HomeMy Public PortalAbout15) 7M MOA Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program and Enhanced Watershed Management PlanAGENDA
ITEM 7.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April17, 2018
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
Via: Michael D. Forbes , Community Development Director
By: Andrew J. Coyne, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING THE
ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) AND
ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (EWMP) FOR THE
UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to:
1. Approve a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Attachment "A") between the
members of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Group and the San Gabriel
Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) regarding the administration and cost
sharing for implementing the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP)
associated tasks and the Coordinated Integrated Monito ring Program (CIMP) for
the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Area; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the MOA.
BACKGROUND:
1. On December 17, 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to address
contamination of the nation's rivers and waterways.
2. On November 16, 1990, the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency published
regulat ions requiring National Pollutant D ischarge Elim ination System (NPDES)
permits for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) runoff, which
fundamentally changed the way stormwater runoff is regulated at the State and
Federal levels.
City Council
April17, 2018
Page 2 of 3
3. On December 13, 2001, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region (RWQCB) issued a countywide MS4 permit to Los Angeles County and
79 participating cities, including Temple City. The permit includes requirements for
the County and cities to address stormwater runoff and pollution.
4. On November 8, 2012, an updated MS4 permit was adopted by the RWQCB and
became effective on December 28, 2012.
5. On November 19, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-4954
approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and
members of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Group for development of an
EWMP and CIMP.
6. On June 26, 2014, the CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board. The CIMP was
conditionally approved by the Regional Board on August 5, 2015, with the
requirement that implementation of the CIMP begin within 90 days of approval.
7. On February 2, 2016, the City Council approved a MOA between the City of Los
Angeles and the other member agencies of the Upper Los Angeles River
Watershed group regarding administration and cost sharing for implementing the
CIMP. This MOA is set to expire on June 30, 2018.
8. On December 19, 2017, the City Council approved two separate MOAs for the
implementation of the CIMP and EWMP. Due to the inability of the City of Los
Angeles and County of Los Angeles to come to agreement over indemnification
language in the MOAs, the separate MOAs were cancelled and replaced by a
single MOA that has been deemed acceptable to the City of Los Angeles and
County of Los Angeles.
ANALYSIS:
Since the issuance of the updated MS4 permit in 2012, the City of Temple City has
begun participating in a number of regional efforts to ensure that the City complies with
the permit requirements. The permit allows the permittees to coordinate stormwater
planning efforts on a watershed basis, providing an opportunity for permittees to
customize their stormwater programs through the development and implementation of a
EWMP and a CIMP to achieve compliance with certain Receiving Water Limitations
(RWLs) and Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs).
In 2016, the member agencies of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Group
entered into a three-year MOA for the implementation of the CIMP. The City Council is
now being asked to approve a 5-year MOA that would cover implementation of the
CIMP and EWMP related-tasks. These tasks were previously covered under the CIMP
MOA that is due to expire in June. The other noticeable difference between this new
MOA and the previous MOA is the inclusion of the San Gabriel Valley Council of
City Council
April17, 2018
Page 3 of 3
Governments (SGVCOG) in the Agreement. The SGVCOG will serve as the
administrator of the MOA with the responsibility of invoicing and collecting funds from
the member agencies and negotiating contracts with various consultants as-needed to
complete the required tasks of the CIMP and EWMP.
Once the MOA is approved by all parties, the City of Los Angeles will perform the
various monitoring and reporting tasks on behalf of the member agencies, with the
administrative support of the SGVCOG. The agencies have agreed that the costs will be
distributed according to each agency's land area relative to the total land area in the
ULAR Watershed Management Area. Implementation will be a multi-year and multi-
agency effort. The annual contribution for the MOA will vary depending on the required
monitoring and special studies needed to comply with the MS4 permit. The MOA
includes cost share tables that outline contributions. The cumulative watershed-wide
cost for the five-year agreement is not to exceed $6,758,892, with Temple City's annual
share for the CIMP-related activities varying from $5,900 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19
to $5,303 for FY 2022-23. Temple City's share for the EWMP portion of the agreement
ranges from $4,804 for FY 2018-19 to $2,354 for FY 2019-20.
As the City moves forward with implementation of the MS4 permit, the City faces
significant costs to meet the new permit requirements. This MOA serves as a means to
reduce the costs. It is in the City's best financial and regulatory interest to sign the MOA
and join its neighboring cities in meeting the requirements. For this reason, staff
recommends that the City Council approve the MOA, as written, and authorize the
Mayor to sign it.
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
Approval of the MOA furthers the City's Strategic Goals of Good Governance, Public
Health and Safety, and Sustainable Infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no impact on the FY 2017-18 City Budget. For FY 2018-19, the total cost to the
City for both the CIMP and EWMP implementation activities is estimated to be $10,704.
This will be included in the proposed FY 2018-19 City Budget.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Memorandum of Agreement
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA, THE CITY OF
BURBANK, THE CITY OF CALABASAS, THE CITY OF GLENDALE, THE CITY
OF HIDDEN HILLS, THE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE, THE CITY OF
MONTEBELLO, THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, THE CITY OF PASADENA, THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, THE CITY OF SAN
GABRIEL, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, THE
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) AND
ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (EWMP) FOR THE UPPER
LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), made and entered into as of the date of the
last signature set forth below by and between The SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL
OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG), a California Joint Powers Authority, THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES (CITY), a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF ALHAMBRA, a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF BURBANK, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF
CALABASAS, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF GLENDALE, a municipal
corporation, THE CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF LA
CANADA FLINTRIDGE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF MONTEBELLO, a
municipal corporation, THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, a municipal corporation, THE
CITY OF PASADENA, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a municipal
corporation, THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF
SAN GABRIEL, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF SAN MARINO, a municipal
corporation, THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF
SOUTH PASADENA, a municipal corporation, THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, a
municipal corporation, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
(LACFCD), a body corporate and politic, and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
(COUNTY), a political subdivision of the State of California. Collectively, these entities
shall be known herein as PARTIES or individually as PARTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, for the purpose of this MOA, the term PARTIES shall mean the
Cities of Los Angeles, Alhambra, Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale, Hidden Hills, La
Canada Flintridge, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Rosemead, San Fernando,
San Gabriel, San Marino, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Los Angeles
Page 1 of 57
County Flood Control Districts (LACFCD), and the County of Los Angeles (COUNTYt
and the term CITY shall mean only the City of Los Angeles; and the term SGVCOG
shall mean the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board), have
classified the Greater Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) as a large MS4 pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.26(b)(4) and a major facility
pursuant to 40 CFR section 122.2; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Board has adopted National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175 (MS4 Permit); and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit became effective on December 28, 2012, and requires
that the LACFCD, the COUNTY, and 84 of the 88 cities (excluding Avalon, Long Beach,
Palmdale, and Lancaster) within the County comply with the prescribed elements of the
MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit identified the PARTIES as MS4 permittees responsible
for compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements pertaining to the PARTIES' collective
jurisdictional area in the Upper Los Angeles Watershed Management Area as identified
in Exhibit E of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES elected voluntarily to collaborate on the development of
an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) and a Coordinated Integrated
Monitoring Program (CIMP) in accordance with the MS4 Permit for a portion of the
Upper Los Angeles Watershed Management Area as identified in Exhibit E of this MOA
to comply with all applicable monitoring requirements of the MS4 Permit; and
WHEREAS, the EWMP was submitted to the Regional Board by the PARTIES on
June 25, 2015, and was approved by the Regional Board on April 20, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the CIMP was submitted to the Regional Board by the PARTIES on
June 26, 2014 and was approved by the Regional Board on November 18, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed for the CITY to perform and coordinate the
MONITORING SERVICES of the CIMP and the EWMP-RELATED TASKS on the
PARTIES' behalf, and the PARTIES have agreed to pay the CITY for their services as
indicated in Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-10 of Exhibit B, respectively, of this
MOA; and
Page 2 of 57
WHEREAS, the CITY retains the right to outsource some or all of the
elements of the MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS, at a cost
not to exceed those shown in Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-10 of Exhibit B;
and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES desire to have the SGVCOG: (a) invoice and
collect funds from each of the PARTIES to cover the costs of MONITORING
SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS and pay the CITY; (b) administer this
MOA; and (c) negotiate, enter into agreements with, and collect funds from individual
NPDES permit holders for cost-sharing of MONITORING SERVICES; and (d)
negotiate, enter into agreements with consultant(s) to execute services to uphold the
SERVICES and TASKS of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that the total cost for this MOA shall
not exceed $6,758,892 as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit C; and.
WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed to cooperatively share and fully fund
the estimated costs of the implementation of the CIMP and EWMP based on the
Distributed Cost contained in Tables 1-4 of Exhibit A and Tables 1-10 of Exhibit B,
respectively, of this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree that each shall assume full and independent
responsibility for ensuring its own compliance with the MS4 Permit despite the
collaborative approach of the MOA; and
WHEREAS, individual NPDES permit holders that are not PARTIES may wish
to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES for individual permit compliance; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES contemplate allowing such individual NPDES
permit holders to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES without being a party
to this MOA, in order to minimize the costs of preparing and implementing the CIMP
to each of the PARTIES; and
WHEREAS, the SGVCOG agrees to enter into individual separate
agreements with such individual NPDES permit holders (which shall not become
parties to this MOA) for MONITORING SERVICES cost-sharing purposes only; and
WHEREAS, if other individual NPDES permit holders participate in the cost
sharing relating to the MONITORING SERVICES, the PARTIES contemplate that
the invoicing table in Exhibit C will be modified as appropriate and each PARTY's
proportional payment obligation reduced accordingly to reflect other individual
NPDES permit holders' payments.
Page 3 of 57
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the
PARTIES, and of the promises contained in this MOA, the PARTIES, and SGVCOG
agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and fully
incorporated into this MOA.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this MOA is to cooperatively fund the
MONITORING SERVICES and TASKS of the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed
Management Area Group CIMP and EWMP and to authorize the SGVCOG to
administer the cost sharing.
Section 3. Cooperation. The PARTIES and the SGVCOG shall fully cooperate with
one another to attain the purposes of this MOA.
Section 4. Voluntary. The PARTIES have voluntarily entered into this MOA for the
implementation of the MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS and
authorize the SGVCOG to administer the cost-sharing.
Section 5. Term. This MOA shall become effective on the date the last PARTY
executes this MOA and shall remain in effect for five (5) years from the effective date or
until June 30th, 2023, or whichever is later. The MOA may be extended, through an
executed amendment, for an additional three (3) years.
Section 6. Commitment. Once effective, all cooperating PARTIES and the SGVCOG
agree to uphold the promises contained in this MOA for the duration of the agreed upon
term.
