Program Guidelines (LAPG), and this PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT.

B. This PROJECT is programmed to receive State funds from the Active Transportation Program (ATP). Funding may be provided under one or more components. A component(s) specific fund allocation is required, in addition to other requirements, before reimbursable work can occur for the component(s) identified. Each allocation will be assigned an effective date and identify the amount of funds allocated per component(s).

This PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT has been prepared to allow reimbursement of eligible PROJECT expenditures for the component(s) allocated. Unless otherwise determined, the effective date of the component specific allocation will constitute the start of reimbursable expenditures.

C. STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY agree that any additional funds made available by future allocations will be encumbered on this PROJECT by use of a STATE-approved Allocation Letter and STATE Finance Letter. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees that STATE funds available for reimbursement will be limited to the amount allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and/or the STATE.

D. Upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY request, the CTC and/or STATE may approve supplementary allocations, time extensions, and fund transfers between components. Funds transferred between allocated project components retain their original timely use of funds deadlines, but an approved time extension will revise the timely use of funds criteria for the component(s) and allocation(s) requested. Approved supplementary allocations, time extensions, and fund transfers between components made after the execution of this PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT will be documented and considered subject to the terms and conditions thereof.

Documentation will consist of a STATE approved Allocation Letter, Fund Transfer Letter, Time Extension Letter, and Finance Letter, as appropriate.

E. This PROJECT is subject to the timely use of funds provisions enacted by the Active Transportation Program guidelines, as adopted or amended, and by approved CTC and State procedures as outlined below.

Funds allocated for the environmental & permits (E&P), plan specifications & estimate (PS&E), and right-of-way components are available for expenditure until the end of the second fiscal year following the year in which the funds were allocated. 2 Page of 4Program Supplement 00-551S-T35- SERIAL

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
07-LA-0-MONP
ATPL-5231(017)
Funds allocated for the construction component are subject to an award deadline and contract completion deadline. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to award the contract within 6 months of the construction fund allocation and to complete and accept the construction within 36 months of award.

F. Award information shall be submitted by the ADMINISTERING AGENCY to the District Local Assistance Engineer immediately after project contract award and prior to the submittal of the ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S first invoice for the construction contract. Failure to do so will cause a delay in the State processing of invoices for the construction phase.

G. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall invoice STATE for environmental & permits (E&P), plans specifications & estimate (PS&E), and right-of-way costs no later than 180 days after the end of last eligible fiscal year of expenditure. For construction costs, the ADMINISTERING AGENCY has 180 days after project completion or contract acceptance to make the final payment to the contractor prepare the final Report of Expenditures and final invoice, and submit to STATE for verification and payment.

H. ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to submit the final report documents that collectively constitute a "Report of Expenditures" within one hundred eighty (180) days of PROJECT completion. Failure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY to submit a "Final Report of Expenditures" within 180 days of PROJECT completion will result in STATE imposing sanctions upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY in accordance with the current LAPM and the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines.

I. ADMINISTERING AGENCY indirect costs, as defined in 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirement for Federal Awards, to be claimed must be allocated in accordance with an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP), submitted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with Caltrans Audits and Investigations requirements which may be accessed at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/audits/.

ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all sub-recipients and project sponsors to comply with 2 CFR, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirement for Federal Awards, and all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.

ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees, and will assure that its contractors and subcontractors will be obligated to agree, that Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., and all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items.

Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received 3 Page of 4Program Supplement 00-551S-T35- SERIAL

SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
07-LA-0-MONP
ATPL-5231(017)
payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, or 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 3, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Funds due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third-party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller, and the California Transportation Commission.

J. By executing this PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT, ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with all reporting requirements in accordance with the Active Transportation Program guidelines, as adopted or amended.

K. This PROJECT has received funds from Active Transportation Program (ATP). The ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to administer the project in accordance with the CTC Adopted SB1 Accountability and Transparency Guidelines.

