August 5, 2025 | 1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
LA PALMA CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2025
Mark I. Waldman
Mayor
Nitesh P. Patel
Mayor Pro Tem
Debbie S. Baker
Council Member
Janet Keo Conklin
Council Member
Vikesh P. Patel
Council Member
6:00 PM Closed Session
6:30 PM Open Session
La Palma City Hall
Council Chambers
7822 Walker Street, La Palma
CALL TO ORDER
CLOSED SESSION
CS-1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/RECRUITMENT
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1))
Position Title: City Manager
OPEN SESSION TO BEGIN AT 6:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member V. Patel
INVOCATION
Pastor Nader Hanna, King of the Nations Ministries
Council Member Baker
August 5, 2025 | 2
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATIONS
● Recognition of John F. Kennedy High School's Boys Varsity Volleyball Team Achieving CIP Champion Title
● Recognition of 2025 Summer Camp Volunteens
● Proclamation Recognizing the Kiwanis Club's Dedication and Service to the La Palma Community
● Introduction of Malachi Berard as La Palma's new Water Supervisor ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Time Limit: 5 Minutes Each)
Time has been reserved at this point in the Agenda for persons wishing to speak on any item that is not listed on the Agenda. By law, the City Council is prohibited from taking action on such oral comments. The matter will be automatically referred to staff for appropriate response or action or will be placed on the Agenda of a future meeting.
Matters listed on the Agenda may be addressed either at this time or at the time they are before the City Council for discussion.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL AND CONVENE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
DISSOLVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA PALMA
The City Council will now recess and convene as the Successor Agency to the Dissolved Community Development Commission of the City of La Palma. Members of the La Palma City Council receive no compensation or stipend as a result of convening or participating in either the Successor Agency or otherwise as serving as members of the Successor Agency.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one motion affirming the action recommended on the Agenda. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to voting unless members of the Successor Agency, Staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
Any member of the public who wishes to discuss a Consent Calendar item should come forward to the microphone and, upon recognition by the Chair, state his or her name,
August 5, 2025 | 3
address, and the item number.
A. Approval of Successor Agency Minutes
It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve the Minutes of the August 6, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency.
REGULAR ITEMS
B. Update on Successor Agency
Receive and file the Update on the Successor Agency.
ADJOURN THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one motion affirming the action recommended on the Agenda. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to voting unless members of the City Council, Staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Any member of the public who wishes to discuss a Consent Calendar item should come forward to the microphone and, upon recognition by the Mayor, state their name, address, and the item number.
1. Waive the Reading of All Ordinances
It is recommended that the City Council waive the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.
2. Approval of Register of Demands
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Registers of Demands for June 17, July 1, July 15, and August 5, 2025.
3. County of Orange Stormwater Management Program Shared Costs Budget for Fiscal Year 25-26
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve the County of Orange’s shared cost budget for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water quality permit compliance program;
August 5, 2025 | 4
2. Authorize the Interim City Manager, or their designee, to execute payment upon invoice receipt not to exceed $29,977.01; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit the attached letter (Attachment 1) supporting the County of Orange’s Stormwater Management Program FY 2025-26 budget.
4. Various Median Islands Project Notice of Completion
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work and authorize the Community Development & Public Works Director to file the Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work with the Orange County Clerk-Recorder for the Various Median Islands Project (City Project No. ST-371).
5. Response to 2024-25 Orange County Grand Jury Report entitled LongTerm Solutions to Short-Term Rentals It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached response to the 2024-25 Grand Jury Report, Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals, and authorize submittal to the Orange County Grand Jury.
6. City Yard Pump and Well Rehabilitation Phase I Notice of Completion It is recommended that the City Council accept the work and authorize the Community Development & Public Works Director to file the Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work with the Orange County Clerk-Recorder for the City Yard Pump and Well Rehabilitation Phase I, Project No. 22-WTR02.