Section 7. THE PARTIES AND SGVCOG AGREE:
a. Monitoring Services. The CITY will perform the MONITORING SERVICES to
support the PARTIES' submittal of the MS4 Permit Annual Report. The CITY
reserves the right to modify this MOA, through a written amendment to be
approved by all PARTIES, when conditions, such as, but not limited to,
expansion of CIMP requirements, additional EWMP-RELATED TASKS impact
annual costs.
b. Reporting. The PARTIES authorize the CITY to prepare and submit semi-annual
and annual analytical monitoring reports to the Regional Board as described in
the CIMP as well as electronic files if requested by the Regional Board. The CITY
shall distribute the semi-annual and annual reports to the PARTIES fifteen (15)
businesses days prior to submittal to the Regional Board. The PARTIES may
Page 4 of 57
review the monitoring report and submit comments to the CITY prior to its
submittal to the Regional Board.
c. Invoicing. The SGVCOG will invoice all PARTIES, except the CITY, in annual
amounts not exceeding the invoice amounts shown in Table 1 of Exhibit C.
SGVCOG will pay the CITY, the difference between the funds collected and the
sum of administrative costs, the CITY's portion of shared costs for MONITORING
SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS. The annual invoices will be issued in
May of each calendar year in anticipation of the expected monitoring cost for the
next fiscal year. The CITY shall provide SGVCOG an accounting of the
MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS completed during
each annual payment term by October 31 51 of the following year. Contingency
and other funds shall be retained by SGVCOG to be used at the discretion of the
PARTIES. The PARTIES will form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAG)
subcommittee to verify the accounting, monitoring and other work completed and
the amount of the invoices before the SGVCOG remits payment back to the
CITY.
d. Additional Studies. The PARTIES agree that preparing grant applications, and/or
conducting watershed-wide special studies, monitoring with other watershed
groups, conducting other collaborative activities for the purpose of complying with
the MS4 Permit may be funded by the Parties subject to the terms of this MOA,
provided that there are available excess contract funds or contingency funds
available to fund these activities. Prior to the performance of any such activities,
all PARTIES must provide written approval of the activities and revise Tables 1-4
of Exhibit A and Tables 1-10 of Exhibit B showing which PARTIES will be funding
the activities and in what amounts.
a. Contracting. The PARTIES contemplate allowing other individual NPDES permit
holders to participate in the MONITORING SERVICES without being a party to
this MOA, in order to minimize the costs of preparing and implementing the CIMP
to each of the PARTIES. In the event that another NPDES permit holder wants to
participate in the MONITORING SERVICES, the SGVCOG may enter into an
individual separate agreement with such individual NPDES permit holder (which
shall not become a party to this MOA) for MONITORING SERVICES cost sharing
purposes. If other individual NPDES permit holders participate in the cost sharing
relating to the MONITORING SERVICES, the invoicing tables in Exhibit C shall
be modified as appropriate and each PARTIES' proportional payment obligation
reduced accordingly to reflect other individual NPDES permit holders' payments.
Section 8. Payment.
a. Annual Payment. Each PARTY shall pay the SGVCOG for its proportional share
of the estimated cost for MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED
Page 5 of 57
TASKS including SGVCOG's fees as shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A and Table 3
of Exhibit B, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the invoice from the SGVCOG.
The SGVCOG will remit payment to the CITY within sixty (60) days of receipt of
payments from the other PARTIES, noting any delinquent payments that remain
due after deducting the SGVCOG's administrative fixed fee as set forth in Table 4
of Exhibit A and Table 3 of Exhibit B and twelve hundred and thirty dollars
($1 ,230) per individual permittee agreement. The invoicing amounts presented in
Exhibit C have been agreed upon by the PARTIES and are subject to change,
through a written amendment, to address unforeseen challenges.
b. Program Management Fee. The costs of MONITORING SERVICES in Exhibit A
and EWMP-RELATED TASKS in Exhibit B include a Program Management Fee
for facilitation of this MOA by the SGVCOG in the combined amount of $100,000
per year as shown in Table 4 of Exhibit A and Table 3 of Exhibit B.
c. Contingency. The CITY and the SGVCOG will notify the PARTIES if actual
expenditures for MONITORING SERVICES and/or EWMP-RELATED TASKS are
anticipated to exceed the cost estimates contained in Exhibit A and B. Inasmuch,
the MONITORING SERVICES may be adaptable to sampling events during an
event that may preclude the CITY from notifying the PARTIES, and the CITY may
incur cost greater than the contract estimates contained in Exhibit A. The
PARTIES agree to pay the CITY (through SGVCOG) for their proportional share
of these additional expenditures at an amount not to exceed ten percent (1 0%) of
their proportional annual cost as shown in Table 1 of Exhibit C. Any costs which
exceed this ten percent (10%) contingency will require an amendment to this
MOA. These funds will be held by SGVCOG until such time as they are needed.
d. Reconciliation of this MOA. Any unexpended funds held by SGVCOG at the
termination of this MOA will be refunded or credited to the PARTIES by the
SGVCOG, as requested in writing by each PARTY and in accordance with the
distributed cost formula set forth in Tables 1 of Exhibit C or PARTIES may elect
to roll-over unexpended funds to cover monitoring expenses in the subsequent
MOA. At the end of the MOA, the SGVCOG will provide the PARTIES with an
accounting of actual expenditures within ninety (90) days.
e. Late Payment Penalty. Any payment that is not received within sixty (60) days
following receipt of the invoice from SGVCOG shall be subject to interest on the
original amount from the date that the payment first became due. The interest
rate shall be equal to the Prime Rate in effect when the payment first became
due plus one percent (1 %) for any payment that is made within one (1) to thirty
(30) days after the due date. The Prime Rate in effect when the payment first
became due plus five percent (5%) shall apply to any payment that is made
within thirty one (31) to sixty (60) days after the due date. The Prime Rate in
Page 6 of 57
effect when the payment first became due plus ten percent (1 0%) shall apply to
any payment that is made more than sixty (60) days past the due date. The
rates, shall nevertheless, not exceed the maximum allowed by law.
f. Delinquent Payments. A payment is considered to be delinquent one hundred
and eighty (180) days after receipt of the invoice from the SGVCOG. The
following procedure may be implemented to attain payments from the delinquent
PARTY or PARTIES: 1) verbally contact/meet with the manager(s) from the
delinquent PARTY or PARTIES; 2) submit a formal letter to the delinquent
PARTY or PARTIES from SGVCOG counsel; and 3) notify the Regional Board
that the delinquent PARTY or PARTIES are no longer a participating member of
the CIMP or EWMP. If the PARTY or PARTIES remain delinquent after the
above procedures, then that PARTY's participation in this MOA will be deemed
terminated, and the remaining PARTIES' cost share allocation shall be adjusted
in accordance with the cost allocation formula in Exhibit C.
Section 9. THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREE:
a. Documentation. The PARTIES agree to provide at no cost to the City all
requested information and documentation in their possession that is deemed
necessary by the PARTIES to perform the MONITORING SERVICES and
EWMP-RELATED TASKS.
b. Access. Each PARTY shall allow the City or its contractor reasonable access
and entry to-on an as-needed basis during the term of this MOA-certain
facilities and structures owned, operated, or controlled by the PARTY, which
access and entry are necessary for the CITY or its contractor to perform
MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-RELATED TASKS (FACILITIES). The
FACILITIES shall include but not be limited to the PARTY's storm drains,
channels, catch basins, and similar, provided, however, that prior to entering any
of the PARTIES FACILITIES, the CITY shall provide seventy-two (72) hours
advance written notice of entry to the applicable PARTY, or in the cases where
seventy-two (72) hours' advance written notice is not possible, such as in cases
of unforeseen wet weather, CITY or its contractor shall provide written notice to
the applicable PARTY as early as reasonably possible. LACFCD, being a
member of this MOA, agrees to provide the CITY or its contractor a "no-fee"
Access Permit to its FACILITIES. This Access Permit does not cover any fees
that may be required for Construction Permits for the installation of permanent
monitoring equipment. The CITY shall secure any required necessary permits
prior to entry.
c. Each PARTY agrees that due to certain monitoring activities, such as toxicity
testing, the total cost of this MOA is not inclusive of those activities that may be
required to successfully complete the analyses. Thus, the PARTIES agree to
Page 7 of 57
fund the required additional work when the CITY notifies them that the activity
has taken place. The PARTIES agree to pay the CITY (through the SGVCOG)
for their proportional share of these additional expenditures at an amount not to
exceed their proportional annual cost plus the ten percent (10%) contingency as
shown in Exhibit A. No PARTY will be obligated to pay for additional
expenditures which exceed this amount absent an amendment to this MOA.
d. Reporting. The CITY shall distribute the semi-annual and annual reports to the
PARTIES fifteen (15) business days prior to its intended date of submittal to the
Regional Board. The PARTIES may review the reports and submitted
comments to the CITY prior to its submittal to the Regional Board. The CITY
has control of the submittal but shall discuss the PARTIES' comments as they
apply to the report.
Section 10. Indemnification
a. Each PARTY and the SGVCOG shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each
other PARTY, including its special districts, elected and appointed officers,
employees, agents, attorneys, and designated volunteers from and against any
and all liability, including, but not limited to, demands, claims, actions, fees, costs,
and expenses (including reasonable attorney's and expert witness fees), arising
from or connected with the respective acts of each PARTY arising from or related
to this MOA; provided, however, that no PARTY shall indemnify another PARTY
for that PARTY'S own negligence or willful misconduct.
b. In light of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of
California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason
of such entities being parties to an agreement (as defined in Section 895 of said
Code), each of the PARTIES hereto, pursuant to the authorization contained in
Section 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, shall assume the full liability imposed
upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees, by law for injury caused by
any act or omission occurring in the performance of this MOA to the same extent
such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said Code. To
achieve the above stated purpose, each PARTY indemnifies, defends, and holds
harmless each other PARTY for any liability, cost, or expense that may be
imposed upon such other PARTY solely by virtue of said Section 895.2. The
provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as
if incorporated herein.
