Agenda packet — Paramount City Council, April 28, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Agenda
City Council
April 28, 2026
Regular Meeting - City Hall Council Chamber - 5:00 PM
16400 Colorado Avenue Paramount, CA 90723 (562) 220-2000 www.paramountcity.gov

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION NOTICE
In-person Attendance: The public may attend the City Council meetings in-person.

View the City Council meeting live stream:
 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofparamount  Spectrum Cable TV Channel 36
Public Comments: Members of the public wanting to address the City Council, either during public comments or for a specific agenda item, or both, may do so by the following methods:
 In-Person
If you wish to make a statement, please complete a Speaker’s Card prior to the commencement of the Public Comments period of the meeting. Speaker’s Cards are located at the entrance. Give your completed card to a staff member and when your name is called, please go to the podium provided for the public.  E-mail: [email protected]
 E-mail public comments must be received by 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting. The e-mail should specify the following information: 1) Full Name; 2) City of Residence; 3) Phone Number; 4) Public Comment or Agenda Item No; 5) Subject; 6) Written Comments.

All public comments are limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless an extension is granted. No action may be taken on items not on the agenda except as provided by law. All public comments will be recorded and rules of decorum and procedures for the conduct of City meetings will apply when addressing the City Council.

Any document distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City Clerk’s office during normal business hours at City Hall located at 16400 Colorado Ave., Paramount, CA 90723. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at www.paramountcity.gov/government/city-council/meeting-agendas-minutes/.

CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Brenda Olmos
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Gael Baltazar Bakulich, 5th Grade Student Keppel Elementary School
Sofia Florian Solorzano, 5th Grade Student
Tanner Elementary School

ROLL CALL OF
COUNCILMEMBERS:

Councilmember Isabel Aguayo
Councilmember Annette C. Delgadillo
Councilmember Peggy Lemons
Vice Mayor Vilma Cuellar Stallings
Mayor Brenda Olmos
Agenda April 28, 2026
Regular Meeting City Council Page 2

PRESENTATIONS

1. VIDEO SPRING EVENT RECAP AND PAWS & PRESENT

2. CERTIFICATE OF

RECOGNITION

STUDENT MAYORS FOR THE DAY

3. PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATIONS – APRIL 2026
• Alcohol Awareness Month
• Earth Month
• National Child Abuse Prevention Month
• National Donate Life Month
• National Fair Housing Month
• National Library Week
• National Volunteer Week

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENT UPDATES

PUBLIC COMMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
All items under the Consent Calendar may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and acted upon separately by the City Council.

4. ACCEPTANCE OF
WORK

NEIGHBORHOOD STREET RESURFACING (CITY PROJECT
NO. 9531)
Recommended Action: Accept the work performed by All
American Asphalt, Corona, California, for the neighborhood street resurfacing project (City Project No. 9531) and authorize payment for the remaining retention.

5. APPROVAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOFFA
ELECTRIC, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED SERVICES TO SUPPORT

THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM
Recommended Action: Approve an agreement with SOFFA
Electric, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for as-needed services to support the City’s water system and authorize the Mayor, or designee, to execute the agreement.

Agenda April 28, 2026
Regular Meeting City Council Page 3

6. RESOLUTION
26:011

APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE MULTIPLE EMPLOYER
OPEB/PENSION 115 TRUST ADMINISTERED BY SHUSTER
ADVISORY GROUP, LLC.

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 26:011 approving the adoption of the Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust administered by Shuster Advisory Group and the discontinuance of the City’s current participation in the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) administered by California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and Authorize the City Manager to make revisions consistent with the purpose of the Council’s direction and that do not result in material cost increases to the City.

7. APPROVAL ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT MAP NO. 084854 (16635, 16675, AND 16683 PARAMOUNT BLVD.)
Recommended Action: Approve Tract Map No. 084854 and
authorize the City Clerk to execute the map on behalf of the City of Paramount.

NEW BUSINESS

8. APPROVAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH MOBILE

HOME PARK OWNERS
Recommended Action: Approve the template Memorandum of
Understanding with the Mobile Home Park Owners and authorize the City Manager to execute each agreement on behalf of the City.

9. RECEIVE AND
FILE

CONSIDERATION OF A HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
UPDATE (1970-1999)
Recommended Action: Provide feedback about the Historic Context Statement Update and receive and file this report.

10. ORAL REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OVERVIEW

11. PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCE
1217
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1217, AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT,
APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 41,
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 (INITIATIVE REGULATING
DENSITY) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE PARAMOUNT
MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 22 OF THE 6TH

CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM BY CLARIFYING THE

APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSITION FF AND MAKING A FINDING

OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
Recommended Action: Read by title only, waive further reading, introduce Ordinance No. 1217, and place it on the May 12, 2026 agenda for adoption.

Agenda April 28, 2026
Regular Meeting City Council Page 4

12. PUBLIC HEARING

RESOLUTION
26:014

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST
BY CLIFFORD G. FRANZEN/HUNT MANAGEMENT COMPANY

FOR CAPITAL BUSINESS PROPERTIES, LLC FOR A MASTER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE 22-SUITE CAPITAL

BUSINESS PARK AND ASSOCIATED OPERATING COVENANT
AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN WAREHOUSE USES AT 15930-
15962 DOWNEY AVENUE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT

MANUFACTURING) ZONE AND MAKING A FINDING OF

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt
Resolution No. 26:014.

13. RESOLUTION
26:013

ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR
THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026–2027
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 26:013.

14. ORAL REPORT UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL GOALS

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY NEW BUSINESS
NONE.

COMMENTS/COMMITTEE REPORTS

CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL– EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 – Three (3) cases
(1) Name of Case: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-Md-2804.
(2) Name of case: Shadowood Development v. City of Paramount; Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV09407
(3) Name of case: Southern California Edison Company v. California State Board of Equalization, et al; Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2025-01534286-CU-MC-CXC CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 –One (1) case
This item involves the Clearwater Specific Plan and its potential relationship to agreements between the City’s former Redevelopment Agency and Modern Development Company CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Potential initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 – One (1) case

Agenda April 28, 2026
Regular Meeting City Council Page 5

ADJOURNMENT
To a meeting on May 12, 2026 at 6:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 16400 Colorado Ave., Paramount, CA
Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (562) 220-2225 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Note: Physical hard copies of agenda items are on file in the City Clerk’s office and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are also available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s office. The office of the City Clerk is located at City Hall, 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Heidi Luce, City Clerk
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: SPRING EVENT RECAP AND PAWS & PRESENT
A video highlighting the Spring special events will be shared. Additionally, each month as a reminder of the importance of animal rescue and the power of community care, we’re taking a moment to “pause” and “present” a quick video highlighting some of the good work the SEAACA animal shelter does for our community. Their efforts not only protect vulnerable animals but also create healthier, more compassionate communities where people and pets can thrive together.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Heidi Luce, City Clerk
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: STUDENT MAYORS FOR THE DAY
The City Council will recognize the following students for being chosen by their school to serve as the City of Paramount’s Student Mayors for the Day for April. • Gael Baltazar Bakulich, 5th Grade Student
Keppel Elementary School
• Sofia Florian Solorzano, 5th Grade Student
Tanner Elementary School
To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Heidi Luce, City Clerk
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: PROCLAMATIONS – APRIL 2026
National awareness days, weeks, and months are designated periods each year that focus on raising awareness about specific issues or groups. This recognition provides an opportunity to educate the public, promote positive change, and support many of the organizations serving the Paramount Community. At tonight’s meeting, the City Council will recognize the following:
• Alcohol Awareness Month
• Earth Month
• National Child Abuse Prevention Month
• National Donate Life Month
• National Fair Housing Month
• National Library Week
• National Volunteer Week
To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Adriana Figueroa, Public Works Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD STREET RESURFACING (CITY PROJECT NO. 9531)

BACKGROUND
Each year, the City allocates funding for the neighborhood street resurfacing project. This includes grinding down the asphalt and repaving streets, replacing damaged curb and gutter, repairing sidewalks, slurry seal pavement, and installing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps to ensure proper access for all pedestrians. Repairs are planned based on the recommendations of the Pavement Management System, a report completed by our City Engineering firm, Willdan Engineering. The report is a comprehensive review of the condition of all city streets within Paramount boundaries and identifies those streets in most need of repair.

DISCUSSION
On May 13, 2025, the Director of Public Works opened bids for the project, and the project was awarded to All American Asphalt, at the City Council meeting on June 24, 2025. A Notice to Proceed was issued with a start date of September 22, 2025.

The work performed under this contract has been inspected under the supervision of the Public Works Director, in conformance with Section 6-8 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

The Notice of Completion will be filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s office after approval by the City Council. The contract retention of $86,275.68 will be held for thirtyfive (35) days from that date of recordation. The total project cost, including any necessary change orders, is $1,725,513.57.

For this project, the following streets were repaved:

Street Location Beginning End
Jefferson Street Garfield Avenue Georgia Avenue
San Jose Street Somerset Boulevard Myrrh Street
Agenda Report April 28, 2026
ACCEPTANCE OF WORK - CITY PROJECT NO. 9531 Page 2

FISCAL IMPACT
There was sufficient funding budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget under City Project No. 9531. No additional appropriation is required.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
The City’s Vision, Mission, and Values set the standard for the organization, establish priorities, uniformity and guidelines; and provide the framework for policy decision making. The Strategic Outcomes were implemented to provide a pathway to achieving the City’s Vision. This item aligns with Strategic Outcome No 5: Attractive and WellMaintained Infrastructure - Develop and maintain City-owned infrastructure, parks, facilities, and amenities that enhance quality of life and the attractiveness of the community.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Accept the work performed by All American Asphalt, Corona, California, for the neighborhood street resurfacing project (City Project No. 9531) and authorize payment for the remaining retention.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Adriana Figueroa, Public Works Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOFFA ELECTRIC, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM

BACKGROUND
The City operates and maintains a municipal water system that requires ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and periodic specialized services to ensure safe, reliable, and compliant water delivery to its customers. With the addition of Well 16, electrical system components become more complex, specifically those related to water treatment and filtration.

Electrical infrastructure is a critical element to the system’s operation, ensuring that water quality is maintained and in compliance with state and federal drinking water standards.

Of the many complexities to the system, this component also involves efficient operation of the Supervisory Control and Acquisition (SCADA) system, which is the centralized computer system that monitors, controls, and analyzes flow rates, pressure, and tank levels in real-time.

These systems require routine inspections, preventive maintenance, and occasional repairs or adjustments to operate effectively. While City staff performs a significant portion of routine maintenance, certain tasks require specialized knowledge, equipment, and specific expertise that must be obtained through qualified service providers.

SOFFA Electric, Inc. (SOFFA), is a highly experienced and qualified provider of these services, particularly working in water well programming, system integration, and routine maintenance. SOFFA has direct experience in working with the City’s infrastructure, having successfully developed and implemented the programming for Well 16. The establishment of a service agreement with SOFFA will allow the City to proactively address electrical system maintenance on an as needed basis, and respond efficiently to operational issues as they arise.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SOFFA ELECTRIC, INC. Page 2

DISCUSSION
The proposed agreement with SOFFA will ensure continuity in services for the City, with access to specialized water well programming, system integration, and maintenance services on an as-needed basis. When deemed necessary, service will include field support involving labor and travel time. All services will be performed at an hourly rate, in accordance with the terms defined in the agreement. The term of this agreement will be for a period of two (2) years, with the option to extend administratively for three (3) additional one-year extensions. To guarantee that cost for services do not exceed the total compensation amount of $50,000 over the term of the agreement, City staff will authorize and track individual task orders.

With this agreement in place, the City will be better positioned to maintain optimal performance of its electrical systems, minimizing system downtime, and ensuring continued compliance with water quality regulations. This proactive approach supports the long-term efficiency and reliability of the City’s water system.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for these services was included in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Public Works Department - Water Division budget. The total cost of the agreement shall not exceed $50,000 over the two-year term. Funding for subsequent years of the agreement will be incorporated as part of the City’s annual budget approval process.

Fund Division Account Description Amount
511 – Water
Enterprise
Water
Production 511-5223-5151
Professional /
Technical
Services
$50,000

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve an agreement with SOFFA Electric, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for as-needed services to support the City’s water system and authorize the Mayor, or designee, to execute the agreement.
1 CITY OF PARAMOUNT

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(With Professional Liability)
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 28th day of April, 2026 by and between the City of Paramount, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723 (“City”), and SOFFA Electric, Inc. a corporation with its principal place of business at 5901 Corvette Street, Commerce, CA 900440 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City requires provision of the following professional services:

As-needed services to support the City’s water system all as more fully set forth and described in this Agreement.

B. Consultant is duly licensed and/or otherwise fully authorized by law, and has the necessary experience and qualifications, to provide such services. City enters into this Agreement in substantial reliance on such experience and qualifications.

C. The Parties enter this Agreement in order to set forth terms and conditions governing Consultant’s performance of the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope of Services.

Consultant shall perform the services generally described in (i) the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; (ii) any applicable request for proposals issued by the City; and (iii) as otherwise required by this Agreement, all to City’s satisfaction (collectively, “Services” herein.)

This amount covers and is inclusive of all labor, materials, and any and all other costs incurred by Consultant in performing the Services, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. Consultant shall be deemed to have made all necessary inquiries and site inspections prior to agreeing to perform the Services. Periodic payments for undisputed work shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice which 2 includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

The Parties may agree on additional work to be provided as part of the Services. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties authorizing such additional work and compensation therefor, prior to such work being performed.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available for review by the City at all reasonable times during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment by City.

5. Term; Time of Performance.

The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date first set forth above and shall expire on April 30, 2028 unless extended or earlier terminated as provided herein for three additional one-year extensions. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines agreed upon in writing. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to satisfactorily perform the Services as required by this Agreement.

All indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall survive and remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Force Majeure. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by force majeure events. Force majeure events mean and refer to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party including, but not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.

Consultant’s lack of financial capability, not due to any of the foregoing events, shall not constitute a force majeure event.
b. Should a force majeure event occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, but not more than three (3) business days, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.
3 7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable local, State, and federal laws, ordinances, statutes, codes and regulations, including Cal/OSHA requirements, in the performance of the Services.
b. City may, but is not required, to assist Consultant in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and/or local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, and unless otherwise provided in the Scope of Services, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care.

Consultant’s Services shall be performed in accordance with the generally accepted professional standards of practice and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently performing similar services under similar conditions in the County of Los Angeles. Consultant shall, at all times herein, possess any and all State of California and/or federal professional licenses and certifications, as applicable, required to lawfully perform the Services.

9. Assignment and Subcontracting.

Consultant shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any rights or obligations under, or any interest in this Agreement, or subcontract any required performance hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. The Services required to be performed by the Consultant are personal to the Consultant. Any attempt to so assign, transfer, or subcontract without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Authorized subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making the subcontractor subject to all requirements of this Agreement.

10. Independent Contractor.

Consultant shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all 4 personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards.
b. None of Consultant’s employees and/or other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant and Consultant’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Consultant’s personnel. Consultant’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Consultant’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Consultant’s personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Consultant’s choice, except as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Consultant’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Consultant’s performance of any Services under this Agreement, or as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Consultant from time to time for Consultant’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. c. Consultant shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Consultant’s personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) or any other retirement program, as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits or any other retirement benefits.
d. To the maximum extent permitted by laws, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and other Indemnitees (as defined in Section 13.a herein), from any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant’s violation of any provision of this Section 10, or any of Consultant’s personnel practices. In addition to all other remedies at law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification obligation arising under this Section. The duty of indemnification set 5 forth in this Section is in addition to all other indemnification provisions of this Agreement.

11. PERS Compliance.

General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Consultant agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall assure compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, commencing at Government Code § 20000, the regulations of PERS, and the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, as amended. Without limitation to the foregoing, Consultant shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the applicable retirement laws and regulations. .

12. Insurance.

Unless otherwise permitted in writing by City’s Risk Manager, Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has secured insurance in such forms and with such limits as set forth in Exhibit “C“ attached hereto, and provided evidence thereof that is acceptable to the City. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section.

13. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel reasonably approved by City), indemnify and hold the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, servants, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 13) free and harmless with respect to any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, stop notices and/or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including bodily injury, wrongful death, personal injury and property damage, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incidental to any acts, errors, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its owners, officials, officers, employees, servants, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s Services, and/or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, or by the City or any of the other Indemnitees. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct. b. For Design Professional Services: If Consultant’s Services hereunder include the performance of professional services by a “design professional,” as the term is defined under California Civil Code § 2782.8(c), then to the fullest extent permitted by law, the 6 Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of defense, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and/or its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom the Consultant shall bear legal liability) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing and as required by Civil Code § 2782.8(a), in no event shall the cost to defend the Indemnitees that is charged to Consultant, exceed Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct.
c. The provisions of this Section 13 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, not more than $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by them or by any subcontractor under them, in violation of the provisions of this Agreement. (ii) Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subcontractors to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor 7 Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code Section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subcontractors performing such Services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of this Agreement and require the same of any subcontractors, as applicable.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of the Services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

15. Data Security.
a. As used in this Agreement, “City Data” means any and all information and data provided or made accessible, directly or indirectly, to Consultant by City, or otherwise acquired from City, in connection with Consultant’s performance of the Services. As between the Consultant and the City, any and all City Data is solely owned by City.

Consultant is granted a limited, non-exclusive, and revocable license to use City Data solely as necessary to perform the Services. At no time shall Consultant use City Data for its own purposes, or sell, disclose or disseminate City Data, except as required by law or to provide the Services. At all times herein, Consultant shall protect and maintain the security of City Data using methods providing not less than the level of security Consultant uses for its own confidential data, and that otherwise comply with recognized industry data security standards applicable to similar kinds of governmental data and information.
b. To the extent any City Data consists of personal information as defined in the California Consumer Privacy Act (Civil Code Section 1798.100, et seq.), Consultant shall comply with that statute and with Civil Code Section 1798.80. et seq., including providing the required notifications in the event of any unauthorized access or disclosure of personal information stored, maintained, accessed, used or transmitted by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall within 24 hours notify the City Representative by telephone and in 8 writing of any unauthorized access of City Data. Thereafter, Consultant shall render any assistance to City and law enforcement as necessary to ascertain the nature and extent of such unauthorized access.
c. Consultant shall not store City Data using cloud-based storage without City’s prior, written consent, unless the use of such storage is clearly described in the Scope of Services. Where permitted herein, any and all cloud-based storage shall be on servers and other hardware located within the continental United States, and shall be in compliance with ISO/IEC 27001 - 27018, as applicable, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City Representative. Cloud storage using Amazon Web Service or Microsoft Azure shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this subsection (c).

16. Confidential Information
Consultant understands and agrees that, in the performance of the Services under this Agreement or in contemplation thereof, Consultant may have access to private or confidential information which may be owned or controlled by the City and that, if disclosed to third parties, could be damaging to the City. Consultant agrees that all City information and data provided to or made accessible to Consultant by City shall be held in confidence and disclosed only as needed in performance of this Agreement, or as required by law.

Consultant shall exercise the same standard of care to protect such information as a reasonably prudent consultant would use to protect its own confidential and/or proprietary information and data.

17. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard for conflicts of laws rules. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code section 900, et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City.

18. Termination.
a. City has the right to terminate any portion or all of the Services under this Agreement with or without cause, by giving ten (10) calendar days’ prior, written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product, including all related intellectual property rights, and original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and all other documents produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided Consultant is not then in breach, City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the Services completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services, based on an amount agreed to by City and Consultant. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope 9 Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation resulting from such termination of the Services. b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further Services under this Agreement by serving written notice of termination to the City, provided Consultant has first served the City with a written notice of default and demand to cure, and City has failed to cure such default within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice.

19. Ownership of Work Product.
a. Except as otherwise provided in Section 18, “Termination”, above, and unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all draft and final reports, documents, and other written material, and any and all images, ideas, concepts, designs including website designs, source code, object code, electronic data and files, and/or other media whatsoever created or developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement (collectively, “Work Product”) shall be considered to be “works made for hire” for the benefit of City. All Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made or termination of the Agreement by City, provided that any such use shall be at City’s sole risk. Consultant shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any of the Work Product. “Work Product” does not include intellectual property lawfully owned by or licensed to Consultant prior to the effective date of this Agreement. b. Consultant hereby assigns to City all rights of ownership to the Work Product, including any and all related intellectual property and proprietary rights that are not otherwise vested in the City pursuant to subsection (a), above. c. Consultant warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals necessary to the production of the Work Product, and that upon final payment or Consultant’s default, City shall have full legal title to the Work Product, and full legal authority and the right to use and reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, and the other Indemnitees (as defined in Section 13(a), above) harmless from any and all loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any rights or laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products, ideas or inventions. Consultant shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Consultant, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (b) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they 10 become non-infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

20. Party Representatives.

Consultant hereby designates _____________________________, or his or her designee, as Consultant’s Representative for this Agreement, unless and until written notice of a new representative acceptable to City is provided to City. City hereby designates _________________________, or his or her designee, as City’s Representative for this Agreement. The foregoing Representatives shall be authorized to approve non-monetary revisions to this Agreement, provide consent where required herein, and to make other administrative decisions that will be binding on their respective Party, except as otherwise specifically required herein.

21. Notices.

Any notice or instrument required or permitted to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Paramount
16400 Colorado Avenue
Paramount, CA 90723
Attn: Adriana Figueroa
Public Works Director
CONSULTANT:

SOFFA Electric, Inc.
5901 Corvette Street
Commerce, CA 90040
Attn: Joe Mariano
Programming and Field Service Manager
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights.

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement.

This Agreement, with its exhibits, all of which are incorporated by reference herein, and all documents incorporated by reference, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior 11 or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto.

This is an integrated Agreement. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and any exhibit hereto or document incorporated by reference herein, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern.

25. Severability.

The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render any other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver.

None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is agreed to in writing, and any such waiver shall be limited to that set of circumstances and not to any future circumstances unless another written waiver is executed.

28. Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants.

City reserves its right to employ other consultants to provide the Services or similar services to the City.

30. Interest of Consultant.

Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of the City.
12 31. Interest of Subcontractors.

Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services under this Agreement shall be employed. Consultant has provided City with a list of all subcontractors and the key personnel for such subcontractors that are retained or to be retained by Consultant in connection with the performance of the Services, to assist the City in affirming compliance with this Section.

32. Prohibited Interests.

Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. If required, Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
13 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT
AND SOFFA ELECTRIC, INC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF PARAMOUNT CONSULTANT: SOFFA ELECTRIC, INC.

By:____________________________ By:____________________________ Brenda Olmos, Mayor Joe Mariano, Programming and Field
Services Manager
By: ____________________________
____________________________
Name, Title
[Two corporate signatures required if corporation]
ATTEST:

By:___________________________
Heidi Luce, City Clerk
Paramount PSA_Prof Liability (January 2025) Exhibit B - 1

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
Exhibit C - 2
Exhibit C - 3
Exhibit C - 4
Exhibit C - 5

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Rates/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle, or otherwise as expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task, as applicable. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. Any other terms and conditions relating to the amount of compensation to be paid to Consultant are as follows:

Exhibit C - 1

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE

1. Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has secured all insurance required under this section, or as may otherwise be permitted or required in writing by the City’s risk manager.

2. Types of Insurance Required. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement for work to be performed hereunder, and without limiting the indemnity provisions of the Agreement, the Consultant, in partial performance of its obligations under such Agreement, shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the Agreement the following policies of insurance. If the existing policies do not meet the insurance requirements set forth herein, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the policies to do so.

A. Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability Insurance which affords coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office “occurrence" form CG 0001, or the exact equivalent, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and no less than $2,000,000 in the general aggregate. Defense costs shall be paid in addition to the limits. The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions (1) limiting coverage for contractual liability; (2) excluding coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another (cross-liability); or (3) containing any other exclusion(s) contrary to the terms or purposes of this Agreement.

B. Workers' Compensation: Workers' Compensation Insurance, as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and disease.

C. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions): Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement. If a “claims-made” policy is provided, it shall include an extended reporting period of not less than three (3) years.

D. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned, or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. The City of Paramount, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on such policy.

E. Cyber Liability: Vendor shall maintain comprehensive cyber liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence/loss and $2,000,000 general aggregate. If a “claims-made” policy is provided, it shall include an extended reporting period of not less than three (3) years.

Exhibit C - 2
F. For Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability (CGL Coverage):

The City will be named as an additional insured, under the commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy coverage, for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured, and this CGL policy protects the additional insured, its officers, agents and employees against liability for personal and bodily injuries, deaths or property damage or destruction arising in any respect, directly or indirectly, in the performance of the contract.
(i) Each such CGL policy shall be endorsed with the following language: The City of Paramount, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers are included as insureds with regard to damages and defense of claims arising from: (a) activities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured, including the insured's general supervision of the Named Insured, (b) products and completed operations of the Named Insured, or (c) premises owned, leased or used by the Named Insured. (ii) This CGL policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects the City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by the City, including any self-insured retention the City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it. (iii) The inclusion of more than one insured shall not operate to impair the rights of one insured against another insured, and the coverages afforded shall apply as though separate policies had been issued to each insured.
(iv)The Additional Insured coverage under the Consultant’s policy shall be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or selfinsurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13.

G. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

3. Waiver of Subrogation. All policies of Commercial General Liability, Commercial Automobile Liability, and Worker’s Compensation shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents to the extent of such coverage.

4. Evidence of Insurance. The Consultant shall deliver redacted copies of the required policies or original certificates of insurance and redacted or specimen endorsements issued by their insurer. The Consultant and its insurer are solely responsible for ensuring that the required insurance complies with this Agreement and provides adequate coverage for all services performed. The Consultant shall procure insurance policies that meet the stated standards.

At least fifteen (15) days before any policy expires, or within a reasonable time after policy renewal, the Consultant shall provide evidence of renewal or replacement coverage. If any Exhibit C - 3
policy is canceled or reduced, the Consultant must file evidence of reinstatement or replacement coverage within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice of the change.

The City may request copies of insurance policies and endorsements for informational purposes only, without assuming any obligation to verify compliance or adequacy.

5. Failure to Maintain Coverage. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced immediately so as to avoid a lapse in the required coverage, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement effective upon notice.

6. Acceptability of Insurers. Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A- VII and authorized to transact business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.

7. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of noncompliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligation on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

8. Requirements Not Limiting. Requirement of specific coverage or minimum limits contained in this Agreement are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance.

Exhibit C - 4
WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: (ONE OF THE

PARAGRAPHS BELOW MUST BE CHECKED)
 I have and will maintain a certificate of consent from the California Labor Commission to self-insure for workers' compensation, as provided for by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work to be performed under this Agreement.  I have and will maintain workers' compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work to be performed under this contract.

My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:

Carrier ____________________________________________
Policy Number ______________________________________
 I certify that, in the performance of the work under this Agreement, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation laws of California, and I hereby agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Paramount and all of its officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses relating to personal injury or death, economic losses, and property damage arising out of my failure to provide such worker’s compensation insurance. I further agree that, if I should become subject to the workers' compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply with those provisions.

WARNING: FAILURE TO SECURE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE IS

UNLAWFUL, AND SHALL SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL FINES UP TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000), IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF COMPENSATION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF THE LABOR CODE, INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.

By: _________________________________ Dated:______________, 20_________ Head Office
5901 Corvette Street,
Commerce, CA 90040
323-310-5000
www.soffaelectric.com
[email protected]
Page | 1 of 2
April 9, 2026
Adriana Figueroa
City of Paramount
16400 Colorado Avenue
Paramount, CA 90723
Re: City of Paramount
Professional Services Agreement – Contract Review &
Request for Approval of Cloud-Based Systems for Contract Data Management Dear Adriana, or whom it may concern,
SOFFA Electric, Inc. (SOFFA) has reviewed the City of Paramount's standard Professional Services Agreement and generally take no exception to the provisions of the contract.

However, in connection with the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Paramount and SOFFA Electric, Inc., we are formally requesting written approval, as contemplated under Section 15(c) of the Agreement, for the use of certain cloud-based systems in the performance of our services.

As part of our standard project delivery and administrative processes, SOFFA utilizes the following platforms:

1. Sage Intacct (Financial Management System)
Used for contract administration, including invoicing, budget tracking, and secure storage of agreement documents and related amendments.

2. Procore (Project Management Platform)
Although not often used for rendering on-call services under this contract, any product builds we produce will involve the production of engineered submittals. Procure is used for submittal management, document control, and transmittal tracking related to our product builds. This may include technical documentation, product data, and project-related communications necessary for system integration and maintenance services. Upon request, SOFFA can transmit submittals by other means - foregoing Procure upon the City's request.

Both platforms are industry-standard solutions widely used in municipal and infrastructure projects. These systems are hosted on secure, U.S.-based cloud infrastructure and are designed to meet or exceed recognized industry data security standards, including ISO/IEC 27001-aligned practices. Access to project data within these systems is restricted to authorized personnel and protected through appropriate security controls (e.g., role-based access, encryption, and audit logging).

SOFFA will ensure that:
• All City Data is used solely for purposes of performing the Services; • Data is maintained securely and in accordance with the Agreement; • Any access is limited to authorized personnel and project stakeholders; • All applicable data protection and breach notification requirements are strictly followed. www.soffaelectric.com Page | 2 of 2
C:\Users\ddiaz\OneDrive - Soffa Electric Inc\Documents\Contract Reviews\Paramount\City of Paramount - PSA Review & Request Approval for Cloud-Based Systems.docx
We respectfully request the City’s written approval to utilize these platforms for the storage, management, and processing of City Data as necessary to perform our contractual obligations.

Please let us know if you would like any additional information regarding these systems, including security documentation or data handling procedures.

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to your guidance.

Sincerely,
Delven Diaz
Senior Vice President
Email: [email protected]
To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Lana Dich, Finance Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE MULTIPLE EMPLOYER OPEB/PENSION 115 TRUST ADMINISTERED BY SHUSTER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC.

BACKGROUND
Assets in a 115 Trust are irrevocably committed for the government function specified in the applicable trust agreement. Additionally, monies held in such trusts can be invested in accordance with the rules governing those trusts, which are different than the investment rules for the City’s pooled investments. Investment restrictions that apply to the general fund of a City (CA Government Code 53601) do not apply to the assets held in an Irrevocable Section 115 Trust, thus allowing for more flexibility in the investment strategy. Setting aside funds in a Section 115 Trust can potentially earn a higher rate of return than funds invested within 53601 guidelines.

The City has participated in a CalPERS Section 115 Trust (Trust 115) since 2009 to prefund pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities. The Trust has served as a vehicle to set aside funds and improve long-term fiscal sustainability. As of December 31, 2025, the account has an approximate balance of $13.3 million with fees of 8.5 basis points.

As part of an ongoing financial strategy and investment performance review, staff have evaluated alternative trust administrators and investment advisory services to optimize returns and enhance flexibility in managing these long-term obligations.

After reviewing the current investment portfolios and services, it was determined that improved investment flexibility, customization, transparency, and service could be achieved by transferring our plan administration and portfolio management to a different program provider.

Staff’s valuation process concluded that the program offered by Shuster Advisory Group, LLC (“Shuster”) provides the greatest flexibility of investment options and the most competitive fees for the comprehensive services the City will receive, including but not limited to Investment Fiduciary services, consolidated full fee transparency, fully Agenda Report April 28, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 26:011 Page 2
customizable investment options, individual accounts (providing daily valuation and account access), blend of active and passive investment options with optional private equity/debt, GASB compliant reporting, and a dedicated local service team.

DISCUSSION
The City is not obligated to stay in the current trust arrangement with CalPERS, or any provider for that matter. At the time the City entered into the non-binding agreement with CalPERS there were few providers in the Section 115 Trust space. Based on market analysis completed by Shuster identifying the lack of providers available and the services being offered, they developed a program that would enhance the service and investment models at a lower cost to City’s and public agencies. To the extent that a more flexible and actively managed investment portfolio can be attained to improve the return on invested assets in the trust at a low cost, additional money will be earned in the trust and then compound over time.

California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) The CalPERS options for OPEB and Pension Stabilization 115 trusts are referred to as the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) for funding OPEB liabilities and the California Employers’ Pension Pre-funding Trust (CEPPT) for funding future pension liabilities. Both Trusts charge employers a single fee to cover all program costs. CERBT offers three diversified asset allocation strategies. CEPPT offers two diversified asset allocation strategies. While these funds have lower fees than PARS or Shuster, they offer limited investment strategy options. These investment strategies may perform better than the State (LAIF) or County investment pools, however, they both have lower reported rates of return than both PARS and Shuster. Assets held within the CalPERS program are comingled with assets of other participating public agencies for investment purposes and are only valued monthly.

Shuster Advisory Group, LLC
Shuster Advisory Group, LLC is an independent investment advisory firm and fiduciary.

They provide governmental and institutional retirement plan consulting services as well as private wealth management. Shuster is a SEC-Registered Investment Advisor with over $11 billion in assets under management focusing on serving the unique needs of governmental agencies and special districts. Shuster serves as an investment fiduciary to over 100 governmental agencies and special districts providing investment selection, monitoring and management, and provides plan consulting and participant services.

The services provided by Shuster are unique with a transparent structure and white glove approach. Shuster first entered the public retirement plan sector after analyzing the sector and realizing that cities and agencies were being underserved and over-charged for their retirement plans, directly impacting the supplemental retirement savings of the public employees.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 26:011 Page 3
Shuster then conducted the same analysis of the Section 115 Trust programs available to cities and agencies and again determined that cities and other public agencies were being underserved. Shuster found that the programs available generally lacked investment flexibility, customization, transparency, and high-level customer service. As a result, Shuster created and now offers a Section 115 Trust program that provides cities with enhanced services.

Shuster offers ten investment strategies that combine both active and passive (index) investment solutions to take advantage of the optimal mix of investments from both an investment return and cost perspective.

Staff’s valuation process concluded that the transfer of the CalPERS program to the program offered by Shuster provides the greatest flexibility of investment options and the most competitive fees for the comprehensive services the City will receive, including:
• Investment Fiduciary services
• Consolidated full fee transparency
• Customizable investment options
• Individual accounts
• Daily valuation and account access
• Blend of active and passive investment options
• Private equity/debt (optional)
• GASB-compliant reporting
• Local dedicated service team
• Direct access to Portfolio Management Team

FISCAL IMPACT
Shuster proposes a 10-basis-point fee, with enhanced financial performance that could result in higher net earnings. Fees will be collected quarterly through the trust, with no fiscal impact to the City.

The fee components are as follows:
• Trust Administration Fees: 0.01%.
• Trustee Fees: 0.02%
• Custodial Asset Based Fee: 0.01%
• Investment Advisory Fees: 0.06%.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
The City’s Vision, Mission, and Values set the standard for the organization, establish priorities, uniformity and guidelines; and provide the framework for policy decision making. The Strategic Outcomes were implemented to provide a pathway to achieving the City’s Vision. This item aligns with Strategic Outcome No 6: Efficient, Effective, and Fiscally Responsible - Deliver an efficient and effective City government in a fiscally responsible, transparent and collaborative manner.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
RESOLUTION NO. 26:011 Page 4

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt Resolution 26:011 approving the adoption of the Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust administered by Shuster Advisory Group and the discontinuance of the City’s current participation in the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) administered by California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and Authorize the City Manager to make revisions consistent with the purpose of the Council’s direction and that do not result in material cost increases to the City.

