09-28-2020_CCAgenda Packet1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
AGENDA
Regular Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, September 28, 2020
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
7:00 PM
This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on
March 17, 2020. All Councilmembers will participate by teleconference.
Public Participation: The meeting agenda is available on the City’s website. A live audio of the City
Council meeting will be available on the City’s website. Both the agenda and the live audio can be
found here: https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Members of the public may observe and orally participate in the meeting via Zoom and or submit
written comments in real-time by emailing the City Clerk’s office at cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your
comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please
do not provide any other personal information that you do not want to be published.
Zoom access:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87227175757?pwd=Vz NES3Q2NFp rRk5BRmdUSktW b 0h mU T09 Or
dial (669) 900-9128, meeting ID: 872 2717
5757, passcode: 780609
Audio recordings to all the City Council meetings can be found
here:https://cms5.revize.com/revize/rollinghillsca/government/agenda/index.php.
While on this page, locate the meeting date of interest then click on AUDIO. Another window will
appear. In the new window, you can select the agenda item of interest and listen to the audio by hitting
the play button. Written Action Minutes to the City Council meetings can be found in the AGENDA,
typically under Item 4A Minutes. Please contact the City Clerk at 310 377-1521 or email at
cityclerk@cityofrh.net for assistance.
Next Resolution No. 1264 Next Ordinance No.
365
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1
3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on
the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will
take place on any items not on the agenda.
4.CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
4.A.MINUTES: 1) REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2020; 2) REGULAR
MEETING OF JUNE 11, 2018; AND 3) REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 25, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
4.B.PAYMENT OF BILLS.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
4.C.REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR AUGUST 2020.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
4.D.CALIFORNIA JPIA: 2020 ANNUAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING VOTING
DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM.
RECOMMENDATION: Designate one voting delegate and at least one alternate as
presented.
4.E.CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR WEB DEVELOPER REVIZE, TO ADD ONLINE
FORMS APPLICATION TO CITY’S WEBSITE.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
5.COMMISSION ITEMS
NONE.
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE.
7.OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
8.NEW BUSINESS
09-14-20-CCMinutes v3.docx
06-11-18CCDraftMinutes_v8.docx
06-25-18CCDraftMinutes.v5.docx
Payment of Bills.pdf
08.20 - Rolling Hills Tonnage.pdf
Certification of Agency Voting Delegate Form 2020 FINAL.pdf
Amendment to Agreement with Revize-c1_RH.pdf
Proposal Revize Custom Website City of Rolling Hills CA 200917.pdf
REVIZE Agreement4.16.19.pdf
2
8.A.REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 1263 TO ACCEPT STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
AND RECREATION PER CAPITA PROGRAM ALLOCATION AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) receive a presentation from staff on
Proposition 68 Per Capita Program, (2) review Resolution No. 1263 as required by the
Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS); and (3) provide direction to staff.
8.B.RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION ON REQUIREMENTS OF THE DRAFT
NEW MS4 PERMIT; CONSIDER THE EVALUATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS BY
MCGOWN CONSULTING; AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON
PARTICIPATING IN THE PENINSULA ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (EWMP).
R E COM M EN D ATIO N : Staff recommends that the City Council (1) receive a
presentation on the draft new MS4 permit requirements; (2) consider the pros and
cons on possible city actions evaluated by McGown Consulting, and (3) provide
direction to staff.
9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
10.MATTERS FROM STAFF
10.A.RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON SCHOETTLE’S ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PROJECT TO UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
10.B.PRESENTATION ON NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS: ALERT SOUTHBAY AND E-NOTIFY.
RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVE AND FILE.
11.CLOSED SESSION
1263_Resolution RE Acceptance of Prop 68 Funds-c1_RH.docx
AllocationTable_Guide_accessible.pdf
Per_Cap_FAQs20200701.pdf
Per Capita 101.pdf
Sample_Grant_Contract_Per_Capita_Program_Procedural_Guide_Sept_2020_9.1.20.pdf
Sample_Deed_Restrictions_Per_Capita_Program_Procedural_Guide_Sept_2020_9.1.20-
2.pdf
AgendaSpecialJulyBoardMeeting.pdf
LARWQCB_SpecialMeeting_2020-07-02_w_20-07-09_Item14.pdf
LARWQCB_Meeting_Summary _2020-09-10 - Peninsula.pdf
WMP_Decision_2020.09.28(draft2).pptx
RH_WMP_Decision_memo_2020-09-24.pdf
Final Alert Southbay Tri-Fold Brochure MB.pdf
3
12.ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. via City's website's link at
https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php
Zoom access:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87227175757?pwd=VzNES3Q2NFprRk5BRmdUSktWb0hmUT09
Or dial (669) 900-9128, meeting ID: 872 2717 5757, passcode: 780609
Notice:
Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City
Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting
due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and
attendance at this meeting.
4
Agenda Item No.: 4.A
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CONNIE VIRAMONTES , ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:M I N U T E S : 1) REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2020; 2)
REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 11, 2018; AND 3) REGULAR MEETING
OF JUNE 25, 2018.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
NONE.
DISCUSSION:
NONE.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
NONE.
ATTACHMENTS:
09-14-20-CCMinutes v3.docx
06-11-18CCDraftMinutes_v8.docx
06-25-18CCDraftMinutes.v5.docx
5
Agenda Item No. 4-A (1)
Meeting Date: 09/28/20
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
1.CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills met in a regular meeting via Zoom
Teleconference on the above date at 7:00 p.m. via teleconference.
Mayor Pieper presiding.
2.ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
Absent: None
Staff Present:Elaine Jeng, City Manager
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Meredith Elguira, Planning & Community Services Director
Maria Quinonez, Interim City Clerk
3.OPEN AGENDA -PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Resident Alfred Visco expressed disappointment that his request was not on the agenda.
Resident Gene Honbo commented on the hardening home inspections that took place
recently included City Hall and the Home Owners Association. He also noted that two other
inspections are planned in the next month.
4.CONSENT CALENDAR
4.A. MINUTES: 1) REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 13, 2020; 2) REGULAR
MEETING OF JULY 27, 2020; 3) REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 10,
2020; AND 4) REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2020.
MOTION:It was moved by Councilmember Wilson and seconded by Council Member
Mirsh to approve meeting minutes as presented.
6
2
Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 @BCL@780E2628.docx1
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Wilson, and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black, Dieringer
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
4.B. PAYMENT OF BILLS.
ITEM 4.B. APPROVED BY CONSENT CALENDAR VOTE.
MOTION:It was moved by Councilmember Black and seconded by Council Member
Wilson to approve the Consent Calendar item 4.B as presented.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5.COMMISSION ITEMS
NONE.
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE.
7.OLD BUSINESS
7.A CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1262 EXPRESSING
OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED PLANNING AND ZONING
LEGISLATION THAT USURPS LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPOSES
UNFUNDED MANDATES, AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR ACTION
TO FURTHER STRENGTH LOCAL DEMOCRACY, AUTHORITY AND
CONTROL.
MOTION:It was moved by Council Member Mirsch and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Dieringer to approve as presented.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7.B. RECEIVE AND FILE ALTERNATIVE MS4 COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
FOR MACHADO LAKE NUTRIENT TMDL AND APPROVE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH NV5 TO PROVIDE
7
3
Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020 @BCL@780E2628.docx1
OUTFALL MONITORING AT A NEW LOCATION IN THE
SEPULVEDA CANYON FOR ONE SEASON.
MOTION:It was moved by Council Member Mirsch and seconded by Councilmember
Wilson to consider an alternative compliance strategy and approve engage the services of NV5 to
monitor at new outfall location in the Sepulveda Canyon for one season.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7.C.CONSIDER AND APPROVE AN ON-CALL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST,
ELLIS ENVIRONMENTAL, IN THE EVENT OF A POSITIVE COVID-19
CASE AT CITY HALL, TO VALIDATE THAT CLEANING PROTOCOLS
WERE IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY.
MOTION:It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and seconded by Councilmember
Mirsch to table this item pending input from the Department of Public Health.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
8.NEW BUSINESS
8.A. DISCUSS 2020 ANNUAL HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE.
MOTION:It was moved by Councilmember Black and seconded by Council Member Mirsch to
cancel the 2020 Annual Holiday Open House and reconsider in the spring.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
8.B.DESIGNATE VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE OCTOBER 7-8, 2020 TO BE
HELD VIRTUALLY; AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO DESIGNATED
VOTING DELEGATE ON LEAGUE'S 2020 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
RESOLUTION PACKET.
MOTION:It was moved by Councilmember Black and seconded by Council Member Mirsch to
(1) designate Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer as the voting delegate; (2) designate Councilmember Wilson as
the alternate voting delegate; (3) trust the voting delegate to make the appropriate decision on behalf of
8
4
Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020
the city on the proposed resolution; (4) and direct staff to complete the Voting Delegate form and submit
the form to the California League of Cities.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
8.C. CONSIDER AND APPROVE AN AMENDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT WITH ALAN PALERMO FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021.
MOTION:It was moved by Councilmember Mirsch and seconded by Councilmember Wilson to
approve an amendment to the professional services agreement with Alan Palermo Consulting for project
management services for Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
8.D RECEIVE AND FILE A CALENDAR OF EVENTS FOR RESUBMITTING THE
5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR CERTIFICATION.
MOTION:It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and seconded by Mayor Pieper to receive and
file the calendar of events.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Black, Wilson, Dieringer and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
9.A.DISCUSS ACTION MINUTES AS THE OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES. (PIEPER)
MOTION:It was moved by Councilmember Mirsch and seconded by Council Member Wilson to
approve action style minutes with public comment to list the speaker name, overall topic and stance or
position.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Wilson, and Mayor Pieper
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black, Dieringer
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9
5
Minutes
City Council Regular Meeting
September 14, 2020
9.B. DISCUSS IGNITABLE DEVICES. (BLACK)
City Attorney suggested to look into banning smoking outdoors. Councilmember Black
supported the suggestion. Mayor Pieper added that the item will be discussed at a future
meeting when the City Attorney has an opportunity to review the item.
9.C. OTHER – ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Councilmember Black asked to agendize Mr. Visco’s request to talk about enforcement of
the fire code.
10.MATTERS FROM STAFF
10.A. LOCAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING GRANT (LEAP) GRANT UPDATE.
Staff announced that the City of Rolling Hills has been approved for funding under the Local
Early Action Planning Grants (LEAP Program). The City received the maximum award of
$65,000 to fund services and activities relating to the Housing Element update.
11.CLOSED SESSION
NONE.
12.ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at
9:05 p.m. in honor of the two Sheriff Officers shot and also in support of Law Enforcement.
Next regular meeting: Monday, September 28, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, 90274.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
Elaine Jeng, P.E.
Acting City Clerk
Approved,
______________________________________
Jeff Pieper
Mayor
10
-1-
Agenda Item No. 4-A (2)
Meeting Date: 09/28/20
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2018
1.CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor
Wilson at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California.
2.ROLL CALL
Councilmember’s Present:Dieringer, Mirsch and Mayor Wilson.
Councilmembers Absent:Black and Pieper.
Others Present:Yolanta Schwartz, Interim City Manager.
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney.
Julia Stewart, Acting Planning Director.
Yvette Hall, City Clerk.
Jim Walker, Budget Consultant.
Terry Shea, Finance Director.
J. Lopez, LA County Fire Prevention Bureau.
Assistant Chief Hale, LA County Fire Department.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road.
3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented on Consent Calendar Item No. F -City Council Dead
Vegetation Enforcement Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting Notes of May 21, 2018. She questioned
the enforcement of the dead vegetation removal ordinance. She also opposed the City’s enforcement of
the dead vegetation removal and expressed this matter should be imposed by the Fire Department.
Mayor Wilson informed Ms. Schoettle that the enforcement of dead vegetation by the Fire Department
was only up to 200-foot distance from structures. He clarified that the proposed dead vegetation item
discussed on this evening’s agenda was part of a multi-pronged approach to address the reduction of fire
fuel sources on the entire property.
Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road, stated he was a retired attorney and a board member of a property
owner’s association in Temecula. He also owns an avocado grove and lemon grove. In 2007, half of his
avocado grove was burned down due to arson on an adjacent property. In 2009 there was a fire in Rolling
Hills in which he almost lost his home. If it was not for the deluge system, he installed in his home during
11
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -2-
his remodel he would have lost his home. He continued by stating fire was an on-going issue with his
Temecula property, especially because they have numerous vacant properties, but they are very proactive
about fire prevention. His purpose for coming before the City Council was twofold: 1) to urge the
Council to enforce the code as it was written 2) to urge the City to get the canyons under control,
especially in the Rancho Palos Verdes and Land Conservancy properties. He also suggested the Council
coordinate with the Homeowner’sAssociation to see if their CC&R’s can help with enforcement efforts.
Mayor Wilson thanked Mr. Visco for his comments and closed the public comment.
4.CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may
request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council
Actions.
A.Minutes – Regular Meeting of April 23, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
B.Payment of Bills.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
C.Financial Statement for the Month of April 2018.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
D.Republic Services Recycling Tonnage Report for April 2018.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
E.City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee Meeting Notes of May 21, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
F.City Council Dead Vegetation Enforcement Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting Notes of May
21, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file.
G.Biennial Review of the City of Rolling Hills Conflict of Interest Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
Mayor Pro Tem Mirsch moved that the City Council approve Consent Items as presented.
Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion and the motion carried without objection.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
5.COMMISSION ITEMS
NONE.
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1222 ADOPTING THE 2018/19 FISCAL
YEAR BUDGET AND RESOLUTION NO. 1223 ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL
12
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -3-
APPROPRIATIONS GANN LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS.
AND CONSIDERATION OF:
(1) RESOLUTION NO. 1222: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ADOPTING THE FY 2018-19 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
BUDGET INCLUDING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON: GENERAL FUND;
COMMUNITY FACILITIES FUND; MUNICIPAL SELF INSURANCE FUND;
REFUSE COLLECTION FUND; SOLID WASTE CHARGES; TRAFFIC SAFETY
FUND; TRANSIT FUND-MEASURE R; TRANSIT FUND-MEASURE M; TRANSIT
FUND-PROPOSITION A; TRANSIT FUND-PROPOSITION C; COPS AND CLEEP
FUND; UTILITY FUND; AND CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-
19; AND
(2) RESOLUTION NO. 1223: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING THE 2018-19 FISCAL YEAR GANN
APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS.
Budget Consultant Jim Walker statedthe public hearingwas for Rolling Hills Fiscal Year 2018/2019
budget. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, it was recommended that the City Council adopt the
FY 2018/19 budget for all the City’s Funds and Annual Appropriations Limit. Some of the items he
discussed were the General Fund, PARS Retirement Liability Trust, LA County Building and Safety
Permit Fees, the new lease agreement with the Rolling Hills Community Association, Cost of Living
Adjustment (COLA), Planning Department Budget, LA County Sheriff’s department contract, the
Wildlife Management Pest Control for LA County, Non-Departmental Budget, and Emergency
Preparedness.
Mayor Wilson concluded the budget discussion for the general fund expenditures and opened the
meeting for questions.
Councilmember Dieringer asked if staff identified any priorities not included in the 2018/2019 and
had several questions pertaining to the proposed budget. Budget Consultant Walker and Finance
Director Shea reassured her that there was a substantial amount of money budgeted to complete all
the projects.
Budget Consultant Walker proceeded with the some highlights of other funds, including the Traffic
Safety, the Cops Fund, the LA County Sheriff’s Department contract, supplemental traffic
enforcement proposal, Capital Project including the Utility Fund, and the ADA compliance for the
City Hall front door area.
Mayor Wilson opened the meeting for public comments. There were no public comments. The
Mayor closed the public hearing and opened it for discussion to the City Councilmembers.
Councilmember Dieringer stated that she was not in favor of some of the items discussed in the
budget and moved that the adoption of the budget should be tabled until all the Councilmembers
were present. Councilmember Dieringer also stated the budget should reflect a system of priorities
for the City Council. She also mentioned the importance of being prepared for emergencies with an
adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan and Safety Element. She expressed that these priorities would
13
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -4-
require more fundsto be added to the Community Wildfire ProtectionPlanand for coordinated effort
for Peninsula-wide emergency preparedness.
Mayor Wilson asked Interim City Manager Schwartz to address the Emergency Preparedness idea
with RPV.
Mayor Wilson reminded the Council there was a motion to table this item and asked if there was a
second.There was no second. City Attorney Jenkins stated to adopt the budget a minimum of 3 votes
is needed and with two absentees there is not enough votes to adopt the budget.
Mayor Wilson informed the Council that there was time to act on this item and it does not have to
be adopted until July 1.
Mayor Pro Tem Mirsch asked to amend her motion to table Item 6.1 to the next City Council
meeting. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objections.
Mayor Wilson also stated that Item 6.2 was related and that it will be considered in two weeks.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
7.OLD BUSINESS
A.UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY CHOICE
ENERGY (LACCE) PROGRAM (ORAL).
Mayor Wilson introduced Item 7A, the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy Program (LACCE).
Interim Planning Director Stewart stated six months ago, a presentation was made by LA County
staff regarding the creation of a Coalition of Cities focusing on alternative renewal energy sources.
At that time, the City Council decided not to join the program and asked for an update in six months.
Interim Planning Director Stewart stated that the LACCE changed their name to Clean Power
Alliance of Southern California and 30 cities joined. The CPA intended to provide services by mid-
year, but due to contractual obligations to SCE and PG&E services were delayed until the end of the
year. There were three new cities that launched the Clean Power Alliance Program: South Pasadena,
Rolling Hills Estates, and LA Unincorporated. There is an option for the City to joinlaterbut services
could be delayed for up to 2 years. The City still had the option to join CPA at this time. She
reminded the City Council this was only an update and asked if they would like her to provide
another update in 6 months.
The oral presentation was received and filed.
Councilmember Dieringer recommended considering Item 8C first before Items 8A or 8B because
14
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -5-
people in the audience were waiting to discuss Item 8C.
Mayor Wilson motioned to skip to 8C and there were no objections.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
8C (Out of Order)
8.NEW BUSINESS
C.A REPORT AND PRESENTATION FROM THE DEAD VEGETATION
ENFORCEMENT ADHOC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
Interim Planning Director Stewart stated that in November 2015 an ordinance was passed requiring
all residents to keep their properties clear of dead vegetation including dead trees. The ordinance
was enforced on a complaint basis. The Dead Vegetation Enforcement Ad Hoc Subcommittee met
in February and May of this year and discussed options for a proactive enforcement program, which
would be one part of the fire prevention plan. The program would be for immediate implementation
and mandated an annual letter to remind residents to clear dead vegetation on their lots. It required
property owners to remove all dead vegetation on their parcel including extreme slopes.
A phased process of enforcement in conjunction with efforts by the Rolling Hills Community
Association (RHCA) and Fire Department was proposed. The RHCA issued letters when staff
observed dead vegetation or a complaint was received. The residents were only informed and there
was no action taken. The proposed program was meant to be one of several approaches to fuel
abatement in the City. It was not a stand-alone initiative and would be coupled with the preparation
of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), educational programs that were already taking
place in the City, and with the preparation of the Safety Element as part of the Hazard Mitigation
Plan. She stated that as it was mentioned during the budget discussion, there were funds available
from FEMA for fuel abatement programs and projects. The Committee also discussed hiring two
part-time employees for code enforcement and forestry. The forester would advise staff whether the
vegetation is dead or dormant and the code enforcement officer would follow up on the forester
inspection and provide enforcement.
The City had a liaison with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy who was responsible for
the Portuguese Bend Reserve. Councilmember Black served on the board and submitted a request
to the Board for the removal of dead vegetation along the border of Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos
Verdes. The City could explore a long-term phase with the Land Conservancy to encourage
clearance of the dead vegetation. Grant assistance was another option for trails that needed to be
cleared for safety or transportation purposes. Staff could further conduct research the City Council
was interested in pursuing a long-term strategy for the program.
If the City Council was in favor of the proactive enforcement program, the next step would be to
approve the budget item and hire a code enforcement officer, forester, and consultant for CEQA
15
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -6-
review. Staff would need permission to enter properties and was seeking Council’s input on levels
of authorization recommended for inspections.
Councilmember Dieringer expressed concern about enforcement to the residents. Interim Planning
Director Stewart reiterated that the letters would just be a reminder to residents about the ordinance.
When the ordinance was enacted, the policy was to enforce on a complaint basis. The Ad Hoc
Subcommittee was in favor of the enforcement program, and recommended mailing the letters. The
goal was to begin on July 1st with a reminder to residents that the ordinance was enacted.
Mayor Wilson inquired if there will be a vote on this item or if it was just a report. City Attorney
Jenkins advised a vote should be taken. Mayor Wilson opened the item to the public.
Mr. Visco requested to speak; however, City Attorney Jenkins reminded the Council that Mr. Visco
already spoke on this topic at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Wilson concurred and opened it
up for discussion to the Councilmembers.
Councilmember Dieringer expressed her environmental concerns. Mayor Wilson asked if the
environmental concerns expressed by Councilmember Dieringer would be studied and addressed
during the preparation of the CWPP and if the agencies would be able to comment.
Mayor Wilson also asked if there were any neighboring cities with a similar ordinance.
Fire Department representative J. Lopez replied. He was not aware of any, but State Code only
required fuel abatement within 100 feet of structures and that is what the Fire Department
followed. There was brief discussion regarding fuel abatement in Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones (VHFHSZ) and because CalFire placed the Peninsula cities in VHFHSZ, the Peninsula
cities adopted an ordinance requiring fire fuel abatement up to 200 feet of structures and that was
the reason the Fire Department enforces the 200-foot zone.
Councilmember Dieringer asked if a CWPP plan would make the City eligible for grants.
Fire Department representative J. Lopez said that the adoption of a Hazard Mitigation Plan and
CWPP would help grant procurement because it demonstrates that the City is committed to
addressing fire fuel abatement issues.
Mayor Wilson stated that there would be no action taken on this tonight.
Mayor Wilson tabled the item until the next meeting when all councilmembers were present.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
8.NEW BUSINESS
16
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -7-
A.CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE ENERGY UPGRADE
CALIFORNIA PROGRAM TO PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1225 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION OF
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY’S JURISDICTION IN THE ENERGY
UPGRADE CALIFORNIA PROGRAM TO PROMOTE ENERGY
CONSERVATION, UTILIZE ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES, AND
REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Interim City Manager Schwartz advised Councilmember Dieringer to place this item on the agenda.
Interim City Manager Schwartz explained that the Energy Upgrade California Program promoted
energy conservation. The California Energy Commission and the CPUC educated theresidents about
rebates that were available for energy conservation products. By adopting the Resolution, the City
demonstrates support for the program and provides education to the residents about the rebates. An
adopted Resolution will allow all residents to participate in the program and provide outreach to the
community in the Blue Newsletter. There were no other costs associated with the program.
Mayor Pro Tem Mirsch inquired about the level of information and support provided to the City for
this program.
Interim City Manager Schwartz stated that the Energy Commission would provide flyers and written
information, which the staff will disseminate to the residents in the Newsletter.
Councilmember Dieringer moved to support Resolution 1225 and for the City to obtain as many
rebates as possible for the residents.Mayor Pro Tem Mirsch seconded and the motion passed without
objection.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
B.REPORT AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE EXISTING
FRANCHISE FEE REMITTED BY COX INC., AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
NO. 1224 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE EXISTING FRANCHISE FEE REMITTED BY
COX INC., DBA COX COMMUNICATIONS, LLC A DELAWARE
CORPORATION.
Interim City Manager Schwartz stated Cox Communication requested the City adopt a Resolution
reauthorizing Cox to continue collecting franchise fees from Rolling Hills residents and remit a
portion of the fees to the City. Cox was the sole franchise holder in the City of Rolling Hills. The
regulations pertaining to franchise operations had recently changed and Cox Communications was
required to reapply for their permit to continue collecting the fee. The maximum franchise fee
amount the communication company can collect was 5%. All of the agencies that authorized Cox
Communication to collect and remit was less than 5% required to adopt a Resolution. Historically,
17
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -8-
Cox remitted 2.5% of the fees to the City and 2.5% to the Rolling Hills Homeowners Association
and to continue the collection and remittance of 2.5%, both agencies were required to adopt a
Resolution to authorize the split and to certify that the ordinances reflected the amount. RHCA
readopted their License Agreement.
Councilmember Dieringer inquired if the City was eligible to receive the entire 5%. City Attorney
Jenkins stated the City was only eligible for 5%; however, it had been a long-standing practice to
share the proceeds between the City and RHCA and Cox observed this practice.