7. Update to Statement of Investment Policy
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution updating the Statement of Investment Policy.
8. Fourth Quarter Cash and Investment Report, Fiscal Year 2024-2025 It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the Cash and Investment Report for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2024-25.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
REGULAR ITEMS
August 5, 2025 | 5
9. First Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance on the Use of Electric Mobility Devices
It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:
1. Waive full reading, read by title only, and introduce for first reading an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of La Palma, adopting an Electric Mobility Devices ordinance; and
2. Schedule the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance at the September 2, 2025, regular meeting of the City Council.
10. League of California Cities Voting Delegates and Resolutions It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Designate Council Member V. Patel as the City of La Palma’s Voting Delegate at the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference;
2. Designate Council Member Baker as the City of La Palma’s Alternate Voting Delegate at the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference; and
3. Authorize the City of La Palma delegation the discretion to vote on any resolutions taking into consideration the information they receive at the conference.
11. Veteran's Day Event
It is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report and provide feedback on the Veteran's Day community event.
COUNCIL MEMBER AB1234 REPORTS, REPORTS FROM CITY-AFFILIATED
COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL REMARKS
CITY MANAGER REMARKS
CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS
ADJOURNMENT
August 5, 2025 | 6
NOTE: As a general rule, staff reports or other written documentation have been prepared or organized with respect to each item of business listed on the agenda. Copies of these materials and other disclosable public records distributed to all or a majority of the members of the City Council in connection with an open session item on the agenda are on file and available for inspection with the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 7822 Walker Street, during regular business hours 7:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M., Monday through Thursday. If such writings are distributed to members of the Council on the day of a City Council meeting, the writings will be available at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the agenda for this meeting, any of the staff reports, or other documentation relating to any agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 690-3334.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk at (714) 690-3334. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Agenda Item No. A August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. A
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Norma I. Alley, MMC, City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Successor Agency Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Successor Agency approve the Minutes of the August 6, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. August 6, 2024, Successor Agency Minutes
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF LA PALMA AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
DISSOLVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
August 6, 2024
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Goodman called the Regular Meeting of the City of La Palma as Successor Agency to the Dissolved Community Development Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of La Palma City Hall, 7822 Walker Street, La Palma, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Waldman
INVOCATION: Pastor Peter Hernandez, La Palma Christian Center ROLL CALL: Council and Commission Members
Council Members present: Council Member Baker, Council Member Conklin, Mayor Goodman, Council Member Patel, and Mayor
Pro Tem Waldman
Council Members absent: None
City Officials present: Conal McNamara, City Manager
Ajit Thind, City Attorney
Joe Cisneros, Deputy City Manger
Belinda Deines, Community Development Manager
Andy Ramirez, Public Works & Community Services
Director
Ron Wilkerson, Police Chief
Kimberly Kenney, City Clerk
Mayor Goodman stated, "The City Council will now recess and convene as the Successor Agency to the Dissolved Community Development Commission of the City of La Palma. Members of the La Palma City Council receive no compensation or stipend as a result of convening or participating in either the Successor Agency or otherwise as serving as members of the Successor Agency."
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Successor Agency Minutes
City of La Palma as Successor Agency to the
Dissolved Community Development Commission
August 6, 2024
Approve the Minutes of the March 7, 2023, Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency.
Council Member Patel made a motion to approve Consent Calendar Item A.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Baker and carried on the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Baker, Council Member Keo Conklin, Mayor
Goodman, Council Member Patel, and Mayor Pro
Tem Waldman
NOES: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None Scheduled.
REGULAR ITEMS
None Scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Goodman adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Successor Agency at 6:37 P.M. _____________________________
Mayor
Attest:
______________________
Norma I. Alley, MMC
City Clerk
Agenda Item No. B August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. B
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Joseph Cisneros, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA TITLE: Update on Successor Agency
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file the Update on the Successor Agency.
