Covina City Council
April 19, 2022

State of California )
County of )
On , before me,
(insert name and title of the of?cer)
Notary Public, personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
A notary public or other o?icer completing
this certi?cate veri?es only the identity of
the individual who signed the documentto
which this certi?cate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of
that document.

State of California )
County of )
On , before me,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared
who provedto me on the basis of satisfactoryevidenceto be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and of?cial seal.

Signature (Seal)
A notary public or other officer
completing this certi?cate veri?es only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certi?cate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.

EXHIBIT “E-l”
(Attached.)

|SgaceAbove For Recorder's Use Only]
The undersigned Landlord declares that this Termination of Memorandum of Lease is exempt from Recording Fees pursuant to California Government Code Section 27383.

TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF LEASE
THIS TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF LEASE (this "Tem1ination") is dated as of , 20_ and is entered into by and between BENTLY REAL ESTATE, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Landlord") and the CITY OF COVINA, a California municipal corporation ("Tenant").

RECITALS
A. Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease dated , 2022 for premises at 401 N. Citrus Avenue in Covina, California owned by Landlord (“Premises”).

B. Landlord and Tenant recorded a Memorandum of Lease dated , 2022 on , 2022 as Document No. in the Official Records of Los
Angeles County, California (the “Memorandum”).

C. The Lease has expired or been terminated, and Landlord and Tenant now desire to record this Memorandum in order to tenninate the Memorandum of record.

TERMINATION
NOW, THEREFORE, in considerationof the foregoing recitals, and other consideration,the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant hereby temiinate the Memorandum.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Memorandum as of the date and year first above written.

RECORDING REQUESTEDBY, AND WHEN
RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Covina
125 E. College Street
Covina, CA 91723
Attn: City Clerk
with a copy to:

Bently Real Estate, LLC

TENANT:

CITY OF COVINA
By:

Print Name:

Title:

LANDLORD:

BENTLY REAL ESTATE, LLC
By:

Print Name:

Title:

State of California )
County of )
On , before me,
(insert name and title of the o?icer)
Notary Public, personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribedto the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
A notary public or other o?icer completing
this certi?cate veri?es only the identity of
the individual who signed the document to
which this certi?cate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of
that document.

A notary public or other officer
completingthis certi?cate veri?es only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certi?cate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of
On
Notary Public, personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are )
)
, before me,
(insert name andtitle of the officer)
subscribedto the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph istrue and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

1. EXHIBIT “D”
DESCRIPTION OF LANDLORD’S WORK
401 N. Citrus Avenue
Commercial Development
“Warm Shell” deliverable expectations
June 2022
The “Warm Shell” (Building BA and BB) shall be delivered to the tenant pursuant to the Construction plans approvedby the City of Covina Building and SafetyDivision, identified as Permits:
a. #10676 (BA) 3280sf 2 story Mixed use building Permit Issued (PI): 8/1/2019, b. #10679 (BB) l900sf 1 story Commercial building Permit Issued (PI): 8/21/2019, c. #10825 Finish Grading Permit Issued (PI): 05/23/19
(1. Pending permits: LA County Fire sprinklers and LA County Fire Alarm All HVAC/Mechanical Equipmentshall be installedand functional; . All fire/life safety features required of buildings in order to receive a determination of “Substantially Complete” by the City of Covina Building Official shall be installed and functional;
An ADA-accessible restroom shall be installed in Building BA/BB; . Installation and certification of the Elevator;
Prior to the delivery of the “Warm Shell” and before the determination by the Covina Building Official of a “Substantially Complete” status, a set of “as-built” plans shall be prepared by the Landlord and delivered to the Covina Building and Safety Division that accurately illustrate s all alterations and/or modifications in the completed structures versus the improvementsthat were approved in the Construction plans(example: the Construction plans indicate a pedestria door exiting from the southerly n facadeof Building BA onto the Orange Street sidewalk. The aforementioned pedestrian door has been eliminated.);
The grease inceptorshall remain in its location with the out?ow piped in a southerly manner to connect to the sewer in the Orange Street right-of-way; Pay outstanding balances on SPR, CUP, Engineering and permit fees, impact fees of all associated applicationsto property. (Invoices to be provided prior to final inspection); and, The exterior of the 401 N. Citrus Avenue “Warm Shell” shall be fully completedpursuant to Site Plan Review (SPR) 15-043, including all Conditions of Approval

The Clippingersite project (the “Project”) is located on the northwest comer of Citrus Avenue an San Bemardino Road and consists of a “mixed-use” development comprising 161 residential unit d s (105 units “stacked” above the ground ?oor commercial space and 56 3-story townhouses) and 15,000 square feet of commercial space. The Project entitlements were approved by the Covina City Council on June 16, 2020 pursuant to Covina City Council Resolution CC 2020-54 an Resolution CC 2020-55 which approved the following entitlements: d

1. MitigatedNegative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and,

2. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 73661 and Site Plan Review (SPR) 16-028.

EXHIBIT “E”

DESCRIPTION OF CLIPPINGER SITE

RECORDING REQUESTEDBY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Bently Real Estate, LLC
1932 E. Garvey Ave South
West Covina, CA 91791
Attn: Tarif Hassan
APNS:
(Space Above For Recorder's Use)
The undersignedgrantor declares:

DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $
computed on full value of property conveyed, or computed on full value less liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.

Unincorporated Area X City of Covina

QUITCLAIMDEED
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF COVINA (“City”), hereby conveys to BENTLY REAL ESTATE, LLC, a California limited liability company, all right, title and interest, if any, in that certain real property which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the “Property”), together with all improvementsthereon, that City may have (without representation or warranty, express or implied), and subject to all matters of record and all matters visible upon inspection.

EXHIBIT “F”

FORM OF CITY PROPERTY DEED

IN WITNE S WHEREOF, ran or as executed this QuitclaimDeed on the day and year

CITY OF COVINA
By:

Name:

Title:

Dated: , 202

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary publicor otherofficer completing
this certi?cate veri?es only the identity of
the individual who signed the document to
which this certi?cate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of
that document.

State of California )
County of )
On , before me,
(insert name of notary)
Notary Public, personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribedto the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and of?cial seal.

Signature (Seal)

GGA | Architecture+

WEST VIGNETTE

GGA | Architecture+

WEST VIGNETTE

GGA | Architecture+

WEST VIGNETTE

GGA | Architecture+

EAST VIGNETTE - FIRST FLOOR

GGA | Architecture+

EAST VIGNETTE - FIRST FLOOR

GGA | Architecture+

EAST VIGNETTE - SECOND FLOOR

GGA | Architecture+

EAST VIGNETTE - SECOND FLOOR

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 8
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Resolution CC 2022-39 Approving and Recordation of Tract No. 82874 - Covina Bowl Located at 1060 West San Bernardino Road
Presented By: Andy Bullington, Director of Public Works Rafael Fajardo, City Engineer
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution CC 2022-39 approving the recordation of Tract No. 82874 - Covina Bowl located at 1060 West San Bernardino Road.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Resolution CC 2022-39 (Attachment A) is presented for the City Council’s consideration to approve the recordation of Tract No. 82874 – Covina Bowl located at 1060 West San Bernardino Road and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (Attachment B) between the City and TH Covina Bowl, LLC (Trumark Homes) for the public improvements required for Tract No. 82874.

BACKGROUND:

On December 5, 2019, a community workshop was held at the project site specifically geared toward the Covina Historical Society, Los Angeles Conservancy, and Covina residents with various project representatives available to provide project information to the public and to answer specific questions. More than 30 community members were present at the community workshop and engaged in discussion about the project, sharing both concerns and praises for the project.

On January 23, 2020, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated for the project. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit early comments from public agencies with expertise in subjects that are discussed within the Draft EIR.

On February 3, 2020, a public scoping meeting was held at the City of Covina Senior and Community Center to solicit oral and written comments from the public and public agencies. Numerous members from the Friends of the Covina Bowl Facebook Group and the Covina Historical Society attended the meeting.

On December 22, 2020, the Planning Commission held a study session for the Covina Bowl Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Covina Bowl Specific Plan, which includes the proposed construction and operation of 132 multi-family residential units and the adaptive reuse of the Covina Bowl building for approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space.

The Covina City Council conditionally approved the Tentative Tract Map on March 2, 2021.

DISCUSSION:

The City Engineer has reviewed the Tract Map (Attachment C) and has determined, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16.14 (Final Maps and Parcel Maps) of the Covina Municipal Code, that all conditions for the approval of Tract No. 82874 have been met. Approval of the Tract Map by the City Council will allow recordation of the map by Los Angeles County; completing the subdivision process.

Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, the developer must enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Covina to ensure the installation of all necessary improvements including street, signing and striping, traffic signal modification, parkway landscaping, storm drain, sewer, and water improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the approval of TractNo. 82874.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

During the review process, the City Council adopted Resolution CC 21-17 certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH - 2020010334), making environmental findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Facts of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Resolution CC 2022-39 - Tract 82874 - Covina Bowl Final Acceptance Attachment B - Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Bonds Attachment C - Tract Map No. 82874
Respectfully submitted,

RESOLUTION CC 2022-39

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT NO. 82874
WHEREAS, the City of Covina is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”); and WHEREAS, the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Covina is embodied within Title 16 of the Covina Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a Tentative Tract Map application was submitted to the City of Covina by TH Covina Bowl, LLC (Trumark Homes) for the adaptive reuse of the Covina Bowl building to provide 12,000 square feet of commercial/office space and the development of 132 for sale multifamily residential units on a 5.48-acre site located at 1060 West San Bernardino Road; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 16.08 of the Covina Municipal Code, the City Council approved the Tentative Tract Map on March 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, during the review process, the City Council adopted Resolution CC 2021- 17 certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH - 2020010334), making environmental findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Facts of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16.14 of the Covina Municipal Code, has determined that the applicant has met all of the required conditions of approval for the approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find that Tract No.82874 conforms to CEQA.

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby approve and accept the final subdivision of Tract No. 82874.

SECTION 3. The City Council does hereby accept the dedication of all streets, highways, and other public ways shown on said map.

SECTION 4. The City Council does hereby accept the easements for ingress and egress, public utility, fire lane, and emergency access purposes shown on said map.

SECTION 5. The City Council does hereby accept the easements for water purposes shown on said map.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to sign page one of said Tract Map and to transmit the same for recordation.

Resolution CC 2022-39 Page 2 of 2
SECTION 7. The City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the Subdivision Improvement Agreement between the City and TH Covina Bowl, LLC (Trumark Homes) for the public improvements in said Tract No. 82874, a copy of which is attached hereto and included herewith as Exhibit A.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

APPROVED and PASSED this 19th day of April 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

PATRICIA CORTEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-39 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
__________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Exhibit A
Please see attachments B and C of the agenda report.

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT B
ROBERT L. WHEELER I
L
V

ICENSED LAND SURVEYOR

S T A T E O F CA L I F ORN I A
No. 8639

L I CENSED LAND SURVEYOR

S T A T E O F CA L I F ORN I A

AI N R F O

O F C A LI E T A T S REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
No. 82430 RAFA M. FAJARD

C I V I L
EL O
DAVID G. GILBERTSO

L ICENSED LAND SURVEYOR

ST A T E O F CA L I F ORN I A
No. 6941

L ICENSED LAND SURVEYOR

S T A T E O F CA L I F ORN I A N

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT C

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 9
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Confirm and Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission Presented By: Chris Marcarello, City Manager
Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Recommendation: Confirm and approve Mayor Pro Tem Allen's appointment of Rosie Richardson to the Planning Commission for an unexpired term ending June 30, 2024.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

Planning Commissioner Brad Manning submitted his resignation March 24, 2022, with an effective date of April 1, 2022. This resignation created an unscheduled vacancy on the Planning Commission. Notice of the unscheduled vacancy was posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54974. Applications received by the City Clerk's Office are forwarded to City Council for review and appointment.

DISCUSSION:

Pursuant to Resolution CC 19-27, the Appointment to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Policy states that if a vacancy shall occur, the City Councilmember who nominated the vacating board or commission member shall nominate a replacement.

Mayor Pro Tem Allen nominates Rosie Richardson to be appointed to the Planning Commission for an unexpired term ending June 30, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - 2022 Richardson, Rosie - PC (redacted)
Respectfully submitted,
=.< ‘4t1t2tJLiil.l"-.t’3.i.sliL’$ meiih!-ttiM;:l..i
Through the various positions, I have been able to assist in the creation of new programs and grant support letters for various programs. I would like to take the knowledge and experience i have obtained over the years and apply it to the planning commission.

I have had the oppurtunity to grow my knowledge with contract review, city ordinance review, and obtaining permits for our clients with various citys throughout CA.

Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees Covina Lions Club - President
Covina Valley Optimist Club
I on-ginauybecame interestedin tho board years ago but unfortunately,the board did not have a vacancy.Iwould City of Covina
Boardand CommissionMember Application
Ifyou have any questions please contact the City Clerk'sOfficeat cityclerk@covinacaigov or (626) 384-5430.

Board or Commissionapplyingfor; PlanningCommission
Is this an application for reappointment? Yes: D No: !
First Name: ROSl€ LastName: Richardson
Covina CA 91724
cer«Phone~umber:_:

Occupatignf Senior Transportation Consultant
Home Address:

Home Phone Number; NA
Business Name: WCS
Business A¢d,,-355; 150 E ArrowHwy. San Dimas CA 91773 Business Phone Number:
why do you wish to serve the city; Over the last seven years, i have served on various boards and commissions.

What experience or education have you had relative to this field? in "WCurrent PositionWith "W emP’°)/9":

What other City Boards, Commissions, or Committees have you served? __ To what civicservice organizations do you belong?
How did you become interested in this field?
like to use my combinedknowledge, education and experience to serve the City of Covina in this new capacity. will you be able to attend all Board or Commission meetings? Ves: ! No: D . 4 ' ' I t t
'
, Are you willing to file a state financialdisc osure s a ement as required? Yes. ! No: C] 1234 Ethl Tra‘ '
' _ Are YouwillinzV0 €°”‘p'et° the AB C5 "M5 as '°°“-‘"95? Yes. ! No: C] d no to any of the above questions, please Explain;
ifY0”3”“"’"e
RECEIVEDB COVIHAClTYCL Rh
Complete this application and return it to the CityClerk'sOffice, 125 E.College Street, a:zina~?R9I7Z3. PMit1.2 Scanned with Camscanner

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 10
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Resolution CC 2022-40, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Covina Declaring as Exempt Surplus Land 20,000 Square Feet of Real Property Owned by the City Located at the Southeast Corner of the Combined Parcels of 601 East San Bernardino Road and 534 North Barranca Avenue in the City of Covina Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(F)(1)(D) and Taking Related Actions
Presented By: Brian K. Lee, AICP, Director of Community Development Recommendation: Adopt Resolution CC 2022-40, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Covina Declaring as Exempt Surplus Land 20,000 Square Feet of Real Property Owned by the City Located at the Southeast Corner of the Combined parcels of 601 East San Bernardino Road and 534 North Barranca Avenue in the City of Covina Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(F)(1)(D) and Taking Related Actions.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Covina (“City”) owns certain property consisting of 20,000 square-feet of property located at the southeast corner of the combined parcels of 601 East San Bernardino Road and 534 North Barranca Avenue in the City of Covina, which is described and depicted on Exhibit “A”, attached to Resolution CC 2022-40 hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property). The subject Property is located within the red boundary transposed onto the dotted line depicted on Exhibit "A" with the words "Navigation Center" in the interior.

Before the City undertakes proceedings to lease dispose of or lease the Property to the Housing Authority, the City must consider and comply with the requirements of the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Sections 54220- 54234) (“Act”). The Act applies to the disposition of surplus land by local agencies and defines surplus land as land that is owned in fee simple by a local agency and that is not necessary for its use.

The Housing Authority is a local agency within the meaning of the Act. The Act requires the City to take formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the Property is either surplus land or exempt surplus land before undertaking proceedings to lease or otherwise dispose of the property. The City can lease or sell land that it has declared to be exempt surplus land without further regard to the requirements of the Act.

DISCUSSION:

The Covina Housing Authority would like to enter into a long-term lease agreement and control the above mentioned land in order to build an interim housing navigation center. The proposed future navigation center will assist those experiencing homelessness and will include wrap around services. To accomplish this, the City is proposing to enter into a long-term land lease with the Covina Housing Authority, for the Housing Authority to develop an interim housing navigation center.

The Covina Housing Authority is the local public agency that is tasked with governing certain aspects of incomerestricted housing units. Because the Property will be used for the Housing Authority’s use for developing the Property as an interim housing navigation center, the Property is “exempt surplus land” and is therefore exempt from any additional requirements under the Surplus Land Act ("Act") under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(D). The Act states that transfers of land from one public agency to another for public use is exempt surplus land. Pursuant to the Surplus Land Act Guidelines issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to interpret and implement the Surplus Land Act, the City Council’s determination that the Property is exempt surplus land must be provided to HCD for its review at least 30 days prior to disposition.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The would be no fiscal impact by adopting Resolution CC 2022-40, which declares the property located at the southeast corner of the combined parcels of 601 East San Bernardino Road and 534 North Barranca Avenue in the City of Covina, which is described and depicted on Exhibit “A” exempt from the Act.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

The City Council hereby finds that the actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they are activities that are excluded from the definition of a project by section 21065 of the Public Resources Code and section 15378(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This action declares the Property exempt surplus land and directs staff to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution. This is administrative activity of government which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. No commitment to any project is being made at this time. CEQA review requirements must be completed before any commitment to a project occurs and appropriate environmental review pursuant to CEQA will be completed at such time.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Resolution CC 2022-40 Surplus Land
Respectfully submitted,

RESOLUTION CC 2022-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING AS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND 20,000

SQUARE FEET OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE COMBINED PARCELS OF 601
EAST SAN BERNARDINO ROAD AND 534 NORTH BARRANCA

AVENUE IN THE CITY OF COVINA PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54221(F)(1)(D) AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Covina (“City”) owns certain property consisting of 20,000 square-feet of property located at the southeast corner of the combined parcels of 601 East San Bernardino Road and 534 North Barranca Avenue in the City of Covina, located within the red boundary transposed onto the dotted line with the words "Navigation Center" in the interior as described and depicted on Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City of Covina is a local agency within the meaning of the Surplus Land Act (i.e., Government Code Sections 54220-54234); and
WHEREAS, the City must comply with the Surplus Land Act prior to taking any action to dispose of the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act shall not apply to the disposition of the Property if the Property is exempt surplus land as defined in Government Code Section 54221(f)(1); and WHEREAS, surplus land is exempt surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(D) if a local agency is transferring the land to another local, state, or federal agency for the local, state, or federal agency’s use; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to transfer the Property to the Covina Housing Authority, a local agency, by leasing the Property to the Covina Housing Authority to develop, an interim housing navigation center with wrap around services, thereby advancing the Housing Authority’s low-income housing objectives; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Surplus Land Act Guidelines issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to interpret and implement the Surplus Land Act, the City Council’s determination that the Property is exempt surplus land must be provided to HCD for its review at least 30 days prior to disposition.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Covina hereby declares that the Property is not necessary for the City’s use and is exempt surplus land pursuant to Government Code Section

Resolution CC 2022-40 Page 2 of 3
54221(f)(1(D) because the City is transferring the Property to the Covina Housing Authority for the Covina Housing Authority’s use.

SECTION 3. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in the form and manner required by HCD at least 30 days prior to the transfer of the Property.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because they are activities that are excluded from the definition of a project by section 21065 of the Public Resources Code and section 15378(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This action declares the Property exempt surplus land and directs staff to effectuate the purpose of this Resolution. This is administrative activity of government which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. No commitment to any project is being made at this time. CEQA review requirements must be completed before any commitment to a project occurs and appropriate environmental review pursuant to CEQA will be completed at such time.

SECTION 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute such instruments and do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution and all such actions previously taken are hereby ratified.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

APPROVED and PASSED this 19th day of April, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

PATRICIA CORTEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Resolution CC 2022-40 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-40 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
____________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Resolution CC 2022-40 Exhibit A
EXHIBIT “A”

1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE
20 N
S
W E

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 11
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Professional Consulting Services for Plan Checks, Inspections, and Engineering Services Presented By: Andy Bullington, Director of Public Works Rafael Fajardo, City Engineer
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution CC 2022-42 to amend the fiscal year 2021-2022 operating budget to reflect an increase of $247,000 in general fund revenue and appropriate $100,000 in general fund expenditures for professional consulting services for plan checks, inspections, and engineering services.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

The City utilizes professional consultant services for complex plan checks, inspection services, and engineering services as it relates to various engineering functions and capital projects.

DISCUSSION:

The Engineering Division is responsible for the processing of encroachment permits, performing plan checks and inspections, and providing specialized services for residential requests related to traffic calming, street improvements, and various work affecting the City right-of-way. As pandemic-related restrictions have lifted in Los Angeles County, the Engineering Division has seen a significant increase in the volume of encroachment applications, required plan checks and inspections for City/ residential/developmental projects, as well as special engineering requests from residents requiring professional services such as surveys and assessments. Due to these rapid increases within the past few months, additional expenditures are now anticipated as we continue to see an influx in activity city-wide, as well as, a corresponding increase in revenue for these services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Engineering Division now seeks an appropriation of $100,000 in General Fund Engineering Expenditures account number (1010-2100-51530) which will be offset by $247,000 in General Fund Engineering Revenue collected in account number (1010-2100-43250) as outlined in Resolution CC 2022-42.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Resolution CC 2022-42
Respectfully submitted,
RESOLUTION CC 2022-42

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 OPERATING BUDGET TO REFLECT AN INCREASE OF $247,000 IN GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND APPROPRIATE $100,000 IN GENERAL FUND

EXPENDITURES FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR

PLAN CHECKS, INSPECTIONS, AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Covina is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”); and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating Budget and 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Budget were approved on June 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the approved Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program Budgets are in accordance with all applicable ordinances of the City and all applicable statutes of the State; and
WHEREAS, the relocation of the appropriations between departmental activities may be made by the City Manager and amendments (increases/decreases) to the adopted Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 Operating Budget shall be by approval and Resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Covina wishes to amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating Budget to include additional costs for professional consulting services for plan checks, inspections, and engineering fees.