Mayor Pro Tem Mirsch moved to adopt Resolution No. 1224 reauthorizing Cox Communications to
collect and remit 2.5% of the franchise fees to the City. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the
motion, which carried without objection.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS
A.PROPOSED SUPPORT LETTER TO SUPERVISOR HAHN REGARDING
VACANCIES IN THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT.
Councilmember Dieringer stated LA County Sheriff’s Department had a shortage of deputies and
required an outreach program to recruit new deputies. The Association of Deputies Sheriff requested
the City send a letter to the the LA County Board of Supervisors in support of more personnel for
the Sheriff’s Department. In addition, to also hire experts to develop a robust advertising strategy to
recruit and retain deputies.
Councilmember Dieringer moved to send the letter. Mayor Wilson seconded the motion, which
carried without objections.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper and Black.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
10.MATTERS FROM STAFF
Interim City Manager Schwartz was asked by the Executive Director of SBCCOG, Jackie
Bacharach, for a letter of support from the City to take part in a RFP for a broadband network for
the South Bay Cities. The RFP is for fact finding and feasibility of such a network among the South
Bay Cities and a letter of support would not obligate the City to participate in the actual broadband
project. The request was included in the City Council packets several weeks ago and Interim City
Manager Schwartz inquired if the City Council would be interested in supporting this effort.
18
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-11-18 -9-
Mayor Wilson asked if a motion was needed to prepare the letter. Mayor Pro Tem Mirsch stated she
is not in favor of submitting a letter to SBCCOG. City Attorney Jenkins stated the item must be
placed on the agenda if an action is needed by the City Council.
Councilmember Dieringer motioned to put this item on the next City Council agenda.
Interim City Manager Schwartz advised the letter would need to be prepared and sent to SBCCOG
within two days because the RFP was going out in a few days.
The motion died and no action was taken.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
11.ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:00
p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, June 25,
2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________________
Elaine Jeng, P.E.
Acting City Clerk
Approved,
________________________________
Patrick Wilson
Mayor
19
-1-
Agenda Item No. 4-A (3)
Meeting Date: 09/28/20
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018
1.CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor
Wilson at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, California.
2.ROLL CALL
Councilmember’s Present:Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper and Mayor Wilson.
Councilmembers Absent:None.
Others Present:Yolanta Schwartz, Interim City Manager
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
Julia Stewart, Acting Planning Director
Yvette Hall, City Clerk
Kathleen McGowan, Hills & McGowan Consulting, LLC
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Black.
3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME
NONE.
4.CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember
may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under
Council Actions.
4E.Renewal of LA County Cultural Commission Contract
Approved as presented.
Interim City Manager Schwartz presented Consent Item 4E, the Renewal of the Los Angeles
County Cultural Commission Contract. This was an annual contract providing bee, rodent, and
abatement services to the City. The LA County Cultural Commission Contract has always been
20
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-25-18 -2-
included on the yearly budget. Mayor Wilson moved to vote on Consent Calendar. There was no
public comments regarding the Consent Calendar. Hearing no objections, Mayor Wilson so
ordered.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper, Black and Mayor Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
5.COMMISSION ITEMS
NONE.
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 1222 ADOPTING THE 2018/2019 FISCAL YEAR
BUDGET AND RESOLUTION NO. 1223 ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS GANN LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS.
Interim City Manager Schwartz presented the continued item to the City Council and stated five
councilmembers were required to participate in the discussion of the 2018-2019 budget. Mayor
Wilson stated at the last City Council meeting on June 11
th, three votes were required to pass the
budget. There were only three members present at last meeting and only two votes were in favor
to pass the budget.
Mayor Wilson addressed the members of the City Council and stated this meeting was a
continuation of the public hearing from June 11th and it was recommended the City Council to
adopt the 2018-2019 Budget. The Mayor presented the highlights of the 2018-2019 budget.
Mayor Wilson moved that the City Council vote to adopt the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year Budget,
Resolution No. 1222, and Resolution No. 1223, which carried without objection.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black, Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch and Mayor Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
Mayor Wilson presented some of the highlights of the 2018-2019 Budget, and the Budget
Highlight Exhibit was also included in the Staff Report. He said for the first-time the highlights
of General Fund Revenue projects were $2,168,950 and $2,288,150 in expenses which resulted
in a deficit of $118,200. In addition, for the first time, the property tax revenue for FY2015-2016
exceeded $1,000,000, and the budget 2017-2018 actuals will exceed $1,000,000. The 2018-2019
21
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-25-18 -3-
budget would exceed $1,000,000, which would increase the property tax revenue by $98,000.
The building permits increased by 4.2% over the last year, this included the reduction of the LA
County Building & Safety permit fee multiplier from 2.5% to 2.25%; which reduced the 2018-
2019 revenue to $48,280. On May 14
th, the City Council approved the new lease agreement with
the Rolling Hills Community Association and increased 2018-2019 revenues by net of $14,000
and Prop A exchange which will generate general fund revenues of $56,250. The City would not
pass the refuse increase to the residents and their rates will remain the same as last year. The
residents will save $28 per parcel and it will cost the City $19,372 in the refuse fund. Mayor
Wilson asked if there were any questions about the revenues. There were no questions.
The Mayor discussed the 2018-2019 Expenditures before transfers and presented the highlights
to the City Council of $159,900 higher than 2017-2018. Mayor Wilson reviewed the increases
to the 2018-2019 General Fund Budget. The budget included up to a five (5) percent salary
increase, $15,588 cost of living Co-op adjustment which is capped at three-point five (3.5)
percent and one-point five (1.5) percent; Exceptional Salary Performance Bonus Approval of
$4600 in accordance with the Personnel Manual. The General Fund Budget included the eleven
(11) month vacant City Manager position at the current bi-weekly rate; creation of a non-benefit
Planning Commission secretary and clerical help at $25,000; $10,000 in the Administration
Department, and $15,000 in the Planning Department and $2,000 additional in payroll taxes.
The benefits include a second payment of $185,000 for the contribution to CalPERS Retirement
Liability Trust for the CalPERS pension liability. The Administration included $15,700 to
purchase new equipment;under $5,000 for the City Clerk and Planning Department. The General
Fund Budget included $14,000 for a new copier, either for a lease or purchase, $27,000 for
Storage Craft, an online cloud server. Law enforcement included $11,500 for the LA County
Sheriff’s contract increase of three-point twenty-eight (3.28) percent. The P-File Control was
increased by $2,000, which brought the total to $12,000 for 2018-2019; and $5,000 was added
to the LA County Animal Control which brought the total to $10,000. Additionally, $17,000
was for the wildlife management and pest control for Los County; and $9,500 increased to
supplement the coyote control management contract. The Finance Committee left those items in
the budget and recommended the City Council discuss to keep the policies in the budget.
Mayor Wilson discussed the items that were added to the non-departmental budget and reviewed
the other funds in the budget. Mayor Wilson opened the meeting for public comments for the
budget approval.
There were no public comments.
Mayor Wilson moved that the City Council vote to adopt the budget as presented. A motion was
made to adopt the budget. The motion received a second. The budget was adopted with no
objection.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black, Dieringer, Pieper, Mirsch and Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
22
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-25-18 -4-
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
7.OLD BUSINESS
NONE.
8.NEW BUSINESS
A. REPORT AND PRESENTATION FROM DEAD VEGETATION
ENFORCEMENTAD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
This report was presented again because not all City Council members were present at the last City
Council Meeting held on June 11, 2018. Julia Stewart, Acting Planning Director, presented the
staff report to the City Council.
The Dead Vegetation Enforcement Ad Hoc Subcommittee met in February and May 2018 to
discuss options for a proactive enforcement program and fire prevention plan. If adopted, the
program would be implemented immediately, and an annual letter would be mailed out to remind
residents to clear the dead vegetation on their properties. There was an ordinance passed in 2015,
requiring all property owners to keep their properties clear of dead vegetation and trees.
The next step would be for City Council to decide on implementing a proactive program or a
complaint-based program. The Councilmembers discussed their concerns about the dead
vegetation enforcement.
Councilmember Dieringer stated this item has been on the City Council agenda several times in
the past and expressed her concerns about informing the residents regarding Dead Vegetation
Enforcement and the challenges of the geographic terrain. Councilmember Dieringer also
emphasized the importance of working with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Mayor Wilson opened the meeting for public comment and four residents made a public comment.
Mayor Wilson closed the public commentand he questionedif he should make a motion. Amotion
was not made.
After further discussion, the City Council decided on the following:
1st letter
Grant a 60-day grace period
2nd letter
Hire new personnel for $15,000
Grant an additional 60-day grace before moving aggressively
At the end of grace period, have a meeting and invite people to provide a status
report
Vote on the continuance of enforcement
23
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-25-18 -5-
Re-evaluation once the $15,000 funds have been exhausted for the personnel
Mayor Wilson moved that the City Council vote, all were in favor except Councilmember
Dieringer.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Pieper, Black, and Mayor Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Dieringer.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT
OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS AND MCGOWAN CONSULTING LLC FOR
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE
STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PERMIT.
Interim City Manager Schwartz presented the item to the City Council. Councilmember Pieper
made a motion to extend the agreement for two years and approve the professional services
agreement between the City of Rolling Hills and McGowan Consulting, LLC. The motion was
seconded, and there were no objections.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mirsch, Pieper, Black, Dieringer, and Mayor Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
C. CONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT –
TORRANCE AIRPORT STORMWATER INFILTRATION PROJECT
STAKEHOLDER GROUP – PRELIMINARY DESIGN WORK COST
SHARING AGREEMENT.
Interim City Manager Schwartz presented this item to the City Council. It was for the City to join
the other peninsula cities on the Torrance Airport Stormwater Infiltration Project. The
Memorandum of Agreement was presented to City Council and was reviewed by the City
Attorney. The City Council had a discussion about the MOU. There was a motion to pass, and a
second motion. The motion passed with no objection.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black, Mirsch Pieper, Black, Dieringer, and Mayor Wilson.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
D. CONSIDERATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RULE 20A
FUND EXCHANGE WITH THE CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES.
24
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-25-18 -6-
Interim City Manager Schwartz presented this item to the City Council. The Councilmembers
discussed the price of the poles. Councilmember Pieper stated he did not want the City to pay more
money for poles than the other cities in the area. Councilmember Pieper recommended this item
to be presented to City Council when it is ready. No was action taken.
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE
REPORTS
NONE.
10.MATTERS FROM STAFF
NONE.
11.CLOSED SESSION
A. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
APPOINTMENT TITLE: CITY MANAGER.
City Council met in closed session and no reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:04
p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, July 9,
2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, California.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
__________________________________________
ELAINE JENG, P.E.
ACTING CITY CLERK
APPROVED,
25
Minutes
City Council Meeting
06-25-18 -7-
_____________________________________
PATRIC WILSON
MAYOR
26
Agenda Item No.: 4.B
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CONNIE VIRAMONTES , ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:PAYMENT OF BILLS.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
NONE.
DISCUSSION:
NONE.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
NONE.
ATTACHMENTS:
Payment of Bills.pdf
27
28
Agenda Item No.: 4.C
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CONNIE VIRAMONTES , ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR AUGUST
2020.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
NONE.
DISCUSSION:
NONE.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
NONE.
ATTACHMENTS:
08.20 - Rolling Hills Tonnage.pdf
29
Franchise?Y
Mth/Yr Overall Commodity Tons Collected Tons Recovered Tons Disposed Diversion %
Jan-20 Trash 178.78 38.00 140.78 21.26%
Greenwaste 102.61 102.61 - 100.00%
Recycle 0.03 0.01 0.02 20.00%
Jan-20 Total 281.42 140.62 140.80 49.97%
Feb-20 Trash 159.76 32.85 126.91 20.56%
Greenwaste 95.32 95.32 - 100.00%
Recycle 2.18 0.44 1.74 20.00%
Feb-20 Total 257.26 128.61 128.65 49.99%
Mar-20 Trash 208.78 60.00 148.78 28.74%
Greenwaste 92.55 92.55 - 100.00%
Recycle 0.01 0.00 0.01 21.00%
Mar-20 Total 301.34 152.55 148.79 50.62%
Apr-20 Trash 203.94 61.02 142.92 29.92%
Greenwaste 146.90 146.90 - 100.00%
Apr-20 Total 350.84 207.92 142.92 59.26%
May-20 Trash 286.46 28.62 257.84 9.99%
Greenwaste 129.11 129.11 - 100.00%
May-20 Total 415.57 157.73 257.84 37.96%
Jun-20 Trash 279.97 108.10 171.87 38.61%
Greenwaste 95.19 95.19 - 100.00%
Jun-20 Total 375.16 203.29 171.87 54.19%
Jul-20 Trash 262.63 18.10 244.53 6.89%
Greenwaste 86.70 86.70 - 100.00%
Jul-20 Total 349.33 104.80 244.53 30.00%
Aug-20 Trash 238.25 26.63 211.62 11.18%
Greenwaste 64.07 64.07 - 100.00%
Aug-20 Total 302.32 90.70 211.62 30.00%
Grand Total 2,633.24 1,186.21 1,447.03 45.05%
1186.21
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISE
2020
Contract Requires 50% Household -
Page 1 of 2
30
Agenda Item No.: 4.D
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CONNIE VIRAMONTES , ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CALIFORNIA JPIA: 2020 ANNUAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
This is in response to the California JPIA's annual information request on the City's designated voting
delegate and alternate.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to JPIA's bylaws, each jurisdiction's governing body must designate one voting delegate and at
least one alternate. The voting delegate must be a member of the governing body.
Mayor Pro Tem Bea Dieringer is the City Council liaison to the CJPIA and served in this capacity for
many years. In the last two years, the City Council has appointed Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and
Councilmember Pat Wilson to serve as voting delegates with other organizations including the
California League of Cities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Designate one voting delegate and at least one alternate as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Certification of Agency Voting Delegate Form 2020 FINAL.pdf
31
2020 ANNUAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
On an annual basis, the California JPIA asks members to update their information in order that we may
better serve you. If you have had a reorganization, please forward us your Notice of Reorganization with
your current governing body and your list of Appointments for the California JPIA Director and Alternate(s),
along with this form. In accordance with the Authority’s Bylaws, your governing body must designate one
voting delegate and at least one alternate. You may designate additional alternates. The voting delegate
must be a member of the governing body. Alternate(s) may be from the governing body or from staff.
Please note: In order to vote at the Annual Board of Directors Meeting, voting delegates and alternates must
be designated by your governing body. Please attach either your appointment list or minute action as proof
of designation. As an alternative, your agency may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the
action taken by the governing body.
1. VOTING DELEGATE - PRIMARY
Name:
Title:
2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
If you have more than two alternates, please attach a separate sheet.
PLEASE ATTACH APPOINTMENT LIST DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES.
OR
ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the governing body to designate the
voting delegate and alternate(s).
Name: Title: ______________________________
Email: ___ Phone: ________________________
Signature: Date: ______________________________
Please complete and return to:
By Mail: By Email:
California JPIA E-mail: vruiz@cjpia.org
ATTN: Veronica Ruiz
8081 Moody Street
La Palma, CA 90623
If you have questions or need assistance with the Board of Directors Certification or updating your governing
body information, please contact Agency Clerk Veronica Ruiz at (562) 467-8736 or vruiz@cjpia.org.
8081 Moody Street, La Palma, CA 90623 | www.cjpia.org | (562) 467-8700
AGENCY:
32
Agenda Item No.: 4.E
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR WEB DEVELOPER REVIZE, TO ADD
ONLINE FORMS APPLICATION TO CITY’S WEBSITE.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
In April 2019, the City engaged the services of Revize to provide a new website and host the site for
five years for approximately $5,000 per year. The City was paying $6,256 annually for the previous
website. Revize worked with staff to identify content from the old website to migrate to the new site.
Revize provided site organization and page layouts based on City's needs. The go-live date was
scheduled for the end of 2019 but due to delays in switching account holders from the previous City
Manager to the current City Manager, the new website was functional and publicly accessible in March
2020. Since March 2020, City staff has been utilizing the new site to enhance services to the residents.
DISCUSSION:
One functionality that is not currently available is the collection of data via an online forms application.
This feature was discussed for the Block Captain Program to maintain the database of captains. Block
Captains would be able to use the City's website to update their contact information with changes, or
delete profile if they decide to no longer participate in the program as volunteers or add their contact
information upon entering the program. Presently this database is tracked manually by staff and the
Lead Block Captains. The task is very labor intensive and the updates are not readily available to the
people in the program. With the online forms application, the data can be updated as often as needed in
real time and updates do not rely on individuals. Most importantly, the database would be accessible to
the community. Other areas that can be served by the online forms application would include: tracking
activities, feedback data, survey data, cost data, signups, payments and more.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City's current contract with Revize is comprised of basic services. Revize provided a proposal to
add the online forms application. To add, the application costs $3,000, one-time set up fee and $1,000
per year for subscribing to the application. If the City Council approves an amendment to the agreement
with Revize to add the online forms application, the annual cost would increase from approximately
33
$5,000 to $6,000 for each of the remaining years on the contract except for 2020-2021 where the cost
would include the one-time fee and a prorated share of the $1,000 or approximate $8,525. Exhibit B of
the proposed amendment provides a more precise breakdown of cost. Jimenez Consulting, the City's
technology consultant reviewed Revize's proposal against the market rate for online forms application
and recommended to staff to subscribe.
There is sufficient funds in the approved FY 2020-2021 budget to support the one-time fee and prorated
annual subscription.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the agreement with Revize.
ATTACHMENTS:
Amendment to Agreement with Revize-c1_RH.pdf
Proposal Revize Custom Website City of Rolling Hills CA 200917.pdf
REVIZE Agreement4.16.19.pdf
34
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR WEBSITE REDESIGN, HOSTING, AND
SOFTWARE SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR WEBSITE REDESIGN, HOSTING,
AND SOFTWARE SERVICES (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into as of September
28, 2020 by and between the CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, a municipal corporation ("City"), and
REVIZE LLC. AKA REVIZE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS, a limited liability company (the
“Consultant”).
R E C I T A L S
A. On April 4, 2019, the City and Consultant entered into an agreement for website
redesign, hosting, and software services (the “Agreement”);
B. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to expand the scope of
services to add an online forms annual software subscription and increase the cost of the
Agreement (“First Amendment”);
C. Consultant is well qualified by reason of education, training, and experience; and
D. Consultant is willing to render such services on the terms and conditions as
hereinafter defined.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and
agreements set forth below, City and Consultant agree as follows:
1. Subsection iii (Software Services, including but not limited to the following) of Section A
in Paragraph 1 (SERVICES) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
1. Services.
A. Consultant shall furnish all materials and perform all work required
for performance of the following Services including, but not limited to, the following:
. . .
iii. Software Services, including but not limited to the following:
1. Revize annual software subscription
2. Technical support
3. CMS support
4. CMS updates
5. Unlimited users
35
Page 2 of 4
6. Unlimited GB website storage, including SSL security
certificate
7. Online Forms annual software subscription
2. Paragraph 2 (PAYMENT) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
2. Payment.
City agrees to pay Consultant for the services required by this Agreement as set
forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
representing the total cost for all labor, equipment, supplies, expenses, and materials
incurred by Consultant portal to portal. The City’s first payment of $4,940.00 for the first
year shall be paid upon complete execution of this Agreement so that Consultant may
begin providing the services under this Agreement. All subsequent, annual payments
shall be paid on the anniversary of the project kick off meeting. Consultant shall submit
invoices for those subsequent, annual payments to the City thirty calendar days before
the anniversary of the project kick off meeting. City will make payment for all work
performed to City’s reasonable satisfaction within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. The
Agreement shall not exceed a total amount of $31,283.33. Any services not provided for
in this Agreement may be authorized by the City in writing by way of amendment to this
Agreement, and compensation therefore shall be agreed upon in advance by the parties
in advance and in writing by way of amendment to this Agreement.
3. Paragraph 5 (TERM AND TERMINATION) of the Agreement is amended to read as
follows:
5. Term and Termination.
The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties and
terminate on April 28, 2024 unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time without cause by either party
giving thirty (30) days’ advance written notice of termination to the other party. All work
satisfactorily performed pursuant to the Agreement and prior to the date of termination
may be claimed for reimbursement. In the event of a breach or a default in the
performance of this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may terminate the Agreement
immediately, provided that the defaulting or breaching party has failed to cure or to make
reasonable progress towards curing the default within ten (10) calendar days of receipt
of notice demanding a cure.
If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to any of the provisions contained
hereinabove, and if requested to do so in writing by the City, the Consultant shall, within
fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of such written request, deliver and turn over
to the City all of its preparation and work on documents which were done to the date of
the receipt of the notice of termination. The terms "preparation" and "work" as used in
this paragraph, shall refer to and include all other data and materials of whatever type
36
Page 3 of 4
that have been gathered by the Consultant, and contemplated to be used or actually
used, in the preparation of the services identified in Section 1 of this Agreement.
4. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by this First Amendment remain
in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on
the date and year first above written, and it is effective as of September 28, 2020.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSULTANT
___________________________ _____________________________
ELAINE JENG ROBERT SUCHOMEL
CITY MANAGER ACCOUNT MANAGER
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
City Attorney
37
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT B
COST SCHEDULE
Service Period All Services other than
Online Forms annual
software subscription
Online Forms
annual software
subscription
Total
04/28/2019 –
04/28/2020
$4,940.00 N/A $4,940.00
04/28/2020 –
04/28/2021
$4,940.00 $3,000.00 (one-time
fee)
$583.33 (pro-rated)
$8,523.33
04/28/2021 –
04/28/2022
$4,940.00 $1,000.00 $5,940.00
04/28/2022 –
04/28/2023
$4,940.00 $1,000.00 $5,940.00
04/28/2023 –
04/28/2024
$4,940.00 $1,000.00 $5,940.00
TOTAL $31,283.33
38
www.revize.com
Amendment 1
Revize Web Services Sales Agreement
This Sales Agreement is between City of Rolling Hills, California (“CLIENT”) and Revize LLC, aka Revize
Software Systems, (“Revize”). Federal Tax ID# 20-5000179 Date: 07/31/2020
CLIENT INFORMATION: REVIZE LLC:
Company Name: City of Rolling Hills, CA Revize Software Systems
Company Address: 2 Portuguese Bend Rd 150 Kirts Blvd, Suite
Company City/State/Zip: Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Troy, MI 48084
Contact Name: Elaine Jeng ejeng@cityofrh.net
310-377-1521 248-269-9263
Client Website Address: www.rolling-hills.org
The CLIENT agrees to purchase the following products and services provided by REVIZE:
Quantity Description Price
1 Revize Online Forms Application with E-Pay one-time fee: $3,000.00
1 Revize Online Forms Application Hosting & Software Subscription pre-paid annual
fee: $1,000.00
Grand Total $4,000.00
The time period for Online Forms annual software subscription goes in line with existing Revize CMS annual software
subscription. Revize requires a payment of 3,533.00 to enable the Online Forms Application
Service Period Total Additional Payment to Current Annual Rate
9/28/2020 – 4/28/2020 $4,000.00 (includes one-time cost)
4/28/2020 – 4/28/2021 $583.33 (pro-rated)
4/282021 – 4/28/2022 $1,000.00
4/282022 – 4/28/2023 $1,000.00
4/282023 – 4/28/2024 $1,000.00
Terms:
1. Payments: All Invoices are due upon receipt. Work begins upon receiving initial payment.
2. Additional content migration, if requested, is available for $3 per web page or document.
3. This Sales Agreement is the only legal document governing this sale.
4. Both parties must agree in writing to any changes or additions to this Sales Agreement.
5. Proper jurisdiction and venue for any legal action or dispute relating to this agreement shall be the State of
Michigan
6. Client understands that project completion date is highly dependent on their timely communication with Revize.
Client also agrees and understands that;
a. The primary communication tool for this project and future tech support is the Revize customer portal
found at https://support.revize.com.
b. During the project, Client will respond to Revize inquiries within 48 hours of the request to avoid any
delay in the project timeline.
7. Pricing expires in 30 days.
39
www.revize.com
AGREED TO BY: CLIENT REVIZE
Signature of Authorized Person:
Name of Authorized Person: _Robert Suchomel ____ ___
Title of Authorized Person Sales Account Manager ___
Date:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
09/17/2020
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Agenda Item No.: 8.A
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 1263 TO ACCEPT STATE DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS AND RECREATION PER CAPITA PROGRAM
ALLOCATION AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
On June 5, 2018, voters passed Proposition 68. The $4 billion "Parks, Environment, and Water Bond
Act of 2018" through budget acts for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 set aside $185,000,000 for the Per
Capita Program. In this program, funds are available for local park rehabilitation, creation, and
improvement grants to local governments. The City's allocation is $177,952 per the attached allocation
table from the State.