CITY OF PARAMOUNT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 26:011

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PARAMOUNT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE
MULTIPLE EMPLOYER OPEB/PENSION 115 TRUST ADMINISTERED

BY SHUSTER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC
WHEREAS, Shuster Advisory Group, LLC (“Shuster”) has made available the Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust (Trust) for the purpose of pre-funding pension obligations and/or OPEB obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Paramount (“City”) is eligible to participate in a tax-exempt trust performing an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the Regulations issued there under, and the Trust is a tax-exempt trust under the relevant statutory provisions of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, Alta Trust Company satisfies the Trustee requirements under IRS Section 115; and
WHEREAS, all qualified assets currently held in the City’s California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) are irrevocably dedicated to prefunding the City’s OPEB obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City’s adoption and operation of the Trust has no effect on any current or former employees’ entitlement to post-employment benefits; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of post-employment benefit entitlement, if any, are governed by contracts separate from and independent of the Trust; and WHEREAS, the City Council has prudently set aside funds for the OPEB liability; and
WHEREAS, the City’s funding of the Trust does not, and is not intended to, create any new vested right to any benefit nor strengthen any existing vested right; and WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to make contributions, if any, to the Trust.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Shuster Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust, effective April 14, 2026; and
RESOLUTION NO. 26:011

Page 2 ends

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the termination of the City of Paramount California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Program, services, administration, and investment contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California Public Employees’ Retirement System Board of Administration (herein CalPERS); and
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the appointment of Alta Trust Company as successor Trustee and Charles Schwab Trust Bank as custodian of the assets of the OPEB assets. The transfer of assets is contingent upon the acceptance of the successor Trustee and custodian; and
SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the successor trust satisfies the requirements of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code and that all assets held by that trust shall qualify as “plan assets” that are irrevocably dedicated to the prefunding of OPEB obligations; and
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby authorizes the liquidation and transfer of all assets to Charles Schwab Trust Bank, on a date mutually agreed upon by the City and CalPERS; and
SECTION 7. Upon the complete transfer of all assets, CalPERS is removed as trust administrator, trustee, and investment manager; and SECTION 8. The City Council hereby appoints the City Manager, or his/her successor or his/her designee as the City’s Administrator for the Trust; and SECTION 9. The City’s Administrator is hereby authorized to execute the legal and administrative documents on behalf of the City and to take whatever additional actions are necessary to maintain the City’s participation in the Trust and to maintain compliance with any relevant regulation issued or as may be issued; therefore, authorizing him/her to take whatever additional actions are required to administer the City’s Trust.

SECTION 10. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Paramount this 28th day of April, 2026.
______________________________
Brenda Olmos, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. 26:011

Page 3 ends

ATTEST:
______________________________
Heidi Luce, City Clerk
DRAFT
1 CITY OF PARAMOUNT

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(With Professional Liability)
This Agreement is made and entered into as of ________________, 20____ by and between the City of Paramount, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723 (“City”), and Shuster Advisory Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, d/b/a Shuster Advisory Group, a HUB International Company with its principal place of business at 155 North Lake Avenue, Suite 950, Pasadena, CA 91101 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City requires provision of the following professional services:

Professional trust administrative and investment advisory consulting services for the City’s Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust, all as more fully set forth and described in this Agreement.

C. The Parties enter this Agreement in order to set forth terms and conditions governing Consultant’s performance of the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope of Services.

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to Section 2.b, below, the City shall pay for the Services satisfactorily performed, in accordance with the Schedule of Rates/Payments set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto.
b. 1. In no event shall the total annual amount paid for the Services exceed 10 basis points (0.10%) of total Trust assets under management (equivalent to $1,000 per $1,000,000 of assets), as calculated on an annualized basis. . This amount covers and is inclusive of all labor, materials, and any and all other costs incurred by 2 Consultant in performing the Services, except as otherwise set forth in Exhibit B, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. Fees shall be asset-based, collected from Trust assets as described in Exhibit “B”, and shall be charged quarterly (except Investment Advisory Fees which shall be collected monthly). Fees are billed in arrears.

3. Additional Work.

4. Maintenance of Records.

5. Term; Time of Performance.

The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date first set forth above and shall remain in effect until terminated by either Party at any time by giving sixty (60) days’ written notice to the other Party of its intent to terminate. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines agreed upon in writing. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to satisfactorily perform the Services as required by this Agreement. All indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall survive and remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care.

9. Assignment and Subcontracting.

10. Independent Contractor.

Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant is or shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the Scope of Services described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided. a. All work and other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or by Consultant’s employees or other personnel under Consultant’s supervision, and Consultant and all of Consultant’s personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform the Services, including, without limitation, a City of Paramount business license as required by the Paramount Municipal Code. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details by which Consultant’s personnel will perform the Services. 4 Consultant shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards.
b. None of Consultant’s employees and/or other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant and Consultant’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Consultant’s personnel. Consultant’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Consultant’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Consultant’s personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement.

Consultant shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Consultant’s choice, except as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Consultant’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Consultant’s performance of any Services under this Agreement, or as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Consultant from time to time for Consultant’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. c. Consultant shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Consultant’s personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) or any other retirement program, as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits or any other retirement benefits.
d. To the maximum extent permitted by laws, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and other Indemnitees (as defined in Section 13.a herein), from any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant’s violation of any provision of this Section 10, or any of Consultant’s personnel practices. In addition to all other remedies at law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or 5 indemnification obligation arising under this Section. The duty of indemnification set forth in this Section is in addition to all other indemnification provisions of this Agreement.

11. PERS Compliance.

12. Insurance.

13. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel reasonably approved by City), indemnify and hold the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, servants, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees” in this Section 13) free and harmless with respect to any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, stop notices and/or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including bodily injury, wrongful death, personal injury and property damage, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incidental to any negligent acts, errors, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its owners, officials, officers, employees, servants, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s Services, and/or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, or by the City or any of the other Indemnitees. Consultant’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence or willful misconduct.
6 b. For Design Professional Services: If Consultant’s Services hereunder include the performance of professional services by a “design professional,” as the term is defined under California Civil Code § 2782.8(c), then to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of defense, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and/or its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom the Consultant shall bear legal liability) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement.

14. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq. and 1770, et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wages and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. These rates are on file with the City Clerk or may be obtained at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm. (i) Copies of the prevailing wage rates may be obtained at cost at the City Clerk's office. Consultant shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Consultant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Consultant shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, not more than $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by them or by any subcontractor under them, in violation of the provisions of this Agreement. (ii) Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subcontractors to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 7 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code Section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subcontractors performing such Services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of this Agreement and require the same of any subcontractors, as applicable.

Consultant is granted a limited, non-exclusive, and revocable license to use City Data solely as necessary to perform the Services. At no time shall Consultant use City Data for its own purposes, or sell, disclose or disseminate City Data, except as required by law or to provide the Services. At all times herein, Consultant shall protect and maintain the security of City Data using methods providing not less than the level of security Consultant uses for its own confidential data, and that otherwise comply with recognized industry data security standards applicable to similar kinds of governmental data and information.
b. To the extent any City Data consists of personal information as defined in the California Consumer Privacy Act (Civil Code Section 1798.100, et seq.), Consultant shall comply with that statute and with Civil Code Section 1798.80. et seq., including providing the required notifications in the event of any unauthorized access or 8 disclosure of personal information stored, maintained, accessed, used or transmitted by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall within 24 hours notify the City Representative by telephone and in writing of any unauthorized access of City Data. Thereafter, Consultant shall render any assistance to City and law enforcement as necessary to ascertain the nature and extent of such unauthorized access.
c. Consultant shall not store City Data using cloud-based storage without City’s prior, written consent, unless the use of such storage is clearly described in the Scope of Services. Where permitted herein, any and all cloud-based storage shall be on servers and other hardware located within the continental United States, and shall be in compliance with ISO/IEC 27001 - 27018, as applicable, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City Representative. Cloud storage using Amazon Web Service or Microsoft Azure shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this subsection (c).

Consultant shall exercise the same standard of care to protect such information as a reasonably prudent consultant would use to protect its own confidential and/or proprietary information and data.

17. Laws and Venue.

18. Termination.
a. City has the right to terminate any portion or all of the Services under this Agreement with or without cause, by giving sixty (60) calendar days’ prior, written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product, including all related intellectual property rights, and original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and all other documents produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement. Provided Consultant is not then in breach, City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the Services completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any specific task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for Services performed shall be the reasonable value of such Services, based on an amount agreed to by City and Consultant. City shall not be liable for any 9 costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein.

Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation resulting from such termination of the Services.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further Services under this Agreement by serving written notice of termination to the City, provided Consultant has first served the City with a written notice of default and demand to cure, and City has failed to cure such default within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice.

19. Ownership of Work Product.
a. Except as otherwise provided in Section 18, “Termination”, above, and unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all draft and final reports, documents, and other written material, and any and all images, ideas, concepts, designs including website designs, source code, object code, electronic data and files, and/or other media whatsoever created or developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement (collectively, “Work Product”) shall be considered to be “works made for hire” for the benefit of City. All Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of both Consultant and City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon final payment being made or termination of the Agreement by City, provided that any such use shall be at City’s sole risk. Consultant shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any of the Work Product. “Work Product” does not include intellectual property lawfully owned by or licensed to Consultant prior to the effective date of this Agreement.
b. Consultant hereby assigns to City a joint ownership interest in all rights of ownership to the Work Product, including any and all related intellectual property and proprietary rights, consistent with the joint ownership established in subsection (a) above. c. Consultant warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals necessary to the production of the Work Product, and that upon final payment or Consultant’s default, City shall have full legal title to the Work Product, and full legal authority and the right to use and reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, and the other Indemnitees (as defined in Section 13(a), above) harmless from any and all loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use of any of the Work Product violates federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any rights or laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products, ideas or inventions. Consultant shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Consultant, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and 10 other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (b) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non-infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

20. Party Representatives.

Consultant hereby designates Mark Shuster, Managing Partner, or his or her designee, as Consultant’s Representative for this Agreement, unless and until written notice of a new representative acceptable to City is provided to City. City hereby designates _________________________, or his or her designee, as City’s Representative for this Agreement. The foregoing Representatives shall be authorized to approve non-monetary revisions to this Agreement, provide consent where required herein, and to make other administrative decisions that will be binding on their respective Party, except as otherwise specifically required herein.

21. Notices.

CITY:

City of Paramount
16400 Colorado Avenue
Paramount, CA 90723
Attn: City Manager
CONSULTANT:

Shuster Advisory Group, LLC, d/b/a
Shuster Advisory Group, a HUB
International Company
155 North Lake Ave., Suite 950
Pasadena, CA 91101
Attn: Managing Partner
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights.

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

This Agreement, with its exhibits, all of which are incorporated by reference herein, and all documents incorporated by reference, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto.

25. Severability.

The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render any other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement.

However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver.

28. Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants.

City reserves its right to employ other consultants to provide the Services or similar services to the City.

30. Interest of Consultant.

Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant certifies that no one 12 who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of the City.

31. Interest of Subcontractors.

32. Prohibited Interests.

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT

AND SHUSTER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF PARAMOUNT CONSULTANT: SHUSTER ADVISORY

GROUP, LLC, D/B/A SHUSTER ADVISORY

GROUP, A HUB INTERNATIONAL

COMPANY
By:____________________________ By:____________________________ Brenda Olmos, Mayor Mark Shuster, Managing Partner
By: ____________________________
JoAnn Parrino, Partner
[Two corporate signatures required if corporation]
ATTEST:

By:___________________________
Heidi Luce, City Clerk
DRAFT
Exhibit B - 1

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference in this Exhibit A Scope of Services are documents required for the City to adopt the Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust:

EXHIBIT A-1: Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust
EXHIBIT A-2: Trust Adoption Agreement
EXHIBIT A-3: Trust Administrative Services Agreement
EXHIBIT A-4: Investment Advisor Agreement
In connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement, Consultant utilizes the following cloud-based storage platforms, which are hereby disclosed to and approved by City pursuant to Section 15(c) of this Agreement:

1. Microsoft SharePoint and Microsoft OneDrive, hosted on Microsoft infrastructure within the continental United States, for document management and internal file storage; and

2. Client relationship management and portfolio accounting and reporting systems hosted on Amazon Web Services infrastructure.

Each of the foregoing platforms utilizes cloud infrastructure located within the continental United States. Storage on Amazon Web Services is deemed compliant with the ISO/IEC 27001-27018 requirements of Section 15(c) pursuant to the express terms of this Agreement.

Microsoft SharePoint and OneDrive comply with ISO/IEC 27001-27018 as applicable to Microsoft's cloud infrastructure.EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Rates/Payments
Fees. For all services provided by the Consultant under this Agreement and the Trustee under the Trust Agreement, the following annual fees will apply:

Trust Administration Fees (Trust Admin Agreement)1: 0.01% Trustee Fees (Trust Adoption Agreement)2: 0.02%
Custodial Asset Based Fee (Custodial Agreement)3: 0.01% Investment Advisory Fees (Investment Advisory Agmt.): 0.06% Fees will be collected quarterly other than the Investment Advisory Fee which will be collected monthly.
1 - Will convert to a flat dollar fee after the end of contract year-3 based on the highest year-end balance of the first 3 contract years.
2 - Annual minimum fee per plan of $500. Annual maximum is $5,000 3 - Annual minimum fee per plan of $400. Custodian may also charge fees related to non- standard assets, checks and wire fees outlined in the Custodial Agreement for the Plan.

Exhibit C - 2
The Consultant will notify the City in writing of any change in the above fee amounts at least 60 days before the effective date of the change.

Exhibit C - 1

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE

D. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any hired, non-owned, or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than 1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. The City of Paramount, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on such policy.

Exhibit C - 2
F. For Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability (CGL Coverage):

The City may request copies of insurance policies and endorsements for informational purposes only, without assuming any obligation to verify compliance or adequacy.

Exhibit C - 4
WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION
I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: (ONE OF THE

My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:

WARNING: FAILURE TO SECURE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE IS

By: _________________________________ Dated:______________, 20_________

4828-2402-5842.v3

ADOPTION AGREEMENT

FOR THE
MULTIPLE EMPLOYER OPEB/PENSION 115 TRUST

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4828-2402-5842.v3
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 ARTICLE 1 EMPLOYER INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 2 PLAN INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE 3 TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 4 INVESTMENTS ........................................................................................................ 2 ARTICLE 5 TRUST FEES AND EXPENSES .............................................................................. 2 ARTICLE 6 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ............................................................. 3 ARTICLE 7 STANDARD OF CARE AND INDEMNIFICATION .................................................... 4 ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT .......................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE 9 NO GUARANTEE OF INVESTMENT RESULTS ...................................................... 4 ARTICLE 10 ADOPTION OF TRUST .......................................................................................... 5 EXHIBIT A .............................................................................................................................. A-6 EXHIBIT B .............................................................................................................................. B-1 EXHIBIT C C-1
A-1
4828-2402-5842.v3

INTRODUCTION
By executing this Adoption Agreement, the Employer named in Article 1 of this Adoption Agreement hereby adopts and agrees to be bound by the terms of the Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust (the “Trust”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. To the extent there is a conflict between this Adoption Agreement and the Trust, the Trust will control. Unless otherwise specified below, initially capitalized terms used in this Adoption Agreement are defined in the Trust.

ARTICLE 1

EMPLOYER INFORMATION

1.1 Employer’s Name, Address, and Telephone Number
(a) Name: City of Paramount
(b) Address: 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723 (c) Telephone: 562-220-2000

1.2 Employer’s Taxpayer Identification Number: 95-6005780 ARTICLE 2

PLAN INFORMATION

2.1 Plan Names:

OPEB Plan(s): City of Paramount OPEB Trust Account
Pension Plan(s): N/A
(Each a “Plan” and collectively, the “Plans”)

2.2 Employer-designated: Plan Administrator’s Name, Title, Address, and Telephone Number:
(a) Title: City Manager
(b) Address: 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723 (c) Telephone: 562-220-2225

A-2
4828-2402-5842.v3
ARTICLE 3

TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
As a condition of the Employer’s participation in the Trust, the Employer and the Trust Administrator have executed the Trust Administrative Services Agreement attached as Exhibit B.

ARTICLE 4

INVESTMENTS
The Employer hereby directs the Trust Administrator to direct the Trustee to invest the assets in the Employer’s Account in accordance with the investment strategy and any investment policy mutually agreed to by the Employer and the Trust Administrator.

ARTICLE 5

DISTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS

5.1 Unless the Employer otherwise elects below, there shall be no dollar or time-period limitation on Distributions (as defined by Section 3.03 of the Trust) from the Trust.  The Employer elects to impose a distribution limitation for OPEB expenditures as follows:

Maximum Distribution Amount (per fiscal year):

Applicable Period for Distribution: Distributions permitted only for qualified OPEB expenditures incurred during
 The Employer elects to impose a distribution limitation for Pension expenditures as follows:

Maximum Distribution Amount (per fiscal year):

Applicable Period for Distribution: Distributions permitted only for qualified Pension expenditures incurred during

5.2 The Employer may modify the elections set forth in this Article by submitting a revised Adoption Agreement or written amendment, subject to Trustee acceptance.

ARTICLE 6

TRUST FEES AND EXPENSES

6.1 Trustees Fee will be equal to 0.02% (annual maximum fee per plan is $5,000). Other fees, including Trust Administration Fees are specified in Section 2.1 of the Trust Administrative Services Agreement. Please refer to Section 2.1 of the Trust A-3
4828-2402-5842.v3
Administrative Services Agreement for further information about payment of fees and expenses.

6.2 Method of Payment. Unless the Employer otherwise elects below, the Trust Administration Fees (as defined in Section 10.01(b) of the Trust), Trustee Fees (as defined in Section 10.01(c) of the Trust), and any other reasonable fees and expenses of administering the Employer’s Account will be paid from the Employer’s Account. In lieu of payments from its Account, the Employer hereby elects to pay the following amounts:
 Trust Administration Fees
 Trustee Fees
 All expenses of the Employer’s Account other than fees  Other (please insert description):
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
ARTICLE 7

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

7.1 The Employer hereby represents and warrants that each of the following statements is true and correct to the best of its knowledge:
(a) The Employer is a state, a political subdivision of a state or another public agency whose income is excludable from gross income under section 115 of the Code that is established and maintained under the laws of the State of ___California______.
(b) The Employer has established and maintains one or more Plans the exclusive purpose of each is to provide OPEB and/or retirement benefits to its former employees.
(c) The exclusive purpose of the Employer’s participation in the Trust is to fund the Pension Obligation or OPEB Obligation, or both, under the Employer’s Plans. (d) The Employer’s participation in the Trust for the purpose of funding, as applicable, the Pension Obligation or OPEB Obligation, or both, under the Employer’s Plans is authorized under the laws of the State of ____California_______.
(e) The Employer’s Plans do not permit participants to direct or otherwise exercise in any manner, whether direct or indirect, control over the investment of their accounts or benefits accrued under the Plans.

A-4
4828-2402-5842.v3
(f) The Employer has received copies, and has read and understands the terms, of the Trust.

ARTICLE 8

STANDARD OF CARE AND INDEMNIFICATION

8.1 Standard of Care. The Trustee and the Trust Administrator must discharge their duties in accordance with the standard of care set forth in Section 6.01 of the Trust.

8.2 Employer Indemnification of Trustee. The Employer, from its own funds and not from any assets of the Trust, agrees to indemnify the Trustee and each of its affiliates against, and will hold them harmless from, any and all loss, claims, liability, and expense, including cost of defense and reasonable attorneys’ fees, imposed upon or incurred at any time by any of them by reason of or in connection with the performance of the Trustee’s services under this Agreement, except to the extent such damages resulted from the Trustee’s or affiliate’s performance (or non-performance) of its duties under the Trust in a manner that constitutes gross negligence, willful misconduct or willful breach of the standard of care articulated in Section 6.01 of the Trust.

8.3 Employer Indemnification of Trust Administrator. Employer, from its own funds and not from any assets of the Trust, agrees to indemnify the Trust Administrator and each of its affiliates against, and will hold them harmless from, any and all damages imposed upon or incurred by any of them by reason of, or in connection with its services under the Trust or the Trust Administrative Services Agreement, except to the extent that such damages resulted from the Trust Administrator’s or affiliate’s performance (or nonperformance) of its duties under the Trust or the Trust Administrative Services Agreement in a manner that constitutes negligence, willful misconduct or willful breach of the standard of care articulated in Section 6.01 of the Trust.

ARTICLE 9

AMENDMENT
The Employer understands and agrees that the Trust may be amended from time to time by the Trust Administrator with the approval of two-thirds of the Employers then participating in the Trust.

ARTICLE 10

NO GUARANTEE OF INVESTMENT RESULTS
The Employer understands and acknowledges that investments in the Trust involve risk and that there is no guarantee of investment performance or other performance of the Trust, including but not limited to, custodians, depositories, or counterparties to investment strategies of the Trust.

A-5
4828-2402-5842.v3
ARTICLE 11

ADOPTION OF TRUST
By executing this Adoption Agreement, the Employer hereby adopts and agrees to be bound by the terms of the Trust and hereby approves, ratifies and confirms the appointment of Alta Trust Company as the Trustee and Shuster Advisory Group, LLC as the Trust Administrator as of the effective date of this Adoption Agreement. This Adoption Agreement and the Trust Agreement are effective on the _28th day of April, 2026__.

EMPLOYER ACCEPTED:

CITY OF PARAMOUNT TRUST ADMINISTRATOR
Agency Name SHUSTER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC
By: By:

Its: Its: Managing Partner
Date: Date:

ACCEPTED:

TRUSTEE

ALTA TRUST COMPANY
By:

Its: Trust Officer
Date:

A-6
4828-2402-5842.v3

EXHIBIT A
TRUST
B-1
4828-2402-5842.v3

EXHIBIT B

TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
C-1
4828-2402-5842.v3

EXHIBIT C
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR: SPECIMEN SIGNATURE
4820-7833-9064.v2

TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement (“Agreement”) is made this 28th day of April, 2026, by and between CITY OF PARAMOUNT (the “Employer”) and SHUSTER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC (the “Trust Administrator”).

WHEREAS, the Employer has adopted one or more plans, policies, or collective bargaining agreements (“Plans”) in order to provide other post-employment health and welfare benefits (other than pensions) (“OPEB”) and/or retirement benefits; and WHEREAS, the Trust Administrator and Alta Trust Company (the “Trustee”) have entered into an agreement (the “Trust Agreement”) establishing the Multiple Employer OPEB/Pension 115 Trust (the “Trust”); and
WHEREAS, the Employer has adopted the Trust by executing the adoption agreement to which this Agreement is attached (the “Adoption Agreement”“) in order to fund the OPEB and retirement benefits payable under the Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Employer wishes to retain the services of the Trust Administrator to administer the Employer’s account under the Trust (“Account”).

NOW THEREFORE, the Employer and the Trust Administrator hereby agree as follows:

Capitalized words not defined in this document are defined in the Trust Agreement.

1. Trust Administrator Services
The Trust Administrator will provide the following services for the Employer’s Account:

1.1 Administrative Services
A. Instruct the custodian of the Account to make disbursements from the Employer’s Account at the direction of the Employer for the payment of OPEB or retirement benefits under the Employer’s Plans funded by the Account;
B. Verify custodian’s receipt of contributions made to the Account as informed by the Employer;
C. Provide the Employer after the end of each calendar quarter with an analysis of the performance of the investments of the Account and a statement of the changes in the investments made during such calendar quarter;
D. Provide annual statements of Trust accounts;
E. Instruct the custodian to disburse funds from the Account for the payment of the fees and expenses described in Sections 2.1 and 3.2; and 4820-7833-9064.v2
F. Coordinate such other actions with the Trustee and custodian of the Account as directed by the Plan Administrator (as defined in Section 18 hereof) that are within the scope of the Trust Administrator’s duties under the Trust Agreement.

1.2 Investment Management Services. In accordance with the standard of conduct set forth in Section 6.01 of the Trust Agreement (the “Standard of Conduct”), A. Determine the asset allocation of investments in the Employer’s Account (“Investment Strategy”) based on information provided by the Employer or the persons or entity with the plenary authority pursuant to applicable state law over the investment and management of the Employer’s Plans or its designee (“Plan Administrator”), including the anticipated amounts of cash required by the Plans for distributions and other expenses, and the appropriate risk tolerance for the Plans based on the Plans’ assetliability characteristics and the Employer’s resources; B. Prepare a recommended policy statement of the Account’s Investment Strategy acceptable to the Employer to the extent necessary to accomplish the Account’s Investment Strategy (“Investment Policy Statement”);
C. Execute the Account’s Investment Strategy by instructing the Trustee to buy and sell shares of investments permitted under the Trust in accordance with the Investment Policy Statement;
D. In consultation with the Employer, reassess and alter the Investment Strategy and Investment Policy Statement at least annually to the extent necessary to “rebalance” the Account investments; and
E. Perform reviews at least annually of the performance of the investments held in the Account, add or reduce allocations to each investment or add or delete investments in its judgment (to the extent permitted under the Investment Policy Statement and the Trust), and promptly advise the Employer of any additions or deletions of Account investments.

2. Compensation

2.1 Fees. For all services provided by the Trust Administrator under this Agreement and the Trustee under the Trust Agreement, the following fees will apply:

Trust Administration Fees (This Agreement)1: 0.01%
Trustee Fees (Trust Adoption Agreement)2: 0.02%
Custodial Asset Based Fee (Custodial Agreement)3: 0.01% Investment Advisory Fees (Investment Advisory Agmt.): 0.06% Fees will be collected quarterly other than the Investment Advisory Fee which will be collected monthly.
1 - Will convert to a flat dollar fee after the end of contract year-3 based on the highest year-end balance of the first 3 contract years.
2 - Annual maximum fee per plan of $5,000.
4820-7833-9064.v2
3 - Annual minimum fee per plan of $400. Custodian may also charge fees related to non- standard assets, checks and wire fees outlined in the Custodial Agreement for the Plan.

The Trust Administrator will notify the Employer in writing of any change in the above fee amounts at least 90 days before the effective date of the change.

2.2 Fees for Additional Services. If and to the extent that the Employer requests the Trust Administrator to render services other than those described under this Agreement, such additional services will be compensated separately on terms to be agreed upon between the Trust Administrator and the Employer.

2.3 Pooled Investments. Assets invested by the Trust Administrator under the terms of this Agreement may from time to time be invested in individual securities, or in a proprietary money market mutual fund or local government investment pool (either, a “Pool”). Each Pool is a commingled fund managed by the Trust Administrator. Average daily net assets subject to the fees described in this section shall not take into account any funds invested in the Pool. Expenses of the Pool, including compensation for the Trust Administrator and the Pool custodian, are described in the relevant prospectus or information statement and are paid from the Pool.

3. Expenses

3.1 Furnishing of Administrative Services, Office Space, Equipment and Personnel. The Trust Administrator will furnish at its own expense all necessary administrative services, office space, equipment, personnel, telephone and other communication facilities, and investment advisory facilities required to perform the services under this Agreement, inclusive of reasonable costs required to attend meetings with the Employer.

3.2 Expenses of Employer’s Account. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Employer (either directly or through a charge to the Employer’s Account) agrees to pay all expenses under the Trust incurred by (or allocable to) the Employer’s Account including, without limitation, taxes, expenses (including front- or back-end charges) of an investment fund, fees and expenses of the Account’s independent auditors and legal counsel, insurance premiums, expenses of the Trustee, the keeping of books and accounts, and the allocable costs of the annual Trust accounting described in Section 9.02 of the Trust Agreement. The Trust Administrator will calculate expenses allocable to the Account on a pro-rata basis, or in any other reasonable and equitable manner determined by the Trust Administrator.

4. Payment Terms. At the end of each calendar month, the Trust Administrator will prepare and submit fees and expenses under this Agreement as described in Sections

2.1 and 2.2. Except to the extent that the Employer has elected in the Adoption Agreement to pay such fees and expenses, the Employer authorizes the Trust Administrator to charge such fees and expenses to the Employer’s Account and authorizes and instructs the custodian to disburse funds from the Account for the payment of the fees and expenses. The Trust Administrator shall provide the Employer with a written statement of fees and expenses charged to the Account each quarter. If the Employer disputes any fees or expenses, in whole or in part, the Employer must notify the Trust Administrator in writing within [30] calendar days after receipt of such 4820-7833-9064.v2
statement, specifying the basis for the dispute. Fees and expenses not disputed within such period shall be deemed final and conclusive. Upon receipt of a timely dispute notice, the parties shall use good faith efforts to resolve the dispute within 30 calendar days, and any amounts determined to have been improperly charged shall be promptly credited back to the Account.

If the Employer has elected in the Adoption Agreement to pay such fees and expenses directly, the Trust Administrator will prepare and submit monthly invoices to the Employer. If the Employer does not fully pay any undisputed invoice within 30 calendar days after the invoice’s postmark, then the Employer hereby authorizes the Trust Administrator to charge the unpaid amount to the Account and instructs the custodian to disburse such amount from the Employer’s Account for the payment of the fees and expenses. If sufficient funds are not available or cannot for any reason otherwise be disbursed from the Account, the Trust Administrator will notify the Employer, and the Employer will pay the unpaid amount to the Trust Administrator from other sources within 10 calendar days after receiving the notice.

5. Registered Advisor; Duty of Care. The Trust Administrator hereby represents it is a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Trust Administrator will immediately notify the Employer if at any time during the term of this Agreement it is not so registered or if its registration is suspended. The Trust Administrator agrees to perform its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement in accordance with the Standard of Conduct. The federal securities laws impose liabilities under certain circumstances on persons who are required to act in good faith. Nothing herein in any way constitutes a waiver or limitation of any rights which the Employer, the Trust, or the Trust Administrator may have under any federal securities laws. The Employer hereby authorizes the Trust Administrator to sign an Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 on behalf of the Employer and to deliver such form to broker-dealers or others from time to time as required in connection with securities transactions pursuant to this Agreement.

6. Trust Administrator’s Other Clients. The Employer understands that the Trust Administrator performs investment advisory services for various other clients which may include investment companies, commingled trust funds and/or individual portfolios. The Employer agrees that the Trust Administrator, in the exercise of its professional judgment, may give advice or take action with respect to any of its other clients which may differ from advice given or the timing or nature of action taken with respect to the Account. The Trust Administrator has no obligation to purchase, sell or exchange any security for the Employer solely by reason of the fact that the Trust Administrator, its principals, affiliates, or employees may purchase, sell or exchange such security for the account of any other client or for itself or its own accounts. Nothing in this Section 6 is intended to relieve the Trust Administrator of its obligation to act in accordance with the Standard of Conduct.

7. Risk Acknowledgment. The Trust Administrator does not guarantee the future performance of the Account or any specific level of performance, the success of any investment decision or strategy that the Trust Administrator may use, or the success of the Trust Administrator’s overall management of the Account. The Employer understands that investment decisions made for the Employer’s Account by the Trust Administrator are subject to various markets, currencies, economic, political and business risks, and that those investment decisions will not always be profitable. The Employer understands that past performance does not necessarily predict future 4820-7833-9064.v2
performance for the Account. The Trust Administrator will manage only the securities, cash and other investments held in Employer’s Account and in making investment decisions for the Account, the Trust Administrator will not consider any other securities, cash or other investments owned by the Employer or any of the Plans. Neither the Trust Administrator nor its officers, directors, agents, employees, nor affiliates shall be liable for any losses in the Account, or any loss, cost, indebtedness, or liabilities arising from the Trust Administrator’s management of the investments in the Account (together, “Losses”) except for any Losses that result from an act or omission of the Trust Administrator constituting a violation of law or an act or omission of the Trust Administrator constituting a failure to act with the Standard of Conduct, negligence, willful misfeasance, bad faith or reckless disregard of its obligations under this Agreement or as otherwise may be provided by law. The Trust Administrator is not responsible for any loss incurred by reason of any act or omission of the Employer, the custodian of the Account, a third party manager, any broker-dealer, or any other third party not selected by the Trust Administrator.

8. Term of Agreement. This Agreement will remain in effect until terminated by either party at any time by giving 60 days’ written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.

9. Force Majeure. The Trust Administrator has no liability for any losses arising out of the delays in performing or inability to perform the services which it renders under this Agreement which result from events beyond its control, including interruption of the business activities of the Trust Administrator or other financial institutions due to acts of God, acts of governmental authority, acts of war, terrorism, civil insurrection, riots, labor difficulties, or any action or inaction of any carrier or utility, or mechanical or other malfunction.

10. Disciplinary Actions. The Trust Administrator will promptly notify the Employer if the Trust Administrator is found to have violated any state or federal securities law or regulation in any criminal action or civil suit in any state or federal court or in any disciplinary proceeding before the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory agency or department of the United States, any registered securities exchange, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or any regulatory authority of any State based upon the performance of services as an investment advisor.

11. Confidentiality. The Trust Administrator will not disclose any information relating to the Plans or the Account, except to authorized officers of the Employer, the Plan Administrator the Trustee and third parties retained by the Trust Administrator to the extent necessary to perform specific services within this Agreement, without the Employer’s consent. The Employer will not disclose any information relating to the Trust to individuals other than authorized officers of the Employer and the Plan Administrator, or their respective designees, without the Trust Administrator’s consent.

12. Independent Contractor. The Trust Administrator, its employees, officers and representatives, will not be deemed to be employees, agents (except as to the purchase or sale of securities described in Section 1), partners, servants, and/or joint ventures of the Employer or the Account by virtue of this Agreement or any actions or services rendered under this Agreement.

13. Records. The Trust Administrator will maintain appropriate records of all its activities hereunder. The Trust Administrator will use its best efforts to provide the Employer with 4820-7833-9064.v2
a statement within 60 days following the end of each calendar quarter showing deposits, withdrawals, purchases and sales (or maturities) of investments, earnings received during the quarter, and the value of assets held on the last business day of the calendar quarter, all as provided for in the Trust Agreement, based on the information requested from and furnished to it by the Trustee.

14. Ownership of Reports and Documents. The Trust Administrator acknowledges that the originals of all correspondence, documents, reports and records produced in the course of providing the services pursuant to this Agreement are the property of the Employer. In the event this Agreement is terminated, the Trust Administrator agrees to provide such originals to the Employer. The Trust Administrator will not furnish copies of any such correspondence, documents reports and records to any party other than the Employer or the Plan Administrator, or their respective designees, or third parties retained by the Trust Administrator to perform services under this Agreement without the Employer’s consent. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the Trust Administrator is authorized to retain copies of any correspondence, documents, reports, and records to the extent needed to comply with applicable law, including, but not limited to, federal securities laws.

15. Trust Administrator’s Disclosure Statement. The Trust Administrator warrants that it has delivered to the Employer, at least 48 hours prior to the execution of this Agreement, the Trust Administrator’s current Securities and Exchange Commission Form ADV, Part II. The Employer acknowledges receipt of such disclosure statement at least 48 hours prior to the execution of this Agreement.

16. Amendment. This Agreement shall not be changed, modified, terminated or discharged in whole or in part, except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties hereto, or their respective successors or assigns.

17. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement are binding on the Trust Administrator and its respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that the rights and obligations of the Trust Administrator may not be assigned without the Employer’s consent.

18. Designees. In accordance with Section 1.18 of the Trust Agreement, the Employer will certify to the Trust Administrator in writing the Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator has the authority to act on behalf of, and to exercise any of the rights of, the Employer under this Agreement. The Trust Administrator may designate and engage the services of such agents, representatives, advisors, counsel, accountants and other third parties, including affiliates of the Trust Administrator, and delegate its authority to perform specified services under this Agreement to such third parties. Any such designee shall have the authority to perform the services delegated to it by the Trust Administrator. Any officer of the Trust Administrator has the authority to exercise any of the rights of the Trust Administrator under this Agreement.

19. Notice. Written notices required under this Agreement will be sent by regular mail, certified mail, overnight delivery or courier, and will be deemed given when received at the parties’ respective addresses shown below. Either party must notify the other party in writing of a change in address.