BACKGROUND:
Redevelopment began in 1945 to assist local governments with eliminating urban blight through development, reconstruction and rehabilitation (Community Redevelopment Law). Tax Increment funding was enacted in 1951 to fund redevelopment efforts. In 1976, redevelopment was tied to the housing supply when the legislature required that at least 20% of the tax increment revenue from redevelopment project areas be used to increase, improve, and preserve the supply of housing for very low to moderate income households. And in 1993, the legislature sought to restrict redevelopment activities and limit them to predominantly urban areas.
The funding for RDAs was tax-increment financing. As property-tax revenues in a project area rise, state law gave the RDA the entire increase in revenues. The agency used that tax increase to pay off its debt. After the 2009 Great Recession, the State was having budget difficulties. The State decided to dissolve all of the state’s 400+ RDAs, which went into effect in February 2012. Successor Agencies have been working through the wind-down process until the old RDAs’ obligations are paid off.
Under Dissolution Law, Successor Agencies either file annual ROPS forms by February 1 each year, or the Successor Agencies can file a single Last and Final ROPS replacing all the future annual ROPS filings. In September 2020, the La Palma Successor Agency submitted the Last and Final ROPS, and DOF approved the Last and Final ROPS on December 30, 2020.
The 1993 Bonds were paid off in June 2022, and since then, the only financial activity of the Successor Agency is to receive annual loan repayments and receive administrative fees. The final payment is scheduled for January 2033. The Successor Agency currently only has annual meetings. The Successor Agency cannot be dissolved until all obligations (including the City Loans) have been repaid.
Agenda Item No. B August 5, 2025 | 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact resulting from the receipt of this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Agenda Item No. 1 August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 1
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Norma Alley, City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Waive Reading of All Ordinances
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council waive the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.
SUMMARY:
This is a regular agenda item and acts as a reminder of an action that Council Members should take to waive the reading of any Ordinance before them in its entirety, and instead read it by title only. This action helps to expedite the processing of Ordinances and contributes to the efficiency of City Council meetings.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Agenda Item No. 2 August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 2
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Joseph Cisneros, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA TITLE: Register of Demands
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Registers of Demands for June 17, July 1, July 15, and August 5, 2025.
SUMMARY:
The laws of the State of California governing General Law Cities and the La Palma Municipal Code Sec. 14-30 provide that the City Council shall approve all payments made by the City. A Register of Demands is provided at each City Council Meeting describing each payment made or to be made by the City during the specified period.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are available to process all payments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
Resolution No. 2025-__
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA PALMA APPROVING THE REGISTERS OF DEMANDS
FOR JUNE 17, 2025, JULY 1, 2025, July 15, AND AUGUST
5, 2025.
WHEREAS, certain financial obligations are due and payable by the City of La Palma, a General Law City, as of June 17, 2025, July 1, 2025, July 15, and August 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the laws of the State of California governing General Law Cities and the Municipal Code of La Palma provide that the City Council of a General Law City shall approve all payments by said City from the various established funds of said City; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the City Council of the City of La Palma have ascertained that the following lists of obligations as submitted by the City of La Palma are paid or legally due and payable by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of La Palma hereby approves the attached Registers of Demands dated June 17, 2025, July 1, 2025, July 15, and August 5, 2025, and incorporated herein by reference.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Palma at a regular meeting held on the 5
th day of August 2025.