To use the allocation, agencies must do the following in the order listed:
1. Attend mandatory workshop
2. Pass resolution
3. Identify project(s)
4. Submit application package by December 2021
5. Execute contract by June 2022
6. Project completion by December 2023
7. Submit completion package by March 2024
In mid-August, the City's Project Manager Alan Palermo Consulting (API) attended the mandatory
workshop on behalf of the City. The next step is to have Authorization Resolution approved by the City
Council. Per the Procedural Guide for the Per Capita Program, the Authorization Resolution may be
formatted but the language provided in the resolution must remain unchanged. The Authorization
Resolution serves two purposes: (1) It is the means by which the Grantee's Governing Body agrees to
the terms of the contract; it provides confirmation that the Grantee has the funding to complete, operate
and maintain projects associated with the contract. (2) Designates a position title to represent the
Governing Body on all matters regarding projects associated with the contract. The incumbent in this
position is referred to as the Authorized Representative.
54
Based on criteria for eligible projects under the Per Capita Program allocation, the City Hall
campus/open space could be improved to serve the community. Upon a closer reading of the
commitments outlined in the Authorizing Resolution, staff evaluated that items 7 and 8 required
additional discussions with the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Item 7 of the Authorizing Resolution requires the grantee to promote, expand access, increase
awareness for diverse populations. Item 8 of the Authorizing Resolution requires the grantee to provide
workforce education and training, contractor and job opportunities for disadvantage communities.
Being a private community, and with limited staffing, staff is concerned that the City may not be able to
meet the commitments outlined in the Authorizing Resolution.
The Procedural Guide for the Per Capita Program discusses that entities that receive an allocation per
the program may transfer all or part of the allocation to another eligible entity, provided that the
following requirements are met:
A. All required documentation must be submitted no later than six months from the end of the
encumbrance period;
B. The transferring agency must submit a resolution authorizing the transfer of the allocation. The
resolution must name the recipient entity and the transferred amount;
C. The recipient must be eligible to receive Per Capita funds;
D. The recipient must have submitted the Authorizing Resolution; and
E. The recipient must submit a resolution authorizing the receipt of funds; the resolution must state the
donor and the transferred amount.
Located adjacent to the 36-acre preserve at Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East, the
George F. Canyon Nature Center is maintained by the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Education and
recreational programs at the Nature Center are provided by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy. The Nature Center provides an opportunity for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Community to
learn more about the nature and wildlife of the George F. Canyon. Current exhibits at the Nature Center
feature local flora and fauna, including live animals. In partnership with the Palos Verdes Unified
School District, the Nature Center provides an active education program.
The City of Rolling Hills Estates has been researching the feasibility of replacing its George F. Canyon
Nature Center. Over the past two years, the City of Rolling Hills Estates engaged an architect and held
community meetings to seek input on a redesign of the Center. A final design concept was estimated to
cost $1.7 million and slated to be presented to their City Council this fall. Rolling Hills Estates is
seeking opportunities to fund the project. In late August 2020, Rolling Hills Estates inquired about
Rolling Hills' Per Capita Program allocation.
If the City Council should decide not to accept the Per Capita Program allocation, staff recommends
that the allocation be transferred to the City of Rolling Hills Estates to improve the George F. Canyon
Nature Center.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Should the City Council decide to pursue the Per Capita Program allocation, the City will need to
55
Should the City Council decide to pursue the Per Capita Program allocation, the City will need to
provide a match of $44,500, assuming the entire allocation amount is used. The match funds can be a
combination of city staff time, local funds and or other State and County grant funds. There would be
other costs associated with actions obligated by the State to accept the Per Capita Program. Costs
associated with these other actions are unknown at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) receive a presentation from staff on Proposition 68 Per
Capita Program, (2) review Resolution No. 1263 as required by the Office of Grants and Local Services
(OGALS); and (3) provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
1263_Resolution RE Acceptance of Prop 68 Funds-c1_RH.docx
AllocationTable_Guide_accessible.pdf
Per_Cap_FAQs20200701.pdf
Per Capita 101.pdf
Sample_Grant_Contract_Per_Capita_Program_Procedural_Guide_Sept_2020_9.1.20.pdf
Sample_Deed_Restrictions_Per_Capita_Program_Procedural_Guide_Sept_2020_9.1.20-2.pdf
56
Resolution No. 1263 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1263
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING
APPLICATION(S) FOR PER CAPITA GRANT
FUNDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.Recitals.
A.The State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility
by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of the Per Capita Grant Program,
setting up necessary procedures governing application(s); and
B.Said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation
require the City Council to certify by resolution the approval of project application(s) before
submission of said applications to the State; and
C.The City will enter into a contract(s) with the State of California to complete
project(s);
Section 2.The City Council hereby takes the following actions:
A.Approves the filing of project application(s) for Per Capita program grant
project(s); and
B.Certifies that the City has or will have available, prior to commencement of project
work utilizing Per Capita funding, sufficient funds to complete the project(s); and
C.Certifies that the City has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
project(s), and
D.Certifies that all projects proposed will be consistent with the park and recreation
element of the City of Rolling Hills general or recreation plan (PRC §80063(a)), and
E.Certifies that these funds will be used to supplement, not supplant, local revenues
in existence as of June 5, 2018 (PRC §80062(d)), and
F.Certifies that it will comply with the provisions of §1771.5 of the State Labor Code,
and (PRC §80001(b)(8)(A-G)) To the extent practicable, as identified in the “Presidential
Memorandum--Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks, National Forests, and
Other Public Lands and Waters,” dated January 12, 2017, the City of Rolling Hills will consider a
range of actions that include, but are not limited to, the following:
57
Resolution No. 1263 2
1) Conducting active outreach to diverse populations, particularly minority, low-
income, and disabled populations and tribal communities, to increase awareness
within those communities and the public generally about specific programs and
opportunities.
2) Mentoring new environmental, outdoor recreation, and conservation leaders to
increase diverse representation across these areas.
3) Creating new partnerships with state, local, tribal, private, and nonprofit
organizations to expand access for diverse populations.
4) Identifying and implementing improvements to existing programs to increase
visitation and access by diverse populations, particularly minority, low-income, and
disabled populations and tribal communities.
5) Expanding the use of multilingual and culturally appropriate materials in public
communications and educational strategies, including through social media
strategies, as appropriate, that target diverse populations.
6) Developing or expanding coordinated efforts to promote youth engagement and
empowerment, including fostering new partnerships with diversity-serving and
youth-serving organizations, urban areas, and programs.
7) Identifying possible staff liaisons to diverse populations.
G.Agrees that to the extent practicable, the project(s) will provide workforce
education and training, contractor and job opportunities for disadvantaged communities (PRC
§80001(b)(5)).
H.Certifies that the City shall not reduce the amount of funding otherwise available
to be spent on parks or other projects eligible for funds under this division in its jurisdiction. A
one-time allocation of other funding that has been expended for parks or other projects, but which
is not available on an ongoing basis, shall not be considered when calculating a recipient’s annual
expenditures. (PRC §80062(d)).
I.Certifies that the City has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General
Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and
J.Delegates the authority to the City Manager, or designee, to conduct all
negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements,
amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the grant
scope(s); and
K.Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations and guidelines.
58
Resolution No. 1263 3
Section 5.This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by theCity Council,
and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the
book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September, 2020.
______________________________
JEFF PIEPER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
ELAINE JENG, P.E.
ACTING CITY CLERK
59
Resolution No. 1263 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. entitled:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING
APPLICATION(S) FOR PER CAPITA GRANT
FUNDS
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of September,
2020, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
ELAINE JENG, P.E.
ACTING CITY CLERK
60
Page 1 of 28 July 1, 2020
Allocations for California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate,
Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018
Per Capita Grant Program
All Allocations Rounded to the Thousands
County and Regional Park District Allocations
(40 Percent of $185,000,000)
Rate of Allocations: $1.64 Per Capita
(Minimum of $400,000 for populations below 247,577)
Jurisdiction Allocation
County of Alameda $ -
County of Alpine $ 400,000
County of Amador $ 400,000
County of Butte $ 400,000
County of Calaveras $ 400,000
County of Colusa $ 400,000
County of Contra Costa $ 400,000
County of Del Norte $ 400,000
County of El Dorado $ 400,000
County of Fresno $ 1,656,780
County of Glenn $ 400,000
County of Humboldt $ 400,000
County of Imperial $ 400,000
County of Inyo $ 400,000
County of Kern $ 1,473,040
County of Kings $ 400,000
County of Lake $ 400,000
County of Lassen $ 400,000
County of Los Angeles $ 16,739,730
County of Madera $ 400,000
County of Marin $ 427,730
County of Mariposa $ 400,000
County of Mendocino $ 400,000
County of Merced $ 455,590
County of Modoc $ 400,000
County of Mono $ 400,000
County of Monterey $ 631,430
County of Napa $ -
County of Nevada $ 400,000
County of Orange $ 5,044,010
County of Placer $ 633,810
County of Plumas $ 400,000
County of Riverside $ 3,945,380
County of Sacramento $ 2,515,780
Jurisdiction Allocation
County of San Benito $ 400,000
County of San Bernardino $ 3,510,320
County of San Diego $ 5,487,140
County of San Francisco $ 1,444,120
County of San Joaquin $ 1,224,650
County of San Luis Obispo $ 456,230
County of San Mateo $ 828,430
County of Santa Barbara $ 739,670
County of Santa Clara $ 1,194,060
County of Santa Cruz $ 447,240
County of Shasta $ 400,000
County of Sierra $ 400,000
County of Siskiyou $ 400,000
County of Solano $ 715,590
County of Sonoma $ 814,650
County of Stanislaus $ 909,500
County of Sutter $ 400,000
County of Tehama $ 400,000
County of Trinity $ 400,000
County of Tulare $ 779,560
County of Tuolumne $ 400,000
County of Ventura $ 1,398,240
County of Yolo $ 400,000
County of Yuba $ 400,000
East Bay RPD $ 4,592,710
Midpeninsula ROSD $ 1,214,590
Monterey Peninsula RPD $ 400,000
Napa County RPOSD $ 400,000
Santa Clara Valley OSD $ 1,120,020
Note: A county with no allocation is due to an
overlap with regional park district that
operates and manages park and recreational
areas and facilities for that population.
61
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 2 of 28 July 1, 2020
City and District Allocations
Per Capita Program
(60 Percent of $185,000,000 plus $2,000,000)
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Alameda City of Alameda $ 177,952
Alameda City of Albany $ 177,952
Alameda City of Berkeley $ 177,952
Alameda City of Dublin $ 177,952
Alameda City of Emeryville $ 177,952
Alameda City of Fremont $ 177,952
Alameda City of Livermore $ 177,952
Alameda City of Newark $ 177,952
Alameda City of Oakland $ 177,952
Alameda City of Piedmont $ 177,952
Alameda City of Pleasanton $ 177,952
Alameda City of San Leandro $ 177,952
Alameda City of Union City $ 177,952
Alameda Hayward Area RPD $ 177,952
Alameda Livermore Area RPD $ 177,952
Alpine Kirkwood Meadows PUD $ 177,952
Amador City of Amador $ 177,952
Amador City of Ione $ 177,952
Amador City of Jackson $ 177,952
Amador City of Plymouth $ 177,952
Amador City of Sutter Creek $ 177,952
Amador Jackson Valley Irrigation District $ 177,952
Amador Pine Grove CSD $ 177,952
Amador Volcano CSD $ 177,952
Butte Chico Area RPD $ 177,952
Butte City of Biggs $ 177,952
Butte City of Chico $ 177,952
Butte City of Gridley $ 177,952
Butte City of Oroville $ 177,952
Butte Durham RPD $ 177,952
Butte Feather River RPD $ 177,952
Butte Paradise RPD $ 177,952
Butte Town of Paradise $ 177,952
Calaveras City of Angels $ 177,952
Calaveras Mokelumne Hill Veterans Memorial District $ 177,952
62
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 3 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Calaveras San Andreas RPD $ 177,952
Colusa Arbuckle PRD $ 177,952
Colusa City of Colusa $ 177,952
Colusa City of Williams $ 177,952
Colusa Maxwell PRD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Ambrose RPD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Bethel Island MID $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Antioch $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Brentwood $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Clayton $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Concord $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of El Cerrito $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Hercules $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Lafayette $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Martinez $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Oakley $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Orinda $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Pinole $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Pittsburg $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Pleasant Hill $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Richmond $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of San Pablo $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of San Ramon $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Walnut Creek $ 177,952
Contra Costa Crockett CSD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Kensington Police Protection and CSD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill RPD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Town of Danville $ 177,952
Contra Costa Town of Discovery Bay CSD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Town of Moraga $ 177,952
Del Norte City of Crescent City $ 177,952
El Dorado Cameron Park CSD $ 177,952
El Dorado City of Placerville $ 177,952
El Dorado City of South Lake Tahoe $ 177,952
El Dorado El Dorado Hills CSD $ 177,952
El Dorado Fallen Leaf Lake CSD $ 177,952
El Dorado Georgetown Divide RD $ 177,952
El Dorado Tahoe Paradise RPD $ 177,952
63
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 4 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Fresno Calwa PRD $ 177,952
Fresno City of Clovis $ 177,952
Fresno City of Coalinga $ 177,952
Fresno City of Firebaugh $ 177,952
Fresno City of Fowler $ 177,952
Fresno City of Fresno $ 177,952
Fresno City of Huron $ 177,952
Fresno City of Kerman $ 177,952
Fresno City of Kingsburg $ 177,952
Fresno City of Mendota $ 177,952
Fresno City of Orange Cove $ 177,952
Fresno City of Parlier $ 177,952
Fresno City of Reedley $ 177,952
Fresno City of San Joaquin $ 177,952
Fresno City of Sanger $ 177,952
Fresno City of Selma $ 177,952
Fresno Coalinga-Huron RPD $ 177,952
Fresno Del Rey CSD $ 177,952
Fresno Lanare CSD $ 177,952
Fresno Malaga County Water District $ 177,952
Glenn City of Orland $ 177,952
Glenn City of Willows $ 177,952
Glenn Elk Creek CSD $ 177,952
Glenn Hamilton City CSD $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Arcata $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Blue Lake $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Eureka $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Ferndale $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Fortuna $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Rio Dell $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Trinidad $ 177,952
Humboldt Manila CSD $ 177,952
Humboldt McKinleyville CSD $ 177,952
Humboldt North Humboldt RPD $ 177,952
Humboldt Resort Improvement District No.1 $ 177,952
Humboldt Rohner Community PRD $ 177,952
Humboldt Willow Creek CSD $ 177,952
Imperial Bombay Beach CSD $ 177,952
64
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 5 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Imperial City of Brawley $ 177,952
Imperial City of Calexico $ 177,952
Imperial City of Calipatria $ 177,952
Imperial City of El Centro $ 177,952
Imperial City of Holtville $ 177,952
Imperial City of Imperial $ 177,952
Imperial City of Westmorland $ 177,952
Imperial Heber PUD $ 177,952
Imperial Salton CSD $ 177,952
Imperial Seeley County Water District $ 177,952
Inyo City of Bishop $ 177,952
Kern Bear Mountain RPD $ 177,952
Kern Bear Valley CSD $ 177,952
Kern Buttonwillow PRD $ 177,952
Kern City of Arvin $ 177,952
Kern City of Bakersfield $ 177,952
Kern City of California City $ 177,952
Kern City of Delano $ 177,952
Kern City of Maricopa $ 177,952
Kern City of Ridgecrest $ 177,952
Kern City of Shafter $ 177,952
Kern City of Taft $ 177,952
Kern City of Tehachapi $ 177,952
Kern City of Wasco $ 177,952
Kern McFarland RPD $ 177,952
Kern North of the River RPD $ 177,952
Kern Shafter RPD $ 177,952
Kern Stallion Springs CSD $ 177,952
Kern Tehachapi Valley RPD $ 177,952
Kern Wasco RPD $ 177,952
Kern West Side RPD $ 177,952
Kings City of Avenal $ 177,952
Kings City of Corcoran $ 177,952
Kings City of Hanford $ 177,952
Kings City of Lemoore $ 177,952
Lake City of Clearlake $ 177,952
Lake City of Lakeport $ 177,952
Lassen City of Susanville $ 177,952
65
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 6 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Lassen Leavitt Lake CSD $ 177,952
Lassen Westwood CSD $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Alhambra $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Arcadia $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Artesia $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Avalon $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Azusa $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Baldwin Park $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bell $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bell Gardens $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bellflower $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Beverly Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bradbury $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Burbank $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Calabasas $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Carson $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Cerritos $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Claremont $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Commerce $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Compton $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Covina $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Cudahy $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Culver City $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Diamond Bar $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Downey $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Duarte $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of El Monte $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of El Segundo $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Gardena $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Glendale $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Glendora $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hawaiian Gardens $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hawthorne $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hermosa Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hidden Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Huntington Park $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Inglewood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Irwindale $ 177,952
66
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 7 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of La Cañada Flintridge $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Habra Heights $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Mirada $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Puente $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Verne $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lakewood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lancaster $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lawndale $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lomita $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Long Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Los Angeles $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lynwood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Malibu $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Manhattan Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Maywood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Monrovia $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Montebello $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Monterey Park $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Norwalk $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Palmdale $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Palos Verdes Estates $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Paramount $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Pasadena $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Pico Rivera $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Pomona $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Redondo Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills Estates $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rosemead $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Dimas $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Fernando $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Gabriel $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Marino $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Santa Clarita $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Santa Fe Springs $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Santa Monica $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Sierra Madre $ 177,952
67
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 8 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of Signal Hill $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of South El Monte $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of South Gate $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of South Pasadena $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Temple City $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Torrance $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Vernon $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Walnut $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of West Covina $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of West Hollywood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Westlake Village $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Whittier $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Agoura Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles Miraleste RPD $ 177,952
Los Angeles Westfield Park Rec and Parkway District No. 12 $ 177,952
Madera City of Chowchilla $ 177,952
Madera City of Madera $ 177,952
Marin Bel Marin Keys CSD $ 177,952
Marin Bolinas Community PUD $ 177,952
Marin City of Belvedere $ 177,952
Marin City of Larkspur $ 177,952
Marin City of Mill Valley $ 177,952
Marin City of Novato $ 177,952
Marin City of San Rafael $ 177,952
Marin City of Sausalito $ 177,952
Marin Firehouse Community Park Agency $ 177,952
Marin Marin City CSD $ 177,952
Marin Marinwood CSD $ 177,952
Marin Muir Beach CSD $ 177,952
Marin Strawberry RD $ 177,952
Marin Tamalpais CSD $ 177,952
Marin Tomales Village CSD $ 177,952
Marin Town of Corte Madera $ 177,952
Marin Town of Fairfax $ 177,952
Marin Town of Ross $ 177,952
Marin Town of San Anselmo $ 177,952
Marin Town of Tiburon $ 177,952
Mendocino Anderson Valley CSD $ 177,952
68
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 9 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Mendocino Brooktrails CSD $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Fort Bragg $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Point Arena $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Ukiah $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Willits $ 177,952
Mendocino Comptche CSD $ 177,952
Mendocino Mendocino Coast RPD $ 177,952
Merced City of Atwater $ 177,952
Merced City of Dos Palos $ 177,952
Merced City of Gustine $ 177,952
Merced City of Livingston $ 177,952
Merced City of Los Banos $ 177,952
Merced City of Merced $ 177,952
Modoc City of Alturas $ 177,952
Mono Town of Mammoth Lakes $ 177,952
Monterey Carmel Valley RPD $ 177,952
Monterey City of Carmel-by-the-Sea $ 177,952
Monterey City of Del Rey Oaks $ 177,952
Monterey City of Gonzales $ 177,952
Monterey City of Greenfield $ 177,952
Monterey City of King City $ 177,952
Monterey City of Marina $ 177,952
Monterey City of Monterey $ 177,952
Monterey City of Pacific Grove $ 177,952
Monterey City of Salinas $ 177,952
Monterey City of Sand City $ 177,952
Monterey City of Seaside $ 177,952
Monterey City of Soledad $ 177,952
Monterey Greenfield Public RD $ 177,952
Monterey North County RD $ 177,952
Monterey Pajaro CSD $ 177,952
Monterey Soledad-Mission RD $ 177,952
Monterey Spreckels Memorial District $ 177,952
Napa City of American Canyon $ 177,952
Napa City of Calistoga $ 177,952
Napa City of Napa $ 177,952
Napa City of St Helena $ 177,952
Napa Town of Yountville $ 177,952
69
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 10 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Nevada Bear River RPD $ 177,952
Nevada City of Grass Valley $ 177,952
Nevada City of Nevada City $ 177,952
Nevada Oak Tree PRD $ 177,952
Nevada Town of Truckee $ 177,952
Nevada Western Gateway RPD $ 177,952
Orange City of Aliso Viejo $ 177,952
Orange City of Anaheim $ 177,952
Orange City of Brea $ 177,952
Orange City of Buena Park $ 177,952
Orange City of Costa Mesa $ 177,952
Orange City of Cypress $ 177,952
Orange City of Dana Point $ 177,952
Orange City of Fountain Valley $ 177,952
Orange City of Fullerton $ 177,952
Orange City of Garden Grove $ 177,952
Orange City of Huntington Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Irvine $ 177,952
Orange City of La Habra $ 177,952
Orange City of La Palma $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Hills $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Niguel $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Woods $ 177,952
Orange City of Lake Forest $ 177,952
Orange City of Los Alamitos $ 177,952
Orange City of Mission Viejo $ 177,952
Orange City of Newport Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Orange $ 177,952
Orange City of Placentia $ 177,952
Orange City of Rancho Santa Margarita $ 177,952
Orange City of San Clemente $ 177,952
Orange City of San Juan Capistrano $ 177,952
Orange City of Santa Ana $ 177,952
Orange City of Seal Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Stanton $ 177,952
Orange City of Tustin $ 177,952
Orange City of Villa Park $ 177,952
70
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 11 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Orange City of Westminster $ 177,952
Orange City of Yorba Linda $ 177,952
Orange Cypress RPD $ 177,952
Orange Rossmoor CSD $ 177,952
Orange Silverado-Modjeska RPD $ 177,952
Placer Auburn Area RPD $ 177,952
Placer City of Auburn $ 177,952
Placer City of Colfax $ 177,952
Placer City of Lincoln $ 177,952
Placer City of Rocklin $ 177,952
Placer City of Roseville $ 177,952
Placer North Tahoe PUD $ 177,952
Placer Northstar CSD $ 177,952
Placer Tahoe City PUD $ 177,952
Placer Town of Loomis $ 177,952