4820-7833-9064.v2

20. Employer’s Address:

City of Paramount
16400 Colorado Avenue
Paramount, CA 90723
Attn: City Manager
Trust Administrator’s Address:

Shuster Advisory Group, LLC
155 N. Lake Ave, #950
Pasadena, CA 91101
Attn: Mark Shuster, Managing Member

21. Applicable Law. This Agreement will be construed, enforced and administered according to the laws of the state of California, without regard to its conflicts of law principles. In the event that either party institutes legal proceedings against the other, the venue will lie in any court of competent jurisdiction in the state of California.

22. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including exhibits and any other documents referenced herein, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, and understandings, whether written or oral, with respect thereto.

23. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of the Agreement will continue in full force and effect.

24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed will be deemed to be a complete original and all of which together will constitute one and the same Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized officers on the date set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement.

TRUST ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYER
Shuster Advisory Group, LLC City of Paramount
By: By: _____
Its: Its: _____

Page 1 of 7 ends

INVESTMENT ADVISOR AGREEMENT
MULTIPLE EMPLOYER OPEB/PENSION 115 TRUST
This agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into between Shuster Advisory Group, LLC (“SHUSTER”), a California limited liability company, and City of Paramount (“EMPLOYER”) as further identified on Appendix A., as the responsible plan fiduciary for the Plan(s) as further identified in Appendix A, desires to engage SHUSTER to provide the services described in this Agreement according to the terms of this Agreement.

1. Fiduciary Authority. The account for which SHUSTER is providing investment advisory service is part of a multiple employer trust (the “Trust”) intended to qualify as a tax-exempt trust of a state or political subdivision thereof for an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code and any regulations issued thereunder and EMPLOYER has fiduciary authority with respect to the account.

2. Term. The term of this Agreement will commence April 28, 2026.

3. Services. SHUSTER agrees to perform the Fiduciary Services described in Appendix B.

4. Fees.
(A) The compensation, direct and indirect, of SHUSTER for the performance of the Services is described in Appendix C.

5. Fiduciary Status: Limitations on Functions. EMPLOYER acknowledges that:
(A) In performing the Fiduciary Services, SHUSTER is acting as an investment fiduciary of the Plan and as a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and will act with the standard of conduct set forth in Section 6.01 of the Trust (the “Standard of Conduct”). (B) In performing Fiduciary Services, SHUSTER does not act as, nor has SHUSTER agreed to assume the duties of, a trustee or the Plan Administrator, and SHUSTER has no discretion or responsibility to interpret the Plan documents, to determine eligibility or participation under the Plan, or to take any other action with respect to the management, administration or any other aspect of the Plan. (C) SHUSTER does not provide legal or tax advice.
(D) Investments are subject to various market, political, currency, economic, and business risks, and may not always be profitable. As a result, SHUSTER does not and cannot guarantee financial results. (E) SHUSTER may, by reason of performing services for other employers, from time to time acquire confidential information. EMPLOYER acknowledges and agrees that SHUSTER is unable to divulge to EMPLOYER or any other party, or to act upon, any such confidential information with respect to its performance of this Agreement.
(F) SHUSTER is entitled to rely upon all information provided to SHUSTER (whether financial or otherwise) from reputable third parties or by EMPLOYER, EMPLOYER’s representatives or third-party service providers to EMPLOYER, the Plan or SHUSTER, without independent verification. EMPLOYER agrees to promptly notify SHUSTER in writing of any material change in the financial and other information provided to SHUSTER and to promptly provide any such additional information as may be reasonably requested by SHUSTER.

Page 2 of 7 ends

(G) EMPLOYER understands that SHUSTER: (i) may perform other services for other clients, (ii) may charge a different fee for other clients, and (iii) may give advice and take action that is different for each client even when retirement plans are similar. Nothing in this Section 5(G) is intended to relieve SHUSTER of its obligation to act in accordance with the Standard of Conduct. (H) SHUSTER has no responsibility to provide any services related to assets not included in the SHUSTER investment portfolio or purchased directly by EMPLOYER. Such assets shall be referred to collectively as “Excluded Assets.” The Excluded Assets shall be disregarded in determining the Fees payable to SHUSTER pursuant to this Agreement, and the Fees shall be calculated only on the remaining assets (the “Included Assets”).

6. Representations of EMPLOYER. EMPLOYER represents and warrants as follows:
(A) It is the responsible plan fiduciary for the control and/or management of the assets of the Plan, and for the selection and monitoring of service providers for the Plan. SHUSTER is entitled to rely upon this statement until notified in writing to the contrary.
(B) The person signing the Agreement on behalf of EMPLOYER has all necessary authority to do so. (C) The execution of this Agreement and the performance thereof is within the scope of the investment authority authorized by the governing instrument and/or applicable laws. The signatory on behalf of EMPLOYER represents that the execution of the Agreement has been duly authorized by appropriate action and agrees to provide such supporting documentation as may be reasonably required by SHUSTER. (D) The Plan and related Trust permit payment of fees out of Plan assets. EMPLOYER has determined that the fees charged by SHUSTER are reasonable and are the obligation of the Plan; however, if EMPLOYER desires, it may pay the fees directly, rather than with Plan assets.

7. Representations of SHUSTER. SHUSTER represents and warrants as follows:
(A) SHUSTER is registered as an investment adviser (“RIA”) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. (B) The person signing this agreement on behalf SHUSTER has the power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement.
(C) SHUSTER agrees to take reasonable steps to protect private participant information and Plan investment data (collectively “Data”) in its possession; SHUSTER is not responsible for the assessment of systems and procedures of third parties for the protection of Plan and participant Data;
SHUSTER is not responsible for the actions by, or the failure to act by EMPLOYER, by other service providers, or by Plan participants to protect Data; SHUSTER shall have no liability in the event of a Data breach or a violation of participant privacy rights (under the California Consumer Privacy Act or otherwise) unless said breach is the direct result of negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of an employee or agent of SHUSTER.

8. Standard of Care. SHUSTER will perform the Fiduciary Services described in Appendix B to the Plan in accordance with the Standard of Conduct.

9. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 60 days prior written notice to the other party.

Such termination will not, however, affect the liabilities or obligations of the parties arising from transactions

Page 3 of 7 ends

initiated prior to such termination, and such liabilities and obligations (together with the provisions of section 8, 17, and 18) shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. Upon termination, SHUSTER will have no further obligation under this Agreement to act or advise EMPLOYER with respect to services under this Agreement.

10. Receipt of Disclosure and Consent to Electronic Delivery. EMPLOYER acknowledges receipt and undertakes to review and consider the disclosures made by SHUSTER (including in this Agreement, the Form ADV Part 2 and SHUSTER Privacy Policy), in particular the portions related to services, compensation, and potential conflicts of interest, as well as the remainder of the disclosures concerning, among other matters, background information such as educational and business history, business practices such as the types of advisory services provided, the methods of securities analysis used, and the like.

Further, EMPLOYER consents to electronic delivery (via email or other generally accepted method) of current and future distributions of SHUSTER’s Form ADV Part 2 and Privacy Policy. Consent to electronic delivery may be canceled at any time by sending a written request to SHUSTER.

11. Notices. Any and all notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sufficient in all respects if (i) delivered personally, (ii) mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid, or (iii) sent via a nationally recognized overnight courier service to EMPLOYER’s address listed on Appendix A and SHUSTER’s address, 155 N. Lake Ave, Ste. 950, Pasadena, CA 91101, or such other address as any party shall have designed by notice in writing to the other party.

12. Assignability. This Agreement is not assignable by either Party hereto without the prior written consent of the other Party.

13. Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, survivors, administrators and assigns.

14. Entire Understanding and Modification. This Agreement constitutes and contains the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior oral or written statements dealing with the subject matter herein. This Agreement can be amended or modified by the written consent of the Parties.

15. Severability. If any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall, for any reason, be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein.

16. Headings. All headings used herein are for ease of reference only and in no way shall be construed as interpreting, decreasing or enlarging the provisions of this Agreement.

17. Applicable Law; Forum. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement in all respects, including but not limited to the construction and enforcement thereof, unless otherwise preempted or superseded by federal law.

18. Amendment Process. The Agreement may be modified, by written agreement of both EMPLOYER and SHUSTER.

Page 4 of 7 ends

19. Waiver of Limitation. Nothing in this Agreement shall in any way constitute a waiver or limitation of any rights which EMPLOYER or Plan or any other party may have under federal or state securities laws.

This Agreement constitutes both an agreement between the parties and a disclosure statement. The Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date set forth above. This Agreement shall not be binding on SHUSTER or EMPLOYER until each has accepted it, in writing, as indicated by their signatures below.

EMPLOYER: City of Paramount Shuster Advisory Group, LLC Signature: _____________________________ Signature: ____________________________ Name: Name: Mark Shuster
Title: Title: Managing Member
Date: Date:_______________________________
*EMPLOYER is signing this Agreement both as the employer that sponsors the Plan and as the fiduciary responsible for selecting the Plan’s investment advisors and engaging its service providers.

Page 5 of 7 ends

APPENDIX A – EMPLOYER/PLAN SPONSOR - PLAN INFORMATION
EMPLOYER/Plan Sponsor
City of Paramount
Tax ID#
95-6005780
Plan Name 1
City of Paramount OPEB Trust
Account
Type of Plan
☒OPEB Plan ☐Pension Plan
☐Other:

Plan Name 2 Type of Plan
☐OPEB Plan ☐Pension Plan
☐Other:

Plan Name 3 Type of Plan
☐OPEB Plan ☐Pension Plan
☐Other:

Plan Name 4 Type of Plan
☐OPEB Plan ☐Pension Plan
☐Other:

Plan Name 5 Type of Plan
☐OPEB Plan ☐Pension Plan
☐Other:

Mailing Address
16400 Colorado Avenue
City
Paramount
State
CA
Zip Code
90723
Phone
562-220-2000
Email (for purposes of notice/electronic delivery)
[email protected]
Legal Address (☒Same as Mailing Address) City State Zip Code

Page 6 of 7 ends

APPENDIX B – FIDUCIARY SERVICES
SHUSTER will perform the following fiduciary services:

1. SHUSTER will develop an Investment Policy Statement (IPS). The IPS establishes the investment policies and objectives for the Plan(s) as well as the criteria and standards for selecting and monitoring the investments.

EMPLOYER shall have the ultimate responsibility and authority to establish such policies and objectives and to adopt the Investment Policy Statement.

2. Consistent with the Investment Policy Statement, SHUSTER will select the initial investments within the Plan(s) and maintain, or remove and replace investments in accordance with the IPS

3. SHUSTER will periodically review the investments within the Plan(s) and shall be responsible for making additions/deletions thereto.

4. SHUSTER will provide periodic investment advisory reports that document consistency of fund management and performance to the guidelines set forth in the IPS.. Reports to include: Market Overview, In-Depth Portfolio Summary, Plan Asset Allocation Analysis and Fund Performance Comparison to the Index.

5. SHUSTER will meet with EMPLOYER on a periodic basis to discuss reports and recommendations.

6. SHUSTER will annually review the IPS with EMPLOYER to ensure it continues to meet the needs of EMPLOYER and the Plan(s).

LIMITATIONS ON FIDUCIARY SERVICES
SHUSTER shall not be responsible or liable for the recommendations of, or services rendered by, anyone other than SHUSTER. The ability to perform the above services is contingent upon the rules, policies, processes, and responsiveness to SHUSTER’S requests for information of EMPLOYER, Plan Sponsor, Custodian, and Trustee.

Page 7 of 7 ends

APPENDIX C - FEE SCHEDULE

1. SHUSTER will not receive any compensation, direct or indirect, for its services under this Agreement other than that set forth in this Appendix C.

2. All fees are billed in arrears.

3. The initial fee will be prorated for the number of days included in the initial billing period from the effective payment start date.

4. If this Agreement is terminated prior to the end of a billing period, SHUSTER shall be entitled to a fee, prorated for the number of days in the billing period prior to the effective date of termination.

5. All fees will be due and payable within 30 days and are payable to “Shuster Advisory Group, LLC”

6. The annual fee for services shall be as follows:

Beginning with the effective date of this Agreement, the annual fee for service shall be 0.06% (6 basis points) per annum, charged as 0.005% monthly to all included assets in each Plan as of the date of the calculation.

Fees will be deducted from Plan assets and will be paid to SHUSTER by the Trust/Custodian for the Plan(s).

At SHUSTER’s discretion the billing period described above may be adjusted to quarterly.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Adriana Figueroa, Public Works Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT MAP NO. 084854 (16635, 16675, AND 16683 PARAMOUNT BLVD.)

BACKGROUND
Tract Map No. 084854 responds to a request to create 17 parcels from three existing lots for the construction of 17 detached single-family dwelling units at 16635, 16675, and 16683 Paramount Boulevard.

DISCUSSION
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 25:030 approving General Plan Amendment No. 25-2, changing the General Plan Land Use Designation from Mixed-Use Commercial and Senior Assisted/Independent Living Facility to Mixed-Use Commercial and MultipleFamily Residential for a total of three properties located at 16635, 16675 and 16683 Paramount Boulevard. The approval of the subject tract map will allow the creation of 17 parcels from three existing lots for the construction of 17 detached single-family dwelling units at 16635, 16675, and 16683 Paramount Boulevard. The subject map (attached for your consideration) has been reviewed by the City Engineer, who has deemed the map correct and substantially conforms to the tentative conditions as approved by the Planning Commission on August 6, 2025 via Resolution No. PC 25:020.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to City.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
ACCEPTANCE OF TRACT MAP NO. 084854 Page 2

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve Tract Map No. 084854 and authorize the City Clerk to execute the map on behalf of the City of Paramount.

NO. 9123

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: Grissel Chavez, Assistant City Manager
John King, Planning and Building Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH MOBILE HOME

PARK OWNERS

BACKGROUND
Beginning in January 2025, the City initiated a collaborative process to develop a Mobilehome Park Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to apply to all 17 mobilehome parks in Paramount. The City established an ad hoc stakeholder group composed of:
• Three park owners (Cherryfield Village, Americana, Rio Puente) and Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) representing mobile home park ownership
• Three homeowners (Orange Avenue, California Estates, Rio Puente) and Mobile Home Action (MHA) representing mobile home owners
• Two City Council members (Peggy Lemons and Brenda Olmos) • City Manager and City staff
• City Attorney staff
Committee meetings and work sessions were held January–June 2025, after which both the owner and resident representatives conducted extensive review of draft MOU language through April 2026, providing edits, comments, and revisions. The City believes the proposed final draft MOU reflects an agreement with key objectives reached by the committee’s representative parties.

DISCUSSION
MOU Committee Collaboration Process:

The collaborative process through the stakeholder group produced the draft MOU now before the City Council. The draft MOU establishes long-term standards and procedures governing rent, rent adjustments, passthroughs, capital projects, dispute resolution, communication, and resident protections within Paramount’s mobilehome parks. The document is intended to:

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
MOBILE HOME MOU 2026 Page 2
1 1
4 • Protect residents from unreasonable rent increases; • Provide park owners with fair, predictable returns and cost recovery mechanisms; • Reduce conflict and provide structured communication protocols; • Avoid the need for future rent stabilization ordinances by achieving voluntary compliance.

The following are key provisions of the MOU:
❖ Maximum Rent: Rent may not exceed the base rent in effect on the MOU effective date except as permitted. Annual increases are capped at 3%. ❖ Annual Base Rent Adjustments: Park owners may increase base rent once annually by up to 3%, with City review, and 90-days notice as required by State law. ❖ Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap: Park owners may recover up to 75% of capital improvement or replacement costs, amortized over the capital project‘s useful life, but total pass-throughs (including pre-MOU charges) may not exceed 4% of base rent annually. If a pass-through would exceed the 4% cap, the amortization period must be extended until the increase falls within the cap. This charge is not considered rent, and the park owner must cease charging the pass-through adjustment at the end of the capital project’s amortization period. ❖ Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment: If a park is sold, the new park owner may pass through property tax increases above 2%, phased in over no fewer than five years. This charge is not considered rent and is exempt from the 4% pass-through cap.
❖ Rent Adjustment on Vacancy: The MOU establishes when and how rents may be adjusted following a vacancy. A park owner may increase the base rent when a space becomes vacant, subject to the vacancy adjustment provisions. The MOU allows the rent to be increased to market rent when a new resident first occupies a vacant space or when an in-place transfer occurs due to sale to a third party, subject to specific conditions. Certain transfers do NOT allow a vacancy increase, such as inheritance, transfers between family, and temporary relocations for repairs. After a vacancy adjustment, the new rent becomes the base rent and all normal controls resume. ❖ Rent Subsidy Program for Low-Income Residents: The MOU requires that each park owner create a formal net subsidy program, managed by each park owner, for lowincome residents. Eligible residents with household income less than twice their monthly rent and with assets under $50,000 may apply. Residents may receive rent credits to ensure total housing costs do not exceed 30% of household income.

Program eligibility must be renewed annually.
❖ MOU Working Group: The MOU establishes a Working Group consisting of representatives of all park owners, homeowner representatives from all parks, and City staff. During the first year of the MOU term, the group must meet at least twice Agenda Report April 28, 2026
MOBILE HOME MOU 2026 Page 3
1 1
4 (and more frequently as needed) to address issues related to implementation and interpretation. Meetings are public and subject to the Brown Act. Resident and owner representatives may continue participation beyond the first year if mutually agreed. ❖ Homeowner Oversight Board: Each park will maintain a Homeowner Oversight Board composed of elected or appointed representatives of the park’s homeowners. Each Park Owner must meet with their park‘s Homeowner Oversight Board annually, and within 30 days of written requests, to discuss park operations, amenities, rules changes, and general welfare matters. Meetings may occur in person or via teleconference. Park owners must provide written responses to the Homeowner Oversight Board concerns within 20 days.
❖ Dispute Resolution and Remedies: The MOU outlines a multi-step dispute resolution system. Homeowners or park owners must first issue written notice of disputes. If unresolved within 30 days, the parties must proceed to third-party mediation before litigation. Capital project pass-through disputes must follow a specific protest and arbitration process administered by the Planning and Building Director. If either the park owner, homeowner or Homeowner Oversight Board is not satisfied with the Director’s protest decision, they may request binding arbitration. The City and individual residents have enforcement rights to pursue civil remedies for violations of the MOU.
❖ Term: The MOU will be in effect for 10 years beginning with the effective date noted on the MOU.

With City Council approval of the template MOU, staff will request the mobile home park owner committee representatives to present the MOU to all 17 individual park owners for signature. The MOU will be effective for each mobile home park once the agreement is fully executed by the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with City Council review of the draft MOU.

Future administrative responsibilities (e.g., rent schedule filings, capital project reviews) will be handled by the existing Planning and Building Department staff as part of ongoing housing oversight functions. The upcoming FY 2026-27 budget will include funding for costs of legal services for the City Attorney to assist with any protest/mediation procedures.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
The City’s Vision, Mission, and Values set the standard for the organization, establish priorities, uniformity and guidelines; and provide the framework for policy decision making. The Strategic Outcomes were implemented to provide a pathway to achieving the City’s Vision. This item aligns with Strategic Outcome No 3: Economic Health - Support a healthy, sustainable economy reflecting community values.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
MOBILE HOME MOU 2026 Page 4
1 1
4 RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the template Memorandum of Understanding with the Mobile Home Park Owners and authorize the City Manager to execute each agreement on behalf of the City. 1 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
UPDATED DRAFT 4/17/26
(REVISIONS MADE TO 6/3/25 CLEAN VERSION BASED ON COMMENTS FROM

PARK OWNER REPRESENTATIVES AND PARK RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES) Recording Requested by
and when recorded return to:

CITY OF PARAMOUNT
16400 Colorado Avenue
Paramount, CA 90723
Attention: City Clerk
Exempt from Recording Fees (Govt. Code § 27383),
Filing Fees (Govt. Code § 6103), and Documentary
Transfer Tax (Rev & Tax Code § 11922).

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
Assessor’s Parcel No. (APN):_________________________________

MOBILEHOME PARK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS

THIS MOBILEHOME PARK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ((the “MOU”) is entered into as of ___________, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PARAMOUNT (the “City”), a municipal corporation, on the one hand, and [_________________] [insert complete legal name of park owner] (“Owner” or “Park Owner”) of the mobilehome park commonly known as _____________ [insert complete name of mobilehome park] (“Park”) located at __________________ [insert street address, city, state, zip code] and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

RECITALS
A. The City of Paramount has 17 mobilehome park sites totaling approximately 1,400 spaces per the Codes and Standards Automated System (CASAS) of the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This number of mobilehome spaces amounts to approximately 7.7 percent of the total housing stock in the City of Paramount.

B. There exists within the City of Paramount and the surrounding areas a serious shortage of mobilehome rental spaces, which has resulted in low vacancy rates and potential for rising space rents. Since 2000, the number of mobilehomes has decreased by 242 units in the City of Paramount alone.

C. Because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative home sites and associated infrastructure and utilities for mobilehome residences and the substantial investment of mobilehome owners in such homes, there exists a shortage of mobilehome park spaces. 2 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
D. It is necessary to protect the residents of mobilehomes from unreasonable space rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need for mobilehome park owners to receive a just and reasonable income sufficient to cover the costs of repairs, maintenance, insurance, employee services, additional amenities and other operations, as well as a just and reasonable return on investment.

E. It is commonly known that, after initial installation, virtually all mobilehomes are never thereafter moved and when a resident decides to move, the mobilehome is commonly sold in place and if rents are below free-market levels, the possibility exists that a portion of the mobilehome space value might be transferred upon such sale unless rents are allowed to rise upon such sale to levels which are closer to or at free-market levels.

F. Decisions of a rent stabilization board or similar decision-making body may not necessarily fulfill the intent of protecting mobilehome residents from unreasonable space rent increases, nor do such decisions always provide an owner with the opportunity for a just and reasonable income sufficient to operate a mobilehome park, and to gain a fair and reasonable return on investment.

G. Concerns among residents and owners of mobilehome parks over rent increases and other park-related situations can often best be resolved between the two parties to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement.

H. It is the intent of this Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to protect mobilehome park residents from unreasonable space rent adjustments and mobilehome park owners from infringement upon property rights.

I. The purpose of this MOU is to establish an agreement among the above-mentioned parties concerning terms for tenancies, rent increases, park rules, responsibilities, and expectations of both mobilehome park owners and residents in Paramount.

J. This MOU is to establish and coordinate joint processes and procedures for the provision of rent increases by owners of mobilehome parks in Paramount and mobilehome owners living in mobilehome parks in Paramount.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Owner agree as follows:

Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have the following meanings except as otherwise expressly provided in this MOU. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future; words in the singular number include the plural, and those in the plural number include the singular.

A. “Annual” or “annually” means calendar year.

B. “Annual Base Rent Adjustment” or “Annual Adjustment” means the three percent (3%) annual increase made to the Base Rent not more frequently than once in a twelve-month period.
3 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
C. “Base Rent” or “Rent” means the space rent charged by a mobilehome park as of the MOU Effective Date, and recalculated annually thereafter according to any increase for an Annual Base Rent Adjustment or Vacancy Adjustment, and shall not include any additional increases except as provided in Section 3.B, Section 5 and Section 7. “Base Rent” includes money paid in consideration of the rental, use and occupancy of a Mobilehome Space in the Park including the provision of related Housing Services in connection therewith. “Base Rent” shall not include (i) any Pass-Through Adjustments approved under this MOU, (ii) any Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments; (iii) any other separately billed fees, costs and charges initially imposed on the Park’s Spaces prior to the Effective Date of this MOU, (iv) any amounts separately billed to Residents for separately metered utilities or services, as provided in Civil Code Section 798.41, and/or (iv) any other separate fees, assessments or costs which may be charged to Residents pursuant to the Mobilehome Residency Law or any other provision of state law.

D. “Capital Improvement” means, subject to the exclusions set forth in this definition, a new facility, building, structure, amenity, or other physical improvement or infrastructure constructed or installed after the Effective Date of this MOU, which directly and primarily benefits and serves the existing Residents by materially adding to the value of the Park, and which has a life expectancy of five (5) years or more. A Capital Improvement must be a completely new facility, building structure, building, amenity, or other physical improvement or infrastructure, not a replacement of an existing or previously existing improvement or infrastructure. An expansion of an existing facility, building, structure, amenity, or other physical improvement or infrastructure may qualify as a Capital Improvement under this definition only if the expansion is a totally new addition to an existing Capital Improvement. A facility, building, structure, amenity, or other physical improvement or infrastructure that is required as a result of improperly deferred maintenance does not qualify as a Capital Improvement under this MOU. A Capital Improvement, as defined herein, shall not include the construction of a new gas system, electrical system, or any other new utility system, in whole or in part, to serve, or serving, the Park, for which the gas rates, electricity rates, or other utility rates are established by the CPUC. To qualify as a Capital Improvement under this MOU, the facility, building, structure, amenity, or other physical improvement or infrastructure must be permanently fixed in place or relatively immobile. New furniture, computer equipment, and televisions, movable music systems or other types of equipment are not Capital Improvements within the scope of this definition. A Capital Improvement also does not include (i) any Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment, as defined in this MOU, regardless of the type of facility, building, structure, equipment, machinery, service, improvement or infrastructure used in determining the cost of that Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment; (ii) any other charge, fee or cost initially separately billed to any Space prior to the Effective Date of this MOU pursuant to state law; (iii) any amounts billed to Residents for separately metered utilities or services, as provided in Civil Code Section 798.41, and/or (iv) any other separate fees, assessments or costs which may be charged to Residents pursuant to the MRL or any other provision of state law.
1) In addition to the foregoing, a Capital Improvement is a construction project that meets all of the following requirements and complies with the provisions of Section 8:
4 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
a) The construction project is one made for purposes other than maintenance and repair; and
b) The construction project is completed after the MOU Effective Date; and c) The construction project is carried out by the Park Owner during his/her/its ownership of the Park. A Capital Improvement completed in whole or in part by a prior owner of the Park does not qualify as a Capital Improvement under this definition; and
d) The construction project primarily benefits the Residents and is located in the Park; and
e) The construction project has a life expectancy of five (5) years or more and the cost of the Capital Improvement is permitted to be amortized over the useful life of the improvement as provided in Section 8.A.2(a)(3) of this MOU or under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, but which may not be deducted for such tax purposes as an expense; and
f) The Capital Improvement project has a minimum value of at least forty thousand dollars ($40,000); or for Small Parks the Capital Improvement has a minimum value of at least twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Individual Capital Improvements which are unrelated to the same underlying improvement shall not be consolidated together to calculate the minimum value, even if to be performed at the same time; and
g) Prior to commencing construction of the Capital Improvement, the Owner solicited at least two bids for the Capital Improvement and either (i) awarded the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, or (ii) provides, to any Resident so requesting, a written explanation of all reasons why the Park Owner concluded its selected contractor is best suited to complete the project, including but not limited to, based on price, prior experience on similar projects, qualifications, training, and references.

Status of a contractor as a long-term independent contractor for Management shall not provide the basis for a finding that such contractor is the most qualified to perform the Capital Improvement within the meaning of this provision; and
h) Prior to commencing construction of the Capital Improvement, the Owner conducted a meeting and obtained majority consent (at least fifty percent (50%) plus one) from the Park’s occupied rental Spaces, for construction of the Capital Improvement, in accordance with Section 8 of this MOU. 2) Examples of Capital Improvements are (subject to all other requirements listed this Section):
a) Brand new buildings.
5 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
b) Physical expansions of existing buildings (additional square footage). c) Brand new parking areas, sidewalks, or roads or other common area infrastructure in addition to infrastructure previously available to Residents. d) Brand new trees or landscaping and associated irrigation and related infrastructure in common areas, in addition to trees and landscaping previously located in common areas.
e) New play areas, pools, laundry rooms, common areas, and bathrooms in addition to those previously available to Residents.
3) Capital Improvement costs eligible to be passed through to Spaces as a Capital Project Pass-Through Rent Adjustment include only those costs which are directly attributable to the Capital Improvement itself and not ancillary costs which do not on their own meet the definition of a Capital Improvement. Work completed by an employee of the Park as part of their usual duties or work performed by a long-term independent contractor of Management does not qualify as a Capital Improvement.

Any expenses and other costs used in calculating a Capital Improvement shall be limited to only those costs expended by the Park Owner for the specific Capital Improvement in the Park.

E. “Capital Project” means a Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement, as defined in this Section.

F. “Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap” means the four percent (4%) maximum increase that may be charged by the Park Owner to each Space in the Park during a calendar year based on the combined total of all Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustments authorized by this MOU (including but not limited to, based on Emergency Capital Replacements, Major Water or Sewer Capital Projects, and any other type of Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustments and Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustments) plus all Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments; but the “Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment Cap” excludes any Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment as defined in this Section 1 and authorized pursuant to Section 6. The Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment Cap shall be determined annually for the Park pursuant to Section

8.A of this MOU.

G. “Capital Replacement” means, subject to the exclusions set forth in this definition, the substitution, replacement, or complete reconstruction of existing streets, sidewalks, security gates, sewer system, water system, outdoor or common area lighting, retaining walls, drainage, swimming pool, sauna, hot tub or other recreational amenities or similar buildings, facilities, structures, or other infrastructure within the Park after the Effective Date of this MOU, including but not limited to, the design, engineering, planning and construction of such replacements, and which meets all requirements of this definition. A Capital Replacement must include the substitution or replacement of an entire portion of the existing streets, sidewalks, utility lines, landscaping, recreational amenities, or other buildings, facilities, structures or infrastructure. A Capital Replacement shall not include 6 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
the construction or replacement of any portion of the gas system, electrical system, or any other utility service, in whole or in part, to serve, or serving, the Park, for which rates are established by the CPUC. A Capital Replacement may include replacement of the water system or sewer system serving the Residents of the Park, unless the rates for such water system or sewer system are or become regulated by the CPUC. A Capital Replacement that is required as a result of improperly or unreasonably deferred maintenance, or to bring a Park building, facility, structure, infrastructure, service or amenity into compliance with a provision of the Paramount Municipal Code or state or federal law where the original installation or subsequent modifications or repairs were not in compliance with code requirements, do not qualify as Capital Replacement. A Capital Replacement must be permanently fixed in place or relatively immobile. Furniture, computer equipment and other types of equipment or machinery, televisions, or movable music systems are not Capital Replacements. Normal routine maintenance and repair is not a Capital Replacement.

Work completed by an employee of the Park as part of their usual duties or by a long-term independent contractor is not an eligible Capital Replacement cost. A Capital Replacement generally occurs as a planned activity, with a defined time period for completion of the project, is completed by an independent contractor, and is a benefit to the Residents of the Park. The cost of a Capital Replacement for which the Park Owner is covered under insurance does not qualify as a Capital Replacement within the meaning of this definition. The Park Owner shall be required to document that the proposed Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment does not include any costs reimbursed or reimbursable by insurance, whether or not insurance proceeds have been applied for or received. A Capital Replacement also does not include: (i) any Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment, as defined in this MOU, regardless of the type of facility, building, structure, equipment, machinery, service, improvement or infrastructure used in determining the cost of that Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment; (ii) any other charge, fee or cost initially separately billed to any Space prior to the Effective Date of this MOU pursuant to state law; (iii) any amounts billed to Residents for separately metered utilities or services, as provided in Civil Code Section 798.41, and/or (iv) any other separate fees, assessments or costs which may be charged to Residents pursuant to the MRL or any other provision of state law. 1) In addition to the foregoing, a Capital Replacement is a construction project that meets all of the following requirements:
a) The Capital Replacement is one made for purposes other than maintenance and repair; and
b) The Capital Replacement and completed after the MOU Effective Date; and c) The Capital Replacement Project is carried out by the Park Owner during his/her/its ownership of the Park. A Capital Replacement completed in whole or in party by a prior owner of the Park does not qualify as a Capital Replacement under this definition; and
d) The Capital Replacement primarily benefits the residents of the Park; and 7 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
e) The Capital Replacement has a life expectancy of five (5) years or more and is permitted to be amortized over the useful life of the improvement as provided in Section 8.A.2(a)(3) of this MOU or under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, but which may not be deducted for such tax purposes as an expense; and
f) The Capital Replacement has a minimum value of at least forty thousand dollars ($40,000); or for Small Parks the Capital Replacement has a minimum value of at least twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Individual Capital Replacements which are unrelated to the same underlying Capital Replacement shall not be consolidated together to calculate the minimum value, even if to be performed at the same time; and
g) Except as otherwise provided with respect to an Emergency Capital Replacement as defined in this Section, prior to commencing construction of the Capital Replacement, the Park Owner (i) solicited at least two bids for the Capital Replacement and awarded the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, or (ii) provides to any Resident so requesting, a written explanation of all reasons why the Park Owner concluded its selected contractor is best suited to complete the project, including but not limited to, based on price, prior experience on similar projects, qualifications, training, and references. Status of a contractor as a long-term independent contractor for Management shall not provide the basis for a finding that such contractor is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder within the meaning of this provision; and h) Except as provided otherwise with respect to an Emergency Capital Replacement, as defined in this Section 1, prior to commencing construction of the Capital Replacement, the Park Owner provided pre-construction notification to the Homeowners and met informally with the Residents and Homeowner Oversight Committee, in accordance with Section 8 of this MOU.
2) Capital Replacement costs eligible to be passed through to the Spaces may only be those which are directly attributable to the Capital Replacement itself and not ancillary costs which do not on their own meet the definition of a Capital Replacement. Work completed by an employee of the park as part of their usual duties or by a long-term independent contractor of Management is not a permissible Capital Replacement. Any expenses and other costs used in calculating a Capital Replacement shall be limited to only those costs expended by the Park Owner for the specific Capital Replacement in the Park.
3) Examples of what constitutes a Capital Replacement, on the one hand, or a repair or routine maintenance, on the other hand, are listed in the following chart:
[chart located on following page]
8 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

CAPITAL REPLACEMENT REPAIR
Replacement of an entire HVAC unit with a
new unit
Replacing parts of an HVAC unit
Replacing the entire roof on a whole building,
facility or structure
Repairing or replacing a portion of the
roof of a whole building, facility or
structure
Replacing the entire pump system for a pool Replacing parts in a pool pump Planned replacement of an entire section of
permanent landscaping with all new plants
Replacement of a few plants to address
disease, damage or aesthetics
Replacing the entire plumbing system in a
building, facility or other structure
Repair of plumbing leaks, or repair or
replacement of a portion of existing pipes
or equipment of an existing plumbing
system
Replacement of existing streets Slurry seal and/or coating of streets; repaving a portion of an existing street
Replacement of a Park monument sign with a
completely new sign
Replacement of some portions of an
existing monument sign
Replacement of an entire section of wall or
fence of an existing building, facility or
structure, or of the perimeter of the Park
Repair of fallen brick, stones, or wood of
an existing wall or fence
Replacement of street signs, parking
signs, or hazard signs

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
Interior or exterior painting
Replacement of light bulbs
Landscape services, street sweeping, pool
cleaning, janitorial services,
powerwashing services
H. “City” means the City of Paramount.

I. “City Clerk” means the position defined by Section 2.08.030 of the Paramount Municipal Code.

J. “City Manager” means the administrative head of the government of the City of Paramount as defined by Section 2.08.020 of the Paramount Municipal Code.

K. “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission.

L. “Day” means, except as otherwise provided in this MOU, a calendar day. 9 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
M. “Disaster-Related Event” means a sudden event resulting from earthquake, fire, flood, microburst, or other natural occurrence over which the Owner has no reasonable control, and which was not caused by the Owner's acts or negligence.

N. “Emergency Capital Replacement” means a Capital Replacement (1) that resulted from a disaster-related event and is necessary in order to prevent an imminent threat to public health and safety of the Park, the Residents, or neighbors; (2) that must be carried out immediately; and (3) otherwise satisfies the definition of a Capital Replacement as set forth in this Section and satisfies the requirements of Section 8 of this MOU.

O. “Homeowner” means a person who owns a Mobilehome and has a Tenancy in a Space in the Park under a Rental Agreement; and who resides in the Mobilehome as his/her primary residence. The term “Homeowner” excludes (i) a subtenant of the Homeowner in the Mobilehome; (ii) the Park Owner, and (iii) any other member of Management who owns a Mobilehome in the Park. unless such manager resides in his/her Mobilehome as his/her primary residence in the Park.