________________________________
Mark Waldman
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Norma Alley, CMC
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2025-__
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF LA PALMA )
I, NORMA ALLEY, City Clerk of the City of La Palma, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5
th day of August 2025, and that it was so
adopted by called vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
________________________________
Norma Alley, CMC
City Clerk
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 1 of 16
Warrant Register
City of La Palma, CA By Vendor Name
Payment Dates 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
Approval
Reviewed by
Joseph Cisneros - Deputy City Manager
Michael Egan - Interim City Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 2 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 01037 - ADMIRAL PEST CONTROL INC
08/05/2025 2312217 ADMIRAL PEST CONTROL INC 7/11 GOPHER CONTROL/CP 175.00 Vendor 01037 - ADMIRAL PEST CONTROL INC Total: 175.00
Vendor: 04710 - AEGEAN DESIGN STUDIO
SCREEN ROLLER WINDOW 375.00
INSTL/REC
08/05/2025 25547 AEGEAN DESIGN STUDIO
Vendor 04710 - AEGEAN DESIGN STUDIO Total: 375.00
Vendor: 01042 - AETNA US HEALTHCARE
08/05/2025 J2489692 AETNA US HEALTHCARE Aug'25 Dental Premium 4,473.40 Vendor 01042 - AETNA US HEALTHCARE Total: 4,473.40
Vendor: 01047 - AFLAC
08/05/2025 659088 AFLAC JUL'25 Aflac Ins Prem W/H 133.44 08/05/2025 802334 AFLAC Jul'25 AFLAC/PD 562.18
Vendor 01047 - AFLAC Total: 695.62
Vendor: 05582 - ALAN BRANDON RIVERA
08/05/2025 INV0025023 ALAN BRANDON RIVERA 7/20 Vision CLM 100.00 08/05/2025 INV0025023 ALAN BRANDON RIVERA 7/20 Vision CLM 100.00 Vendor 05582 - ALAN BRANDON RIVERA Total: 200.00
Vendor: 05789 - AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
07/16/2025 13CJ-LV3D-7NMK AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/3 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CH 30.44 07/16/2025 1Q4Y-JVG7-93KI AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/4 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CH 24.37 07/21/2025 11V3-THW3-CHN7 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/30 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CMO 45.77 07/21/2025 1NCF-C6YJ-DT33 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/30 (1)WIFI HOTSPOT/IT 147.89 07/21/2025 1JYF-XLVK-9T91 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/23 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CMO 10.86 07/21/2025 1R71-FXJ6-3N6F AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/1 OFFICE SUPPLIES/FIN 60.94 07/21/2025 17RC-313C-KT3Q AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CMO 9.06 07/21/2025 1YQG-64DK-6YQ6 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/10 (1)3-PK IPAD CHRGRS/IT 7.60 07/21/2025 1NGQ-WNYK-KYRK AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/7 (1) DELL LAPTOP CHRGR/I 21.64 07/21/2025 1CGF-NXDT-3MLD AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/1 OFFICE SUPPLIES/CLERK 21.75 07/21/2025 1TVW-JDTG-1NPH AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/14 KITCHEN SUPPLIES/CH 38.84 5/21 MEMORIAL DAY 22.83
SUPPLIES/CAB
07/16/2025 1JDXCF3QDN6Y AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
07/16/2025 1TYNRMHC74W9 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 5/29 SUPPLIES/DC 30.44 07/16/2025 1939X3FF9J1Q AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/4 SUPPLIES/DC 44.57 07/16/2025 YTPMKRX771MW AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 5/29 FIXTURE SUPPLIES/REC 48.27 07/16/2025 1LGM4WVN6YFW AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 5/29 SUPPLIES/DC 71.76 07/16/2025 1KT4R4KVGDL6 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 5/21 SUPPLIES/REC 75.93 07/16/2025 1G3H79X1WKGP AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/6 SUPPLIES/DC 100.96 07/16/2025 1TYNRMHC743X AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 5/29 SUPPLIES/DC 209.65 07/21/2025 1DG9RCD6NMVP AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/16 SUPPLIES/DC 65.24 07/21/2025 1LVX6X7617VF AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/17 SUPPLIES/DC 21.74 07/21/2025 19FVKJR1CJYF AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/19 