Placer Truckee-Donner RPD $ 177,952
Plumas Almanor RPD $ 177,952
Plumas Central Plumas RPD $ 177,952
Plumas City of Portola $ 177,952
Plumas Indian Valley RPD $ 177,952
Riverside Beaumont-Cherry Valley RPD $ 177,952
Riverside City of Banning $ 177,952
Riverside City of Beaumont $ 177,952
Riverside City of Blythe $ 177,952
Riverside City of Calimesa $ 177,952
Riverside City of Canyon Lake $ 177,952
Riverside City of Cathedral City $ 177,952
Riverside City of Coachella $ 177,952
Riverside City of Corona $ 177,952
Riverside City of Desert Hot Springs $ 177,952
Riverside City of Hemet $ 177,952
Riverside City of Indian Wells $ 177,952
Riverside City of Indio $ 177,952
Riverside City of La Quinta $ 177,952
Riverside City of Lake Elsinore $ 177,952
Riverside City of Menifee $ 177,952
Riverside City of Moreno Valley $ 177,952
Riverside City of Murrieta $ 177,952
71
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 12 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Riverside City of Norco $ 177,952
Riverside City of Palm Desert $ 177,952
Riverside City of Palm Springs $ 177,952
Riverside City of Perris $ 177,952
Riverside City of Rancho Mirage $ 177,952
Riverside City of Riverside $ 177,952
Riverside City of San Jacinto $ 177,952
Riverside City of Temecula $ 177,952
Riverside City of Wildomar $ 177,952
Riverside Desert RD $ 177,952
Riverside Jurupa Area RPD $ 177,952
Riverside Jurupa CSD $ 177,952
Riverside Lake Hemet Municipal Water District $ 177,952
Riverside Valley-Wide RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Arcade Creek RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Arden Manor RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Arden Park RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Carmichael RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Citrus Heights $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Folsom $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Galt $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Isleton $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Rancho Cordova $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Sacramento $ 177,952
Sacramento Cordova RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Cosumnes CSD $ 177,952
Sacramento Fair Oaks RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Fulton-El Camino RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Mission Oaks RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento North Highlands RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Orangevale RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Rio Linda/Elverta RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Southgate RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Sunrise RPD $ 177,952
San Benito City of Hollister $ 177,952
San Benito City of San Juan Bautista $ 177,952
San Bernardino Baker CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Barstow Heights CSD $ 177,952
72
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 13 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Bernardino Big River CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Adelanto $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Barstow $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Chino $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Chino Hills $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Colton $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Fontana $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Grand Terrace $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Hesperia $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Highland $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Loma Linda $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Montclair $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Needles $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Ontario $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Rancho Cucamonga $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Redlands $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Rialto $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of San Bernardino $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Twentynine Palms $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Upland $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Victorville $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Yucaipa $ 177,952
San Bernardino Daggett CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Helendale CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Hesperia RPD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Morongo Valley CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Newberry CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Phelan Piñon Hill CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Rim of the World RPD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Town of Apple Valley $ 177,952
San Bernardino Town of Yucca Valley $ 177,952
San Bernardino Wrightwood CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Yermo CSD $ 177,952
San Diego City of Chula Vista $ 177,952
San Diego City of Coronado $ 177,952
San Diego City of Del Mar $ 177,952
San Diego City of El Cajon $ 177,952
73
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 14 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Diego City of Encinitas $ 177,952
San Diego City of Escondido $ 177,952
San Diego City of Imperial Beach $ 177,952
San Diego City of La Mesa $ 177,952
San Diego City of Lemon Grove $ 177,952
San Diego City of National City $ 177,952
San Diego City of Oceanside $ 177,952
San Diego City of Poway $ 177,952
San Diego City of San Diego $ 177,952
San Diego City of San Marcos $ 177,952
San Diego City of Santee $ 177,952
San Diego City of Solana Beach $ 177,952
San Diego City of Vista $ 177,952
San Diego Jacumba CSD $ 177,952
San Diego Lake Cuyamaca RPD $ 177,952
San Diego Ramona MWD $ 177,952
San Diego Valley Center PRD $ 177,952
San Francisco City of San Francisco $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Escalon $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Lathrop $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Lodi $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Manteca $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Ripon $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Stockton $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Tracy $ 177,952
San Joaquin Mountain House CSD $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo Cambria CSD $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Arroyo Grande $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Atascadero $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Grover Beach $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Morro Bay $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Paso Robles $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Pismo Beach $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo Templeton CSD $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Belmont $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Brisbane $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Burlingame $ 177,952
74
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 15 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Mateo City of Daly City $ 177,952
San Mateo City of East Palo Alto $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Foster City $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Half Moon Bay $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Menlo Park $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Millbrae $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Pacifica $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Redwood City $ 177,952
San Mateo City of San Bruno $ 177,952
San Mateo City of San Carlos $ 177,952
San Mateo City of San Mateo $ 177,952
San Mateo City of South San Francisco $ 177,952
San Mateo Highlands RD $ 177,952
San Mateo Ladera RD $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Atherton $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Colma $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Hillsborough $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Portola Valley $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Woodside $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Buellton $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Carpinteria $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Goleta $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Guadalupe $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Lompoc $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Santa Barbara $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Santa Maria $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Solvang $ 177,952
Santa Barbara Cuyama Valley RD $ 177,952
Santa Barbara Isla Vista RPD $ 177,952
Santa Barbara Mission Hills CSD $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Campbell $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Cupertino $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Gilroy $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Los Altos $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Milpitas $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Monte Sereno $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Morgan Hill $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Mountain View $ 177,952
75
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 16 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Santa Clara City of Palo Alto $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of San Jose $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Santa Clara $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Saratoga $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale $ 177,952
Santa Clara Rancho Rinconada RPD $ 177,952
Santa Clara Town of Los Altos Hills $ 177,952
Santa Clara Town of Los Gatos $ 177,952
Santa Cruz Alba RPD $ 177,952
Santa Cruz Boulder Creek RPD $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Capitola $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Scotts Valley $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Watsonville $ 177,952
Santa Cruz La Selva Beach RD $ 177,952
Shasta Burney Water District $ 177,952
Shasta City of Anderson $ 177,952
Shasta City of Redding $ 177,952
Shasta City of Shasta Lake $ 177,952
Shasta Fall River Valley CSD $ 177,952
Sierra City of Loyalton $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Dorris $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Dunsmuir $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Etna $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Montague $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Mount Shasta $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Tulelake $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Weed $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Yreka $ 177,952
Siskiyou Dunsmuir RPD $ 177,952
Siskiyou McCloud CSD $ 177,952
Siskiyou Mount Shasta RPD $ 177,952
Siskiyou Town of Fort Jones $ 177,952
Siskiyou Weed RPD $ 177,952
Solano City of Benicia $ 177,952
Solano City of Dixon $ 177,952
Solano City of Fairfield $ 177,952
Solano City of Rio Vista $ 177,952
76
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 17 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Solano City of Suisun City $ 177,952
Solano City of Vacaville $ 177,952
Solano City of Vallejo $ 177,952
Solano Greater Vallejo RPD $ 177,952
Sonoma Camp Meeker PRD $ 177,952
Sonoma Cazadero CSD $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Cloverdale $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Cotati $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Healdsburg $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Petaluma $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Rohnert Park $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Santa Rosa $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Sebastopol $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Sonoma $ 177,952
Sonoma Monte Rio RPD $ 177,952
Sonoma Russian River RPD $ 177,952
Sonoma Town of Windsor $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Ceres $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Hughson $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Modesto $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Newman $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Oakdale $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Patterson $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Riverbank $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Turlock $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Waterford $ 177,952
Sutter City of Live Oak $ 177,952
Sutter City of Yuba City $ 177,952
Tehama City of Corning $ 177,952
Tehama City of Red Bluff $ 177,952
Tehama City of Tehama $ 177,952
Trinity Greater Hayfork PRD $ 177,952
Trinity Lewiston CSD $ 177,952
Trinity Weaverville/Douglas City RPD $ 177,952
Tulare City of Dinuba $ 177,952
Tulare City of Exeter $ 177,952
Tulare City of Farmersville $ 177,952
Tulare City of Lindsay $ 177,952
77
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 18 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Tulare City of Porterville $ 177,952
Tulare City of Tulare $ 177,952
Tulare City of Visalia $ 177,952
Tulare City of Woodlake $ 177,952
Tulare Poplar CSD $ 177,952
Tulare Richgrove CSD $ 177,952
Tuolumne City of Sonora $ 177,952
Tuolumne Groveland CSD $ 177,952
Tuolumne Tuolumne PRD $ 177,952
Tuolumne Twain Harte CSD $ 177,952
Ventura City of Camarillo $ 177,952
Ventura City of Fillmore $ 177,952
Ventura City of Moorpark $ 177,952
Ventura City of Ojai $ 177,952
Ventura City of Oxnard $ 177,952
Ventura City of Port Hueneme $ 177,952
Ventura City of Santa Paula $ 177,952
Ventura City of Ventura $ 177,952
Ventura Bell Canyon CSD $ 177,952
Ventura Conejo RPD $ 177,952
Ventura Pleasant Valley RPD $ 177,952
Ventura Rancho Simi RPD $ 177,952
Yolo City of Davis $ 177,952
Yolo City of West Sacramento $ 177,952
Yolo City of Winters $ 177,952
Yolo City of Woodland $ 177,952
Yolo Knights Landing CSD $ 177,952
Yolo Madison CSD $ 177,952
Yuba City of Marysville $ 177,952
Yuba City of Wheatland $ 177,952
Yuba Olivehurst PUD $ 177,952
78
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 19 of 28 July 1, 2020
Entities with Populations Less Than 200,000 in Heavily Urbanized Counties
Per Capita Grant Program
($10,375,000)
Per Capita Urbanized City Rate (Dollars): $.61 Per Capita
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Alameda City of Alameda $ 48,392
Alameda City of Albany $ 11,853
Alameda City of Berkeley $ 75,376
Alameda City of Dublin $ 39,468
Alameda City of Emeryville $ 7,334
Alameda City of Livermore $ 7,731
Alameda City of Newark $ 29,772
Alameda City of Piedmont $ 6,980
Alameda City of Pleasanton $ 49,195
Alameda City of San Leandro $ 55,006
Alameda City of Union City $ 44,868
Alameda Livermore Area RPD $ 51,940
Contra Costa Ambrose RPD $ 13,048
Contra Costa Bethel Island MID $ 1,306
Contra Costa City of Antioch $ 69,614
Contra Costa City of Brentwood $ 38,909
Contra Costa City of Clayton $ 7,122
Contra Costa City of Concord $ 79,321
Contra Costa City of El Cerrito $ 14,924
Contra Costa City of Hercules $ 16,028
Contra Costa City of Lafayette $ 16,160
Contra Costa City of Martinez $ 23,524
Contra Costa City of Oakley $ 25,522
Contra Costa City of Orinda $ 11,851
Contra Costa City of Pinole $ 11,807
Contra Costa City of Pittsburg $ 44,336
Contra Costa City of Pleasant Hill $ 24,447
Contra Costa City of Richmond $ 67,319
Contra Costa City of San Pablo $ 18,947
Contra Costa City of San Ramon $ 51,313
Contra Costa City of Walnut Creek $ 42,857
Contra Costa Crockett CSD $ 2,029
Contra Costa Kensington Police Protection and CSD $ 3,103
79
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 20 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill RPD $ 24,447
Contra Costa Town of Danville $ 27,668
Contra Costa Town of Discovery Bay CSD $ 9,489
Contra Costa Town of Moraga $ 10,775
Fresno Calwa PRD $ 1,254
Fresno City of Clovis $ 71,510
Fresno City of Coalinga $ 10,757
Fresno City of Firebaugh $ 5,134
Fresno City of Fowler $ 3,814
Fresno City of Huron $ 4,468
Fresno City of Kerman $ 9,470
Fresno City of Kingsburg $ 7,574
Fresno City of Mendota $ 6,970
Fresno City of Orange Cove $ 6,097
Fresno City of Parlier $ 9,871
Fresno City of Reedley $ 16,129
Fresno City of San Joaquin $ 2,857
Fresno City of Sanger $ 16,559
Fresno City of Selma $ 15,375
Fresno Coalinga-Huron RPD $ 10,247
Fresno Del Rey CSD $ 1,650
Fresno Lanare CSD $ 367
Fresno Malaga County Water District $ 559
Kern Bear Mountain RPD $ 12,016
Kern Bear Valley CSD $ 3,161
Kern Buttonwillow PRD $ 1,280
Kern City of Arvin $ 12,431
Kern City of California City $ 730
Kern City of Delano $ 33,615
Kern City of Maricopa $ 705
Kern City of Ridgecrest $ 17,558
Kern City of Shafter $ 12,765
Kern City of Taft $ 5,763
Kern City of Tehachapi $ 8,354
Kern City of Wasco $ 1,378
Kern McFarland RPD $ 5,776
Kern North of the River RPD $ 85,817
Kern Shafter RPD $ 12,765
80
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 21 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Kern Stallion Springs CSD $ 2,445
Kern Tehachapi Valley RPD $ 12,224
Kern Wasco RPD $ 15,547
Kern West Side RPD $ 6,571
Los Angeles City of Alhambra $ 52,193
Los Angeles City of Arcadia $ 35,544
Los Angeles City of Artesia $ 10,341
Los Angeles City of Avalon $ 2,322
Los Angeles City of Azusa $ 30,533
Los Angeles City of Baldwin Park $ 46,336
Los Angeles City of Bell $ 21,967
Los Angeles City of Bell Gardens $ 26,126
Los Angeles City of Bellflower $ 47,860
Los Angeles City of Beverly Hills $ 20,957
Los Angeles City of Bradbury $ 703
Los Angeles City of Burbank $ 65,488
Los Angeles City of Calabasas $ 14,792
Los Angeles City of Carson $ 57,209
Los Angeles City of Cerritos $ 26,525
Los Angeles City of Claremont $ 22,275
Los Angeles City of Commerce $ 7,828
Los Angeles City of Compton $ 61,118
Los Angeles City of Covina $ 29,872
Los Angeles City of Cudahy $ 14,728
Los Angeles City of Culver City $ 24,553
Los Angeles City of Diamond Bar $ 35,119
Los Angeles City of Downey $ 68,617
Los Angeles City of Duarte $ 13,357
Los Angeles City of El Monte $ 70,964
Los Angeles City of El Segundo $ 10,135
Los Angeles City of Gardena $ 37,151
Los Angeles City of Glendora $ 31,254
Los Angeles City of Hawaiian Gardens $ 8,841
Los Angeles City of Hawthorne $ 53,804
Los Angeles City of Hermosa Beach $ 11,897
Los Angeles City of Hidden Hills $ 1,100
Los Angeles City of Huntington Park $ 36,274
Los Angeles City of Inglewood $ 68,788
81
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 22 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of Irwindale $ 894
Los Angeles City of La Cañada Flintridge $ 12,641
Los Angeles City of La Habra Heights $ 3,255
Los Angeles City of La Mirada $ 30,559
Los Angeles City of La Puente $ 24,391
Los Angeles City of La Verne $ 20,292
Los Angeles City of Lakewood $ 48,924
Los Angeles City of Lancaster $ 98,769
Los Angeles City of Lawndale $ 20,435
Los Angeles City of Lomita $ 12,690
Los Angeles City of Lynwood $ 43,604
Los Angeles City of Malibu $ 7,870
Los Angeles City of Manhattan Beach $ 22,003
Los Angeles City of Maywood $ 16,684
Los Angeles City of Monrovia $ 23,706
Los Angeles City of Montebello $ 39,316
Los Angeles City of Monterey Park $ 38,040
Los Angeles City of Norwalk $ 64,785
Los Angeles City of Palmdale $ 96,273
Los Angeles City of Palos Verdes Estates $ 8,278
Los Angeles City of Paramount $ 34,226
Los Angeles City of Pasadena $ 89,423
Los Angeles City of Pico Rivera $ 39,136
Los Angeles City of Pomona $ 94,312
Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes $ 26,012
Los Angeles City of Redondo Beach $ 41,625
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills $ 1,156
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills Estates $ 5,040
Los Angeles City of Rosemead $ 33,615
Los Angeles City of San Dimas $ 21,439
Los Angeles City of San Fernando $ 14,953
Los Angeles City of San Gabriel $ 25,362
Los Angeles City of San Marino $ 8,145
Los Angeles City of Santa Fe Springs $ 11,001
Los Angeles City of Santa Monica $ 56,483
Los Angeles City of Sierra Madre $ 6,714
Los Angeles City of Signal Hill $ 7,103
Los Angeles City of South El Monte $ 13,385
82
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 23 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of South Gate $ 59,977
Los Angeles City of South Pasadena $ 16,040
Los Angeles City of Temple City $ 21,732
Los Angeles City of Torrance $ 90,488
Los Angeles City of Vernon $ 128
Los Angeles City of Walnut $ 18,672
Los Angeles City of West Covina $ 66,157
Los Angeles City of West Hollywood $ 22,406
Los Angeles City of Westlake Village $ 5,120
Los Angeles City of Whittier $ 53,074
Los Angeles City of Agoura Hills $ 12,738
Los Angeles Miraleste RPD $ 593
Los Angeles Westfield Park Rec and Parkway District No. 12 $ 513
Orange City of Aliso Viejo $ 31,751
Orange City of Brea $ 27,874
Orange City of Buena Park $ 50,728
Orange City of Costa Mesa $ 69,568
Orange City of Cypress $ 29,987
Orange City of Dana Point $ 20,824
Orange City of Fountain Valley $ 33,806
Orange City of Fullerton $ 88,141
Orange City of Garden Grove $ 106,870
Orange City of La Habra $ 38,836
Orange City of La Palma $ 9,669
Orange City of Laguna Beach $ 14,276
Orange City of Laguna Hills $ 19,447
Orange City of Laguna Niguel $ 40,795
Orange City of Laguna Woods $ 10,096
Orange City of Lake Forest $ 52,773
Orange City of Los Alamitos $ 6,997
Orange City of Mission Viejo $ 58,939
Orange City of Newport Beach $ 53,284
Orange City of Orange $ 84,734
Orange City of Placentia $ 30,885
Orange City of Rancho Santa Margarita $ 29,826
Orange City of San Clemente $ 39,974
Orange City of San Juan Capistrano $ 22,466
Orange City of Seal Beach $ 14,771
83
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 24 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Orange City of Stanton $ 24,024
Orange City of Tustin $ 50,327
Orange City of Villa Park $ 3,603
Orange City of Westminster $ 57,742
Orange City of Yorba Linda $ 41,992
Orange Cypress RPD $ 29,987
Orange Rossmoor CSD $ 6,261
Orange Silverado-Modjeska RPD $ 724
Riverside Beaumont-Cherry Valley RPD $ 29,582
Riverside City of Banning $ 18,974
Riverside City of Beaumont $ 14,791
Riverside City of Blythe $ 11,874
Riverside City of Calimesa $ 5,598
Riverside City of Canyon Lake $ 6,859
Riverside City of Cathedral City $ 33,487
Riverside City of Coachella $ 28,329
Riverside City of Corona $ 103,029
Riverside City of Desert Hot Springs $ 17,654
Riverside City of Hemet $ 51,800
Riverside City of Indian Wells $ 3,328
Riverside City of Indio $ 19,297
Riverside City of La Quinta $ 25,730
Riverside City of Lake Elsinore $ 38,473
Riverside City of Menifee $ 57,123
Riverside City of Murrieta $ 69,675
Riverside City of Norco $ 16,356
Riverside City of Palm Desert $ 32,775
Riverside City of Palm Springs $ 29,785
Riverside City of Perris $ 47,672
Riverside City of Rancho Mirage $ 11,452
Riverside City of San Jacinto $ 19,032
Riverside City of Temecula $ 69,174
Riverside City of Wildomar $ 22,043
Riverside Jurupa Area RPD $ 76,398
Riverside Jurupa CSD $ 36,092
Riverside Lake Hemet Municipal Water District $ 32,339
Sacramento Arcade Creek RPD $ 14,487
Sacramento Arden Manor RPD $ 4,860
84
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 25 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Sacramento Arden Park RPD $ 2,567
Sacramento Carmichael RPD $ 26,596
Sacramento City of Citrus Heights $ 52,939
Sacramento City of Folsom $ 47,964
Sacramento City of Galt $ 16,196
Sacramento City of Isleton $ 491
Sacramento City of Rancho Cordova $ 45,515
Sacramento Cordova RPD $ 72,861
Sacramento Cosumnes CSD $ 105,194
Sacramento Fair Oaks RPD $ 21,490
Sacramento Fulton-El Camino RPD $ 19,080
Sacramento Mission Oaks RPD $ 37,361
Sacramento North Highlands RPD $ 27,006
Sacramento Orangevale RPD $ 20,756
Sacramento Rio Linda/Elverta RPD $ 15,891
Sacramento Southgate RPD $ 76,590
Sacramento Sunrise RPD $ 99,920
San Bernardino Baker CSD $ 428
San Bernardino Barstow Heights CSD $ 1,083
San Bernardino Big River CSD $ 1,100
San Bernardino City of Adelanto $ 20,878
San Bernardino City of Barstow $ 14,617
San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake $ 3,338
San Bernardino City of Chino $ 54,902
San Bernardino City of Chino Hills $ 51,562
San Bernardino City of Colton $ 32,835
San Bernardino City of Grand Terrace $ 7,654
San Bernardino City of Hesperia $ 14,723
San Bernardino City of Highland $ 34,091
San Bernardino City of Loma Linda $ 14,668
San Bernardino City of Montclair $ 23,600
San Bernardino City of Needles $ 3,164
San Bernardino City of Ontario $ 108,954
San Bernardino City of Rancho Cucamonga $ 108,790
San Bernardino City of Redlands $ 43,733
San Bernardino City of Rialto $ 65,422
San Bernardino City of Twentynine Palms $ 16,502
San Bernardino City of Upland $ 47,118
85
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 26 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Bernardino City of Victorville $ 77,341
San Bernardino City of Yucaipa $ 32,809
San Bernardino Daggett CSD $ 306
San Bernardino Helendale CSD $ 4,337
San Bernardino Hesperia RPD $ 44,171
San Bernardino Morongo Valley CSD $ 2,171
San Bernardino Newberry CSD $ 1,689
San Bernardino Phelan Piñon Hill CSD $ 1,345
San Bernardino Rim of the World RPD $ 17,666
San Bernardino Town of Apple Valley $ 45,839
San Bernardino Town of Yucca Valley $ 13,345
San Bernardino Wrightwood CSD $ 3,522
San Bernardino Yermo CSD $ 1,258
San Diego City of Coronado $ 14,981
San Diego City of Del Mar $ 2,720
San Diego City of El Cajon, Recreation Dept $ 64,384
San Diego City of Encinitas $ 38,743
San Diego City of Escondido $ 93,351
San Diego City of Imperial Beach $ 16,502
San Diego City of La Mesa, Community Services $ 37,442
San Diego City of Lemon Grove $ 16,264
San Diego City of National City $ 38,081
San Diego City of Oceanside $ 107,568
San Diego City of Poway $ 30,755
San Diego City of San Marcos $ 58,532
San Diego City of Santee $ 35,698
San Diego City of Solana Beach $ 8,519
San Diego City of Vista $ 62,333
San Diego Jacumba CSD $ 367
San Diego Lake Cuyamaca RPD $ 367
San Diego Ramona MWD $ 21,775
San Diego Valley Center Parks & Recreation $ 11,773
San Joaquin City of Escalon $ 4,619
San Joaquin City of Lathrop $ 14,668
San Joaquin City of Lodi $ 41,727
San Joaquin City of Manteca $ 51,205
San Joaquin City of Ripon $ 10,154
San Joaquin City of Tracy $ 56,114
86
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 27 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Joaquin Mountain House CSD $ 12,574
San Mateo City of Belmont $ 16,808
San Mateo City of Brisbane $ 2,885
San Mateo City of Burlingame $ 18,581
San Mateo City of Daly City $ 66,693
San Mateo City of East Palo Alto $ 18,641
San Mateo City of Foster City $ 20,593
San Mateo City of Half Moon Bay $ 7,720
San Mateo City of Menlo Park $ 20,998
San Mateo City of Millbrae $ 14,151
San Mateo City of Pacifica $ 23,480
San Mateo City of Redwood City $ 52,980
San Mateo City of San Bruno $ 27,683
San Mateo City of San Carlos $ 18,335
San Mateo City of San Mateo $ 63,869
San Mateo City of South San Francisco $ 40,997
San Mateo Highlands RD $ 1,340
San Mateo Ladera RD $ 795
San Mateo Town of Atherton $ 4,424
San Mateo Town of Colma $ 922
San Mateo Town of Hillsborough $ 6,678
San Mateo Town of Portola Valley $ 2,811
San Mateo Town of Woodside $ 3,401
Santa Clara City of Campbell $ 25,670
Santa Clara City of Cupertino $ 36,597
Santa Clara City of Gilroy $ 34,182
Santa Clara City of Los Altos $ 18,790
Santa Clara City of Milpitas $ 46,591
Santa Clara City of Monte Sereno $ 2,219
Santa Clara City of Morgan Hill $ 27,957
Santa Clara City of Mountain View $ 50,959
Santa Clara City of Palo Alto $ 41,027
Santa Clara City of Santa Clara $ 78,670
Santa Clara City of Saratoga $ 18,889
Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale $ 94,835
Santa Clara Rancho Rinconada RPD $ 2,689
Santa Clara Town of Los Altos Hills $ 5,331
Santa Clara Town of Los Gatos $ 18,778
87
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 28 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Sonoma Camp Meeker PRD $ 446
Sonoma Cazadero CSD $ 733
Sonoma City of Cloverdale $ 5,658
Sonoma City of Cotati $ 4,840
Sonoma City of Healdsburg $ 7,398
Sonoma City of Petaluma $ 38,044
Sonoma City of Rohnert Park $ 26,646
Sonoma City of Santa Rosa $ 107,339
Sonoma City of Sebastopol $ 4,819
Sonoma City of Sonoma $ 7,063
Sonoma Monte Rio RPD $ 704
Sonoma Russian River RPD $ 3,673
Sonoma Town of Windsor $ 17,458
Stanislaus City of Ceres $ 30,260
Stanislaus City of Hughson $ 4,584
Stanislaus City of Newman $ 7,174
Stanislaus City of Oakdale $ 14,255
Stanislaus City of Patterson $ 13,522
Stanislaus City of Riverbank $ 15,614
Stanislaus City of Turlock $ 46,790
Stanislaus City of Waterford $ 5,562
Ventura City of Camarillo $ 1,650
Ventura City of Fillmore $ 42,709
Ventura City of Moorpark $ 9,687
Ventura City of Ojai, Recreation Dept $ 22,626
Ventura City of Port Hueneme $ 4,889
Ventura City of Santa Paula $ 14,057
Ventura City of Ventura, Parks, Rec & Community
Partnership $ 18,546
Ventura Bell Canyon CSD $ 6,887
Ventura Conejo RPD $ 85,566
Ventura Pleasant Valley RPD $ 44,926
Ventura Rancho Simi RPD $ 86,177
88
1
Proposition 68 Per Capita Program
Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)
Frequently Asked Questions
Grant Contracts and Projects
1. How does an agency receive a Per Capita grant contract?
Agencies must first attend a mandatory workshop. Second, each agency
must submit one or more complete project applications that equal the
amount of its allocation. Then a grant contract will be executed.