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

SECTION 1. Amend the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Operating Budget to reflect an increase of $247,000 in General Fund Revenue and appropriate $100,000 in General Fund Expenditures for Professional Consultant Services for Plan Checks, Inspections, and Engineering Services.

Account
Number
Description 2022 Original
Budget
Increase 2022 Revised
Budget
1010-2100-43250 GF-Eng
Services-Other
$220,000 $247,000 $467,000
1010-2100-51530 GF-Eng
Services-Eng
Fees
$125,000 $100,000 $225,000
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

Resolution CC 2022-42 Page 2 of 2
APPROVED and PASSED this 19th day of April, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

PATRICIA CORTEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-42 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 19
th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
__________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 12
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Restructuring of Funding for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Programs/Projects Presented By: Chris Marcarello, City Manager
Michael Flores Jr, Management Analyst
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution CC 2022-43 authorizing the restructuring and reporting of funding for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Programs/Projects in accordance to guidance outlined in the final rule displayed in Attachment B.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA") included the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund to provide $350 billion for states, municipalities, counties, tribes, and territories to assist with pandemic-related response activities. Under ARPA guidelines, municipalities with a population of less than 50,000 are considered "non-entitlement units of local government ("NEUs") and funding will be distributed by the U.S Department of the Treasury to States, and then to NEUs. Funding will be made available in two tranches, with the first occurring in Summer 2021, and the second occurring twelve (12) months afterwards.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Covina will receive approximately $11,351,049 through the American Rescue Plan Act and can use these monies to respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency and its economic impacts through four categories of eligible uses. The monies must be obligated for use by December 31, 2024, and fully expended by December 31, 2026. The following are the various categories upon which ARPA monies can be used for in accordance to the current guidance from the U.S Department of the Treasury's Interim Final Rule guidelines:
• To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small business, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;
• To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers;
• For the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency; and
• To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.

Within the eligible use categories outlined in the Fiscal Recovery Funds provisions of ARPA, State, local, and Tribal governments have flexibility to determine how best to use payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds to meet the needs of their communities and populations.

DISCUSSION:

Over the past months, staff has been able to identify programs/projects and uses for ARPA funds that would help the City of Covina recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic following the guidelines of the Interim Final Rule, which outlines the necessary operating, use, and reporting terms of which ARPA funds must be adhered to. The U.S Department of the Treasury released the Final Rule document on January 27, 2022 which further clarified uses and updated reporting deadlines and eased some reporting requirements for NEU's. One main highlight that was identified from the Final Rule was the option of claiming a standard allowance of $10,000,000 in Revenue Replacement, without having to calculate actual revenue losses as was initially required.

By exercising this option, this offers a streamlined approach in the reporting requirements up to the amount claimed not-to-exceed $10 million. The City of Covina intends to claim the standard allowance of $10,000,000.

From this correspondence, staff would like to make changes to the restructuring of some ARPA programs/projects already identified and be able to move funding for these programs/projects to be funded out of Measure CC funds.

Additionally, a $2.5 million-dollar transfer will be made from the ARPA fund to the General Fund to cover government services as allowable under the guidelines of Revenue Replacement. The $1,351,049 that supersedes the not-to-exceed Revenue Replacement claim of $10,000,000 will be reported following the necessary directive as defined in the Final Rule.

Attachment B outlines the various programs/projects that have been authorized by the City Council to be funded by ARPA funds and the proposed changes to funding sources for the programs/projects identified thus far to be either categorized and reported under the Revenue Replacement category or be solely funded out of Measure CC funds. The proposed restructuring of ARPA projects allows for greater ease for reporting of certain programs/projects in the first reporting cycle that the City of Covina must complete which has a deadline for submission of April, 30, 2022 and subsequent quarterly reporting cycles. Future programs/projects slated to be funded by ARPA will have a determination as to being reported under Revenue Replacement or reported as its own standalone program/project.

FISCAL IMPACT:

To date, there has been 22 programs/projects appropriated that are currently being funded using ARPA funds totaling $3,557,873. Resolution CC 2022-43 will restructure 8 of these projects to be funded out of Measure CC funds totaling $1,350,000 and 5 projects to be claimed under the provisions of Revenue Replacement totaling $1,014,000. The remaining 9 programs/projects totaling $1,193,873 will be their own standalone program/projects in terms of reporting requirements and guidelines under ARPA. The breakdown of each program/project and their respective funding/reporting source is listed in Attachment B.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

N/A.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Resolution CC 2022-43
Attachment B - ARPA Funding - Restructuring
Respectfully submitted,

RESOLUTION CC 2022-43

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE RESTRUCTURING AND

REPORTING FOR AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA)

PROGRAMS/PROJECTS IN ACCORDANCE TO GUIDANCE OUTLINED

IN THE FINAL RULE
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021 the President of the United States signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to provide continued relief from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, approximately $350 billion of the ARPA funding was allotted to assist state, local, tribal, and territory governments in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, such funds are to be used in accordance with the guidelines of the plan summarized below:

Use of Funds:
• To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small business, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality; and • To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers; and • For the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency; and • To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City of Covina is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”); and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Operating Budget was approved on June 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the approved Fiscal Year 2021-22 Operating Budget is in accordance with applicable ordinances of the City and statutes of the State; and WHEREAS, the City of Covina has received the first tranche of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds in the amount of $5,675,524 on July 13, 2021 and the remaining funding will be received approximately 12 months later; and
WHEREAS, the City of Covina established a new fund in order to appropriately account for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies, this fund number being 2990; and WHEREAS, the City of Covina would like to restructure eight programs/projects to be funded by Measure CC funds instead of ARPA funds for reporting purposes.

Resolution CC 2022-43 Page 2 of 4

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

SECTION 1. Amend the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Operating Budget as follows:

Account Number Description Program/Project
Description
Amount
(Increase/(Decrease)
2990-0310-51005 ARPA-Econ DevConsulting FeesEconomic Development Consultant
($50,000)
1010-0310-51005 GF-Econ DevConsulting FeesEconomic Development Consultant
$50,000
2990-1650-50010 ARPA-Emerg
Medical-FT Salaries
Safety Officer (FT) ($100,000)
1010-1650-50010-
COVID
GF-Emerg MedicalFT Salaries-COVIDSafety Officer (FT) $100,000 2990-1650-50050 ARPA-Emerg
Medical-Sick Leave
Pay
Emergency Paid Sick
Leave (EPSLA)
($600,000)
1010-1650-50010-
COVID
GF-Emerg MedicalFT Salaries-COVIDEmergency Paid Sick
Leave (EPSLA)
$600,000
2990-1650-50095 ARPA-Emerg
Medical-Bonus Pay
Premium Pay ($600,000)
2990-3300-53750 ARPA-Community
Prog-Grant Awards
City of Covina Parks &
Recreation Build A
Dream Program
($100,000)
1010-3300-53750 GF-Community ProgGrant AwardsCity of Covina Parks & Recreation Build A
Dream Program
$100,000
2990-4200-50015 ARPA-Code Enf-PT
Salaries
Neighborhood
Preservation Officer
(PT)
($50,000)
2990-4700-50015 ARPA-Housing-PT
Salaries
Housing Manager (PT) ($50,000)
1010-4700-50015 GF-Housing-PT
Salaries
Housing Manager (PT) $50,000
2990-4750-50030 ARPA-Business
Assistance-Overtime
Dine Out Covina Events
– Overtime Costs
($28,000)
1010-1650-50030-
COVID
GF-Business
Assistance-Overtime
Dine Out Covina Events
– Overtime Costs
$28,000
2990-4750-53990 ARPA-Business
Assistance-Other
Dine Out Covina Events
– Operating Costs
($42,000)

Resolution CC 2022-43 Page 3 of 4
1010-1650-53990-
COVID
GF-Business
Assistance-Other
Dine Out Covina Events
– Operating Costs
$42,000
2990-4750-51700 ARPA-Business
Assistance-Info TechGeneral
Cybersecurity and
Communication System
Upgrades
($200,000)
7200-6200-55XXX IT-IT Admin Cybersecurity and
Communication System
Upgrades
$200,000
2990-4750-53500 ARPA-Business
Assistance-Promotion
Advertising
Social Media Program –
Business Support
($50,000)
1010-4750-53500 GF-Business
Assistance-Promotion
Advertising
Social Media Program –
Business Support
$50,000
2990-4750-53786 ARPA-Business
Assistance-Business
Working Capital
City of Covina Working
Capital Assistance
Program
($200,000)
1010-4750-53786 GF-Business
Assistance-Business
Working Capital
City of Covina Working
Capital Assistance
Program
$200,000
2990-4750-53787 ARPA-Business
Assistance-Business
Capital Improvement
City of Covina Business
Improvement/Vacant
Storefront Capital
Assistance Program
($250,000)
1010-4750-53787 GF-Business
Assistance-Business
Capital Improvement
City of Covina Business
Improvement/Vacant
Storefront Capital
Assistance Program
$250,000
1010-1650-49120-
COVID
GF-Transfer-GF Transfer – GF $2,500,000
2990-1650-59110 ARPA-Emerg
Medical-Transfer-GF
ARPA-Emerg MedicalTransfer-GF$2,500,000
1095-9900-59170 Transfer-Internal
Service Fund
Cybersecurity and
Communication System
Upgrades
$200,000
7200-6200-49110 Transfer-General
Fund
Cybersecurity and
Communication System
Upgrades
$200,000
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

Resolution CC 2022-43 Page 4 of 4
APPROVED and PASSED this 19
th day of April, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

PATRICIA CORTEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-43 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
____________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

City of Covina
Restructing of ARPA Programs/Projects as of March 2022
2022 Revised Budget Description of Use Original Council Action/Resolution # Revenue
Replacement Measure CC ARPA
$ 5,675,524 Total ARPA Allotment Revenue - US Treasury
Funding provided in two tranches - $5,675,524 Received in FY 21- 22, $5,675,525 to be received in FY 22-23 (July)
$ (50,000) Economic Development Consultant August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (600,000) Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSLA) August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($600,000) $ (600,000) Premium Pay August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($600,000) $ (50,000) Emergency Services Coordinator Consultant August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (100,000) Safety Officer (FT) August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($100,000) $ (50,000) Janitorial Services - COVID-19 August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (44,000) COVID-19 Cost Recovery August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($44,000) $ (100,000) City of Covina Parks & Recreation Build A Dream Program August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($100,000) $ (50,000) YWCA Workers & Families - Senior Food Delivery Program August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (300,000) City of Covina Pilot Childcare Assistance Program August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($300,000) $ (50,000) Neighborhood Preservation Officer (PT) August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (50,000) Housing Manager (PT) August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (50,000) Social Media Program - Business Support August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($50,000) $ (100,000) City of Covina Business License & Permit Assistance Program August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($100,000) $ (200,000) City of Covina Working Capital Assitance Program August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($200,000) $ (250,000) City of Covina Business Improvement/Vacant Storefront Capital Assistance Program August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($250,000) $ (70,000) Dine Out Covina Events August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-99) ($70,000) $ (509,000) Covina Recreation Village Water Main Replacement Project August 17, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2021-100) ($509,000) $ (50,000) Non-Profit Support - Covina Woman's Club September 21, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC-109) ($50,000) $ (200,000) Cybersecurity and Communication System Upgrades September 21, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC-109) ($200,000) $ (68,873) City Resource Specialist & City Concierge Positions December 21, 2021 CC Meeting (Resolution CC-134) ($68,873) $ (16,000) Mid-Year Adjustment - Software Costs March 1, 2022 CC Meeting (Resolution CC 2022-22) ($16,000) $ 2,117,651 Total Available ARPA Funds - March 2022 ($1,014,000) ($1,350,000) ($1,193,873) Program/Project Funding Sources - Proposed

ATTACHMENT B

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 13
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Professional Services Agreement to NBS Financial Consulting Group to Provide a Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study for the City of Covina Presented By: Brian K. Lee, AICP, Director of Community Development Recommendation: Award Professional Services Agreement to NBS Financial Consulting Group to Provide a City Wide Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

Under the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.) a city may collect from an applicant, as a condition of development approval, development impact fees which are intended to offset the cost for new construction and reconstruction of public improvements in proportion to the burdens upon public infrastructure that are created by new development. In 2005, the Covina City Council approved Resolution 05- 6475 establishing the City's development impact fees, and Resolution 05-6476 approving the collection of those fees 30 days after adoption. These types of fees are imposed on specific residential and commercial project types resulting in additional dwelling units or additional commercial square-footage on any given development.

Development impact fees are not collected on the replacement of existing number of units or existing square footage.

Recent amendments to Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, which regulate the development of Accessory Dwelling Units ("ADUs") and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units ("JADUs") include restrictions on development impact fee collection for these types of projects. ADUs and JADUs under 750 square feet, for example, are not subject to development impact fees; However, ADUs and JADUs above 750 square feet may have proportional development impact fees applied. A component of the comprehensive study, as proposed by NBS Financial Consulting Group, will focus on ADUs and JADUs. Similarly, Senate Bill 9, a bill which grants the ministerial approval of certain subdivision and two-unit development by right, was approved in September 2021 and became effective into law in January 2022.

Residential Development Impact Fees apply to:
• New/additional Multi Family Units
• New/additional Single-Family Units
• Demolition of commercial building and construction of residential building Commercial Development Impact Fees
• Additional square footage of commercial footprint
• Demolition of residential building and new construction of commercial building Examples of project types where development impact fees do not apply:
• New ADU or JADU under 750 square feet
• Commercial improvements or projects not resulting in additional building footprint • Additional footprint for residential developments that do not result in additional dwelling units • the replacement of net dwelling units that do not result in additional dwelling units In consideration of the length of time since the adoption of development impact fees and several new factors affecting overall development in the City of Covina, such as, but not limited to, new housing development laws (ADU, JADU, and SB9 urban lot split and two-unit development), Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers as required by the department of Housing and Community Development, and an overall need for a comprehensive reassessment of public improvements and public services, staff recommends that the City Council approve the professional services agreement NBS Financial Consulting Group to conduct a comprehensive development impact fee study for the City of Covina.

NBS Financial Consulting Group ("NBS") is highly qualified to perform the task. Currently, NBS is assisting the city with the formation of a Stormwater, Community Facilities District for the Vita-Pakt Residential Development site (TOD) Transit Oriented Development located at 707 N Barranca Avenue. The Consulting Group also has done similar work for other cities in Southern California such as La Quinta and Rancho Cucamonga. This task is expected to take approximately four to six months to complete. The complete proposal provided by NBS can be found in Attachment B.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City Council approved the FY 2021-22 operating budget midyear adjustment on March 1, 2022, which included the appropriation of $50,000 to fund a development impact fee study and an ADU assessment.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

The proposed action to award the PSA to NBS Financial Consulting Group is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - NBS PSA
Attachment B - Proposal for Development Impact Fee Study Respectfully submitted,

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is dated April 19, 2022 (“Effective Date”) and is between the City of Covina, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and NBS Financial Consulting Group, a California S-Corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide financial consulting services.

B. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees.

C. City desires to retain Consultant and Consultant desires to serve City to perform these services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

The parties therefore agree as follows:

9. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date through November 19, 2022, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 14 of this Agreement. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for 2 additional one-year terms. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond November 19, 2024

10. Compensation.

A. Compensation. As full compensation for Consultant’s services provided under this Agreement, City shall pay Consultant the total flat sum of Forty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($47,250.00) (the “maximum compensation”), as set forth in the Approved Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Any terms in Exhibit A, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void.

B. Expenses. The amount set forth in paragraph A shall include reimbursement for all actual and necessary expenditures reasonably incurred in the performance of this Agreement.

C. Additional Services. City shall not allow any claims for additional services performed by Consultant, unless the City Council and the Consultant Representative authorize the additional services in writing prior to Consultant’s performance of the additional services or incurrence of additional expenses. Any additional services or expenses authorized by the City Council shall be compensated at the rates set forth in Exhibit A, or, if not specified, at a rate mutually agreed to by the parties. City shall make payment for additional services and expenses in accordance with Section 4 of this Agreement.

11. Consultant’s Services.

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
A. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the services described in the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit B. City may request, in writing, changes in the scope of services to be performed. Any changes mutually agreed upon by the parties, and any increase or decrease in compensation, shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Agreement.

B. Party Representatives. For the purposes of this Agreement, the City Representative shall be the City Manager, or such other person designated in writing by the City Manager (the “City Representative”). For the purposes of this Agreement, the Consultant Representative shall be Michael Rentner, President (the “Consultant Representative”). The Consultant Representative shall directly manage Consultant’s services under this Agreement. Consultant shall not change the Consultant Representative without City’s prior written consent.

C. Time for Performance. Consultant shall commence the services on the Effective Date and shall perform all services by the deadline established by the City Representative or, if no deadline is established, with reasonable diligence.

D. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City.

E. Personnel. Consultant has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services required under this Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant shall determine the means, methods, and details by which Consultant’s personnel will perform the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the services and compliance with the customary professional standards.

F. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, state and federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City and its agents shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.

G. Permits and Licenses. Consultant shall obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all necessary licenses, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of services under this Agreement, including a business license.

12. Method of Payment.

A. Invoices. Consultant shall submit to City an invoice, on a monthly basis or less frequently, for actual services performed pursuant to this Agreement. Each invoice shall itemize the services rendered during the billing period, hourly rates charged, if applicable, and the amount

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
due. If City disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.

B. Payment. City shall pay all undisputed invoice amounts within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt up to the maximum compensation set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. City shall not withhold federal payroll, state payroll or other taxes, or other similar deductions, from payments made to Consultant. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Finance Director.

C. Audit of Records. Consultant shall make all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this agreement available during Consultant’s regular working hours to City for review and audit by City.

13. Ownership of Documents. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed (“written products”) pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City without restriction or limitation upon its use and may be used, reused, disseminated or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. Consultant may take and retain copies of the written products as desired, but the written products shall not be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.

14. Independent Contractor.

A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor and not an employee of City. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents or employees are in any manner employees of City. Consultant and Consultant’s personnel shall not supervise any of City’s employees; and City’s employees shall not supervise Consultant’s personnel. Consultant’s personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Consultant’s personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall acquire and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, such vehicles, equipment, and supplies as Consultant’s personnel require to perform any of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall perform the services off of City premises at locations of Consultant’s choice, except as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
Consultant’s personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Consultant’s performance of the services under this Agreement, or as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform the services.

City may make a computer available to Consultant from time to time for Consultant’s personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the services under this Agreement.

B. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. Consultant shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Consultant’s personnel in connection with their performance of the services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including, but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

C. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs, and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant’s personnel practices. or to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to the violation of any of the provisions of this Section

6. In addition to all other remedies available under law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Consultant’s duty to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement.

15. PERS Compliance and Indemnification.

A. General Requirements. The parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Consultant agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall assure

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
compliance with the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, commencing at Government Code Section 20000, the regulations of PERS, and the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, as amended. Without limitation to the foregoing, Consultant shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the applicable retirement laws and regulations.

B. Indemnification. Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify, and hold harmless City, and its City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs, and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant’s violation of any provisions of this Section 7. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Consultant’s duty to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement.

16. Confidentiality. All data, documents, discussion, or other information (collectively “data”) developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential. Consultant shall keep all data confidential and shall not disclose any data to any person or entity without City’s prior written consent. City shall grant such consent if disclosure is legally required. Consultant shall return all data to City upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this Section 8 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

17. Conflicts of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subcontractors, if any, shall comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant’s services under this Agreement, including the Political Reform Act (Gov.

Code, § 81000 et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant may perform similar services for other clients, but Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subcontractors shall not, without the City Representative’s prior written approval, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subcontractors to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute. Consultant shall incorporate a clause substantially similar to this Section 9 into any subcontract that Consultant executes in connection with the performance of this Agreement.

18. Indemnification.

A. Indemnities for Third Party Claims.
1) To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City and its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings,

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
expenses, judgments, penalties, liens and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys or other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively “Liabilities”), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the parties. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liability with counsel of the Indemnitees’ choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by Indemnitees in connection therewith. 2) Consultant shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant’s employees. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.

City may offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Subparagraph A. 2). 3) Consultant shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 10 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations, Consultant shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Liabilities in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant’s subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant’s subcontractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the parties.

B. Workers’ Compensation Acts not Limiting. Consultant’s indemnifications and obligations under this Section 10, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
C. Insurance Requirements not Limiting. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may possess against Consultant because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnities in this Section 10 shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Liability, tax, assessment, penalty or interest asserted against City.

D. Survival of Terms. Consultant’s indemnifications and obligations under this Section 10 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

19. Insurance.

A. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall procure and at all times during the term of this Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, insurance as follows:
1) Commercial General Liability Insurance with a minimum limit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage and a general aggregate limit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per project or location.

If Consultant is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so that Consultant and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds.
2) Automobile Liability Insurance for any owned, non-owned or hired vehicle used in connection with the performance of this Agreement with a combined single limit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. If Consultant does not use any owned, non-owned or hired vehicles in the performance of services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain a non-owned auto endorsement to the Commercial General Liability policy required under Subparagraph A. 1) of this Section 11. 3) Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a minimum limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. If Consultant has no employees while performing services under this Agreement, workers’ compensation policy is not required, but Consultant shall provide an executed declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance with minimum limits of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per claim and in aggregate.

B. Acceptability of Insurers. The insurance policies required under this Section 11 shall be issued by an insurer admitted to write insurance in the State of California with a rating of A:VII or better in the latest edition of the A.M. Best Insurance Rating Guide. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with the insurance requirements under this Section 11.

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
C. Additional Insured. The commercial general and automobile liability policies shall contain an endorsement naming the City, its officers, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insureds.

D. Primary and Non-Contributing. The insurance policies required under this Section 11 shall apply on a primary non-contributing basis in relation to any other insurance or selfinsurance available to City. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

E. Consultant’s Waiver of Subrogation. The insurance policies required under this Section 11 shall not prohibit Consultant and Consultant’s employees, agents or subcontractors from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives all rights of subrogation against City.

F. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be approved by City. At City’s option, Consultant shall either reduce or eliminate the deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to City, or Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and expenses.

G. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. Consultant shall not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance policies required by this Section 11 during the term of this Agreement. The commercial general and automobile liability policies required under this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that should the issuing insurer cancel the policy before the expiration date, the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) calendar days’ prior written notice to City. If any insurance policy required under this Section 11 is canceled or reduced in coverage or limits, Consultant shall, within two (2) business days of notice from the insurer, phone, fax or notify City via certified mail, return receipt requested, of the cancellation of or changes to the policy.

H. City Remedy for Noncompliance. If Consultant does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section 11 in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Consultant’s policies do not comply with the requirements under this Section 11, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Consultant’s expense, the premium thereon. Consultant shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Consultant.

I. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of services under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City’s Risk Manager with a certificate or certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Section 11. The endorsements are subject to City’s approval. Consultant may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Consultant shall maintain current endorsements on file with City’s Risk Manager. Consultant shall provide proof to City’s Risk Manager that insurance

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Consultant shall furnish such proof at least two (2) weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages.

J. Indemnity Requirements not Limiting. Procurement of insurance by Consultant shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant’s liability or as full performance of Consultant’s duty to indemnify City under Section 10 of this Agreement.

K. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall require each of its subcontractors that perform services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section 11.

20. Mutual Cooperation.

A. City’s Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Consultant’s proper performance of the services required under this Agreement.

B. Consultant’s Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against the City relating to Consultant’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires.

21. Records and Inspections. Consultant shall maintain full and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement for a period of five (5) years. Consultant shall, without charge, provide City with access to the records during normal business hours. City may examine and audit the records and make transcripts therefrom, and inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities.

22. Termination or Suspension of Agreement.

A. Right to Terminate or Suspend. City may terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time, at will, for any reason or no reason, after giving written notice to Consultant at least seven (7) calendar days before the termination or suspension is to be effective. Consultant may terminate this Agreement at any time, at will, for any reason or no reason, after giving written notice to City at least sixty (60) calendar days before the termination is to be effective.

B. Obligations upon Termination. Consultant shall cease all work under this Agreement on or before the effective date of termination specified in the notice of termination. In the event of City’s termination of this Agreement due to no fault or failure of performance by Consultant, City shall pay Consultant based on the percentage of work satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Consultant for the full performance of the services required by this Agreement.

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

23. Force Majeure. Consultant shall not be liable for any failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement if Consultant presents acceptable evidence, in City’s sole judgment, that such failure was due to strikes, lockouts, labor disputes, embargoes, acts of God, inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes for labor or materials, governmental restrictions, governmental regulations, governmental controls, judicial orders, enemy or hostile governmental action, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, or other causes beyond Consultant’s reasonable control and not due to any act by Consultant.

24. Notices. Any notices, consents, requests, demands, bills, invoices, reports or other communications which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and conclusively deemed effective: (a) on personal delivery, (b) on confirmed delivery by reputable document delivery service or courier service during Consultant’s and City's regular business hours, or (c) five business days after deposit in the United States mail, by first class mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the party to be notified as set forth below:

If to City: If to Consultant:

Attn: Brian K. Lee Michael Rentner
City of Covina President
125 E. College Street| NBS Government Finance Group
Covina, California 91723 32605 Temecula Parkway, Ste 100 Temecula, CA 92592

25. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor or applicant for employment because of race, color, religious creed, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, sexual orientation or other basis prohibited by law.

Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religious creed, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information or sexual orientation.

26. Prohibition of Assignment and Delegation. Consultant shall not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without City’s prior written consent. City’s consent to an assignment of rights under this Agreement shall not release Consultant from any of its obligations or alter any of its primary obligations to be performed under this Agreement. Any attempted assignment or delegation in violation of this Section 18 shall be void and of no effect and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. As used in this Section 18, “assignment” and “delegation” means any sale, gift, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance or other transfer of all or any portion of the rights, obligations, or liabilities in or arising from this Agreement to any person or entity, whether by operation of law or otherwise, and regardless of the legal form of the transaction in which the attempted transfer occurs.

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

27. No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Except as otherwise provided in Section 10, this Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity may have or acquire a right by virtue of this Agreement.

28. Waiver. No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (1) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party making the waiver, (2) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (3) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states.

29. Exhibits. Exhibits A and B constitute a part of this Agreement and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. If any inconsistency exists or arises between a provision of this Agreement and a provision of any exhibit, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.

30. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and all exhibits referred to in this Agreement constitute the final, complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersede all other prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings and agreements of the parties. No party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, nor is any party relying on, any representation or warranty except those expressly set forth in this Agreement.

31. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties. The City Manager is authorized to sign an amendment to this Agreement on the City Council’s behalf and without the City Council’s prior approval to make the following nonsubstantive modifications to the Agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extensions of time; (c) nonmonetary changes in the scope of work; and (d) termination of the Agreement.

32. Headings. The headings in this Agreement are included solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement or any of the rights or obligations of the parties to this Agreement.

33. Word Usage. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the words “shall,” “will” and “agrees” are mandatory and “may” is permissive; (b) “or” is not exclusive; and (c) “includes” or “including” are not limiting.

34. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement.

35. Governing Law and Choice of Forum. This Agreement, and any dispute arising from the relationship between the parties to this Agreement, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Any dispute that arises under or relates to this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both) shall be resolved in a municipal, superior or federal court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Covina.

36. Attorneys’ Fees. In any litigation or other proceeding by which on party seeks to enforce its rights under this Agreement (whether in contract, tort or both) or seeks a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees together with any costs and expenses, to resolve the dispute and to enforce the final judgment.

37. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this Agreement to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the validity of and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected and continue in full force and effect.

38. Authority to Execute Agreement. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc
The parties, through their duly authorized representatives, are signing this Agreement on the date stated in the introductory clause.

City:

City of Covina,
a California municipal corporation
By: ________________________________
Name: Chris Marcarello
Title: City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

Name: Georgianna Nicole Alvarez
Title: Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Name: Candice K. Lee
Title: City Attorney
Consultant:

NBS Government Finance Group,
a California S Corporation
By: David Ketcham
Name: Vice President
Title: [email protected]
By: Michael Rentner
Name: President and Secretary
Title: [email protected]
(Two signatures of corporate officers required
for corporations under Corporations Code
Section 313, unless corporate documents
authorize only one person to sign this
Agreement on behalf of the corporation.)

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

EXHIBIT A

APPROVED FEE SCHEDULE

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

EXHIBIT B

SCOPE OF SERVICES

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

12923-0001\1917425v3.doc

Proposal for:

Development Impact Fee Study
November 15, 2021

nbsgov.com
Aerial view of City of Covina
via Google Earth

helping communities fund tomorrow
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
nbsgov.com
November 15, 2021
Brian Lee
Director of Community Development
City of Covina
125 E College Street
Covina, CA 91723
RE: Proposal for Development Impact Fee Study
Dear Mr. Lee,
We are pleased to submit this proposal for a Development Impact Fee Study for your review. NBS will staff this study with a cohesive team of senior professionals who have more than three decades of experience performing impact fee studies. Importantly, we understand the dialogue which must occur during the study to vet data and policies that set a program in place.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this proposal, which includes details about our team, approach, qualifications, and pricing.

Please contact me at 800.676.7516 or via email at [email protected] if you have any questions or would like to discuss our professional qualifications further. We would genuinely like to work on this project and help the City move forward successfully.

Sincerely,
Nicole Kissam Tim Seufert
Director Managing Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 | SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 | PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................................................. 8 3 | REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 11 4 | COST PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................................... 13 5 | COMPANY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 15 APPENDIX | RESUMES ...................................................................................................................... 17

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 1
1 | SCOPE OF SERVICES
Development impact fees are one-time charges imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for capital facilities and infrastructure needed to serve new development. Impact fees are governed by the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and by constitutional case law.

Charges imposed as a condition of property development, including impact fees, are not subject to Proposition 218 or Proposition 26.

The City currently has an impact fee program in place, which was last updated by resolution in 2005. It has been more than 15 years since the impact fee program has been comprehensively reviewed. Since 2016, there have been several bills signed into law that affect how impact fees are calculated and administered.

The City is interested in the laws pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and in making sure the City is in compliance with assessing appropriate fees for ADUs.

Scope of Services
This proposal provides three options of consulting services for the City to choose from. All of these options will address ADU fees.

1. Professional opinion regarding ADU requirements as applied to the City’s impact fee program

2. Detailed study of assumptions related to ADUs from the prior impact fee study

3. Comprehensive Citywide Development Impact Fee Study
In our opinion, the most cost-effective option for the City at this time is Option 3 because of the length of time that has passed between the 2005 resolution and today. However, we understand the City may not be ready to take on a full study at this time.

OPTION 1: SIMPLIFIED FOCUS ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FEES The California Legislature has found and declared that California is facing a severe housing crisis and ADUs are an essential component of California’s housing supply. Recent changes to California law have eliminated many regulatory barriers to the construction of ADUs and allowed cities and counties to consider ADUs in meeting their regional housing needs’ allocations.

In 2019, Senate Bill 13 (SB 13) changed the criteria for assessing impact fees on ADUs. A simplified summary of SB 13 is that a local agency is prohibited from imposing any impact fee upon the development of an ADU less than 750 square feet and any impact fees for an ADU greater than 750 square feet must be calculated as proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. So, if the primary unit is 2,000 SF and the ADU is 1,000 SF, the ADU fee would be 50% of the fee for the primary unit, which is usually a single-family unit. (SFDU fee X (ADU square feet / Primary unit square feet)).

That proportionality requirement has unintended consequences that will have to be addressed in this study because two ADUs of the same size could pay very different impact fees depending on the size of the primary unit. For example, the impact fee for a 1,000 square foot ADU associated with a 2,000 square foot primary unit would be 50% of the primary unit fee, while the impact fee for an identical ADU associated with a 3,000 square feet primary unit would be only 33.3% of the primary unit fee. Resolving that inequity

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 2
will involve a policy decision by the City. NBS has been working with other clients to develop workable solutions that do not conflict with State law.

The City does not actually need a consultant to implement the current law as summarized. Fees for ADUs can simply be calculated on a case-by-case basis. However, if the City needs a basic memorandum that explains recent changes to the law and framing of the policy decision regarding inequities in the proportionality requirement, we are happy to assist.

OPTION 2: ADU NEXUS STUDY
The overall objective of this study is to develop a program of ADU-specific development impact fees that will encourage production of ADUs as affordable housing in Covina. The Work Plan outlined below will create a framework for the City and NBS to work collaboratively to develop a fee program that will reinforce other measures being taken by the City to encourage production of ADUs in Covina.

Based on our initial review of Resolution 05-6476, we understand the following impact fees will be addressed in this proposal:
• General Government
• Library
• Police
• Park (Non-Quimby Act)
• Traffic/Circulation
• Fire
The tasks that make up this work plan are based on our preliminary understanding of the City’s purpose and intent for this engagement. We expect that it will be refined in the early stages of the work in response to discussions with City staff.

Task 1: Project Initiation
To ensure the project is initiated with common goals and understanding, we will conduct a project commencement meeting with City staff members who will oversee the progress, completion, and implementation of its findings. The goal of this meeting will be to:
• Discuss the goals, work plan and schedule for the project • Establish coordination, communication, and reporting procedures • Evaluate available information resources
Task 2: Data Collection
Our project team will conduct initial interviews with key City staff members to understand any current approaches to development impact fees and, in particular, ADU-specific fee policies and practices. We will also collect additional data pertinent to the purpose of this study, including:
• Currently adopted fee schedules for development impact fees • Supporting studies that detail the basis for fees
• California statutes and their bearing on ADUs and fees for ADUs • Available published information on ADU best practices used by other cities and counties in California
We will explore staff’s initial thoughts and ideas for effective policies pertaining to fees for ADUs in Covina.

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 3
Task 3: Comparative ADU Fee Survey
We will conduct a survey of ADU development impact fees charged by other cities (or counties) in California, beginning with medium size cities in the region and expanding outward as needed to obtain at least four (4) examples of ADU impact fee programs that meet the current requirements of California law. We will download respective fee schedules and any available supporting studies or ADU fee policies from the Internet. We will also make a reasonable attempt to contact agencies that have ADU-specific fee programs, to find out more about their rationale and process for encouraging ADU development through fee-related policies and procedures.

Task 4: Impact Fee Calculations
Our approach to the impact fees is necessarily different from the approach we would take for a typical nexus study. Current industry practice for establishing ADU impact fees would evaluate the impact of ADUs on their own. However, the proportionality requirement of SB 13 implies that the impact of an ADU is to be evaluated relative to the impact of the primary unit, which is normally a single-family unit. So, those fees are dependent on the nexus established for impact fees for single-family residential development in Covina.

We will work with staff to identify the preferred approach for the City’s ADU fee program, including a policy for addressing the inequities of the SB 13 proportionality requirement mentioned in the Objectives section above. Once the City has selected a preferred approach, NBS will calculate ADU impact fees and prepare a schedule of impact fees for ADUs.

Steps in that process will include:
• Review all of the City’s existing impact fees
• Consider whether ADUs should be exempt from certain impact fees • Calculate ADU impact fees based on the City’s existing impact fees, ensuring that the nexus for the underlying impact fees remains valid for ADUs
• Prepare a schedule of impact fees for ADUs for adoption Task 5: Draft and Final Study Reports
NBS will prepare a draft nexus study report summarizing the purpose, legal framework, data, methodology and formulas used in the calculation of all ADU-related fees studied. Following review by the City, a final study report will be prepared and submitted. The report will include:
• An Executive Summary with summary impact fee tables
• A chapter discussing the legal requirements and constraints for ADU development impact fees • A separate chapter for each development impact fee type explaining the method and data used to calculate associated ADU fees
• An Implementation chapter outlining the requirements for adopting and administering the fee program, with specialized focus on the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act NBS will provide the draft and final report electronically in .pdf format. If requested, our project team can also prepare a public information handout to explain the ADU impact fee program.

Task 6: Meetings and Presentations
The detailed Work Plan as described above for the entire project assumes that all working meetings with staff for Tasks 1 through 6 will be conducted by video conference or telephone. We will provide sufficient meetings and collaboration with City staff throughout the course of the Study to assist in development of

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 4
draft results. Should the City require us to physically attend Council meetings, etc., a “per meeting” pricing option is available for consideration.

OPTION 3: COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY In general, this scope of services option involves the work necessary to prepare a development impact fee study that complies with the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) and relevant case law.

This proposal assumes that all impact fees calculated in this report will be for a single, Citywide service area. Based on our initial review of Resolution 05-6476, we understand the following impact fees will be addressed in this proposal:
• General Government
• Library
• Police
• Park (Non-Quimby Act)
• Traffic/Circulation
• Fire
The specific scope of services offered in this proposal is defined by the tasks described in the work plan that follows. That scope excludes legal, engineering, architectural, cost estimating and appraisal services. The work to be performed by the Consultant on this impact fee study will depend heavily on information to be provided by the City. Among the types of information needed for this study are:
• The current General Plan, and any specific plans or other relevant planning studies • Existing and planned future development data within the study area, by land use type • Capital Improvement Program, level of service policies, facility master plans and other facility planning data, plus inventories of existing vehicles and equipment to be funded by impact fees • Cost estimates for land, capital improvements, vehicles, equipment, etc. to be funded by fees • Information on capital improvement funding sources and financing plans and any outstanding debt related to existing capital facilities
This proposal assumes that all information needed to perform the work covered by the scope of this proposal will be provided by the City or is readily available from other sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau or the California Department of Finance.

The following tasks comprise the detailed work plan for this impact fee study. These tasks represent the typical requirements of an impact fee study and may be adjusted to meet the needs of this project.

Task 1. Kickoff Meeting/Project Initiation
Convene a kickoff meeting with key City staff and carry out other activities required to initiate the Study, including:
• Discuss the goals, work plan and schedule for the project • Establish coordination, communication and reporting procedures • Conduct initial interviews with key City staff members • Evaluate available information resources
• Assess the City’s development patterns and growth potential

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 5
Task 2. Compile Data on Existing and Future Development Collect, review and analyze data on existing and future development in the City and compile it in a form useful for this Study. Steps in that process may include:
• Establish boundaries of the study area to be used in the analysis (e.g., existing City vs. sphere of influence)
• Establish the planning horizon for future development to be addressed in this study (for example, buildout or 20-year horizon)
• Define the breakdown of development types/land use categories for which impact fees will be calculated
• Analyze available land use data to establish a baseline of existing development and a forecast of future development by land use type
• Specify demand factors that will be used to represent the impact of development in the impact fee model
• Prepare development data tables to incorporate into the fee calculation model and the Study report Task 3. Facility Needs Analysis
Review facility master plans and work with staff to identify new facilities, facility expansions, vehicles and equipment needed to serve future development. Also, review data pertaining to existing asset inventory and costs as needed. Steps in that process will include the following:
• Review adopted level-of-service standards and actual service levels for relevant facility types • Work with City staff to identify the operative level-of-service standard to be used in the impact fee analysis for each facility type
• Identify any existing deficiencies or available capacity relative to the selected level-of-service standard for each type of facility
• Project the additional service demand that will be created by new development, based on selected service levels
• Translate service demand into facility needs by facility type • Compile cost estimates for relevant facilities and other assets • Identify costs eligible for impact fee funding
Task 4. Impact Fee Analysis
Using the information developed in Tasks 2 and 3, conduct the impact fee analysis and build a spreadsheet model to calculate impact fees by development type for each facility addressed in the Study. Steps include:
• Work with City staff to select appropriate fee calculation methods for each facility type • Construct a spreadsheet fee calculation model incorporating data on existing and future development, demand factors and eligible facility costs • Specify formulas in the model to allocate facility costs in proportion to the impact of new development by land use type
• Calculate a cost per unit of service for each facility type • Convert the cost per unit of service into a schedule of impact fees per unit of development by development type
• Project potential revenue from the proposed fee
Task 5. Fee Comparison
Policy makers often desire a comparison of fee amounts to neighboring jurisdictions. Although an “apples to apples” comparison of cost recovery policy and fee structures between agencies is challenging, a

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 6
comparison can ensure a smoother implementation process. NBS will utilize our industry expertise comparing similar impact fees in up to five (5) neighboring and comparable communities. A list of communities will be selected and approved by City staff. We will download their respective fee schedules and supporting studies from the Internet. If schedules and supporting studies are not available on the Internet, we will make a reasonable attempt to contact the agency to obtain that information. We will then compile a comparison of the fee categories and amounts, for the most readily comparable fee items that match the City’s existing and proposed impact fees.

Task 6. Draft and Final Study Reports
The impact fee study report will explain the data, methodology, formulas and assumptions used in the fee calculations and document the nexus between the proposed fees and the impacts of development for each type of impact fee calculated in the study. The report will also propose findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act regarding the purpose of the fees, the use of the fees, and the reasonable relationship between the fees and development.

As the study progresses, we will submit preliminary drafts of portions of the Study report for review and comment by City staff. Once all sections are in draft form, an administrative draft of the entire Study report incorporating any previous staff comments will be submitted and reviewed with City staff. Then a final draft document will be prepared for the City Council and public review. If necessary, additional changes will be incorporated into the final Study report.

The report will include the following components:
• Executive Summary including summary impact fee tables • One chapter discussing the legal requirements for impact fees and methods used to calculate fees
• One chapter presenting data on existing and future development in the Study area and the factors used to measure the impacts of development on individual facility types • One chapter for each impact fee, presenting the data and methodology used in the analysis, a detailed explanation of the impact fee calculations, and documentation of nexus findings • One chapter on implementation recommendations covering steps needed to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act through proper administration of the impact fees, including but not limited to:
• Findings and enactment of fees
• Collection and expenditure of fees
• Accounting and reporting requirements
• Administrative appeals, waivers, and exemptions
• Credits and reimbursements for developer-provided facilities • Updating and indexing the fees
• Recovery of administrative costs for the impact fee program Deliverables include: (1) Preliminary chapter drafts; (2) a complete draft report for staff review; (3) a final draft report for City Council and public review; (4) the final report. All drafts and the final report will be submitted electronically in .pdf format.

Task 7. Meetings and Presentations
This proposal assumes the following regarding meetings during the Study and presentations of results:

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 7
Meetings with City Staff – NBS will conduct meetings with City staff to initiate the study process, review and discuss work products and gain insight from Staff on the direction of the study. Work-in-progress meetings will be held via conference call or video conferencing format. We also expect to have regular email exchanges and phone conversations with City staff to review data, discuss the study’s progress, solicit input from staff, and review the study’s initial results.

Presentations – NBS will prepare PowerPoint presentations and present findings to City Council, Council subcommittees, or industry stakeholders as needed. Within the professional fees proposed for the project, we have included up to two remotely conducted meetings, or one (1) in-person visit for implementation purposes.

Project Schedule
The estimated timeline required to complete Option 1 is between one-to-two months.

The estimated timeline required to complete Option 2 is shown in the table below.

For Option 3, comprehensive impact fee studies typically take between four and six months to complete a final report. The following is an overview of a six-month project schedule to provide an idea of the general pacing of various work plan tasks. We will discuss a detailed schedule at the kick-off meeting, along with the expected timing for individual tasks.

City of Covina
ADU Nexus Fee Study Timeline
Work Plan
1 - Project Initiation
2 - Data Collection
3 - Comparative ADU Fee Survey
4 - Impact Fee Calculations
5 - Draft and Final Study Reports
6 - Meetings and Presentations
Month 5 Month 6
tbd by City
ACTIVITY Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4
City of Covina
Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study Timeline
Work Plan
1 - Project Initiation
2 - Data Collection
3 - Facility Needs Analysis
4 - Impact Fee Analysis
5 - Fee Comparison
6 - Draft and Final Study Reports
7 - Meetings and Presentations
ACTIVITY Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 tbd by City

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 8
2 | PROJECT TEAM
The following is a brief overview of the consulting team proposed to manage and complete the work plan steps noted for this engagement. Full resumes are included in the Appendix.

Project Organizational Chart
NICOLE KISSAM, PROJECT MANAGER – 20 YEARS OF CALIFORNIA FEE ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE Role and Responsibilities: Nicole Kissam will manage the ongoing administration of the project, serving as the primary point of contact for City‘s staff and directing the work efforts of our project team. She will be fully conversant in all findings and available for public events as needed. She will work closely with the City’s designated project manager to monitor the schedule and delivery of work products to the City’s satisfaction.

While designing and directing analytical efforts, she will also provide senior-level technical analysis.