2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall construct the PROJECT in accordance with the scope of work presented in the application and approved by the California Transportation Commission. Any changes to the approved PROJECT scope without the prior expressed approval of the California Transportation Commission are ineligible for reimbursement and may result in the entire PROJECT becoming ineligible for reimbursement. 4 Page of 4Program Supplement 00-551S-T35- SERIAL

RESOLUTION NO. 12176

A RESOLUT

ION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER, OR DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE ALL

DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS FOR PROJECTS FUNDED

THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS).

The City
Council for the City of Monterey Park does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1: Findings. The City Council finds that the City is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for various transportation projects through the State California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

SECTION 2: Authorizations. In accordance with Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 3.90.020 the City Manager or Public Works Director/City Engineer are directed to execute the following documents:

A. All feder
ally required documents in relations to each phase of
federally funded work such as: Preliminary Engineering, Preliminary Environmental Studies, Right-of-Way, Construction, and Reimbursement and Closeout.

B. All agr
eements between the City and the State of California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for projects funded by State monies.

SECTION 3: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

SECTION 4: The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

PASSED, AND AD
OPTED this 1st day of July, 2020.
__________________________
Hans Liang, M
ayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Vincent
D. Chang, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
_________________________
Karl H
. Berger, City Attorney
Asst.

Resolution No. 12176

St
ate of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss.

City of Monterey Park )
I,
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12176 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park at a meeting held on the 1
st day of July 2020, by the following vote:

Aye
s: Council Members: Yiu, Lo, Sornoso, Chan, Liang
Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None
Abstain: Council Members: None
Dat
ed this 1st day of July, 2020.

Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
Monterey Park, California
El
ectronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

Report
City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 18, 2022
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kelly Gordon, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and approval of the Substantial Amendment to the 2021- 2022 HUD Annual Action Plan to receive and administer the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) -American Rescue Plan Program.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:
1) Opening the public hearing to receive testimonial and documentary evidence; 2) Closing the public hearing and approving the Substantial Amendment to the 2021- 2022 One-year Action Plan (Action Plan) to include the HOME-ARP Program (“HOME-ARP”);
3) Directing staff to prepare and transmit the final documents to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD");
4) Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to take all actions necessary or desirable to implement the HOME-ARP Programs, and Subrecipient Agreements; and
5) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding to states, counties and cities in the form of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds.

In 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act was enacted by Congress. The American Rescue Plan (ARP) provides funds to assist individuals or households who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, and other vulnerable populations, by providing housing, rental assistance, supportive services, and non -congregate shelter, to redu ce homelessness and increase housing stability across the country. These grant funds will be administered through HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME -ARP). Since the City of Monterey Park is an Entitlement City, the City is eligible to receive HOME-ARP funds.

Before Monterey Park can receive these funds, the City must develop a HOME-ARP Allocation Plan that meets the requirements in the HOME-ARP Notice.

Public Hearing - 4A

Staff Report

May 18, 2022

To receive its HOME-ARP allocation, the City of Monterey Park must:

• Engage in consultation with at least the required organizations; • Provide for public participation including a 15-day public comment period and one public hearing, at a minimum; and,
• Develop a plan that meets the requirements in the HOME-ARP Notice.

BACKGROUND:

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed ARP into law, which provides over $1.9 trillion in relief to address the continued impact of the COVID -19 pandemic on the economy, public health, State and local governments, individuals, and businesses.

To address the need for homelessness assistance and supportive services, Congress appropriated $5 billion in ARP funds to be administered through HOME to perform four activities that must primarily benefit qualifying individuals and families who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or in other vulnerable populations. These activities include: (1) development and support of affordable housing, (2) tenant -based rental assistance (TBRA), (3) provision of supportive services; and (4) acquisition and development of non- congregate shelter units. The program described in this notice for the use of the $5 billion in ARP funds is the HOME-American Rescue Plan or "HOME-ARP."

To receive the HOME-ARP funds, the City must comply with the following requirements of the Consolidated Plan final rule regarding pre-submission requirements:

► Fulfill citizen participation requirements by conducting a public hearing to receive citizen input regarding annual funding needs;
► Publish a Draft Annual Action Plan for a 15-day comment period in order to receive citizen input regarding the final document; and ► Conduct a public hearing adopting the final Annual Action Plan.