2. How does an agency submit a project application?
The Per Capita Procedural Guide provides information about the documentation
needed as part of an application. OGALS will also be conducting technical
assistance workshops to review the Procedural Guide.
3. What is the deadline for submitting a project application?
December 31, 2021. Agencies are encouraged to submit application packages
digitally. The package must include all items listed on page 11 of the Procedural
Guide prior to submitting to OGALS.
Projects
1. What type of projects are eligible?
Projects must be for capital outlay; that is, acquisition of land, or improvements to
existing property beyond its original condition. Operation, maintenance, repairs are
not eligible.
2. Can Per Capita grantees use Per Capita funds to pay for staff costs?
Staff time for working on grant administration, such as preparing payment requests
is eligible, as is actual work done on the project. Staff time must be documented
actual time, not estimates of time; benefit costs can be included in employee costs,
but overhead costs, such as rent and utilities, cannot be charged to the grant.
Small Jurisdictions in Heavily Urbanized Counties
1. What is this Program?
Proposition 68 made $10,375,000 available to cities and local districts with
populations less than 200,000 in counties with populations greater than 500,000.
These funds were allocated to eligible entities on a per person basis.
2. How will those funds be made available?
Grantees will receive separate contracts for these allocations; grantees receiving an
allocation from this program and the regular Per Capita program, may combine the
allocations and use them for a single project.
89
2
Match
1. Is there a required match for Per Capita grants?
There is a 20% match for projects that do not serve a severely disadvantaged
community; projects are considered to be serving a severely disadvantaged
community if there is such a community within one-half mile of the project site.
See the Per Capita Fact Finder at https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/percapita for
more information.
2. How do I calculate match?
Divide the Per Capita funds to be used on the project by 4. For a project using the
entire allocation of $177,952, the match will be $44,488.
Total Project Cost $222,440
Minus Local Match (20%) (44,488)
Grant Amount $177,952
3. Can the required match be waived?
No. The match is required by Prop 68; OGALS does not have authority to
waive the match.
4. What if an agency cannot afford the required match?
If an agency cannot afford to provide the complete match, it can consider
creating a smaller project for which it can afford the match . An agency may also
consider transferring all or part of its allocation to another eligible entity. For
more information about the transfer process, see page 54 of the Per Capita
Procedural Guide.
Program Implementation
1. Proposition 68 stated that the minimum allocation was $200,000 for Cities
and Local Districts; why are these entities receiving a smaller allocation?
Proposition 68 provided $111 million for City and Local District Per Capita; with
635 eligible entities, that provides $174,803 per recipient. The Governor’s budget
proposes to redirect $2 million to supplement the amount available for City and
Local District allocations. If approved, each of these allocations will be increased
to $177,952.
2. Now that allocations have been released, what do agencies need to do to
receive these funds?
Agencies must attend a mandatory workshop and submit a complete application
package to OGALS. Then a contract will be executed. At that point, agencies can
begin to submit reimbursement payment requests for their projects.
90
Per Capita
Grant Administration 101
Proposition 68
(California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and
Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018)
91
Welcome
from theOffice of Grants and Local Services
(OGALS)
part of the
Community Engagement Division (CED)
California State Parks
92
Cover
Resources
Webpage –www.parks.ca.gov/percapita
Procedure Guide
Allocation Tables
Frequently Asked Questions
Forms
Project Officer
Phone number
E-mail address
93
Inside Cover OGALS Vision
To Be:
A leader among park and recreation professionals.
Proactive in anticipating public park and recreation needs and how new
legislation and grant programs could best meet these needs.
Honest, knowledgeable and experienced grant administration facilitators.
Sensitive to local concerns while mindful of prevailing laws, rules and regulations.
Perceptive to opportunities for partnerships, growth
and renewal where few existed before.
Committed to providing quality customer service
in every interaction and transaction.
Responsive to the needs of applicants, grantees,
nonprofit organizations, local governments,
legislative members, and department employees.
94
Table of Contents
Guide Overview
Program Description
Grant Process Overview
Application Packet
Special Requirements
Grant Payments
Per Capita Contract
Accounting and Audits
95
Page 4
Per Capita Program Summary
Background
Statute (PRC §80000 [see page 51])
OGALS may waive requirementsnot mandated by statute, talk to your Project Officer if you are having any issues
Two programs: General Per Capita and Local non-urban agencies in urban counties
Allocations
Available on OGALSPer Capita webpage
96
What if my agency is receiving
General Per Capita and
Urban County Per Capita funds?
Grantees may submit one application package
combining both allocations.
Grantees will have two contracts and two project
numbers, with the same scope on both projects.
Payments will first be drawn from the Urban County
allocation, then the general allocation.
Both projects will remain open until the
project is complete.
97
Per Capita Timeline
Attend mandatory workshop
Pass Resolution
Identify project(s)
Submit application package by December 2021
Execute contract by June 2022
Project completion by December 2023
Submit completion package by March 2024
98
Page 5
Project Requirements
Must be Capital outlay for recreational purposes
Acquisition or Development
Each project requires a separate application packet
A project can only have one location
Grantees are encouraged to partner with other
grantees on projects
PROJECTS not serving a “severely disadvantaged
community” (median household income less than
60% of the statewide average) require a 20% match
99
Page 5
No Supplanting
Per Capita funds must supplement existing expenditures,
rather than replace them
For example, a GRANTEE has a budget for recreational capital
expenditures of $500,000 per year and is receiving a $400,000 allocation
under the Per Capita program. The budget cannot be reduced to
$100,000, with the Per Capita funds making up the difference.
Similarly, if a PROJECT has been approved by the governing body, and
a funding source has been identified, Per Capita funds cannot be
swapped in as a new funding source unless the prior funding source is
applied to other identified recreational capital projects.
Keep all documents indicating intent to use
Per Capita grant funds for PROJECTS.
100
Page 6
Grant Process Overview
1.Mandatory Grant Administration
Workshops held statewide.
2.GRANTEE passes a resolution.
3.GRANTEE submits APPLICATION
PACKET(s).
4.OGALS sends a contract to the
GRANTEE once OGALS has
approved APPLICATION PACKET(S)
equaling the total contract amount.
The GRANTEE returns the contract,
signed by the AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE, to OGALS.
OGALS returns a copy of the
fully executed contract to the
GRANTEE.
5.GRANTEE requests reimbursement
payments for eligible costs. When
the project is complete, the
GRANTEE sends PROJECT
COMPLETION PACKET(s).
OGALS reviews completion
documents and conducts a final
site inspection prior to processing
the final payment request.
6.In preparation for an audit, the
GRANTEE must retain all PROJECT
records for five years following
issuance of the final GRANT
payment.
101
Page 7
Authorizing Resolution
GRANTEE passes one resolution approving the filing of all APPLICATION
PACKETS associated with the contract and forwards a copy to OGALS.
The Authorizing Resolution on page 8 in the procedural guide may be
reformatted; however, the language provided in the resolution must remain
unchanged. The Authorizing Resolution serves two purposes:
It is the means by which the GRANTEE’S Governing Body agrees to the terms of the contract;
confirming the GRANTEE has the funding to complete, operate and maintain the PROJECTS.
Designates a position title to represent the Governing Body on all matters regarding
PROJECTS associated with the contract. This will be the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
Complete the highlighted areas of the Authorizing Resolution.
The AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE can delegate signatory authority to other
position titles either in entirety or for particular documents. This may be
included in item 11 of the resolution, or the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
may submit a letter (on letterhead) or email to OGALS delegating authority.
102
Page 10
Application Packet
GRANTEE may submit multiple APPLICATION PACKETS.
Separate APPLICATION PACKETS are required for each PROJECT site
and/or PROJECT type.
Do not submit the APPLICATION PACKET until your agency has
all the items required.
Submitted documents need not contain original signatures; but the
GRANTEE must keep any original signed documents.
GRANTEES are encouraged to submit documents digitally, as .pdf files.
E-mail each checklist item to the PROJECT OFFICER as a separate digital file,
labeled using the digital file names indicated on the application checklist.
If submitting hard copies, number all pages of the APPLICATION PACKET.
Costs incurred prior to finalizing the contract are at the GRANTEE’S own risk.
103
Page 11
•Submit all applicable
items in the application
packet.
•Do not submit until you
have all checklist items
ready to go.
•The GHG Emissions
Reduction Worksheet
is submitted at
completion.
•Be sure the authorized
representative
has signed all
required items.
•Digital submission of
items is preferred.
104
Page 12 Requested Grant Amount
Enter amount of grant
funds being used on the
project.
Agencies receiving Urban
Counties allocation can
combine those funds with
their regular Per Capita
allocation in one
application package.
Match Amount
If match is required,
multiply requested grant
amount by 25% and enter
that amount here.
Project Site Name and
Address
•Only one site per
application.
105
Page 13 Per Capita Match
Projects not serving severely disadvantaged communities
(median household income less than 60% of the statewide
average) must include 20% match.
Determine if match is required using the Per Capita match
calculator at https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/percapita
Costs incurred to provide match must be eligible costs.
State funds are not allowed as match.
Eligible match sources are:
Federal funds
Local funds
Private funds
IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES
Volunteer labor
must maintain time and attendance records showing actual hours worked
(see https://independentsector.org for volunteer hourly wage value)
106
Page 13 Webpage for Per Capita Match calculator:
Ou
107
How to Use:Drop the pin anywhere within the project site.
Select your agency type
If the circle includes SDAC, no match is required.
Then click the “GET REPORT” button
108
This is what
the report
looks like:
Include a
copy of it
with your
application
package
109
Page 13 cont.
Calculating Match
The 20% match calculation is based on the PROJECT
amount.
Determining the required match amount:
PROJECT amount: $125,000
20% match: ($25,000)
GRANT amount: $100,000
Submitting costs for reimbursement:
GRANT amount: $100,000
25% in additional costs: $25,000
PROJECT amount: $125,000
PROJECT amount: $222,440
20% match: ($44,488)
GRANT amount: $177,952
GRANT amount: $177,952
25% in additional costs: $44,488
PROJECT amount: $222,440
110
Page 14
Acquisition Project Rules
Purchase price cannot exceed the appraised value.
Land cannot be acquired through eminent domain.
Acquisition costs outside actual cost of property must be less
than 25% of the PROJECT costs.
A deed restriction must be recorded on the property.
Land must be open for public recreation within three years.
GRANTEE must provide Title Insurance.
PROJECTS must be consistent with the park and recreation
element of the[city/county/district’s] general or
recreation plan.
For
Sale
111
Page 14-15
Acquisition Project Documentation
A document signed by the AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE with:
A brief description of the project
Estimated total costs for land and
relocation
Estimated total costs other than the
purchase price and relocation costs
An appraisal for all parcels conducted
within the last twelve months.
A letter from an independent appraiser
stating the appraisal was reviewed and
was completed using acceptable
methods.
County Assessor’s parcel map, with parcel
number(s) and parcel(s) to be acquired.
Estimated value of each parcel to be
acquired with a description of how that
value was determined.
Acreage of each parcel to be acquired.
A description of any encumbrances that
will remain on the property.
A description of the intended recreational
use of the land with the estimated date
the site will be open for public recreation.
For easement acquisitions, also provide a
copy of the proposed easement
guaranteeing the authority to use the
property as described in the application.
For relocation costs, also provide a letter
signed by the AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE, listing the relocation
costs for each displaced tenant, certifying
that the relocation amount does not
exceed the maximum allowed.
112
Page 15
Acquisition Costs
Eligible Acquisition Costs
IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES
GRANT/PROJECT administration
and accounting
Public meetings/focus
groups/design workshop
Appraisals, escrow fees, surveying,
other costs associated with
acquisition
Cost of land
Ineligible Acquisition Costs
Costs to fulfill any mitigation
requirements imposed by law
Acquisitions where purchase price
is greater than appraised value
Costs for land acquired through
eminent domain or
condemnation
Costs incurred outside the GRANT
performance period
Development costs
113
Page 16
Development Project Rules
PROJECTS must be consistent with the park and recreation element
of the GRANTEE’S general or recreation plan.
Contracted work must comply with the provisions of §1771.5
of the State Labor Code, prevailing wage law.
GRANTEE must have adequate liability insurance, performance
bond, or other security necessary to protect the State and
GRANTEE’S interest against poor workmanship, fraud, or other
potential loss associated with the completion of the PROJECT.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS may not exceed 25% of the
PROJECT amount.
The primary purpose of any building constructed or
improved must be public recreation.
PROJECTS must be accessible, including an accessible path
of travel to the PROJECT.
114
Page 16
Eligible Development Costs
Pre-Construction –up to
25% of project costs
Public meetings, focus groups, design
workshops
Plans, specifications, construction
documents, and cost estimates
Permits
CEQA
Bid preparation and packages
IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES prior to
groundbreaking
GRANT/PROJECT administration and
accounting prior to groundbreaking
Construction
Necessary labor and construction
activities to complete the PROJECT
Construction equipment
Bond sign and other signage
Premiums on hazard and liability
insurance
Site preparation
Purchase and installation of
equipment
Construction management
IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES after
groundbreaking
GRANT/PROJECT administration and
accounting after groundbreaking
115
Page 17
Ineligible Development Costs
PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS that
exceed 25% of the PROJECT costs
Development to fulfill any mitigation
requirements imposed by law
All non-capital costs, including
interpretive and recreational
programming, software and
software development
Construction or improvements to
facilities that are not primarily
designated for recreational
purposes, such as park district offices
Construction outside the boundaries
of the recreation facility
Furniture or equipment not site specific
and not necessary for the core function
of a new facility (non-capital outlay)
Costs incurred before or after the
GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD
Indirect costs –overhead business
expenses of the GRANTEE’S fixed or
ordinary operating costs (rent, mortgage
payments, property taxes, utilities, etc.)
Food and beverages
Out-of-state travel
Fundraising and grant writing
Repairs –activities performed to a
section of a structure that are intended
to allow the continued use.
Maintenance –activities intended to be
performed on a regular basis to maintain
the expected useful life of a structure.
116
Page 17
Distinguishing capital outlay (eligible) from
repair and maintenance (not eligible):
Capital outlay –
building something
new, or for existing
structures, activities
intended to boost
the condition
beyond its original or
current state.
Repairs –
activities performed
to a section of a
structure that are
intended to allow
the continued use.
Maintenance –
activities intended
to be performed on
a regular basis to
maintain the
expected useful life
of a structure.
Examples:
Roof –replacing broken shingles is maintenance; fixing a hole is repair; replacing
the roof is capital outlay.
Playground –adding additional fall material is maintenance; fixing the chains on
a swing set is repair; replacing the play structures is capital outlay.
Windows –repairing the glazing is maintenance; replacing broken panes is
repair; replacing the windows is capital outlay.
117
Page 18
Accounting Rules for In-House
Employee Services
Maintain time and attendance records
as charges are incurred, identifying the
employee through a name or other
tracking system, and that employee’s
actual time spent on the PROJECT.
Time estimates, including percentages,
for work performed are not acceptable.
Time sheets that do not identify the
specific employee’s time spent on the
PROJECT are not acceptable.
Costs of the salaries and wages must be
calculated according to the GRANTEE’S
wage and salary scales, and may
include benefit costs such as vacation,
health insurance, pension contributions
and workers’ compensation.
Overtime costs may be allowed under
the GRANTEE’S established policy,
provided that the regular work time was
devoted to the same PROJECT.
May not include overhead or cost
allocation. These are the costs generally
associated with supporting an
employee, such as rent, personnel
support, IT, utilities, etc.
If planning to claim IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE
SERVICES costs, provide a sample
timesheet for OGALS review to confirm
these accounting practices are being
followed.
118
Page 19
Briefly describe
the project scope.
Check the
appropriate
boxes.
You may check
multiple boxes for
a single recreation
element.
119
Page 20
Funding Sources Form
•If using Per Capita
and Urban Counties
Per Capita, enter
each on a
separate line.
•If funding sources are
added or modified,
submit a revised
form to OGALS.
120
Page 21
•OGALS needs a
copy of the
recorded
Notice of
Exemption
or
Notice of
Determination.
•Be sure this form
is signed by the
authorized
representative.
121
Page 22
Land Tenure
PROJECT amounts up to $100,000 require at least 20 years of
land tenure at the site to be acquired or developed.
PROJECT amounts greater than $100,000 require at least 30
years of land tenure at the site to be acquired or developed.
The 20-or 30-year land tenure requirement begins on
July 1, 2018.
The GRANTEE remains responsible for fulfillment of the terms of
the contract, even if the GRANTEE’S land tenure agreement
changes within the contract PERFORMANCE PERIOD.
122
Page 22
Land Tenure Documentation
If PROJECT site is owned in fee
simple, provide one of the
following:
Deed or deed recordation number, or
Title report, or Tract map or assessor’s
map with owner’s name
If PROJECT site is not owned in
fee simple, provide:
Land Tenure Agreement Checklist
Signed land tenure agreement
If the project site is not owned in
fee simple, and the existing land
tenure agreement does not
meet the requirements in the
Land Tenure Checklist, provide:
Land Tenure Agreement Checklist
Signed land tenure agreement
An explanation as to how the existing
land tenure agreement adequately
protects the State’s interest.
123
Page 23 Land Tenure Checklist
If the land is not owned in
fee simple, complete this
checklist.
Attach a copy of the
signed land tenure
agreement.
Identify the page
numbers where the
required items can be
found in the land tenure
agreement and highlight
the provisions in the
agreement where the
information is located.
All items are required.
124
Page 24
Other Application Checklist Items
Site Plan
Does not need to be a detailed engineering rendering.
Provide a drawing showing where all project scope items will be located.
If the project include any buildings, include the function and approximate
square footage of each room within buildings that are part of the scope,
and the approximate total square footage of the buildings.
Sub-leases or Agreements
Provide a list of all other leases, agreements, memoranda of understanding,
etc., affecting PROJECT property or its operation and maintenance.
Photos
Provide photos that will establish a “before”
comparison for the site to be improved.
125
Page 24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction and Carbon Sequestration
If your PROJECT involves tree planting, submit the i-Tree report with the
PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET.
126
Page 27
Status Reports
OGALS will send a
Status Report
every six months.
Payment requests
will not be
processed if
Status Reports
are overdue.
127
Page 28 Prop 68 Sign Requirement
Must be displayed during construction, at the final inspection, and for at least 4 years after completion.
Must contain this language:
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources
Lisa Ann L. Mangat, Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation
Use current names. May include names (and/or logos) of other partners, organizations, individuals and elected representatives.
Must display this logo
Logo must be at least 24” x 24”
Materials shall be durable and resistant to the elements and graffiti.
If the sign may be out of place or
affected by local sign ordinances,
OGALS may approve an alternative.
Submit the proposed number,
locations, size, and language of
signs for preliminary review.
Download logo at:
https://resources.ca.gov/grants/logo
-art/
128
129
Page 29
Deed Restriction
Safeguards the property for purposes consistent with
the GRANT for the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD.
If the GRANTEE owns the PROJECT land, a Deed Restriction
must be recorded on the title to the property before OGALS
will approve any grant payments.
If the GRANTEE is acquiring land, a deed restriction is required
before the PROJECT is complete.
A Deed Restriction is not required if the GRANTEE does not own
the PROJECT land.
OGALS will email the Deed Restriction for the GRANTEE to complete.
OGALS recommends submitting these documents to the
OGALS PROJECT OFFICER for review prior to notarizing.
130
Grant Payments
May be requested after a PROJECT
is approved and the contract is
encumbered
Processed through the State
Controller’s Office and mailed six to
eight weeks from the approval date
Limited to 25% of the PROJECT
amount prior to groundbreaking
20% of the PROJECT amount is
retained for the final reimbursement
A deed restriction is required prior
to processing any payments
Group costs together to avoid
frequent payment requests
If match is required, show eligible
costs equal to 125% of the
requested payment
Complete CEQA needed before
requesting any construction
reimbursement
Provide a sample timesheet when
requesting reimbursement for in-house
employee services
Provide bid summary documents for
costs on contracts requiring a bid
process
Provide construction progress photos,
with a photo of the construction sign on
the PROJECT site, with construction
payment requests.
Page 33
131
Page 33
Payment may be withheld if
there are outstanding issues:
breach of any other contract with OGALS
an unresolved audit exception
an outstanding conversion
park sites closed or inadequately maintained
overdue Project Status Reports
other unmet grant requirements
132
Page 35
Payment Request Form
•All payment request
types (reimbursement,
final, ADVANCE) require
this form.
•Payment requests may
be submitted by e-mail
to the PROJECT OFFICER.
•Round all amounts to the
nearest whole dollar.
•A Grant Expenditure
Form is required with all
reimbursement and final
payment requests.
133
Page 36 Grant Expenditure Form
•All payment requests
require a summary of costs
incurred.
•An electronic version of
the grant expenditure form
is available on OGALS
website.
•GRANTEES may use their
own spreadsheet if it
contains the required
information.
•Keep copies of invoices or
warrants with the PROJECT
records, don’t forward to
OGALS unless requested.
134
Page 37
Project Completion
Submit PROJECT COMPLETION PACKETS
by March 31, 2024
OGALS encourages digital submission
of documents, as .pdf files.
The final payment will be processed after
PROJECT COMPLETION and the following occurs:
Approval of the PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET
Site inspection by the PROJECT OFFICER
135
Page 37
Project Completion Packet
Payment Request Form
Grant Expenditure Form
Final Funding Sources Form
GHG Emissions Reduction
Worksheet
Project Completion
Certification Form
Photo of the bond act sign
and location
Recorded Deed Restriction,
if not already provided
Completed CEQA,
if not already provided
Notice of Completion (optional)
Audit checklist with items
checked
Acquisition PROJECTS also require:
Copy of the recorded deed to
the property
Map sufficient to verify the
description of the property
including parcel numbers and
acreage
Copy of title insurance policy
Copy of title report for retention
136
Page 38
Project
Certification
Form
Notice of Completion
not required; OGALS
just needs to know if
one was filed.
Do not sign until the
project is complete
and final payment has
been made for all work
done.
137
Page 39
Advance Payments
OGALS reserves the right to disapprove ADVANCE payment requests.
Past performance, GRANTEE capacity, and the GRANTEE’S financial
resources will all be considered.
GRANTEES that are unable to finance a considerable portion of their
PROJECTS are encouraged to seek an allocation transfer.
ADVANCE payments may be requested for costs the GRANTEE
will incur within the next six months.
ADVANCE funds must be placed in an interest-bearing account. Any
interest earned on those funds must be spent within six months.
The sum of DEVELOPMENT ADVANCES cannot exceed 50%
of the PROJECT amount.
ADVANCES must be cleared within six months. They should be cleared
as costs are incurred.
138
Page 39
Advance Justification
Explain why an ADVANCE
is needed instead of a
reimbursement. Describe any
hardships your agency will
experience if a reimbursement
were issued instead of an
ADVANCE.
A payment schedule, with
a month -by-month estimate,
for up to six months, showing
the anticipated amount
needed, and to whom the
funds will be paid.
The six-month schedule should
begin six to eight weeks after
ADVANCE request is submitted.
A funding plan, indicating how your
agency intends to cash flow the
costs exceeding the 50% ADVANCE
limit.
A statement that your agency will
put the advanced funds into a
separate, interest bearing account,
and spend any interest earned on
the PROJECT.
An acknowledgement that all
invoices and contracts pursuant to
which payments are made shall be
made available to OGALS on
demand.
139
Page 42 Grant Contract
Face Sheet
Contract will be sent to
grantee after applications
have been approved for full
contract amount
Grant Performance
Period: Period in which
the PROJECT must be
constructed.
Contract Performance
Period: Period in which
the PROJECT must be
maintained and open
to the public.
140
Pages 43-48 Contract Provisions Highlights
B.1. Submit a written request if you need to
make a change to the grant scope. OGALS
must provide written approval of any changes.
C.2. OGALS may make reasonable changes to
procedures in the Procedural Guide and will
notify your agency within a reasonable time.
D.2. Return project status reports within 30 days
after OGALS has sent it. And, submit your
completion packet within 60 days of project
completion or the end of the grant
performance period, whichever is earlier.
F. If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or
deleted by the budget act for purposes of this
program, OGALS has the option to cancel or
reduce the amount of the contract.
G. The state will not be liable for any injuries or
lawsuits related to the project.
H.1. Maintain all records for the project and
make them available for an audit at reasonable
times. Retain all documents for five years after
project completion.