SUPPLIES/DC 30.72 07/21/2025 164VDLVRRRY3 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/28 SUPPLIES/DC 138.48 07/21/2025 1PGXCWPTLG7D AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/30 SUPPLIES DC 18.45 07/21/2025 1KRTXP11KTJW AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/30 SUPPLIES/DC 373.82 07/21/2025 1D9V3V1PM7JM AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/16 SUPPLIES/DC 17.61 07/21/2025 1V394KD4JRYX AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 6/30 SUPPLIES/JUL4RUN 152.20 07/21/2025 19Y4TL7LJVRH AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/7 SUPPLIES/REC 147.84 07/21/2025 1KRYXJ4GDYP9 AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/14 SUPPLIES/CONCERTS 39.14 07/21/2025 1L6GFPRTJ1NY AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/14 SUPPLIES/CONCERTS 67.41 07/21/2025 16TVVY4DJ6GK AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/21 SUPPLIES/DC 57.04 07/21/2025 16TVVY4DJ6WJ AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 7/21 SUPPLIES/CONCERTS 36.74 Vendor 05789 - AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC Total: 2,190.00
Vendor: 05893 - ANDRA CRAIG
08/05/2025 1014085002 ANDRA CRAIG 13139 TBALL RFD 65.00 Vendor 05893 - ANDRA CRAIG Total: 65.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 3 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 01015 - AT&T
7/15#690-3922 RV Parking 37.35
Permit - BAN 9391033973
08/05/2025 23785031 AT&T
6/20-7/19 800MHZ OCSD/PD 1,215.24
- BAN 9391064973
08/05/2025 23807967 AT&T
7/25#826-6272 61.61
TELEMETRY/WTR BAN
9391033974
08/05/2025 23820621 AT&T
Vendor 01015 - AT&T Total: 1,314.20
Vendor: 05866 - AUTOZONE STORES LLC
08/05/2025 5521669649 AUTOZONE STORES LLC 7/8 TRUCK MAINT/PW 172.19 08/05/2025 5521669661 AUTOZONE STORES LLC 7/8 BATTERY CREDIT -22.00 Vendor 05866 - AUTOZONE STORES LLC Total: 150.19
Vendor: 05087 - BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/16 EMERG LEAK RPR/7792 7,171.68
KELLY
08/05/2025 24702 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/3 EMERG LEAK RPR/8021 25,529.74
AINSWORTH
08/05/2025 24703 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/17 MEDIAN REHAB/4924 4,926.64
LA PALMA
08/05/2025 24704 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/20 MEDIAN REHAB/7959 5,807.80
MOODY
08/05/2025 24705 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/18 EMERG LEAK RPR/7792 6,650.67
KELLY
08/05/2025 24706 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/23 MEDIAN REHAB/5605 6,324.18
LA PALMA
08/05/2025 24707 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
12/26 MEDIAN 3,665.06
REHAB/VARIOUS LOCALS
08/05/2025 24708 BIG BEN ENGINEERING
Vendor 05087 - BIG BEN ENGINEERING Total: 60,075.77
Vendor: 05176 - BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC
08/05/2025 RI25031070 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AM JUN'25 BLDG OFF SVCS/BSD 770.00 JUN'25 SOLAR PLAN CK 300.00
SVCS/BSD
08/05/2025 RI25031070 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AM
08/05/2025 RI25031070 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AM JUN'25 BLDG INSP MLGE/BSD 136.50 JUN'25 PLAN CK SVCS 2,059.94
HOURLY/BSD
08/05/2025 RI25031070 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AM
JUN'25 PERMIT TECH 5,355.00
SVCS/BSD
08/05/2025 RI25031070 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AM
08/05/2025 RI25031070 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AM JUN'25 BLDG INSP SVCS/BSD 7,267.50 Vendor 05176 - BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC Total: 15,888.94 Vendor: 01262 - CA BUILDING STANDARDS COMM
APR-JUN'24 LESS 10% CITY -13.60
COLLECTION FEE
08/05/2025 INV0024971 CA BUILDING STANDARDS CO
08/05/2025 INV0024971 CA BUILDING STANDARDS CO APR-JUN'24 CBSC FEE/BSD 136.00 Vendor 01262 - CA BUILDING STANDARDS COMM Total: 122.40 Vendor: 05652 - CASC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC
08/05/2025 53643 CASC ENGINEERING AND CON JUN'25 CITY ENG'R SVCS/FOG 1,815.00 JUN'25 CITY ENG'R 448.00
SVCS/NPDES
08/05/2025 53644 CASC ENGINEERING AND CON
Vendor 05652 - CASC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC Total: 2,263.00 Vendor: 02669 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
7/11-8/10 Internet SVC/CH- 424.67
ACCT NO.188679701