P. “Homeowner Oversight Board” means that five-member committee for the Mobilehome Park selected by a majority vote of Homeowners in the Park (one vote per Space), or other methodology selected by the Homeowners.

Q. “Housing services” mean services, amenities and benefits connected with use or occupancy of a rental Space in the Park where such services are provided to Residents for the Base Rent charged for the Space, including, but not limited to: utilities, ordinary repairs, replacement and maintenance, laundry facilities, recreational facilities, a resident manager, refuse removal, parking, street cleaning and maintenance, and other benefits, privileges, facilities or terms and conditions of the residency.

R. “Immediate family” means any of the following as established by the Resident: a Resident’s spouse, registered domestic partner, sibling, parent, step-parent, child, stepchild, grandchild, grandparent; a child, sibling, parent, grandchild, or grandparent of the Resident’s spouse or registered domestic partner; or other members of the Resident’s family residing in the Mobilehome to whom the Resident stands in loco parentis.

S. “In-place Transfer” of a Mobilehome means a sale, transfer or other conveyance of ownership of a Mobilehome with the Mobilehome remaining on the Space following the sale, transfer or other conveyance of the Mobilehome during the Homeowner’s Tenancy in the Park.

T. “Major Water or Sewer Capital Project” means any proposed Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement for a water project or sewer project that (1) completely improves or replaces more than 75% (seventy-five percent) of the water system or sewer system of the Park; and (2) such Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement is mandated by a new statute or regulation or required by the Park Owner’s insurance company to address a specific health or safety concern relating to the Park’s water system or sewer system; but (3) excludes any Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement for a water or sewer project that is the result of unreasonably deferred maintenance or is required by a provision of the 10 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Paramount Municipal Code or state or federal law because the originally installation or subsequent modifications or repairs to the water or sewer system were not in compliance with code requirements.

U. “Management” means the Owner of the Mobilehome Park or an agent or representative authorized to act on the Owner’s behalf in connection with matters relating to a Tenancy in the Park.

V. “Mobilehome” shall have the meaning set forth in Civil Code Section 798.3.

W. “Mobilehome Park” or “Park” means that specific mobilehome park identified in the Preamble of this MOU, and includes that area of land within the City described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

X. “Mobilehome Park MOU Working Group” means that group composed of representatives of all Park Owners, all Homeowners of all Mobilehome Parks in the City, and City representatives, formed in accordance with Section 9 of this MOU.

Y. “Mobilehome Space” or “Space” means the lot, pad or other site within the Mobilehome Park intended, designed, or used for the location or accommodation of one Mobilehome and any accessory structures or appurtenances attached thereto or used in conjunction therewith, which is subject to the terms and provisions of this MOU.

Z. “MOU” means this Memorandum of Understanding.

AA. “MRL” means the California Mobilehome Residency Law (California Civil Code Section 798, et seq.), as adopted or amended from time to time.

BB. “New Homeowner” means a purchaser of a Mobilehome in the Mobilehome Park or other Homeowner who has applied and been approved for a park residency but does not yet reside in the Park.

CC. “Owner” or “Park Owner” means the owner or operator of the Mobilehome Park identified in the Preamble of this MOU, and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, or an agent or representative authorized to act on said Owner’s or operator’s behalf in connection with the maintenance or operation of the Park; and includes “Management” as defined in this Section.

DD. “Pass-Through Adjustments” means all Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustments, (2) Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustments, and (3) Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments, as defined in this MOU.

EE.“Planning and Building Director” or “Director” means the person serving as the Planning and Building Director for the City. This person may also mean an alternate City employee as appointed by the City Manager to fulfill the duties and obligations specific to the Planning and Building Director as outlined in this MOU. 11 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
FF. “Pre-MOU Pass-through Adjustments” means those charges, fees or other adjustments for capital improvements, capital replacements, infrastructure, or other work, projects, taxes or services in the Park that were initially separately billed from Space Rent prior to the Effective Date of this MOU. “Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments” also include any charges, fees, adjustments or other increases that were initially lawfully billed by the Park Owner to the Spaces separately from Rent prior to the Effective Date of this MOU. and for which separate billing is still authorized under applicable law.

GG. “Property Taxes” means any and all general and special real estate regular and supplemental taxes which are levied against the Park based on the assessed value of the real property. “Property Taxes” shall not include any personal property taxes, assessments, fees, bond costs, or other similar charges.

HH. “Rental Agreement” means an agreement between Management and a Homeowner in the Park establishing the terms and conditions of a Tenancy in the Park. A lease is a Rental Agreement.

II. “Rent Cap” means the annual three percent (3%) maximum increase that may be charged by the Park Owner to each Space in the Park during a calendar year and no more frequently than once every twelve (12) months, based on the Annual Base Rent Adjustment.

JJ. “Resident” or “Current Resident” means a Homeowner, a subtenant of a Homeowner, members of the Homeowner’s immediate family who reside in the Mobilehome, or other person who lawfully occupies a Mobilehome in the Park as their primary residence.

KK. “Small Park” means a Mobilehome Park with less than thirty (30) Mobilehome Spaces.

LL.“Tenancy” means the right of a Homeowner to the use of a Space within the Mobilehome Park on which to locate, maintain, and occupy a Mobilehome, site improvements, and accessory structures for human habitation, including the use of the services and facilities of the Park, and to related Housing Services.

MM. “Transfer” means the transfer of legal title or ownership of a Mobilehome, by sale, devise, inheritance or other lawful method.

NN. “Vacancy Adjustment” means an increase in Rent for a Vacant Space authorized under Section 7 of this MOU.

OO. “Vacant Space” means a Mobilehome Space which is empty because:
(1) the Mobilehome was removed by the Homeowner who will no longer reside in the Park; or
(2) the Mobilehome was destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake, microburst, or other natural catastrophe, and the Homeowner will no longer reside in the Park; or 12 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
(3) the Mobilehome was abandoned in place and the Park Owner lawfully gained title and removed the Mobilehome from the Park or moved the Mobilehome to another Space in the Park.

Section 2. TERM.

A. The term of this MOU shall be deemed to have commenced on the Effective Date, as set forth above, and shall continue for a period of ten (10) years and end at 11:59 p.m. on ______________, 2036, unless terminated earlier or extended as provided in this MOU.

B. The term of this MOU may be extended by mutual agreement by amendment signed by duly authorized representatives of the Owner and the City of Paramount, and recorded in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. An amendment shall be effective upon the date of recordation with the County Recorder.

Section 3. MAXIMUM RENT.

A. Limitation. No Park Owner shall charge Rent for any Mobilehome Space in an amount greater than the Base Rent in effect on the Effective Date, subject to the adjustments and modifications as authorized pursuant to the provisions of this MOU.

B. Rent Cap. In no event shall the Annual Base Rent Adjustment exceed three percent (3%) of the existing Space Rent per each twelve (12) month period for each Space in the Park.

C. Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap. Except as provided in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection C, in no event shall the combined total of all Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustments authorized by Section 8 of this MOU plus all Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments as defined in Section 1, exceed four percent (4%) of the existing Base Rent per each twelve (12) month period for each Space in the Park. 1) The Capital Pass-Through Adjustment Cap shall not apply to or include any Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment as defined in Section 6 of this MOU.

D. Changes in Law. Notwithstanding any other provision of this MOU, in the event that the State of California or any other governmental agency with jurisdiction over the City of Paramount enacts a statute or other law that preempts in whole or in part this MOU or otherwise supersedes in whole or in part any provisions of this MOU, then the provision(s) of such state statute or law will control.

E. Rent Increases Following MOU Termination. Nothing in this MOU shall preclude any Owner from applying for rent increases following the termination of this MOU.

Section 4. ANNUAL REGISTRATION; PARK RENT SCHEDULE.

A. General Requirement. The Park Owner shall file a Park rent schedule with the City following the Effective Date of this MOU, and annually thereafter in accordance with the requirements of this Section.
13 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
B. Initial Registration. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this MOU, the Park Owner shall file an initial Park rent schedule with the Director for all Spaces in the Park.

The initial Park rent schedule shall contain all of the following information:
1) As of the initial Park rent schedule filing date, a list of all Spaces in the Park, by separately listing the Space number or lot number for each Space, and its status as a month-to-month Space, manager Space, Vacant Space, Space with vacant Mobilehome and/or long-term leased Space entered into pursuant to former Civil Code Section 798.17 where such long-term lease remains in effect; and 2) The Rent in effect for each Space as of the initial Park rent schedule filing date; and 3) For each Space vacant as of the initial Park rent schedule filing date, or for each vacant Mobilehome on a Space as of the initial Park rent schedule filing date, the date the Vacancy occurred, and the Rent in effect as of the Vacancy date; and 4) The month in which Management applies the annual Rent adjustment to each Space (known as the “anniversary date”). If anniversary dates vary by Space, the Park rent schedule shall separately list the anniversary date for each Space; and 5) As of the initial Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each utility service separately billed to each Space (including type of utility service and name of each utility provider for a service separately billed to each Space); and 6) As of the initial Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each utility service included in the Space Rent for each Space (including type of utility service and name of each such utility provider); and
7) As of the initial Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment (as defined in Section 1.CC) and/or each other separately billed fee or charge to each Space (including the statutory or regulatory authority for billing the Residents of each Space for the Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment and other separately-billed fee or charge), and the starting date and ending date for each Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment and other separately billed fee or charge; and
8) Any other information or documentation deemed necessary by the Director to implement and administer this MOU.

C. Annual Registration. Not later than January 31st of each year after the Effective Date, the Park Owner shall file an annual Park rent schedule with the Director for all spaces, that contains all of the following information and documentation:
1) As of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, a list of all Spaces in the Park, by separately listing the Space number or lot number for each Space, and its status as a month-to-month Space, manager Space, Vacant Space, Space with vacant Mobilehome and/or long-term leased Space entered into pursuant to former Civil Code Section 798.17 where such long-term lease remains in effect; and 14 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
2) The Rent in effect for each Space as of the annual Park rent schedule filing date; and
3) For each Space and/or Mobilehome vacant as of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, the date the Vacancy occurred, and the Rent in effect as of the Vacancy date; and
4) As of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of the (a) amount of any Annual Base Rent Adjustment imposed on each Space since the most recent prior Park rent schedule was filed, (b) the effective date of the Annual Base Rent Adjustment imposed on each space since the most recent prior Park rent schedule was filed; and (c) the method by which the Annual Base Rent Adjustment was calculated; and
5) If any Space or Mobilehome was vacant at any time after the filing of the most recent prior Park rent schedule, but has been re-rented as of the new annual Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each such Space, including the (a) space number, (b) date of new residency, (c) Base Rent in effect as of the Vacancy; (d) the Base Rent in effect upon the date of the new residency following the Vacancy; and (e) the method by which the Vacancy Adjustment was calculated; and 6) As of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each utility service separately billed to each Space (including type of utility service and name of each utility provider for a service separately billed to each Space); and 7) As of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each utility service included in the Space Rent for each Space (including type of utility service and name of each such utility provider); and
8) As of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, an itemized list of each Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment and other fee or charge that was initially separately billed to each Space prior to the Effective Date of this MOU and that has continued to be charged to the Space, including: (a) the statutory or regulatory authority for billing the Residents for each such Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment and other separately billed fee or charge, (b) the starting date of each Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment and other separately billed fee or charge, and (c) the ending date for each such Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment and other separately billed fee or charge; and
9) As of the annual Park rent schedule filing date, the amount of any Pass-Through Adjustment imposed on each Space since the most recent prior Park rent schedule was filed, including (a) the type of Pass-Through Adjustment; (b) the MOU provision under which the Pass-Through Adjustment has been imposed; (c) the dollar amount of the Pass-Through Adjustment; (d) the beginning date of the charge; and (e) the ending date (if any); and
10) Any other information or documentation deemed necessary by the Director to implement and administer this MOU.
15 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Section 5. ANNUAL BASE RENT ADJUSTMENT.

A. Subject to the limitations contained in this Subsection A, once each calendar year, the Owner may increase the then-existing Base Rent by an amount not to exceed three percent (3%) of the then-existing Base Rent.

B. A Space shall be subject to only one Annual Base Rent Adjustment in a 12-month period.

An Annual Base Rent Adjustment shall operate in a prospective manner only, and the retroactive charging or collection of an Annual Base Rent Adjustment at any time is prohibited. The monthly Base Rent paid by the Residents of a Mobilehome Space following approval of an Annual Base Rent Adjustment shall not exceed the sum of: (1) the monthly Base Rent in effect as of the date of issuance of notice of rent adjustment by Management pursuant to Subsection D plus (2) the Annual Base Rent Adjustment authorized by this Section for one month, unless a subsequent Annual Base Rent Adjustment or Vacancy Adjustment as authorized pursuant to this MOU. The Park Owner may also bill the Space for any Pass-Through Adjustments approved or authorized under this MOU, but such Pass-Through Adjustments shall not be part of the Base Rent or included in determining any Annual Base Rent Adjustment or Vacancy Adjustment.

C. The Park Owner shall not demand, accept or retain Rent for a Mobilehome Space exceeding the Base Rent for a Space, except as provided in this MOU. No notice of rent increase based on any Annual Base Rent Adjustment, Vacancy Adjustment and/or PassThrough Rent Adjustment may be served, mailed or otherwise provided to any Space by the Park Owner unless such Rent Adjustment has been determined in accordance with the requirements of this MOU, and no such Annual Base Rent Adjustment, Vacancy Adjustment or Pass-Through Adjustment shall be demanded, collected or retained until lawful notice pursuant to the Mobilehome Residency Law, Civil Code Section 798 et seq., and/or such other State law-required prior notice of increase has been provided to the Residents of each Space. Within five (5) days prior to service of any notice to the Residents of an Annual Base Rent Adjustment, and/or Pass-Through Adjustment, the Owner shall provide the City Manager or his/her designee with the all of following information:
1) The effective date of each noticed Annual Base Rent Adjustment, and/or PassThrough Adjustment; and 2) Identification of each Mobilehome Space affected; and 3) The amount of the Base Rent for each Space prior to the effective date of the notice served upon each Mobilehome Space; and
4) For the Annual Base Rent Adjustment: (a) the monthly dollar amount of the Annual Base Rent Adjustment, separately listed, for each Mobilehome Space in the Park; (b) the basis and method for determining each Annual Base Rent Adjustment with supporting data and calculations; and (c) the new Base Rent for each Space; and 5) For each Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment for each Space: (a) the monthly dollar amount of each Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment; (b) the type of 16 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Capital Project Pass-through Adjustment (Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment, Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustment, Emergency Capital Replacement Project Pass-Through Adjustment, Major Water or Sewer Capital Replacement Project Pass-Through Adjustment, or Major Water or Sewer Capital Improvement Project Pass-Through Adjustment); (c) the amortization period; (d) the ending date, and (e) the basis for each Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment with supporting data and calculations; and
6) For each Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment: (a) the starting date, (b) the annual amount to be to each Space each year, and (c) the basis for each Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment including supporting data and calculations.

Section 6. PROPERTY TAX PASS-THROUGH ADJUSTMENT UPON RESALE.

A. Subject to Subsections B and C of this Section, if the Park is sold to a third party pursuant to an arm’s-length transaction, the new Owner may pass through to the Homeowners the increase in property taxes resulting from a reassessment of the Park upon such sale to the extent that such increase exceeds two percent (2%) from the fiscal tax year immediately preceding the sale. Imposition of the increase in Property Taxes as a result of the sale shall be phased onto each Space over not less than five (5) years with an equal increase imposed on each Space until the full amount of the Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment for that Space has been implemented.

B. The Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall be determined by the following method. 1) For the fiscal year immediately preceding the sale of the Park, the total Property Taxes imposed on the Park shall be determined.
2) For the fiscal year immediately following the sale, the increase in the Park’s total Property Taxes over two percent (2%) from the prior fiscal year shall be determined (“Property Tax Increase Above 2%”).
3) The Park’s Property Tax Increase Above 2% shall be divided by five (5) years to calculate the annual phase-in amount of the Property Tax Increase Above 2% as a result of the sale (“Park Annual Phase-In Amount”).
4) The Park Annual Phase-In Amount shall be billed to all of the Park’s Spaces as the Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment by cumulative increases for Years 1 through Year 5, until the full amount of the Park Property Tax Increase above 2% has been implemented for all Spaces. Commencing with Year 1 after determination of the Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment, the cumulative Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall be divided by the total number of Spaces and then divided by 12 months, to determine the Pass-Through Adjustment per Space per month for Years 1 through 5. For Year 6 and thereafter, the amount charged as the Pass-Through Adjustment for Year 5 shall continue to be charged to each Space until any reassessment of property taxes upon resale or any property tax reduction. 5) Example of Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment Calculation:
17 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
[Example of Calculation below]
Calculation of Total Park Property Tax Pass-Through
Adjustment
(a) Total No. of Park Spaces 100
(b) Property Tax Increase above 2% (on Resale) $25,000
(c) Park Annual Phase-in Amount
[Line (b) divided by five years = $25,000 ÷5] $5,000
(d) Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment (Year 1)
[Line (c)] $5,000
(e) Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment (Year 2)
[Line (d) + Line (e)] $10,000
(f) Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment (Year 3)
[Line (e) + Line (f)] $15,000
(g) Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment (Year 4)
[Line (f) + Line (g)] $20,000
(h) Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment (Year 5)
[Line (g) + Line (h)] $25,000
(i) Park Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment (Year 6 and after until new reassessment upon resale or property tax reduction) [Line (h)] $25,000
Property Tax Pass-Through Adj. per Space per Month
Year 1 ($5,000 ÷ 12 mos. ÷ 100 spaces) $4.16
Year 2 ($10,000 ÷ 12 mos. ÷ 100 spaces) $8.33
Year 3 ($15,000 ÷ 12 mos. ÷ 100 spaces) $12.50
Year 4 ($20,000 ÷ 12 mos. ÷ 100 spaces) $16.64
Year 5 ($25,000 ÷ 12 mos. ÷ 100 spaces) $20.83
Year 6 and after (until new reassessment upon any resale or property tax reduction) $20.83
C. A Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall also be subject to the following provisions:
1) The Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment may be imposed not more than once every twelve months.
2) The Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall not be deemed to be part of Rent for purposes of calculating the Annual Base Rent Adjustment for a Space pursuant to Section 5 of this MOU, and shall be separately itemized on the monthly rent statement or invoice for each Space in accordance with Section 9 of this MOU. 3) The Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall be exempt from the PassThrough Adjustment Cap set forth in Section 3.C. 18 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
4) Billing for the Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall comply with Section 9 of this MOU.
5) A Homeowner, Homeowner Oversight Board, and/or any other person representing a Homeowner, who is dissatisfied with a Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment may request mediation in accordance with Section 14 of this MOU. A Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment shall not be subject to any protest or arbitration procedure under this MOU.

Section 7. VACANCY ADJUSTMENTS.

A. Limitation. Notwithstanding the limitation providing for only one Annual Base Rent Adjustment per year for each Space pursuant to Section 3.B and Section 5.C, the Park Owner shall be permitted to increase the Base Rent applicable to a Mobilehome Space as a result of a Vacancy only in accordance with this Section. Any Vacancy Adjustment shall require prior notice in accordance with state law, and in addition the Owner shall comply with all requirements of Section 5.C and all other provisions of this MOU.

B. Allowable Vacancy Adjustments.
1) New Homeowner Occupant of Vacant Space. At the time a Vacant Space is initially rented to a New Homeowner, the provisions of Section 3 and Section 5.A and 5.B shall not apply, and the Rent for the Vacant Space may be increased to market rent or such other rate as determined in the discretion of the Park Owner at the time of such initial occupancy of the Vacant Space by the New Homeowner. This includes any Vacant Space as defined in Paragraphs (1) through (4) of Section 1.LL.

Thereafter, all controls on Rent increases in this MOU shall become effective for the duration of the Residency, including but not limited to the Rent Cap and Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap.
2) In-Place Transfer from Sale to Third Party. Except as otherwise provided in Subsection C, upon the voluntary In-Place Transfer of a Mobilehome from the current Homeowner to a third party in an arms-length transaction, the provisions of Section 3 and Section 5.A and 5.B shall not apply, and the Rent may be increased to market rent or such other rate as determined in the discretion of the Park Owner at the time of the In-Place Transfer. The Rent imposed as a result of the In-Place Transfer shall constitute the new Base Rent for that Space, upon which future rent increases pursuant to this MOU shall be calculated. Thereafter, all controls on Rent increases in this MOU shall become effective, including but not limited to, the Rent Cap and Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap.
3) New Homeowner Upon Mobilehome Purchase from Park Owner. Upon the sale of a Mobilehome from the Park Owner to a new Homeowner who moves into the Park, the provisions of the provisions of Section 3 and Section 5.A and 5.B shall not apply, and the Rent may be increased to market rent or such other rate as determined in the discretion of the Park Owner at the time of the purchase of the Mobilehome by the new Homeowner. The Rent imposed as a result of that purchase shall 19 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
constitute the new Base Rent for that Space, upon which future Rent increases pursuant to this MOU shall be calculated. Thereafter, all controls on Rent increases in this MOU shall become effective, including but not limited to, the Rent Cap and Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap.
4) New Base Rent. The Rent imposed pursuant to Paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) shall constitute the new Base Rent for the Space, upon which future Rent increases pursuant to this MOU shall be calculated.
5) Applicability of MOU. Except as otherwise provided with regard to the amount of Rent imposed upon Vacancy, all other provisions of this MOU apply to a Vacant Space during any vacancy.

C. Other Prohibitions on Vacancy Adjustments. Notwithstanding any other provision of this MOU, the Park Owner shall not increase the Base Rent as a result of any of the following circumstances except in compliance with Sections 3 and 5 of this MOU:
1) A current Homeowner may move his/her Mobilehome in the Park from his/her current Space to a Vacant Space in the Park with approval of the Park Owner, provided that the Base Rent to be paid by the current Homeowner for rental of the Vacant Space shall be equivalent to the Base Rent paid by that current Homeowner in his/her old Space in the Park. For example: If the current Homeowner’s rent was $400 in the old Space, and the prior rent for the Vacant Space was $300, the current Homeowner shall continue to pay $400 rent in the new Space. If the current Homeowner’s rent was $400 in his/her old Space, and the most recent prior Rent of the Vacant Space was $500, the current Homeowner shall continue to pay $400 rent at the time of his/her transfer to the Vacant Space. Thereafter, all Rent controls in this MOU shall become effective, including but not limited to, the Rent Cap and Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap. The Rent for the Space vacated by the current Homeowner shall be subject to Paragraph (1) of this Subsection B. 2) The temporary removal of a Mobilehome from a Space by a Homeowner (a) at the request of the Park Owner, for the purpose of the Park Owner performing rehabilitation, or capital improvements to the Space, or (b) for the purpose of that Homeowner upgrading the Mobilehome with a newer Mobilehome; and after the occurrence of (a) or (b), the Homeowner continues to reside in that Mobilehome as their primary residence.
3) A transfer of title (a) whereby the Homeowner adds or removes one or more coowners and continues to reside in the Mobilehome as his/her primary residence, or (b) whereby the Homeowner partially sublets the Mobilehome to additional persons (where subletting is allowed by the Park Owner or as otherwise permitted under the MRL) and the Homeowner continues to reside in the Mobilehome as their primary residence.
20 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
4) The transfer of title of the Mobilehome to another current Resident of the Park who vacates his/her other Space (but a Vacancy Adjustment may be imposed on the vacated Space pursuant to Subsection B.1, above).
5) The transfer of an existing Mobilehome to a newly Vacant Space in the Park (but a Vacancy Adjustment may be imposed on the vacated Space pursuant to Subsection B.1, above).
6) The transfer of the Mobilehome to the surviving joint tenant by devise, descent, or operation of law on the death of the joint tenant.
7) The transfer of the Mobilehome to the Homeowner’s heir(s) on the death of the Homeowner.
8) The transfer of the Mobilehome to the personal representative of the estate of the Homeowner upon the death of the Homeowner.
9) The transfer of the Mobilehome resulting from a decree of dissolution of marriage, legal separation or from an incidental property settlement agreement by which the spouse or registered domestic partner becomes the owner of the Mobilehome. 10) The transfer of the Mobilehome pursuant to an inter vivos trust in which the Homeowner is and remains the trustee or beneficiary and continues to reside in the Mobilehome as his/her primary residence.

Section 8. CAPITAL PROJECT PASS-THROUGH ADJUSTMENTS
A. Determination of Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment. Subject to the requirements and procedures set forth in this Section, in addition to any Annual Base Rent Adjustment authorized under Section 3, above, the Park Owner may recover not more than seventyfive percent (75%) of the cost of a Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement completed within the Park, as a Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment, amortized and spread equally among all Mobilehome Spaces in the Park in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section. This Section shall apply to all proposed Capital Improvement PassThrough Rent Adjustments and Capital Replacement Pass-Through Rent Adjustments. 1) Calculation Method. A Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the Capital Project cost, determined by amortizing seventy-five percent (75%) of the actual costs of the Capital Project (including design, permits, and construction), plus interest at the actual rate of interest paid by the Park Owner for any financing associated with the Capital Project over the applicable amortization schedule set forth in Section 7.B.2; and reduced by subtracting from the actual cost of the Capital Project the amount of any insurance proceeds, rebates, tax credits or warranty payments received by the Owner to defray the costs of the Capital Project. With respect to insurance, the Park Owner shall provide documentation establishing that (i) the Park Owner has not and will not submit an insurance claim for the cost of the Capital Project, and/or that its insurance claim was denied; (ii) no insurance proceeds were or will be received 21 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
for such Capital Project; (iii) if insurance proceeds were received, the amount of the insurance proceeds and calculations showing that the cost of the Capital Project was reduced by the insurance proceeds received or to be received; and (iv) copies of any and all insurance policies applicable or potentially applicable to the completed Capital Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the Park Owner receives insurance or any other reimbursement of any kind from any other source, the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall be modified and/or rescinded and the Park Owner shall issue a rebate to the Homeowners. If the project is self-financed, the cost of financing shall be determined by the average rate for thirty-year fixed mortgages plus one (1%) percent, which such average rate shall be the rate Freddie Mac last published in its weekly Primary Mortgage Market Survey (“PMMS”). The annual amortized cost determined in accordance with this Section shall be divided by twelve (12) and then divided equally among all Spaces in the Park. 2) Determination and Application of Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, all Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustments in combination with all Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments, shall be subject to the four percent (4%) Capital Project Pass Through Adjustment Cap defined in Section

1.F of this MOU.
a. Calculation of Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap. The Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap shall be determined annually for the Park as follows:
i. Calculate the total Base Rents for one month for all Spaces in the Park as of January 1st of the current calendar year (“Total Monthly Park Base Rents”).
ii. Divide the Total Park Base Rents by the total number of spaces in the Park (the “Average Base Rent”).
iii. Multiply the Average Base Rent by 4%. The resulting sum is the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap for the current calendar year.

EXAMPLE: CAPITAL PROJECT PASS-THROUGH

ADJUSTMENT CAP
(a) Total No. of Park Spaces 100
(b) Total Monthly Park Base Rents* $60,000
(c) Average Base Rent
[Line (b) ÷ Line (c)] $600
(d) 4% Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap
[Multiply Line (c) by 4%] $24
*As of January 1st of each year
22 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
b. Application of Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap. Before imposing a Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment on any Spaces, the Park Owner must determine if the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap would be exceeded. For each proposed Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment, the following calculation shall be made. i. Total together the monthly amount of all existing and proposed Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustments and Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustments determined under this Section 8, and all Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments. (The resulting sum shall be collectively referred to as the “Total PassThrough Adjustments”). ii. Compare the Total Pass-Through Adjustments with the PassThrough Adjustment Cap determined under Subparagraph (a), above. The Park Owner shall not impose Total Pass-Through Adjustments that result in a total monthly increase for each affected Space by more than four percent (4%) of the current average Base Rents of the Park within the calendar year.
c. Extended Amortization Period. In the event that the Total Pass-Through Adjustments (as determined under Paragraphs (a) and (b)) would result in a total monthly increase for the affected Mobilehome Space by more than four percent (4%) of the existing Base Rent for a twelve-month period, then the amortization period for each such Capital Replacement and/or Capital Improvement shall be extended for such period(s) of time as necessary to ensure that, the combined Total Pass-Through Adjustments do not exceed the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap for that calendar year. d. Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustments. Any separately billed fee, charge, or other adjustment that satisfies the definition of a Pre-MOU PassThrough Adjustment in Section 1 of this MOU shall be included in the Total Pass-through Adjustments to determine and apply the Capital Adjustment Pass-Through Adjustment Cap, whether or not such Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment went through any pre-notification process, resident vote or other process prior to the Effective Date of this MOU. A Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment shall not be subject to any protest or arbitration procedure under this MOU, except to the extent relevant to any contention that the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment Cap was not properly applied as required by this MOU for implementation of a Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment to be initially implemented after the Effective Date of this MOU.
3) Amortization Schedule. For the purpose of determining any Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment permitted under this MOU, the cost of Capital Replacements or Capital Improvements for those items listed below, shall be amortized according to the following schedule or the schedule consistent with the U.S. Internal Revenue 23 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Code, whichever is longer, or as otherwise modified to comply with the Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment Cap. For items meeting the definition of Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement herein, but not listed on the amortization schedule below, the amortization period shall be consistent with the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a longer period may be agreed to by the Owner so long as any such revised amortization period is applied to all Spaces in the Park and the amount of the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment is imposed in an equal monthly amount on all Spaces in the Park.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OR

REPLACEMENT

AMORTIZATION PERIOD (YEARS)
Air Conditioners 7
Appliances (other than those listed) 7
Backflow Device 10
Cabinets 7
Carpentry 10
Carpeting 7
Copier 6
Copper Pipes 10
Dishwasher 7
Doors 10
Drapes 5
Dryer 7
Electrical Wiring 15
Fan 7
Fencing
• Block Wall
• Wood
• Security
15 7
15 Fire Alarm System 7
Fire Escape 15
Floor Covering (linoleum or vinyl) 7
Flooring 7
Furniture 7
Garbage Disposal 7
Gates (Security) 15
Gutters 15
Heating 10
Insulation 10
Light Fixtures 5
Oven 6
Patio Furniture 5
Paving (asphalt, cement) 15
Plastering 10
Plumbing
• Fixtures
• Pipes
10 15
Pool Heater 5
Pumps 7
Refrigerator 7
Roofing 27.5
24 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Sewer Line Construction 15
Smoke Detector 7
Solar System 10
Stove 7
Stucco 10
Telephone System 6
Walls 10
Washing machine 7
Water Heater 7
Window Coverings 7
Windows 15
4) Notice of Increase. No Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall be implemented on any Space unless the Owner provides the affected Spaces with at least ninety (90) days written notice of the proposed Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment. Notice of the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall not be issued until the Capital Project has been completed as determined by final inspection of all governmental entities, if any, having jurisdiction over the Capital Project, subject to notice requirements applicable thereto. 5) Itemization; Exclusion from Rent.
a) The monthly amount of any Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment, the date it is initially imposed, and the expiration date, shall be separately itemized on the monthly rent bill or statement for each Space in accordance with Section 9.
b) A Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall not be deemed to be part of Rent for purposes of calculating the Annual Base Rent Adjustment pursuant to Section 5 or a Vacancy Adjustment pursuant to Section 7 of this MOU.
c) A Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment, and Pre-MOU Pass-Through Adjustment, shall each be eliminated as a financial obligation for each affected space at the conclusion of the amortization period, and the PassThrough Adjustment charge shall be removed from the monthly rent statement or other rent bill for each affected Space.
6) Protests and Arbitration.
i. In the event that any Homeowner, the Homeowner Oversight Board, or any other legal or other representative on behalf of any Homeowner, contends that the Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustment or Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment does not meet the requirements for a Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment pursuant to this Section 8, or was not determined in accordance with the requirements of this MOU, the Homeowner, Homeowner Oversight Board, or other representative 25 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
may file a protest to the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment in accordance with Subsection E of this Section.
ii. Any party dissatisfied by the outcome of a protest on a Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment may file a request for arbitration pursuant to Subsection F of this Section.

B. Capital Replacement Project - Pre-Notification Requirement for Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustment. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 3 of this Subsection B, prior to commencing a proposed Capital Replacement, the Park Owner shall comply with the following requirements.
1) The Park Owner shall notify all Homeowners, the Homeowner Oversight Board and the Director in writing of the planned Capital Replacement at least thirty (30) days prior to the project being undertaken. This notification must contain the following information:
a) A general description of the Capital Replacement to be undertaken; and b) The estimated start date; and
c) The estimated cost of the proposed Capital Replacement; and d) A statement that the Park Owner considers the project to meet the definition of a Capital Replacement as defined in this MOU.
2) The notification to the Homeowners may be mailed to each Homeowner in the Park, or affixed to the main entry door of the Mobilehome on each Space. This notification is for informational purposes only, and the Park Owner is not required to obtain approval from the Homeowners prior to the start of the Capital Replacement. However, if the Park Owner fails to comply with this pre-notification requirement, the Park Owner will be prohibited from including the costs of the Capital Replacement in a future Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment pursuant to this MOU or as the basis for any other increase in Rent or other fee, assessment or charge to be imposed on any Spaces in the Park.
3) Following issuance of the pre-construction notice, upon request of any Homeowner, the Homeowner Oversight Board or any other Resident, the Park Owner, Homeowner Oversight Board, and Residents, and/or their respective representatives, shall meet informally to provide an opportunity for the Residents to receive additional information on the need and scope of the proposed Capital Replacement, and endeavor to reach resolution of any disputes regarding the proposed Capital Replacement.
4) Notwithstanding Paragraph (1) of this Subsection B, the Owner may implement a Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment based upon an Emergency Capital Replacement resulting from a Disaster-Related Event, even if the Owner did not provide at least thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the Homeowners and/or Planning 26 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
and Building Director before commencing construction of the Emergency Capital Replacement, if compliance with the 30-day notice requirement is not feasible or possible due to an imminent threat to public health and safety resulting from the Disaster-Related Event, based on the following findings by the Director:
a) The work meets the definition of an Emergency Capital Replacement; and the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the Emergency Capital Replacement is necessary as a result of a Disaster-Related Event; and b) There was no time to provide thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the Homeowners before commencement of construction, due to the need to immediately prevent or correct the imminent threat to public health and safety of the Park, its Residents and/or its neighbors; and c) Not less than five (5) days prior to commencement of construction (or such shorter period of time as warranted due to the nature of the emergency), the Owner notified the Homeowner Oversight Board in writing of (i) the proposed commencement of construction of the Emergency Capital Replacement , (ii) provides an itemization of the work to be performed and an estimate of costs to be incurred, and (iii) the anticipated start date and completion date of the Emergency Capital Replacement; and d) The Owner commenced construction of the Emergency Capital Replacement not later than two weeks (14 days) after the Disaster-Related Event constituting the emergency and completed the Emergency Capital Improvement as expeditiously as possible. “Commencement of construction” means the Owner obtained signed contracts with contractors, builders and other third parties necessary to carry out the Emergency Capital Project, obtained necessary permits and commenced substantial physical construction on the project within that time period; and e) Not less than five (5) days after commencement of construction, the Owner provided written notice to the Planning and Building Director, the Homeowners, and Homeowner Oversight Board of the commencement of construction of the Emergency Capital Replacement and provided copies of all documentation upon which the Owner relied in causing the Emergency Capital Replacement to be carried out.
5) The Owner may impose an Emergency Capital Replacement Project Pass-Through Adjustment arising from any disaster-related event in excess of the initial forty thousand dollars ($40,000) of such costs (or for Small Parks, in excess of the initial twenty-thousand dollars ($20,000)), provided such costs are amortized in accordance with the procedure for amortizing Capital Projects under Section 8.B, above and the Owner complies with all other provisions of Section 8.A and 8.B of this MOU.
27 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
C. Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment Requirements and Procedures. The Park Owner may impose a Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment only after compliance with all requirements and procedures set forth in this subsection. 1) Pre-Notification Requirement for Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment. a) The Park Owner must notify the Homeowners and the Planning and Building Director in writing of a planned Capital Improvement project at least sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of the proposed project.