I.1. Your agency will operate and maintain the
property acquired or developed for the
duration of the Contract Performance Period.
J.2. Your agency shall not discriminate on the
basis of residence, except reasonable
differences in admission or other fees may be
maintained on the basis of residence and
pursuant to law.
N. Grant funds cannot be used for the purpose
of making any leverage loan, pledge,
promissory note or similar financial device or
transaction, without: 1) the prior written
approval of the STATE; and 2) a recorded
subordination agreement provided and
approved by OGALS.
141
Accounting and Audits
All PROJECT records must be retained for five years after
final payment is issued.
Provide an employee having knowledge of the PROJECT and its
records to assist the DPR auditor.
Provide accounting data that clearly records costs incurred and
accurately reflects fiscal transactions, with the necessary controls and
safeguards.
Provide good audit trails, with the source documents (purchase orders,
receipts, progress payments, invoices, timecards, cancelled warrants,
warrant numbers, etc.)
Keep records of all eligible costs, including those not submitted to
OGALS for payment. This provides a potential source of additional
eligible costs, should any submitted expenses be deemed ineligible.
Page 49
142
Page 50 Audit
Checklist
Keep a copy
handy with
your project
records.
143
Page 54
Allocation Transfer
Entities may transfer their Per Capita allocation to another entity,
provided that the following requirements are met:
All required documentation must be submitted by December 2021.
The transferring agency must submit a resolution authorizing the
transfer of the allocation. The resolution must name the recipient entity
and the transferred amount.
The recipient must be eligible to receive Per Capita funds and have
submitted a resolution to receive their Per Capita funds.
The recipient must also submit a resolution authorizing the receipt of
the other entities’ funds; the resolution must state the donor and the
transferred amount.
144
What’s Next?
Pass Resolution
Identify project(s)
Submit application package by December 2021
Execute contract by June 2022
Project completion by December 2023
Submit completion package by March 2024
145
“…to address California’s diverse
recreational, cultural and historical resource
needs by developing grant programs,
administering funds, offering technical
assistance, building partnerships and
providing leadership through quality customer
service.”--The mission of the Office of Grants and Local Services
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PerCapitaWorkshopSurvey
146
42
Per Capita Contract
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Sample Grant Contract
Per Capita Grant Program
GRANTEE: Grantee Name
GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2024
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2048
The GRANTEE agrees to the terms and conditions of this contract (CONTRACT), and the State of
California, acting through its Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, pursuant to the
State of California, agrees to fund the total State grant amount indicated below.
The GRANTEE agrees to complete the PROJECT SCOPE(s) as defined in the Development
PROJECT SCOPE/Cost Estimate Form or acquisition documentation for the application(s) filed with
the State of California.
The General and Special Provisions attached are made a part of and incorporated into the Contract.
Total State grant amount not to exceed $ [GRANT amount]
GRANTEE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING (FOR STATE USE ONLY)
AMOUNT OF ESTIMATE $ CONTRACT NUMBER FUND
ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE $ APPROPRIATION
ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE $ ITEM VENDOR NUMBER
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $ LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR
T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. INDEX Funding Source OBJ. EXPEND
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance.
SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE
147
43
I.RECITALS
This CONTRACT is entered into between the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(hereinafter referred to as “GRANTOR,” “DEPARTMENT” or “STATE”) and [grantee name]
(hereinafter referred to as “GRANTEE”).
The DEPARTMENT hereby grants to GRANTEE a sum (also referred to as “GRANT MONIES”) not
to exceed $grant amount, subject to the terms and conditions of this CONTRACT and the 20xx/xx
California State Budget, Chapter xx, statutes of 20xx, Item number – 3790-xxx-xxxx (appropriation
chapter and budget item number hereinafter referred to as “PER CAPITA GRANT”). These funds
shall be used for completion of the GRANT SCOPE(S).
The Grant Performance Period is from July 1, 20xx to June 30, 20xx.
II.GENERAL PROVISIONS
A.Definitions
As used in this CONTRACT, the following words shall have the following meanings:
1.The term “ACT” means the California Drought, Water, Parks Climate, Coastal Protection, and
Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018, as referred to in section I of this CONTRACT.
2.The term “APPLICATION” means the individual project APPLICATION packet for a project
pursuant to the enabling legislation and/or grant program process guide requirements.
3.The term “DEPARTMENT” or “STATE” means the California Department of Parks and
Recreation.
4.The term “DEVELOPMENT” means capital improvements to real property by means of, but not
limited to, construction, expansion, and/or renovation, of permanent or fixed features of the
property.
5. The term “GRANTEE” means the party described as the GRANTEE in Section I of this
CONTRACT.
6.The term “GRANT SCOPE” means the items listed in the GRANT SCOPE/Cost Estimate Form
or acquisition documentation found in each of the APPLICATIONS submitted pursuant to this
grant.
7.The term “PROCEDURAL GUIDE” means the document identified as the “Procedural Guide for
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All
Act of 2018 Per Capita Program.” The PROCEDURAL GUIDE provides the procedures and
policies controlling the administration of the grant.
B.Project Execution
1. Subject to the availability of GRANT MONIES in the act, the STATE hereby grants to the
GRANTEE a sum of money not to exceed the amount stated in Section I of this CONTRACT, in
consideration of, and on condition that, the sum be expended in carrying out the purposes as set
forth in the enabling legislation and referenced in the APPLICATION, Section I of this
CONTRACT, and under the terms and conditions set forth in this CONTRACT.
The GRANTEE shall assume any obligation to furnish any additional funds that may be
necessary to complete the GRANT SCOPE(S).
The GRANTEE agrees to submit any change or alteration from the original GRANT SCOPE(S)
in writing to the STATE for prior approval. This applies to any and all changes that occur after
148
44
STATE has approved the APPLICATION. Changes in the GRANT SCOPE(S) must be
approved in writing by the STATE.
2. The GRANTEE shall complete the GRANT SCOPE(S) in accordance with the time of the Grant
Performance Period set forth in Section I of this CONTRACT, and under the terms and
conditions of this CONTRACT.
3. The GRANTEE shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code, §21000, et seq., Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §15000 et seq.).
4. The GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable current laws and regulations affecting
DEVELOPMENT projects, including, but not limited to, legal requirements for construction
contracts, building codes, health and safety codes, and laws and codes pertaining to individuals
with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. §12101 et seq.) and the California Unruh Act (California Civil Code §51 et seq.).
C.Procedural Guide
1.GRANTEE agrees to abide by the PROCEDURAL GUIDE.
2.GRANTEE acknowledges that STATE may make reasonable changes to its procedures as set
forth in the PROCEDURAL GUIDE. If STATE makes any changes to its procedures and
guidelines, STATE agrees to notify GRANTEE within a reasonable time.
D.Project Administration
1.If GRANT MONIES are advanced for DEVELOPMENT projects, the advanced funds shall be
placed in an interest bearing account until expended. Interest earned on the advanced funds
shall be used on the project as approved by the STATE. If grant monies are advanced and not
expended, the unused portion of the grant and any interest earned shall be returned to the
STATE within 60 days after project completion or end of the Grant Performance Period,
whichever is earlier.
2. The GRANTEE shall submit written project status reports within 30 calendar days after the
STATE has made such a request. In any event, the GRANTEE shall provide the STATE a
report showing total final project expenditures within 60 days of project completion or the end of
the grant performance period, whichever is earlier. The Grant Performance Period is identified in
Section I of this CONTRACT.
3. The GRANTEE shall make property or facilities acquired and/or developed pursuant to this
contract available for inspection upon request by the STATE.
149
45
E.Project Termination
1.Project Termination refers to the non-completion of a GRANT SCOPE. Any grant funds that
have not been expended by the GRANTEE shall revert to the STATE.
2.The GRANTEE may unilaterally rescind this CONTRACT at any time prior to the
commencement of the project. The commencement of the project means the date of the letter
notifying GRANTEE of the award or when the funds are appropriated, whichever is later. After
project commencement, this CONTRACT may be rescinded, modified or amended only by
mutual agreement in writing between the GRANTEE and the STATE, unless the provisions of
this CONTRACT provide that mutual agreement is not required.
3.Failure by the GRANTEE to comply with the terms of the (a) PROCEDURAL GUIDE, (b) any
legislation applicable to the ACT, (c) this CONTRACT as well as any other grant contracts,
specified or general, that GRANTEE has entered into with STATE, may be cause for suspension
of all obligations of the STATE unless the STATE determines that such failure was due to no
fault of the GRANTEE. In such case, STATE may reimburse GRANTEE for eligible costs
properly incurred in performance of this CONTRACT despite non-performance of the
GRANTEE. To qualify for such reimbursement, GRANTEE agrees to mitigate its losses to the
best of its ability.
4.Any breach of any term, provision, obligation or requirement of this CONTRACT by the
GRANTEE shall be a default of this CONTRACT. In the case of any default by GRANTEE,
STATE shall be entitled to all remedies available under law and equity, including but not limited
to: a) Specific Performance; b) Return of all GRANT MONIES; c) Payment to the STATE of the
fair market value of the project property or the actual sales price, whichever is higher; and d)
Payment to the STATE of the costs of enforcement of this CONTRACT, including but not limited
to court and arbitration costs, fees, expenses of litigation, and reasonable attorney fees.
5.The GRANTEE and the STATE agree that if the GRANT SCOPE includes DEVELOPMENT,
final payment may not be made until the work described in the GRANT SCOPE is complete and
the GRANT PROJECT is open to the public.
F.Budget Contingency Clause
If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the budget act for purposes of this program,
the STATE shall have the option to either cancel this contract with no liability occurring to the
STATE, or offer a CONTRACT amendment to GRANTEE to reflect the reduced grant amount. This
Paragraph shall not require the mutual agreement as addressed in Paragraph E, provision 2, of this
CONTRACT.
G.Hold Harmless
1.The GRANTEE shall waive all claims and recourse against the STATE including the right to
contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of or in any way
connected with or incident to this CONTRACT except claims arising from the concurrent or sole
negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, and employees.
2.The GRANTEE shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents and
employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability costs
arising out of the ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT, construction, operation or maintenance of
the property described as the project which claims, demands or causes of action arise under
California Government Code Section 895.2 or otherwise except for liability arising out of the
concurrent or sole negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, or employees.
150
46
3.The GRANTEE agrees that in the event the STATE is named as codefendant under the
provisions of California Government Code Section 895 et seq., the GRANTEE shall notify the
STATE of such fact and shall represent the STATE in the legal action unless the STATE
undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action in which event the GRANTEE
agrees to pay the STATE’s litigation costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees.
4. The GRANTEE and the STATE agree that in the event of judgment entered against the STATE
and the GRANTEE because of the concurrent negligence of the STATE and the GRANTEE,
their officers, agents, or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be
made by a court of competent jurisdiction. Neither party shall request a jury apportionment.
5.The GRANTEE shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents and
employees against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses or liability costs arising out of
legal actions pursuant to items to which the GRANTEE has certified. The GRANTEE
acknowledges that it is solely responsible for compliance with items to which it has certified.
H.Financial Records
1.The GRANTEE shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents, including loan
documents, and all other records for the project and to make them available to the STATE for
auditing at reasonable times. The GRANTEE also agrees to retain such financial accounts,
documents and records for five years following project termination or issuance of final payment,
whichever is later.
The GRANTEE shall keep such records as the STATE shall prescribe, including records which
fully d isclose (a) the disposition of the proceeds of STATE funding assistance, (b) the total cost
of the project in connection with such assistance that is given or used, (c) the amount and nature
of that portion of the project cost supplied by other sources, and (d) any other such records that
will facilitate an effective audit.
3.The GRANTEE agrees that the STATE shall have the right to inspect and make copies of any
books, records or reports pertaining to this contract or matters related thereto during regular
office hours. The GRANTEE shall maintain and make available for inspection by the STATE
accurate records of all of its costs, disbursements and receipts with respect to its activities under
this contract. Such accounts, documents, and records shall be retained by the GRANTEE for at
least five years following project termination or issuance of final payment, whichever is later.
4.The GRANTEE shall use a generally accepted accounting system.
I.Use of Facilities
1.The GRANTEE agrees that the GRANTEE shall operate and maintain the property acquired or
developed with the GRANT MONIES, for the duration of the Contract Performance Period.
2.The GRANTEE agrees that, during the Contract Performance Period, the GRANTEE shall
use the property acquired or developed with GRANT MONIES under this contract only for the
purposes of this grant and no other use, sale, or other disposition or change of the use of the
property to one not consistent with its purpose shall be permitted except as authorized by the
STATE and the property shall be replaced with property of equivalent value and usefulness
as determined by the STATE.
3.The property acquired or developed may be transferred to another entity if the successor
entity assumes the obligations imposed under this CONTRACT and with the approval of
STATE.
151
47
4.Any real Property (including any portion of it or any interest in it) may not be used as security
for any debt or mitigation, without the written approval of the STATE provided that such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld as long as the purposes for which the Grant was
awarded are maintained. Any such permission that is granted does not make the STATE a
guarantor or a surety for any debt or mitigation, nor does it waive the STATE’S rights to
enforce performance under the Grant CONTRACT.
5.All real property, or rights thereto, acquired with GRANT MONIES shall be subject to an
appropriate form of restrictive title, rights, or covenants approved by the STATE. If the project
property is taken by use of eminent domain, GRANTEE shall reimburse STATE an amount at
least equal to the amount of GRANT MONIES received from STATE or the pro-rated full market
value of the real property, including improvements, at the time of sale, whichever is higher.
6.If eminent domain proceedings are initiated against GRANTEE, GRANTEE shall notify
STATE within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
J.Nondiscrimination
1.The GRANTEE shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, race, color,
national origin, age, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, or disability in the use of any
property or facility developed pursuant to this contract.
2.The GRANTEE shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence except to
the extent that reasonable differences in admission or other fees may be maintained on the
basis of residence and pursuant to law.
3.All facilities shall be open to members of the public generally, except as noted under the
special provisions of this project contract or under provisions of the enabling legislation and/or
grant program.
K.Severability
If any provision of this CONTRACT or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall
not affect other provisions or applications of the CONTRACT which can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this CONTRACT are severable.
L.Liability
1.STATE assumes no responsibility for assuring the safety or standards of construction, site
improvements or programs related to the GRANT SCOPE. The STATE’S rights under this
CONTRACT to review, inspect and approve the GRANT SCOPE and any final plans of
implementation shall not give rise to any warranty or representation that the GRANT SCOPE
and any plans or improvements are free from hazards or defects.
2.GRANTEE will secure adequate liability insurance, performance bond, and/or other security
necessary to protect the GRANTEE’s and STATE’S interest against poor workmanship, fraud,
or other potential loss associated with completion of the grant project.
M.Assignability
Without the written consent of the STATE, the GRANTEE’S interest in and responsibilities under
this CONTRACT shall not be assignable by the GRANTEE either in whole or in part.
152
48
N. Use of Grant Monies
GRANTEE shall not use any grant funds (including any portion thereof) for the purpose of
making any leverage loan, pledge, promissory note or similar financial device or transaction,
without: 1) the prior written approval of the STATE; and 2) any financial or legal interests created
by any such leverage loan, pledge, promissory note or similar financial device or transaction in
the project property shall be completely subordinated to this CONTRACT through a
Subordination Agreement provided and approved by the STATE, signed by all parties involved
in the transaction, and recorded in the County Records against the fee title of the project
property.
N. Section Headings
The headings and captions of the various sections of this CONTRACT have been inserted only
for the purpose of convenience and are not a part of this CONTRACT and shall not be deemed
in any manner to modify, explain, or restrict any of the provisions of this CONTRACT.
O. Waiver
Any failure by a party to enforce its rights under this CONTRACT, in the event of a breach, shall
not be construed as a waiver of said rights; and the waiver of any breach under this CONTRACT
shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.
GRANTEE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
153
30
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Grants and Local Services
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Office of Grants and Local Services
PO Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Attn: [Project Officer]
DEED RESTRICTION
I.WHEREAS, insert ownership information as it appears on the deed
(hereinafter referred to as “Owner(s)” is/are recorded owner(s) of the real property
described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter
referred to as the “Property”); and
II.WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(hereinafter referred to as “DPR”) is a public agency created and existing under the
authority of section 5001 of the California Public Resources Code (hereinafter referred
to as the “PRC”). And
III.WHEREAS, Owner(s) (or Grantee) received an allocation of grant funds
pursuant to the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and
Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 Per Capita Program for improvements on the
Property; and
IV.WHEREAS, on (enter date), DPR’s Office of Grants and Local Services
conditionally approved Grant [project number], (hereinafter referred to as “Grant”) for
improvements on the Property, subject to, among other conditions, recordation of this
Deed Restriction on the Property; and
V.WHEREAS, but for the imposition of the Deed Restriction condition of the
Grant, the Grant would not be consistent with the public purposes of the Per Capita
Program and the funds that are the subject of the Grant could therefore not have been
allocated; and
154
31
VI.WHEREAS, Owner(s) has/have elected to comply with the Deed
Restriction requirement of the Grant, so as to enable Owner(s), to receive the Grant
funds and perform the work described in the Grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the issuance of the Grant funds by
DPR, the undersigned Owner(s) for himself/herself/themselves and for his/her/their
heirs, assigns, and successors-in-interest, hereby irrevocably covenant(s) with DPR that
the condition of the grant (set forth at paragraph(s) 1 through 5 and in Exhibit B hereto)
shall at all times on and after the date on which this Deed Restriction is recorded
constitute for all purposes covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and
enjoyment of the Property that are hereby attached to the deed to the Property as fully
effective components thereof.
1.DURATION. This Deed Restriction shall remain in full force and effect and
shall bind Owner(s) and all his/her/their assigns or successors-in-interest for the period
running from July 1, 20xx to June 30, 20xx (20 years) or June 30, 20xx (30 years).
2.TAXES AND ASSESMENTS. It is intended that this Deed Restriction is
irrevocable and shall constitute an enforceable restriction within the meaning of a)
Article XIII, section 8, of the California Constitution; and b) section 402.1 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code or successor statue. Furthermore, this Deed
Restriction shall be deemed to constitute a servitude upon and burden to the Property
within the meaning of section 3712(d) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, or
successor statue, which survives a sale of tax-deeded property.
3.RIGHT OF ENTRY. DPR or its agent or employees may enter onto the
Property at times reasonably acceptable to Owner(s) to ascertain whether the use
restrictions set forth above are being observed.
4.REMEDIES. Any act, conveyance, contract, or authorization by Owner(s)
whether written or oral which uses or would cause to be used or would permit use of the
Property contrary to the terms of this Deed Restriction will be deemed a violation and a
breach hereof. DPR may pursue any and all available legal and/or equitable remedies
to enforce the terms and conditions of this Deed Restriction up to and including a lien
sale of the property. In the event of a breach, any forbearance on the part of DPR to
155
32
enforce the terms and provisions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of enforcement
rights regarding such breach, or any subsequent breach.
SEVERABILITY. If any provision of these restrictions is held to be invalid, or for any
reason becomes unenforceable, no other provision shall be affected or impaired.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
Business Name (if property is owned by a business):
Additional signature, if required Date
Print Name and Title
156
Agenda Item No.: 8.B
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION ON REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DRAFT NEW MS4 PERMIT; CONSIDER THE EVALUATION OF THE
REQUIREMENTS BY MCGOWN CONSULTING; AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PARTICIPATING IN THE PENINSULA
ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP).
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) went into effect in December 2012. The Regional
Board is required to issue a new permit every five years. In July 2020, the Regional Board held a
special meeting to discuss the timing of issuing a new MS4 permit. McGowan Consulting (McGowan)
has been tracking the new permit on behalf of the City. McGowan provides summaries of Regional
Board meetings discussing the draft permit. The Tentative Permit was released on August 24, 2020 and
based on recent Regional Board discussions, the new permit is expected to be adopted sometime
between February and April 2021.
DISCUSSION:
In January 2020, in anticipation of the release of the Tentative Permit, and on behalf of the City,
McGowan requested the Regional Board to allow Permittees not participating in an Enhanced
Watershed Management Program (EWPP) or Watershed Management Program (WMP) to be deemed in
compliance with TMDLs for the tributary areas with regional projects capturing the 85th percentile, 24-
hour storm runoff volume (required volume). This request was not accommodated.
In September 2020, McGowan reported that the Tentative Permit explicitly states the following:
"Los Angeles County Permittees that were on baseline requirements of the 2012 Los Angeles County
MS4 Permit [e.g., Rolling Hills] may join an existing Watershed Management Program but may not
develop a new individual Watershed Management Program."
If the City does not join an EWMP, the City will be required by the new permit to conduct compliance
monitoring at a location at its jurisdictional boundary rather than measuring compliance at one of the
157
joint Peninsula monitoring locations. With City Council's approval of the new monitoring location for
Machado Lake Nutrient TMDL in the Sepulveda Canyon, the City could satisfy this requirement. The
bigger issue with this new provision of the draft permit is that if the monitoring results at the Sepulveda
Canyon location does not comply with the numeric limits established by the Regional Board, the City
would be deemed out of compliance with the MS4 permit. However, if the City joins a EWMP, the
City would be afforded compliance while regional projects are planned to address impairment in the
Machado Lake and other bodies of water accepting the City's runoff.
The Peninsula Watershed Management Group (WMG) comprised of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills
Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County are reviewing a
revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that re-establishes the EWMP relationship between
these agencies based on the requirements of the current MS4 permit and incorporating provisions of the
Tentative Permit. The WMG is working towards finalizing the MOU in the next 30-60 days. If the City
should decide to join the Peninsula EWMP, the cost would be approximately $30-35K to join now and
$65-$70K to in April 2021 (anticipated new MS4 permit adoption).
McGowan provided the City with a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of joining and not joining a
EWMP. McGowan also provided an analysis of the pros and cons of joining a EWMP now versus
when the new MS4 permit is adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Depending on the City's Council directive to staff, the City would need to program an additional $30K -
$70K to participate in a EWMP. Depending on the timing of joining a EWMP, the City could use
Measure W to offset the additional expense.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) receive a presentation on the draft new MS4 permit
requirements; (2) consider the pros and cons on possible City actions evaluated by McGowan
Consulting, and (3) provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
AgendaSpecialJulyBoardMeeting.pdf
LARWQCB_SpecialMeeting_2020-07-02_w_20-07-09_Item14.pdf
LARWQCB_Meeting_Summary _2020-09-10 - Peninsula.pdf
WMP_Decision_2020.09.28(draft2).pptx
RH_WMP_Decision_memo_2020-09-24.pdf
158
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Notice of Public Meeting
634th Board Meeting
Thursday, July 2, 2020
9:00 a.m.
No Physical Meeting Location
Authorized by and in furtherance of Executive Orders
N-29-20 and N-33-20
Video and Teleconference Meeting Only During COVID-19 Emergency
As a result of the COVID-19 emergency and the Governor’s Executive Orders to protect public
health by limiting public gatherings and requiring social distancing, this meeting will occur
solely via remote presence.
For those who only wish to watch the meeting, the customary webcast remains
available at https://cal-span.org/ and should be used UNLESS you intend to comment.
For those who wish to comment on an agenda item or are presenting to the
Board, additional information about participating telephonically or via the remote
meeting solution is available here:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_info/remote_meeting/index.html
159
2
Agenda
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board or
Board) strives to conduct an accessible, orderly, and fair meeting. The Chair of the Board
will conduct the meeting and establish appropriate rules and time limitations for each
agenda item. The Board will only act on items designated as action items. Action items
on the agenda are staff proposals and may be modified by the Board as a result of public
comment or Board member input. Additional information about Board meeting procedures
is included after the last agenda item.
Generally, the Board accepts oral comments at the meeting on agenda items and accepts
written materials regarding agenda items in advance of the meeting. For some items
requiring public hearings, written materials and oral comments will be accepted only
according to the procedures set forth in a previously issued public notice for the agenda
item. To ensure a fair hearing and that the Board Members have an opportunity to fully
study and consider written material, unless stated otherwise, written materials must be
provided to the Executive Officer not later than 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2020. Please
consult the agenda item description because certain items may have an earlier
deadline for written materials. If you are considering submitting written materials,
please consult the notes at the end of the agenda. Failure to follow the required
procedures may result in your materials being excluded from the administrative
record; however, failure to timely submit written materials does not preclude a
person from testifying before the Board.
If a person intends to use a PowerPoint presentation or other visual aids, they must be
received by the Los Angeles Water Board’s IT Department, to the attention of
Khalid.Abdullah@waterboards.ca.gov, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting and will not
be accepted after that time.
Note that public comments on agenda items will be limited to 3 minutes unless
directed otherwise by the Board Chair or previously approved by the Executive
Officer in writing.