Section 11. Termination
a. Any PARTY including the SGVCOG may withdraw from this MOA for any reason,
in whole or part, by giving the other PARTIES and the Regional Board thirty (30)
days written notice thereof. Withdrawing PARTIES shall remain wholly
Page 8 of 57
responsible for their share of the costs of MONITORING SERVICES and EWMP-
RELATED TASKS for the extent of the effective term of this MOA. Each PARTY
shall also be responsible for the payment of its own fines, penalties or costs
incurred as a result of the non-performance of the CIMP and/or EWMP. Upon
withdrawal by the SGVCOG, the PARTIES shall meet and confer to designate an
alternate organization to accept the SGVCOG's responsibilities under this MOA.
b. The SGVCOG shall notify in writing all PARTIES within fourteen (14) days of
receiving written notice from any PARTY that intends to terminate this MOA.
c. If a PARTY fails to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this MOA, that
PARTY shall forfeit its rights to the work completed through this MOA, but no
such forfeiture shall occur unless and until the defaulting PARTY has first been
given notice of its default and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
default.
d. EQUIPMENT Ownership -Devices such as, automatic sampling stations
inclusive of a cabinet, sampling equipment, ancillary devices, power supplies
(EQUIPMENT) may be installed to implement the CIMP. Any PARTY voluntarily
terminating membership will not be entitled to a refund for the portion of the share
paid to acquire and to operate the EQUIPMENT nor for the remaining value of
the EQUIPMENT, if any. The operational life of such EQUIPMENT is
approximately seven years, and after which it may be obsolete or may require
major remodel or replacement of electrical and mechanical components costing
equivalent to a purchase of a new EQUIPMENT. The remaining PARTIES agree
to own, operate and maintain and or replace the EQUIPMENT.
Section 12. General Provisions
a. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports relating to this MOA, and any
request, demand, statement, or other communication required or permitted
hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the representatives of the
PARTIES and/or SGVCOG at the addresses set forth in Exhibit D attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PARTIES and SBCCOG shall
promptly notify each other of any change of contact information, including
personnel changes, provided in Exhibit D. Written notice shall include notice
delivered via e-mail or fax. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on
(a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by
confirmed facsimile or by e-mail; or (b) on the third (3rd) business day following
mailing by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) to the addresses
set forth in Exhibit D.
Page 9 of 57
b. Administration. For the purposes of this MOA, the PARTIES and SGVCOG
hereby designate as their respective representatives the persons named in
Exhibit D. The designated representatives, or their respective designees, shall
administer the terms and conditions of this MOA on behalf of their respective
entities. Each of the persons signing below on behalf of a PARTY or the
SGVCOG represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to sign this MOA
on behalf of such entity.
c. Relationship of the Parties. The parties to this MOA are, and shall at all times
remain as to each other, wholly independent entities. No party to this MOA shall
have power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of any other party
unless expressly provided to the contrary by this MOA. No employee, agent, or
officer of a party shall be deemed for any purpose whatsoever to be an agent,
employee, or officer of another party.
d. Binding Effect. This MOA shall be binding upon, and shall be to the benefit of the
respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each party to this MOA; provided,
however, no party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOA
without the prior written consent of the other parties.
e. Amendment. The terms and provisions of this MOA may not be amended,
modified, or waived, except by an instrument in writing signed by all non-
delinquent PARTIES and the SGVCOG. Such amendments may be executed by
those individuals listed in Exhibit D or by a responsible individual as determined
by each PARTY.
f. Law to Govern. This MOA is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In the event of
litigation related to this MOA, venue in the state trial courts shall lie exclusively in
the County of Los Angeles.
g. No Presumption in Drafting. The parties to this MOA agree that the general rule
that an MOA is to be interpreted against the party drafting it, or causing it to be
prepared shall not apply.
h. Severability. If any provision of this MOA shall be determined by any court to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOA
shall not be affected, and this MOA shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOA.
i. Entire Agreement. This MOA constitutes the entire agreement of the parties to
this MOA with respect to the subject matter hereof.
Page 10 of 57
j. Waiver. Waiver by any party to this MOA of any term, condition, or covenant of
this MOA shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.
Waiver by any party to this MOA of any breach of the provisions of this MOA
shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any
subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOA.
k. Counterparts. This MOA may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute but
one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts shall
have been delivered to all parties to this MOA.
I. All parties to this MOA have been represented by counsel in the preparation and
negotiation of this MOA. Accordingly, this MOA shall be construed according to
its fair language. Any ambiguities shall be resolved in a collaborative manner by
the PARTIES and SGVCOG and shall be rectified by amending this MOA as
described in Section 12(e).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES and SBCCOG hereto have caused
this MOA to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of
the date of signature of the PARTIES:
Page 11 of 57
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
By
Mark Pestrella, Director of Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mary C. Wickham
County Counsel
By
Deputy Date
Page 12 of 57
Date
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
By:
Mark Pestrella, Chief Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mary C. Wickham
County Counsel
By:
Deputy
Page 13 of 57
Date
Date
CITY OF ALHAMBRA
By ______________ __
Stephen Sham
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
By __________________ __
Lauren Myles
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By __________________ __
Joseph M. Montes, Esq.
City Attorney
Page 14 of 57
Date
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Date: _______ _
ATTEST:
Holly Wolcott
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael N. Feuer
City Attorney
By: -----------
Kevin James, President
Board of Public Works
By: ----------
Adena M. Hopenstand
Deputy City Attorney
Page 15 of 57
THE CITY OF BURBANK
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF BURBANK
By ___________________ _
Will Rogers, Mayor
ATTEST:
Zizette Mullins, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph H. McDougall, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Page 16 of 57
CITY OF CALABASAS
Dated: __________ _
ATTEST:
Maricela Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Howard, Interim City Attorney
CITY OF CALABASAS
By
Fred Gaines, Mayor
Page 17 of 57
CITY OF GLENDALE
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF GLENDALE
By
Vartan Gharpetian, Mayor
ATTEST:
Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael Garcia, City Attorney
Page 18 of 57
CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
Dated: CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
By ____________________ __
Larry G. Weber, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cherie L. Paglia, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Roxanne M. Diaz, City Attorney
Page 19 of 57
CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
Dated: __________ _
ATTEST:
Mark R. Alexander, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark Steres, City Attorney
CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
By
Dave Spence, Mayor
Page 20 of 57
CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF MONTEBELLO
By
Vanessa Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
lrma-Bernal Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Chris Cardinale, City Attorney
Page 21 of 57
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Date: ________ _
ATTEST:
By: ---------------
Vincent D. Chang, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ---------------
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
Page 22 of 57
By:
Paul Talbot, City Manager
CITY OF PASADENA
Dated: __________ _
ATTEST:
Mark Jomsky, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brad L. Fuller, Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PASADENA
By
Steve Mermell, City Manager
Page 23 of 57
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF ROSEMEAD
By
Jeff Allred, City Manager
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
Page 24 of 57
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF SAN FERNANDO
By
Joel Fajardo, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elena G. Chavez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rick R. Olivarez, City Attorney
Page 25 of 57
CITY OF SAN GABRIEL
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF SAN GABRIEL
By __________ ~~---------
Steven A. Preston, City Manager
ATTEST:
Julie Nguyen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Keith Lemieux, City Attorney
Page 26 of 57
CITY OF SAN MARINO
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF SAN MARINO
By ____________ _
Steve Tall, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marcella Marlowe, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Steven Flower, City Attorney
Page 27 of 57
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
Dated: _________ _ CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
By
[INSERT NAME], City Manager
ATTEST:
[insert name], City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
[insert name], City Attorney
Page 28 of 57
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
Dated: __________ _ CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
By ________________________ _
Stephanie DeWolfe, City Manager
ATTEST:
Evelyn G. Zneimer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Teresa L. Highsmith, City Attorney
Page 29 of 57
CITY OF THE TEMPLE CITY
Date: __________ _ CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
By
Cynthia Sternquist, Mayor
ATTEST:
Peggy Kuo, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
Page 30 of 57
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Date: _______ _
Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: -----------
Richard D. Jones
Counsel for the SGVCOG
By: ~~-~--~~~~
Marisa Creter, Interim Executive
Page 31 of 57
EXHI B IT A
Upper Los Angeles R ive r E nhance d Wat e rs hed Management Area CIM P Impleme ntation Costs
Table 1. Ex h i b it A Distrib ut io n of Tota l Estimated Cost for Implem enti ng t h e ULAR CIMP .
Agency Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 Total
LACFCD $41,269 $57,360 $34,536 $34,556 $51,127 $218,848
City of Los Angeles $448,136 $637,212 $373,145 $373,145 $580,367 $2,412,005
-
County of Los Angeles $110,198 $132,588 $94,952 $95,161 $116,540 $549,439
--
City of Alhambra $11,184 $10,053 $10,0 53 $10,05 3 $10,053 $51,398
~ ~
City of Burbank $25,406 $42,8 37 $22,837 $22,837 $54,168 $168,086 ----
City of Calabasas $23,640 $70,648 $8,245 $8,245 $8,245 $119,023
~
City of Gl endal e $44,852 $71,702 $40,317 $40,317 $88,532 $285,720 ----
City of Hi dden Hills $5,496 $15,915 $1,978 $1,978 $1,978 $27,345
City of La Can ada Fl intridge $12,673 $14,05 7 $11,392 $11,392 $15,3 14 $64,827
City of Montebello $12,265 $11,025 $1 1,025 $11,025 $11,025 $5 6,365
---
City o f Monterey Pa rk $11 ,338 $10,192 $10,192 $10,192 $10,192 $52 ,105 - --
City of Pasadena $33,9 02 $30,693 $30,474 $30,474 $30,857 $156,399
---
City of Ros emea d $7,581 $6,815 $6,815 $6,815 $6,815 $34,840 --- -
City of San Fernando $3,475 $4,623 $3,1 24 $3,124 $5,359 $19,705 ----
City of San Gabri el $6,0 56 $5,444 $5,444 $5,444 $5,444 $27,832 ---
City of San Marino $5,5 18 $4,960 $4,960 $4,960 $4,960 $25,357 ---
City of So uth El Monte $11,484 $11,271 $1 1,431 $1 1,594 $11,760 $57,541 - --
City of So uth Pasadena $5,006 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $23,005
---
City of Te mple City $5,900 $5,303 $5,303 $5,303 $5,3 03 $2 7,113
Page 32 of 57
Total Estimated Cost of CIMP $825,379 $1,147,199 $690,722 $691,114 $1,022,538 $4,376,952
Note:
1. The Total Estimated Cost for each agency is the sum of General Monitoring Costs (refer to Table 2, Exh ibit A) plus the costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (refer to Table 3a -
j, Exhib it A), Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring, and SGVCOG annual fee.
Table 2. Exhibit A Di stribution of General Monito ring Costs.
Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Total CIMP Component 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Receiving Water Monitoring $273,744 $273,744 $273,744 $273,744 $273,744 $1,368,720
Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $80,009 $80,009 $80,009 $80,009 $80,009 $400,044 -
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (NSWO costs are distributed according to sub-watershed) -
Data Management (1 5%) $53,063 $53,063 $53,063 $53,063 $53,063 $265,315
~ ~ ~
Capital Expenses $96,906 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $180,906 ---
O peration & Maintena nce Expenses $9,414 $9,414 $9,414 $9,414 $9,414 $47,072 ----
Contracted Services: Annual Report, Data Tools, On-call support $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $450,000 -- --
Program Management (5%) $30,15 7 $26,362 $26,362 $26,362 $26,362 $135,603
General Monitoring Costs (Sub -Tota l) $633,293 $553,592 -$553,592 $553,592 -$553,592 $2,847,659
Contingency (10%) $63,329 $55,359 $55,359 $55,359 $55,35 9 $284,766 -
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 2%) $0 $12,179 $12,179 $12,179 $12,179 $48,716
General Monit oring Costs (Total) $696,622 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $3,181,141
Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) --$34,831 $31,056 $31,056 $31,056 $31,056 $159,057 ---
City of Los Angeles 181,288.00 58.53% $387,319 $345,345 $345,345 $345,345 $345,345 $1,768,699 ---
County of Los Angeles 41,048.07 13.25% $87,698 $78,195 $78,195 $78,195 $78,195 $400,477 -- --
City of Alhambra 4,884.31 1.58% $10,435 $9,304 $9,304 $9,304 $9,304 $47,653 ----
City of Burbank 11,095.20 3.58% $23,705 $21,136 $21,136 $21,136 $21,136 $108,248 ---
City of Calabasas 4,005.68 1.29% $8,558 $7,631 $7,631 $7,631 $7,631 $39,081 -~
City of Glendale 19,587.50 6.32% $41,848 $37,313 $37,313 $37,313 $37,313 $191,101 ---
City of Hidden Hills 961.03 0.31% $2,053 $1,831 $1,831 $1,831 $1,831 $9,376
----
City of La Canada Flintridge 5,534.46 1.79% $11,824 $10,543 $10,543 $10,543 $10,543 $53,996
Page 33 of 57
City of Montebello 5,356.38 1.73% $11,444 $10,204 $10,204 $10,204 $10,204 $52,258
----
City of Monterey Park 4,951.51 1.60% $10,579 $9,432 $9,432 $9,432 $9,432 $48,308 ----
City of Pasadena 14,805.30 4.78% $31,631 $28,203 $28,203 $28,203 $28,203 $144,445 ------
City of Rosemead 3,310.87 1.07% $7,074 $6,307 $6,307 $6,307 $6,307 $32,302 ------
City of San Fernando 1,517.64 0 .49% $3,242 $2,891 $2,891 $2,891 $2,891 $14,807 -----
City of San Gabriel 2,644.87 0.85% $5,651 $5,038 $5,038 $5,038 $5,038 $25,804 ---- - --~
City of San Marino 2,409.64 0.78% $5,148 $4,590 $4,590 $4,590 $4,590 $23,509 --~ ---
City of South El Monte 1,594.16 0.51% $3,406 $3,037 $3,037 $3,037 $3,037 $15,553 -
City of South Pasadena 2,186.20 0.71% $4,671 $4,165 $4,165 $4,165 $4,165 $21,329 -~
City ofTemple City 2,576.50 0.83% $5,505 $4,908 $4,908 $4,908 $4,908 $25,137
Total 309,757.32 100% $696,622 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $621,130 $3,181,141
Note:
1. General Monitoring Costs include all requ ired monitoring elements in the CIMP, except for Non-Stonmw ater Outfall Mon itoring a nd Receiving water mo nitoring in Echo Pa rk Lake, La ke
Calabasas, and Legg Lake.
2. The areas owned by Caltrans, State Parks, and U.S. Government have been excluded from the total area of the Upper Los Angeles River watershed.
3. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the General Monitori ng Costs, which is subtracted before the costs are distributed among the other
Parties .
4. Area (acres) detenmined by GIS analysis as shown in Exhibit C.
5. Agency Percent Area = (Agency Area I Total Area) x 1 00%
6. Di stributed Cost to each Party= [(Total of General Mon itoring Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area)/1 00%.
Table 3A Exhibit A Distribution of Costs for Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring in Aliso Canyon Wash
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring {ACW) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $13,784 $0 $0 ----$0 --$0 $13,784
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 -$58,132 --$0 $0 $0 $58,132
Data Management (1 5%) $2,068 -$8,720 --$0 --$0 --$0 $10,788
Program Management {5%) $793 $3,343 $0 $0 $0 $4,135
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $16,645 -$70,195 --$0 --$0 ---$0 $86,839
Contingency {10%) $1,664 -$7,0 19
~~
$0
~-
$0 --$0 $8,684 -
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,544 $0 $0 $0 $1,544
Aliso Canyon Wash {Total) $18,309 $78,759 $0 $0 $0 $97,068
Page 34 of 57
Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) ---$915 $3,938 $0 $0 $0 $4,853 --------
City of Los Angeles 11,604.43 86.31% $15,013 $64,581 $0 $0 $0 $79,594 -----------
County of Los Angeles 1,839.94 13.69% $2,380 $10,240 $0 $0 $0 $12,620 ------------
ACW(Total) 13,444.37 100% $18,309 $78,759 $0 $0 $0 $97,068
Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD ) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the oth er Parties.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non -Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs-LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area] I 100%
Table 3B Exh i bit A (McCoy Canyon)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitori ng (McCoy Canyon) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
I nventory and 6 scree ning Events $8,971 -$0 ---$0 --$0 --$0 $8,971
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 -$37,937 --$0 --$0 --$0 $37,937
Data Management (15%) $1,346 $5,691 $0 $0 $0 $7,036
Program Management (5%) $516 $2,181 $0 $0 $0 $2,697
Monitori ng Cost Sub-Total $10,833 -$45,809 --$0 --$0 --$0 $56,642
Contingency (10%) $1,083
~
$4,581
~~
$0 --$0 --$0 $5,664
Annual Esca lati on (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,008 $0 $0 $0 $1,008
McCoy Canyon (Total) $11,916 $51,397 $0 $63,314
Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) --$596 $2,570 $0 $0 $0 $3,166
--
City of Los Angeles 161.26 5.28% $597 $2,576 $0 $0 $0 $3,174
-----
County of Los Angel es 237.07 7.76% $878 $3,788 $0 $0 $0 $4,666
~ . ----~-
City of Calabasas 1,820.64 59.57% $6,744 $29,089 $0 $0 $0 $35,833 --~----
City of Hidden Hills 837.12 27.39% $3,101 $13,375 $0 $0 $0 $16,47 6
--------
McCoy Canyon (Total) 3,056.09 100% $11,916 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 $63,314
Note:
Page 35 of 57
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAC FCD ) is responsible for 5% of th e Total Cost, which is subtracted befo re t he cost is d istributed among t he other Parties.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary = [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monito ri ng Costs-LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent A rea]/1 00%
Table 3C Exhibit A (Dry Canyon)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Dry Canyon) Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fi scal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory an d 6 screening Events $8,971 -· $0 --$0 --$0
~~
$0
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitori ng $0 $37,937 $0 $0 $0 -------
Data Management {15%) $1,346 -$5,691 --$0 --$0 --$0
Program Management (5%) $516 $2,181 $0 $0 $0
Monitoring Cost Su b-Total $10,833 -$45,809 ---$0 --$0 --$0
Contingency (10%) $1,083
~
$4,581
~-
$0 --$0 ---$0 -
An n ual Escala tion (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,0 08 $0 $0 $0
Dry Canyon {Total) $11,916 $51,397 $0 $0 $0
land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD {5%) ---$596 $2,570 $0 $0 $0 -----
City of Los Angeles 746.31 25.07% $2,838 $12,241 $0 $0 $0
-------
County of Los Angeles 199.50 6.70% $759 $3,272 $0 $0 $0 -
City of Calabasas 2,031.13 68.23% $7,724 $33,314 $0 $0 $0
-------
Dry Canyon (Total) 2,976.94 100% $11,916 $5 1,397 $0 $0 $0
Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distribut ed among the other Parties.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwate r Outfall Monitoring Costs-LACFD 5%) x Agency Pe rcent Area]/1 00%
Table 30 Exhibit A (Bell Creek)
Non-5tormwater Outfall Monitoring (Bell Creek) Fiscal Yea r
18-19
Page 36 of 57
Fiscal Year
19-20
Fiscal Year
20-21
Fiscal Year
21-22
Fisca l Year
22-23
Total
$8,971
$37,937
$7,036
$2,697
$56,642
$5,664
$1,00 8
$63,3 14
Tota l
$3,166
$15,079
$4,031
$41,038
$63,314
Tot al
Inve ntory and 6 scree ning Events $13,38 9 -$0 --$0 --$0 $0 $13,389
Non-Stormwater Outfa ll Monitoring $0 -$37,937 --$0 --$0 --$0 $37,937
Dat a M a nagement (15%} -$2,008 $5,691 $0 $0 --$0 $7,699
Program Manageme nt (5%} $770 $2,18 1 $0 $0 $0 $2,951
Monitoring Cost Su b-Total $16,167 $45,809 --$0 --$0 --$0 $61,976
Contingency (10%} $1,617 $4,581 $0 $0 $0 $6,198 -------
An nu al Esc alation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $1,008 $0 $0 $0 $1,008
Bell Creek (Total) $17,784 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 $69,181
Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 Total
LAC FCD (5%} --$889 $2,570 $0 $0 $0 $3,459 ----~---
City of Los Angeles 9,281.64 86.24% $14,569 $42,107 $0 $0 $0 $56,676
------
County of Los Ange les 1,357.60 12.61% $2,131 $6,159 $0 $0 $0 $8,290 ---~ --
City of Hidden Hills 123.92 1.15% $195 $562 $0 $0 $0 $757
-----
Bell Creek (Total) 10,763.16 100% $17,784 $51,397 $0 $0 $0 $69,181
Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (lACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost i s di stributed among the oth er Parti es.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party withi n a given Segment or T ributary = ((Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitori ng Costs -lACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/100%
Table 3E Exhibit A (Segment C)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Segment C) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory an d 6 scree ning Events $0 -$28,360 --$0
~
$0 $0 $28,360
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 -$0 --$0 $0 $49,024 $0 -
Data Management (15%) $0 $4,254 $0 --$0 -$7,354 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,819 $1,631
Monitoring Cos t Sub-Tota l $0 -$34,244 --$0 --$0 -$59,197 $34,244
Cont ing ency (10%) $0 -$3,424 --$0 --$0 $5,920 $3,424
An nual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,302 $0
Segment C (Total) $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $66,419 $104,087
Page 37 of 57
Agency Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) --$0 $1,883 $0 $0 $3,321 $5,204
~--
City of Los Angeles 23,633.48 69.45% $0 $24,853 $0 $0 $43,821 $68,674 ------ -
County of Los Angeles 300.53 0.88% $0 $316 $0 $0 $557 $873 ----~-
City of Burbank 3,401.83 10.00% $0 $3,577 $0 $0 $6,308 $9,885
-------
City of Glendale 6,496.20 19.09% $0 $6,831 $0 $0 $12,045 $18,877 ------
City of Pasade na 197.70 0.58% $0 $208 $0 $0 $367 $574
------
Se gment C (Total) 34,029.74 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $66,419 $104,087
Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAC FCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, w hich is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Parties.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stonmwater O utfall Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/1 00%