07/21/2025 188679701070725 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Vendor 02669 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS Total: 424.67
Vendor: 05455 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
7/11-8/10 INTERNET 1,132.16
SVC/CY&CH-ACCT
NO.188679101
07/21/2025 188679101070725 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 4 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount 7/11-8/10 INTERNET 485.21
SVC/CY&CH-ACCT
NO.188679101
07/21/2025 188679101070725 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Vendor 05455 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS Total: 1,617.37
Vendor: 05456 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
7/11-8/10 INTERNET 719.00
SVC/WW-ACCT NO. 18867880
07/21/2025 188678801070725 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
Vendor 05456 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS Total: 719.00
Vendor: 05891 - CHERRY BAGGA
08/05/2025 1013826002 CHERRY BAGGA 13168 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013826002 CHERRY BAGGA 13168 DAY CAMP RFD 165.00 Vendor 05891 - CHERRY BAGGA Total: 154.00
Vendor: 04953 - CINDY WU
08/05/2025 1013926002 CINDY WU 7/26 PAVILION RNTL RFD 90.00 08/05/2025 1013926002 CINDY WU 7/26 LESS CANCELLATION FEE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013926002 CINDY WU 7/26 PAVILION DEPOSIT RFD 100.00 Vendor 04953 - CINDY WU Total: 179.00
Vendor: 03604 - CINTAS CORPORATION
08/05/2025 4236559069 CINTAS CORPORATION 7/10 UNIFORM SVC/PW 60.24 08/05/2025 4236559069 CINTAS CORPORATION 7/10 UNIFORM SVC/PW 60.24 08/05/2025 4236559069 CINTAS CORPORATION 7/10 UNIFORM SVC/PW 86.49 Vendor 03604 - CINTAS CORPORATION Total: 206.97
Vendor: 03283 - CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/10 CARD DELIVERY FEE/PD 25.00 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/18 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 57.77 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/18 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 95.85 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/17 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 46.54 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/17 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 47.91 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/17 OFFICE SUPPLIES/PD 50.23 6/19 AWARDS CEREMONY 400.00
PHOTOGRAPHY/PD
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 9/8-9/19 SUPV COURSE/PD 189.52 6/22-6/25 POST SLI CAR 228.91
RENTAL/PD
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/22-6/25 POST SLI HOTEL/PD 434.22 6/12 RFND PATROL -27.18
SUPPLIES/PD
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/12 PATROL SUPPLIES/PD 38.04 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/27 SOCIAL MEDIA/PD 89.99 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/30 RUN4FUN SUPPLIES/PD 518.96 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 52.20 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 36.77 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 18.39 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 7/1 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 76.08 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 7/1 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 54.29 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 378.25 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/18 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 118.54 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 123.09 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 182.77 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EVIDENCE SUPPLIES/PD 107.65 07/17/2025 INV0024952 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/18 DSPTCH HEADSET/PD 88.32 07/17/2025 INV0024963 CITY NATIONAL BANK FY25/26 CMCA DUES/CLERK 250.00 07/17/2025 INV0024963 CITY NATIONAL BANK 10/21-24 CMCA CONF/CLERK 650.00 6/11 FULLERTON SOTC REG/ 130.00
(2)CCMBRS
07/17/2025 INV0024963 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024963 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/12 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 60.89 07/17/2025 INV0024963 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/4 TONER/PD 100.04 6/19 BANQUET CATERING 693.05