This notification must contain all of the following information:
i. A general description of the proposed Capital Improvement; and ii. Notice that copies of the contract for construction of the Capital Improvement are available within the Park office for review by the Residents and/or their representatives during regular business hours; and
iii. The estimated duration of the time needed to complete the Capital Improvement, including its estimated start date and completion date; and
iv. The estimated cost of the Capital Improvement, and an itemization of all costs of the Capital Improvement; and
v. The amount of any financing to carry out the Capital Improvement, including the lender, interest rate and terms of financing; and vi. A statement that the Park Owner considers the project to meet the definition of a Capital Improvement as set forth in this MOU; and vii. The date and time of the ballot election for the Homeowners to vote on the proposed Capital Improvement (which such election date shall be set by the City Clerk).
b) The notification to the Homeowners may be mailed to each Homeowner or affixed to the main entry door of each Mobilehome in the Park by the 60- day deadline.
2) Pre-Construction Capital Improvement Meeting between Park Owner and Residents
a) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed commencement date of the Capital Improvement, the Park Owner shall meet with the Homeowners, other Residents, and Homeowner Oversight Board to seek their input into the proposed Capital Improvement and resolve any issues related to the proposed Capital Improvement and/or cost. The meeting may be held prior 28 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
to, or concurrently with, the Capital Improvement ballot election outlined in Paragraph (3) of this Section.
b) Not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting, the Park Owner shall post notice of the date and time of the meeting at the Park’s clubhouse and office, and shall mail or personally deliver copies of the meeting notice to the Homeowners of each Space and the Homeowner Oversight Board.

Proof of service and posting signed under penalty of perjury, on a Cityapproved form, shall be concurrently submitted by the Park Owner to the City Clerk on the same day as the posting and mailing of the meeting notice to the Homeowners and Homeowner Oversight Board.
c) All Homeowners and other Residents of any Space may attend the meeting.

At the meeting, the Park Owner shall provide attendance sign-in sheets, and the Park Owner shall take official minutes of the meeting. The Park Owner shall provide attendees with a summary of (i) the proposed Capital Improvement; (ii) all costs to be incurred, including but not limited to, inspections, design, permits, construction and financing,and the method to determine the financing; (iii) the reasons for the proposed Capital Improvement; (iv) a summary of each bid or proposal received, including name of each bidder/proposer, their expertise and years of experience, and each bid/proposal cost; and (v) a written explanation from the Park Owner explaining the reasons for the selection of the contractor. The summary shall include sufficient detail for the Residents to understand the nature and extent of the proposed work and the costs to be incurred therein. If the Owner proposes to carry out the Capital Improvement in whole or in part with his or her own labor, the summary provided to the Residents shall include an explanation of the proposed Owner-performed work and costs. 3) Capital Improvement Ballot Election
a) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed commencement of the Capital Improvement, the City Clerk shall conduct a Capital Improvement ballot election on the date set forth in the 60-day notice required by Section

8.C.1(a)(vii), above, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Section. The Park Owner is required to obtain approval of the proposed Capital Improvement from a majority (at least 50% plus one) of all occupied Spaces in the Park. If the Park Owner fails to obtain majority consent, the Park Owner shall be prohibited from including the costs of the Capital Improvement as a future Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment pursuant to this MOU, or the basis for any other fee, increase or charge to any of the Spaces. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Major Water or Sewer Capital Improvements shall be exempt from the requirement for a ballot election as provided in Subsection D of this Section.
b) Subject to the 30-day deadline set forth in subparagraph (a), the Capital Improvement ballot election shall be held on a date set by the City Clerk or 29 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
designee and previously included in the 60-day notice required by Section 8.C.1(a0(vii), above.

Not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the election, the Park Owner shall post notice of the date and time of the election in the Park’s clubhouse and office, and mail or personally deliver copies of the notice and the Capital Improvement election ballot to the Homeowners of each Space and to the Homeowner Oversight Board The Ballot shall be in the form attached as Exhibit B. Proof of service and posting signed under penalty of perjury, on a City-approved form, shall be concurrently submitted by the Park Owner to the City Clerk on the same day as the posting and mailing of the election notice to the Homeowners of each Space and the Homeowner Oversight Board.
c) Americans With Disabilities Act. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if the Homeowners need the Ballot in an alternative format, or require special assistance to participate in the ballot election, they must contact the City Clerk’s office at least 72 hours prior to the commencement of the ballot election to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
d) At the place and time of the election, the City Clerk or designee shall collect one completed Election Ballot Form from each Space occupied by Homeowner(s). Each occupied Space shall be entitled to submit one confidential ballot to the City Clerk at that time, representing one vote per Space, on the question whether each Space consents to the proposed Capital Improvement. In the event that the Homeowners of a Space are unable to attend the election in person, the Homeowners of such occupied Space may designate in writing a personal representative to submit their ballot for that Space to the City Clerk at the election. Regardless of the number of Homeowners who own the Mobilehome, only one ballot will be accepted for each Space or counted in the vote.
e) Following the submittal of ballots, the City Clerk or designee shall count the ballots at City Hall or such other place as determined by the City Clerk.

The City Clerk shall determine the means and method for maintaining the confidentiality of the ballots.
f) The City Clerk shall thereafter provide written notice of the election results to the Park Owner, including the number of votes in favor and the number of votes against the proposed Capital Improvement, by (i) posting the results on the City’s website, (ii) posting the results at City Hall in the location where agendas are posted, and (iii) mailing a copy of the tally to the Park Owner and Homeowner Oversight Board by first-class mail. The Park Owner shall post a copy of the City Clerk’s tabulation and notice of election results in the Park’s clubhouse and office; and mail or personally deliver copies to each Homeowner of each space within five days of service of the results by the City. Proof of service and posting shall be filed with the City Clerk’s office within five days thereafter.
30 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
4) Upon approval of the Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment by a majority of the occupied Spaces pursuant to Subsection C.3 of this Section, and completion of construction, the Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment may be implemented by the Park Owner subject to compliance with Paragraphs (3) through (6) of Section 8.A and Sections 8.E and 8.F of this MOU.

D. Major Water or Sewer Capital Pass-Through Adjustment Requirements and Procedures.

The provisions of Section 8.A through 8.F shall apply to Major Water or Sewer Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustments except as provided in Paragraph (1).

Capital Improvement Ballot Election Exemption. A ballot election shall not be required for a Major Water or Sewer Capital Improvement, and the provisions of Section 8.C.3 shall not apply.

E. Capital Project Protest Procedure. Any Homeowner, and/or the Homeowner Oversight Board, or the legal or other duly authorized representative of a Homeowner or the Homeowner Oversight Board may challenge any Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment for which a 90-day notice has been received, by filing a protest in accordance with the following provisions.
1) Deadline to File Protest. The protest, including all supporting documentation, shall be filed with the Planning and Building Director not later than fifteen (15) days after the date the Park Owner’s 90-day notice of Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustment or Capital Improvement Pass-Through Adjustment is mailed or personally served on the affected park residents by the Park Owner. The protest shall include all grounds upon which the protest is filed, including but not limited to, the following:
a) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement was the result of improperly or unreasonably deferred maintenance;
b) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement was the result of the need for the Park Owner to bring the Park, its facilities, buildings, structures, amenities, systems, improvement, or other infrastructure into compliance with a provision of the Paramount Municipal Code or state law where the original installation or modifications were not in compliance with code requirements;
c) The project does not qualify as a Capital Replacement or Capital Improvement because it was ordinary or routine maintenance and repair; c) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement was completed prior to the MOU Effective Date;
d) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement, in whole or in part, was not constructed by the Park Owner during his/her/its ownership of the Park; 31 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
e) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement primarily benefits the Park Owner;
f) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement does not have a minimum life expectancy of five (5) years;
g) The Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement has not been amortized over the useful life as provided in Section 8.A.2 of this MOU; h) The Capital Replacement does not have a minimum value of at least forty thousand dollars ($40,000); or twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for Small Parks; and/or individual Capital Replacements were consolidated together to calculate the minimum value;
i) The cost of the Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement is excessive and does not meet industry standards prevailing in the community including but not limited to, the Park Owner did not obtain at least two bids or award the project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder prior to carrying out the project or did not retain an experienced and licensed contractor to carry out the Capital Improvement or Capital Replacement; j) The Park Owner contended that the project was an Emergency Capital Replacement, but the project does not meet the definition and requirements for an Emergency Capital Replacement as defined in this MOU; and/or k) The Park Owner contended that the project was a Major Water or Sewer Capital Project, but the project does not meet the definition of and requirements for a Major Water or Sewer Capital Project as defined in this MOU.
2) Planning and Building Director Decision. Any protest to the Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment by any Homeowner, the Homeowner Oversight Board, and/or any duly-authorized representative of a Homeowner or Homeowner Oversight Board shall be resolved by the Director within thirty (30) days of receipt of the protest. The Director may appoint a hearing officer to evaluate and issue a recommendation on the protest. The costs of the hearing officer shall be borne by the City until the City’s annual hearing budget is exhausted. For any protests received in any year after which time the City’s available budget is exhausted, the Director will inform the person submitting the protest, in writing, that City funds for the hearing officer are no longer available; and the person(s) submitting the protest must bear the hearing officer’s cost.
a) The Director may sustain, deny or modify any Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment following submittal of a protest. The Director shall sustain the challenge to a Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment brought under this Subsection if any of the following findings are made:
32 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
i. The project does not meet the definition of a Capital Improvement, Capital Replacement, Emergency Capital Replacement, or Major Water or Sewer Capital Project as defined in and required by this MOU;
ii. The proposed amortization period for the Capital Project does not comply with the amortization provisions of this MOU;
iii. The Capital Project meets the definition of a Capital Replacement, Emergency Capital Replacement, Capital Improvement and/or Major Water or Sewer Capital Project as defined in this MOU, but the costs do not comply with the requirements of this MOU and must be modified or eliminated from the Rent; and/or
iv. The procedures described for the respective Capital Project PassThrough Adjustment as listed in the MOU herein were not followed. b) If the Planning and Building Director denies the protest against a Capital Project Pass-Through adjustment for which the Park Owner has served a 90-day notice, the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall be effective pursuant to the terms of that notice previously issued by the Park Owner. If the Director sustains the protest in part, and approves a modified Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment in an amount different from the amount stated in the previously served 90-day notice or modifies the amortization period, that modified Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment may be imposed upon the expiration of a revised 90-day notice that sets for the revised Pass-Through Adjustment. If the Director sustains the protest in its entirety, the Park Owner shall rescind the notice of proposed pass-through adjustment and the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall not be charged to any Space in the Park. c) The Planning and Building Director shall issue a written decision on the protest, which shall contain findings and conclusions in support of the decision. The City Clerk or designee shall serve a copy of the Director’s decision on the Park Owner, the Homeowners, the Homeowner Oversight Board, and their duly authorized representatives (if any). The Director’s decision shall be final and not subject to any further appeal within the City except as otherwise provided in Subsection F (Arbitration Procedure) of this Section.
3) Submittal of Modified Park Rent Schedule. Within thirty (30) days of mailing of the Director’s decision, Management shall submit a modified Park rent schedule to the City, containing the Rents actually charged to the Spaces based on the Director’s decision, which such modified rent schedule shall comply with the requirements of this MOU, including but not limited to, the requirements for subsequent Annual Registrations under Section 4 of this MOU. 33 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
4) Filing Fee. A protest filed against a noticed Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment shall be accompanied by the filing fee as may be set, and periodically modified, by resolution of the City Council from time to time. A protest shall not be accepted for filing unless accompanied by the applicable filing fee.

F. Arbitration Procedure. In the event that the Park Owner, any Homeowner, and/or the Homeowner Oversight Board is dissatisfied with the decision of the Director on a protest, the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the following provisions.
1) Deadline to Request Arbitration. The party contesting the Planning and Building Director’s decision must file a request for arbitration within thirty (30) days after the date the Director’s decision is mailed to the Park Owner, Homeowners, and the Homeowner Oversight Board, and their duly authorized legal or other representatives (if any) by the City.
2) Arbitration Procedure; Costs. In the event that the Park Owner, any Homeowner, and/or Homeowner Oversight Board disagrees with the Director’s decision on a protest, the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the applicable procedures of the American Arbitration Association or other arbitration service mutually agreed upon by the Park Owner and Homeowner Oversight Board. The determination made pursuant to such arbitration shall be binding, final and enforceable in the same manner as a final judgment of a court of law. The costs of such arbitration shall be shared equally between the Park Owner and the Homeowners.
5) Modified Park Rent Schedule following Arbitration. Within thirty (30) days of mailing of the arbitrator’s decision, Management shall submit a modified Park rent schedule to the City, containing the Rents actually charged to the Spaces based on the arbitrator’s decision, which such modified Park rent schedule shall comply with the requirements of this MOU, including but not limited to, the requirements for subsequent Annual Registrations under Section 4 of this MOU.

Section 9. ITEMIZATION AND EXPLANATION OF FEES AND CHARGES ON RENT STATEMENT.

A. In addition to any requirements of State law, each monthly rent statement or invoice delivered to each Mobilehome Space shall comply with all of the requirements of this Section.
1) The Park Owner shall separately list each of the following on the monthly rent schedule or invoice served on each Space:
a. The Base Rent for each Space as of the date of the rent statement or invoice; and
34 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
b. The amount of the Annual Base Rent Adjustment used in determining the current Base Rent; and
c. Each Pre-MOU Pass Through Adjustment, including its (i) monthly dollar amount, (ii) category or purpose, (iii) amortization period, (iv) beginning date, and (v) expiration date; and
d. Any Property Tax Pass-Through Adjustment, including its monthly amount and beginning date; and
e. Each Capital Improvement, Capital Replacement or Emergency Capital Replacement Pass-Through Adjustment, and/or Major Water or Sewer Pass-Through Adjustment, including (i) the monthly dollar amount, (ii) the name or type of project, (iii) the total cost of the project used to calculate the Capital Project Pass-Through Adjustment, (iv) the amortization period, (v) the commencement date and (vi) the ending date; and f. Each separately billed or submetered utility charge shall be identified by the utility type (e.g., water or electricity) and such other information as may be required by the MRL; and
g. Any other State-mandated or permitted fee or charge including name, statutory authority, amount of fee or charge, rate or method for charging or billing, and term of fee or charge (if any); and
h. Any other separately billed charge, fee, or other adjustment for any type of repairs, improvements or other work performed in the Park and initially imposed by the Park Owner on the Spaces prior to the Effective Date of this MOU, including the monthly amount, name or type of adjustment, and term of fee or charge (if any).
2) The Park Owner may continue to charge each Space for any separately billed charge, fee or other adjustment for any type of repairs, improvements or other work performed in the Park and initially imposed on the Spaces prior to the Effective Date of this MOU, subject to the Pass-Through Adjustment Cap set forth in Section

3.C and the itemized listing required under Section 9.A(1) of this MOU. 3) Upon completion of the amortization period for any Pass-Through Adjustment subject to this MOU, the Park Owner shall cease billing the Spaces for that PassThrough Adjustment and the charge for such Pass-Through Adjustment shall be removed from the monthly rent statement.
4) The Park Owner shall cease charging any other State-mandated or permitted fee or other charge upon the repeal of the statute or other law authorizing imposition of that charge.
35 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Section 10. RENT SUBSIDY (SAFETY NET) PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS.

A. Implementation. The Owner agrees to implement a safety net program within the Park designed to provide relief from Annual Base Rent Adjustments and Pass-Through Adjustments to Homeowners that, due to financial circumstances, are unable to pay the increased Base Rent or Pass-Through Adjustments. The safety net program shall be summarized in a written document and at a minimum, provide relief from Annual Base Rent Adjustments and Pass-Through Adjustments to Homeowners pursuant to all of the following terms and conditions:
1) Any Space occupied by a Homeowner(s) with (a) a verified combined household income equal to or less than twice the monthly Rent, and (b) less than $50,000 in assets, not including their Mobilehome, furniture, or vehicles, shall be eligible to apply for the safety net program. Examples of documentation to establish the Space’s combined household income may include, but are not limited to, pay stubs, bank statements, disability or other public benefits, and tax returns. 2) Subject to Paragraph (3), below, qualifying Homeowners may receive a minimum Rent credit for the amount of any rent adjustment authorized under this MOU that causes their monthly Rent, including all Pass-Through Adjustments, to exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of their Space’s combined household income, with a monthly maximum credit of $150.00.
3) This program is limited to all Spaces in the Park occupied by a Homeowner. In the event that more than fifteen percent (15%) of the Spaces qualify in a given park, then the Park Owner shall have option of providing priority to households on a firstcome first-serve basis. The Park Owner may choose to participate in an independent program in which a third party (e.g., Manufactured Housing Educational Trust) is used to determine household eligibility to the program, and to process program applications.
4) Qualifying Homeowners shall not be required to reimburse the Owner for any rent credits received;
5) Each individual household of a Space must submit an application verifying (a) total household income and (b) assets of less than $50,000 on a form distributed by the Park Owner. Each Space that is approved for the safety net program shall be required to reapply once every twelve months, such that the Park Owner can determine whether that Space continues to qualify for the program. Participation in the safety net program shall terminate if the Space no longer qualifies, or the Homeowners no longer reside in the Park.
6) Qualifying Homeowners must have resided at the Park for at least one (1) year to be eligible for the safety net program and, and must reapply each year they remain in the program;
36 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
7) Participation in the safety net program can be limited for each qualifying Space at the Owner’s reasonable, good faith discretion, and maybe provided on an ongoing annual basis as long as the Homeowner remains eligible for a full year; 8) The Park Owner will be responsible for managing its safety net program. The City shall have no responsibility for and right to manage any safety net program established by the Park Owner;
9) Items (1) through (8) are minimum requirements, to assist the Homeowners in greatest need at the Park. The Park Owner is free to establish more generous guidelines but cannot be required to do so. The Park Owner shall provide the City with written information on the Owner’s safety net program, outlining their program guidelines and criteria, at the City’s request on an annual basis. Nothing herein shall prevent the Park Owner from offering a safety net program that serves Homeowners or other Residents not meeting the qualifications stated herein or provides greater protections to Residents.

Section 11. MOBILEHOME PARK MOU WORKING GROUP
A. During the first year of the Term of this MOU, the Owners of all of the participating Parks in Paramount, or their delegates, agree to meet as a working group with City representatives, as designated by the City Manager, and with representatives of Homeowners from all Parks, to discuss any issues that may arise with regards to the implementation and interpretation of this MOU.
1) The goal is to have one representative of the Homeowners from each Park subject to the MOU included in the MOU Working Group. The City shall establish an application for Homeowner representatives to be appointed to serve a five-year term. The Director shall review and select the Homeowner representatives and may also appoint alternates for each Homeowner representative in the event the designated representative cannot attend meetings or vacates the position. 2) The goal is to have at least one regional representative of the owner of each Park subject to the MOU.

B. The meetings shall be conducted at least twice during the first year of the term of this MOU, but shall be held more often if issues or concerns are raised by Homeowners or Park Owners need to be addressed. Meeting dates shall be established by the City at the beginning of each calendar year. Meetings will be open to the public and subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Brief action meeting minutes will be prepared by the City after each meeting and made available to the public.

C. If the Park Owners and the Homeowners determine that there is a need to continue the meetings after the first year, the Director may either extend the appointments of the Homeowner representatives or seek applications for new appointments and determine a schedule for going forward.
37 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
D. The purpose of the meetings with the Park Owners and Homeowners is to address issues of a general and common nature related to the MOU rather than individual disputes between an individual Homeowner or Resident and an individual Park Owner.

Section 12. HOMEOWNER OVERSIGHT BOARD/PARK MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE.

A. The Homeowners of the Park will select representatives to act on behalf of the Homeowners with respect to communications with Management. The Park will have at least one Homeowner representative that may speak to Management concerning each Homeowner’s concerns, suggestions or complaints.

B. The Park Owner shall meet upon reasonable notice with the Homeowner Oversight Board no more frequently than once in a thirty-day period. Meetings of the Homeowner Oversight Board/Park Management Committee may be combined with meetings required between Management and Residents as may be required by the MRL.

C. Meetings of the Homeowner Oversight Board/Park Management Committee may be conducted either in person or virtually by using telephone, audio-video, or other audioonly conferencing. Procedures shall comply at a minimum with the requirements of the MRL.

D. With respect to any concerns submitted in writing by the Homeowner Oversight Board to the Owner, the Owner shall provide a written response to the action items within thirty (30) days after the meeting.

E. Nothing in this Section shall eliminate the Owner’s obligation to meet with any individual Resident to address such Resident’s concerns with respect to issues within the scope of the MRL, including but not limited to, Civil Code Section 798.53, or any other provision of law.

Section 13. CONTINUED COMMUNICATION AND UPDATES BETWEEN PARK

OWNERS AND RESIDENTS
A. During the Term of this MOU, the Park Owner shall provide a prospective Resident with a summary of the MOU, in a form approved by the City as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto. The Owner shall further provide a prospective Resident with a complete copy of the MOU upon request, without charge.

B. During the Term of this MOU, the Park Owner shall maintain all of the following information and documentation in the Park office, and open for inspection by the Residents during all business hours, as follows:
1) A copy of this Memorandum of Understanding; and
2) A copy of the Summary of this Memorandum of Understanding; and 3) A copy of the current Mobilehome Residency Law; and
4) A copy of the Park’s Rules and Regulations; and
38 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
5) Information about the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program, including but not limited to its website and contact information, as follows or as may be updated from time to time:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/manufactured-and-mobilehomes/mobilehomeassistance-center/how-to-submit-complaint Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (MRL Complaints):
(800) 952-8356
(800) 735-2929 (TTY)
[email protected]
C. During the Term of this MOU, the Homeowner Oversight Board shall maintain copies of the information and documentation listed in Subsection (B), and shall make such information and documentation available to any Resident upon request.

Section 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

A. Mediation.
1) In the event any dispute arises between the Park Owner and City with respect to the enforcement of any provisions of this MOU, or between the Park Owner, on the one hand, and any Homeowner and/or the Homeowner Oversight Board, on the other hand, who is an intended third party beneficiary with respect to the interpretation or enforcement of any provisions of this MOU, the party claiming a violation of the MOU shall give written notice to the other party specifying the nature of the dispute, and also provide concurrent written notice to both the City of the dispute.
2) If the issue raised in the written notice is not corrected within thirty (30) days of such notice, then the Park Owner and City agree that the parties will first try to resolve the dispute through mediation using a third party mediation service. Any party to mediation may propose an alternate mediation service, provided the party proposing the alternate mediation service pays the full cost of such mediation service. The parties to any such mediation shall make a good faith effort to resolve such dispute through mediation prior to filing any action or lawsuit or seeking judicial relief, unless doing so would cause any action or lawsuit to be barred by any applicable statute of limitations, in which case a protective action may be filed, without prejudice to the continuation of the mediation.

B. Resolution of Disputes Not a Waiver of Rights or Benefits. None of the rights, liabilities, or obligations of the Park Owner, City, Homeowner, or prospective Homeowner to one another shall be waived, suspended, or delayed pending the recommendations of a mediator, or other person designated to administer and make recommendations under any dispute resolution proceeding of this MOU. For example, during any dispute resolution 39 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
proceeding, the Park Owner remains obligated to provide the amenities and services to the Homeowners, and the Homeowners remain obligated to pay any rents due.

Section 15. REMEDIES.

A. If the Park Owner fails to comply with the terms of this MOU, the City may maintain an action on behalf of the affected Residents to enforce the terms of this MOU.

B. Any Homeowner or Homeowner Oversight Board aggrieved by a breach of or noncompliance with this MOU by the Park Owner shall, as a third party beneficiary of this MOU, have the right on such Homeowner’s or Homeowner Oversight Board’s behalf to prosecute a civil action against the Park Owner, in any court of competent jurisdiction, to enforce the provisions of this MOU or recover damages for the breach hereof.

C. Nothing in this MOU shall preclude the Park Owner from enforcing the Park’s rules and regulations that are not in conflict with this MOU.

Section 16. AMENDMENTS. This MOU may not be amended, altered, or modified except by a writing signed by the City and the Park Owner and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder.

Section 17. RECORDING. This MOU shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Los Angeles.

Section 18. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. Except as provided in Section 22, below, this MOU shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their prospective successors and assigns.

Section 19. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this MOU shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining portions of this MOU shall remain in effect and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, if such enforcement would not frustrate the overall intent of the parties as such intent is manifested by all provisions of this MOU. If the MOU or any portion of this MOU is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, contrary to public policy, ultra-vires, or otherwise unenforceable (collectively, “Impairment”) the City shall not be liable to the any Owner, any Homeowner, or any other party in law, equity, or in an action for damages for such Impairment.

Section 20. WAIVER. The failure by any party or intended third party beneficiary to require strict performance of the obligations of another party to this MOU, or the failure to exercise or delay in the exercise of any power, remedy, or right provided in this MOU or otherwise available to any party or intended third party beneficiary, upon any failure of another party to perform the other party's obligations under this MOU, shall not be deemed a waiver and shall not impair or affect the right of such party or intended third party beneficiary to require strict performance and to exercise the power, remedy, or right on any other or subsequent occasion for the same or any other failure of the other party to perform its obligations under this MOU. 40 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
Section 21. APPLICABLE LAW. This MOU shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the law of the State of California. Nothing herein shall preclude any party from challenging any law, on its face, or as applied, on the ground that it violates the state or federal constitution.

Section 22. Intentionally Omitted.

Section 23. EXHIBITS. Exhibits A, B and C are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 24. EXECUTION; COUNTERPARTS. This MOU may be executed in multiple counterparts and becomes binding with respect to each Owner when originally signed by an authorized representative of the Owner and delivered to the City Manager of the City.

Section 25. ENFORCEMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. Nothing in this MOU shall preclude Owner from enforcing the Park's rules and regulations that are not in conflict with this MOU.

APPROVED AND EXECUTED to be effective as of the Effective Date. 41 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

EXHIBIT A

MOBILEHOME PARK NAME AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARK
42 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

EXHIBIT B

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BALLOT ELECTION FORM
43 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BALLOT ELECTION FORM
Date: ___________________
Name of Mobilehome Park: _________________________________________________ Address of Mobilehome Park: ________________________________________________ Total Number of Park Spaces: ________________________________________________ The following is a detailed description of the Capital Improvement being proposed, which may be submitted for approval by the Homeowners of the above Mobilehome Park pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated XXXXX. Attach additional sheets as necessary.

The Capital Improvement (CHECK ONE) WILL WILL NOT be submitted as a Capital Improvement necessary for the health and safety of the Park Residents, the Park community and/or the surrounding comment. Documentation relating to the proposed Capital Improvement may also be reviewed at the Park Office. If more than one Capital Improvement is proposed, it will be voted on separately. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ The following is the cost of the proposed Capital Improvement Total planning, design and construction cost: $
Total cost including financing: $
Monthly Cost per space $
Financing Rate %
HOMEOWNER CONSENT: Please complete one of the following:

I hereby GIVE my consent to the above-described Capital Improvement in my Park.

Homeowner Signature Date
Please Print First and Last Name Space No.

OR
I hereby DO NOT GIVE my consent to the above-described Capital Improvement in my Park.

Homeowner Signature Date
Please Print First and Last Name Space No.
(FORM CONTINUES ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
44 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

BALLOT SUBMISSION AUTHORIZATION STATEMENT
Under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, I hereby declare that I am the registered owner of the Mobilehome and a party to a rental agreement with the Park Owner for the Mobilehome Space located at:

Address (include Space Number):
_______________________________________________________________________ I further declare under penalty of the laws of the State of California that I am unable to personally submit my election ballot in person and that I authorize the following individual to deliver and submit my completed ballot to the City Clerk on my behalf:

Authorized Person’s Full Legal Name: ______________________________________ Authorized Person’s Address: _____________________________________________ Authorized Person’s Phone Number: _______________________________________ I understand that this authorization is granted solely for the purpose of delivering my ballot to the City Clerk, and that the individual named above is not authorized to alter or mark the ballot in any way. I affirm that this ballot has been completed by me without undue influence and in accordance with all applicable election laws under the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Paramount and the Park Owner.

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

Executed on this _____ day of ________, 20__, in _____________________, California.

Signature of Voter:___________________________________
Printed Name of Voter: _______________________________
Phone Number of Voter: ______________________________
Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need the ballot in an alternative format, or require special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the Paramount City Clerk’s office at (562) 220-2225 at least 72 hours prior to the commencement of the Ballot Election to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.
45 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

EXHIBIT C

SUMMARY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This summary provides an overview of the key rights, responsibilities, and procedures contained in the MOU. This summary is intended to help residents understand the main points of the MOU. The full MOU contains additional details, definitions, and procedures that govern mobilehome park operations in the City of Paramount.

Disclaimer: This Summary is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice, and you should consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice regarding specific legal issues or questions.

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between the City of Paramount and the Owner of the Mobilehome Park (“park owners”). Its purpose is to protect mobilehome owners (“residents”) from unreasonable rent increases, maintain fair treatment in the park, and ensure that park owners can receive a reasonable return to operate and maintain the park.

1. Purpose of the MOU
The MOU exists to:
• Limit annual rent increases.
• Provide clear rules about when and how rent can be increased. • Establish processes for park improvements and cost pass-throughs. • Ensure transparency in billing and park operations.
• Create opportunities for residents and park owners to communicate and resolve concerns.

2. Rent Increases
• Annual Rent Cap
• Rent may increase once per year.
• The maximum annual increase is 3%.
• Vacancy Adjustments
When a space becomes due to removal or destruction of the mobilehome, or a home is sold to a new owner:
• The park owner may raise rent to market rate for the new resident. 46 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)
• After that, the 3% annual cap applies again.

Vacancy increases are not allowed when:
• A current resident moves their mobilehome to another space within the same park. • A home is transferred to a spouse, heir, family member, joint tenant, or personal representative after death.
• A co-owner is added or removed and the resident still lives in the home. • A home is temporarily removed from the space so the park owner can perform rehabilitation, or capital improvements on the space, or for the resident to upgrade the home with a newer model on the same spacce.

3. Capital Improvements and Capital Replacement Costs
In addition to the 3% annual rent adjustment, the park owner may recover up to 75% of the cost of capital improvement or capital replacement projects by spreading (amortizing) those costs evenly across all spaces. These charges are not included in space rent and must be separately identified on the monthly park rent statement.

Examples include:
• Major replacements like full street or sewer line replacements. • New infrastructure or amenity construction (clubhouse, laundry, pool renovations).

Restrictions and protections include:
• Annual pass-through adjustment costs (plus any old pre-MOU fees and pass-throughs) cannot exceed 4% of the average base rent in the park each year. • The owner must follow strict notice, documentation, and bidding requirements. • Residents may file a protest of a proposed capital improvement or capital replacement pass-through adjustment if it does not meet MOU rules, and either the park owner or residents may pursue binding arbitration if dissatisfied with the outcome of the protest. • Capital improvement and capital replacement projects require a resident vote, and must receive approval from a majority of occupied spaces. Major water and sewer projects, which are defined to mean replacement of more than 75% of the park’s water or sewer system, are exempt from the resident vote requirement.
• Capital improvement and capital replacement pass-through adjustments are separate from rent, and are not included in determining the 3% annual space rent increase. 47 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

4. Property Tax Increase Costs as a Result of a Park Sale If the park is sold and property taxes increase:
• The new park owner owner may pass through the increased property taxes that exceeds 2% over the prior fiscal year’s property tax under the prior park owner, spread evenly over five years.
• The property tax pass-through adjustment does not count toward the 4% pass-through cap.
• The property tax pass-through adjustment is separate from rent, and is not included in determining the 3%annual space rent increase.

5. Transparency in Billing
Every monthly rent statement must clearly list by separate line items:
• Current base rent.
• The amount and date of any annual rent increase.
• Each pass-through adjustment, its purpose, total project cost, start/end date, and amortization schedule.
• Any pre-MOU pass-through adjustments initially imposed by the park owner prior to the effective date of the MOU.
• Any other separately billed utilities or state-authorized fees.

When the amortization period of a pass-through ends, the charge must be removed from the rent bill.

6. Safety Net Program for Low-Income Residents
Each park must offer a rent assistance program for qualifying low-income homeowners.

Key features:
• Available to households with income ≤2× monthly rent and assets under $50,000 (not counting the home, furniture, or vehicles).
• Assistance helps ensure rent does not exceed 33% of household income, up to $150/month.
• Residents must apply each year and must have lived in the park at least one year. 48 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

7. Registration and Recordkeeping Requirements
Park owners must:
• File initial and annual rent schedules and detailed annual rent rolls with the City. • Maintain copies of the MOU, park rules, utility information, and other required documents in the park office for resident review.

Prospective residents must receive:
• A summary of the MOU (this document).
• A full copy of the MOU upon request.

8. Communication Between Residents and Park Management
• Each park will have a Homeowner Oversight Board to communicate with management. • The park owner must meet with this group upon reasonable notice (no more than once each 30 days).
• Residents may still meet individually with management to address personal concerns.

Additionally, a Citywide Working Group of park owners, residents, and City representatives will meet during the first year to address issues related to the MOU.

9. Dispute Resolution
If disputes arise:
• If residents dispute a property tax pass-through adjustment, they may request mediation with thet park owner to resolve the dispute.
•
• For disputes about capital improvement and capital replacement pass-through adjustments:
o Residents must file a protest with the City.
o A City decision on a protest about a capital improvement or capital replacement pass-through adjustment can be appealed to binding arbitration. 49 3241115 (Draft 4-17-26)

10. Enforcement
• The City may take action to enforce the MOU on behalf of residents. • Residents and the Homeowner Oversight Board may sue the park owner for violations of the MOU.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: John King, AICP, Planning and Building
Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT UPDATE (1970-1999)

BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2025, the City Council considered a citywide Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey. Based on feedback from the City Council, the Historic Context Statement was updated and finalized soon thereafter.

The themes developed for the Historic Context Statement, which outline important development patterns, events, and historical people related to City history up to 1980, include the Native American Period; European Exploration and Colonization; the Rancho Era; Early Clearwater and Hynes; Expansion and Industrial/Agricultural Growth; World War II; and Postwar Prosperity, the Birth of Paramount & Urban Renewal.

The Historic Resources Survey identified 106 individual properties that appear eligible for local designation should the City Council adopt a historic preservation ordinance.

During the City Council discussion on March 11, 2025, the City Council commended the project team for the completed Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey and requested additional research on the years following 1980.

On August 12, 2025, the City Council approved an agreement with Historic Resources Group, the consultant that prepared the Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey, to update the Historic Context Statement. The approval included the development of a Historic Preservation Ordinance which the City Council will review separately this evening on an introductory basis.

DISCUSSION
A draft of the Historic Context Statement is complete and ready for City Council review.

The scope of this Historic Context Statement covers national, State, and local events and movements in order to provide a broad framework for understanding more recent history in Paramount. The period of study starts in 1970 and ends in 1999.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT UPDATE Page 2
The Historic Context Statement is divided into two sections. The first includes a general discussion of developments that altered all aspects of the community during the study period, including construction of the Century Freeway and the establishment of the Paramount Redevelopment Agency. The second identifies development trends by property type, including residential; commercial; civic and institutional; and industrial.