Work Experience: Nicole Kissam is Director of NBS’ Financial Consulting Group. She has an extensive background in public sector consulting, city government, corporate management, marketing and public relations. Nicole has been a financial and management consultant to local government for 20 years, specializing in cost recovery policy, strategy, and analysis. Her subject matter expertise includes cost allocation plans, user and regulatory fee analysis, impact fee analysis, financial plans, business process improvement, and operational best management practices for California agencies. Nicole holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. She has completed similar projects as requested by the City for many agencies across California.

City Stakeholders, Management and Staff
Project
Management
Nicole Kissam
Project Manager
Joe Colgan
Impact Fee Specialist
Lauren Guido
Consultant

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 9
JOE COLGAN, IMPACT FEE SPECIALIST – 30 YEARS OF IMPACT FEE EXPERIENCE Roles and Responsibilities: Joe Colgan will work closely with NBS and other team members as the technical expert on this impact fee analysis.

Work Experience: Joe Colgan is the President of Colgan Consulting and a recognized expert in impact fee analysis with over 30 years of experience in the field. He is a professional planner with 10 years of direct experience in local government as a planner and planning director, and extensive experience in land use planning and capital facilities planning. He has served three terms on the board of the National Impact Fee Roundtable (now the Growth and Infrastructure Consortium), including one term as vice chair, and has spoken on impact fees at conferences and seminars nationally. NBS and Colgan Consulting have been working together exclusively on impact fees since 2018.

LAUREN GUIDO, CONSULTANT – 10 YEARS OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE Roles and Responsibilities: Under the direction of the project manager, Lauren Guido will support this project as needed with the completion of key aspects of the project’s Task Plan, including but not limited to fee model development, data collection and analysis, and documentation efforts.

Work Experience: Lauren Guido is a Consultant with NBS and brings more than a decade of accounting and financial management experience in the public and private sector to our project team. She has extensive applied skills in analytical software, databases, and spreadsheets and a special talent for graphical display of complex information in presentations to elected and community stakeholders. Lauren has a Bachelor of Fine Arts and Multimedia from Woodbury University.

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 10
NBS Similar Development Impact Fee Studies
The following table reflects a sampling of California municipal agencies for whom our proposed team has completed Development Impact Fee / Nexus studies:

TYPE OF IMPACT FEE
Agency Park Land /
Improvements
Public
Safety
Public
Buildings
Roads /
Traffic
Storm
Drain
Water /
Sewer
City of Angels Camp    
City of Beaumont    
City of Cloverdale      
City of Eastvale   
City of Encinitas   
City of Indio      
City of La Quinta    
City of Lemoore     
City of Madera      
City of Moreno Valley    
City of Orange  
City of Orland     
City of Plymouth (AB 1600
Reporting)   
City of Rancho Cucamonga    
City of Rocklin   
City of Vista   
City of Wildomar     
East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District 
Groveland Community
Services District   
Hesperia Recreation and
Parks District 
Lathrop Manteca Fire
District 
Moraga Orinda Fire District 
Rancho Cucamonga Fire
District 
Sacramento Metropolitan
Fire District 
Town of Ross  
Town of Windsor   

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 11
3 | REFERENCES
Below is a sampling of projects and references similar in scope and magnitude to the City’s needs.

CITY OF INDIO

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Project Dates: June 2019 – May 2020
Contact Information This comprehensive review and update of the City of Indio’s impact fee program included the following fees: Park Land and Improvements, Police Facilities, Fire Protection Facilities, Public Buildings, Roads and Bridges, Traffic Signals, Storm Drainage Improvements, and Water System Improvements. The final report for this Study was completed in May 2020 and adoption was delayed due to pandemic related issues.

The results will be reviewed by City Council in November 2021.

Rob Rockwell
Assistant City Manager and
Finance Director
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
P: 760.391.4029
E: [email protected]

CITY OF LA QUINTA

IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
Project Dates: January 2019 - October 2019
Contact Information This study updated all of La Quinta’s existing impact fees, including fees for parks, community and cultural centers, civic center, library, fire protection and transportation. This was the first impact fee study La Quinta has contracted out since Joe Colgan prepared an impact fee study for the City in 1998. Since that time, the City has conducted several in-house updates. In this study, NBS expanded the scope of the community center impact fee to include cultural facilities and updated costs used in some other impact fees to reflect interest costs for debt used to fund those facilities. The transportation impact fees were calculated in two parts. Costs for improvements that add capacity for vehicular traffic were allocated entirely to future development, while costs for improvements to bikeways and pedestrian facilities were split between existing and future development. The final draft impact fee study was presented to the La Quinta City Council on October 1, 2019 and was referred to the Financial Advisory Commission which strongly endorsed the study and recommended adoption of the fees. The City Council adopted the impact fees in April 2020 to be phased in over two years.

Julie Mignogna
Management Analyst
Design and Development Dept.
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
P: 760.777.7041
E: [email protected]

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 12

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA

IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR PARKS, LIBRARIES, COMMUNITY AND RECREATION CENTERS,

POLICE FACILITIES THE ANIMAL CENTER
Project Dates: February 2020 – November 2020
Contact Information This study updated impact fees previously calculated for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Joe Colgan in 2014. Together, NBS and Joe Colgan completed an impact fee update study for Park Land and Improvements, Community and Recreation Centers, Libraries, and Police Facilities.

The work of this study included updating demographic data, including the inclusion of a major annexation, as well as facility costs used in the impact fee calculations. Updated impact fees were calculated to reflect those changes.

As part of this study, NBS carried out a detailed analysis of a random sample of 2019 police calls for service to establish the distribution of calls among various types of development and to calculate calls-perunit-per year factors for use in the impact fee calculations.

The City Council adopted the updated impact fees in December 2020.

NBS is currently under a separate contract to review Fire Protection Facilities fees for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. The final report for this study is complete and pending Board review and adoption in December 2021.

Brian Sandona
Senior Engineer
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
P: 909.477.2740 Ext 4020
E: [email protected]

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 13
4 | COST PROPOSAL
Our professional fees are based on our understanding of the City’s needs and the effort we believe is necessary to complete the scope of services/task plan described. We express this honestly and transparently through our price proposal.

The following hourly rates will apply for the duration of our project. Rates are inclusive of all costs associated with professional time, such as document production, and incidentals. Travel expenses, if required, would be approved, and charged separately.

Title Hourly Rate
Director/Project Manager $205
Impact Fee Specialist $150
Consultant $140
OPTION 1: SIMPLIFIED FOCUS ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FEES For this effort, we propose a professional fee not-to-exceed $7,500. We would bill the city on an hourly basis for the time needed to have some basic discussions, write the Memo, and review and finalize with City staff. If the total project budget is not required to complete the project, the City will not be billed for any remaining balance.

OPTION 2: ADU NEXUS STUDY
For this option, we propose a professional fee not-to-exceed $24,990. The following table provides an estimate of hours and costs per work plan task:

Should the City require attendance from NBS at a City Council meeting, the fee for that service is $1,200 plus travel expenses not to exceed $1,000, per meeting (total not to exceed $2,200).

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Task Plan
Hourly Rate $ 205 $ 150 $ 140
ADU Nexus Fee Study
Task 1. Project Initiation 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 $710
Task 2. Data Collection 8.0 24.0 0.0 32.0 $5,240
Task 3. Comparative ADU Fee Survey 8.0 10.0 24.0 42.0 $6,500 Task 4. Impact Fee Calculations 8.0 30.0 0.0 38.0 $6,140 Task 5. Draft and Final Study Reports 8.0 28.0 4.0 40.0 $6,400 Task 6. Meetings and Presentations
TOTAL 34.0 94.0 28.0 156.0 $24,990
included above
Grand Totals
City of Covina
Joe Colgan,
Impact Fee
Specialist
Consultant
Labor (Hours)
Consultant
Costs ($)
Nicole
Kissam,
Project
Manager
NBS
Consultant
Consultant Labor (Hours)

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 14
OPTION 3: COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY For this option, we propose a professional fee not-to-exceed $47,250. The following table provides an estimate of hours and costs per work plan task:

Should the City require attendance from NBS at more than the one City Council meeting proposed in the work plan section of this proposal, the fee for that service is $1,200 plus travel expenses, per meeting (total not to exceed $2,200).

PROJECT COST DETAIL
Task Plan
Hourly Rate $ 205 $ 150 $ 140
Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Study
Task 1. Project Initiation 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 $710
Task 2. Data Collection 12.0 30.0 0.0 42.0 $6,960
Task 3. Facility Needs Analysis 24.0 24.0 8.0 56.0 $9,640 Task 4. Impact Fee Analysis 20.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 $10,100
Task 5. Fee Comparison 4.0 4.0 24.0 32.0 $4,780
Task 6. Draft and Final Study Reports 28.0 48.0 8.0 84.0 $14,060 Task 7. Meetings and Presentations
Travel Expenses (not to exceed) $1,000
TOTAL 90.0 148.0 40.0 278.0 $47,250
included above
Consultant Labor (Hours) Grand Totals
City of Covina Nicole
Kissam,
Project
Manager
Joe Colgan,
Impact Fee
Specialist
NBS
Consultant
Consultant
Labor (Hours)
Consultant
Costs ($)

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 15
5 | COMPANY OVERVIEW
NBS is an independent consulting firm founded in
1996 by experienced finance and engineering
professionals and has worked with more than 500
public agencies to date. NBS serves local
governmental agencies, including cities, towns,
counties, municipal utilities, and special purpose
districts. The ultimate goal of NBS is to provide
support, expertise and solutions that allow these local agencies to focus on community needs and core
services. NBS currently has 50 employees located in
Temecula (corporate headquarters) and San Francisco.

NBS is a California S-Corporation which is 100%
employee-owned, with an Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) in place for all staff. The company is in a solid financial position, and it continually invests in the highest-quality systems, training, software and
technology.

Our Financial Consulting Practice focuses primarily on
cost recovery mechanisms and supporting justification
for various agency revenue streams, including the
following:
• User and regulatory fees for a wide variety
of local government programs and services.
• Development impact fees
• Overhead cost allocation analysis.
• Rate studies for municipal water, sewer, storm drainage and solid waste utilities. • Short and long-term financial plans.

These services are performed within the requirements and framework of California-specific statutes and guidelines, including:
• Article XIII C of the California State Constitution (Proposition 26). • State Controller’s Office Handbook of Cost Plan Procedures; and federal guidelines, including the Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 (formerly known as OMB A-87). • Proposition 218, and subsequent legislation and case law. • Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000 et seq., codified by “AB 1600”).

In
Business
NBS is a 100%
employee-owned
S-Corporation

NBS HEADQUARTERS
32605 Temecula Pkwy | Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592

SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE
870 Market Street | Suite 1223
San Francisco, CA 94102

CONTACT
Nicole Kissam | 800.676.7516
[email protected]

LEGAL NAME
NBS Government
Finance Group
DBA
NBS

INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE

AGREEMENT
Michael Rentner, President

AT-A-GLANCE
helping communities fund tomorrow
25 YEARS
50 employees

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 16
Financial Consulting Group
The NBS Financial Consulting Group ensures robust fees and cost recovery mechanisms are in place.

Our expert consultants help our public agency clients navigate the challenges inherent with these processes.

We are stalwart advocates for our public agency clients to ensure cost recovery strategies and fee structures are well-vetted and fit the agency’s policy goals. We are often called upon to present complex issues to councils, boards and interested parties, as well as teach educational seminars on these topics.

We have vast experience with public agencies of all types, as well as a broad range of complicated fee structures. We leverage our in-depth understanding of the laws, codes and regulations affecting local governments, including Propositions 26 and 218, to support our clients.

We focus on cost recovery and enhancing revenue streams, leveraging our experience with a wide variety of tools such as cost allocation plans as well as user, regulatory and development impact fees that fund programs, services and infrastructure.

How NBS Stands Out
NBS’ Overview of Rates, Fees and Charges.

We believe in continuing education, not only for our own team, but also for our clients and municipal staff.

As industry leaders, we have a unique set of qualifications and experience in the work we perform. In that regard, we have published four booklets on related industry topics that can be downloaded at no charge at www.nbsgov.com/publications.

For a hard copy, please call 800.676.7516 or email
[email protected].

Rates, Fees and Charges Compendium (2015) has received high regard and interest from industry professionals and precisely relates to the City’s current needs.

Additional NBS publications include:
• Special Financing Districts (SFDs) (2015) has been credited as the best publication on SFDs in a decade by prominent industry professionals.
• Stormwater: A Ten-Step Funding Plan (2018) addresses the spectrum of stormwater needs in California. We have been asked to present this funding topic at CSMFO and FMA.
• Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) (2018) explains this robust funding and financing tool for local governments.

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 17
APPENDIX | RESUMES
This appendix contains full resumes for our proposed project team.

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 18

TEAM RESUME
NICOLE KISSAM | Project Director

EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Science, Business
Administration, California
Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo

AFFILIATIONS
• California Society of Municipal
Finance Officers (CSMFO)
• Growth and Infrastructure
Consortium (GIC)

SPEAKING / MEDIA
(LAST 5 YEARS)
• “A Revenue Cornucopia: One
Special District’s Approach to
Raising Revenue” - California
Special Districts Association
(CSDA), Exhibitor Series, 2020
• “Tools for Fiscal Sustainability” -
CSMFO Desert Chapter, 2020
• “Fees, Fees, and MORE FEES!?” -
California Association of
Recreation and Park Districts,
Annual Conference, 2019
• “Building Department Fees…you
need a plan” - California Building
Officials (CALBO) Annual Business
Meeting, 2018

HIGHLIGHTS
Nicole Kissam is Director of Financial Consulting for NBS. She has more than 20 years of experience in public sector consulting, city government, marketing, and public relations. Nicole specializes in cost recovery and revenue policy for California local governments.

She routinely manages projects and provides senior level technical analysis on impact fee studies, user/regulatory fee analyses, cost allocation plans, and financial plans. She has completed over 100 consulting engagements for a range of cities, counties, and special districts, including those with less than 10,000 population up to the largest in the State such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Jose.

Her background also includes performance of various management audits that improved operational efficiency of development services, parks and recreation, and utility departments. Nicole is regularly invited to speak on the topics of cost recovery, fee program development, and fiscal sustainability for various prominent professional organizations in California.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Impact Fee Study and Fire Prevention Regulatory Fee Study – Completed a complex analysis of impact fees for the District, requiring the merging of several different legacy fee structures from the County and two incorporated cities served by the District.

The Study required participation with interested developers, has been successfully adopted in 2020 by the County and one incorporated city, and is pending final adoption by the second city’s Council in February 2021. NBS also developed a first Regulatory fee program for the District’s newly added fire prevention division, adopted in 2020.
• City of Indio, Citywide Development Impact Fee Study – Fees evaluated included Park Land and Improvements, Fire Protection Facilities, Police Facilities, Public Buildings, Roads and Bridges, Traffic Signals, Storm Drainage Improvements. Final Report issued in May 2020, pending public hearing and adoption by City Council.
• City of La Quinta, Development Impact Fee Study – Fees evaluated included Parks and Recreation, Community and Cultural Centers, Library, Civic Center, Maintenance Facilities, Transportation. Adoption process involved working with local building industry associations. Fee program adopted successfully by Council in 2019.
• Los Angeles, Tree In-Lieu Fee Analysis for the Board of Public Works – Evaluated the cost of sourcing, planting, and maintaining trees paid for “in-lieu” of conditions of development for protected trees and other types of City trees.

Assisted in implementing a fee program with the Board of Public Works. • Other Recent Impact Fee Projects – Lathrop Manteca Fire District, Moraga Orinda Fire Protection District, City of Orland, Plymouth, Rancho Cucamonga, Rocklin, Town of Ross, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District “Thanks again for
another successful
fee study. Always a
pleasure working
with you and your
team.”
Greg McFann
Building Official
City of Alameda

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 19

TEAM RESUME
JOE COLGAN | Subconsultant, Impact Fee Specialist

EDUCATION
• Master of City Planning degree,
University of Pennsylvania
Bachelor of Architecture degree,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

AFFILIATIONS
• Growth and Infrastructure
Consortium (formerly the
National Impact Fee Roundtable)
• Over 35 years as a member of the
American Planning Association
(APA) and the American Institute
of Certified Planners (AICP)

SPEAKING / MEDIA
• National Impact Fee Roundtable |
2004 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011
• California Association of
Recreation and Parks Districts |
2019

HIGHLIGHTS
Joe Colgan is founder and president of Colgan Consulting Corporation, a small Sacramento firm specializing in development impact fees for cities, counties and special districts. He has a thorough understanding of the constitutional and statutory requirements for defensible impact fees and is an expert in impact fee methodologies.

The vast majority of Joe’s impact fee work has been done for California clients, but he has also done impact fee studies in Oregon, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Florida. He has prepared more than 150 impact fee studies since 1990, for clients as large as Albuquerque, NM (pop. 555,000) and the Orange County (CA) Fire Authority (serving 22 cities and unincorporated Orange County), and as small as Angels Camp, CA (pop. 4,050)

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• Indio, CA, Comprehensive Impact
Fee Study
• Manhattan Beach, CA, Impact
Fee Feasibility Study
• Wildomar, CA, Comprehensive
Impact Fee Study and Two Impact
Fee Update Studies
• Rocklin, CA, Parks and Public
Facilities Impact Fee Study
• Vista, CA, Impact Fee Update
Study for Streets and Signals; Joe
has prepared four impact fee
studies for Vista
• La Quinta, CA, Comprehensive
Impact Fee Studies and Updates;
Joe has prepared three impact fee
studies for La Quinta
• City of Orange, CA, Impact Fee
Study for Police, Libraries and
Parks
• Lemoore, CA, Comprehensive
Impact Fee Studies and Updates;
Joe has prepared four impact fee
studies for Lemoore
• Madera, CA, Comprehensive
Impact Fee Study and Update
• Beaumont, CA, Comprehensive
Impact Fee Study
• Windsor, CA, Impact Fee Study
for Parks and Rec, Open Space
and Trails, Police, Fire and Public
Facilities
• Cloverdale, CA, Impact Fee Study
for Accessory Dwelling Units
• Moreno Valley CA,
Comprehensive Impact Fee
Studies and Updates; Joe has
prepared four impact fee studies
for Moreno Valley
• Encinitas, CA, Impact Fee Study
Streets and Signals, Parks, Fire
and Libraries; Joe has prepared
three impact fee studies for
Encinitas
• Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Two
Impact Fee Studies for Parks,
Community & Recreation Centers,
Libraries, Police, and the Animal
Center

Proposal for City of Covina NBS | 20

EDUCATION
• Bachelor of Fine Arts and
Multimedia, Woodbury
University, Burbank

HIGHLIGHTS
• Experienced Consultant
supporting cost allocation, user
and regulatory fee studies
• Extensive experience in budget
management and financial
reporting
• Extensive experience working
with analytical software,
databases, and spreadsheets

BIOGRAPHY
Lauren Guido offers more than a decade of finance experience in accounting, budget planning and systems analysis. She performs various financial analyses, data management, and customer data analyses for Overhead Cost Allocation Plans and User Fee Studies.

Lauren’s diverse knowledge of accounting, budgeting, and resource management is essential to the work performed by NBS.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Lauren has consulted and served on many projects, including the following representative and recent project samples:
• City of Alameda, Building, Planning, Public Works, and Fire Fee Study
• City of Albany, Building, and Planning Fee Study
• City of Camarillo, Citywide User Fee Study
• East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Fire Prevention Regulatory Fee Study and Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee Study
• City of Indio, Citywide Fee Study Update and Development Impact Fee Study
• City of Lathrop, Building Fee Study
• City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning Fee Study • City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Home Sharing Ordinance Fee Study
• City of Modesto, Recreation Fee Study
• City of Portola Valley, Development Services Fee Study • Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Regulatory Fee Analysis
• City of San Diego, Park and Recreation Department Fee Study • San Diego Unified School District, Theater Rental Rate Study • City of San Ramon, Planning Fee Study
• City of Tracy, Citywide User Fee Study and Internal Service Fund Rates Analysis
• City of Tustin, Citywide User Fee Study
• City of Yorba Linda, Citywide Fee Study

TEAM RESUME
LAUREN GUIDO | Consultant
“Lauren was terrific in
helping to deliver this
project for us. She
took the time to dive
into the more
technical and detailed
aspects of a very
unique subject
area, kept the project
moving, and was in
constant
communication with
us as the client.

Would love to work
with her again on any
project.”
Raoul Mendoza, Chief
Management Analyst, Los
Angeles City Planning

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 14
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Approval of a First Amendment to Agreement between the City of Covina and Glendora Employment Agency, Inc.

Presented By: Anita Agramonte, Administrative Services Director Theresa Franke, Finance Manager
Recommendation: Authorize City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Professional Service Agreement with Glendora Employment Agency, Inc. to provide temporary staffing services.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In order to ensure adequate staff for customer service, payment processing, and other departmental needs, it is necessary that the Finance Division obtain temporary staff services.

BACKGROUND:

On January 10, 2022, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement ("PSA") for temporary staffing services with Glendora Employment Agency, Inc. ("Consultant") in an amount not to exceed $24,999. At that time the department had a vacant Account Clerk position and Payroll Technician position. Additionally, several staff members were affected by COVID. Temporary staffing was needed to continue to provide esential services to our customers while recruiting to fill the vacant positions.

DISCUSSION:

The Payroll Technician has been filled with and internal candidate, resulting in an additional Account Clerk vacancy. Additionally, the Finance Management Analyst has transferred to the Public Works Department, resulting in an additional vacancy. To accommodate continued staffing requirements due to staff vacancies, staff recommends increasing Consultant's contract "not to exceed" amount from $24,999 to $100,000 and changing the contract's expiration date from January 9, 2023 to April 18, 2023, while continuing to work to fill the vacant positions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As a result of vacancies in currently budgeted positions, sufficient funds are available in the Water and General funds to cover the cost of the necessary temporary staffing.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Glendora Employment Agency First Amendment Respectfully submitted,

1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COVINA AND GLENDORA EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC.

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 19, 2022 by and between the City of Covina, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”), and Glendora Employment Agency, Inc., a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. This FIRST Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
a. On January 10, 2022, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement for temporary staffing services in an amount not to exceed $24,999. The term of the Agreement was to expire January 9, 2023 unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 13 of the Agreement.
b. The parties now desire to increase the contract amount not to exceed $100,000 and to extend the term of the Agreement to be effective through April 18, 2023 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.