Table 3F Exhibit A {Verdugo Wash)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring {Verdugo Wash) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Tota l 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 -$28,360 --$0 -$0 -$0 $28,360
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 -$0 --$0 -$0 -$40,916 $0
Data Management (15%) $0 $4,254 --$0 --$0 -$6,137 $4,254
Program Managem ent (5 %) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,353 $1,631
Monitoring Cost Sub -Total $0 $34,244
~-
$0
~-
$0 $49,406 $34,244
Contingency (10%} $0 $3,424 $0
~-
$0 -$4,941 $3,424
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,087 $0
Verdugo Wash(Tota l } $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $55,434 $93,102
Land Area %of Area Fi scal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) --$0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,772 $4,655 --- ------
City of Los Angeles 1,276.17 6.68% $0 $2,389 $0 $0 $3,515 $5,904
Page 38 of 57
County of Los Angele s 3,671.20 19.20% $0 $6,872 $0 $0 $10,113 $16,985 ----
City of La Can ada Flintridge 1,424.01 7.45% $0 $2,665 $0 $0 $3,923 $6,588 --------
City of Glenda le 12,740.31 66.64% $0 $23,84 8 $0 $0 $35,095 $58,942
---
City of Pasadena 6.08 0.03% $0 $11 $0 $0 $17 $28 ------------
Verdugo Wash (Total) 19,117.77 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $55,434 $93,102
Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAC FCD ) is responsible for 5% of the Tota l Cost , which is subtracted befo re the cost is distri buted among the oth er Pa rties.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non -Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs-LAC FD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/ 10 0%
Tab le 3G Exhibit A (B urbank Western Channel)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (BWC)
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Tota l 18-19 19 -20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 scree ning Events $0 $28,360 --$0 --$0 -$0 $28,360
Non-Stormwat e r Outfall Monitoring $0
~
$0 --$0
~-
$0 -$42,363 $0
Data Management {15%) ---$0 $4,25 4 $0 --$0 $6,355 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,436 $1,631
Monitoring Cost Sub-To tal ---$0 $34,244 $0 -$0 $51,154 $34,244
Contingency (10%) $0 -$3,424 --$0 -$0 -$5,115 $3,424
Annual Escalation {0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,125 $0
Burbank Western Channel (Total) $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $57,3 95 $95,063
Land Area %of Area Fis cal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fi sca l Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LAC FCD (5%) --$0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,870 $4,753
~ ~----
City of Los Angeles 8,749.20 52.19% $0 $18,676 $0 $0 $28,457 $47,133
--------
City of Burbank 7,693.45 45.89% $0 $16,423 $0 $0 $25,023 $41,445 -~~ ---
City of Glendale 32 1.42 1.92% $0 $686 $0 $0 $1,045 $1,732 -~~
Burbank Western Channel (Total) 16,764.07 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $57,395 $95,063
Note:
1. Los Ang eles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Pa rties .
2 . Distributed Cost to each Pa rty within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Tota l of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring Costs -LAC FD 5%) x Agency Perce nt Area]/100%
Page 39 of 57
Table 3H Exhibit A {Tujunga Wash)
Non-Stormwater Outfall M onitoring (Tujunga Wash) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 $28,360 --$0 --$0 -$0
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,435 ------
Data Management {15%) $0 -$4,254
-~
$0
-~
$0 $6,215
Program Management {5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $2,382
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 $34,244 $0 --$0 -$50,032
Contingency {10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $5,003
~-~-
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,101
Total $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $56,136
Land Area
%of Area
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFC D (5%) --$0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,807 -------
City of Los Ange les 32,491.56 89.72% $0 $3 2,108 $0 $0 $47,849
--~ -~ ----
County of Los Ange les 2,183.42 6.03% $0 $2,158 $0 $0 $3,215 -------
City of Glendale 20.25 0.06% $0 $20 $0 $0 $30
--------
City of San Fernando 1,517.65 4.19% $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $2,235 --------~ -~~ -
Tujunga Wash (Total) 36,212.88 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $56,136 ---Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is respons ible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before th e cost is distributed among the other Pa rti es.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary = [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitorin g Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/1 00%
Table 31 Exhibit A {Segment D)
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring (Segment D)
I nv entory and 6 screeni ng Events
Fiscal Year
18-19
$0
Page 40 of 57
Fiscal Year
19-20
$28,360
Fiscal Year
20-21
$0
Fiscal Year
21-22
$0
Fiscal Year
22-23
$0
Total
$28,360
$0
$4,254
$1,631
$34,244
$3,424
$0
$93,805
Tot al
$4,69 0
$79,957
$5,373
$50
$3,735
$93,805
Total
$28,360
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,657 $0 ------
Data Management (15%) $0 -$4,254 --$0 --$0 -$4,899 $4,254
Program Management (5%) $0 $1,631 $0 $0 $1,878 $1,631
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $0 -$34,244 --$0 --$0 -$39,433 $34,244
Contingency (10%) $0 $3,424 $0 $0 $3,943 $3,424
~-----
Annual Escalation (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $868 $0
Tot.al $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $44,244 $81,913
Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Agency (a cres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 Total
LACFCD (5%) --$0 $1,883 $0 $0 $2,212 $4,096 ----
City of Los Angeles 23,079.17 100.00% $0 $35,785 $0 $0 $42,032 $77,817 --~ ---Segment D (Total) 23,079.17 100% $0 $37,669 $0 $0 $44,244 $81,913
Note:
1. Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACF CD) is responsible for 5% of t he Total Cost, which is subt racted before the cost is distributed among the other Pa rti es .
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Segment or Tributary= [(Total of Non-Stormwater Outfall Mo nitoring Costs-LACFD 5%) x Agency Pe rcent Are a]/1 00%
Table 3J Exh i bit A (Bull Creek)
Non-Stormwater O utfall Monitoring (Bull Creek) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Total 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Inventory and 6 screening Events $0 $26,778 --$0 --$0 -$0 $26,778
Non-Stormwater Outfall Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,937 $0
~ -----
Data Management (1 5%) -$0 $4,017 --$0 --$0 $5,691 $4,017
Program Managem e nt (5%) $0 $1,540 $0 $0 $2,181 $1,540
Monitori ng Cost Sub-Total
~--$0 $32,334 $0 $0 -$45,809 $32,334
Contingency (10%) $0 $3,233 $0 -$0 -$4,581 $3,233
Annu a l Escalat ion (0%, 2%, 2%) $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,008 $0
Total $0 $35,568 $0 $0 $51,397 $86,9 65
Land Area %of Area Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Page 41 of 57
LACFCD (5%) ---$0 $1,778 $0 $0 $2,570 $4,348 ---------
City of Los Angeles 10,822.34 85.09% $0 $28,752 $0 $0 $41,548 $70,299 ----------
County of Los Angeles 1,896.24 14.91% $0 $5,038 $0 $0 $7,2~ $12,318 -------
Bull Creek (Total) 12,718.58 100% $0 $35,568 $0 $0 $51,397 $86,965
Note:
1. Los Ang eles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is resp onsible for 5% of the Total Cost, wh ich is subtracted before the cost is distributed among th e other Parti es.
2. Distributed Cost to each Party within a given Seg ment or Tri butary= [(Total of Non-Stormw ater Outfall Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/1 00%
Table 3K Exhibit A (Legg Lake)
Legg Lake Receiving Water Monitoring Fiscal Year Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fisca l Year
T otal 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
Receiving Water Monitoring $14,178 -$14,178 $14,178 $14,178 -$14,178 $42,533
Data Management (15%) $2,127 $2,127
~-
$2,127 -$2,127 $2,127 $6,380
Program Management (5%) $815 $815 $815 $815 $815 $2,446
Monitoring Cost Sub-Total $17,120 -$17,120 -$17,120 $17,120 $17,120 $5 1,359
Contingency (10%) $1,712 -$1,712 -$1,712 $1,712
~
$1,712 $5,136
Annual Escala tion (0%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 2%) $0 $377 $384 $392 $400 $761
Legg Lake (Total) $18,831 $19,208 $19,592 $19,984 $20,384 $98,000
Agency Land Area %of Area
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5%) ---$942 $960 $980 $999 $1,019 $2,882 ----
County of Lo s Angeles 2,044.68 56.2 1% $10,056 $10,258 $10,463 $10,672 $10,885 $30,777 ----
South El Monte 1,592.68 43.79% $7,833 $7,990 $8,150 $8,313 $8,479 $23,973 ---
Legg Lake (Total) 3,637.35 100% $18,831 $19,208 $19,592 $19,984 $20,384 $98,000
Note:
1. Los Ange les County Fl ood Control District (LACFCD) is respons ibl e for 5% of the Tota l Cost, which is subtracted before the cost is distributed among the other Pa rtie s.
2 . Distribu ted Cost to each Party within Lake= [(Total of Lake Monitoring Costs -LACFD 5%) x Agency Percent Area]/1 00 %
Page 42 of 57
Table 4. San Gabrie l Valley Council of Governments Fee
Land Area %of Area Fisca l Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total Agency (acres) 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23
LACFCD (5 %) -5.00% $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $12,500 ---
City of Los Angeles 181,288.00 58.53% $27,800 $27,800 $27,800 $27,800 $27,800 $138,999 ---
County of Los Ange les 41,048.07 13.25% $6,295 $6,295 $6,295 $6,295 $6,295 $31,473 --
City of Alhambra 4,884.31 1.58% $749 $749 $749 $749 $749 $3,745 . -~ . ~ -
City of Burbank 11,095.20 3.58% $1,701 $1,701 $1,701 $1,701 $1,701 $8,507 - - - --
City of Ca labasas 4,005.68 1.29% $614 $614 $614 $614 $614 $3,071 ----
City of Glendale 19,587.50 6.32% $3,004 $3,004 $3,004 $3,004 $3,004 $15,018
City of Hidden Hills 961.03 0.31% $147 $147 $147 $147 $147 $737 ---~ -~--
City of La Canada Fl intridge 5,534.46 1.79% $849 $849 $849 $849 $849 $4,243 -----~-
City of Mont ebello 5,356.38 1.73% $821 $821 $821 $821 $821 $4,107 ----
City of Monterey Park 4,951.51 1.60% $759 $759 $759 $759 $759 $3,796 ----
City of Pasadena 14,805.30 4.78% $2,270 $2,270 $2,270 $2,270 $2,270 $11,352 -----City of Rosemead 3,310.87 1.07% $508 $508 $508 $508 $508 $2,539 - ---
City of San Fernando 1,517.64 0.49 % $233 $233 $233 $233 $233 $1,164 --- -----
City of San Gab rie l 2,644.87 0.85% $406 $406 $406 $406 $406 $2,028 ---
City of San Marino 2,409.64 0.78% $370 $370 $370 $370 $370 $1,848
City of South El Monte 1,594.16 0.51% $244 $244 $244 $244 $244 $1,222 --------
City of South Pasadena 2,186.20 0.71% $335 $335 $335 $335 $335 $1,676 --------
City of Temple City 2,576.50 0.83% $395 $395 $395 $395 $395 $1,975
Total 309,757.32 1 .00 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Note:
1. Tota l cost of SGVCOG Fees is S50,000 per y ear.
2 . Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) is responsible for 5% of the Total Cost, which is subtracted before the cost i s di stri buted among the other Parties.