As thoroughly documented in the City’s longstanding narrative, in 1982 the RAND Corporation published a research report that classified Paramount as a “disaster area” due to a variety of socio-economic factors. In response, the City redoubled its redevelopment efforts in the industrial, commercial, and civic areas; increased and improved residential areas; and implemented civic programs aimed at ending gang activity, beautifying homes, and increasing safety. In 1988, the New York-based nonprofit National Civic League awarded Paramount the title of “All-America City.” The Historic Context Statement summarizes events and projects, such as the construction of the Century Freeway (I-105) that led to limited decline in some areas of Paramount; and the document carefully details the concerted efforts to revitalize the City.

The update to the Historic Context Statement is also informed by oral interviews with people who lived through and helped to positively change Paramount.

Next Steps
With a historic preservation ordinance in development, more detailed research into the history of Paramount is warranted. Recommended research in the upcoming fiscal year can include uncovering more facts and records about past and present ethnic and national communities in Paramount, interviewing more community members and others with ties to the City, supporting efforts of the Paramount Historical Society, and connecting this new information to buildings, events, people, and the soon-to-open Paramount Museum.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
The City’s Vision, Mission, and Values set the standard for the organization, establish priorities, uniformity, and guidelines; and provide the framework for policy decisionmaking. The Strategic Outcomes were implemented to provide a pathway to achieving the City’s Vision. This item aligns with Strategic Outcome No. 2: Community Health - Provide diverse recreational and cultural amenities that support healthy lifestyles and a sense of community.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT UPDATE Page 3

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Provide feedback about the Historic Context Statement Update and receive and file this report.

CITY OF PARAMOUNT
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT UPDATE, 1970-1999
MARCH 2026
556 S Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101-514
Pasadena, CA 91105
Tel 626-793-2400
historicresourcesgroup.com
Cover: Clockwise from upper left: Rendering of Paramount General Hospital (Rochlin & Baran, AIA); City Council and the Paramount Neighborhood Shuttle (City of Paramount); Community Beautification Pocket Park (Los Angeles Times); Rendering of Century Place Apartments (City of Paramount); Tony Ostos of the Alternatives to Gangs Program (Los Angeles Times); Rendering of Vons Supermarket (Paramount Associates).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 CONTRIBUTORS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS........................................................................................3 PERIOD AND SCOPE OF STUDY............................................................................................................................3 CITY OF PARAMOUNT HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT UPDATE, 1970-1999................... 4 SUMMARY STATEMENT...........................................................................................................................................4 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES ............................................................................................6 CENTURY FREEWAY ..................................................................................................................................................7 PARAMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ....................................................................................................9 THEME: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999)................................................................ 13 IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCES................................................................................................ 14 NEW RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................... 17 SHIFTING ATTITUDES TO REDEVELOPMENT............................................................................................ 21 THEME: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999)............................................................... 24 THEME: CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999)....................................... 29 CITY BEAUTIFICATION AND PARKS................................................................................................................ 29 OTHER CIVIC PROGRAMS..................................................................................................................................... 32 EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................................. 36 CIVIC DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................................................. 39 THEME: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999).................................................................. 45 CITY OF PARAMOUNT, 2000-PRESENT...................................................................................... 50 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................52 APPENDIX A. INTERVIEWEE BIOGRAPHIES ............................................................................. 54 Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 1

INTRODUCTION
This Citywide Historic Context Statement Update was prepared at the request of the City of Paramount. In January 2024, the City contracted with Historic Resources Group (HRG) to prepare a citywide Historic Context Statement and conduct a historic resources survey. This project was completed in February 2025 and adopted in April 2025. The City contracted with HRG in August 2025 to update the Historic Context Statement with an additional discussion of ethnic diversity in the city, development patterns in the 1970s, and a narrative overview of the late 20th century.

This update to the Historic Context Statement is a compilation of existing information, including published histories and historical narratives about Paramount’s history, supplemented with new research and analysis. The update to the Historic Context Statement is also informed by oral interviews with persons notable in the city’s development from the period of study. The Historic Context Statement identifies important periods of development, historical trends and development patterns, and important persons in the history of Paramount. The updated period of study dates from the 1970s through 1999.

Contributors & Acknowledgements
This historic context was prepared by Historic Resources Group. The historic context was authored by Alexandra Perlman, Senior Architectural Historian, with support from Christine Lazzaretto, Managing Principal, and Emi Takahara, Intern. All are qualified professionals who meet or exceed the relevant Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Professional Qualification Standards.

The project was completed under the direction of the City’s Planning Division and managed by John King, Planning and Building Director.

The project team is indebted to members of the community who contributed information, research, and suggestions related to historical development patterns in Paramount as well as specific properties. In particular, the team would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the members of the Paramount Historical Society for their feedback and advice, and extensive knowledge of Paramount’s history. Additionally, the historic context statement was informed by informal interviews with community members. Thanks are owed to the following individuals who dedicated their time to this project, as identified in the table below. See Appendix A for full biographies.

PARAMOUNT INTERVIEWEES
Peggy Lemons Mayor of Paramount
Manny Alcaraz Former Order Picker, Sinclair Paint; "Mr. Paramount" Gus Exiga Owner, Gus's Deli/Eastern Meats and Deli
Gloria Gamino Owner, Casa Gamino Restaurant
Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 2

PARAMOUNT INTERVIEWEES
Shirley Grayson Former Controller, Cedarlane Natural Foods; Chair, Paramount Parks and Recreation Commission
Daryl Hofmeyer Former Mayor, Paramount; Former owner, Romberg Mill Grady Jones Pastor, New Commandment Missionary Baptist Church Dr. Max Martinez Dentist- Owner, Dental Plus of Paramount; Treasurer, Paramount Education Partnership
Mike McKown Director, Project Hope; Historian, Paramount Historical Society Dr. Linda Timmons CEO, Advocates for Family Unity; Chair, Paramount Planning Commission
Pat West Owner, Pat West LLC; Former City Manager, Paramount and Long Beach Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 3

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Research Methodology and Limitations
Sources consulted as part of this investigation included primary and secondary literature regarding the history and development of the City of Paramount and the larger region, including historic photographs and archival sources at the Paramount Library Local History Collection.

Other archival sources included: annexation records, city directories, U.S. Census and voter registration records, contemporary historical accounts and memoirs, historical newspapers, land patent records, secondary histories and biographies, and scholarly works including theses, dissertations, and journal articles. Visual records consulted included historical aerials and photographs as well as various historical maps. Because secondary source literature regarding the recent past is limited in scope and content, newspapers served as the primary sources for research.

Period and Scope of Study
The study area for the project reflects the current boundaries of the City of Paramount. The scope of this Historic Context Statement covers national, State, and local events and movements in order to provide a broad framework for understanding more recent history in Paramount. The period of study starts in 1970 and ends in 1999.

Because this update to the Historic Context Statement covers the recent past, it is intended to serve as a historical narrative rather than a tool for evaluating properties for historic significance.

Typically, in the field of historic preservation, fifty years is considered sufficient time for retrospective analysis of properties considered historically significant. Although the National Register of Historic Places has a consideration (Criteria Consideration G) for those properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years, these properties must be of exceptional importance. As identified by the National Park Service:

Fifty years is a general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This consideration guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National Register is a list of truly historic places. 1 As such, this Historic Context Statement Update serves as a first step towards future efforts to identify those properties that may have gained significance within the last 50 years. For this reason, eligibility standards are omitted from this document. However, a list of properties that may be considered for eligibility in subsequent years is included as Appendix A. 1 National Park Service, “Criteria Consideration G,” How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC:

Department of the Interior, 1997), 41.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 4

CITY OF PARAMOUNT HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
UPDATE, 1970-1999
Summary Statement
This update to the City of Paramount’s Historic Context Statement covers the last three decades of the 20th century, recounting changes in the city from 1970 to 1999. It is divided into two sections. The first includes a general discussion of developments that altered all aspects of the community, including construction of the Century Freeway and the Paramount Redevelopment Agency. The second identifies development trends by property type, including residential; commercial; civic and institutional; and industrial.

The story of Paramount in the late 20th century is one of changing demographics and a slow decline, followed by a strong resurgence. The city’s population dropped from approximately 34,700 in 1970 to an estimated 30,900 in 1976. This decline was largely due to freeway construction, and the general aging of the city’s industrial, commercial, and residential infrastructure, which is attributed to residents moving to other communities. In 1973, the Paramount City Council established the Paramount Redevelopment Agency (redevelopment agency). According to the agreement, the City Council would purchase property and sell it to the Paramount Redevelopment Agency, who could in turn sell it to private developers. In 1982, the RAND Corporation published a research report that classified Paramount as a “disaster area” due to a variety of social-economic factors. The report was met with skepticism and anger by city officials and residents alike. 2
In response, the City redoubled its redevelopment efforts in the industrial, commercial, and civic areas; increased and improved residential areas; and implemented civic programs aimed at ending gang activity, beautifying homes, and increasing safety. Specifically, Paramount’s Mayor Charles Weldon, City Manager William (Bill) Holt, Director of Community Development Richard R.

Powers, and Finance Director Sandy Groves all sought to improve the city’s livability.Deputy City Manager Pat West recognized the RAND Corp. finding as “the trigger, the focal point for change.

The city started becoming very progressive and proactive.” 3 City efforts did not go unrecognized. In 1988, the New York-based nonprofit Civic League awarded Paramount the title of “All-America City.” The honor was given annually to 10 cities across the nation that brought government, business, and residents together to attack “major issues or problems.” 4
As reported by a local news station, “Paramount is the success story of the 80s.” 5 Operating with a surplus budget from its industrial base in the 1990s, the City embarked on aggressive beautification programs, crime prevention campaigns, and new business attraction efforts.

Notable projects included the Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Lookin’ Good, White Picket 2 Ethel Hillyard, The Story of Paramount (Paramount, CA: The Paramount Journal, 1988), 64; Dorothy Korber, “Officials Deny ‘Dogpatch’ Label in Redeveloping City,” Independent Press-Telegram, July 17, 1977, 162. 3 Jesse Katz, “Fighting to Keep a City’s Soul,” Los Angeles Times, December 31, 1992. 4 Harris, 51. 5 KCOP Channel 13 as quoted in Hillyard, 89.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 5 Fence, Art in Public Places, and Alternatives to Gang Membership programs. By 1998, Paramount was one of 10 cities with the highest increase in property values in the region. 6 As of 2025, Paramount has abundant housing, strong commerce, and active municipal government. The population is majority Latino. The city’s history in the late 20th century serves to further bolster its reputation as a dynamic city that residents are proud to call home. 6 Dawnya Pring, “Paramount on the Rebound,” Press-Telegram, February 19, 1999.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 6 Population and Demographic Changes
The City of Paramount experienced several waves of fluctuating population and demographics in the late 20th century. The city’s population dropped from approximately 34,700 in 1970 to an estimated 30,900 in 1976 due to freeway construction and aging infrastructure. However, as a result of the City of Paramount’s efforts to improve the quality of life for its residents and an increase in residential development, the population surged during the last two decades of the 20th century, rising from approximately 31,000 in 1975 to over 36,400 in 1980 and reaching approximately 42,000 in 1985. 7 By the year 2000, Paramount residents numbered over 55,200— almost double its number 25 years prior.

Demographics in Paramount also shifted during this period. In 1971, the community had majority white residents, with 28% Latino residents and only 29 Black residents. These demographics began to shift in the 1970s. A 1978 advertisement in the Independent Press-Telegram recorded that “ethnic minorities make up a larger and larger proportion” of the city. 8 This trend continued in
the 1980s and 1990s as more Latinos moved into the city. By 2000, the city was 72% Latino, 13% Black, 9% white, and 6% other residents. 9 Thus, by the end of the 20th century, the Latino population increased to a majority of the population, most of whom were of Mexican and Guatemalan heritage. 10
PARAMOUNT’S PERCENT OF POPULATION BY ETHNIC GROUP
Year Latino White Black Other
1980 46% 46% 3% 5%
1990 60% 23% 10% 7%
2000 72% 9% 13% 6%
Since 2000, the population of Paramount has remained relatively stable at around 55,000 residents; however, the Latino population increased to 83% of residents in the 2020 census. 11 As discussed below, the city experienced numerous “firsts” during this period, including the first Latino councilmembers. Although this document cannot account for all “firsts,” it does strive to identify areas in which notable events and people made lasting impacts, and to provide avenues for future research.
7 Hillyard, 64.
8 “Paramount,” Independent Press-Telegram, September 3, 1978, 143. 9 Census information for demographics of Paramount in 1970 is not available. Other demographic information from: Mark Clutter, “Paramount has a Distinct Personality,” Independent Press-Telegram, November 28, 1971, 49; U.S. Census, 1980, 1990, and 2000. 10 Hillyard, 64. 11 City of Paramount, “City Profile/History,” https://www.paramountcity.com/government/city-profile (accessed September 19, 2025).

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 7 Century Freeway
The Century Freeway (Interstate 105) is a 17.3-mile east-west stretch that runs through the City of Paramount. The freeway was an integral part of the California Department of Transportation’s 1960 master plan, but took nearly 30 years of planning, false starts, and litigation to be completed.

Originally conceptualized in the late 1950s, the Century Freeway received interstate designation and federal funding in 1968, and by 1972, over 2,000 parcels had been acquired and 7,000 people displaced. 12 Plans called for the acquisition of 4,000 additional parcels, which would displace another 14,000 people along the route.

While the 1973 Paramount General Plan noted that the city was “built out,” in fact, the population fell between 1970 and 1973 due to clearance for the Century Freeway. 13 Although Paramount didn’t experience as much residential demolition as other municipalities in the freeway’s path, the freeway bisected the northwestern portion of the city, cutting through established neighborhoods. This resulted in the loss of 421 parcels, half of which were razed by July 1972, with over 4,000 residents displaced. 14 As a result, the whole central business district of Paramount was deemed a blighted area, ripe for redevelopment. 15 Construction around the intersection of Paramount and Alondra boulevards was completed in 1971.

In 1972, a class action lawsuit,
Keith vs. Volpe, was filed by
thousands of plaintiffs against
the project, including the Sierra
Club, the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored
People, the Environmental
Defense Fund, and the
Hawthorne Freeway Fighters.

The residents and groups argued
that the freeway displaced lowincome marginalized
communities and failed to
provide adequate relocation
assistance and replacement
housing. They also alleged that
the freeway violated
environmental laws, including
the National Environmental
Policy Act and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
12 “Class Action Lawsuit Hits Century Freeway,” Los Angeles Times, February 18, 1972, B1. 13 Other historic names associated with this freeway included the Norwalk Freeway, the Norwalk-El Segundo Freeway, and the Glenn Anderson Freeway; “Paramount Has a Distinct Personality,” Press-Telegram, November 28, 1971, 49. 14 “Change,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 1985. 15 “Reaction to Freeway Halt Ruling Varied,” Los Angeles Times, July 15, 1972, C6.

Caltrans Open House Advertisement, 1982. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 8 An injunction was granted that tied the project up in the courts into the late 1970s. The result was a blighted area of vacant homes that fostered degradation and crime in Paramount.

Paramount resident Dr. Max Martinez remembers of the time, “There were a lot of boarded-up houses. There were a lot of empty lots, because they boarded up houses and people [would] graffiti on them, so they tore them down. So, then there were empty lot.” 16 In 1976, Mayor Richard DeBie urged residents to ask Governor Brown to start construction on the freeway. He said:

The people of Paramount have grown weary and have asked their elected officials over and over again for their support in gaining immediate construction of the Century Freeway. The City of Paramount has been on record for years supporting the freeway and several years ago formally agreed, after public hearings, to the geometrics proposed by the State Division of Highways. 17 In the early 1980s, the City of Paramount, which had historically been supportive of the freeway — anticipating its positive impact on the city’s ability to recruit and sustain industry — objected when the number of ramps in/out of the city was cut in half. 18 In 1981, the City Council held a special session to discuss the changes. Instead of the full interchanges originally proposed, Caltrans constructed half interchanges at Garfield and Paramount, with one-way frontage roads linking the two ramps. As recorded by City Manager Bill Holt at the time, “from our standpoint, two halves is the same as one whole. We feel that one full interchange would better serve the city of Paramount.” 19 Paramount ultimately signed the agreement with Caltrans, 20 and construction occurred in the 1980s, with the Century Freeway finally opened in 1993.

Aerial view of Century Freeway, 1989. University of California, Santa Barbara FrameFinder. 16 Interview with Dr. Max Martinez by Emi Takahama. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 17 “Mayor Blasts Delay; Paramount Pushes for Freeway,” Press-Telegram, August 6, 1976, 21. 18 Kristina Lindgren, “Paramount Balks at Freeway Accord,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1981, 272. 19 Kristina Lindgren, “Paramount Balks at Freeway Accord,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1981, 272. 20 Paramount was the second-to-last of the nine cities in the freeway’s path to sign an agreement with Caltrans for its construction.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 9 Paramount Redevelopment Agency
Beginning in the 1970s, the City embarked on redevelopment efforts to improve the city’s industrial, commercial, and institutional areas. These were undertaken by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency, and through public-oriented programs to advance the general well-being of the community. Officials established three important programs during this period: Alternatives to Gang Membership; Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Lookin’ Good; and the Public Safety Innovations. These initiatives are discussed further in the sections below.

City Council from 1972-1977 (shown in 1972, clockwise from top left): Raymond Guillen, John Mies, Richard DeBie, Ted Mosier, and Louis Spane. Paramount High School Yearbook.

The Paramount Redevelopment Agency (redevelopment agency) was adopted by the Paramount City Council in 1973. According to the agreement, the City Council would purchase property and sell it to the Paramount Redevelopment Agency, who could in turn sell it to private developers.

The general aim of the redevelopment agency was to increase property valuations, improve blighted industrial areas, assist local schools with required developments, and provide a base for an improved water system throughout the city. 21
From its inception, the redevelopment agency was heavily involved in transforming Paramount.

The Independent Press-Telegram reported on the initiative in 1977:

Paramount today is waging war against the deterioration affecting so many Southland cities. The key weapon here is redevelopment…Once a community of dairies and quiet residential neighborhoods, Paramount evolved into a patchwork of industrial sites, vacant lots and rental units. The city’s population dropped from 34,700 in 1970 to an estimated 30,900 in 1976. 22
21 Ralph McClurg, “Hynes, Clearwater Live on in City of Paramount,” Independent, July 4, 1976, 96. 22 Dorothy Korber, “Officials Deny ‘Dogpatch’ Label in Redeveloping City,” Independent Press-Telegram, July 17, 1977, 162.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 10 At the time of the redevelopment agency’s establishment, the City Council consisted of Louis Spane, Ted Mosier, John Miles, Ray Guillen, and Richard DeBie. Other Councilmembers who spearheaded the agency in the early years included, but are not limited to, Charles Weldon, Gerald Mulrooney, Esther Caldwell, Case Boogaard, Manuel Guillen, John A. Mies, and Henry Harkema. 23 City Managers Bill Holt and Pat West were instrumental in the redevelopment agency and Richard Powers was its long-term director.

City Council from 1978-1980 (shown in 1978, from left): Cornelius (Case) Boogaard, Dr. Esther Caldwell, Ted Mosier, John A. Mies, and Charles (Chuck) Weldon. Paramount High School Yearbook.

The five-member Paramount City Council served as the city’s redevelopment agency. 24 A special exemption approved by the State Assembly made Paramount the only California city with authorization to spend redevelopment funds outside of redevelopment areas. As such, funds generated could be used in public parks and landscaping. 25 City Council from 1986-1989 (from left): Dr. Esther Caldwell, Manuel Guillen, Henry Harkema, Gerald (Jerry) Mooney, and Charles Weldon. Paramount High School Yearbook.

In April of 1990, Elvira Amaro and Allen J. Parker joined the City Council. 26 Priorities of the City Council increasingly moved away from redevelopment and toward relieving overcrowding, 23 Hillyard, 62. 24 Dorothy Korber, “Paramount Sets Sale of Bonds,” Independent, March 4, 1977, 21. 25 Jesse Katz, “Fighting to Keep a City’s Soul,” Los Angeles Times, December 31, 1992. 26 However, when Parker passed away from a heart attack in December of that year, Henry Harkema was appointed his successor. “Ex-Councilman Harkema Appointed to Fill Vacancy,” Los Angeles Times, December 20, 1990, 427.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 11 increasing safety, and city beautification. In 1994 and again in 1999, Diane J. Martinez was elected to the City Council alongside Manuel E. Guillen and Henry Harkema.

City Council in front of aerial photograph of the Century Freeway, c. 1994. City of Paramount.

In 1997, Peggy Lemons and Gene Daniels were elected to the City Council. The City Council continued to work on redevelopment into the 1990s and early 2000s, with projects largely centered on commercial development and city beautification programs.

City Council members and Sheriff. From left to right: Manuel Guillen, Gene Daniels, Peggy Lemons, Sheriff Lee Baca, Diane J. Martinez, and Henry Harkema, c. 1999. City of Paramount.

However, partially because of density considerations and scale of new construction, redevelopment and freeway development have a mixed legacy in Paramount, as elsewhere in the country. The Century Freeway in particular disrupted neighborhoods in Paramount, leaving behind boarded homes and empty lots, some of which remained vacant for decades, thereby Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 12 reducing property values for remaining homes and leading to blight or neighborhood disruptions. By the time the Century Freeway was completed in 1994, the Los Angeles Times reported that over 8,000 homes in the project area had been condemned. 27 For nearly a decade, displaced residents fought to get help with the disruption in their lives caused by the freeway.

In the effort to improve the economic well-being of the city, some of its historic properties, particularly in the central business district, were lost. As remembered by historian Mike McKown of the Paramount Historical Society:

In the 1970s and in early 1980s, that's when redevelopment started, and a lot of buildings were lost, a lot of really cool buildings. I wish they had saved them, but they did what they did. They saved a couple of buildings and then we were excited because there were new stores coming in, a new Vons moved in, and new chain stores. Because people at that time were more enamored of chain stores than they were about the mom-and-pop businesses. Now they look back and say, “Oh, what did we do?”
That's hindsight. Then there were a lot of people who were excited for redevelopment, to see what's coming... Now, people wish they had the old Paramount back, but that's my own opinion, my own perception. And I love old architecture, and I think we lost some really wonderful buildings at that time. 28 Ultimately, the redevelopment agency was largely responsible for the economic revitalization of the city. Because the agency was involved in numerous projects that spanned different property types in Paramount, a discussion of its work is included in subsequent sections on residential; commercial; civic and institutional; and industrial improvements from the 1970s to 1990s.

In 2012, as part of the 2011 Budget Act, the California State Legislature approved the dissolution of the state’s 400 plus Redevelopment Agencies. This dissolution was intended to protect funding for core public services at the local level, and the remaining property tax revenues following the dissolution were allocated to cities, counties, special districts, and school and community college districts. In order to help facilitate the wind-down process, Successor Agencies were established to manage ongoing redevelopment projects, make payments on enforceable obligations, and dispose of redevelopment assets and properties. 29 The City of Paramount elected to serve as the Successor Agency to the former Paramount Redevelopment Agency, and is continuing the winddown process to present day. 30 In 2023, the City of Paramount embarked on the development of a historic preservation program, including the completion of a historic context statement and historic resource survey to understand and document the important milestones and properties in the city’s history. 27 Mary Guthrie, “A Century of Emotions,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1994, 157. 28 Interview with Mike McKown by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 29 “Redevelopment Agency Dissolution,” State of California Department of Finance, accessed on February 9, 2026 at:
https://dof.ca.gov/programs/redevelopment/
30 City of Paramount, “Successor Agency for the Paramount Redevelopment Agency Resolution No, SAPREA 24:004,” accessed on February 9, 2026 at: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/199045.pdf Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 13 THEME: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999)
Residential development and housing patterns changed in Paramount during the last three decades of the 20th century. In the 1970s, the city was largely composed of single-family homes with a high percentage of rental units and a low percentage of multi-family residences. As reported in the 1973 General Plan, only 14 percent of the available housing stock in Paramount was constructed prior to 1940, 19 percent was constructed between 1940 and 1950, and 67 percent was constructed between 1950 and 1970. 31
Because the majority of parcels in Paramount were built out (i.e., developed with buildings and no longer vacant land) by the 1970s, residential development during this period consisted primarily of in-fill construction in previously established neighborhoods. As in many cities, such development was largely composed of condominiums, apartments, and townhomes. In 1971, Councilman Louis Spane predicted “a trend toward multiple-family and high-rise apartments” in Paramount. 32 New development reflected the shift anticipated by Spane, and the community’s housing boom began in earnest in the 1980s.

Along with changes in building patterns and types from the 1970s through 1990s, demographics of residents (as discussed in greater detail above) also changed in Paramount during these decades. These changes are remembered by lifelong Paramount residents. As recalled by Dr. Linda Timmons, the city’s first African American member of the Chamber of Commerce, in the 1970s, “neighbors bonded on the block, but there was a transition. In the beginning, when I moved there, there were a lot of whites that lived there, but as we moved in, they were moving out, so that changed.” 33 Historian Mike McKown of the Paramount Historical Society remembers that:

The demographics were changing [in the 1970s], although not as drastically as some people might think, because one thing about Paramount, as opposed to some of the surrounding cities such as Bellflower or Downey, is that Paramount always had a very sizable Mexican and Mexican American population in the city.

And that goes back to the turn of the century… So, while we've always had a sizable Mexican and Mexican American population, that change kind of accelerated at that time. 34
Dr. Max Martinez notes that “Latinos were a minority at the time I became student body president of Paramount High School in 1973, and I was the first Hispanic Student Body President that Paramount ever had. We were a minority here. There were Hispanics, mostly Mexican American or Mexican, but nothing that's close to how it is now.” 35 Dr. Martinez was a member of the Varsity Club, Key Club, and the Cross-Country and Basketball teams. 36 Longtime resident Shirley Grayson also experienced the changing demographics of the city: “I look at my own block, and when I moved into my husband and I, our family, moved to the block, 31 Wisley & Ham, City of Paramount General Plan, August 1973, 37. 32 Mark Clutter, “Paramount has Distinct Personality,” Independent Press-Telegram, November 28, 1971, 49. 33 Interview with Dr. Linda Timmons by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 34 Interview with Mike McKown by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 35 Interview with Dr. Max Martinex by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 36 “Max Martinex President of the ASB For Second Year,” Paramount Journal, 1972-1973.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 14 but there were a lot of people transitioning out to Orange County. And so, a lot of African Americans moved on to our block, replacing the people that were there. I've seen a lot of Hispanic people move in, and so the transition has been good, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure that'll continue to happen…the blending of all the ethnicities.” 37 Residential development from 1970 to 1999 represented several patterns. First were the City’s efforts to improve single-family residences and neighborhoods that already existed, which largely resulted from the Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Lookin’ Good program and other initiatives. The City also increasingly turned toward new residential development, particularly in industrial areas that were identified as “blighted” by the redevelopment agency. Under the auspices of the Paramount Redevelopment Agency, this often incentivized developers to come to Paramount. Attitudes toward residential development shifted during the 1980s and 1990s, oscillating between excitement and apprehension, and resulted in several construction moratoria and rent control considerations. Finally, several new properties catered to specific segments of the population, including senior housing.

Improvement of Existing Residences
In the late 20th century, the City of Paramount made a concerted effort to improve the appearance of the city’s existing residential building stock. Enacted in the 1980s, the Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Lookin’ Good program united community volunteers, city crews, tenants, and property owners to clean up residential properties throughout the city. Many of the volunteers came from the Emmanuel Reformed Church. Over the course of two years, thousands of properties were improved by painting, yard work, and removing debris.

The Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Lookin’ Good program was one of the only Code Enforcement efforts in the country that performed free work on private property. 38 It was available to all residents of Paramount in the 12 target areas. 39 The program was active in each target area for approximately two months and included clean up Saturdays and block rallies. As remembered by then City Manager Pat West:

We started painting things. We recognized too that crime stems from a crappy neighborhood. So, if you are depressed, you look around and you're in a depressed area and it just depresses. We were trying to uplift the neighborhoods to make it happier. 40
Improvement of existing residences continued into the last decade of the 20th and first decade of the 21st centuries. From 1990 to 2007, there were 346 residential rehabilitation projects completed in the city, totaling a public investment of $3.85 million and private investment of $1.23 million. 41 The Neighborhood Improvement Program provided rebates to homeowners who qualified based on yearly income. Improvements covered by the rebates included painting or re-stuccoing; reroofing; repairing or replacing driveway and sidewalks; repairing or replacing front yard fences; 37 Interview with Shirley Grayson by Emi Takahara. December 15, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 38 Hillyard, 89. 39 “Paramount Residences are Lookin’ Good,” Press-Telegram, February 18, 1988, 5. 40 Interview with Pat West by Emi Takahara. November 25, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 41 City of Paramount, Revitalization of Paramount, 25.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 15 replacing broken windows or screens; relandscaping; and correction of safety or building code violations. 42
Map of Neighborhoods in Paramount’s “Looking Good” Program, 1989. City of Paramount. 42 “City of Paramount Neighborhood Improvement Program,” Informational pamphlet, n.d. City of Paramount.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 16 In the mid-1990s, the City also adopted the
White Picket Fence Program, which heavily
subsidized the cost of replacing chain link
fences with rust- and graffiti-resistant picket
fences. 43 As the Los Angeles Times reported in
2007:

Paramount’s sense of place is reflected in its
little parks and white picket fences. The city’s
White Picket Fence Program pays 75% of the
purchase and installation cost to replace
chain link fences…Satisfied customers include
Jose Luis Romero, who a year ago adorned
his two-bedroom home with a fence he
described as “a heck of a deal, almost free.

The city lets you pay your 25% portion on a
payment plan.” 44
The city also subsidized the cost of new roofs, which slowly eliminated the flat asphalt shingles that once dominated the city’s skyline. From 1990 to 2007, there were 325 White Picket Fence projects totaling $708,380 in private investment and $257,126 in public investment. 45 Paramount resident Jose Luis Romero in front of his white picket fence, 2007. Los Angeles Times. 43 Louis Sahagun, “Paramount Likes it Picket-Fence Image,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2007, B3. 44 Louis Sahagun, “Paramount Likes it Picket-Fence Image,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2007, B3. 45 City of Paramount, Revitalization of Paramount, 27. “Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Lookin’ Good,”
1988, Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 17 Paramount resident Shirley Grayson recalls the changes that occurred in Paramount, especially in regard to housing in the 1980s and the 1990s:

Things were changing... Condominiums were replacing the dairies. I saw it as always progressing, maybe getting a little more modernized, if you will. It seemed like it was just a pretty natural transition from a more slow pace to picking up a little bit. I remember a time when Paramount put up white picket fences for residents. I thought, how nice. I mean, everybody dreams of living in a house with a white picket fence. And Paramount did that. And they would paint houses, clean up yards. I just thought, this is great. 46
New Residential Redevelopment
New residential development also characterized Paramount from the 1970s to 1990s. In 1978, The Homestead, a condominium development by Zellner Communities, Inc. was completed at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Alondra Boulevard. The 7.5-acre development included a central swimming pool, parking lots, and extensive landscaping. Another early residential development was Paramount Shores by the Hynes Land and Cattle Company at the corner of Downey and Jackson (1980).

Rendering of The Homestead Condominiums, 1978. Zellner Communities, Inc. 46 Interview with Shirley Grayson by Emi Takahara. December 15, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 18 Between 1985 and 1988, over 24 acres of the city were zoned for new residential development, including single-family houses, apartments, and condominiums. 47 Private developers invested over $75 million while the Redevelopment Agency contributed about $1.6 million to the projects. 48 An advertisement for the city in 1985 recounted these new residential trends:

The community is also entering a new phase in the development of residential housing. The City has identified approximately 300 acres for potential housing development and is in the preliminary negotiation stage with some of California’s largest development companies for the construction of new innovative housing projects. The City anticipates increasing its middle income housing stock from between 1,000-3,000 housing units over the next few years. 49 The California Somerset Ranch project—a 162 home residential development by Kaufman and Broad— was the city’s first new housing tract since World War II. Four models were offered in the community, ranging in price from $139,990 to $168,990. The residences featured woodburning fireplaces, wall-to-wall carpeting, air conditioning, upgraded kitchen appliances, and wood cabinets. 50 The homes were sold out within seven months.

Residence at Somerset Ranch, 1987. Kaufman Broad.

Other multifamily developments included an apartment complex at 7770 Alondra Boulevard (1985), the Triangle Development at the corner of Downey Avenue and Somerset Boulevard (1988), and MRLD, Inc.’s apartment complex at 7221-43 Petrol Steet (1988). 51 Three other apartment complexes were built by Hermosa Beach-based Surfside Development Co., totaling 411 units. These were the Indiana Apartments on Downey Avenue (66 units), Twin Towers apartments on Vermont Avenue (153 units), and Somerset Village apartments (192 units). 52
47 Lee Harris, “Paramount Tightens Limits on Construction,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1988, 4. 48 Lee Harris, “All-America City Award Caps Rehabilitation of Paramount,” Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1988. 49 “City of Paramount,” advertisement, Press-Telegram, January 28, 1985, 49. 50 “California Somerset Models for Sale,” Press-Telegram, November 29, 1987, 36. 51 City of Paramount, DRA, 85-070, 7770 Alondra, Ken McKenzie and Joe Sinnott; DRA, 87-082, 7221-43 Petrol, MRLD., Inc; and DRA, 89-097 NE Corner of Corney-Somerset, Triangle Development. 52 “Paramount’s Refinery’s New Life Puts Hold on City Plans,” Press-Telegram, November 14, 1988, 21.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 19 Advertisement for Somerset Ranch, 1987. Press-Telegram.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 20 In 1986, the City Council voted to rename a 2.5-mile section of Compton Boulevard (previously Washington Street) as Somerset Boulevard. Developers of a proposed $200 million residential development, Somerset Ranch Planned Community, were behind the request. The developers claimed that the name change would increase rental value of their properties on the boulevard by 40 percent. The City of Compton subsequently requested a retraction and apology from the developers, but the name Somerset Boulevard was adopted. 53 By the end of the 1980s, nearly 2,000 new dwellings had been built in the city, helping make Paramount one of the fastest-growing cities in the Southeast Los Angeles region. During this decade, the population grew by 31%, from 36,407 to 47,669—second only to Signal Hill in terms of percentage of growth. 54
In 1991, the City of Paramount won a National League of Cities award for “its effort to bring highquality multifamily housing into an area blighted by gang activity and crime.” 55 The 1991 Urban Enrichment Award was given for the 306-unit Century Place apartment complex at 13801 Paramount Boulevard. The City granted density variances to Jan Development Co. for the project, which reduced land costs in exchange for providing affordable housing; twenty percent of the units were for low- and moderate-income residents. Community amenities for the complex included a swimming pool, sundeck, equipped gymnasium, Whirlpool baths, and BBQ areas. 56 Century Place Apartments Grand Opening, 1991. City of Paramount.

SENIOR HOUSING
During this period, there were several residential developments that accommodated adults and/or senior citizens. Completed in 1981, Lake Terrace was one such adult-only community of one- and two-bedroom condominiums, located at 16211 Downey Avenue. 53 “City of Paramount Renames Stretch of Compton Boulevard,” Press Telegram, November 28, 1986, 64; Hillyard, 67. 54 Duke Helfand and Psyche Pascual, “District’s Future Rides on Bond Decision,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1995, 51. 55 “City Gets Award for its Role in New Apartment Project,” Los Angeles Times, October 24, 1991, 564. 56 “City Gets Award for its Role in New Apartment Project,” Los Angeles Times, October 24, 1991, 564.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 21 In 1983, the City of Paramount agreed to subsidize the development of low-rent senior-citizen housing. City staff helped applicants obtain rental subsidy certificates from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which paid a share of the rent. One-bedroom units were rented at the HUD rate of $327 a month to residents. As recounted by Director of Community Development Dick Powers, “At that price, the building would be a tacky barracks (without a city subsidy). But the cost of balconies for each unit, a meeting room and other amenities will be underwritten by the city’s redevelopment agency and by federal block grant funds.” 57
The following year, Paramount Housing Partners Ltd. developed a 158-unit senior housing complex known as the Town Center Senior Citizens Complex on Vermont Avenue, also known as the Town Center Terrace. 58 The project cost approximately $5.5 million, $3.4 million of which was financed by a county bond issue and $1.8 million in Federal Housing and Community Development grants. Completed in 1984, the complex had 158 units for people 62 or older, each containing a bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and patio or balcony. 59 Shifting Attitudes to Redevelopment
By the mid- to late- 1980s, attitudes began to shift amongst some Paramount residences regarding new residential development in the city. These attitudes were reflected by community members’ support for various projects as well as the introduction of new legislation by City staff.