2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled “TERM OF AGREEMENT” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date through April 18, 2023, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 13 of this Agreement.”

3. Paragraph A of Section 2 of the Agreement entitled “COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows:
“A. Compensation. As full compensation for Consultant’s hourly temporary staffing services provided under this Agreement, City shall pay Consultant a sum not to exceed One-Hundred-Thousand ($100,000) (the “maximum compensation”), based on the rates set forth in the Approved Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Any terms in Exhibit A, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void.”

4. Exhibit “A” to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment “A” to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.

5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

The parties, through their duly authorized representatives, are signing this FIRST Amendment on the date stated in the introductory clause.

2 City:

City of Covina,
a California municipal corporation
By:

Name: Chris Marcarello
Title: City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

Name: Nicole Alverez
Title: Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Name: Candice K. Lee
Title: City Attorney
Consultant:

Glendora Employment Agency,
a California Corporation
By:

Name: Theresa Latasa Mumma
Title: President/CEO
By:

Name: Barbara Latasa
Title: Vice President
(Two signatures of corporate officers required
for corporations under Corporations Code
Section 313, unless corporate documents
authorize only one person to sign this
Agreement on behalf of the corporation.)

ATTACHMENT A
Displayed below and incorporated herein is Exhibit A reflecting the amended cost as provided by the Consultant.

EXHIBIT A

APPROVED FEE SCHEDULE
Description Bill Rate
Temporary Staff Placement (Reg Hours & OT Hours) Employee’s pay rate** + 57% of pay rate Temporary Staff - Sick Pay* Employee’s pay rate + 25% of pay rate Background Check Fee $55.00/each
TOTAL CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000
City may hire, without incurring additional fees, assigned staff once that staff member has completed 520 hours of service on assignment to the City. *Employee eligible for maximum 24 hours/year after 90 days of placement. Accrual calculated at the rate of 1 hour sick accrual for every 30 hours worked. **Payrate to be mutually agreed upon by City and Consultant prior to placement/rate changes

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CC 15
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Letter of Opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1044 (Durazo) Presented By: Angel Carrillo, Deputy City Manager
Recommendation: Direct Staff to Prepare a Letter of Opposition to SB 1044 (Durazo) for the Mayor's Signature.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

Cal Cities and numerous organizations including Chambers of Commerce across the state are opposing SB 1044 due to the potential negative impacts to cities as well as private companies. Mayor Pro Tem Walt Allen requested this letter be prepared and brought to the Council to consider sending a letter from the City in opposition to SB 1044.

DISCUSSION:

SB 1044 has potential negative impacts to the City and our ability to respond to an emergency event. When responding to a disaster, the City has an all-hands-on deck approach where employees could be reassigned based on the needs of the City. This bill would make it difficult to plan and organize an emergency response when employees can choose to walk off the job or not show up. At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Allen a letter has been prepared on behalf of the City in opposition to SB 1044 for your consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - SB 1044 Letter of Opposition from Organizations Attachment B - SB 1044 Letter of Opposition from City of Covina Respectfully submitted,

March 15, 2022
The Honorable Maria Elena Durazo
California State Senate
1021 O St., Ste. 7530
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: SB 1044 (DURAZO) NATURAL DISASTERS: RETALIATION OPPOSE- AS INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 15, 2022
Dear Senator Durazo:

The California Chamber of Commerce and the organizations listed below respectfully OPPOSE your SB 1044. If SB 1044 were in effect right now, any employed Californian could refuse to show up to work today, regardless of the health and safety precautions taken by their employers. The breadth of the bill would cripple emergency response, ignores existing protections, and undermines Cal/OSHA’s existing health and safety procedures.

Existing Cal/OSHA Regulations and State and Federal Laws Include Substantial Safety Protections, Provide Employees the Right to a Safe Workplace, and Protect Employees from Retaliation If Those Laws Are Violated
Workers have significant protections under current law, including a right to refuse dangerous work. All California employers have a legal duty to ensure that the place of employment is safe and healthful.

Employers may not require workers to be at a location that is not safe or healthful and must do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.1 Across industries and workplaces, employers must at a minimum have 1) an Emergency Action Plan, 2) Fire Prevention Plan, and 3) Injury and Illness Prevention Program.2
1 See, e.g., Labor Code Sections 6400, et seq.
2 See 8 CCR 3220; 8 CCR 3221; 8 CCR 3203.

In addition, Cal/OSHA has many hazard-specific regulations which address the issues underlying recent states of emergency in California, including: wildfire smoke, outdoor heat, COVID-19, and Cal/OSHA will soon be issuing regulations specific to indoor heat.3 Specific industries like hospitals or those dealing with electrical equipment are subject to their own additional health and safety standards. These standards were prepared by Cal/OSHA’s workplace safety experts in consultation with affected stakeholders. More importantly – these regulations address the underlying workplace hazards, meaning that an employee is already protected from these hazards in all but the most extreme cases. If an employee reasonably believes that their employer has violated any safety laws and that the work creates a real and apparent safety hazard or there is imminent danger of death or serious injury and the employer fails to eliminate the danger, under both California and federal law they can refuse to work.4 They are also protected from retaliation for reporting such conduct.5 Cal/OSHA or a court will evaluate whether there were legal violations or evidence of an unsafe workplace. Further, in 2020, the Legislature made it a crime to require an employee to remain in their place of work if there was a notice to evacuate or leave.6 SB 1044 completely ignores the protections that these regulations already provide in making long-term emergency topics – such as wildfire and heat – safer for California’s workplaces. Instead, this bill just allows workers to walk away regardless of how outdated the state of emergency is or how distant it is from the workplace.

Moreover, any actions taken by the employer would lead to legal perils. An employer who disciplines an employee for leaving the workplace would be subject to a lawsuit and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). And any employer who replaces the worker in order to keep the workplace functioning or to provide time sensitive services might could face a retaliation suit. In other words – SB 1044 gives such broad discretion to employees that if they walk away from a completely safe workplace, the employer could do little in response without risking litigation.

SB 1044 Would Cripple Emergency Response and Actually Reduce Workplace Safety Essential workers are labeled essential for a reason. Their work is vital to a functioning society, especially in times of emergency. Police, firefighters, healthcare workers, couriers, food service workers, agriculture workers and more all provide essential services that others depend on. Some sectors or professions even have legally mandated staffing ratio requirements, such as hospitals. SB 1044 contains no exceptions for those industries. By failing to consider the safety consequences of allowing emergency response personnel to walk-off the job, SB 1044 fails to take into account the safety of the public.

Further, its broad applicability raises safety concerns for other employees in the workplace. SB 1044 does not require workers to give any sort of notice to the employer if they leave or choose not to show up and does not require workers to consider the safety of others in their workplace. In many industries, it is imperative that workers not be left alone while conducting hazardous operations. However, SB 1044’s lack of notice and consideration for interdependent roles in the workplace will reduce workplace safety. As another example – SB 1044 undermines employers’ evacuation plans (under which employees fulfill critical roles in ensuring the safe departure of others employees during a true emergency) by potentially removing key personnel from emergency response procedures without any notice to the employer.

In addition, a blanket prohibition on employers’ ability to restrict use of personal cell phones is also problematic. During an emergency or evacuation, it is often necessary to limit use of cell phones to carry out certain functions or disseminate emergency instructions. An employer may need to place some limitations on the use of cell phones to ensure duties are carried out and that emergency communications can be promptly disseminated.
“Natural Disaster” is Broadly Defined to Encompass States of Emergency That Last for Years 3 See 8 CCR 5141.1; 8 CCR 3395, 8 CCR 3205-3205.4; Heat Illness Prevention Indoors - Advisory Meetings (ca.gov) 4 California Labor Code Section 6311; CFR 1977.12.
5 Labor Code Sections 1102.5, 6310; CFR 1977.12.
6 Labor Code Section 6311.5.

SB 1044 permits employees to not show up for work or to leave unannounced if they “feel unsafe” during a “natural disaster”. The breadth of the scope of the bill is problematic. “Natural disaster” is defined so broadly that it includes any state of emergency, local emergency, or presidential proclamation of major disaster or emergency caused by natural forces. This would encompass essentially every state of emergency.

The issue is that state of emergencies often remain in effect for significant periods of time, long past the time of a pressing emergency. For example, on December 23, 2019, Governor Newsom terminated more than 70 ongoing states of emergency that had been declared at various times over the last decade, from January 27, 2011 to November 30, 2018. Just last month, on February 25, 2022, the Governor issued an executive order terminating twelve ongoing states of emergency, some dating back to 2015. Those states of emergency ranged from heat waves to civil unrest to fires to gas leaks.

The March 4, 2020, COVID-19 State of Emergency provides an important example of how SB 1044 would operate if in effect today. That state of emergency remains in place - despite considerable improvement in California’s COVID-19 status. Presently, we are at the lowest COVID-19 positivity rate since Summer 2021.

The California Department of Public Health and Governor have deemed it safe for both adults and children to forego masks, regardless of vaccination status. We have a vaccination rate of 70%, with some cities above 90%. Despite these improvements, under SB 1044, every single employee in California would have the right to walk out of work or stay home indefinitely simply because the March 4th state of emergency is still in place. All they have to do is say they feel unsafe. Nothing else is needed. It is irrelevant whether the employer is following all rules set forth by Cal/OSHA or the Labor Code to address the cause of the state of emergency, whether personnel are needed to provide emergency services to the public, or even if the employer has even gone above and beyond those requirements.

Further complicating matters – as explained above, employers would face a retaliation claim if they try to replace that worker or change their duties as a result of their departure. Even if it was unreasonable for the employee to claim they feel unsafe, it would cost the employer thousands of dollars to prove that in court.

SB 1044 Undermines DOSH’s Scope of Enforcement and Delays Resolution Because It Bypasses PAGA Procedures for Alleged Violations of Workplace Safety Laws A PAGA plaintiff alleging a violation of a health and safety statute under any provision of Division 5 of the Labor Code must first give notice to the Division of Occupational Health and Safety (DOSH), which is then required to investigate the allegations within a matter of days. 7 If DOSH issues a citation or takes action,
no lawsuit may proceed. If not, the employee may proceed with the lawsuit. This ensures that DOSH is kept aware of all workplace safety issues and unsafe employers are swiftly issued a citation. Importantly, that process is different than the notice process for all other PAGA claims. For any other Labor Code violation, notice is provided only to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA). The LWDA is not required to investigate, so plaintiffs usually promptly file a court case.

Because SB 1044 adds a section to Division 2 of the Labor Code, it bypasses the DOSH notice and investigation process – despite SB 1044 being focused on workplace safety. This undermines the Legislature’s intent that DOSH enforce health and safety standards and that a citation promptly be issued rather than pursing a lengthy court case. Instead, SB 1044 allows private attorneys to profit by bringing a court case without investigation of the claims and delays correction of the safety issue.

Data demonstrates that workers are worse off when they pursue a PAGA claim instead of state enforcement. Instead of an immediate citation being issued against the employer, the average PAGA plaintiff waits 18 months for resolution of their case. Private attorneys commonly walk away with 33% of the total agreed-to settlement, while workers and the state get very little. As the LWDA itself has acknowledges, 7 Labor Code Section 2699.3(b).

seventy-five percent of PAGA settlements “receive[] a grade of fail or marginal pass, reflecting the failure of many private plaintiffs’ attorneys to fully protect the interests of the aggrieved employees and the state.” (emphasis added).8 For that reason, SB 1044 should not bring PAGA into workplace safety, where the legislature has instead intended claims be first investigated by DOSH.

For these and other reasons, we respectfully OPPOSE your SB 1044.

Sincerely,
Ashley Hoffman
Policy Advocate
California Chamber of Commerce
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Auburn Chamber of Commerce
Brea Chamber of Commerce
California Assisted Living Association
California Association of Health Facilities
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Farm Labor Contractor Association
California Grocers Association
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Hospital Association
California Lodging Industry Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses
Construction Employers’ Association
Corona Chamber of Commerce
CAWA - Representing the Automotive Parts Industry and Auto Care Association El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce
Flasher Barricade Association
Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce
Fremont Chamber of Commerce
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Glendora Chamber of Commerce
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber
Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce
La Cañada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce
League of California Cities
Lodi Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
8 2019 Budget Change Proposal, PAGA Unit Staffing Alignment, 7350-110-BCP-2019-MR

Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business
Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
San Marcos Chamber of Commerce
San Ramon Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
West Ventura County Business Alliance
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Growers Association
Wine Institute
cc: Legislative Affairs, Office of the Governor
AH:am

UPDATED

JOB KILLER
April 1, 2022
TO: Members, Senate Committee on Appropriations
SUBJECT: SB 1044 (DURAZO) STATE OF EMERGENCY: RETALIATION OPPOSE/JOB KILLER- AS AMENDED MARCH 23, 2022
The California Chamber of Commerce and the organizations listed below respectfully OPPOSE your SB 1044, which has been labeled as a JOB KILLER. If SB 1044 were in effect right now, any employed Californian could refuse to show up to work today, regardless of the health and safety precautions taken by their employers. The breadth of the bill would cripple emergency response, ignores existing protections, and undermines Cal/OSHA’s current health and safety procedures.

Existing Cal/OSHA Regulations and State and Federal Laws Include Substantial Safety Protections, Provide Employees the Right to a Safe Workplace, and Protect Employees from Retaliation If Those Laws Are Violated
Workers have significant protections under current law, including a right to refuse dangerous work. All California employers have a legal duty to ensure that the place of employment is safe and healthful.

Employers may not require workers to be at a location that is not safe or healthful and must do everything reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of employees.1 Across industries and workplaces, employers must at a minimum have 1) an Emergency Action Plan, 2) Fire Prevention Plan, and 3) Injury and Illness Prevention Program.2
In addition, Cal/OSHA has many hazard-specific regulations which address the issues underlying recent states of emergency in California, including: wildfire smoke, outdoor heat, COVID-19, and Cal/OSHA will soon be issuing regulations specific to indoor heat.3 Specific industries like hospitals or those dealing with electrical equipment are subject to their own additional health and safety standards. These standards were prepared by Cal/OSHA’s workplace safety experts in consultation with affected stakeholders. More importantly – these regulations address the underlying workplace hazards, meaning that an employee is already protected from these hazards in all but the most extreme cases. If an employee reasonably believes that their employer has violated any safety laws and that the work creates a real and apparent safety hazard or there is imminent danger of death or serious injury and the employer fails to eliminate the danger, under both California and federal law the employee can refuse to work.4 They are also protected from retaliation for reporting such conduct.5 After such a report, Cal/OSHA or a court will evaluate whether there were legal violations or evidence of an unsafe workplace. Further, in 2020, the Legislature made it a crime to require an employee to remain in their place of work if there was a notice to evacuate or leave.6 SB 1044 completely ignores the protections that these regulations already provide in making long-term emergency topics – such as wildfire and heat – safer for California’s workplaces. Instead, this bill just allows workers to walk away. While the most recent amendments do attempt to limit the scope of the bill, they have little impact. Specifically, because the determination of whether a state of emergency or emergency condition is “imminent and ongoing” is left to the employee’s subjective standards, the bill still renders these existing regulations meaningless.

Moreover, any actions taken by the employer to address an employee leaving the worksite would lead to legal perils. An employer who disciplines an employee for leaving the workplace would be subject to a lawsuit and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). And any employer who replaces the worker in order to keep the workplace functioning or to provide time sensitive services might could face a retaliation suit. In other words – SB 1044 gives such broad discretion to employees that if they walk away from a completely safe workplace, the employer could do little in response without risking litigation.

SB 1044 Would Cripple Emergency Response and Actually Reduce Workplace Safety Essential workers are labeled essential for a reason. Their work is vital to a functioning society, especially in times of emergency. Police, firefighters, healthcare workers, couriers, food service workers, agriculture workers and more all provide essential services that others depend on and aid emergency response. Some sectors or professions even have legally mandated staffing ratio requirements, such as hospitals. SB 1044 contains no exceptions for those industries. By failing to consider the safety consequences of allowing emergency response personnel to walk-off the job, SB 1044 fails to take into account the safety of the public.
1 See, e.g., Labor Code Sections 6400, et seq.
2 See 8 CCR 3220; 8 CCR 3221; 8 CCR 3203.
3 See 8 CCR 5141.1; 8 CCR 3395, 8 CCR 3205-3205.4; Heat Illness Prevention Indoors - Advisory Meetings (ca.gov) 4 California Labor Code Section 6311; CFR 1977.12.
5 Labor Code Sections 1102.5, 6310; CFR 1977.12.
6 Labor Code Section 6311.5.

Further, its broad applicability raises safety concerns for other employees in the workplace. For example, SB 1044 undermines employers’ evacuation plans (under which employees fulfill critical roles in ensuring the safe departure of other employees during a true emergency) by potentially removing key personnel from emergency response procedures.

In addition, a blanket prohibition on employers’ ability to restrict use of personal cell phones is also problematic. During an emergency or evacuation, it is often necessary to limit use of cell phones to carry out certain functions or disseminate emergency instructions. An employer may need to place some limitations on the use of cell phones to ensure duties are carried out and that emergency communications can be promptly disseminated.
“State of Emergency” is Broadly Defined to Encompass States of Emergency That Last for Years SB 1044 permits employees to not show up for work or to leave unannounced if they “feel unsafe” during a “state of emergency” or “emergency condition”. The March 23, 2022 amendments do not sufficiently limit the definition of “state of emergency.” “State of emergency” includes any state of emergency, local emergency, or presidential proclamation of major disaster or emergency caused by natural forces in the county where the worker lives or works. However, many states of emergency are statewide and therefore affect every county.

States of emergency often remain in effect for significant periods of time, long past the time of a pressing emergency. For example, on December 23, 2019, Governor Newsom terminated more than 70 ongoing states of emergency that had been declared at various times over the last decade, from January 27, 2011 to November 30, 2018. Just last month, on February 25, 2022, the Governor issued an executive order terminating twelve ongoing states of emergency, some dating back to 2015. Those states of emergency ranged from heat waves to civil unrest to fires to gas leaks.

The March 23 amendments provide that “[t]his section is not intended to apply when an official state of emergency remains in place but emergency conditions that pose an imminent and ongoing risk of harm to the workplace, the worker, or the worker’s home have ceased.” The issue is that it is up to the employee to subjectively decide what is imminent and ongoing. A fire that is largely under control may still be producing smoke. Regardless of whether Cal/OSHA has deemed it safe to work in a specific AQI, the employee could refuse to report to work.

The March 4, 2020, COVID-19 State of Emergency provides an important example of how SB 1044 would operate once a state of emergency is declared. That state of emergency remains in place after two years - despite considerable improvement in California’s COVID-19 status. Presently, we are at the lowest COVID19 positivity rate since Summer 2021. The California Department of Public Health and Governor have deemed it safe for both adults and children to forego masks, regardless of vaccination status. We have a vaccination rate of 74.5%7, with some cities above 90%. Despite these improvements, under SB 1044, every single employee in California would have the right to walk out of work or stay home indefinitely simply because the March 4th state of emergency is still in place or because the employee subjectively believes that it qualifies as an “emergency condition”. All they have to do is say they feel unsafe. Nothing else is needed. It is irrelevant whether the employer is following all rules set forth by Cal/OSHA or the Labor Code to address the cause of the state of emergency or emergency condition, whether personnel are needed to provide emergency services to the public, or even if the employer has even gone above and beyond those requirements.

Further complicating matters – as explained above, employers would face a retaliation claim if they try to replace that worker or change their duties as a result of their departure. Even if it was unreasonable for the employee to claim they feel unsafe, it would cost the employer thousands of dollars to prove that in court. 7 This reflects the percentage of the population that is eligible for vaccination and is vaccinated.

SB 1044 Undermines DOSH’s Scope of Enforcement and Delays Resolution Because It Bypasses PAGA Procedures for Alleged Violations of Workplace Safety Laws A PAGA plaintiff alleging a violation of a health and safety statute under any provision of Division 5 of the Labor Code must first give notice to the Division of Occupational Health and Safety (DOSH), which is then required to investigate the allegations within a matter of days. 8 If DOSH issues a citation or takes action,
no lawsuit may proceed. If not, the employee may proceed with the lawsuit. This ensures that DOSH is kept aware of all workplace safety issues and unsafe employers are swiftly issued a citation. Importantly, that process is different than the notice process for all other PAGA claims. For any other Labor Code violation, notice is provided only to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA). The LWDA is not required to investigate, so plaintiffs usually promptly file a court case.

Because SB 1044 adds a section to Division 2 of the Labor Code, it bypasses the DOSH notice and investigation process – despite SB 1044 being focused on workplace safety. This undermines the Legislature’s intent that DOSH enforce health and safety standards and that a citation promptly be issued rather than pursing a lengthy court case. Instead, SB 1044 allows private attorneys to profit by bringing a court case without investigation of the claims and delays correction of the safety issue.

Data demonstrates that workers are worse off when they pursue a PAGA claim instead of state enforcement. Instead of an immediate citation being issued against the employer, the average PAGA plaintiff waits 18 months for resolution of their case. Private attorneys commonly walk away with 33% of the total agreed-to settlement, while workers and the state get very little. As the LWDA itself has acknowledges, seventy-five percent of PAGA settlements “receive[] a grade of fail or marginal pass, reflecting the failure of many private plaintiffs’ attorneys to fully protect the interests of the aggrieved employees and the state.” (emphasis added).9 For that reason, SB 1044 should not bring PAGA into workplace safety, where the legislature has instead intended claims be first investigated by DOSH.

For these and other reasons, we respectfully OPPOSE your SB 1044 as a Job Killer.