Page 43 of 57
EXH IB IT 8
Uppe r Los Ange les Rive r Enha nced Watershed Ma nagement Area EWMP Implementation Cos ts
Table 1. Distribution of Total Cost for Implem enti ng ULAR EWMP Associated Tasks
CITY % Drai nage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 5YR Total
City of Los Angeles 58.53% $2 19,177 $166 ,120 $312,775 $416,958 $221,723 $1,336 ,752 ----~
Alhambra 1.58% $5,916 $4,484 $6,735 $4,867 $5,985 $2 7,987
~------Burbank 3.58% $13,409 $10,163 $15 ,265 $33 ,182 $13,564 $85 ,583 --- ---Calabasas 1.29% $5,254 $3,662 $45 ,435 $3 ,975 $4,887 $63,213 --- ----Glendale 6.32% $23 ,627 $17 ,943 $26,949 $98 ,628 $23 ,947 $191,139 --- ----Hidden Hills 0.31 % $4,303 $882 $10 ,237 $957 $1 ,1 76 $17 ,555 --------La Ca nada Flintridge 1.79% $6,704 $5,082 $7,632 $5,516 $6,782 $31 ,717
----Montebello 1.73% $6,478 $4,910 $7,375 $5,329 $6 ,553 $30,646 - -
---Mont erey Park 1.60% $5 ,994 $4 ,544 $6 ,824 $4,932 $6 ,064 $28 ,357 --- --Pa sadena 4 .78 % $17 ,897 $13 ,564 $20 ,375 $14,758 $18,105 $84 ,698
~~ -~ ---Rosemead 1.07% $5,034 $3,034 $4,559 $3,294 $4,051 $19 ,971 --- --~ --San Fe rna ndo 0.49 % $4 ,474 $1,390 $2 ,088 $5 ,510 $1,855 $15,317 --~ -----San Gabriel 0.85% $4,828 $2,414 $3 ,625 $3 ,917 $3,221 $18 ,005 ----- ----~ ----San Mari no 0.78% $4,753 $2,212 $3,324 $2,401 $2,953 $15,642
~ ---South El Monte 0.51% $1,602 $3,052 $2,177 $1 ,573 $1 ,934 $10,338 --- -
------So uth Pas ad ena 0 .71% $4 ,680 $2 ,010 $3 ,022 $2 ,182 $2 ,685 $14,579
~-~ ~ ----Temple City 0.83% $4,804 $2 ,354 $3 ,537 $2 ,555 $3 ,143 $16 ,393 -------LACFCD -$10 ,250 $6,500 $34,050 $27,300 $11 ,500 $89 ,600
CA County
~ ~ -13.25% $49 ,616 $37 ,605 $69,313 $77,719 $50,192 $284,445 ------Total 100.00 % $398,845 $290,923 $585,296 $715,55 2 $39 0,321 $2 ,381 ,93 8
Notes:
1. Total Cost= SGVCOG Admin Fee+ Annual Report Costs+ Adaptive Management Costs + ROW D Costs+ LRS Costs + TMRP Costs+ Speci al Studies Costs + 2 017 Report of W aste Discha rge
(ROWD).
Page 44 of 57
Table 2 : Upper Los Angeles CIMP Contingency (Deficiency) Funds FY15/16 To FY 17/18
FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Contingency
CITY % Drainage Area
Contingency To tal collected Used L eftover FY1 5-18
l ---
City of Los Angeles 58.53% $81,543 $66,726 $60,867 $209,136 $50,699.77 $158,436.67
Alhambra ------------1.58% $2,201 $1,801 $1,643 $5,646 $5 ,258.20 $387.38 ----------Burbank 3 .58% $4,988 $4,081 $3,723 $12,792 $6,858.1 2 $5,933.7 6
Calabasas ----~~ ------
1.29% $1 ,797 $1 ,471 $1 ,342 $4,609 $5,031 .86 ($422 .50) ------------Glendal e 6.32% $8,805 $7,205 $6,572 $22,582 $9 ,045.74 $13,536.56
Hidden Hills --~~ ----
0.31 % $432 $353 $322 $1,108 $4,247.56 ($3, 139.88) --------------La Canada F lintridge 1.79% $2,494 $2,041 $1,861 $6,396 $5,425.68 $970 .26
Mo ntebello ---- ------~-
1.73% $2,410 $1 ,972 $1 ,799 $6,182 $5,379.80 $801 .75
------------Monterey Park 1.60% $2 ,229 $1 ,824 $1 ,664 $5,717 $5,275.51 $441.53 ----~~ --------Pasadena 4 .78% $6,659 $5,449 $4,971 $17,080 $7,813.84 $9,265.81 -----------Rosemead 1.07% $1 ,491 $1 ,220 $1,113 $3,823 $4,852.88 ($1 ,029.61)
------------San Fernando 0 .49% $683 $559 $510 $1,751 $4,390.94 ($2 ,640.1 0)
------
San Gabriel 0.85% $1,184 $969 $884 $3,037 $4,681.32 ($1 ,644.14) ---------San Marino 0.78% $1 ,087 $889 $81 1 $2,787 $4,620.72 ($1 ,833.66) -----------South El Monte 0.51% $711 $581 $530 $1 ,822 $4,410.66 ($2,588.35) ---~-----South Pas adena 0.71 % $989 $809 $738 $2,537 $4,563.16 ($2,026.22) -----Temple City 0.83% $1 ,156 $946 $863 $2,966 $4,663.71 ($1 ,698.00)
LACFCD -------------$7,333 $6,000 $5,473 $18,806 $ -$18 ,806.05 ---------LA County 13.25% $18,460 $15,106 $13,779 $47,344 $ 14,573.98 $32,770.25
~ ------
Total 100.00% $146,650 $120,004 $109,467 $376,1 21 $151 ,793.45 $224,327.55
Notes :
1. Table represents excess contingency funds from FY 15-16 per Agency. As agreed , costs fo r the implementation of the TMRP ($4 ,000/Agency) was subtracted from each Agency's con ti ngency
surp lu s. Agency's showing Deficiency have remaining implementati on costs factored into Year 1 of the TMRP annu al costs (refer to Ta ble 8)
Page 45 of 57
Table 3: Upper Los Angeles SGVCOG Management Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY %Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
City of Los Angeles 58.53% $27,802 $27,802 $27,802 $27,802 $27,802 ------Alhambra 1.58% $ 751 $751 $ 7 51 $ 751 $ 7 51 ------------Burbank 3.58% $ 1,701 $ 1,701 $ 1,701 $ 1,701 $ 1,701
------------Calabasas 1.29% $ 613 $ 613 $ 613 $ 613 $ 613
---~ --Glendal e 6.32 % $ 3,002 $3,002 $3,002 $3,002 s 3,002
~--~ ~-
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 147 $ 147 $ 147 $ 147 s 147
----------~--La Canada Fli ntridge 1.79% $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 ----------Montebello 1.7 3% $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 $ 822 --------------Monterey Park 1.60% $ 760 $ 760 $ 760 $ 760 $ 760
------Pasadena 4.78% $ 2 ,2 71 $ 2 ,2 71 $ 2,271 $ 2 ,271 $ 2,271
------------Ros em ead 1.07% $ 508 $ 508 $ 508 $ 508 $508 --------San Fernando 0.49% $ 233 $ 233 $ 233 $ 233 $233 --------San Gabriel 0.85% $ 404 s 404 s 404 $ 404 $404
~-~-~-----
San Mari no 0.78% $ 371 $ 371 $ 371 $ 371 $371 -------- ---South El Monte 0.51% $ 242 $ 242 $ 242 $ 242 $242 ------South Pasadena 0.71% $ 337 $ 337 $ 337 $ 337 $337 ---~ -~----Tem ple City 0 .83 % $ 394 $ 394 $ 394 $ 394 $394
~-----LACFCD -$ 2 ,500 $2,500 $2,500 $ 2,500 $2,500
--~~
LA County 13.25 % $ 6 ,294 $6,294 $6,294 $ 6,294 $6,294
~--~ ~~ ~~ --Total 100.00% $50,000 $50,0 00 $50,00 0 $50 ,000 $50 ,0 00
Page 46 of 57
Table 4: Upper Los Angeles Annual Report Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY % FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 Drainage Area
Ci ty of L os Angeles 58.53% $ 58,530 $ 58,530 $ 58,530 $ 58,530 $ 58,530 ----------Alhambra 1.58% $ 1,580 $ 1,580 $ 1,580 $ 1,580 $ 1,580 ------------Burbank 3.58% $ 3,580 $ 3,580 $ 3,580 $ 3,580 $ 3,580
----------------Calabasas 1.29% $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 1,290 $ 1,290
--------Glendale 6.32% $ 6,320 $ 6,320 $ 6,320 $ 6,320 $ 6,320 ------Hi dden Hills 0.31% $ 310 $ 310 $ 310 $ 310 s 310
---------La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 $ 1,790 ----~-----Montebello 1.73% $ 1,73 0 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 $ 1,730 ----------Mo nterey Park 1.60% $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ 1,600 ----------Pasadena 4.78% $ 4,780 $ 4,780 $ 4 ,780 $ 4,780 $ 4 ,780
---------~-Rosemead 1.07% $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 $ 1,070 -----------San Fernand o 0.49% $ 490 $ 490 $ 490 $ 490 $ 490 -----------San Gabriel 0.85% $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 $ 850 --~---San Marino 0.78% $ 780 $ 780 $ 780 $ 780 $ 780 ----- ------South El Monte 0.51% $ 510 $ 510 $ 510 $ 510 $ 510 ---- --
~-~-
South Pasadena 0.71% $ 710 $ 710 $ 7 10 $ 710 $ 710 ----------Temple City 0.83% $ 830 $ 830 $ 830 $ 830 $ 830
-~ ------LACFCD -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 ---- -----LA County 13.25% $ 13,250 $ 13,250 $ 13,250 $ 13,250 $ 13,250 ---------Total 100.00 % $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Notes :