In 1984, a “tough” apartment ordinance was passed that addressed features such as architectural variety, outdoor living space, private entries, parking spaces, recreational amenities, landscaping, and compatibility with condominium conversion. Director of Community Development Dick Powers noted that “the goal [of the ordinance] is to substantially upgrade our residential areas. To allay fears of excessive cost, affordable projects have been built this way already. The architectural quality of a project has a lot to do with its long-term success.” 60 City Council members endorsed the stronger ordinance with enthusiasm, with Mayor Gerald Mulrooney remarking “We’re very much into changing the image of Paramount.” 61
Some Paramount residents became increasingly alarmed over the high-density residential projects— and their increased pressure on the city’s infrastructure and institutions—and asked for residential development to slow in the mid-1980s. Among those who voiced caution with development was Councilwoman and former Mayor Dr. Esther Caldwell, who was reelected to City Council in 1988. 62 Proponents argued that big apartment complexes congested traffic and overtaxed schools, sewers, and other public facilities. 57 Richard Howland, “Paramount Oks Senior Housing Plan,” Press-Telegram, February 10, 1983, 66. 58 Richard Howland, “Seniors Hailed at Paramount Groundbreaking,” Press-Telegram, February 22, 1984, 86. 59 Hillyard, 65. 60 Richard Howland, “Paramount Apartment Law Stricter,” Press-Telegram, July 11, 1984, 87-89. 61 Richard Howland, “Paramount Apartment Law Stricter,” Press-Telegram, July 11, 1984, 87-89. 62 “Incumbents Feuding in Paramount,” Press-Telegram, March 11, 1988, 3-5.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 22 As a result, in 1988 Paramount passed a 45-
day development moratorium, followed by
Measure FF later that year, which limited
housing density to 22 units per acre,
decreased from the existing 70 units per
acre. 63 The slow growth initiative was
approved by Paramount voters by a margin of
61 percent, with 3,965 votes for and 2,585
votes against. Developers and other critics of
Measure FF said that the limit would “put a
freeze on the city’s hard-won recent
progress.” 64
The reason for, and results of, the measure
were mixed. As City Councilman Gerald
Mulrooney remarked following the vote:

Paramount is in a pretty prime spot, so growth will continue. It wasn’t a situation in which the council thought we had to have 60 or 70 units per acre. We thought 35 units was about right. It already was evident [that] people wanted to slow down. People are just tired of fighting crowds wherever they go. It’s not the housing in Paramount that’s causing traffic to stand still on the freeways, but people aren’t reasonable about that kind of thing. 65
Following passage of the measure, Deputy City Manager Pat West noted that building permits had declined drastically and that due to the narrow smaller lots in the city, it was difficult to guarantee good design for smaller apartment complexes. 66 However, despite limitations on the number of units per acre and periods of economic downturn, residential construction did continue in the city into the 1990s and 2000s. According to Los Angeles County tax assessor data, 818 properties in the city were developed between 1990 and 1999. Examples of residential developments from this decade include Meridian Terrance Homes at 16212 Hunsaker Avenue and Emerald Court at 7221 Petrol Street. Meridian Terrace Homes was a collection of 10 single-family, four-bedroom detached homes designed in the Mediterranean Revival style of architecture. Emerald Court was a condominium project by Emerald Investment Company that featured condominiums with four floor plan options.

Emerald Court was VA and FHA approved and only required $5,600 for a down payment. 67 63 Harris, “Paramount Tightens Limits on Construction,” 4. 64 “Paramount Slow-Growth Vote Stirs Talk,” Press-Telegram, November 10, 1988, 20. 65 “Paramount Slow-Growth Vote Stirs Talk,” Press-Telegram, November 10, 1988, 20. 66 Richard Howland, “Paramount,” Press-Telegram, January 30, 1989, 26. 67 “Future Estates opens Meridian Terrace for Viewing,” Press-Telegram, March 11, 1990, 59; “Paramount’s Renaissance Aided by Emerald Court Condominium Project,” Press-Telegram, February 11, 1990.

Pro-Growth Supporters at Paramount City Council
meeting in 1988. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 23 Emerald Court Condominiums, 1990. Press-Telegram.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 24 THEME: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999)
The dairy, cattle, and hay industries which had dominated the local economy and served as the center of Los Angeles County’s agricultural outputs in the early- to mid-20th century had waned by the 1960s. By 1971, an article in the Independent reported only six dairies left in Paramount, with the last one closing in 1977. 68 In an area once home to 80,000 cows (as of a 1952 estimate), Paramount’s dairy, cattle, and hay industry gave way to suburban homes, commercial developments, and industrial plants. 69 Historian Mike McKown remembers that in the 1970s:

Paramount really started to grow in different ways. There were a lot of new businesses going in on Paramount Boulevard. It was a sort of assembling. Anything that you needed, you could get in Paramount, not everything that you maybe wanted, but anything that you needed, you could get here in Paramount. 70 Daryl Hofmeyer, Paramount resident, former Mayor, and owner of Romberg Milling, recalled that in the 1970s “Paramount was just like an old farm town [with a] Main Street, no curbs and gutters. The dairies were just starting to move out in the 1960s. So, we sold dairy feed for a while to them, and then we switched over to horse feed.” 71 Resident and historian Mike McKown recalls, “Paramount in the 1970s and 80s was a transitional time because by the early 1970s, the dairies had started to close... A lot of those dairies were just abandoned. So, we had a lot of open space back then … I remember it was a quieter town.” 72 In 1971, the Independent Press-Telegram wrote that Paramount was zoned 25 percent commercial and was “a town of many businesses—there are more than 1,000 business licenses—but most of the stores are small and look less than prosperous. There is a strong emphasis on service businesses.” 73 However, during this period many local commercial businesses closed, and the redevelopment agency actively sought to revitalize the commercial center. Property types evolved in this period, transitioning from the small brick-and-mortar specialty stores to large mall complexes and strip malls. Many Paramount residents traveled to nearby regional shopping centers, including the Lakewood Center and the Cerritos Center (opened in 1972). These malls catered to the automobile with their large parking lots and big box stores, such as Sears, J.W.

Robinson’s, and Ohrbach’s.

Restaurants also played an important role in Paramount, particularly amongst the business community in the 1970s. As recalled by Mayor Peggy Lemons, “back then the big restaurant was called Salvatore's. It was an Italian restaurant, and that's where all the business community ate, either there or at Hector's Deli.” 74 However, when the restaurants closed in the 1980s, the business community had few places to take clients, and businesses struggled.

Small companies also struggled to adapt and compete with larger stores. Paramount resident and restauranteur Gus Exiga, who worked at and later owned the store Eastern Provisions and 68 Hillyard; Mark Clutter, “Paramount has a distinct personality,” Independent, November 28, 1971. 69 Mark Clutter, “Paramount has a distinct personality,” Independent, November 28, 1971. 70 Interview with Mike McKown by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 71 Interview with Daryl Hofmeyer by Emi Takahara. December 15, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 72 Interview with Mike McKown by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 73 Mark Clutter, “Paramount has a distinct personality,” Independent, November 28, 1971. 74 Interview with Peggy Lemons by Emi Takahara. January 8, 2026. On file with Historic Resources Group.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 25 several other businesses, remembered “we started doing a lot of catering events for the companies, especially industrial. We started doing events at Paramount Petroleum, the refinery, and same thing with Carlton Forge. But then they sold it, and everything changed.” 75 A 1981 study found that in the city “there was an unmet demand of at least 80,000 to 110,000 square feet of new space for basic goods and services and a shortage of nearly 50,000 square feet of professional offices.” The study “found that because of these limitations, new residents probably wouldn’t live long in Paramount... With few places to shop in Paramount, the outflow of sales to surrounding communities was estimated at $20 million to $30 million a year.” 76 As a result, in 1983, City Manager Bill Holt and Director of Community Development Dick Powers championed development of new businesses. Within the first two years, the City was involved in more than 70 projects in Paramount,
with development projects worth
close to $30 million. These projects
were largely made possible by the
Paramount Redevelopment Agency,
which allowed the City Council to
purchase property and sell it to the
agency, which in turn sold it to private
developers.

One of the City’s first major efforts
during this period focused on
improving existing businesses. The
firm of McLellan, Cruz, Gaylord &
Associates provided architectural and
construction drawings to businesses
as an incentive for owners to upgrade
their buildings, all at the City’s
expense. The City also set up a
relocation program for businesses
moved from parcels being assembled for larger projects, with the City paying up to 100% of owners’ costs to replace equipment and holdings. Between 1980 and 2007, there were 260 commercial rehabilitation projects totaling $7 million in public investment and $2.5 million in private investment. 77
Code enforcement was also imposed; the City analyzed every piece of property in the City limits and cited those properties with substandard conditions in violation of Chapter 99 of the State Uniform Building Code.This code enforcement resulted in widespread demolition and rehabilitation; for example, in one neighborhood of 50 acres, approximately 30% of the structures were demolished for new construction. 78
75 Interview with Gus Exiga by Emi Takahara, December 15, 2025, on file with Historic Resources Group. 76 “Change,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 1985, 120, 123. 77 City of Paramount, The Revitalization of Paramount, 19. 78 “Change,” Los Angeles Times, March 17, 1985, 120, 123.

Director of Community Development Dick Powers, 1985. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 26 Before and after renovation/relocation projects for Ehrmann’s Hardware (top) and Ace Auto Wrecking (bottom). City of Paramount.

The City also sought to create new commercial zones, including the “Central Business District,” designed by architects McLellan, Cruz, Gaylord & Associates. The major commercial development in downtown Paramount was comprised of Town Center East and Town Center West, two large shopping centers with anchor stores, small retail stores, and fast-food restaurants.

Paramount Town Center West opened in 1985. Strategically located at the intersection of the Long Beach Freeway and the 91 Freeway, the shopping center was described as an anchor for the “aggressive redevelopment program.” 79 The City spent $8 million to obtain and clear the land for Town Center West and an additional $2 million for the construction of streets and other infrastructure. The shopping center featured a 50,000-square-foot Vons supermarket and 34,000 square feet of other retail space. Stores in the new complex included Ehrmann’s Hardware, Paramount Center Video, Koopman’s Travel, and Paramount Sporting Goods, among others. 80 The Paramount Swap Meet at 7900 All America City Way was originally founded in 1955 by Joseph Bianchi, a Brooklyn-born entrepreneur, and by the 1970s, was operating 7 days a week. In 1993, the Paramount Swap Meet expanded its capacity by purchasing the six-acre Carlon Industry site to the north, adding approximately 285 additional vending spaces and a new parking lot. The expansion also included the removal of drive-in theater screens, resurfacing of the parking area, 79 “Paramount Complex Called Business Boon,” Press-Telegram, September 26, 1985, 151. 80 “Paramount Complex Called Business Boon,” Press-Telegram, September 26, 1985, 151.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 27 installation of new perimeter landscaping, construction of an eight-foot decorative wall, and the renovation of the existing snack bar. 81
In 1994, Walmart opened a store in Paramount, the first time a major chain had established a “bigbox” store in the area. Walmart and other retailers were constructed on the location of the Rosecrans Drive-In Theater, which was demolished in 1993.

In the ensuing years, several other franchises opened, including a Quiznos sandwich shop, two Baskin Robbins stores, and two Carl’s Junior restaurants.

Rendering of proposed Vons, 1980s. Paramount Associates.

In the 1990s, the first Starbucks opened in Paramount, a major win for the city as the company was highly selective in where it opened its locations at the time. City Manager Pat West was largely responsible for convincing investors to open in Paramount, which was the first Starbucks in a majority Latino community in Orange or Los Angeles County. Pat West remembers:

I went to a meeting with Starbucks. It was one of the most powerful meetings I've ever [been to] in my life and took about two hours. And they were just trashing Paramount… that we can't put our employees in a situation where they're going to be abused or there's going to be violence or they're going to be robbed. And that went on. And I just happened to remember that a year before there was a Starbucks in Huntington Beach on Main Street by the pier and two Starbucks employees were marched out of the store and assassinated on the street. Both shot dead. And I pulled that out of my pocket. I go, well, you know, in Huntington 81 City of Paramount, “Conditional Use Permit Application 366,” to Planning Commission from Community Development Department, June 9, 1993.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 28 Beach last year you had two employees that were marched out of the store and shot... That would never happen in Paramount, I said. Never. You're going to be embraced by the faith-based community. People are going to have concerts there.

We're going to dress it up. 82
The resulting Starbucks opened on Paramount Boulevard and Jackson Street and featured a pond and garden. As recounted by the Los Angeles Times in a 2002 article titled “Just South of Los Angeles, a City Climbs Out of the Doldrums,” the “Starbucks shop has become a point of pride for city officials, who gladly take visitors to the emporium, overlooking a sculpture garden.” 83 In 1996, the City Council approved an amendment to the Clearwater East Specific Plan to allow for retail, restaurant, and cinema uses. In 1997, Modern Development Company developed Bianchi Theatres at 7770 Rosecrans Avenue, the former location of ARB Construction. The 11- screen movie theater featured a lobby, banquet/meeting room with patio, and courtyard with a fountain. 84
Proposed Architectural Elevations of Bianchi Theatres, 1997. TK. 82 Interview with Pat West by Emi Takahara. November 26, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 83 Nick Madigan, “Just South of Los Angeles, a City Climbs Out of the Doldrums,” Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2002. 84 City of Paramount, “Agenda Report: Development Review Application No, 97:011,” from Patrick H. West to Honorable Redevelopment Agency, August 5, 1997.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 29 THEME: CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(1970-1999)
City Beautification and Parks
From the 1970s through the 1990s, the City of Paramount made a concerted effort to improve and expand recreational sites, including parks, swimming pools, and community centers. In 1976, the City received funds from the State’s Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond towards park development. As a result, $50,961 was allotted for the improvement of Paramount Park and $50,000 towards development of a new park. 85 During the era of redevelopment, the City sought to improve the Paramount’s recreational institutions. Between 1980 and 2000, the city planted 10,000 trees, built 11 fountains, established 10 pocket parks, installed 13 entry point monuments, and created 10 miles of landscaped traffic medians. 86 In 1976, Spane Park (originally known as Gundry Park), was founded at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Gundry Boulevard. The 4.2-acre park was named after the longtime city councilman Louis Spane and cost $654,420 to complete. 87 Spane Park included a stream-fed fishing pond stocked with catfish as well as play equipment, picnic areas, a lighted baseball field, and restrooms. 88 City-sponsored events at the park in the 1980s included the Huck Finn Fishing Derby and kite flying competitions.

Spane Park and Child with Catfish, 1977. Los Angeles Times.

Progress Park was founded in 1970 on the 7.5-acre former Henry Weis dairy ranch. 89 In 1975, a former library building from Bellflower was relocated to the park and renovated to serve as a community center. The building was extensively renovated by Ron Jones, Inc. of Santa Fe Springs. 90 Known as Plaza Hall at completion, the 3,000-square-foot hall had a $30,000 stainless steel kitchen equipped to feed an estimated 1,000 people. As reported by the Independent, “just 85 “$84,082 for area parks,” Independent, January 14, 1976, 14. 86 City of Paramount, The Revitalization of Paramount (Paramount, CA: The City of Paramount, 2007), 10; Louis Sahagun, “Paramount Likes its White Picket-Fence Image,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2007, B3. 87 “Paramount Park Honors Longtime City Councilman,” Independent, December 9, 1976, 52. 88 “Real Garden Spot,” Los Angeles Times, January 20, 1977, 21. 89 “Grand Land Singers Due,” Press-Telegram, April 4, 1970, 30. 90 “To Come Down,” Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1975, 163; Ralph McClurg, “Bids Opened to Move Library,” Independent, May 9, 1974, 36; “Building to be Improved,” Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1975, 157.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 30 recently completed in Progress Park, a 6.2-acre recreational area at 15542 Downey Ave., is the Plaza Hall, a community center, meeting and recreational building with ultra-modern cooking facilities.” 91 It was the first City-owned building to have a no-smoking rule, which was established in 1976. 92 In 1977, the City described the park as a “welcome green spot in the vast urban sprawl.” 93
In 1980, the City dedicated Banana Park, a
ribbon of open space nearly seven blocks long
and narrower than 120 feet. The park is located
along the Los Angeles River channel between
Rosecrans Avenue and Somerset Boulevard. It
was dedicated by Paramount’s first female
Mayor Dr. Esther Caldwell. 94
Pequeno Park was established in 1983 at the
cost of $20,000. Located on Ackley Street, the
city added fencing, playground equipment, a
barbecue, picnic tables, and a shelter. 95
The Paramount Park Community Center, which
originally opened in 1962, was renovated in
1985. The $470,000 exterior remodeling project
added Spanish style detailing to the vernacular
building and included general landscaping of the
park. In 1986, the City applied for an additional
$109,000 to remodel and renovate the interior
of the center, which was completed in 1987. 96
In all, between 1982 and 1987, the City spent
nearly $4 million on improvements to its eight
parks, which totaled nearly 40 acres of
recreational land. Paramount also featured four
community centers—Firehouse Activity Center,
the Community Center, Progress Park’s Plaza Hall, and Spane Park Recreation Center. 91 McClurg, “Hynes, Clearwater Live on in City of Paramount,” 96. 92 “Council Bans Smoking in Paramount Building,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1976, 149. 93 City Advertisement, 1977 Paramount High School Yearbook. 94 “Paramount to Dedicate Park,” Los Angeles Times, February 14, 1980, 10. 95 “Paramount Looks for Solution to Gang Hangout at Playground,” Los Angeles Times, March 22, 1992, 696. 96 “Paramount Seeks $109,000 for Park Community Center,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 1986, 59.

Banana Park in Paramount, 1980. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 31 Community Center before renovation (left, 1970s) and rendering of proposed changes (right, 1980s). City of Paramount.

In 1998, the sixth pocket park in Paramount was established on a vacant lot at the corner of Alondra Boulevard and Gundry Avenue. The City spent approximately $10,000 converting the lot into a “grassy” oasis until it sold. According to Assistant City Manager Linda Benedetti-Leal “We are very sensitive in our city to blight and the way we look… It’s nice to have soft green areas in an urban environment.” 97 By 2000, the City of Paramount had completed 10 pocket parks with a total development cost of $142,000. 98
Art also played an important part in Paramount’s city beautification efforts. In 1985, Paramount started an “Art in Public Places” program which used donations paid by residential and commercial developers to purchase and display artwork
throughout the city. Unlike other cities that required
developers to set aside money, Paramount’s program was
voluntary in the early years of the program. Examples of artworks include “KAI KOO VII,” by Betty Gold; “The Die is Cast” and “Hole in One” by local artist Arlene Cartozian; and “9 x 9 x 9” and “Vestige” by Harold Pastorius Jr.

By 1988, the collection was estimated to be worth over
$378,000. 99 Between 1980 and 2007, three Los Angeles River murals, 11 fountains, and 29 sculptures were completed in the city. 100 As recorded by the City, “with its calming influence and liberating effects on the human soul, art is not just an embellishment to the City’s landscape; it becomes a
fundamental component of the environment.” 101
97 “City to Convert 6th Vacant Lot into Park,” Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1998, 30. 98 City of Paramount, The Revitalization of Paramount, 12. 99 Hillyard, 84; Lee Harris, “Paramount Encourages Art Where ‘People Can Feel It, Sit on It and Become Part of It,” Los Angeles Times, April l9, 1987, 249.
100 City of Paramount, Revitalization of Paramount, 29. 101 City of Paramount, Revitalization of Paramount, 29. “9 x 9 x 9” by Harold Pastorius Jr. at
Spane Park. City of Paramount.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 32 In 1993, the City Council approved a 1% Public Art Development Fee on new development valued at $100,000 or more. The collected fees are used for the purchase, placement, installation, maintenance, and protection of public art. 102
Fountains and sculptures Kai Koo VII (bottom left) and Suffer the Little Children (bottom right), 2007. City of Paramount.

Welcoming visitors and residents to
Paramount was a key tenant of the city
beautification program, and several signs
were erected around the city limits. The
City Council was heavily involved in the
creation and dedication of these welcome
signs. Into the 21st century, these were
carefully designed to merge with
surrounding infrastructure. For example.

The “Paramount Welcome Wall,” was a
public sculpture at Flower and Downey
avenues that masks a bus maintenance
yard and incorporated a waterfall and
plantings.103
102 City of Paramount Administrative Services Department, “Public Art Development Fee,” Established July 1, 1993. 103 “White Picket Fences Help Paramount’s Image,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2007, 73.

Santa Train with City Councilmembers Peggy Lemons,
Gene Daniels, Diane J. Martinez, and Manuel Guillen, c. 2005. City of Paramount.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 33 The city also sought to welcome and encourage civic engagement with regular events and festivities. Perhaps the most famous example of this in Paramount is the annual holiday Santa Train, which was established in 1969, and delivers “holiday cheer to kids in every neighborhood of town.”104
City Council dedicating Paramount Welcome Wall, from left to right: Henry Harkema, Peggy Lemons, Diane J.

Martinez, Gene Daniels, Manuel Guillen, c. 2005. City of Paramount.

Other Civic Programs
One issue that plagued the City of Paramount in the late 20th century was the presence of several gangs. By the late 1970s, Paramount had at least three active gangs in the city: the Dogpatch Varrio, the Paramount Varrio, and the Compton Trace. 105 One resident reported that “at midnight you can hear them fighting (in the streets). One gang against another.” 106 By the early 1980s, the Los Angeles County’s Sheriff’s Department determined that approximately 40% to 50% of the city was under gang influence, with approximately 1,000 gang members active in the area. 107 In 1981, the City Council decided to combat gang activity with the Alternatives to Gang Membership program. Unlike other programs which sought to reform gang members, the program was preventative: it endeavored to stop youths from joining gangs from the start. Under the leadership of Director Pat West and former probation officer Tony Ostos, the program taught anti-gang curriculum to fifth graders at five Paramount schools: Roosevelt, Mark Keppel, Los Cerritos, Gaines, and Lincoln elementary schools. 108 The 15-week program included films, lectures, posters, and puppet shows to illustrate the negative impacts of gang activity. Parents were also involved in the program and were educated about various recreational programs. Two local 104 “Santa Train,” City of Paramount, accessed on March 31, 2026 at: https://www.paramountcity.gov/event/santa-train-2/ 105 Dorothy Korber, “Paramount Probing Violence by Teen Gangs,” Press-Telegram, March 22, 1978, 24. 106 Lee Harris, “Paramount Class Hopes to Mold 5th Grade Attitudes,” Los Angeles Times, October 13, 1983, 250. 107 Harris, “Paramount Class Hopes to Mold 5th Grade Attitudes,” 250. 108 Harris, “Paramount Class Hopes to Mold 5th Grade Attitudes,” 250.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 34 mothers, Jenny Lacayo and Charlene Dominguez, were particularly involved in initiating the program. 109
By 1984, the neighboring Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was “favorably impressed” by the program and planned to implement it. 110 The 1986 U.S. News and World Report determined that Paramount was “breaking the pattern by getting to boys and girls before they join gangs and giving them a stern lesson in the evils of gang membership.” 111 According to the Los Angeles Times, the district attorney’s office cited the program as “one of the nation’s most admired and imitated programs for steering children away from the streets.” 112 Tony Ostos; Ostos teaching fifth graders at Roosevelt Elementary to lessen interest in joining gangs, 1983.

Los Angeles Times.

However, despite early hopes, gang issues persisted in Paramount into the 1990s. Parks were one public space in which gangs regularly convened. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, residents near Pequeno Park reported frequent fights at the park, and the City increased sheriff deputy patrols of the area. 113 Approximately 90% of nearby residents polled by the City identified the park as a site of recent crime activity, including loitering, drinking, drug use, fighting, and drive-by shootings. 114 According to Deputy City Manager Pat West, Paramount Park was more vulnerable to vandalism because of its layout: “it’s almost impossible for deputies to patrol the park effectively because they can’t drive through it. It has mounds all over, and there’s no vantage point from where you can see the entire park.” 115 In 1998, the park received anti-gang renovations, which included stainless steel restroom fixtures and graffiti-resistant walkways. 116 Community members also took active stances in addressing gangs and other general safety issues. As recalled by Pastor Grady Jones, “Paramount at the time was kind of gang infested. The city got rid of the gangs, and it has been a city on the move since then. I formed a committee called Unity in the Community Committee... We had several meetings trying to bring different 109 Interview with Peggy Lemons by Emi Takahara. January 8, 2026. On file with Historic Resources Group. 110 Lee Harris, “Educators Say Kids are Learning to Say No to Gangs,” Los Angeles Times, November 29, 1984, 304. 111 Hillyard, 89. 112 Jesse Katz, “Fighting to Keep a City’s Soul,” Los Angeles Times, December 31, 1992,. 113 Rick Higuin, “Tiny Park Source of Sizable Gang Problem,” Los Angeles Times, March 22, 1992, 686. 114 “Paramount Looks for Solution to Gang Hangout at Playground,” Los Angeles Times, March 22, 1992, 696. 115 Richard Howland, “Park is Gang Playground,” Press-Telegram, August 6, 1989, 22. 116 Richard Howland, “Paramount Park to get Facelift,” Press-Telegram, September 7, 1989, 9.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 35 races of people together, which is still in progress. In fact, we've been going since 1986, when we started this group.” 117
The Public Safety Innovations program also increased law enforcement services for more responsive “dedicated services” whereby police officers were assigned to specific areas of the city.

The City also organized a Neighborhood Watch group that allowed for community input and resulted in over 2,000 volunteers. These volunteers educated the public on general safety issues. 118 In 1989, an undercover drug operation with the Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies resulted in the arrest of 43 people on drug charges. 119
In 1992, suspected gang members killed three people who were, or had been, students at Paramount High School. Following the shootings, the Paramount City Council and Paramount Unified School District hired a Los Angeles County sheriff officer to patrol Paramount High School. 120 On December 31, 1992, the Los Angeles Times wrote:

In 1982, this tiny, blue-collar suburb pioneered the gang-prevention movement…The Alternatives to Gang Membership course [was] a farsighted move that predated the current trend toward prevention among many law enforcement and community-based agencies… But as Paramount has grown and the county’s gang scene has expanded, the limitations of the course have also become increasingly evident. Because of a transitory population, as many as 30% to 40% of the city’s high school students never took the class in grade school. With the mayhem that some gangs seem bent on wreaking, even the most effective prevention program would be hard-pressed to head off the capricious violence that has rattled the city over the last year.
“Nowadays, there are no guarantees,” conceded Tony Ostos, creator and head instructor of the program. “Paramount is not an island. It’s not one of those encircled cities surrounded by walls.” 121
Gang activity in Paramount began to subside in 1993. That year, a task force of 60 city officials, residents, teachers, and deputies brainstormed and came up with TARGET (Team Approach Regarding Gang Enforcement Techniques). In TARGET, the Sheriff’s Department identified the top 25 youths considered to be the most violent gang members in town and closely monitored them. Within eight months, all of the original 25 were arrested or had left town.

In April 1993, the City Council agreed to raise the utility users’ taxes by 2%, which paid for six new deputies, a crime analyst, and new equipment. 122 Additionally, a county probation officer was stationed at the Paramount police station, and parole officers were in much closer contact with the district attorney’s office. As a result, the city saw a decrease in crime: in 1993, there were 172 gang-related violent crimes, by 1996 that number had dropped to 89. 123 From 1981 to 2001, Part 1 117 Interview with Pastor Grady Jones by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 118 Hillyard, 89. 119 Lee Harris, “43 Arrested in Paramount Drug Inquiry,” Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1989, 472. 120 “Deputy to Patrol Campus to Deter Shootings,” Los Angeles Times, November 12, 1992, 635. 121 Jesse Katz, “Fighting to Keep a City’s Soul,” Los Angeles Times, December 31, 1992. 122 “Gangs: Deputies Keep Close Tabs on Top 25,” Los Angeles Times, January 6, 1994, 143. 123 “Anti-Gang Program Producing Results,” Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1996, 47.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 36 crimes (including homicide, rape, robbery, burglary, and grand theft auto) dropped 16.3 percent in the City of Paramount. According to Deputy City Manager Pat West, “we’re not saying Paramount is crime-free, but the gang problem is way down.” 124 In 1996, the TARGET program received a special achievement award from the California Healthy Cities Project, a statewide organization that promoted citizen participation and civic wellbeing. 125 Paramount Sheriffs, 1999. City of Paramount.

Education
As a result of changing demographics in the City,
Paramount schools also diversified during this period, with an increase in Latino and Black teachers and students from the 1970s to 2000s. The first Black teacher employed by the Paramount School District was Lena Alford, who also
served as the first Black principal in the district. She was selected as an outstanding teacher of Wesley Gaines
Elementary in 1973. 126
Theodore Ratcliff was the second Black teacher employed by the district. Ratcliff worked as a teacher at the Major Lynn H. Mokler Elementary School for 17 years and was the recipient of a prestigious federal grant through the NDEA Civics Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

He was also a notable inventor, and created a teaching
device called “Letto,” which aided grade school children in work analysis, and a swiveling paintbrush, among other inventions. A graduate of the 124 Emily Adams, “City Goes After Gang Members on Top 25 List,” Los Angeles Times, January 6, 1994, 139. 125 “Anti-Gang Program Producing Results,” Los Angeles Times, December 12, 1996, 47. 126 “Prairie View Honors Alumni,” Los Angeles Sentinel, April 24, 1975, C5; “5 Teachers Honored by Paramount,” South Gate Press, June 30, 1973, 3.

Theodore Ratcliff with pivoting paint
rollers, 1983. Los Angeles Sentinel.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 37 Historically Black College of Alcorn A&M, Ratcliff edited The Builder, a newspaper sponsored by the African Methodist Church of Los Angeles, and published a book of poetry, “Black Forever More.” Ratcliff was nominated for the 1984 Who’s Who in California. 127 Other significant elementary school teachers in Paramount were Carol McCafferty Robinson and Suzanne Roberts. McCafferty and Roberts were both second wave feminists and active members of the National Organization for Women (NOW). NOW was an advocacy group that addressed issues such as women’s reproductive rights, feminist art and culture, financial literacy, violence against women, and the discipline of women’s studies.

Diversification of students
attending Paramount schools
was also reflected in the
various students’ clubs active
at Paramount High School.

The Mexican Cultural Club
was formed in the spring of
1974 and had over 80 student
participants by the following
year. The club’s purpose was
to provide recreation and
cultural awareness for
anyone interested in Latin
American countries and
customs. The New Breed
Club was another Latino
group formed in the 1970s.

The group painted a mural on
Mexican culture at the school in 1977.
127 “Theodore Ratcliff,” Los Angeles Sentinel, June 8, 1967, D3; “Paint Roller Debuts,” Los Angeles Sentinel, February 3, 1983, A8; “Ratcliff Included in Who’s Who,” Los Angeles Sentinel, April 12, 1984, A8.

Youth Awareness Club, 1976. Paramount High School Yearbook.

New Breed Club in front of mural, 1977. Paramount High School Yearbook.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 38 In 1976, the Youth Awareness Club was active on campus and adopted the club slogan “Peace, Unity, and Brotherhood.” The club sought to “stimulate intellection growth and promote social interaction” among different students at the high school, including through the celebration of Malcolm X’s birthday. 128
Paramount resident Manny Alcaraz remembers other early Latino groups and after school programs in Paramount, including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). 129 Latino cultural clubs continued through the 1980s and 1990s. In 1985, Club Latino sponsored activities that promoted an interest in Latino American cultures, including the Cinco de Mayo contest. All meetings were held in Spanish. 130

SCHOOL OVERCROWDING AND EXPANSION
The Paramount Redevelopment Agency was also heavily involved in institutional and community development. In 1978, the Agency purchased the Harry Wirtz School site from the Paramount School District for $3.8 million. The agreement obligated the school district to use the money from the sale to rehabilitate Paramount High School. Funds went toward the construction of 34,000 square feet of new classroom space, new athletic facilities, and a new gymnasium on the high school campus.

In the 1980s, residents located in the southern region of Paramount petitioned to transfer 1,536 students from the Paramount School District to the neighboring Bellflower Unified School District. Parents charged that the Paramount district lacked quality education, was geographically remote, and was plagued by gang violence. The issue came to the state Board of Education in 1984, which denied the parents’ request for transfer. Among the reasons cited by the Board was the fact that transfer would have promoted racial or ethnic segregation, as the Paramount district which had 70% minority students would have lost about 3% of its white students. Bellflower’s student population was 71% white and 29% minority. The transfer would have also removed $3.35 million in state money from Paramount’s funds. The Board assigned a staff member to work with parents and district officials to find solutions for their issues. 131 As a result of redevelopment efforts, particularly the increase in housing in Paramount, the school district faced severe overcrowding in the 1990s. The school district’s enrollment grew from about 9,800 students in 1980 to over 14,000 in 1995. Latino enrollment also rose from 50% of the student population to 74%.

According to the Los Angeles Times in 1995:

Paramount’s school district is teeming with students. After years of growing enrollment and little construction, district officials find themselves scrambling to relieve swollen campuses, some of which house nearly twice the number of students they were intended 128 Clubs, Paramount High School Yearbook, 1976, 221-222. 129 Interview with Manny Alcaraz by Emi Takahara. January 6, 2026. On file with Historic Resources Group. 130 Club Latino, Paramount High School Yearbook, 1985. 131 Lee Harris, “State Acts to End Paramount Schools Clash,” Los Angeles Times, November 22, 1984, 335.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 39 to accommodate. Today, playground space is being eaten up by portable classrooms, and libraries double as storage areas for copying machines and other school equipment. 132 Paramount High School, originally built to accommodate 1,800 students, served over 3,000 by the mid-1990s. Gaines Elementary School was built for 540 students but served nearly 900 by 1995.

In 1991, a new Science/Administration Building was completed at Paramount High School at a cost of $9 million. While this helped relieve some of the overcrowding, there were still issues with space at the school.

Rendering and Photograph of the Science/Administration Building at PHS, 1991. Paramount High School Yearbook.

In March of 1995, a special election, Proposition S, was held for a $15-million bond measure to pay for two new schools and classroom renovations. The bond was defeated with 59% in favor, failing to secure the two-thirds majority to pass. 133 In November 1996, Proposition S was again brought before voters, this time earning 64% in favor, but still ultimately defeated. 134 Education largely improved thanks to the Paramount Education Partnership (PEP) program spearheaded by then-Commissioner Peggy Lemons. The PEP program is a collaborative effort between the City, School District, Chamber of Commerce, and the faith-based community. It is dedicated to providing programs and services that increase the academic achievement and educational expectations of the City’s residents. The PEP program and the Pennies for PEP Scholarship Program has raised over $2 million for student scholarships. Peggy Lemons also introduced the Boulevard of Scholars program to recognize student achievement.

Civic Development
Changes in Paramount from the 1970s to 1990s also included civic entities and institutions such as the Sheriff’s Department, the Fire Department, City staff and services, and health institutions.