Sincerely,
Ashley Hoffman
Policy Advocate
California Chamber of Commerce
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
American Composites Manufactures Association
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Auburn Chamber of Commerce
Auto Care Association
Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
Brea Chamber of Commerce
California Apartment Association
California Assisted Living Association
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Association of Health Facilities
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Chamber of Commerce
8 Labor Code Section 2699.3(b).
9 2019 Budget Change Proposal, PAGA Unit Staffing Alignment, 7350-110-BCP-2019-MR

California Farm Bureau Federation
California Farm Labor Contractor Association
California Grocers Association
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Hmong Chamber of Commerce
California Hospital Association
California League of Food Producers
California Lodging Industry Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Railroads
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce
Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses
Construction Employers’ Association
Corona Chamber of Commerce
CAWA - Representing the Automotive Parts Industry and Auto Care Association El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce
Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce
Flasher Barricade Association
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce
Fremont Chamber of Commerce
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Glendora Chamber of Commerce
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce
Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
La Cañada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce
League of California Cities
Lodi Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business
Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Oroville Chamber of Commerce
Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Chamber of Commerce
San Marcos Chamber of Commerce
San Ramon Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Tulare Chamber of Commerce
United Chamber Advocacy Network
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
West Ventura County Business Alliance
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Growers Association
Wine Institute
Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce
cc: Legislative Affairs, Office of the Governor
Robert Ingenito, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Fernando Ramirez, Office of Senator Durazo
Cory Botts, Senate Republican Caucus
AH:am

Draft

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CPH 1
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Adoption of Resolution CC 2022-41 for the Intention of Vacation of Portion of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and Third Avenue and a Public Alley located East Side of 141 West Geneva Place
Presented By: Brian Lee, Community Development Director Andy Bullington, Director of Public Works
Rafael M. Fajardo, City Engineer
Recommendation: Adopt City Resolution CC 2022-41 declaring its intention and order the vacation of approximately 417 lineal feet of the portion of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and Third Avenue and the Public Alley approximately 20 feet by 157 feet, located East of 141 West Geneva Place.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

In June 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution CC 2020-55 approving the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 73661 and Site Plan Review (SPR) 16-028 for a residential and commercial mixed-use project. The City Council approval included the intention to vacate a portion of Geneva Place and the public alley. The portion of the public street, Geneva Place, requested for vacation is approximately 60 lineal feet in width and 417 lineal feet in length, and 25,020 square feet of land area. The alley is approximately 20 lineal feet in width and 157 lineal feet in length, and 3,140 square feet in land area. Geneva Place enables vehicular access between Citrus Avenue and 3rd Avenue, however, the alley is not being used and is blocked off from any vehicular access. Exhibit A of the attached Resolution show the proposed vacation of the street and alley. Geneva Place from Citrus Avenue to Third Avenue presently contains an eight-inch sanitary sewer main, underground utilities, overhead Edison transmitting lines, phones cables, water main and others. City staff is working with the affected utility companies to relocate facilities prior to beginning of construction of the mixed-use project or abandon them in place.

DISCUSSION:

Streets and Highways Code Section 8300-8349 provides the means for the City to vacate street right of way.

Government Code Section 65402 requires that the Planning Commission make a finding that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City’s General Plan. On July 24, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-021 PC, and made the finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan per Government Code Section 65405.

A street vacation request involve a two-step process. The City Council’s adoption of Resolution CC 2020-55 met the first step, which is the intent to vacate the portion of Geneva Place and the public alley. The second step is for the City Council to adopt another resolution to vacate the street and alley property. The City may vacate a street or alley if the City determines the need for the general public to travel upon it, the City to operate and maintain it, or utilities to place their facilities with it no longer exists. The 60 feet wide and approximate 417 feet long segment of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and Third Avenue exists primarily as short cut to access Third Avenue and Citrus Avenue. The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan does not show this segment of Geneva Place as an essential roadway for circulation purposes, nor does it appear that the proposed vacation will result in a diversion or modification of existing patterns. The City may vacate the street by restraining easement rights to construct or maintain facilities within the area such sewers, storm drains, water main, etc., if such needs would continue to exist.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact
CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under CEQA in accordance with Title 14, Chapter 3, Class 1, Sections 15301 and 15302. This exemption includes the minor alteration of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.

The project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Resolution CC 2022-41 Geneva Place
Respectfully submitted,

RESOLUTION CC 2022-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA,

CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION AND ORDER THE
VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 417 LINEAL FEET OF THE

PORTION OF GENEVA PLACE BETWEEN CITRUS AVENUE AND
THIRD AVENUE AND THE PUBLIC ALLEY APPROXIMATELY 20
FEET BY 157 FEET, LOCATED EAST OF 141 WEST GENEVA PLACE WHEREAS, the City of Covina is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Covina has been requested to vacate the portion of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and Third Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Covina is responsible for maintaining a transportation and traffic circulation system for the City of Covina; and WHEREAS, the portion of Geneva Place between Citrus Avenue and Third Avenue as indicated on Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” attached is not an essential or integral part of said transportation network; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Covina adopted Resolution 2018-021 PC, and found the proposed vacation of portion of Geneva Place from Citrus Avenue to Third Avenue in conformity with the Circulation Element of the adopted General Plan of the City of Covina as required by Section 65402 of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, the City Council of the City of Covina adopted Resolution CC 2020-55, and approved the intention to vacate a portion of Geneva Place and the public alley relating to the Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 73661 and Site Plan Review (SPR) 16-028 for a residential and commercial mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Examiner newspaper, setting the date, place and time for public hearing for all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. The public hearing notice was published twice on September 30, 2021 and October 7, 2021; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed street and alley vacation was posted conspicuously not less than 3 locations along the said strip of land along Geneva Place for at least two (2) weeks before the date of said hearing. Said notices were posted not more than 300 feet apart; and WHEREAS, The City Council opened the public hearing on October 16, 2021, and continued to the public hearing to November 2, 2021, November 16, 2021, December 21, 2021 January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 15, and April 19, 2022 at the request of staff. On April 19, 2022 the City Council considered the proposed vacation of a portion of the Geneva Place and the public alley, at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed street vacation prior to and at the public hearing; and

Resolution CC 2022-41 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby elect to proceed in vacating the portion of Geneva Place from Citrus Avenue to 3rd Avenue pursuant to Section 8320, et seq., of the California Streets and Highway Code.

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby declare its intention to vacate the portion of Geneva Place from Citrus Avenue to 3rd Avenue in the City of Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as legally described on Exhibit “A” and “Exhibit B” attached and made part hereof. The City Council further declare that all underlying utilities easements shall remain, and that the City of Covina reserve the authority to require additional underground and overhead easements.

SECTION 3. A map of the proposed vacation is on file with the City Clerk of the City of Covina. Reference is hereby made to said map for particulars as to the proposed vacation.

SECTION 4. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute this Resolution on behalf of the City of Covina and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall forthwith cause this Resolution to be published as required by the California Streets and Highways Code.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the Book of Original Resolutions.

APPROVED and PASSED this 19th day of April, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

PATRICIA CORTEZ, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Resolution CC 2022-41 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Resolution CC 2022-41 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Covina at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
_______________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Resolution CC 2022-41 Exhibit A

Resolution CC 2022-41 Exhibit B

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. PH 1
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Ordinance 22-05 Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in Accordance with Assembly Bill 481
Presented By: David Povero, Chief of Police
Recommendation: Waive full reading, read by title only, and introduce for first reading Ordinance 22-05, entitled " Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy in Accordance with Assembly Bill 481.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

The California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”), adding sections 7070 et seq. to the Government Code (GC). GC section 7071(a)(2) requires any local law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment defined by GC section 7070(c) acquired prior to January 1, 2022 to adopt a military equipment use policy. The military equipment use policy requirement is intended to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight surrounding the acquisition and use of military equipment by the Covina Police Department (CPD). The CPD currently possesses equipment that qualifies under the definition of military equipment pursuant to GC section 7070(c). This equipment was acquired through the LESO-1033 Program and/or from law enforcement equipment private manufacturers and/or vendors. The CPD wishes to continue to use such equipment in a responsible manner that continues to ensure the safety of its personnel, residents and the overall community in order to carry out the mission of the Department.

DISCUSSION:

The Covina Police Department recognizes the military equipment use policy will increase transparency, accountability and oversight of equipment necessary for the Department to carry out its law enforcement responsibilities. Equipment listed in the accompanying policy has been acquired and used within the Department for law enforcement purposes prior to the enactment of AB 481. Maintaining our current equipment inventory, acquiring replacement equipment and acquiring new equipment not listed in the attached inventory will be an ongoing discussion or interaction with the City Council of the City of Covina and its residents on an annual basis.

As required by AB 481, the DRAFT policy (706) was posted on the Covina Police Department Website on March 15, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the introduction of Ordinance 22-05.

CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT):

None
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Ordinance 22-05 Military Equipment Policy Respectfully submitted,

ORDINANCE 22-05

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 481
WHEREAS, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”), adding sections 7070 et seq. to the Government Code. Government Code section 7071(a)(2) requires any local law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment defined by Government Code section 7070(c) acquired prior to January 1, 2022 to adopt a military equipment use policy; and
WHEREAS, the military equipment use policy requirement is intended to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight surrounding the acquisition and use of military equipment by state and local law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 7071, a military equipment use policy must be enacted prior to engaging in other related activities, including: requesting military equipment made available by the federal government; seeking funds for military equipment; acquiring military equipment; collaborating with other law enforcement agencies legally using military equipment; use military equipment for a purpose not previously approved by the City Council; solicit a proposal or enter into an agreement related to acquisition or use of military equipment; or any other acquisition of military equipment; and WHEREAS, the Covina Police Department currently possesses equipment that qualifies under the definition of military equipment pursuant to Government Code section 7070(c), and wishes to continue to use such equipment in a responsible manner that continues to ensure the safety of the community and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed military equipment use policy is necessary in order to continue use of such equipment for the purpose of protecting the safety of officers and civilians in the City of Covina; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071, the Covina Police Department posted a copy of the proposed military equipment use policy on the Covina Police Department’s website on March 15, 2022, which was more than 30 days prior to the April 19, 2022 Council meeting. The proposed Ordinance and proposed military equipment use policy were presented and introduced to the City Council at the public meeting held on April 19, 2022, at which time the public had the opportunity to comment on the proposed Ordinance and proposed military equipment use policy.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals above are true and correct.

Ordinance 22-05 Page 2 of 3
SECTION 2. Findings. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council considered the adoption of this Ordinance at a regular, public meeting on April 19, 2022, and based on the findings above, the Agenda Report, the information provided to the City Council at the public meeting, and the record thereof, the City Council hereby determines and makes the following findings:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and
(C) In the instance military equipment is purchased or acquired, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7071, the City Council hereby adopts the Military Equipment Use Policy as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 4. Prior Ordinances Repealed. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, all former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance and Exhibit “A” herein adopted by reference, and any other ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed and declared to be of no further force and effect.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published as required by law, in a local weekly newspaper of general circulation and which is hereby designated for that purpose.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ___ day of ____, 2022.

City of Covina, California
BY:

PATRICIA CORTEZ, Mayor

Ordinance 22-05 Page 3 of 3
ATTEST:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________
CANDICE K. LEE, City Attorney

CERTIFICATION
I, Georgianna Nicole Alvarez, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Covina, do hereby certify that Ordinance 22-05 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting on the 19th day of April, 2022. Thereafter, said Ordinance was duly approved and adopted at a [regular/special] meeting of said City Council on the _____ day of ______, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Dated:
___________________________________________

GEORGIANNA NICOLE ALVAREZ
Chief Deputy City Clerk

Ordinance 22-05 Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY

Policy
706
Covina Police Department
Covina PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Covina Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1 Military Equipment
706.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
706.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The City Council of the City of Covina, which oversees the Department.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

Covina Police Department
Covina PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Covina Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2 706.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Covina Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 706.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Covina Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
706.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:

See attachment: CA Covina PD - Equipment Inventory Attachment.pdf 706.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):

Covina Police Department
Covina PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Covina Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3 (a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 706.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 706.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 706.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
706.9 MECHANISM TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
The Chief of Police will designate a military equipment coordinator per policy section 706.3 who will be responsible with compliance with this policy. The military equipment coordinator will conduct an annual audit of equipment listed in the inventory. This audit will include a review of personnel associated with the research, purchasing and use of equipment covered within this policy.

Covina Police Department
Covina PD Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Covina Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 4 The Chief of Police will also appoint an independent person(s) who will have oversight authority of this annual audit/review. The audit/review will be presented to the Chief of Police for his/her review. The Chief of Police or his/her designee will be notified of any policy violations and, if applicable, the violation(s) will be referred to the Internal Affairs Unit and handled in accordance with Department Policy Section 1011 (Personnel Complaints). All instances of non-compliance will be reported to City Council of the City of Covina via the annual military equipment report. 706.9.1 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USAGE ACCOUNTABILITY
The use of military equipment is subject to individual Department Policies and Procedures and is restricted for use only in certain instances and in some cases, only by certain units. It is incumbent upon incident commanders, supervisors and individual officers to recognize the specific circumstances wherein military equipment should be employed to enhance the safety of the public and officers and to bring a critical incident to a safe resolution.

Department members are bound to adhere to Department Policies and Procedures, in addition to state and local laws and ordinances when employing the use of the military equipment at any time.

Violations of the law or Department Policies or Procedures may result in criminal or administrative investigations and/or actions.

Administrative Investigations concerning complaints related to military equipment, if applicable, will be conducted in accordance with Department Policy Section 1011 (Personnel Complaints). 706.10 COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
Members of the public may register a complaint, concern and/or submit questions about the use of specific type of military equipment. A complaint, concern and/or or questions should be submitted to the Chief of Police at [email protected]. The Chief of Police or his/her designee will address the complaint or concerns or questions in a timely manner.

Covina PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Covina Police Department ***DRAFT*** Attachments - 5 Attachments

Attachment
Covina PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/15, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Covina Police Department
***DRAFT*** CA Covina PD - Equipment Inventory
Attachment.pdf - 6
CA Covina PD - Equipment Inventory Attachment.pdf
CA Covina PD - Equipment Inventory Attachment.pdf

706.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY (ATTACHMENT)
The following spreadsheet constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
# DEPARTMENT LESO PRO GRAM (Y/N) ACTIVE (Y/N) CO MMO DITY ITEM NAME CO ST Q TY 1 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT PACKBOT 510 WITH FASTAC REMOTELY CONTROLLED VEHICLE $77,000.00 1 2 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT PACKBOT 510 WITH FASTAC REMOTELY CONTROLLED VEHICLE $77,000.00 1 3 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT PACKBOT 510 WITH FASTAC REMOTELY CONTROLLED VEHICLE $77,000.00 1 4 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $187,312.00 1 5 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND-SUGVXM 1216 (PACK BOT) $187,312.00 1 6 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $187,312.00 1 7 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND-SUGVXM 1216 (PACK BOT) $187,312.00 1 8 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND (THROWBOT RECON SCOUT) $12,704.58 1 9 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 10 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 11 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND (THROWBOT RECON SCOUT) $12,704.58 1 12 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 13 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND (THROWBOT RECON SCOUT) $12,704.58 1 14 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 15 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND (THROWBOT RECON SCOUT) $12,704.58 1 16 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 17 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 18 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N GROUND ROBOT UNMANNED VEHICLE,GROUND $12,704.58 1 19 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y ARMORED VEHICLE MRAP (MINE RESISTENT AMBUSH PROTECTED)-ARMORED VEHICLE $658,000.00 1 20 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y ARMORED VEHICLE MAMBA-ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIER VEHICLE $380,000.00 1 21 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y LRAD-SOUND SYSTEM LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC DEVICE (LRAD) PORTABLE SYSTEM UNKNOWN 1 22 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y LRAD-SOUND SYSTEM LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC DEVICE (LRAD) PORTABLE SYSTEM UNKNOWN 1 23 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N LRAD-SOUND SYSTEM LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC DEVICE (LRAD) PORTABLE SYSTEM UNKNOWN 1 24 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y N LRAD-SOUND SYSTEM LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC DEVICE (LRAD) MOUNTED SYSTEM W/UNIT UNKNOWN 1 25 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT Y Y LRAD-SOUND SYSTEM LONG RANGE ACOUSTIC DEVICE (LRAD) MOUNTED SYSTEM W/UNIT UNKNOWN 1 26 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y NFD NOISE FLASH DEVICE (NFD)/RELOADABLE #8901-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $34.41 18 27 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT SPEDE-HEAT #1072-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $31.05 9 28 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT FLAMELESS TRI-CHAMBER #1032-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $38.41 5 29 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT 5230 INDOOR BAFFLED #5230B-CTS (COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS) $49.75 6 30 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y SMOKE MIL/MAX SMOKE #1083-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $36.90 8 31 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y SMOKE SAF-SMOKE # 1063-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $30.70 2 32 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT POCKET TACTICAL #1016-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $26.41 2 33 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT 37MM LIQUID FERRET #1162-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $22.30 15 34 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CN CHEMICAL AGENT 37 MM POWDER FERRET #1191-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $24.70 8 35 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT INSTANTANEOUS BLAST #1042-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $49.82 1 36 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y OC-PEPPER AEROSOL OC (OLEORESIN CAPSICUM) VAPOR #1056-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $47.18 1 37 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CHEMICAL AGENT KIT CROWD CONTROL CHEMICAL AGENT MODULE/KIT- AARDVARK #AARD-10028 $5,800.00 1 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT HAN-BALL CS #1092-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 10 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT SPEDE-HEAT #1072-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 17 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y SMOKE MAX SMOKE LARGE CAN #1073-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 20 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT TRIPLE CHASER GRENEDE #1026-DEFESNSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 10 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT 40MM SKAT-SHELL CS #6172-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 10 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT 40MM LR SPEDE-HEAT CS #6182-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 10 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y CS CHEMICAL AGENT 40MM MUZZLE BLAST ROUND CS #6042-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 10 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y OC-PEPPER MK-9 PEPPER SPRAY OC (OLEORESIN CAPSICUM #5099-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SEE LINE 37 10 38 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 40 MM LAUNCHER-LMT-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $1,200.00 1 39 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 37MM DESIGNATED CNS GAS LAUNCHER-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $400.00 1 40 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 37MM DESIGNATED CNS GAS LAUNCHER-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $400.00 1 41 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y PEPPERBALL PEPPERBALL MUNITIONS (375 COUNT CONTAINER) $796.50 <1100 42 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER PEPPERBALL DESIGNATED LAUNCHER-TIPPMAN 200TX $400.00 1 43 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER PEPPERBALL DESIGNATED LAUNCHER-TIPPMAN 200TX $400.00 1 44 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER PEPPERBALL DESIGNATED LAUNCHER-TIPPMAN 200TX $400.00 1 45 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER PEPPERBALL DESIGNATED LAUNCHER-TIPPMAN 200TX $400.00 1 46 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER PEPPERBALL DESIGNATED LAUNCHER-FTC W/ELECTRIC HOPPER $600.00 1 47 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 40MM DESIGNATED LAUNCHER 1325-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $1,000.00 1 48 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 40MM DESIGNATED LAUNCHER 1325-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $1,000.00 1 49 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 40MM DESIGNATED LAUNCHER 1325-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $1,000.00 1 50 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHER 40MM DESIGNATED LAUNCHER 1325-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $1,000.00 1 51 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y MUNITION 40MM MUNITION SPONGE ROUND #6325-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $21.53 38 52 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y MUNITION BEANBAG MUNITION #3027-12 GAUGE-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $5.53 200 53 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y MUNITION BREACHING MUNITION-12 GAUGE #3105 TKO-DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY $6.59 35 54 CA COVINA POLICE DEPT N Y LAUNCHING DEVICE CTS (COMBINED TACTICAL SYSTEMS) MODEL LC5 TACTICAL LAUNCHER $346.50 2 Military Equipment Inventory per CPD Policy 706.4

The following information pertains to the qualifying equipment on the spreadsheet. Sections entitled description and capabilities, quantity, cost, expected lifespan, purpose, fiscal impact, legal and procedural and training are described further within each category.

Item number 1 through 18 - Ground Robot
Description/Capabilities: The robots are controlled via remote control and powered with a lithium battery. Inventory contains three different models varying in size and ability. These robots are used, not all are operational and are designated as active or non-active. Non-active robots are used for spare parts and/or are placed in reserve status for future use if necessary.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: No initial cost. Acquired through the Law Enforcement Support-LESO/1033 program.

Refer to Attachment. Listed cost is based on US Government initial cost if available.

Expected Lifespan: An active unit’s lifespan is approximately 3-5 years based on routine use, maintenance and parts. A non-active unit is stored for parts and are placed in reserve status.

Purpose: The robots are primarily used by the Department’s tactical team however can be used by all Department personnel. Robots are placed into an area, building, room and other places prior to entry by Department personnel for safety reasons. Robots could be used for natural disaster and/or for non-emergency purposes where risk of entry to an area, building, room and other places exists. All robots have video capability and one model has the ability to move small objects.

Fiscal Impact: The robots were acquired through the LESO program with no initial cost to the Department. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $100.00.

Legal and Procedural: Ground robots equipped with audio equipment (if applicable) may require a search warrant based on use if used for law enforcement purposes. Designated Department personnel have attended training related to this issue.

Training: Training on the robots is done in-house and in a controlled setting and/or environment prior to deployment in the field.

Item number 19 - MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) - Armored Vehicle Description/Capabilities: The MRAP is a four-wheeled armored vehicle made by MAXXPRO.

The vehicle has two side doors, two roof openings and one large rear facing door. The vehicle has air brakes, contains numerous seats inside and several outside storage lockers for equipment.

The vehicle is identified with Department markings, equipped with additional lighting, a unit control system and a police radio.

Quantity: 1

Cost: No initial cost. Acquired through the Law Enforcement Support-LESO/1033 program.

Refer to Attachment. Listed cost is based on US Government initial cost if available.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 7-10 years based on routine use, maintenance and parts availability.

Purpose: The MRAP is used to transport Department personnel, primarily tactical team members, to designated high-risk law enforcement operations. The armor on this vehicle provides protection from firearm projectiles and/or other projectiles. This vehicle can also be used as a rescue vehicle due to its ballistic protection.

Fiscal Impact: The MRAP was acquired from a military base in El Paso, Texas. Two members of the Department traveled to El Paso, Texas and drove the vehicle to Covina, California. Initial cost was airfare, lodging, food, fuel costs and was completed on-duty. There are on-going costs to ensure Class B licensing requirements through a trainer and/or the California DMV which is covered with the annual Department budget which occurs on occasion. Annual maintenance cost of the vehicle is done through a local heavy equipment/vehicle service company which is part of the annual Department budget. Additional equipment, such as tires, have been acquired through the LESO program and are stored at our local heavy equipment/vehicle service company.

Annual cost including fuel is approximately $3,000.000 and is part of the annual Department budget.

Legal and Procedural: Class B licensing requirement except in an emergency situation.