HOME-ARP Interim-Housing Program

As a result of the ever-worsening homeless crisis which has greatly impacted the quality of life and public health of the Monterey Park community and first responders. The City of Monterey Park and the police department’s leadership are committed to combating homelessness but continue to face challenges which include access to lack of bed availability and resources in the San Gabriel Valley along with lack of funding allocated to address the cultural competency of the unsheltered Monterey Park population and those on the verge of becoming homeless.

The City of Monterey Park and the police department have a need and desire to serve the most vulnerable in our community and increase ideas, resources and programs to be a part of a solution to this end. The HOME -ARP will provide f unding for homeless

Staff Report

May 18, 2022
engagement, with the objective to reduce homelessness and increase housing stability among individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness or on the verge of experiencing homelessness through support from a homeless service system that work in collaboration with the broader Continuum of Care (CoC) system in Los Angeles County.

Interim housing in a motel/hotel setting with case management and supportive activities would assist the qualifying population with appropriate services to their specific situation to find a long-term solution.

The HOME -ARP regulations do not allow more than 15% ($ 176,255) to be used for Planning and Administrative services. In addition, HOME-ARP can provide up to 5% of its allocation for operating costs of Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), other non -profit organizations, and homeless providers. Additional HOME - ARP funding is available to these organizations for capacity building activities.

In accordance with HOME -ARP Program regulations, the proposed PY 202 1-2022 One Year Action Plan proposed activities and funding are as follows:

HOME ACTIVITIES
Administration $176,255.00
Interim Housing $147,518.40
Housing Navigator and Case Management $52,914.18
Eligible Activities $15,000.00
Total 2021-2022 Allocation $391, 687.58
The public notice was published on May 02, 2022 in the Monterey Park Progress newspaper to inform the public of the 15-day public review period and May 18, 2022 Public Hearing for discussions on the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan which amends the City’s 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan. The documents were available for public review on May 02, 2022. At the time of preparing this staff report, City staff has not received any written comments FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Kelly Gordon
Chief of Police
Brenda Iglesias
Police Sergeant
Brenda Iglesias

Staff Report

May 18, 2022
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Ron Bow
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. HOME-ARP Allocation Plan

Staff Report
May 18, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
HOME-ARP Allocation Plan

1 HOME-ARP Allocation Plan Template

Guidance
• To receive its HOME-ARP allocation, a PJ must:
o Engage in consultation with at least the required organizations; o Provide for public participation including a 15-day public comment period and one public hearing, at a minimum; and,
o Develop a plan that meets the requirements in the HOME-ARP Notice. • To submit: a PJ must upload a Microsoft Word or PDF version of the plan in IDIS as an attachment next to the “HOME-ARP allocation plan” option on either the AD-26 screen (for PJs whose FY 2021 annual action plan is a Year 2-5 annual action plan) or the AD-25 screen (for PJs whose FY 2021 annual action plan is a Year 1 annual action plan that is part of the 2021 consolidated plan).
• PJs must also submit an SF-424, SF-424B, and SF-424D, and the following certifications as an attachment on either the AD-26 or AD-25 screen, as applicable:
o Affirmatively Further Fair Housing;
o Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan;
o Anti-Lobbying;
o Authority of Jurisdiction;
o Section 3; and,
o HOME-ARP specific certification.

Participating Jurisdiction: City of Monterey Park Date:
4/28/2022

Consultation

Before developing its plan, a PJ must consult with the CoC(s) serving the jurisdiction’s geographic area, homeless and domestic violence service providers, veterans’ groups, public housing agencies (PHAs), public agencies that address the needs of the qualifying populations, and public or private organizations that address fair housing, civil rights, and the needs of persons with disabilities, at a minimum. State PJs are not required to consult with every PHA or CoC within the state’s boundaries; however, local PJs must consult with all PHAs (including statewide or regional PHAs) and CoCs serving the jurisdiction.