For police services, the City of Paramount contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department, with a dedicated fleet in the city. In 1995, the vehicles that patrol the city underwent a facelift: instead of Sheriff’s Department logos on the doors the vehicles received new decals that read “City of Paramount.” Assistant City Manager Linda Benedetti-Leal remarked that the 132 Duke Helfand and Psyche Pascual, “District’s Future Rides on Bond Decision,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1995, 51. 133 “School Officials Vox to Renew Bond Fight,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 1995, 155. 134 “Final California Election Returns,” Los Angeles Times, November 7, 1996, 26.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 40 City had long wanted the change, because “if you’re contracting, the best thing you can do is customize the service to your own needs.” 135
In 1987, the City of Paramount
initiated a “Citizen Satisfaction
Form,” that was handed out by
Sheriff’s deputies whenever they
responded to a request for
service. Residents could evaluate
the services they received by
checking whether the deputy
was courteous, and commenting
if they were satisfied by the
response. As remembered by
Mayor Peggy Lemons, the mailer
was “turned into the City and
therefore the City could then
evaluate what was going on” and
determine how to fix any issues. 136 In the first three months of its operation, more than 25% of all forms were mailed back with an overwhelming 98% of the public stating that they felt Paramount’s law enforcement services were excellent. Paramount was also served by Sky Night, one of the only multi-jurisdictional helicopter patrol services in the country. 137 Fire Services in Paramount are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. County Station No. 31 at 7521 Somerset Boulevard serves the community, and houses a paramedic squad, and fire engine. According to Captain Ralph Bommelje, the department was “one of the busiest stations in the County. Guys like to bid (ask for assignment) into this place.” 138 In 1985, there was a major chemical fire in Paramount at a lacquer company at 15713 Vermont Avenue. Several chemical drums burned, tossing flames about 150 feet in the air. Firefighters were able to extinguish the flames after several hours, with damage estimated at approximately $200,000. 139
135 “Police Car Decals Boost Civic Pride,” Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1995, 31. 136 Interview with Peggy Lemons by Emi Takahara. January 8, 2026. On file with Historic Resources Group. 137 “Paramount Lookin’ Good,” South Coast Business, June 1987, on file with the City of Paramount. 138 Larry Lane, “Station 31: Even ‘Slow’ Days Aren’t Dull,” Los Angeles Times, November 13 ,1977, 325. 139 Joe Segura, “Spectacular Chemical Fire Breaks out in Paramount,” Press-Telegram July 23, 1985, 1.

Paramount’s Police Crime Watch vehicle, 1990s. City of Paramount.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 41 Los Angeles County fireman and truck with school children, 1975. City of Paramount.

Firemen Spray Foam on Chemical Fire, 1985. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 42 In mid-1970s, the City of Paramount constructed a new 2.5-acre public works yard which served as a homebase for City employees and a warehouse for equipment (15328 Downey Avenue).

Paramount’s then-City Manager Harry Bond championed the project, which was completed in 1978 at a cost of $1.6 million.

At the time of its completion,
the Los Angeles Times
described the new compound
as “the royal palace of public
works yards, a still-new,
brown-masonry monument
dominating a stretch of
Downey Ave. like a
fortress.” 140 The facilities had
a fully equipped gym,
secluded patio, lunchroom,
and stone grotto with
waterfall. The warehouse
stored gardening equipment,
office furniture, and office
supplies. It was named after
C.D. Mosier, a former
councilman and mayor, and
brother of then-elected
mayor Ted Mosier. 141
In addition to general parks and recreation activities, the City also invested in the community in the 1970s and 1980s with the Elderly Nutrition Program and a neighborhood shuttle. The Elderly Nutrition Program regularly held events for senior citizens that provided healthy and nutritious foods. Events included Halloween parties and luaus. Two vehicles were purchased by the City for the Elderly Nutrition Program in 1989: a minivan and a Ford Escort. The Los Angeles County paid a majority portion of the cost by allocating federal funds from the Older Americans Act. 142 The Neighborhood Shuttle provided both curb-to-curb service and fixed-route transportation for all local residents. The shuttle guaranteed it would pick up residents within 20 minutes anywhere and deliver them anywhere else in the city. The fare for the service was 50 cents, except for seniors going to and from the Elderly Nutrition Program at Paramount Park, who rode for free. 143 140 Gerald Farris, “The P in ‘Public Works” Stands for Posh,” Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1979, 1. 141 The name has since been dropped from the yard. Gerald Farris, “The P in ‘Public Works” Stands for Posh,” Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1979, 18.
142 “2 New Vehicles OK’d for Elderly Nutrition,” Press-Telegram, June 14, 1989, 20. 143 “Paramount Neighborhood Shuttle Service to Begin this Week,” Press-Telegram, November 1, 1985, 54.

Public Works Yard Rest Area, 1979. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 43 City of Paramount Elderly Nutrition Program Bus (left, 1980s) and City Council with the Neighborhood Shuttle (right, 1985). City of Paramount.

Medical services also evolved in the late-20th century. Paramount General Hospital (now Kindred Hospital) was built in 1971. The one-story, 91,000-square-foot facility cost $4.5 million and accommodated 150 patients. The architectural firm of Rochlin and Baran & Associates designed the building. 144 The firm was well known as leading designers of medical facilities in Southern California. 145
The hospital was founded by 11 doctors, including several who were Latino. In 1980, the hospital was leased to the Charter Medical Corp., which operated 63 other hospitals nationwide. By 1985, approximately 40% of its 4,500 patients were Latino.

Rendering of Paramount Hospital in 1971 (left) and Kindred Hospital in 2026 (right). Rochlin & Baran, AIA and HRG.

About 30 of the hospital’s 200 doctors and 12 of its 100 nurses were bilingual, many having been on the staff since the hospital was founded. In 1985, the hospital decided to go fully bilingual and 144 “Drawings Set for Hospital in Paramount,” Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1970, 167; Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, August 22, 1971, 160; City of Paramount, Building Permit No. 35769, issued on May 25, 1969. 145 Other healthcare and research centers designed by the firm include the UCLA and Northridge Hospital Medical Center.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 44 bicultural, regularly advertising its services in Spanish. As part of this program, the hospital required new employees to be bilingual, printed forms and medical literature in English and Spanish, and offered Spanish language classes. 146
Bilingual signs and pamphlets at Charter Suburban Hospital, 1985. Los Angeles Times. 146 “Paramount Hospital Talks Latinos’ Language,” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1985, 264.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 45 THEME: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (1970-1999)
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the industrial sector in Paramount was struggling. Once known for its hay sales and dairy production, by the 1970s only six dairies were left in the city. What was left were large tracts of industrial — oftentimes vacant — lands and small industries.

By the mid-1970s, the city had approximately 34,500 residents and 150 industrial firms. It had “prime industrial potential” due to its proximity to the Artesia Freeway on the south, the Long Beach Freeway on the west, the San Gabriel River Freeway (Interstate 605) to the east, and two railroads. 147 The Independent wrote in 1971 that “the factories are the heart and meaning of Paramount… The town is zoned 50 percent industrial.” 148 Examples of industrial companies active in Paramount, 1979. Paramount High School Yearbook.

In 1975, the redevelopment agency approved $15 million worth of tax allocation bonds to fund development efforts within an area spanning approximately one-third of the 45-square-mile city.

Within a month, the agency sold $3.8 million worth of tax allocation bonds to fund the first project: the Orange Avenue Industrial Park. 149
The 39-acre project site for the Orange Avenue Industrial Park was “blighted dairy land along the east side of Los Angeles River Channel.” 150 In order to usher in greater development, the site was sold to a developer in 1977.
147 Peyton Canary, “Bond Sale Funds Renewal Project,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1975, 239. 148 “Paramount has a Distinct Personality,” Independent, November 28, 1971, 49. 149 Peyton Canary, “Bond Sale Funds Renewal Project,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1975, 239. 150 McClurg, “Hynes, Clearwater Live on in City of Paramount,” 96.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 46

Historic aerial photographs of the Orange Avenue Industrial Park in (clockwise from top left): 1952, 1976, 1989, and 2007. University of California, Santa Barbara FrameFinder. 151 151 From left to right: Flight AXJ_1952, Frame 19K-8, November 3, 1952; Flight TG-7600, Frame 6-15, February 1, 1976; Flight WAC_89CA, Frame 2-140, March 30, 1989; Flight NAPP_3C, Frame 12465-42, June 10, 2007. FrameFinder.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 47 Councilmember Richard DeBie noted that the City was less interested in the price offered for the property than the industries proposed:

What we’re interested in is what generates the most sales tax and employment.

That is the point of this whole redevelopment project. We want manufacturers who employ lots of people and who sell products that produce sales tax.” 152 Other early improvements included utilities, development of a sewer system, and area grading for several newly-purchased parcels along Orange Avenue. Water development projects included construction of a water treatment plant, a reservoir, and refurbishment of the old water system. 153 In 1978, an advertisement in the Independent Press-Telegram recorded that Paramount had “a mixture of light and heavy industry with the Anaconda Brass Company the largest company. A 40-acre industrial park is being developed.” 154
The business blocks along both sides of Paramount Boulevard between Alondra Boulevard and Jackson Street were razed. Sections of Monroe Street and Colorado Avenue were also eliminated.

Many businesses left town, but a few stayed and used incentives provided by the City. Other industrial parks were soon completed.

In the 1980s, projects included the combining of all water companies (approximately 27) under city management and ownership; establishment of another business complex south of Compton Boulevard; park additions and renovations; a new medical building; and the refurbishment of the Clearwater Intermediate School Auditorium.

The 1981 General Plan studied employment by place of work in Southeast Suburban Los Angeles.

According to the data, Paramount’s sectors in services and public administration slightly increased; agricultural, mining, construction, and manufacturing largely remained the same; and transportation and wholesale trade decreased. 155 With a diverse work force in the industrial sector of the city, immigration raids occurred in Paramount. One such raid at the Golf Products Plant in Paramount in 1984 was covered by the Los Angeles Times.

One long-term industry in the city that continued to operate, even despite periods of intense economic difficulties, was the Paramount Petroleum Corp. oil refinery. The refinery manufactured and sold asphalt and heavy fuel oils and had several different owners in the mid- to late-20th century. Refinery founder, Douglas Oil Co. of Costa Mesa, was acquired in 1961 by Houstonbased Conoco Inc. Facing low demand, Conoco in turn sold the refinery in 1982 to Oasis Petroleum Corp.

In 1984, Oasis merged with Independent Valley Energy to form the Paramount Petroleum Corp., operating the 16,500 barrel-a-day Paramount refinery. A few months later, Paramount’s bank creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition on June 23, 1984. 152 “Paramount Industrial Park to be Sold as Unit,” Independent, May 20, 1977, 25. 153 Dorothy Korber, “Paramount Sets Sale of Bonds,” Independent, March 4, 1977, 21. 154 “Paramount,” Independent Press-Telegram, September 3, 1978, 143. 155 Alfred Gobar Associates, Inc., “Community Economic Profile: City of Paramount,” prepared for the City of Paramount, October 1981.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 48 As recorded by reporter Art Wong in the Press Telegram:

Two years ago, Paramount Petroleum Corp. was in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings, and its hulking fume-belching refinery faced a likely shutdown and demolition. It was a heady time of the city… Those anticipating the refinery’s demised, however, may have jumped the gun. On Oct. 11, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles accepted a $43 million bid for Paramount Petroleum – not from a real estate developer, but from a Santa Barbara-based refinery operator, Alaska Pacific, Inc. 156
When the refinery was purchased by Alaska Pacific in 1988, reactions to the sale were divided, with some residents ambivalent or supportive, while others were deeply disappointed. City Manager Bill Holt wrote that “sale of the refinery insures [sic] the continued visual blight of approximately 60 acres in the region.” 157 Mayor Charles Weldon remarked, “You’ve got people here who hate the new housing so much, they prefer the refinery. The refinery is ugly. There are warnings of cancer on its fence. It’s subject to explosions. It emits noxious smells.” 158 In 1989, Paramount Petroleum Co. offered the city of Paramount a 35-year agreement guaranteeing the right of the refinery to continue processing oil products while compelling the company to pay tax of $700,000 a year. 159 In 1990, the company again filed for bankruptcy. 160 156 Art Wong, “Refinery’s New Life Stymies Paramount Plans,” Press-Telegram, November 14, 1988, 19. 157 “Paramount’s Refinery’s New Life Puts Hold on City Plans,” Press-Telegram, November 14, 1988, 21. 158 Art Wong, “Refinery’s New Life Stymies Paramount Plans,” Press-Telegram, November 14, 1988, 19. 159 “Community Digest,” Press-Telegram, September 22, 1989, 49. 160 “Refinery Down Again,” Press-Telegram, January 29, 1990, 40.

Paramount Petroleum Corp. oil refinery c. 1980. City of Paramount.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 49 Paramount Petroleum Corp. Refinery, 1994. Los Angeles Times.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 50 CITY OF PARAMOUNT, 2000-PRESENT
In the 21st century, the City of Paramount continues to grow and change. As of 2020, 82 percent of Paramount’s more than 51,000 residents are Hispanic and about 36 percent are foreign-born, according to census data. Its median household income is $70,900. 161 Development continues in the residential, commercial, civic, and industrial sectors. The “Pitch in Paramount” programs of the early 21st century leveraged City funds and local nonprofit organizations to continue beautification efforts through the addition of picket fences, house painting, and physical improvements at no cost to residents. Developers are required to donate a percentage of their project costs to the public art fund, continuing that important civic program. The result has been a new sense of pride among the residents of Paramount. In 2007, the City scored the secondlargest gain in property values (17.2%) of any city in Los Angeles County. 162 Despite some challenges in the mid-2010s, by the 2020s, Paramount is again making headlines as an improving and attractive city. According to the Los Angeles Times in 2025:

In recent years, Paramount has been revitalized as the children of immigrants have sought out more affordable homes and opened businesses. Now, young people catch up over elaborate horchata and coffee concoctions at Horchateria Rio Luna and belt their favorite songs during karaoke nights at Casa Adelita. 163 In 2025, City Journal listed Paramount as one of the cities in Southern Los Angeles “making a comeback.” According to the article:

Today, walking along Paramount Boulevard, one sees not broken-down storefronts but a thriving downtown, full of attractive restaurants and shops. The city has adopted a “broken windows” approach to policing. While crime rates remain above average for the state, they have been trending down. Homicides, down two-thirds from 1990s levels, are well below the L.A. city average and almost half of those in nearby South L.A. neighborhoods. Paramount has also gotten its city finances on a more solid footing than those of its peers. Whereas L.A. was flirting with huge deficits even before the wildfires, Paramount maintained budget surpluses over the past decade.

Perhaps even more remarkable, one sees no signs of the homelessness, graffiti, and urban disorder that’s so common throughout Southern California—a remarkable shift from conditions just a decade or two ago. Much of Paramount’s relative success comes from paying attention to little things. The city has focused on parks, urban space, and landscaping, helping local neighborhoods improve their look by subsidizing flower beds and white picket fences to improve the curb appeal of homes.
161 U.S., Census, “Paramount,” 2020. 162 “Paramount Likes its Picket-Fence Image,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2007, B3. 163 Jill Cowan, “Paramount, Where Protests Erupted, has a Large Hispanic Population,” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2025.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 51 Much of this success stems from the city’s strong community spirit and close collaboration between local government, businesses, and schools... Paramount’s tight-knit community—now increasingly led by young families, many of them homeowners or aspiring to be—has driven its turnaround. 164 In 2025, the City made national headlines when residents collectively resisted raids by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. According to Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martinez as recorded in the Los Angeles Times, Paramount was “full of working-class Latinos that were able to have a piece of the middle class… like [a] Latino suburb.” 165 Paramount residents protested targeted immigration raids near the Home Depot. Law enforcement officers used flash-bang grenades and fired rubber bullets at demonstrators.

One overriding theme in interviews with longtime Paramount residents is the City’s dedication to its residents. As recalled by Dr. Linda Timmons:

One thing about Paramount that I don't see in any other city is the camaraderie that they have with the citizens. They really work hard to make sure citizens are happy as much as possible…Our public safety has a neighborhood watch community, which I'm a part of. We come together and we talk about our city and how we can improve and what needs to happen. And I think that Paramount is one of the few cities that makes a big difference. My own experience is that they know you by name. And that's important. It's important to me. 166 Pastor Grady Jones of the Emmanuel Church notes:

The City [has] been there for us. They've been there for us. I can't claim Paramount is a hidden city in this sense. It's not known public for crazy stuff, but as a city full of compassion. Administrators of the city are full of compassion. They have built this city from where [it] used to be to where it is today. And again, I've seen how they work through the community, how they invest in the community, invest in the people in community, and everything I've asked for is helped. 167 Gloria Gamino, business owner and Director of the Paramount Chamber of Commerce, states:
[The City] caters to the people and helps them a lot, helps us a lot… we never felt that we were alone. I think the City of Paramount is united, and all the people here have been… very helpful. I'm very grateful and very lucky to be in a city like Paramount. 168
Today, the City of Paramount continues to be a “safe, healthy, and attractive” city that prioritizes its residents and strives to improve with every passing year. 164 Joel Kotkin and M. Andrew Moshier, “In Southern L.A., These Cities Are Making a Comeback,” March 6, 2025, City Journal. 165 Jill Cowan, “Paramount, Where Protests Erupted, has a Large Hispanic Population,” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2025. 166 Interview with Dr. Linda Timmons by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 167 Interview with Pastor Grady Jones by Emi Takahara. December 18, 2025. On file with Historic Resources Group. 168 Interview with Gloria Gamino by Emi Takahara. January 6, 2026. On file with Historic Resources Group.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 52

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Emily. “City Goes After Gang Members on Top 25 List.” Los Angeles Times. January 6, 1994.

Alfred Gobar Associates, Inc. “Community Economic Profile: City of Paramount.” Prepared for the City of Paramount. October 1981.

Canary, Peyton. “Bond Sale Funds Renewal Project.” Los Angeles Times. May 8, 1975.

City of Paramount. Building and Safety Division of the Planning Department. Building Permit Records (various).

City of Paramount. The Revitalization of Paramount. City of Paramount, 2007.

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Land Records Information. Accessed November 2025. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/TractMaps.aspx.

Cowan, Jill. “Paramount, Where Protests Erupted, has a Large Hispanic Population.” Los Angeles Times. June 8, 2025.

Estrada, Gilbert. “The 710 Long Beach Freeway: A History of America's Most Important Freeway.” PBS SoCal. February 12, 2014.

Farris, Gerald. “The P in ‘Public Works” Stands for Posh.” Los Angeles Times. January 25, 1979.

Harris, Lee. “Educators Say Kids are Learning to Say No to Gangs.” Los Angeles Times, November 29, 1984
Helfand, Duke and Psyche Pascual. “District’s Future Rides on Bond Decision.” Los Angeles Times. January 1, 1995.

Hillyard, Ethel. Fiestas, Farms and Freeways: A History of Paramount. Paramount, CA: Chamber of Commerce, 1970.
___. The Story of Paramount. Paramount, CA: The Paramount Journal, 1988.

Historical Independent. Newspapers.com.

Historical Los Angeles Times, 1881-1987. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Accessed December 2025 and January 2026. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb.

Historical Press-Telegram. Newspapers.com.

Korber, Dorothy. “Paramount Sets Sale of Bonds.” Independent. March 4, 1977.

Kotkin, Joel and M. Andrew Moshier. “In Southern L.A., These Cities Are Making a Comeback.” March 6, 2025. City Journal.

McKown, Mike. Progress in Paramount Facebook page. Various.

Newspapers.com. Various articles.

Paramount High School. Paramount High School Yearbook. Various years.

U. S. Department of the Interior. Social and Economic Statistics Administration. Bureau of the Census. 1960 Census of Population and Housing: Census Tracts Los Angeles-Long Beach, California.

Historic Resources Group City of Paramount Historic Context Statement Update 53 U. S. Department of the Interior. Social and Economic Statistics Administration. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census of Population and Housing: Census Tracts Los Angeles-Long Beach, California.
___. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, by the staff of the National Register of Historic Places, finalized by Patrick W. Andrus, and edited by Rebecca H. Shrimpton. Washington, DC: 1990; revised for Internet, 2002. Accessed October 2025.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. ___. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Nomination Form. Washington, DC: 1997. Accessed October 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf ___. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, DC: 1991, revised 1999.

Accessed October 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16BComplete.pdf Wisley & Ham. “City of Paramount General Plan.” 1973.

Wong, Art. “Refinery’s New Life Stymies Paramount Plans.” Press-Telegram. November 14, 1988.

APPENDIX A. INTERVIEWEE BIOGRAPHIES
Alcaraz, Manuel “Manny”
Title: Co-founder, Zoot Suit Riots Memorial Cruise
Born on December 24, 1948, in Mexicali, Mexico, Manuel Alcaraz moved with his family to Chino, CA shortly thereafter. At age nine, he relocated to Paramount, where he attended Lincoln Elementary and Wesley Gaines Elementary, followed by Paramount Junior High. He graduated from Paramount High School in 1967. During the Vietnam War, Alcaraz served in the U.S. Navy and was a member of a touring Navy basketball team that traveled throughout the American South. He later settled in Downey and then Norwalk. Alcaraz worked as an order picker for both the Sinclair and Glidden paint companies for a total of 36 years, retiring in 2010. In 2017, Alcaraz co-founded the Zoot Suit Riots Memorial Cruise to raise awareness of the 1943 Zoot Suit Riots and to celebrate Mexican American heritage. He currently lives in Paramount.

Exiga, Augustin “Gus”
Title: Owner, Gus’s Deli BBQ and Grill
Augustin “Gus” Exiga was born in Mexico in 1963 and moved with his family to Paramount in 1975. He graduated from Paramount High School in 1982 and, while still a student, began working at Eastern Provisions butcher shop in Paramount cleaning equipment. He continued working at the deli throughout college and, after graduating, chose to remain with the business. In 1999, Exiga purchased the shop from its owner and later renamed it Gus’s Deli BBQ and Grill as he expanded into barbecuing and smoking meats. The deli became a community gathering place, known for hosting weekly car shows and fundraising events for local youth soccer teams. After 45 years with the business, Gus retired in 2025.

Gamino, Gloria
Title: Owner/Manager, Casa Gamino Restaurant; Board or Directors, Paramount Chamber of Commerce
Gloria Gamino was born in Guatemala in 1954 and moved to Paramount at age 15 to join her mother. She attended Paramount High School and, in 1972, began working at the Casa Gamino restaurant while also studying at Cerritos College. She later married the restaurant’s owner, and together they expanded the business, opening seven Casa Gamino locations throughout the South Bay. Today, the original Casa Gamino in Paramount restaurant remains, serving as a longstanding community hub with employees who have worked there for decades. In addition to her work in the family business, Gamino has served for nine years on the Board of Directors of the Paramount Chamber of Commerce.

Grayson, Shirley
Title: Chair, Paramount Parks and Recreation Commission; Board Member, Stephens/T.A. Upshaw Scholarship Foundation.

Shirley Grayson was born in the mid-1940s in Natchitoches, LA, and attended Southern University in Louisiana, where she majored in Business Administration. She relocated to Los Angeles in 1965 and continued her studies at UCLA. In the mid-1970s, Grayson and her husband moved to Paramount. Beginning her career in an entry-level position at the Knudsen Corporation, she advanced to become Director of Sales and Marketing Accounting. She later served as head of Business Analysis, Operations, Forecasting, and Sales Reporting at Kraft General Foods, and then as Vice President and Controller of West Pico Foods and, subsequently, Controller for Cedar Lane Natural Foods. After four decades in finance, she retired in 2012. Grayson currently serves as Chair of the Paramount Parks and Recreation Commission and as a board member of the Stephens/T.A. Upshaw Scholarship Foundation.

Hofmeyer, Daryl
Title: Former Mayor, Paramount, 2006, 2011, 2016; Former owner, Romberg Milling Daryl Hofmeyer was born in Iowa in 1938 and moved to California after serving in the U.S.

Marines. In 1960, he and his wife settled in Paramount, where his uncle owned Romberg Milling, a company that produced dairy feed. Hofmeyer began his career unloading bales of hay and eventually purchased the business, expanding it into horse feed and hay brokering and becoming a pioneer in the manufacturing of alfalfa hay cubes in California. Beginning in 1985, he became involved in the Paramount community, serving on the City’s Water Board as well as the Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Planning Commissions. Elected to the City Council in 2003, Hofmeyer served three terms as Mayor where he helped launch the Paramount Education Partnership (PEP) scholarships, which promotes continuing education and economic opportunity for residents. In 2024, he passed Romberg Milling to his grandson.

Jones, Grady
Title: Pastor, New Commandment Missionary Baptist Church; Former Safety Director, Robert Shaw Controls
Pastor Grady Jones, born in 1943 in Little Rock, Arkansas, moved to Compton, CA, in 1969 and settled in Paramount in 1975 with his family. Jones served for 22 years as Director of Safety for Robert Shaw Controls. He began to help pastor at the New Commandment Missionary Baptist Church, and in 1991 he became the pastor of the church. Jones founded and now serves as President of the Unity in the Community committee, a group which fosters inclusivity and strengthens relationships between residents and law enforcement. In partnership with the Paramount City Council, he has organized health fairs and toy drives for decades. In recognition of his longstanding service, Pastor Jones received the Mayor’s Gold Key Award in 2025.

Lemons, Peggy
Title: Mayor, Paramount, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2025 Peggy Lemons was born in 1955 in South Gate, California, and raised in Paramount, where she attended Roosevelt Elementary School and Paramount High School. A Paramount homeowner since 1976, she has served on the Paramount City Council since 1997 and has served multiple terms as Mayor. Mayor Lemons is the founder of the Paramount Education Partnership (PEP) and the Pennies for PEP Scholarship Program, which has raised over $2 million for student scholarships, and she introduced the Boulevard of Scholars program to recognize student achievement. Mayor Lemons served more than 25 years as Executive Director of the Paramount Chamber of Commerce and founded the Paramount Pulse Beat community newspaper to promote local businesses and community news. A former Public Safety Commissioner, she was recognized by the California State Legislature as Public Safety Person of the Year and has received the Soroptimist Woman of Distinction Award and the Rotary Club’s Paul Harris Award. As of 2026, she continues to serve on several regional and local committees, including the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority Board, the Tri-City Public Safety Joint Powers Authority, and various City ad hoc committees focused on community beautification and addressing homelessness.

Martinez, Dr. Max
Title: Dentist/Owner, Dental Plus of Paramount; Treasurer, Paramount Education Partnership Dr. Max B. Martinez, born in Long Beach, CA in 1955, is a graduate of Paramount High School, Class of 1973. He earned his Doctorate in Dental Surgery from Georgetown University in 1984 and opened his private practice in 1988. Dr. Martinez has received fellowships from the Academy of General Dentistry, the American College of Dentists, the International College of Dentists, and the Pierre Fauchard Academy, and in 2018 was honored with the Distinguished Alumni Award from CSU Long Beach. His other awards include the Paramount Mayor’s Award, Chamber Business of the Year, and Paramount’s Most Beautiful Business Award. He is currently the President of the Board of Directors of the California Dental Association. Dr.

Martinez has held longstanding leadership roles with the Paramount Chamber of Commerce and is a founding board member of Paramount Education Partnership (PEP), helping secure more than $1.8 million in scholarships for local students. His service also includes extensive volunteer dental care for underserved communities and decades of civic and youth involvement.

McKown, Mike
Title: Director, Project Hope, Paramount Care Foundation; Historian, Paramount Historical Society; Founder, “Pitch In, Paramount”
Michael McKown was born in Inglewood, California, in 1956 and moved with his family to Paramount in 1959. He attended Lincoln Elementary and Alondra Junior High before graduating from Paramount High School in 1975. After graduating from college in 1979, McKown went on to own and operate a combined pet store and dog grooming business in Downey for 22 years, closing it in 2008. Beginning in 2010, he was a leader of “Pitch In, Paramount,” a biannual volunteer neighborhood clean-up initiative, for which he received recognition from the Paramount Mayor in 2017. In 2011, McKown began working with Project Hope, a faith-based nonprofit that operates a food bank and conducts community outreach; he currently serves as its director. McKown is also co-founder and historian of the Paramount Historical Society.

Timmons, Dr. Linda
Title: CEO, Advocates for Family Unity; Chair, Paramount Planning Commission Dr. Linda Timmons was born in 1950, was predominantly raised in Compton, and moved to Paramount in 1975. Linda Timmons was the first African American student to attend Paul Revere Junior High School in Brentwood and the first African American to attend Palisades High School. Timmons put herself through college, attending Cal State LA and the University of Phoenix. Timmons was employed with the City of Compton for over 34 years, beginning as a clerk and rising to become the Special Assistant to the City Manager before retiring in 2005.

She returned to school and obtained her Doctorate Degree in Psychological Therapy in 2008 and founded Advocates for Family Unity. Dr. Timmons has demonstrated a lifelong dedication to uplifting others and making a meaningful difference in communities near and far. In addition to her professional work, Dr. Timmons has been deeply committed to humanitarian service and missionary outreach which led her to participate in missionary efforts in other countries including China, Egypt, Africa, and Haiti. In the aftermath of the devastating Hurricane Katrina in 2005, she volunteered her time and energy with the American Red Cross and received formal recognition from the City of Paramount and the Red Cross. Dr. Timmons served as a Public Works Commissioner from 2016 to 2023, was appointed to the Planning Commission in 2023, and has been an Ambassador for the Chamber of Commerce for over 15 years. Dr. Timmons founded the Women’s Empowerment Tea, an initiative to uplift and mentor young women by providing guidance, and positive role models.

West, Pat
Title: Former City Manager, Cities of Paramount and Long Beach; Founder, Pat West LLC Pat West was born in Inglewood, California, in 1954 and moved to Paramount in 1979. He began his career with Paramount in 1980 as Leisure Activities Superintendent. He later served as Parks and Recreation Director, where he led the Alternatives to Gang Membership Program, an initiative through which City staff educated fifth-grade students about the dangers of gang involvement. West was appointed City Manager in 1994 and oversaw community-focused initiatives including “Let’s Get Paramount Neighborhoods Looking Good,” in partnership with the Public Works Department and Emmanuel Reformed Church, as well as the White Picket Fence and Pocket Park programs—all aimed at strengthening neighborhood pride and civic engagement. In 2005, he became Community Redevelopment Director for the City of Long Beach and, in 2007, was appointed City Manager. West retired in 2019 from the City of Long Beach and now works as a consultant.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: John King, AICP, Planning and Building
Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OVERVIEW
On March 11, 2025, the City Council considered a citywide Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey. Based on feedback from the City Council, the Historic Context Statement was updated and finalized soon thereafter. The Historic Resources Survey identified 106 individual properties in Paramount that appear eligible for local historic designation should the City Council adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance.

On April 14, 2025, the Executive Board of the Paramount Historical Society agreed to support the development of possible Historic Preservation Ordinance. On April 28, 2025, the General Membership of the Paramount Historical Society voiced their support for a possible Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Earlier this evening, the City Council considered and provided feedback for a draft Historic Context Statement Update for the period from 1970 to 1999.

Planning and Building Department staff will provide an overview of historic preservation ordinances and their purpose. As described by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, “a historic preservation ordinance is a local government statute designed to protect, enhance, and preserve a community's historically significant buildings, structures, sites, and districts.”
With City Council consensus at the conclusion of the presentation, a senior preservation planner with the historic resources consultant will offer a more detailed introduction to historic preservation ordinances at an upcoming City Council meeting.

To: Honorable City Council
From: John Moreno, City Manager
By: John King, AICP, Planning and Building
Director
Date: April 28, 2026
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT, APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 41, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 (INITIATIVE REGULATING DENSITY) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE PARAMOUNT MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 22 OF
THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM BY CLARIFYING THE

APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSITION FF AND MAKING A FINDING OF

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT

BACKGROUND
This item is a request to approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) No. 41, adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 17.20 (Initiative Regulating Density) of the Paramount Municipal Code to implement Program 22 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Program by clarifying the applicability of Proposition FF of 1988 consistent with the requirements of State housing law and the City’s adopted Housing Element.

On November 8, 1988, following the submittal of a qualified initiative petition to the City Council, the Paramount electorate voted in a Special Municipal Election to approve Proposition FF to limit residential development (except for senior housing) to 22 homes per acre.

The Housing Element is one of the elements that the State of California requires cities to include in their General Plans. California law requires that all jurisdictions update the Housing Element in eight-year cycles, and for the period between October 2021 and October 2029 known as the “6th Cycle”, the City was required to plan for 364 new housing units.

During the development of 6th Cycle Housing Element, California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff guided the City on requirements to obtain Housing Element certification. One such requirement was the inclusion of a program clarifying the limited applicability of Proposition FF “either through the adoption of a resolution or other binding commitment.” In 2022, the City Council adopted the Housing Element with the inclusion of “Program 22” regarding the enforcement of Proposition FF.

Later the same year, HCD certified the Housing Element.

Agenda Report April 28, 2026
ORDINANCE NO. 1217 Page 2
Specifically, the proposed ordinance would exempt housing development projects from the density limit adopted by Proposition FF if the project is listed on the Housing Element’s “sites inventory,” which is governed by a “default density” of 30 units per acre. Because the default density applicable to the City of Paramount exceeds the maximum density outlined in Proposition FF, the later proposition is unenforceable under State housing law.

As a brief overview, California Government Code Section 65583.2(a), which governs the preparation of housing elements, provides that the City’s housing element must include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development . . . that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels . . . .” Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), the City’s Housing Element relied upon the default density appropriate to accommodate housing for lower incomes, which is 30 units per acre within the City. With limited exceptions, the City must ensure its zoning is consistent with the zoning program outlined in the adopted (and certified) Housing Element.

Staff believes this approach harmonizes the requirements of State housing law, the adopted Housing Element, and the voters’ intent under Proposition FF.

The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommends approval.

On April 1, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 26:012, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment No. 41.

DISCUSSION
Since HCD detailed State concerns about limiting housing density to 22 housing units per acre, the City has adopted and proposed changes to land use plans and the Municipal Code to comply with State mandates. Examples include the North Paramount Gateway Specific Plan, the Clearwater Specific Plan, and updating the Municipal Code to allow housing up to 30 units per acre in certain commercial areas in accordance with State law.

The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would update two subsections of the Zoning Code to formally clarify the applicability of Proposition FF of 1988 by operation of law and satisfy HCD’s concerns.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

VISION, MISSION, VALUES, AND STRATEGIC OUTCOMES
The City’s Vision, Mission, and Values set the standard for the organization, establish priorities, uniformity, and guidelines; and provide the framework for policy decisionmaking. The Strategic Outcomes were implemented to provide a pathway to Agenda Report April 28, 2026
ORDINANCE NO. 1217 Page 3
achieving the City’s Vision. This item aligns with Strategic Outcome No. 6: Efficient, Effective, and Fiscally Responsible - Deliver an efficient and effective City government in a fiscally responsible, transparent and collaborative manner.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Read by title only, waive further reading, introduce Ordinance No. 1217, and place it on the May 12, 2026 agenda for adoption.

CITY OF PARAMOUNT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 1217

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PARAMOUNT, APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
NO. 41, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 (INITIATIVE REGULATING
DENSITY) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE PARAMOUNT MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 22 OF THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING

ELEMENT PROGRAM BY CLARIFYING THE APPLICABILITY OF

PROPOSITION FF AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Purpose and Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, enables the City of Paramount (“the City”) to enact local planning and land use regulations; and B. The authority to adopt and enforce zoning regulations is an exercise of the City’s police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and C. On March 2, 2022, the City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element covering the planning period between October 2021 through October 2029; and
D. Government Code Section 65583.2(a), which governs the preparation of housing elements, provides that the City’s housing element must include an “inventory of land suitable for residential development . . . that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels . . . .”; and
E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), the City’s Housing Element relied upon the default density appropriate to accommodate housing for lower incomes, which is 30 units per acre within the City; and F. The City is currently engaged in a program to implement the Housing Element’s programs; and
G. One such program, Program 22, requires the City to clarify that Proposition FF is inapplicable to certain types of residential development either through the adoption of a resolution or other binding commitment; and ORDINANCE NO. 1217

Page 2 ends

Paramount City CouncilApril 28, 2026

Paramount City Council
April 28, 2026