Training: Designated personnel initially completed in-house training with members of the US Military. Designated personnel also attain their California Class B license. Designated personnel have attended specific training on the use of armored vehicles in a law enforcement setting from an outside training source. In-house training occurs on an annual basis.

Item number 20 - MAMBA Armored Personnel Carrier - Armored Vehicle Description/Capabilities: The MAMBA is a four-wheeled armored vehicle made by Reumach OMC. The vehicle has one rear door, two roof openings and numerous seats inside the vehicle.

The vehicle contains several outside lockers for equipment storage and platforms were added to allow personnel to stand alongside the vehicle while in transit. The vehicle is clearly identified with Department markings and equipped with additional lighting, a unit control system and a police radio. This vehicle can also be used as a rescue vehicle due to its ballistic protection.

Quantity: 1
Cost: No initial cost. Acquired through the Law Enforcement Support-LESO/1033 program.

Refer to Attachment. Listed cost is based on US Government initial cost if available.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 1-3 years based on routine use, maintenance and parts availability.

Purpose: The MAMBA is used to transport Department personnel, primarily tactical team members, to designated high-risk law enforcement details. The armor on this vehicle provides protection from firearm projectiles and/or other projectiles. This vehicle can also be used as a rescue vehicle due to its ballistic protection.

Fiscal Impact: The MAMBA was acquired from another law enforcement agency in Los Angeles County that was a part of the LESO program. Initial cost to restore the vehicle for use was done in conjunction with a local auto body company and heavy vehicle/equipment service company which was donated to the Department. On-going costs to ensure Class B licensing requirements through a trainer and/or California DMV which is part of the Department budget occurs on occasion. Annual maintenance of the vehicle is done through a local heavy equipment/vehicle service company which is part of the Department budget. Annual cost including fuel is approximately $6,000.00 and is part of the Department budget.

Legal and Procedural: Class B licensing requirement except in an emergency situation.

Training: Designated personnel initially completed in-house training with members of the US Military. Designated personnel also attain their California Class B license. Designated personnel have also attended training on the use of armored vehicles in a law enforcement setting from an outside training source. Tactical team members conduct designated annual training with this vehicle. All sworn personnel receive basic operations in-house training on this vehicle.

Item number 21 through 25 - LRAD (Long-Range Acoustic Device) Description/Capabilities: The LRAD is a speaker and sound energy system developed by (LRAD Corporation) Genasys.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: No initial cost. Acquired through the Law Enforcement Support-LESO Program/1033 Program. Refer to Attachment. Listed cost is based on US Government initial cost if available.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 20 years based on routine use and maintenance.

Purpose: The LRAD is a speaker system used to communicate commands to an individual and/or a group of individuals. The system has the ability to deliver higher than normal loud sounds over various distances. Portable LRAD devices are often times used at outside training locations to communicate with Department personnel. Designated LRAD devices are placed on armored vehicles and used to communicate to people during tactical operations.

Fiscal Impact: The LRAD device(s) was acquired through the LESO program. Annual cost is approximately $100.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Directive (Policy 16-03).

Training: Designated personnel initially completed in-house training with members of the US Military.

Item number 26 - Noise Flash Device (NFD)
Description/Capabilities: An NFD is a less lethal munition. The NFD used by the Department is reloadable type #8901 by Defense Technology. The NFD is placed into a metal cylindrical shaped body with ports. The metal cylindrical shaped body can be reused based on the manufacturer’s specifications.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: One time use for an NFD. Expiration is based on the Manufacturer’s designated date of manufacture. Metal cylindrical shaped body needs replacement after designated number of deployments per the manufacturer.

Purpose: An NFD is used to facilitate an effective resolution to assaultive or high-risk situations where distracting, disorienting or moving an individual or group of people, to effect an arrest or clear an area is desired.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock. Additional equipment, specifically storage containers designed for NFD storage, and metal cylindrical shaped bodies are purchased through the annual Department budget. Annual cost is approximately $250.00.

Legal and Procedural: Primarily a tactical team deployment munition. Department Policy section 404, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law. These devices are controlled by ATF and a separate usage log is maintained by the Department. Devices are stored in approved storage containers.

Training: Initial training in the use of an NFD generally occurs at the POST certified 80-hour SWAT course. In-house training for designated personnel occurs on an annual basis from trained instructors. Trained instructors also receive additional training from the manufacturer and/or vendor prior to sale of NFD devices to the Department.

Item number 27 through 36 - CS (2-chlorobenzalmalmalononitrile) Gas, CN (chloroacetophenone), Smoke and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) Description/Capabilities: CS gas, CN gas, smoke and OC are encased in metal devices by the manufacturer. CS gas, CN gas, smoke and OC devices are clearly marked and the manufacturer has developed different models which vary in size and method the product is released. The Military Equipment Inventory List contains the manufacturer of the product and model number for each munition. Detailed information on these products is available on the manufacturer’s

internet site. Smoke is not a CS gas, CN gas nor an OC product. Smoke is maintained within this list for inventory purposes only. OC is commonly referred to as pepper spray. Refer to the Military Equipment Inventory List for further information.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: One time use on CS/CN gas and smoke. Expiration on these munitions is based on manufacturer’s date of manufacture. OC lifespan is based on quantity dispersed and manufacturer’s specifications.

Purpose: CS/CN gas, smoke and OC munitions can be used by Department patrol, tactical team and/or Area D personnel for tactical operations. This supply is primarily maintained for tactical team and Area D purposes related to high risk, barricade and/or mobile field force situations.

Smoke can also be used for concealment purposes during tactical operations.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Annual cost is approximately $250.00. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial chemical agent munitions training in the police academy. Additional training is done through in-house training prior to the field officer training program. Tactical team personnel receive training during their 80-hour POST certified SWAT school. Tactical team personnel also receive annual in-house training from trained instructors.

Area D personnel attend annual training from trained instructors. Remaining personnel receive on-going training on an annual basis during firearms training however this training primarily focuses on the deployment of gas masks and an overview of chemical agent munitions.

Item number 37 containing CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile) Gas, Smoke and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum)
Description/Capabilities: Item number 37 is a Crowd Control Chemical Agent Module/Kit assembled by Aardvark Tactical. The three boxes contain Defense Technology CS chemical agents, smoke and OC munitions. The Military Equipment Inventory List contains the manufacturer of the product and model number of each munition. Detailed information on these products is available on the manufacturer’s internet site. Smoke is not a CS gas product nor an OC product. Smoke is maintained within this list for inventory purposes only. OC is commonly referred to as pepper spray. Refer to the Military Equipment List for further information.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: No initial cost. Purchased by a local business. Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: One time use on CS gas and smoke. Expiration based on manufacturer’s designated date of manufacture. OC lifespan is based on quantity dispersed and manufacturer’s specifications.

Purpose: Patrol and tactical operations. Can be used by patrol, tactical team and/or Area D personnel. This module/kit is primarily maintained for Mobile Field Force operations.

Fiscal Impact: Annual cost is approximately $250.00. There will be a cost to replace used and/or expired munitions based on market value of device to be replaced in order to maintain listed purpose. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial chemical agent training in the police academy.

Additional training is done through in-house training prior to the field officer training program.

Tactical team personnel receive additional training during their 80-hour SWAT school. Tactical team personnel receive on-going in-house training from trained instructors. Area D personnel attend annual training on an annual basis from trained instructors. Remaining personnel receive on-going training on an annual basis during firearms training however this training primarily focuses on the deployment of gas masks and an overview of chemical agent munitions.

Item number 38 - 40MM LMT Launcher
Description/Capabilities: The 40MM LMT launcher by Defense Technology is a lightweight single shot 40 MM launcher. The launcher comes equipped with a picatinny rail mounting system with a bead sight which will accept a wide array of enhanced optics or sighting systems.

A sling can be applied and used for carrying purposes.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: No initial cost. Purchased by a local business. Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 25 years based on routine use and maintenance.

Purpose: Launches standard 40MM less lethal munitions for law enforcement purposes in accordance with existing Department policy.

Fiscal Impact: Annual cost is approximately $25.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use

certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial and on-going in-house training on the deployment of the 40MM LMT launcher. Item is similar to Department owned 40MM model 1325 and 37MM launchers.

Item number 39 through 40 - 37MM Launcher
Description/Capabilities: The 37MM launcher is a single shot munitions launcher by Defense Technology. The launcher has a bead sight and a sling can be applied for carrying purposes.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 3-5 years based on routine use and maintenance.

Department is considering phasing this equipment out and replacing it with similar 40MM equipment.

Purpose: Launches standard 37MM less lethal munitions. These launchers are specifically designated to the Tactical Team for 37MM chemical agent deployment.

Fiscal Impact: Item is 20+ years old however operates effectively. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $25.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Designated Department personnel receive initial and on-going in-house training on the deployment of 37MM launcher. It is similar to the 40MM model 1325 and LMT launchers.

Item number 41 - Pepperball
Description/Capabilities: Pepperball PAVA powder projectiles by Pepperball are plastic spheres that are filled with OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) based product. Projectiles are launched from a device commonly referred to as a launcher which is similar to a launcher used to launch paintball products.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Single use. Expiration based on manufacturer’s designated date of manufacture.

Purpose: Patrol and tactical operations. Projectiles can be launched into an area, vehicle and/or at person(s).

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock. Annual cost is approximately $ 750.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial chemical agent training in the police academy.

Additional training is done through in-house training prior to the field officer training program.

Tactical team personnel generally receive additional training during their 80-hour SWAT school.

Tactical team personnel receive on-going in-house training from certified instructors. Area D personnel attend annual training with tactical team personnel on an annual basis from certified instructors. Remaining personnel receive on-going training on an annual basis during firearms training.

Item number 42 through 46 - Pepperball Launcher
Description/Capabilities: A Pepperball launcher is a compressed air propelled less-lethal device used to launch Pepperball munitions. Pepperball munitions are placed in a hopper (storage container) which is attached to the launcher. A sling can be applied for carrying purposes. Refer to Military Equipment List for manufacturer/model information.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 7-10 years based on routine use and maintenance.

Purpose: The launcher is used to deliver desired Pepperball munitions in a patrol and/or tactical operations. Primarily used to deliver Oleoresin Capsicum agent however inert powder and glass breaking projectiles can be deployed in this launcher based on the tactical situation and/or mission.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $200.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial training prior to the field training officer program. Tactical team and Area D personnel receive additional in-house training from trained instructors. Additional training to remaining Department personnel occurs on an annual basis by trained instructors.

Item number 47 through 50 - 40MM Model 1325 Launcher
Description/Capabilities: The 40MM model 1325 is a single-shot launcher by Defense Technology. The launcher comes equipped with a picatinny rail mounting system with a bead sight which will accept a wide array of enhanced optics/sighting systems. A sling can be applied and used for carrying purposes.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 25 years based on routine use and maintenance.

Purpose: Device launches standard 40MM less lethal munitions for law enforcement purposes as a less lethal option.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within annual Department budget. Annual maintenance cost is approximately $100.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial training through in-house training prior to the field officer training program. Department personnel also receive annual in-house training on the deployment of the 40MM launcher. Item is similar to the Department owned 40MM LMT and 37MM launchers.

Item number 51 - 40MM Munition
Description/Capabilities: The model 6325 exact impact 40MM munition by Defense Technology is a high-speed soft round less lethal projectile. The round has a plastic body and a blue colored sponge nose.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Single use.

Purpose: The model 6325 exact impact 40MM projectile can be used in less lethal patrol and tactical situations as a less lethal option. A specialty impact munition to be used as a dynamic, high energy, single target round for incapacitation or the distraction of a non-compliant aggressive subject.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within annual Department budget. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock. Annual cost is approximately $300.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial training through in-house training prior to the field officer training program. Department personnel also receive annual in-house training on the deployment of 40MM projectiles.

Item number 52 - 12 Gauge Bean Bag Munition
Description/Capabilities: The bean bag munition by Defense Technology is a translucent 12- gauge shell loaded with a 40-gram, tear shaped bag made from cotton and ballistic material blend and filled with #9 shot. This design utilizes four stabilizing tails. The round utilizes a smokeless powder as the propellant. The munition is launched from a designated Department owned shotgun (Remington 870 12-gauge).

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Single use.

Purpose: The bean bag munition can be used in less lethal patrol and tactical situations as a less lethal option. A specialty impact munition to be used as a dynamic, high energy, single target round for incapacitation or the distraction of a non-compliant aggressive subject.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock. Annual cost is approximately $300.00.

Legal and Procedural: Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Department personnel receive initial and on-going in-house training on the use of 12- gauge beanbag projectiles from designated Remington 870 12-gauge Department owned shotguns on an annual basis.

Item number 53 - 12 Gauge Breaching Munition
Description/Capabilities: The breaching munition by Defense Technology is a translucent 12- gauge shell loaded with a compressed zinc slug. The munition is launched from a designated Department owned shotgun (Remington 870 12-gauge) with a specialized barrel that contains a serrated front edge or standoff ported device.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Single use.

Purpose: Used as a method to breach door locks or hinges for entry during high-risk law enforcement operations.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Munitions are purchased based on need and/or stock. Annual cost is approximately $100.00.

Legal and Procedural: Primarily a tactical team deployment munition. Department Policy section 404, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Designated Department tactical team personnel receive initial and on-going training on the deployment of 12-gauge breaching munitions from a designated Remington 12-gauge Department owned shotgun with a specialized barrel that contains a serrated front edge or standoff ported device. This training generally occurs at the POST certified 80-hour SWAT school and/or at a designated SWAT breaching course. Tactical team personal also receive annual in-house training.

Item number 54 - Launching Device by CTS (Combined Tactical Systems) Description/Capabilities: The model LC5 tactical launching device by CTS is designed to be affixed to a 12-gauge shotgun. The Department affixes the device to the end of the barrel of a designated Department owned shotgun (Remington 870 12-gauge). A CTS 12-gauge #2600 munition is placed in the shotgun in order to launch CTS 52 series grenades which contain a chemical agent.

Quantity: Refer to Attachment.

Cost: Refer to Attachment.

Expected Lifespan: Approximately 25 years based on routine use and maintenance.

Purpose: The device is used to launch CTS 52 series grenades (ex. CTS 5230b chemical agent munition). Used in conjunction with a 12-gauge shotgun with CTS 12-gauge #2600 munition, CTS 52 series grenades can be loaded into the launching device and launched into a designated area during a tactical and/or mobile field force operation.

Fiscal Impact: Initial cost was covered within the annual Department budget. Annual cost for device including CTS 12-gauge #2600 munition is approximately $100.00.

Legal and Procedural: Primarily a tactical team deployment munition as stated above in the purpose section. Department Policy sections 300, 302, 404, 430, applicable related Department procedures and the law. Penal Code 13652 and related sections. Authority to use certain munitions is based on the Department Policy and procedures considering the tactical operation and the law.

Training: Designated Department tactical team personnel receive training with this device in a certified training chemical agent course. Tactical team personnel receive additional in-house training from trained personnel.

CC Regular Meeting

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ITEM NO. CB 1
Meeting: CC Regular Meeting - Apr 19 2022
Title: Evaluation of Establishment of Local Cannabis Program Presented By: City Council Ad-Hoc Committee on Cannabis Topics Recommendation: That the City Council discuss the work completed by the Ad-Hoc Committee and provide further direction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / BACKROUND:

In November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64 by a 57% majority, which outlines the adult use of cannabis including regulations related to cultivation, manufacturing, testing and retail sales. As a part of these regulations, cities maintain the ability to regulate local businesses, enforce zoning rules, impose taxes and penalize unpermitted uses. State law further requires businesses in this industry to obtain a local permit prior to obtaining a State license.

Cannabis activities are prohibited within Covina (Covina Municipal Code section 17.84.030), with the exception of cannabis that is cultivated at private residences for individual consumption, in compliance with State law.

Despite this, various cannabis businesses have continued to express interest in opening up businesses in the City.

In summer 2020, the City Council requested an update on statewide regulations related to cannabis. This request was prompted by ongoing changes in the regulatory environment, coupled with the observation that a growing number of local agencies have decided to implement local programs. Following its discussion, the Council requested the creation of an Ad-Hoc Committee comprised of two Councilmembers and staff from the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, Police Department and Community Development Department to study the issue further.

In fall 2020, at the recommendation of the Ad-Hoc Committee, the Council approved the completion of a community survey on several topics (including cannabis) to better gauge public feedback on various community issues. Findings were presented to the Council in February 2021 and following its review, the Council provided direction to further evaluate five (5) focus areas related to cannabis programs. A detailed summary of the Ad-Hoc Committee’s evaluation and findings is included in Attachment A.

DISCUSSION:

Since fall 2020, the City Council Ad-Hoc Committee (“Committee”) has worked to study the cannabis industry and learn how other communities have developed local regulatory programs. This work included a robust public engagement process including a public opinion survey, four (4) general outreach workshops and four (4) presentations at City Advisory Commission meetings. The Committee also completed a comprehensive review of local cannabis programs developed in six (6) local agencies, including the cities of Desert Hot Springs, Lake Elsinore, Palm Desert, Pasadena, Port Hueneme and Turlock.

Public safety has been at forefront of the Committee’s review of this topic, including learning about how cannabis businesses integrate with existing businesses, the measures that are used to prevent youth consumption, the measures that are used to address impaired driving and learning about any unintended consequences that have resulted from local programs. Based on its research, the Committee has compiled a list of measures that have been used in other communities to protect public health/safety. Some of these include regular facility inspections, requiring identification cards and background checks for employees, prohibiting onsite consumption, prohibiting gatherings before/after operations, requiring onsite security and surveillance systems, implementing a strict enforcement system to address City code violations, and utilizing public benefit funds to facilitate community health and youth programs, among others.

Additionally, there are several other items for the City Council to consider should it decide to move forward with the development of a local program. Among them include, distance buffers from existing sensitive uses, caps on the number of businesses that would be allowed to operate, the types of businesses that would be allowed to operate, zoning, entitlement processes and fees, and a selection process. The Committee has outlined recommendations related to these items should the Council desire to move forward. Alternatively, the Council may decide to pursue another option or take no further action on the issue. Several options are included below for the Council’s further consideration and discussion.

Option 1 – Continue Existing Prohibition on Commercial Cannabis Activities • Receive and file the Ad-Hoc Committee’s findings and take no further action.

Option 2 – Move Forward with the Development of a Local Program • Consider recommendations developed by Ad-Hoc Committee and provide direction including:
• Authorize City Manager to seek proposals for specialized assistance to complete environmental assessment, management of application/selection process and development of local regulatory program; • Provide direction related to (1) types of cannabis businesses that should be considered for operation in the City, and (2) identify zones where these businesses may be conditionally allowed to operate; • Planning Commission reviews draft ordinance (for local regulatory program and zoning amendments) at future Planning Commission meeting;
• Introduction (first reading) and adoption (second reading) of draft ordinance at City Council meetings; and
• Provide direction and adopt a resolution related to the application/selection process (i.e., RFP/qualification-based selection process, composition of selection committee, criteria used to evaluate applications, etc.) at future City Council meeting.

These steps would be considered at several future meetings Option 3 – Complete Additional Research
• Identify other topics to be reviewed and studied further.

Option 4 – Table Discussion to a Later Date
• Receive and file the Ad-Hoc Committee’s findings and revisit at a later date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with the review of this report. Depending on the direction provided related to this topic, additional appropriations may be necessary to complete work on environmental analyses, oversight of an application/selection process and development of a local regulatory framework. It is anticipated that some of these costs could be offset by applicant fees.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Report - 4-19-22

1 Study of Cannabis Regulations
Formation of a City Council Ad-Hoc Committee
In August 2020, members of the City Council requested an update on cannabis regulations at the State and Federal level and local regulations that have been developed in other communities to permit cannabis businesses. Following discussion, the City Council requested the creation of an Ad-Hoc Committee (“Committee”) comprised of two Councilmembers and staff from the City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, Police Department and Community Development Department. The Ad-Hoc Committee was charged with studying the industry, local programs and providing periodic updates to the City Council.

The Committee met in September and October 2020, and reviewed a range of topics related to cannabis, including federal regulations, state regulations, cannabis business license categories, case studies from other localities in California that have implemented cannabis programs, zoning considerations, public health/safety considerations, business operating regulations and outreach/public engagement strategies to obtain community feedback on the issue.

Public Opinion Community Survey
In October 2020, the Committee returned to the City Council with a recommendation to complete a public opinion community survey on cannabis-related issues and general community topics. The City Council approved this recommendation and awarded a contract to a specialized survey consultant, FM 3 Research Inc. (FM3), to further study and analyze public feedback on these issues. FM3 worked with the Ad-Hoc Committee to develop survey questions on a range of issues, including cannabis topics, general government operations, local infrastructure needs, quality of life topics and response activities to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Survey work was completed in December 2020 and included a random sample of 438 voters in Covina, with a margin of error of +/- 4.9% for the entire sample. The survey also included tracking questions from a previous survey completed by FM3 in 2018 to evaluate how community perspectives have changed on local issues. The survey results were reviewed by the City Council in February 2021 and a summary of questions related to cannabis are included below. (The full survey and analysis are included in Attachment A.)

2 General Cannabis Perceptions
Participants were asked whether they strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose permitting local cannabis businesses, a repeal of the existing ban on cannabis uses and the adoption of more stringent requirements than the State’s guidelines for cannabis businesses.

Additionally, participants were asked whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree that cannabis business will create jobs and help the local economy.

Topic Feedback
Support or Oppose a Proposal to Permit
Cannabis Businesses to Operate in City Limits?
55% Support
40% Oppose
Support or Oppose a Repeal of the City’s
Existing Ban on Adult-Use Cannabis Businesses?
53% Support
39% Oppose
Support or Oppose Adopting More Stringent
Requirements than the State’s Requirements?
57% Support
35% Oppose
Agree or Disagree that Allowing Cannabis
Businesses to Operate in Covina will Create Jobs
and Help our Economy?
60% Agree
35% Disagree
Cannabis Zoning/Locations
Participants were asked whether they strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose various zoning constraints for cannabis businesses.

Topic Feedback
1 Business Location Per 25K Residents 64% Support
30% Oppose
600’ Distance from Schools/Parks 85% Support
11% Oppose
1,000’ Distance from Schools/Parks 72% Support
22% Oppose
Allowing in Commercial/Industrial Areas 71% Support
22% Oppose
Allowing in Downtown Area 44% Support
51% Oppose
Distance of 600’ Between Businesses 63% Support
27% Oppose

3 Cannabis Uses
Participants were asked whether they strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose allowing different types of cannabis uses that are permitted in the State.