1. LACFCD is compiling their own Annual Report and not contributing to the Watershed effort.
Page 47 of 57
Table 5: Upper Los Angeles Adaptive Ma nagement Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY % FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22 -23 Drain age A rea
C ity of L os Angeles
58.53% $41 ,703 $ -$ 83 ,405 $ -s 55,604
----Alha mbra 1.58% $ 1,126 $ -$ 2 ,252 $ -$ 1,501 ------Burbank 3.58% $ 2,551 $ -$ 5,102 $ -$ 3,401
~---Calabasas 1.29 % $ 91 9 $ -$ 1,838 $ -$ 1,226
----~-Glendale 6.32% $ 4,503 $ -$ 9,006 $ -$ 6,004 ----Hi dden Hills 0.31% $ 221 $ -s 442 $ -$ 295
La Canada ------
Flintridge 1.79% $ 1,27 5 $ -$ 2,551 $ -$ 1,701
Montebello 1.73% $ 1,23 3 $ -$ 2,465 $ s 1,644 --Monterey Park 1.60% $ 1 '1 4 0 $ -$ 2,280 $ -$ 1,520 ----Pasadena 4.78% $ 3 ,4 06 $ -$ 6,812 $ -$ 4 ,541 ------Rosemead 1.07% $ 762 $ $ 1,525 $ -$ 1,017
----San Fernando 0.49% $ 349 $ -s 698 $ $ 466
San Gabriel ----
0.85% $ 606 $ -$ 1,211 $ -$ 808 ----San Marino 0.78 % $ 556 $ $ 1 '112 $ -$ 741 ------South El Mont e 0.51% $ 363 $ -$ 727 $ -$ 485
-~ --South Pa sadena 0.71% $ 506 $ -s 1,012 $ -s 675
----Templ e City 0.83% $ 591 $ -$ 1,183 $ -$ 789 ------LACFCD -$ 3,750 $ -s 7,500 $ s 5 ,000 ------LA County 13.25% $ 9,441 $ $ 18,881 $ -$ 12,588
-----Total 100.00 % $75,000 $ 150,000 $ -$ 100,000
Notes:
1. Year 3 includes costs for a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA)
Page 4 8 of 57
Table 6: Upper Los Angeles Report Of Waste Discharge (ROWD) FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY % Drainage Area FY18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Ci ty of Los Angeles 58.53% $ -$ -$ --~·194 $
Alhambra 1.58% $ -$ -$ -$ 383 $
Burban k 3.58% $ -$ ---$ -$ 868 $
Calabasas 1.29% $ -$ -$ $ 313 $ --Glendale 6.32% $ -$ $ -$ 1,533 $ --Hidden Hills 0.31% $ -$ -$ -$ 75 $ --La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ -$ -$ -$ 434 $ --Montebello 1.73% $ -$ s -$ 420 $ --Monterey Park 1.60% $ -$ -$ -$ 388 $
Pasadena 4 .78 % $ -$ -$ -$ 1 '159 $ --Rosem ead 1.07% $ $ $ -$ 259 $
San Fernando 0.49% $ -$ s -$ 119 $ --San Gabriel 0.85% $ -$ -$ -$ 206 $ --San Marino 0.78% $ -$ -$ $ 189 $ --South El Monte 0.51% $ -$ -$ -$ 124 $ --South Pasadena 0.71% $ -$ -$ -$ 172 $ --Temple City 0.83% $ -$ -$ $ 201 $
LACFCD -$ -$ $ -$ 750 $ --LA County 13.25% $ -$ -$ -$ 3,213 $ --Total 100.00% $ -$ -$ -$25,000 $
Table 7: Upper Los Angeles Load Reduction Strategy (LRS )Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY %Dra inage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20 -21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
City o f Los Angeles 58.53% $ $ -$ 63,200 $ 236,644 $ --~----
Alhambra 1.58% s -$ -$ $ -$ ---Burbank 3.58% $ -$ -$ $ 22,150 $ -----Calabasas 1.29% $ -$ -$ 39,935 $ -$
---Glendale 6.32% $ -$ -$ -$ 79,152 $
Page 49 of 57
Hidden Hills 0.31% $ -$ -$ 8 ,913 $ -$
La Canada Flintri dge ------
1.79% $ -$ -$ -$ 2,583 $
----Montebello 1.73% $ -$ -$ -$ -$ --Monterey Park 1.60% $ $ -$ -$ -$ -----Pasadena 4 .78% $ -$ -$ -$ 35 $
----Ros emead 1.07% $ -$ -$ -$ $
~
San Fernando 0.49% $ -$ -$ $ 3,483 $
San Gabr i el----0.85% $ -$ -$ -$ -$ --San Marino 0.78% $ -$ -$ -$ -$
--South El Monte 0.51% $ -$ -$ -$ $
South Pasadena 0.71% $ -$ -$ -$ -$ --Temple City 0.83% $ -$ -$ -$ -$ ----LACFCD -$ -$ -$ 6 ,575 $ 20,050 $ ----LA County 13.25 % $ -$ -$ 12,827 $ 36,902 $ ---Total 100.00% $ -$ -$ 131,500 $ 50,000 $
Notes:
1. Includes costs to perform non-stormwater investigations ($10K!Trib or Reach), Facts Sheets for Priority Outfalls ($3Kiea assumed 4 POsiT ri b or Reach), and LRS Reports for Segment E Tributaries
(FY 20-21 ), Segment C and its Tributaries, and Segment D and its Tributaries (FY 21 -22)
Table 8: Upper Los Angeles Trash Monitoring And Reporting Plan {TMRP) Implementation FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY % Drain age Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20 -21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
City of Los Angeles 46.7% $ 35 ,305 $ 35,305 $ 35,305 $ 35,305 $ 35,305 ----Alhambra 1.26% $ 953 $ 953 $ 953 $ 953 $ 953 --------Burbank 2.86% $ 2,162 $ 2,162 $ 2 ,162 $ 2 ,162 $ 2 ,162
------~ ~
Calabasas 1.03% $ 1,201 $ 779 $ 779 $ 779 $ 779 ------ -Glendale 5.05% $ 3,818 $ 3 ,818 $ 3,818 $ 3 ,818 s 3,818 --------Hidden Hills 0.25% $ 3,329 $ 189 $ 189 s 189 $ 189
-----La Canada Flintridge 1.43% $ 1,081 $ 1,081 $ 1,081 $ 1,081 $ 1,081
--------Montebello 1.38% $ 1,0 43 $ 1,043 $ 1,043 $ 1,043 $ 1,043
Page 50 of 57
Monterey Park 1.28% $ 968 s 968 $ 968 $ 968 s 968 --------Pasadena 3.81% $ 2,880 $ 2 ,880 $ 2 ,880 $ 2 ,880 $ 2 ,880 ------Rosemead 0.85% $ 1,672 $ 643 $ 643 $ 643 $ 643 --------San Fernando 0.39 % $ 2,935 $ 295 $ 295 $ 29 5 $ 295 -------San Gabriel 0 .68% $ 2,158 $ 514 s 514 $ 514 $ 514
--San Marino 0.62% $ 2,302 $ 469 $ 469 $ 469 $ 469 -------South El Monte 0.41% $ 2,898 $ 310 $ 3 10 $ 310 $ 310 -------South Pasadena 0.56 % $ 2,450 $ 423 $ 423 $ 423 $ 423 --------Temple City 0.66% $ 2,197 $ 499 $ 499 $ 499 $ 499
-~ --LACFCD -$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 ----------LA Co unty 10.57% $ 7 ,991 $ 7,991 $ 7,991 $ 7,991 $ 7,991 -------Total 79 .79% $ 77 ,344 $ 60 ,321 $ 60,321 $ 60 ,321 $ 60 ,321
Notes:
1. Total Drainag e Area (1 00%) includes the Ba llona Creek Pa rtici pating Agencies (not sh own h ere).
2. LAC FC D is implementing th eir own TMRP independentl y , and is not contributing to this W atersh ed effo rt.
Table 9 : Upper Los Angeles Special Studies Funds FY18/19 To FY 22/23
CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
C ity of Los Angel es 58.53% $44,483 $44,483 $44,483 $44,483 $44,483 -------Alhambra 1.58% $ 1,201 $ 1,201 $ 1 ,20 1 $ 1,201 $ 1,201 ---------Burbank 3.58% $ 2,721 $ 2,721 $ 2,721 $ 2,721 $ 2 ,721 --------Calabasas 1.29% $ 980 $ 980 $ 980 $ 980 $ 980 --------Glendale 6.32% $ 4 ,803 $ 4,803 $ 4,803 $ 4 ,803 $ 4 ,803 -------Hidden Hills 0.31% $ 236 $ 236 $ 236 $ 236 $ 236 ------La Canada Flintridge 1.79 % $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 1,360
-~ ---Montebello 1.7 3% $ 1,31 5 $ 1,315 $ 1,3 15 $ 1,315 $ 1,315 ------~ Monterey Park 1.60% $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,216 $ 1,216 -----Pasadena 4.78% $ 3,633 $ 3,633 $ 3 ,633 $ 3,633 $ 3,633
Rosemead 1.07% $ 813 $ 813 $ --813 $ 8 13 $ 813
~~ -San Fernando 0.49% $ 372 $ 37 2 $ 372 $ 372 $ 37 2 ----San Gabriel 0.85% $ 646 $ 646 $ 646 $ 646 $ 646
Page 51 of 57
San Marino 0.78% $ 593 $ 593 $ 593 $ 593 $ 593 ---- ---South El Mont e 0.51% $ 388 $ 388 $ 388 $ 388 $ 388 ------South Pasadena 0.71% $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 $ 540 ---~ - ---Temple City 0.83% $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 ------LACFCD -$ 4,000 $ 4 ,000 $ 4 ,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 --- -
---LA County 13.25% $ 10,070 $ 10,070 $ 10,070 $ 10,070 $ 10,070 -----Total 100.00% $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
Notes :