INTRODUCTORY ITEMS
1. Roll Call
160
3
OTHER BUSINESS
2. The Los Angeles Water Board will discuss the timing of the Board’s issuance of the
Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for Los Angeles and
Ventura counties, considering, in particular, the COVID-19 emergency and upcoming
TMDL implementation deadlines. Permittees and other stakeholders are invited to
comment on the timing of permit issuance. The Board will provide input to staff on the
timing of permit issuance. Unless previously approved by the Executive Officer in
writing, individual comments will be subject to a time limit of 3 minutes or less,
depending on the number of persons wishing to speak. Persons wishing to speak
should contact Ivar Ridgeway at: Ivar.Ridgeway@waterboards.ca.gov at least 1 week
in advance of the meeting.
CLOSED SESSION
3. As authorized by Government Code section 11126, the Los Angeles Water Board will
be meeting in closed session. Closed session items are not open to the public. Items
the Board may discuss include the items below. [Tamarin Austin (TA) (916) 341-5171;
Jennifer Fordyce (JF) (916) 324-6682; David Coupe (DC) (510) 622-2306; Sophie
Froelich (SF) (916) 319-8557; Adriana Nuñez (AN) (916) 322-3313]
Litigation filed against the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Gov. Code, § 11126, subd. (e)(2)(A).)
a. Balcom Ranch v. State Water Resources Control Board and Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 56-2012-
00419048-CU-MC-VTA [Challenging assessment of administrative civil liability in
Order on Complaint No. R4-2010-0023]. (DC)
b. City of Duarte v. State Water Resources Control Board and Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2016-
00833614-CU-WM-CJC (appeal pending, California Court of Appeal, Fourth
District, Case No. G058539) [Challenging the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit,
Order No. R4-2012-0175]. (JF)
c. Natural Resources Defense Council and Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water
Resources Control Board and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BS156962 [Challenging the Los
161
4
Angeles County MS4 Permit, Order No. R4-2012-0175; remand on anti-
degradation claim]. (JF)
d. City of Gardena v. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and State
Water Resources Control Board, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-
2016-00833722-CU-WM-CJC (appeal pending, California Court of Appeal, Fourth
District, Case No. G058540) [Challenging the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit,
Order No. R4-2012-0175]. (JF)
e. Wayne Fishback v. Michael D. Antonovich et al., United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Case No. 2:15-cv-05719 [Seeking preliminary
injunction, alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process and other
claims for relief]. (DC)
f. Fishback et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court,
Case No. PC056481 [Alleging violations of procedural and substantive due
process, violations of the state and federal takings clauses, and other claims for
relief]. (DC)
g. CraneVeyor Corporation v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
Angeles Region, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 18STCP02611
[Challenging Order No. R4-2018-0032 issued pursuant to Water Code section
13267]. (AN)
h. General Electric Real Estate Equities, Inc. v. Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 19STCP00207 [Challenging
issuance of Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R4-2017-0075]. (TA)
i. Franzen v. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, et al., Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Case No. 20STCP01151 [Challenging Order No. R4-2019-
0092, issued pursuant to Water Code section 13267]. (TA)
Litigation filed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board against
other parties (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd. (e)(2)(A).)
j. State Department of Finance, State Water Resources Control Board and Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board v. Commission on State Mandates,
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Case No. B292446 [Challenging the
Commission’s decision that portions of the 2001 Los Angeles County MS4 permit
created unfunded state mandates]. (JF)
k. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region v. San-
Cheng Lai; et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC707671 and
related actions [seeking injunctive relief to enforce compliance with Cleanup and
Abatement Order No. R4-2015-0129 and civil liability for violations of California
Water Code section 13304]. (SF)
162
5
Petitions for Review of Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
actions filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (Gov. Code, § 11126,
subd. (e)(2)(A).)
l. In re: Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles Waterkeeper,
and Heal the Bay for Review of Executive Officer’s Action to Conditionally Approve
Nine WMPs Pursuant to the 2012 MS4 Permit, SWRCB/OCC File A-2386
[Challenging the Executive Officer’s approval, with conditions, of nine Watershed
Management Programs (WMPs) pursuant to the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit,
Order No. R4-2012-0175]. (AN/JF)
m. In re: Petition of Los Angeles Waterkeeper and NRDC for Review of Executive
Officer’s Action to Approve the North Santa Monica Bay EWMP, SWRCB/OCC File
A-2477 [Challenging the Executive Officer’s approval of the North Santa Monica
Bay EWMP pursuant to the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, Order No. R4-2012-
0175]. (AN/JF)
n. In re: Petition of Natural Resources Defense Council and Los Angeles
Waterkeeper for Review of Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
September 7 Vote to Take No Further Action to Review Executive Officer’s
Approval of the North Santa Monica Bay Enhanced Watershed Management
Program Pursuant to the L.A. County MS4 Permit, SWRCB/OCC File A-2508
[Challenging the Los Angeles Water Board’s decision to not review the Executive
Officer’s approval of the North Santa Monica Bay EWMP pursuant to the Los
Angeles County MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175]. (AN/JF)
Test Claims filed with the Commission on State Mandates (Gov. Code, § 11126,
subd. (e)(2)(A).)
o. In re: Los Angeles Region Water Permit – Ventura County, Commission on State
Mandate Test Claim No. 110-TC-01 [Regarding a test claim filed by Ventura
County Watershed Protection District and the County of Ventura alleging that
portions of Order No. R4-2010-0108 created unfunded state mandates]. (JF)
p. In re: Los Angeles Region Water Permit – Cities of Los Angeles County,
Commission on State Mandate Test Claim No. 13-TC-01 [Regarding a test claim
filed by several cities within Los Angeles County alleging that portions of Order No.
R4-2012-0175 created unfunded state mandates]. (JF)
q. In re: Los Angeles Region Water Permit – County of Los Angeles, Commission on
State Mandate Test Claim No. 13-TC-02 [Regarding a test claim by the County of
Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Flood Control District alleging that portions
of Order No. R4-2012-0175 created unfunded state mandates]. (JF)
Other matters
r. Consultation with counsel about:
i. A matter which, based on existing facts and circumstances, presents
significant exposure to litigation against the Los Angeles Water Board
163
- 6 -
(Government Code section (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd. (e)(2)(B).);
(TA/SF/AN) or
ii. A matter which, based on existing facts and circumstances, the Los Angeles
Water Board is deciding whether to initiate litigation (Gov. Code, § 11126,
subd. (e)(2)(C).) (TA/SF/AN)
1) In re City of Maywood [to consider matters pertaining to whether to
initiate litigation and seek relief for alleged violations of State Water
Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, following
referral to the California Attorney General’s Office on March 8, 2018,
Resolution R18-001]. (SF)
iii. Consideration of the appointment, employment, or evaluation of
performance about a public employee. (Gov. Code, § 11126, subd. (a).)
(TA/SF/AN)
iv. To deliberate on a decision to be reached in a proceeding required to be
conducted pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) or
similar provisions of law. (Gov. Code § 11126, subd. (c)(3).) (TA/SF/AN)
4. Adjournment of current meeting (The next regular meeting of the Board will be held
on July 9, 2020, beginning at 9:00 a.m.)
NOTES ON AGENDA
Ex Parte Communications
An ex parte communication is a communication to a board member from any person,
about a pending matter, that occurs in the absence of other parties and without notice
and opportunity for them to respond. The California Government Code prohibits the board
members from engaging in ex parte communications during permitting, enforcement, and
other “quasi-adjudicatory” matters. Ex parte communications are allowed on pending
general orders (such as general waste discharge requirements, general waivers, and
general Clean Water Act section 401 water quality certifications) subject to the disclosure
requirements of Water Code section 13287 (for further information and disclosure forms,
please visit http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/laws_regulations/). The Los
Angeles Water Board discourages ex parte communications during rulemaking and other
“quasi-legislative” proceedings. The ex parte rules are intended to provide fairness, and
to ensure that the board’s decisions are transparent, based on the evidence in the
administrative record, and that evidence is used only if stakeholders have had the
opportunity to hear and respond to it. Ex parte rules do not prevent anyone from providing
information to the water boards or requesting that the water boards take an action. They
simply require that the information come into the record through proper channels during
a duly noticed, public meeting. A board member who has engaged or been engaged in a
prohibited ex parte communication will be required to publicly disclose the communication
on the record and may be disqualified from participating in the
164
- 7 -
proceeding. For more information, please look at the ex parte questions and answers
document found at www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/exparte.pdf.
Procedures
The Los Angeles Water Board follows procedures established by the State Water
Resources Control Board. These procedures are established in regulations commencing
with section 647 of title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. The Chair may establish
specific procedures for each item, and consistent with section 648, subdivision (d) of title
23 of the California Code of Regulations may waive nonstatutory provisions of the
regulations. Generally, all witnesses testifying before the Los Angeles Water Board must
affirm the truth of their testimony and are subject to questioning by the Board Members.
The Board does not, generally, require the designation of parties, the prior identification
of witnesses, or the cross examination of witnesses. Generally, speakers are allowed
three minutes for comments. Any requests for an alternate hearing process, such as
requesting additional time to make a presentation, should be made to the Executive
Officer in advance of the meeting, and under no circumstances later than 5:00 p.m. on
the Thursday preceding the Board meeting. The provisions of this paragraph shall be
deemed superseded to the extent that they are contradicted by a hearing notice specific
to an agenda item.
Submission of Written Materials
Written materials (whether hand-delivered, mailed, or e-mailed) must be received prior
to the relevant deadline established in the agenda and public notice for an item. If the
submitted material is more than 10 pages or contains foldouts, color graphics, maps, or
similar items, 12 copies must be submitted prior to the relevant deadline.
Failure to comply with requirements for written materials is grounds for the Chair to refuse
to admit the proposed written testimony or exhibit into evidence. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23,
§ 648.4, sub. (e).) The Chair may refuse to admit written testimony or exhibit into evidence
unless the proponent can demonstrate why he or she was unable to submit the material
on time or that compliance with the deadline would otherwise create a hardship. In an
adjudicatory matter, where there is a showing of prejudice to any party or the Board from
admission of the written testimony, the Chair may refuse to admit it.
Administrative Record
Material presented to the Board as part of testimony that is to be made part of the record
must be left with the Board. This includes photographs, slides, charts, diagrams, etc. All
Board files pertaining to the items on this Agenda are hereby made a part of the record
submitted to the Los Angeles Water Board by staff for its consideration prior to action on
the related items.
Accessibility
Individuals requiring special accommodations or language needs should contact Rosie
Villar at (213) 576-6630 or Rosie.Villar@waterboards.ca.gov at least ten working days
165
- 8 -
prior to the meeting. TTY/TDD Speech-to-Speech users may dial 7-1-1 for the California
Relay Service.
Availability of Complete Agenda Package
A copy of the complete agenda package is available for examination by appointment at
the Los Angeles Water Board Office during regular working hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday) beginning 10 days before the Board meeting. Questions about
specific items on the agenda should be directed to the staff person whose name is listed
with the item.
Continuance of Items
The Board will endeavor to consider all matters listed on this agenda. However, time may
not allow the Board to hear all matters listed. Matters not heard at this meeting may be
carried over to the next Board meeting or to a future Board meeting. Parties will be notified
in writing of the rescheduling of their item. Please contact the Los Angeles Water Board
staff to find out about rescheduled items.
Challenging Los Angeles Water Board Actions
Pursuant to Water Code section 13320, any aggrieved person may file a petition to seek
review by the State Water Resources Control Board of most actions taken by the Los
Angeles Water Board. A petition must be received by State Water Resources Control
Board, Office of Chief Counsel, Attention: Adrianna Crowl, 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor,
Sacramento, CA, 95814, within 30 days of the action. Instructions for filing water quality
petitions are located on the State Water Resources Control website at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/petitions/water_quality/wqpetition_instr.s
html
166
1
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
July 2, 2020 Web-based Special Topic Meeting
[unofficial meeting notes by Susan Robinson/McGowan Consulting]
This was a special meeting held separately from the Regional Board’s regularly scheduled monthly meetings
specifically to discuss the timing of adoption and issuance of the Regional MS4 Permit.
1. Opening Board Member Comments:
a. The Board members discussed their sensitivity to the impacts of Covid -19 and the civil unrest
movement on Permittees, and the purpose of the meeting was to hear from cities on specific
challenges they are facing.
b. Board Member Stringer expressed concern over a delay in the issuance of the Permit as it is
already long overdue, and he made the point that the Board wants to remain focused on the
Permitting process and the specific impacts affecting municipalities abilities to participate in this
process vs. the impacts to Stormwater Program implementation.
c. Board Member Stahl wanted to make sure that all comments (specifically the 30 letters submitted
by the regulated community on the working draft of the next Regional Permit) were heard and
believes a Permit should be adopted within the calendar year.
2. Public Comment:
a. There were over 40 commenters consisting of LA County, LA County Flood Control District,
representatives from Los Angeles and Ventura County municipalities, and NGOs.
b. Most of the agencies that spoke expressed concerns over FY1920 and FY2021 revenue losses
and consequent budget deficits due to decreas ed sales tax, hotel occupancy tax, gas tax. Many
of the cities are having to limit operations to essential services and to furlough or divert staff. Most
of the cities are implementing a hiring freeze.
c. There was concern expressed by a few cities that the 2012 Permit is currently under appeal and
that the ultimate decision could affect the Regional MS4 Permit.
d. Ventura County expressed concern that Covid-19 has limited their ability to work through the Permit
process due to staff losses and budget cuts.
e. Many municipalities requested the Board set an effective date for the Permit as July 1, 2021 to
align it with fiscal year and reporting timelines, and to work backward from this date [FYI – there
are approximately 50 days between Permit adoption and effective date].
f. There was some discussion/commentary that underserved communities are having difficulty
participating in the process given lack of access to the internet and that the Board needs to pause
and figure out how to facilitate participation by all communities.
g. LA Waterkeeper and Heal the Bay did not oppose a delay in issuance of the Regional MS4 Permit
but urged the Board that the final product should be “simple, measurable, enforceable and
accessible”.
3. Regional Board Staff Presentation:
a. Jenny Newman, Assistant Executive Officer, gave a brief summary of the Regional MS4 Permit
development process to-date, highlighting the many opportunities provided for stakeholder
engagement.
b. Board staff acknowledges there is expected to be sales tax revenue decreased between 26-38%
in 2021 which will affect operating budgets; however, they feel that a delay in issuance of the Permit
would not resolve key issues.
c. A delay in Permit adoption would not provide regulatory relief to Permittees as the 2012 Permit is
currently in place and needs to be complied with. In addition, TMDL extensions cannot benefit
Permittees until they are included in an effective Permit, and the expired 2012 Permit cannot legally
be revised to include extended final TMDL deadlines. Therefore, a delay in issuance of the
Regional MS4 Permit would only delay the delivery of TMDL deadline extensions.
167
2
d. Board staff is planning to bring a proposal for reopening TMDLs to the Board in the near future.
The Permit process and the TMDL re-openings will occur separately but simultaneously.
e. Board staff is open to delaying the effective date of the Regional MS4 Permit to July 1, 2021 to
align with fiscal year and reporting timelines if that is the Board’s preference.
f. Board staff recommends the release of a tentative draft Regional MS4 Permit (including the Fact
Sheet) within the next 4-6 weeks to allow a formal public comment period to commence. They
propose extending the comment period from 30 days to 60 days and they plan to hold at least one
public workshop during this comment period.
g. Once public comment period is over, Board staff would then revisit the question on timing of
issuance of the Permit.
4. Board Member Discussion:
a. Board Member Guzman asked for clarification of the difference between adoption date and
effective date—the effective date is typically set to be 50 days following adoption.
b. Board Member Stringer “still had a lot of questions” about what aspects of the current situation are
preventing Permittees from engaging in the Permit adoption process. That is different than how
Covid-19 is affecting Permittees ability to implement the Permit. What has the Board done to really
understand the impacts of Covid-19 on communities that don’t have consultants to a ddress these
issues for them?
c. Board Member Stahl would like to see a permit enacted this year, but not the permit currently before
the Board. He has reviewed the 31 letters submitted on the working draft permit and the comment
letters from City of LA and Ventura County have focused his thoughts on how to collaborate with
municipalities without compromising water quality. Also in a more recent letter submitted by Ventura
which provides reference to USEPA guidance that allows a short term period to focus on action-
based compliance.
d. Vice Chair Yee: Agrees that getting the tentative permit out soon is a good idea. If the permit
includes an effective date of July 1, 2021 then does that mean that the Board needs to consider a
string of Basin Plan Amendments before then? A July 1, 2021 effective date seems to make a lot
of sense for Ventura County.
e. Board Member Stahl: Thinks it is important to consider Ventura County needs but wants to be sure
that the same provisions are available to all Permittees in the region. Wants to hear more feedback
from Arne Anslem/Ventura and Shahram Kharaghani/City of LA.
f. Sophie Froelich, Counsel for Regional Board made the statement that the State Board has modified
expired permits in the past, although counsel typically advises against this. Nevertheless, TMDLs
do need to be modified first before modifying the Permit.
g. Chair Munoz was not prepared to vote on a permit adoption schedule today and suggested the
Board members take a week to contemplate the discussion heard during this meeting and come to
the regularly scheduled July 9th meeting with direction for Board staff.
h. Most of the Board members agreed with Board staff’s recommendation to release the tentative
draft Permit within 4-6 weeks to allow the public to begin reviewing it. Chair Munoz deferred to the
majority. It was agreed to have a follow-up discussion at the regular Board meeting on July 9th to
allow Board members to share their reflections on the day’s testimony.
i. Board Member Stahl wanted to be sure it was understood that issuing the tentative permit in no
way prejudices the schedule for adopting the Permit and does not preclude an extension.
168
3
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting
[unofficial notes by Kathleen McGowan/McGowan Consulting
Summarizing only Item 14 Regional Board Members’ Reflections on the July 2, 2020 Special Meeting]
Item 14: Regional Board Members’ Reflections on July 2, 2020 Special Board Meeting
1. Vice Chair Yee: Expressed gratitude for all the work that went into the July 2nd meeting and everyone who
testified.
a. Key takeaways: everyone expressed uncertainty over what has been happening with Covid -19 and
even since that meeting things have become more uncertain with increases in cases. Noted that
municipal staff that would normally work on water quality have been diverted to work on Covid.
Permittees expressed the need for more workshops. Some were worried about falling out of
compliance. Most people were asking for a delay with an effective date of July 1, 2021.
b. If Board was to delay until July 1, 2021, how many Basin Plan Amendments would be needed to
fall into line with that next permit?
c. Renee Purdy: Staff has already begun internally looking at TMDLs that are coming due in 2021.
They can bring this as a single basin plan amendment to revise multiple TMDLs with a single action.
If Board staff are only revising the schedule component, it takes about 9 months to go through the
process on a fairly fast track, including time for State Board and Office of Administrative Law to
approve. USEPA will not need to approve a TMDL modification consisting of only a schedule
change.
d. Vice Chair Yee: What is the increase in workload for staff to do this?
e. Jenny Newman: it is a 50% increase in workload for the Regional Programs Section, about 7 -8
staff are working on this, plus lawyers and Jenny and Renee.
2. Board Member Guzman:
a. When was Board staff originally planning to bring the permit for consideration for a vote?
b. Renee Purdy: goal has slipped a couple of times. Realistically it would be a December or February
2021 adoption without any additional delays.
c. Guzman: so if you add 50 days for an adopted Permit to become effective, then that would be April,
so to make the permit go into effect in July 2021, the difference is about two months. And there is
a lot that could conceivably be accomplished in terms of outreach with this extra time. Real meat
of the matter is the TMDL deadlines, and this can be addressed outside of the MS4 Permit approval
timeline, so that provides the time that Permittees are requesting.
d. Renee Purdy : agrees, that is correct.
e. Boardmember Guzman is also very concerned about the fiscal concerns of permittees, so wants
to be sure that we do something productive with the extra two months.
3. Board Member Stahl:
a. Agrees with Vice Chair Yee and Board Member Guzman. Felt that the Board was able to really
listen at the July 2nd meeting and that more workshops will allow the Board to listen and further
collaborate with all the Permittees and not just the consultants and interest groups. Is leaning
toward the one-year extension but agrees with Board Member Guzman that we need to define what
we will do with that time.
b. Jenny Newman: wants to clarify that it is the TMDL deadline extension process that causes the
50% increase in staff workload. There are many Regional Programs Section programs that will not
receive attention due to this. She recommends that rather than working back from an end date,
they start moving forward by issuing the tentative order, and having more workshops, and then see
where we end up [Renee Purdy nodded agreement].
4. Chair Munoz:
a. The economic situations summarized in Pemittee’s testimonies are going get worse because things
are not getting better with Covid-19. Thinks that on July 2nd the Permittees felt that the Board was
169
4
truly listening and this is different than other MS4 Permits. Still thinks there are many permittees
that have not been heard from. She doesn’t want the Board to put themselves in the position of
being sued again for lack of consideration of economic issues. Chair Munoz w ants a permit that is
doable that is manageable that includes provisions that address water quality issues effectively.
We need to work together on this.
5. Additional Speakers:
a. Paul Alva/Los Angeles County: Provided presentation on the recently completed Franklin D.
Roosevelt Park Stormwater Capture Project
b. Arne Anslem/Ventura County and co -permittees: Advocated for BMP-based compliance and a
permit that is developed collaboratively and can be complied with.
c. Shahram Kharaghani/City of LA: The 2012 permit made great strides but can be improved, believes
that the permit needs to be implementable & achievable. Covid-19 has impacted the city’s financial
condition, Safe Clean Water program is the only source of funding to build water quality projects.
The City has proposed permit language and an approach that would use Measure W funds to
achieve compliance while holding the City of LA accountable. The approach is a list of projects that
would be developed through a stakeholder driven process, so that co mpliance is tied to
implementation of actions.
d. Glen Kao/Norwalk: City of Norwalk requests delay of permit adoption as previously discussed. City
should not be subject to a metals TMDL because they are not on the list. City should not be subject
to the bacteria TMDL due to the high flow suspension. TMDLs are not subject to credible economic
considerations. City is still suffering under Covid-19 and requests permit adoption be delayed for
one year.
e. Rich Watson/Los Cerritos Channel Watershed: Recommends a 5-year extension on TMDL
deadlines. Recommends adjustment to monitoring approach for wet weather focusing on
representative storms as defined in USEPA guidance on representative monitoring (1992). Depth
and duration of the storm sampled should not vary by more than 50% from the average storm and
durations.
f. Ray Tahir/TECS Environmental: commented on misapplication of the Los Angeles River and San
Gabriel River TMDLs in WQBELs for 41 cities.
g. Travis Van Ligten/Rutan & Tucker, Attorney : Recommends that the Board not release the tentative
order because it did not release the Fact Sheet with the working proposal. Instead of releasing a
draft tentative permit with 60-day review period, which would give insufficient time for review of the
Fact Sheet, release another working proposal with a Fact Sheet and can use the extra time to
review/discuss the Fact Sheet. There is precedence for amending expired permits and the Board
has the ability to provide relief from the 2021 TMDL deadlines by reopening the existing 2012
permit.
h. Analisa Moe/Heal the Bay: Advocating against resetting TMDL deadlines. Challenges like Covid-
19 and social unrest are opportunities not reasons to delay. Surface water quality is a public health
issue that cannot wait. Nature based solutions can do all of this and can be implemented now.
Wants a permit that is measurable and enforceable
i. Corey Bell/NRDC, program attorney: NRDC is working with NGOs across the country to try to
secure funding to construct green infrastructure projects. The Board should not conflate a delay in
adoption of the next permit with delay in compliance. Permittees have not been taking their TMDL
permit obligations seriously even before Covid-19. NRDC wants an enforceable, transparent and
measurable permit and believes “People who live in low-income communities don’t deserve dirty
water”.
j. Kelly Clark/LA Waterkeeper, attorney: There should be n o backsliding of water quality standards
as water quality is a public health issue. Covid-19 should not excuse cities from TMDL deadlines.
They are proud of the work that got Measure W passed, but it was never meant to cover the full
cost of compliance. The next MS4 Permit needs to include more consistent data reporting
standards.