Topic Feedback
Manufacturing 53% Support
38% Oppose
Commercial Cultivation for Recreational Use 47% Support 45% Oppose
Commercial Cultivation for Medical Use 53% Support
42% Oppose
Delivery 55% Support
41% Oppose
Business to Business Transport 59% Support
33% Oppose
General Retail 56% Support
40% Oppose
Medical Retail 63% Support
34% Oppose
Prohibit Consumption Onsite 62% Support
36% Oppose
Lab Testing 66% Support
27% Oppose

4 City Council Direction – February 2021
Following its review of the FM3 survey results, the City Council provided direction to further evaluate five (5) recommendations developed by the Committee, including:

1. Conduct additional community outreach to gain feedback on cannabis programs;

2. Review the processes that were used in other communities to establish local cannabis program guidelines and zoning;

3. Engage with public safety representatives in other communities where cannabis programs have been established;

4. Evaluate potential federal legislative efforts related to cannabis;

5. Engage the City’s Planning Commission to further evaluate cannabis programs.

Since this Council direction, the Committee has worked to complete the following tasks:

1. Community Outreach
Public engagement has included four (4) outreach meetings, including three (3) online forums (due to public health restrictions) and one in-person meeting. Approximately eighteen (18) individuals provided feedback at these meetings. Additionally, the Committee provided in-person presentations on the topic of cannabis programs at four (4) City Commission meetings. Each of these Commission meetings were accessible to the general public. A summary of these meetings is included below and a list of comments is included in Attachment B.

Action Item Description
1) Outreach Meeting A zoom outreach forum was held with the community on March 22, 2021.

Ten (10) participants provided public comments (Attachment B). 2) Outreach Meeting A zoom outreach forum was held with the community on March 30, 2021.

No public comments were provided.
3) Outreach Meeting A zoom outreach forum was held with the community on April 15, 2021.

No public comments were provided.
4) Outreach Meeting An in-person outreach forum was held with the community on September 27, 2021 at the Covina City Council Chambers. Eight (8) participants provided public comments (Attachment B).
5) Outreach to City Advisory
Commissions
Presentations were coordinated with each of the City’s Advisory Commissions and are further detailed in Item 5.

5 2. Evaluation of Regulations Used in Other Community Local Cannabis Programs As of the end of 2020, it is estimated that roughly two hundred (200) local jurisdictions in California have developed local cannabis programs. The Committee selected six (6) programs to further study, including a review of zoning/permitting requirements, local health/safety requirements, operating requirements, sensitive use buffers and entitlement processes, among other considerations. These included the cities of Desert Hot Springs, Lake Elsinore, Palm Desert, Pasadena, Port Hueneme and Turlock. A summary of these programs has been compiled in the table below.

Additionally, while researching these programs, the Committee learned of voter initiatives/referendums that have been circulated in other Southern California communities, including Jurupa Valley, Pasadena and the South Bay communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Each of these initiatives were introduced by cannabis industry proponents, seeking to overturn local bans of cannabis activities. Proponents argue that voters in these communities approved the statewide cannabis framework included in Proposition 64, yet local agencies have not moved forward to implement local programs.
• Jurupa Valley: Here, a citizen initiative titled Measure L, passed in November 2018 with support from roughly 54% of registered voters. The Measure was opposed unanimously by the Jurupa Valley City Council. Since approval, the Measure has encountered legal troubles, due to its creation of two applicant categories – priority and non-priority – which some argued helped to create a preferential process for applicants. In 2020, the applicant category system was overturned by a Riverside County judge and the remainder of the Measure was held in tact. In 2020, a City Council-approved measure (Measure U) sought to strengthen cannabis regulations, increase the number of allowed retailers and increase tax revenue for the City. Measure U was not approved by voters, with roughly 51.5% voting against it. • Pasadena: Here, a referendum was initiated in 2017 and the City Council moved to adopt a local program in advance of the initiative going to the ballot. After adopting the local program ordinance, the Pasadena City Council approved filing an initiative to tax local cannabis uses that was placed on the ballot and approved by voters in 2018. • South Bay: In the cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, residents filed petitions in late 2021 to circulate an initiative that would permit cannabis uses. Petitioners have one hundred eighty (180) days to secure signatures from 10% of registered voters in each City in order to qualify for an upcoming election. In response, these cities have formed advisory groups to study the issue further during the signature gathering phase. In early February 2022, the Redondo Beach City Council decided to place an initiative on the March 2023 ballot that will ask voters whether a local cannabis program should be implemented.

6 Research City Information
1) City of Desert Hot
Springs
• City Council adopted a local program in 2014 and voters approved a local tax measure for cannabis uses in 2014.
• Zoning: Storefront and non-storefront retail, entertainment, cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution and hotel uses in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use corridor districts.
• Applicants must obtain a State-required permit, City regulatory permit, City business license, City conditional use permit and comply with local codes.
• Local Regulations: City approval of operating plan, site plan, names of officers/employees with background check, approval from property owner, security plan, fire protection plan, odor control plan, the prohibition of minors in facilities, names of other cannabis facilities operated by applicant(s) and sign permits
• Buffer from sensitive uses: State guidelines
• Separation buffer: None
• Cap on Projects: None
• 11 facilities are currently open for business
(Chapters 3.33, 3.34, 5.50, 17.180 of DHS MC)
2) City of Lake Elsinore • City Council adopted a local program in 2017 and utilizes a development agreement framework for cannabis projects.
• Zoning: Up to 220,000 square feet of storefront retail (only as an accessory use to either cannabis cultivation or manufacturing uses), distribution, cultivation, manufacturing and testing uses in Limited Manufacturing (M-1) and General Manufacturing (M-2) districts.
• Applicants must obtain a State-required permit, City regulatory permit, City business license, City conditional use permit and comply with local codes.
• Local Regulations: City approval of operating plan, site plan, names of officers/employees with background check, approval from property owner, security plan, fire protection plan, odor control plan, the prohibition of minors in facilities, the prohibition of consumption on site, names of other cannabis facilities operated by applicant(s) and sign permits. • Buffer from sensitive uses: 1,000 feet from any school, community center, park (for cultivation)
• Separation buffer: None
• Cap on Projects: Up to 220,000 square feet
• 16 facilities are currently open for business. City is no longer accepting any additional applications.
(Chapter 17.156 LEMC)

7 3) City of Palm Desert • City Council adopted a local program in 2017 and voters approved a local tax measure for cannabis uses in 2018.
• Zoning Storefront retail, testing, distribution, manufacturing in planned commercial, downtown, office/professional and service industrial districts. • Applicants must obtain a State-required permit, City regulatory permit, City business license, City conditional use permit and comply with local codes.
• Local Regulations: City approval of operating plan, site plan, names of officers/employees with background check, approval from property owner, security plan, fire protection plan, odor control plan, the prohibition of minors in facilities, the prohibition of consumption on site, names of other cannabis facilities operated by applicant(s) and sign permits. • Buffer from sensitive uses: 1,000 feet from schools, daycares or youth centers
• Separation buffer: 1,500 feet between businesses; no more than 3 on a street; may not abut public parks or private residences; no more than 1 on El Paseo (east of Larkspur Lane)
• Cap on Projects: Up to 6 storefront retail businesses • 11 facilities are currently open for business
(Chapters 5.101, 25.34 PDMC)
4) City of Pasadena • City Council adopted local program in response to a referendum in 2017 and voters approved a local tax measure for cannabis uses in 2018. • Zoning: Storefront retail, cultivation and testing laboratories in CO (Commercial, Office), CL (Commercial Limited), CG (Commercial, General), CD (Central District) and IG (Industry, General) districts. • Applicants must obtain a State-required permit, City Commercial Cannabis Permit, City business license, City Health Department Permit, City conditional use permit and comply with local codes.
• Local Regulations: City approval of operating plan, site plan, names of officers/employees with background check, approval from property owner, security plan, fire protection plan, odor control plan, the prohibition of minors in facilities, the prohibition of consumption on site, sign permits with the prohibition of cannabis or cannabis products.
• Buffer from sensitive uses: 1,000 feet from residential zones; 600 feet from childcare centers, in-home daycare facilities, youth-oriented facilities, churches or substance abuse centers; 600 feet from parks, libraries or K-12 schools, not allowed in mixed use zones with residential use • Separation buffer: Storefront Retail - 1,000 feet from any other retailers or cultivation site; 500 feet from testing laboratories; Cultivation – 1,000 feet from other cultivation site or 500 feet from testing laboratories; Testing Laboratories – 500 feet from other laboratories; 1,000 feet from any cultivation site or storefront retail
• Cap on Projects: Up to six (6) storefront retail businesses, no more than one (1) per Council district and maximum square footage of 15,000 square feet; Up to four (4) cultivation sites, no more than one (1) per Council

8 City of Pasadena
(continued)
district and maximum square footage of 30,000 square feet; Up to four (4) testing laboratories, no more than one (1) per Council district • Proposed changes to these local regulations were under review as of fall 2021 to increase number of retailers and reduce buffer distances. • 2 cannabis retailers are currently open for business with 1 pending to open (Chapters 5.78, 8.10, 8.11, 8.77, 8.88, 17.50 PMC)
5) City of Port Hueneme • City Council adopted local program in 2017 and utilizes a development agreement framework for cannabis projects.
• Zoning: Storefront Retail, cultivation, testing, manufacturing, delivery in C-1 (General Commercial), M-1 (Light Industrial) and R-4 (Mixed Use Residential) zones
• Applicants must obtain a State-required permit, City regulatory permit, City business license, City conditional use permit and comply with local codes.
• Local Regulations: City approval of operating plan, site plan, names of officers/employees with background check, approval from property owner, security plan, fire protection plan, odor control plan, the prohibition of minors in facilities, the prohibition of consumption on site, and sign permits.
• Buffer from sensitive uses: 600 feet from schools
• Separation buffer: None
• Cap on Projects: 12 retail cannabis dispensaries; 6 delivery only cannabis businesses and, in no event, more than 18 total delivery businesses; 10 manufacturing businesses; 8 distribution businesses
• 20 facilities are currently open for business
(Article 3, Chapter 12 PHMC)
6) City of Turlock • City Council adopted local program and development agreement framework in 2019.

Zoning: Storefront Retail, cultivation, distribution, manufacturing, testing laboratories in heavy commercial/light industrial (C-H), general industrial (I), community commercial (C-C), commercial office (C-O) and Westside Industrial Specific Plan (WISP) districts. Storefront Retail only in Downtown Overlay District.
• Applicants must obtain a State-required permit, City business license, City conditional use permit and comply with local codes.
• Local Regulations: City approval of operating plan, site plan, names of officers/employees with background check, approval from property owner, security plan, fire protection plan, odor control plan, the prohibition of minors in facilities and sign permits.
• Buffer from sensitive uses: 600 feet from schools, daycare centers and youth facilities. Other nearby uses such as churches and residential properties which could be impacted shall be evaluated on a case by case basis.
• Separation buffer: None
• Cap on Projects: Up to four (4) storefront retail businesses • 3 facilities are currently open for business
(Chapters 5-21 TMC)

9 3. Engagement with Public Safety Representatives
The Committee communicated with public safety representatives from the cities of Desert Hot Springs, Lake Elsinore, Pasadena and Pomona to better understand challenges that they have faced with the implementation of local cannabis programs. The following items were identified as important in helping to ensure the health/safety of the community:
• Regular inspections of facilities, including an audit and annual inspection process that is required with the renewal of a local permit that ensures compliance with CUP requirements. • Continue social host ordinances to prevent the use of cannabis by minors in private residential dwellings.
• Utilize public benefit funds to enhance youth programs and community health programs. • Require an identification card program for cannabis business employees, including the completion of background checks prior to beginning employment. Require employees to wear identifiable uniforms to distinguish them from the public.
• Include a list of disqualifying offenses that prohibit employment in a cannabis business. State guidelines include certain violent felonies, serious felonies, drug-related felonies, gang felonies and financial-related felonies (fraud, embezzlement, deceit). • Prohibit the use of alcohol/cannabis products while on premises of a cannabis business. • Prohibit after-hours gatherings before/after the close of regular business operations. • Security: Require twenty-four (24) hour/ 7 (seven) day per week onsite security at each business location, including that security must be licensed through appropriate licensing agencies, wear an identifiable uniform and receive approval from the local police department. • Security Video Surveillance: Require twenty-four (24) hour/ 7 (seven) day per week high definition video security systems with remote access by local police department at all times. Also require that the previous five (5) days of digital recording of surveillance be maintained. • Require a product and inventory tracking/accounting software in line with accepted industry business practices.
• Require that violations of operating requirements be promptly corrected (i.e. within 24 hours).

Examples could include odor issues, alarm systems, waste disposal and other nuisances that could cause harm to the public.
• Require that each business create a community relations plan to address any adverse impact that the business may have. Also, designate a community relations representative that is responsible for communication with the surrounding community, neighborhood and businesses. • Require shatter-proof storefront systems.
• Prohibit loitering and/or soliciting in nearby areas and parking lots. • Require that business officers/employees complete a Responsible Business Operator certification course prior to beginning employment.
• Require that each business provide an emergency representative that will be on-call twenty-four (24) hours a day.

10 4. Evaluate Federal Legislative Efforts Related to Cannabis Action Item Description
1) Discussions with Office of
Congresswoman Napolitano
Discussed potential federal cannabis legislation with staff from the Office of Representative Grace Napolitano.
2) Secure and Fair
Enforcement (SAFE) Banking
Act
Introduced and approved by U.S. House of Representatives. Bill would allow cannabis businesses in the thirty-six (36) states with retail dispensaries to pay taxes with a check and secure loans and allow customers to use debit cards.
3) The Marijuana Opportunity
Reinvestment and
Expungement Act (“MORE”)
Passed in the House in December 2020. Aimed at ending criminalization of cannabis by removing it from the list of controlled substance, eliminating past criminal penalties/convictions related to cannabis and providing criminal justice reform. Would also tax cannabis products to fund social reform projects and make Small Business Administration loans available to cannabis businesses.
4) The Cannabis
Administrative and
Opportunity Act
Introduced in the Senate in July 2021. Aimed at implementing a comprehensive Federal framework for cannabis including
decriminalization; transferring oversight to Federal Agencies with the intent of regulating similar to alcohol and tobacco; mandating research regarding the impacts of cannabis; permit movement of products through interstate commerce and imposing a federal excise tax on products. 5) The States Reform Act Introduced in the House in November 2021. Aimed at decriminalizing cannabis offenses and vests the authority of reforms to individual states.

Legislation would also aim to regulate cannabis like alcohol and establish a single tax rate of 3% to support cannabis programs.

5. Engage the City’s Planning Commission and Other Advisory Commissions The Committee provided in-person presentations on the topic of cannabis programs at four (4) City Commission meetings. Each of these Commission meetings were accessible to the general public. A summary of these meetings is included below and a list of comments is included in Attachment B.

Action Item Description
1) Library Trustees A presentation was provided to the Commission on July 13, 2021. A list of comments from this meeting is included in Attachment B. 2) Finance Commission A presentation was provided to the Commission on July 14, 2021. A list of comments from this meeting is included in Attachment B. 3) Planning Commission A presentation was provided to the Commission on July 27, 2021. A list of comments from this meeting is included in Attachment B. 4) Parks/Recreation
Commission
A presentation was provided to the Commission on July 28, 2021. A list of comments from this meeting is included in Attachment B.

11 Ad-Hoc Committee Findings
The Committee has worked since fall 2020, evaluating the cannabis industry and learning how other communities have developed local regulatory programs. In conjunction with this review, the Committee has completed an extensive public engagement process, including a public opinion community survey, hosting four (4) general outreach workshops and engaging the City’s citizen advisory commissions at four (4) public meetings. Throughout this process, the Committee has continued to emphasize that using a community-based approach will help to better shape policies and decision making within Covina.

Site Visits
The Committee and staff completed two site visits in the City of Lake Elsinore and Coachella Valley to meet with local public agencies that have implemented local programs. This process was important to better understand how processes were implemented; what steps could have been undertaken to better suit the community and city; how local programs are managed; and how businesses in operation currently integrate with surrounding neighborhoods/businesses.

In Lake Elsinore, City representatives explained that a local cannabis program was first discussed in 2016 and then reviewed in greater detail during 2017. Following discussion, the City completed an application process to permit operations within its light manufacturing industrial zones. The City established a cap of approximately two hundred twenty thousand (220,000) square feet of space for these areas/uses, with a focus on micro-businesses and the vertical integration of cultivation, manufacturing, testing and retail sales. Ten prospective operators were initially approved to move concurrently through the development agreement process and of this group, two operators opened to the public.

Lake Elsinore City representatives discussed the importance of spatial distancing between businesses and other sensitive uses, implementing strong security protocols for businesses, enacting strict signage requirements, adopting caps on the number of businesses allowed to operate, developing cost recovery frameworks for the application process and long-term program management, and including language in development agreements to help address the potential assignment of businesses in the future.

Coachella Valley city representatives explained that the local cannabis market has evolved rapidly over the last decade and in doing so, has become a regional driver of economic growth. In Desert Hot Springs, a local program was approved by the City Council and a tax measure was later approved by voters in 2014.

This program has spurred new development and in 2020, contributed over $4 million in general fund revenues to the City. With this growth, the City has moved to adopt a specific plan for cannabis uses and is exploring the concept of cannabis-tourism related activities that could include themed hotels and event venues. City representatives emphasized the importance of a strong local compliance program that includes a registration and screening process for industry employees, a proactive site inspection program, and security/video surveillance programs that integrate with City compliance staff.

12 Recommendations to the City Council
Based on its evaluation and community feedback, the Committee determined that a policy decision to develop a local cannabis program should be made after discussion and vetting by the entire City Council.

If a local program is created, the Committee further recommends taking a measured implementation approach that could include the following elements:
• Distance Buffers: Utilize a conservative approach to buffering uses from other existing sensitive uses in the community. This could be achieved by expanding the types of sensitive uses that have been adopted by the State to include all public parks as sensitive uses. Further, the City Council could decide to increase the distance buffer from the State’s six hundred (600) feet distance threshold to a greater distance, if desired. The City Council could also establish a distance buffer between cannabis businesses. Sample buffers are illustrated in Attachment C. • Cap on Businesses: Implement a hard cap on the number of businesses that are permitted to operate in the City. This could be achieved by placing a limit to no more than one (1) cannabis establishment/permit for every fifteen thousand (15,000) residents in the City. Based on this cap and the City’s current population, no more than three (3) businesses would be allowed to operate within the City’s boundaries.
• Business Categories/Zoning: Limit business activities to include only storefront retail operations and/or microbusiness enterprises. Further, allow these types of business activities only in Commercial and Light Manufacturing zoning districts in the City. • Entitlement Process: Require that businesses obtain a City regulatory permit, City business license, City conditional use permit, comply with City, State and County codes and enter into a development agreement prior to opening for business. If necessary, require that business applicants proceed with any necessary environmental reviews prior to beginning operations. • Labor Relations: Consider including mechanisms to establish competitive wages/benefits for employees.
• Solicitation/Evaluation/Selection Process: Establish an objective process that would include a qualifications-based review of cannabis business applicants. This would include utilizing an outside consultant to assist with managing the solicitation/application process and evaluate applications. Consider some or all of the following elements in the evaluation process:
o Location/Community Compatibility
• Does the applicant own/lease the land? Do CCRs permit the use? • Is the location 600 feet away from sensitive uses?
• Community Involvement
• Has the applicant provided a detailed description of how the premises and exterior building areas will be managed so as to avoid nuisance, loitering and other negative impacts on the surrounding area?
• Does the applicant identify appropriate odor control measures? • Is the operation plan prepared according to City guidelines?

13 • Is the proposed use located in an appropriate zoning designation? o Safety/Security Plan
• Is a detailed security plan provided that includes descriptions for effective fire prevention, suppression, HVAC and alarm systems?
• Does the security plan identify all required elements contained in the City guidelines and adequately address security for the particular site? o Experience/Qualifications
• Does the applicant provide a viable business plan in accordance with City guidelines? • Does the applicant provide information demonstrating successful previous business experience?
• Do the principals of the business have successful business experience? • Do the principals of the business have business experience specific to the cannabis industry for which they are applying?
o Building Façade/Interior Improvements
• Does the applicant provide a detailed tenant improvement plan that identifies all interior improvements?
• Are the interior improvements attractive in keeping with traditional retail and/or industry standards?
• Are the exterior façade improvements attractive, suitable for the City’s image and enhance surrounding areas?
• Does the applicant provide a detailed architectural plan for building façade improvements?
o Business Plan/Financial Strength/Community Benefits
▪ Does the applicant have sufficient cash reserves to ensure its ability to successfully open and operate a business?
▪ Describe applicant’s ability to sustain business operations and provide any examples of previous experience/tenure operating in other communities. ▪ Does the applicant provide an effective community outreach plan for nearby and adjacent land uses?
▪ Does the applicant describe credible benefits to the overall community, local economy and any community or non-profit contributions or affiliations? ▪ Does the applicant provide any additional community benefits described in either their business plan or other documentation submitted as part of the CUP? o Labor/Employment
▪ Describe mechanisms that the applicant will use to establish competitive wages/benefits for employees.
o Local Enterprise
▪ Does the applicant/team have a connection to the City? Describe any aspects of community involvement (non-profits, service organizations, etc.), business experience or other relevant experience related to applicant’s connection with Covina.

Attachment A
Community Issues Survey Completed by FM 3 Research, Inc.

220-6028
Survey Conducted:

December 15-22, 2020
CONSULTANT EXECUTION DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

CA GOV’T CODE 6254.

2 CONSULTANT EXECUTION DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.

Survey Methodology
✓ Conducted a dual-mode survey, online, by cell, and landline between December 15-22, 2020
✓ Surveys were completed by a random sample of 438 voters registered in the City of Covina who voted
in the November 2020 election
✓ Some questions are tracked from the City’s previous survey conducted in 2018
✓ Overall margin of error for whole sample: +/-4.9%
✓ Margin of error for half the sample: +/-6.9%
✓ Some percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding Page 18 of 64 3