1. Special studies at a cost of $200,000 each spread out over 5 years.
Table 10: Upper Los Angeles 2017 Report Of Waste Discharge (ROWD} Cost
CITY % Drainage Area FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
City of Los Angeles 58.53% $11,355 $ -$ -$ -$ ---Alhambra 1.58% $ 307 $ $ -$ -$ ---Burbank 3.58% $ 695 $ $ -$ -$
~
Calabasas 1.29 % $ 250 $ $ $ -$
Glendale 6.32% $ 1,226 $ -$ -$ -$ ---Hi dden Hills 0.31% $ 60 $ $ -$ -$
---La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 347 $ -$ -$ -$ ---
Montebello 1.73% $ 336 $ -$ -$ -$ ---Mo nterey Park 1.60% $ 310 $ -$ -$ -$ ----Pasadena 4 .78% $ 927 $ -$ -$ -$ ----Rosemead 1.07% $ 208 $ -$ $ -$ ---San Fernando 0.49% $ 95 $ $ -$ $ --~
San Gabriel 0.85% $ 165 $ -$ -$ -$ ---San Marino 0.78% $ 151 $ $ $ -$
~~
South El Monte 0.51% $ 99 $ $ -$ -$ ---South Pasadena 0.71% $ 138 $ $ -$ -$
---Temple City 0.83% $ 161 $ -$ -$ -$
----LACFCD ---$ $ -$ -$ ---LA County 13.25% $ 2,571 $ -$ -$ -$ ---Total 100.00% $ 19,400 $ -$ -$ $
Page 52 of 57
EXH IB IT C
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area
CIMP and EWMP Invoicing Schedu le
Table 1. CIMP/EWMP Implementation Annual Implem e ntati on Costs
CITY % Drainage Area July 2018 July 20 19 July 2020 July 2021 J u ly 2022
City of Los Angeles 58.53% $ 667,313 $803,332 $685,920 $790,103 $802,090 ----Alhambra 1.58% $ 17,100 $ 14,537 $ 16,788 $ 14,920 $ 16,038 ----- -
--Burbank 3.58% $ 38 ,815 $ 53 ,000 $ 38,102 $ 56 ,019 $ 67 ,732 -----Calabas as 1.29% $ 28 ,894 $ 74,310 $ 53,680 $ 12,220 $ 13,132 -----Glendale 6.32% $ 68,524 $ 89 ,645 $ 67,266 $ 138,945 $112,479
-~ ---Hidden Hi lls 0 .31% $ 9,799 $ 16,797 $ 12,215 $ 2,935 $ 3,154 ----- -
--La Canada Flintridge 1.79% $ 19,377 $ 19,139 $ 19,024 $ 16,908 $ 22 ,096 ------Mont ebe ll o 1.73% $ 18,743 $ 15,935 $ 18,400 $ 16,345 $ 17,578 --------Monterey Pa rk 1.60% $ 17,332 $ 14,736 $ 17,016 $ 15,124 $ 16,256 --------Pasadena 4.78% $ 51 ,799 $ 44 ,257 $ 50,849 $ 45,232 $ 48 ,962 ---- -
---Rosemead 1.07% $ 12,615 $ 9,849 $ 11,374 $ 10,109 $ 10,866
~~--~
San Fernando 0.49% $ 7,949 $ 6,013 $ 5,2 12 $ 8,634 $ 7 ,214 ---~ ~ ---San Gabriel 0.85% $ 10,884 $ 7,858 $ 9,069 $ 9,361 $ 8 ,665 --------San Marino 0 .78 % s 10,271 $ 7,172 $ 8,284 $ 7,361 $ 7 ,913
-~~ ---South El Mont e 0.51% $ 13,086 $ 14,323 $ 13,608 $ 13,167 $ 13,694 --------South Pasadena 0.71 % $ 9,686 $ 6 ,510 $ 7,522 $ 6,682 $ 7,185
-~--Temple City 0.83% $ 10,704 $ 7,657 $ 8,840 $ 7,858 $ 8,446 --------LACFCD --$ 5 1,519 $ 63 ,860 $ 68 ,586 $ 61,856 $ 62 ,627 -------LA County 13.25% $ 159,81 4 $170,193 $ 164,265 $ 172,880 $ 166,732 ----Total 100.00% $1 ,224,224 $ 1,439,121 $ 1,276 ,019 $1 ,406,6 67 $ 1,412,860
Page 53 of 57
EXHIBIT D
Upper Los Angeles River EWMP/CIMP Responsible Agencies
Representatives
Agency Address Agency Contact
City of Los Angeles Shahram Kharaghani
Department of Public Works E-mail: Shahram.Kharaghani@Lacity.org
Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division Phone: (213) 485-0587
1149 S. Broadway Fax: (213) 485-3939
Los Angeles, CA 90015
County of Los Angeles Paul Alva
Department of Public Works E-mail: PALVA@dpw.lacounty.gov
Stormwater Quality Division, 11 1h Floor Phone: (626) 458-4325
900 South Fremont Avenue Fax: (626) 457-1526
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Paul Alva
Department of Public Works E-mail: PALVA@dpw.lacounty.gov
Stormwater Quality Division, 11 1h Floor Phone: (626) 458-4325
900 South Fremont Avenue Fax: (626) 457-1526
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
City of Alhambra David Dolphin
11 South First Street E-mail: DDOLPHIN@cityofalhambra.org
Alhambra, XA 91801-3796 Phone: (626) 300-1571 Fax:
City of Burbank Alvin Cruz
P.O. Box 6459 E-maii:ACruz@burbankca.gov
Burbank, CA 91510 Phone: (818) 238-3941 Fax:
City of Calabasas Alex F arassati
1 00 Civic Center Way E-mail: afarassati@cityofcalabasas.com
Calabasas, CA 91302-3172 Phone: (818) 224-1600
Fax: (818) 225-7338
City of Glendale Chris Chew
Engineering Section, 633 East Broadway, Room 205 E-mail: cchew@ glendaleca.gov
Glendale, CA 91206-4308 Phone: (818) 548-3945
Fax:
City of Hidden Hills Joe Bellomo
6165 Spring Valley Road jbellomo@willdan.com Phone:
Hidden Hills, CA 91302 (805) 279-6856
City of La Canada Flintridge 1327 Hoon Hahn
Foothill Blvd. E-mail: hhahn@lcf.ca.gov
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011-2137 Phone: 818-790-8882
F ax:818-70-8897
Page 54 of 57
EXHIBIT D
Upper Los Angeles River EWMP/CIMP Responsible Agencies
Representatives
City of Montebello Norma Salinas
1600 W Beverly Blvd E-mai l: Nsalinas@cityofmontebello .com
Montebello, CA 90640 Phone: 323-887-1365
Fax: 323-887-1410
Eric Woosley
E-mai l: ewoosley@infrastructure-engineers.com
Phone: 714-940-0100 Ext 5226
City of Monterey Park Bonnie Tam
320 West Newmark Avenue E-mail: btam@montereypark.ca.gov
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2896 Phone : (626) 307-1 383
City of Pasadena Sean Singletary
P.O. Box 7115 E-mai l: ssing letary@cityofpasadena.net
Pasadena , CA 91109-7215 Phone: (626) 744-4273
Fax:
City of Rosemead, Rafael Fajardo
8838 East Valley Blvd. E-ma il : rfajardo@cityofrosemead.org
Rosemead, CA 91770-1787 Phone: (626) 569-21 07
Curtis Cannon
E-mail : ccannon@cityofrosemead .org
Phone: (626) 569 -2 107
City of Sa n Fernando Joe Bellomo
117 Macneil Street Email: jbellomo@willdan.com
San Fernando, CA 91340 Phone : (805) 279-6856
City of San Gabriel Daren Grilley
425 South Mission Avenue E-mail: dgrilley@sgch.org
San Gabriel, CA 91775 Phone:
Fax:
Patty Pena
ppena@sgch .org
Phone: (626) 308-2825
City of San Marino Kevi n Sales
2200 Huntington Drive E-mail: kjserv@aol.com
San Marino, CA 91108-2691 Phone:
Fax:
City of South El Monte Manuel Mancha
1415 San t a Anit a Ave. E-mail: mmancha@soelmonte.org
South El Monte, CA 91733 Phone: (626) 579-6540
Fax: (626) 579 -2409
City of South Pasadena Pau l Toor
1414 Mission Street E-mai l: ptoor@southpasadenaca .gov
South Pasadena, CA 91020-3298 Phone: (626} 403-7246
Page 55 of 57
City ofT em pie City Andrew Coyne
9701 Las Tunas Drive E-mail: acoyne@temptecity.us
Temple City, CA 9178 Phone: (626) 285-2171 Ext. 4344
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Marisa Creter
1000 S. Fremont Ave. Unit 42 E-mail: mcreter@sgvcog.org
Bldg A10-N, Suite 10210 Phone: (626) 457-1800
la.lhambra, CA 9180 Fax: (626) 457-1285
Page 56 of 57
EXH IBIT E
Upper Los Angeles River Enhanced Watershed Management Area
11,095.20
4,005.68
181,2 88.00
19,587.50
961.0 3
l.a Canda Flintridge 5,534.46
los Angeles County 41,048.07
Montebello 5,356.38
Monter Park 4 ,951.5 1
Pasadena 14,80 5.30
Rosemead 3,310.87
San Fernando 1,517.64
Sa n Gabriel 2,644.87
San Marino 2,409.6 4
South El Monte 1,594.16
South Pasadena 2,186.20
Temple City 2,576.50
lACFCO
Group Total 309,757.33
;,!...-.:;'!.;..--lo ___ ll.lt*l
• ENRIQUE C. ZALDIVAR
OIAECTOA
UlARW_EY.W'Agencles I
3.58 %
1.29%
58.53%
6 .32%
0 .31%
1.79%
13.25%
1 .73%
1.60%
4.78%
1.07%
0.49%
0.85%
0.78%
0.51%
0.71 %
0.83%
100%
I
r
\
l
I
''
I
LEGEND
-Los Angeles River
:"""-• j Upper Lo s Angeles
l-··-.' watershed Boundary
Flood Control
District Territory -D
Upper LA watershed Group
Participating in this EINMP
Upper LA watershed Agencies not
Participating in this EINMP
Upper Los Angeles River Watershed
EWMP AQencies
BUREAU OF SANITATION
SHAHRN.t KHARAGHANI
PROGRAM MANAGER
N
A
~ I DATE CAEATEO I Thb mtpW.t N notbt t:oplt<f f)f ltPfodt.~ud. t l Ottny ptft
DRAIMIBY: I CHECKEOBY: 6-18-U Dltrtol,lll'hether fof d!stri>ution Ol reule,wi!tlout 1'1• ptoper w~ NH vo I DAT E REVISED I liil·ridtn ptrmkslotl olflt Dtc:tl ofP\tW~ WOf•s.C~orLos Ml)t~s ff}-qT~<if((]~
3-3-15 Tl!OCI'In Bro1 Dati IUI'odlltl wl fl Nm-J1l!M ara.,,lilcl bv THOMAS !.ROS MAP
Page 57 of 57