Summarize the consultation process:

The City of Monterey Park held 8 virtual consultation sessions with key stakeholders to best discuss the best use of HOME-ARP funds. The consultations sessions were conducted remotely on 03/24/22, 03/31/22, 04/06/22, 04/07/22, 04/12/22, 04/21/22, 04/25/22 and 17 people were

2 involved in the interview process. Prior to the consultation meetings, the stakeholders were provided with an overview and description of the project including the activities that will be provided with the funding. The stake holders were asked for ideas and recommendations on how to best use the funds and the current gaps in service each organization is currently facing.

Through the consultation process, the stakeholders that manage homeless and public benefit programs empahsized that a huge barrier within the homeless service systems in the San Gabriel Valley is lack of bed availability and affordable housing. The rapid escalation of rents is also placing a strain on Los Angeles County residents. In 2018 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reported a housing gap for individuals at 40,764, families as 5,069 and for individuals veterans as 2,928.

Due to lack of bed availability in shelters and permanent housing the program would use the funds to provide emergency and/or interim housing along with client supportive servies in a hotel/motel setting. Through case management, a housing navigator will identify and assist the client’s needs and barriers to find a long-term solution.

The program’s qualifying population also includes residents on the verge of becoming homeless, veterans and victim’s of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. The program’s activities include assisting clients with obtaining legal documents, resource referrals to mental health providers, full service partnerships, rapid re-housing, emergency hotel vouchers, substance abuse, debt resolution, utility arrears and assisting with the client’s income.

Through the consultation process it was found that people are more respective to living in a single room due to the fact that some individuals have past trauma with living in communal areas. The program allows the clients to be more open to different services and lower their barriers. Also, some unhoused residents are not willing to leave an area they are familiar due to cultural compentency. This program would allow unhoused residents to be able to get the services they needs and stay in the community they know.

List the organizations consulted, and summarize the feedback received from these entities.

Agency/Org
Consulted
Type of
Agency/Org
Method of
Consultation Feedback
Los Angeles
Homeless
Service
Authority
CoC, homeless
service provider

Virtual meeting on
04/21/22
Lack of available resources in SPA 3.

Must address all of client’s challenges.

Ex: substance abuse, mental health, etc.

Increase awareness among the
community.

ChinaTown
Services Center
Chinese-
American
Virtual meeting on
03/24/22
Lack of bed availability in SPA 3.

3 health and
human service
organization
Shelters should be staffed with
individuals who are educated in the
nuances with the sheltered
population.

List of resources should be made
available in multiple commonly
spoken language.

Union Station
Homeless
Services
Homeless
service provider
Virtual meeting on
04/12/22
Aware of lack of bed availability in
SPA 3.

Provide substance abuse resources.

East Los Angeles
Women’s Center
Domestic
Violence and
Housing
Services
Virtual meeting
03/31/22
Access to service is key when
servicing domestic violence victims.

East LA Women’s Center get about
70 calls a week related to housing.

StarView
Behavioral
Health Urgent
Care Center
Behavior
Mental Health
Virtual meeting on
04/06/22
Lack of bed availability in SPA 3.

Not enough locations are willing take
an individual that isn’t med
complaint, have their prescription, or
allow client’s to be able to take their
medication in a safe location.

Neighborhood
Legal Services
Legal services
and housing
services
Virtual meeting on
04/07/22
Lack of bed availability in SPA 3.

Veterans
Administration
Veterans
service
organization
Virtual meeting on
04/12/22
Lack of bed availability in SPA 3.

Barriers finding landlords willing to
house clients.

Barrier – Veterans becoming eligible for
services. Ex. Must be chronically
homeless with a disability diagnosis.

LACDA Local
government,
fair housing and
civil rights
Virtual meeting on
04/25/22
Not limited to just the homelessness
population but look into other
“qualifying populations” that are on
the verge of become homeless and/or
victim’s of domestic violence,
college students living in their
vehicles and human trafficking.

Awareness of legal services is
important.