170
1
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
September 10, 2020 Meeting
Item 11 - Tentative Regional MS4 Permit
[summary notes on Item 11 by McGowan Consulting]
1. Regional Board Staff Update Presentation on tentative Regional MS4 Permit (Tentative
Permit) released on August 24, 2020 (by Renee Purdy/Executive Officer and Jenny
Newman/Assistant Executive Officer):
a. Regional Board staff have made structural/organizational changes along with
many other revisions in response to stakeholder input on the previous unofficial
“Working Proposal” of the next Regional Permit that was sent out in December
2019.
i. There were 37 comment letters submitted on the Working Proposal
containing about 800 individual comments
ii. Over sixty (60) one-on-one meetings have been held with stakeholders
b. Some key changes made in response to comments include:
i. Regional Board staff refined the pollutant reporting limits to be required
for the monitoring programs by reaching out to several local analytical labs
to get information on minimum reporting limits achievable under USEPA-
approved analytical methods for required pollutants in Attachment E
(Monitoring and Reporting Program) of the Tentative Permit.
ii. The current annual reporting schedule from the 2012 LA MS4 Permit will
be retained in the Tentative Permit based on comments that the proposed
October 15 deadline in the Working Proposal was too tight.
iii. Compliance metrics have been clarified in the compliance section of the
Permit and in the Watershed Annual Reporting Form.
iv. There will no longer be a distinction between EWMPs and WMPs, all will
be termed WMPs (watershed management programs) and may utilize
multi-benefit regional projects to capture the 85th percentile, 24-hr runoff
volume and thereby be “deemed in compliance” with TMDLs and receiving
water limitations for the tributary area to the project.
v. The schedule constraint on attainment of USEPA adopted TMDLs within 5
years has been eliminated and now Permittees can propose a timeframe
for compliance within the WMP framework that is “as short as possible”.
vi. The process for notifying the Regional Board of a Permittee’s intention to
continue implementing a WMP or to newly join an existing WMP has been
streamlined to facilitate submittal by the Tentative Permit’s effective date.
Extensions of the notification deadline can be requested and must be
approved by the Executive Officer.
c. Significant Remaining Issues
i. Expression of means for complying with effluent limitations either as
narrative (i.e., action-based) or as strict numeric limits:
171
2
1. Effluent limitations consistent with TMDLs must be included in
NPDES Permits either as narrative [action/implementation-based]
or strict numeric limitations to meet water quality standards.
2. USEPA staff clarified in 2012 that where numeric limitations can be
feasibly calculated they should be included, so “feasible” does not
mean feasible to comply.
3. The Regional Board has determined that numeric effluent
limitations are both feasible and necessary to meet water quality
standards.
4. The Tentative Permit provides Permittees the option to comply
with TMDL effluent limitations by meeting the numeric water
quality limits demonstrated through monitoring or by
implementing a combination of structural and non-structural
control measures in accordance with the schedule of actions
included in the approved WMP.
ii. TMDL Final Compliance Deadlines
1. Regional Board staff are currently working on a “TMDL Deadline
Extension Project” and are focused on TMDLs with near-term final
compliance deadlines (such as the Santa Monica Bay Beaches
Bacteria TMDL wet weather deadline of July 15, 2021) and will also
consider including certain past-due TMDLs such as the Machado
Lake TMDLs.
2. Staff intends to release a draft Basin Plan Amendment proposing
these schedule extensions in late September/early October 2020
for comment and then to bring the Basin Plan Amendment to the
Regional Board for consideration prior to adopting the Tentative
Permit.
3. The State Board and the Office of Administrative Law must also
approve the Basin Plan Amendment before it becomes effective, so
the TMDL deadlines in Attachments K-S of the Tentative Permit
may be written with two sets of deadlines so that the extended
final deadlines in the Basin Plan Amendment automatically become
effective upon final approval without having to reopen the Permit.
iii. Economic Considerations
1. Regional Board staff estimated 20-year implementation costs using
two “methods”, the first based on its own original TMDL
development staff reports, and the second is based on costs in
approved EWMPs, as well as other sources of information. These
two methods produced a range of total costs for Permit
Implementation of $21-$31 Billion.
2. They also evaluated the costs to the environment and society of
not controlling pollutants from MS4 discharges as well as the multi-
benefits of stormwater capture.
172
3
3. Regional Board recently hired a PhD economist who helped
evaluate the financial implications of the Permit and prepare the
financial sections in the Fact Sheet (Attachment F) of the Tentative
Permit.
iv. State Water Board 2nd Proposed Order on WMP/EWMP approvals [see
McGowan Consulting’s separate summary of the 2nd Proposed Order]
d. Next Steps on the Tentative Permit
i. There will be staff-level workshops with stakeholders on key issues in late
September or early October, and one workshop with Regional Board
Members present on incorporation of TMDLs sometime in October.
ii. Written comments are due October 23, 2020. [McGowan Consulting is
working on an evaluation of what if any additional comments should be
made or whether to focus on the TMDL Schedule Extension Project]
iii. The timeline for Permit adoption following the comment period is unclear
at this time, but Board Staff have discussed a Spring (February-April) 2021
timeline for Regional Board consideration of the Permit. There may be
another opportunity to comment on further revisions to the Tentative
Permit following this first comment period.
2. Public Comment
a. Public comments were generally in support of the changes made to the Tentative
Permit though there was still concern expressed over the economic analysis and
implications of Permit implementation on Permittees. Paul Alva with LA County
urged Board staff to more fully integrate the Safe Clean Water Program into the
Tentative Permit and urged them to comment on the State Board Proposed
Order’s lack of understanding about the financial challenges faced by Permittees
in implementing capital projects to meet TMDL effluent limitations.
b. Ventura County would like more consideration in the Permit of their unique
characteristics.
3. Board Member Discussion
a. Board Member Jim Stahl: is still reviewing the Permit and did not want to “shoot
from the hip”. He wants to take time to review the Permit and see how the cost
analysis in Attachment F (Fact Sheet) lines up with the Safe Clean Water Program.
He is concerned about the cost-effectiveness of the projects being funded by the
Safe Clean Water Program and recognizes that many other funding sources have
“dried up” due to Covid-19.
b. Vice-Chair Yee: On page 248 of Attachment F (Fact Sheet) it states that the Permit
is “reasonable and achievable”. He recognizes that what was reasonable and
achievable 8 months ago may not be so any more due to the pandemic. He
recognizes that the Board has the “unenviable” challenge of determining what is
reasonable.
c. Chair Muñoz: Wants to hold workshops and wants to make sure that this Permit
is done right and makes sense, especially with respect to Ventura County.
d. Board Member Cynthia Guzman: Requested more details on the Permit adoption
schedule and timeframe. Renee Purdy /Executive Officer responded that Board
173
4
staff have discussed a Spring 2021 consideration by the Board and that there may
be an additional comment period. She estimates the Permit will be adopted
sometime between February-April 2021.
e. Board Member Stringer: is concerned about the economics and thinks economic
considerations are more nuanced than they seem. Renee Purdy responded that
under the Clean Water Act economic considerations cannot be used to justify less
stringent water quality standards but that implementation can address the
economic considerations which is why they are working on the TMDL deadline
extensions.
4. Next Regional Board Meeting: October 8th.
174
Watershed Management Program
Decision Points
City of Rolling Hills| September 28, 2020 | by Kathleen McGowan, McGowan Consulting
175
Outline
•Schedule of Decisions and Key Events
•Advantages and Disadvantages of Joining the
Peninsula EWMP
•Decision Point #1 October 2020: Pros & Cons
•Decision Point #2 April - May 2020: Pros & Cons
•Questions & Discussion
2
176
Schedule of Decisions and Key Events
Decision Point (#)or Key Event Approximate Dates
#1: Peninsula Group MOU for EWMP Update Oct-Nov 2020
TMDL Extension via Basin Plan Amendment Oct 2020 – Jan 2021
Regional Stormwater Permit Adoption April – May 2021
Peninsula E/WMP Update Submittal June 30, 2021
Regional Permit Effective Date and
#2: Notice of Intent to Participate in EWMP July 1, 2021
Effective Date of TMDL Extension est. Oct – Dec 2021
3
177
Decision Whether to Join
Peninsula EWMP
Advantages and Disadvantages
178
Decision to Participate in Peninsula EWMP
Advantages
1.Compliance for 24% of City’s Machado
Lake TMDL area
•via existing project – Chandler Ranch/RHCC
Regional Project
2.Interim compliance for remaining TMDL
areas until final compliance
3.Compliance benefits from future
regional projects via Safe Clean Water
parcel tax
4.Option to apply for Safe Clean Water
regional funds for City’s eligible projects
5.Good will from Regional Board
Disadvantages
1.Expenditure of funds to
incorporate City into E/WMP
•$30 – 35K in FY2021
or
•$65 - $70K in FY2122
2.If sustained monitoring shows
City discharges meet water
quality standards, participation
would have been unnecessary
5
179
Decision Point #1 October 2020
Peninsula MOU for EWMP Update
180
Decision to Participate in Peninsula MOU
PROs
1.Cost savings of $35-$40K
2.Reestablish interim TMDL
compliance ASAP
•Upon effective date of TMDL
Extensions
CONs
1.City-specific monitoring data
not yet available
2.TMDL schedule extension still
uncertain
3.$30-35K cost
7
181
Decision Point #2 ~April 2021
Notice of Intent to Join Peninsula EWMP and Extra Revision of EWMP with Modeling
182
Decision to Join and Revise EWMP during FY2122
PROs
1.Initial results of City-specific
FY2021 wet season
monitoring data available
2.Outcome of Machado Lake
TMDL schedule extension will
be known
3.City’s Safe Clean Water
Municipal Funds for FY2122
can be used for the cost
CONs
1.Extra cost of $35-40K to
perform the EWMP and
modeling update separately
for the City
2.Delayed compliance with
TMDLs pending Regional
Board approval of updated
EWMP to include City
9
183
Questions & Discussion
Thank You
184
MEMO from McGowan Consulting LLC
To: Elaine Jeng, City Manager, and Meredith Elguira, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
From: Kathleen McGowan, Principal, and Susan Robinson, Sr. Envr. Scientist
McGowan Consulting
Subject: Decision Points for Joining Peninsula Watershed Management Program
Date: September 24, 2020
This memo is intended to brief City Staff and City Council on upcoming decision points and factors
to consider in determining whether and/or when to join the Palos Verdes Peninsula Enhanced
Watershed Management Program (Peninsula EWMP).
I. Background
On August 24, 2020, Regional Board staff released the official Tentative Regional MS4 Permit
(Tentative Permit) that will replace the current 2012 LA MS4 Permit. In preparing this Tentative
Permit, Regional Board staff reviewed all comments received on the unofficial “working draft” of
the Regional MS4 Permit, including those submitted by McGowan Consulting on behalf of our
clients in January 2020. Regional Board staff addressed many of our comments and those
submitted by others. One key comment we submitted for the benefit of Rolling Hills was to allow
Permittees not participating in an EWMP or WMP (E/WMP)1 to be deemed in compliance with
pollutant total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the tributary area to a regional project capturing
the 85th%, 24-hour storm runoff volume. This comment was not accommodated. Additionally,
the Fact Sheet (p. F-210) that was newly released with the Tentative Permit (and becomes part
of the Tentative Permit) makes an explicit statement that:
“Los Angeles County Permittees that were on baseline requirements of the 2012 Los
Angeles County MS4 Permit [e.g., Rolling Hills] may join an existing Watershed
Management Program but may not develop a new individual Watershed
Management Program”.
Thus, the Tentative Permit does not allow the City the option of preparing its own E/WMP so
joining an existing E/WMP is the only means by which Rolling Hills may demonstrate compliance
with TMDLs through participation in regional projects rather than by complying with strict
numeric limits based on water quality monitoring. If the City does not join an E/WMP, it will be
required by the Regional MS4 Permit to conduct compliance monitoring at a location at its
jurisdictional boundary 2 rather than measuring compliance at one of the joint Peninsula CIMP
monitoring locations—the Sepulveda Canyon location could serve as a representative monitoring
site for that purpose.
1 Note that the distinction between an EWMP and WMP has been eliminated in the Tentative Permit so we will use
the term E/WMP to signify either throughout the remainder of this memo.
2 Tentative Permit Section X.A.1
185
2
Also of import, Regional Board staff are currently working on a “TMDL Deadline Extension
Project” focused on TMDLs with near-term final compliance deadlines (such as the Santa Monica
Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL wet weather deadline of July 15, 2021) and may also include time
extensions for certain past-due TMDLs such as the Machado Lake TMDLs. This could provide
more time to comply with the Machado Lake TMDLs and enhance the benefits of participating in
an E/WMP because Permittees participating in an approved E/WMP would be deemed in
compliance with interim TMDL targets so long as they are implementing projects identified in the
approved updated E/WMP and otherwise complying with the Permit. Regional Board staff
intends to release a draft Basin Plan Amendment proposing these TMDL schedule extensions in
late September/early October 2020 and plans to bring the Basin Plan Amendment to the Regional
Board for consideration prior to adopting the Regional MS4 Permit. The State Board and the
Office of Administrative Law must approve the Basin Plan Amendment before it becomes
effective, so the TMDL deadlines in the Regional Permit may be written with two sets of deadlines
so that the extended schedules in the Basin Plan Amendment automatically become effective
upon final approval without having to reopen the Permit.
II. Two Decision Points for Joining Peninsula E/WMP
Both the 2012 LA MS4 Permit and the Tentative Regional Permit require Los Angeles County
Permittees participating in an existing E/WMP to submit to the Regional Board an updated
E/WMP with an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) using approved methods for
water quality and hydrologic modeling by June 30, 2021. The Peninsula Group is currently in the
process of obtaining cost proposals and developing an E/WMP MOU to cost share the
preparation of the updated Peninsula E/WMP and RAA . The Peninsula Group plans to execute
the MOU within the next two months so that work may begin prior to the end of the 2020
calendar year and be completed in time for the June 30, 2021 submittal deadline.
The Tentative Permit requires cities wishing to join an approved E/WMP to submit a Notice of
Intent by the Permit effective date, which will be no less than 50 days from the adoption date of
the Permit. Regional Board staff have indicated they are aiming to bring the Tentative Permit
before the Regional Board for adoption in the Spring of 2021 (and have mentioned April 2021 as
a likely target with an effective date of July 1, 2021).
If the City wishes to join the Peninsula E/WMP, it must submit a Notice of Intent to the Regional
Board no later than the effective date of the Permit and also be included in the Joint Notice of
Intent to be submitted by the Peninsula Group3. The E/WMP and RAA would then need to be
revised to include the City. The cost to incorporate Rolling Hills into the Peninsula E/WMP is
naturally lower if the work is done at the same time that the Peninsula E/WMP and RAA is being
updated to meet the June 30, 2021 deadline than if it is done after the work has been completed.
Thus, the City has the opportunity now to consider whether it wishes to participate in the
Peninsula Group MOU in order to receive the benefit of a lower cost for incorporating the City
into the E/WMP and RAA update or whether it prefers to wait until the Regional Permit is adopted
to make the decision. Analysis of these two decision points is outlined below.
3 Tentative Regional Permit IX. G.2.c., p. 90
186
3
III. Analysis
The following lists the overall pros and cons of joining the Peninsula E/WMP regardless of timing,
and then subsequent subsections of this analysis discusses pros and cons of the two decision
points.
Pros and Cons of Joining the Peninsula E/WMP whether n ow or following Permit Adoption:
PROs:
• Upon Regional Board approval of the updated E/WMP, the City would be deemed in
compliance with final Machado Lake TMDLs for the portion of its area in Machado Lake
Watershed tributary to the completed Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club regional
project which retains the 85th%, 24-hour storm runoff capture volume from its tributary
area. Approximately 200 acres in the City is tributary to the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills
CC regional project, or 24% of the City’s total Machado Lake watershed area.
• If the Machado Lake TMDL schedules are extended and incorporated into the Regional
Permit, the City could be deemed in compliance with TMDLs for Machado Lake and
Greater Los Angeles Harbor during E/WMP Implementation and beyond if the regional
projects are completed and successfully achieve water quality objectives.
• The City could receive TMDL compliance benefits from Regional projects funded by the
Safe Clean Water Regional Program. While 40% of the Safe Clean Water par cel tax is
returned directly to the City via the Municipal Transfer Agreement, 50% of the parcel tax
is earmarked for regional projects programmed by the South Santa Monica Bay
Watershed Area Steering Committee (WASC), which amounts to approximately $137,500
per year collected from parcels in the City. The South Santa Monica Bay WASC has
approved FY2021 funding for two potential regional projects to which the City is tributary:
design funding for the Torrance Airport Regional Project, and feasibility stud y funding for
the Harbor City Park Project. Unless it participated in an E/WMP the City would not have
the opportunity to receive water quality compliance benefit from the regional project
funds collected from parcels in the City funding these and other future projects.
• To be eligible for the Safe Clean Water Regional funding, projects must be included in an
approved E/WMP. Thus, the City would have the option of requesting regional funding
from the South Santa Monica Bay WASC for regional projects within the City included in
the Peninsula E/WMP (such as the project contemplated for Sepulveda Canyon).
• The City would garner the good will of the Regional Board since it is one of only four MS4
Permittees not currently participating in a WMP or EWMP4, and Regional Board members
and staff are highly invested in E/WMPs as an alternative compliance solution.
4 The other cities are Compton, Irwindale and Gardena see link here
187
4
CONs:
• Depending on timing, either ~$30-35K of the City’s FY2021 general funds or ~$65-70K of
City FY2122 Municipal Safe Clean Water funds would be needed to fund work to include
the City in the Peninsula E/WMP (these are estimates since formal/firm cost proposal s
have not yet been received).
• If monitoring at the boundary of the City demonstrates sustained compliance with final
TMDL targets and other water quality standards, joining the Peninsula E/WMP would not
have been necessary to demonstrate compliance with TMDLs.
Decision Point #1 Pros and Cons of Joining the Peninsula E/WMP now (October 2020):
PROs:
• Cost savings of approximately $35,000 - $40,000 of City taxpayer funds versus waiting to
incorporate the City into the Peninsula E/WMP following Regional Permit adoption after
the E/WMP update has been completed by the Peninsula Group.
• If the Machado Lake TMDL schedules are extended and incorporated into the Tentative
Permit, the City would be deemed in compliance with interim TMDL targets upon the
effective date of the Basin Plan Amendment extending the TMDL deadlines or upon the
Regional Board’s approval of the updated Peninsula E/WMP, whichever comes later.
CONs:
• Results of Sepulveda Canyon monitoring are not available to inform the decision.
• Regulatory uncertainty about Machado Lake TMDL extensions will not have been resolved
because although the draft Basin Plan Amendment extending TMDL schedules is planned
for public comment in early October, it will not have been approved by the Regional Board
until after the MOU is to be executed.
• The City’s Safe Clean Water Municipal funds for FY2021 have been committed to other
efforts and are not available to fund its share of the Peninsula E/WMP and RAA update
(though its annual plan could be revised and resubmitted if desired)
Decision Point #2 Pros and Cons of Waiting for Permit Adoption to Consider Joining the Peninsula
E/WMP (est. April 2021)
PROs:
• Results of one wet season of Sepulveda Canyon monitoring will be available to inform the
decision.
• During the comment period on the draft Basin Plan Amendment extending TMDL
schedules, the City could express to the Regional Board that its willingness to join the
Peninsula E/WMP is contingent on extension of the Machado Lake TMDL schedules.
188
5
• The Basin Plan Amendment extending TMDL schedules would be adopted providing
increased regulatory certainty at this decision point.
• The City’s Safe Clean Water Municipal funds for FY2122 could be utilized to fund the
additional work to incorporate the City into the Peninsula E/WMP and re-run the RAA.
CONs:
• The City’s taxpayers would be paying an extra $35,000 to $40,000 for the work to
incorporate the City into the Peninsula E/WMP at Decision Point #2 compared to cost
sharing the E/WMP and RAA update at Decision Point #1.
• If the Machado Lake TMDL schedules are extended and incorporated into the Tentative
Permit, the City would not be deemed in compliance with TMDLs until the Regional Board
approves the revised Peninsula E/WMP incorporating the City.
189
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RECEIVE AND FILE AN UPDATE ON SCHOETTLE’S ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT PROJECT TO UNDERGROUND UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The Eastfield Utility Underground Assessment District Project is continuing to move forward. Southern
California Edison (SCE) released the project plans for bid in early September and the deadline to submit
bids is October 1, 2020. It will take SCE approximately three to four weeks to review and release the
final construction cost. On September 11, 2020, City staff, RHCA, Marcia Schoettle, utility companies,
and potential bidders joined a pre-bid meeting held by SCE to discuss the scope and requirements of the
proposed project. Subsequent to the pre-bid meeting, staff met with the internal assessment team
consisting of the assessment engineer, bond counsel and financial adviser to discuss the next steps after
the construction cost is released by SCE. A tentative schedule was discussed and included in this report.
DISCUSSION:
Tentative Schedule Eastfield Utility Underground Assessment District
1. October 1, 2020 - Bid Deadline
2. Mid-October - SCE Supply Chain finalize cost
3. Mid-October to early November - SCE informs City of final construction cost
4. December 7, 2020 - Present City Council Resolution
5. January 11, 2021 - City Council Public Hearing (Tally Votes)
(Residents have 30 days to decide if they will pay cash, bond or do both.)
6. March 1, 2021 - Place Bond
Construction will take approximately three to four months to complete.
190
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
191
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 09/28/2020
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:PRESENTATION ON NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS: ALERT SOUTHBAY AND E-NOTIFY.
DATE:September 28, 2020
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rolling Hills is currently using Alert SouthBay and E-notify to inform residents on the
latest activities happening in and around the City. Residents who would like to sign up to receive alerts
can go to the City's website to register with E-notify. To receive emergency alerts from Alert Southbay,
residents can sign up at alertsouthbay.com, or text ALERTSB to 888777 to or download the Everbridge
App.
DISCUSSION:
City staff has written a few articles in the Blue Newsletter urging residents to sign up for alerts. Those
with subscriptions, will receive messages via voice, text and or email. In general, the Alert SouthBay
System is used primarily for emergency notification within and outside of City limits whereas the E-
notify is used for general interest including activities within City limits, posting of agendas, SCE
activities and more.
The Alert SouthBay Program is the first of its kind, allowing for real-time cross-jurisdictional
notifications regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. It allows for residents to get notified based on
incident impact if they are in an area affected by an emergency or disaster. The participating cities have
developed a best practice that is being recognized across the country in regards to COVID-19.
To date, there are 332 residents that have opted into Alert Southbay System and 26 of those are also
registered to receive COVID-19 related alerts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE.
RECOMMENDATION:
192
Receive and file.
ATTACHMENTS:
Final Alert Southbay Tri-Fold Brochure MB.pdf
193
ALERTSOUTHBAY
MANHATTAN BEACH
For more information about the program or to
get more information about how we can alert
you, please visit www.alertsouthbay.com or
email us at info@alertsoutbay.com.
Keeping communities informed about
disasters and major emergencies via
SMS (text), email, phone, landline, as
well as other means of communication
OUR MISSION is to provide timely, accurate,
emergency alert and warning notifications to the
residents in the communities we serve through an
integrated, standardized, cross-jurisdictional
notification platform to help reduce the loss of life,
damage to property, and the environment.
WHAT IS ALERT SOUTHBAY?
The City of Manhattan Beach and 13 other South
Bay cities have established an alert and warning
notification system as part of an integrated,
interoperable regional platform. The Alert
SouthBay, emergency notification system aims to
keep communities informed about disasters and
major emergencies via SMS (text), email, phone,
landline, as well as other means of communication.
•Inglewood
•El Segundo
•Manhattan Beach
•Hermosa Beach
•Redondo Beach
•Palos Verdes Estates
•Rancho Palos Verdes
• Rolling Hills Estates
• Rolling Hills
•Torrance
• Gardena
• Hawthorne
• Lomita
•Carson
194
HOW TO REGISTER
1
2
3
If we can’t reach you, we can’t alert you!
Please take a moment to register to ensure
we have the most up-to-date accurate
information for you.
Your information is protected and will
only be used to notify you in the event of
an emergency, or for the categories you
subscribe to.
Alertsouthbay.com
Download the Everbridge
App from the App Store
TYPES OF NOTIFICATIONS
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATIONS
Each of the thirteen cities have the ability to notify
their community and the surrounding communities
regardless of jurisdictional boundaries if there is an
imminent threat to life, property, or the environment.
This provides the first of its kind emeregency
notification system helping to provide the region with
accurate and timely notifications.
NON-EMERGENCY NOTIFICATIONS
As a resident, you can opt-in to receive notifications
such as emergency preparedness, public health alerts,
major traffic advisories, and other non-emergency
alerts. You can change or modify these preferences
anytime by logging into your account settings at
www.AlertSouthbay.com.
WHAT HAPPENS TO NIXLE
NOTIFICATIONS?
As a Manhattan Beach NIXLE subscriber your
information will be automatically transferred
over to the new Alert Southbay platform.
As we move forward with our transition to
Alert Southbay we will continue to provide
alerts and notifications using the existing
NIXLE notification system. We encourage all
residents to opt-in to Alert Southbay.
Please take a moment and register for the
Alert SouthBay Regional Portal by going to
www.AlertSouthbay.com or text ALERTSB to
888777.
Text ALERTSB to 888777
to receive the link to register
195