4 Funding should support prevention
activities.

If additional space is needed, insert image of table here:

Public Participation

PJs must provide for and encourage citizen participation in the development of the HOME-ARP allocation plan. Before submission of the plan, PJs must provide residents with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed HOME-ARP allocation plan of no less than 15 calendar days. The PJ must follow its adopted requirements for “reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment” for plan amendments in its current citizen participation plan. In addition, PJs must hold at least one public hearing during the development of the HOME-ARP allocation plan and prior to submission.

For the purposes of HOME-ARP, PJs are required to make the following information available to the public:
• The amount of HOME-ARP the PJ will receive,
• The range of activities the PJ may undertake.

Describe the public participation process, including information about and the dates of the public comment period and public hearing(s) held during the development of the plan:
• Public comment period: start date - 5/2/2022 end date - 5/16/2022 • Public hearing: 5/18/2022
To ensure the HOME-ARP Action Plan addresses the needs in the City of Monterey Park, the citizen participation and consultation processes were designed to gather public input on the development of the Action Plan. The City of Monterey Park held 8 consultation sessions with key stakeholders including the Continuum of Care agency which services the area on the following dates: 03/24/22, 03/31/22, 04/06/22, 04/07/22, 04/12/22, 04/21/22, 04/25/22 and 17 people were interviewed during that consultation process. The draft Action Plan was made available for public comment during a 15-day public review and comment Period which commenced on May 2, 2022. An in-person public hearing was held on May 18, 2022. Details about the public hearing and how the public can submit comments are provided in the Public Notice.

Following the conclusion of the Public Comment Period, the HOME-ARP Action Plan will be presented to the City of Monterey Park Council for approval, prior to its submittal to HUD.

5 Describe any efforts to broaden public participation:

The ensure the HOME-ARP Action Plan addresses the needs in the City of Monterey Park, the citizen participation and consultation processes were designed to gather public input on the development of the Action Plan. The draft Action Plan was made available for public comment during a 15-day public review and comment Period which commenced on May 2, 2022. An in- person public hearing was held on May 18, 2022. Details about the public hearing and how the public can submit comments are provided in the Public Notice.

A PJ must consider any comments or views of residents received in writing, or orally at a public hearing, when preparing the HOME-ARP allocation plan.

Summarize the comments and recommendations received through the public participation process:

To be completed after the public participation process which was made available for public comment during a 15-day public review and comment Period which commenced on May 2, 2022.

Summarize any comments or recommendations not accepted and state the reasons why:

To be completed after the public participation process which was made available for public comment during a 15-day public review and comment Period which commenced on May 2, 2022.

Needs Assessment and Gaps Analysis

PJs must evaluate the size and demographic composition of qualifying populations within its boundaries and assess the unmet needs of those populations. In addition, a PJ must identify any gaps within its current shelter and housing inventory as well as the service delivery system. A PJ should use current data, including point in time count, housing inventory count, or other data available through CoCs, and consultations with service providers to quantify the individuals and families in the qualifying populations and their need for additional housing, shelter, or services.

The PJ may use the optional tables provided below and/or attach additional data tables to this template.

6 OPTIONAL Homeless Needs Inventory and Gap Analysis Table Homeless
Current Inventory Homeless Population Gap Analysis
Family Adults Only Vets Family
HH (at
least 1
child)
Adult
HH
(w/o
child)
Vets Victims
of DV
Family Adults Only
# of
Beds
# of
Units
# of
Beds
# of
Units
# of
Beds
# of
Beds
# of
Units
# of
Beds
# of
Units
Emergency
Shelter 8,650 2,861 6,237 6,237 149
Transitional
Housing 1,528 502 2619 2,619 535
Permanent
Supportive
Housing
5,934 1,862 16,97
9 16.97
9 6,287
Other Permanent
Housing 752 1,278 0 42
Sheltered
Homeless 3,140 8,664 984 922
Unsheltered
Homeless 883 44,95
5 2,918 3,434
Current Gap # # # #
Suggested Data Sources: 1. Point in Time Count (PIT); 2. Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count (HIC); 3. Consultation

OPTIONAL Housing Needs Inventory and Gap Analysis Table Non-Homeless
Current Inventory Level of Need Gap Analysis
# of Units # of Households # of Households
Total Rental Units #
Rental Units Affordable to HH at 30%
AMI (At-Risk of Homelessness) #
Rental Units Affordable to HH at 50%
AMI (Other Populations) #
0%-30% AMI Renter HH w/ 1 or more
severe housing problems
(At-Risk of Homelessness)
#
30%-50% AMI Renter HH w/ 1 or more
severe housing problems
(Other Populations)
#
Current Gaps #
Suggested Data Sources: 1. American Community Survey (ACS); 2. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

7 Describe the size and demographic composition of qualifying populations within the PJ’s boundaries:

The residents of the City of Monterey Park have been greatly affected by the growing number of individuals experiencing homelessness. This issue impacted not only the quality of life for the community but also caused an increase in police service calls.

The City of Monterey Park is in the western San Gabriel Valley region of Los Angeles County and lies within the Los Angeles County Continuum of Care (CoC). Within the CoC, the County of Los Angeles is divided into eight Service Planning Areas (SPA). The City of Monterey Park is in Service Planning Area 3 (SPA 3).

In 2018 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reported a housing gap for individals at 40,764, families as 5,069 and for individuals veterans as 2,928.

According to the 2020 Point In Time Count, Los Angeles County including the San Gabriel Valley, saw an increase in people experiencing homelessness.

2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Point in Time Count:

Los Angeles County: 66,436 homeless population
San Gabriel Valley (SPA 3): 5,082 homeless population
Monterey Park: 37 people were experiencing unsheltered homelessness

Compared to the overall population of Los Angeles County, homelessness disproportionately impacts both the Black/African American (34% of the homeless population) and Hispanic/Latino (36% of the homeless population), homeless population. Males also experience higher rates of homelessness compared to female, transgender, and gender non-binary groups.

4,023 family households representing 12,817 adults and children were experiencing homessness.

4,356 individuals experiencing homelessness were fleeing from domestic violence in 2020. This is about 40% of the homes population.

3,902 veterans were experiencing homelessness. Approximately 984 were sheltered and 2,918 were unsheltered.

Through the consultation process, the stakeholders that manage homeless and public benefit programs empahsized that a huge barrier within the homeless service systems in the San Gabriel Valley is lack of bed availability and affordable housing. The rapid escalation of rents is also placing a strain on Los Angeles County residents.

Describe the unmet housing and service needs of qualifying populations, including but not limited to:

8 • Sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations;
• Those currently housed populations at risk of homelessness; • Other families requiring services or housing assistance or to prevent homelessness; and,
• Those at greatest risk of housing instability or in unstable housing situations:

The Point in Time Count and the Housing Inventory Count are two assessments that analyze affordable and supportive housing needs.

The CoC analysis in the 2021 Housing Inventory Count (HIC) found the following:

Annually, the CoC has a gap of 44,106 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) units for individuals and 1,694 units for families. This includes people who are chronically homeless, sheltered and unsheltered individuals with disabling conditions who are unlikely to exit homelessness without supportive housing invervention.

The annual Rapid Rehousing need for literally homeless population is 7,191 households.

Affordable housing units needed for literally homeless populations are 2,724 units.

Annual estimates of unsheltered individuals is 43,147 and chronically homeless is 21,285.

The 2021 Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Needs Report found the following:

499,430 low-income renter households in Los Angeles County do not have access to an affordable home.

78% of extremely low-income households in Los Angeles County are paying more than half of their income on housing costs comparted to just 2% of moderate-income housing.

Renters need to earn 2.5 times minimum wage to afford the average asking rent in Los Angeles County.

Throughout the consultation process, stakeholders that manage homelessness and public benefit programs emphasized that there is not enough housing options in SPA 3 for people experiencing homelessness or for people who are at risk of experiencing homelessness due to rapid escalation of rents and affordable housing.

Due to lack of bed availability in shelters and permanent housing the program would use the funds to provide emergency and/or interim housing along with client supportive servies in a hotel/motel setting. Through case management, a housing navigator will identify and assist the client’s needs and barriers to find a long-term solution.