BAL/PD
07/17/2025 INV0024963 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0025086 CITY NATIONAL BANK FY25/26 ICMA DUES/CDD 200.00 Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 5 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount 07/17/2025 INV0025087 CITY NATIONAL BANK FY25/26 APA DUES/CDD 622.00 07/17/2025 INV0025088 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/24 SARBS TRNG/MAINT LEA 70.00 07/17/2025 INV0025089 CITY NATIONAL BANK FY25/26 CACEO DUES/CEO 100.00 07/17/2025 INV0025090 CITY NATIONAL BANK 10/28-30 CACEO CONF/CEO 695.00 07/17/2025 INV0025091 CITY NATIONAL BANK '25 CMRTA DUES/CEO 150.00 07/17/2025 INV0025092 CITY NATIONAL BANK 115-7 CMRTA CONF/CEO 375.00 10/28-30 CACEO CONF 196.97
FLIGHT/CEO
07/17/2025 INV0025093 CITY NATIONAL BANK
10/25-29 ICMA Annual Conf 890.00
Reg/DCM
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
FY25/26 SAM RegistraƟon 399.00
Renewal
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 City Picture Frames/CH 214.37 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/19 SUPPLIES/EMPL RECOG 70.83 FY25/26 HOOTSUITE 1,188.00
SUBSCRPT/CITYWIDE
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
6/24 APPLE MOBILE DEVICE 71.76
MGMT PLAN/PD
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
FY25/26 ISTOCK PHOTO 588.00
SUBSCRPT/CS
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 (6)EZ-Ups/CP 2,251.13 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 Poster Holders/HTH 115.94 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/26 POSTERS/PARK CONCER 64.00 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/17 POSTERS/CIVIC EXPO 39.00 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 POSTERS/CIVIC EXPO 39.00 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 POSTERS/CIVIC EXPO 114.00 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 AWARS/JUL4RUN 316.75 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/3 SUPPLIES/DC 78.93 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/9 SUPPLIES/TT 99.99 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 SUPPLIES/TT 543.26 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/9 SUPPLIES/TT 66.75 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/25 EXCURSION/DC 612.30 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/5 EXCURSION/DC 2,361.00 07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK 6/19 Office Furniture/FIN 1,250.61 6/7 IPAD EXCEL WTR MTR 4.99
READS APP/WTR
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
6/7 IPAD EXCEL WTR MTR 4.99
READS APP/WTR
07/17/2025 INV0024966 CITY NATIONAL BANK
Vendor 03283 - CITY NATIONAL BANK Total: 19,109.66
Vendor: 01348 - CITY OF CYPRESS
08/05/2025 13046 CITY OF CYPRESS JUN'25 FUEL/PW 126.89
Vendor 01348 - CITY OF CYPRESS Total: 126.89
Vendor: 01356 - CITY OF LA PALMA FLEXIBLE
Flexible Spending 196.52
ContribuƟons - Medical
07/24/2025 INV0024991 CITY OF LA PALMA FLEXIBLE
Vendor 01356 - CITY OF LA PALMA FLEXIBLE Total: 196.52
Vendor: 01357 - CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CASH
08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/3 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 57.50 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/4 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 53.61 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/4 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 53.61 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/5 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 38.00 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/4 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 38.00 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/1 MTG SUPPLIES/PD 21.49 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 5/21 FUEL/PD 12.00 08/05/2025 INV0024957 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/25 FUEL/PD 10.00 08/05/2025 INV0025025 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/10 SUPPLIES/CD 50.97 08/05/2025 INV0025026 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 6/26 SUPPLIES/DC 35.00 08/05/2025 INV0025027 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 7/2 SUPPLIES/JUL4RUN 95.83 08/05/2025 INV0025028 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 7/9 SUPPLIES/CAB 64.22 08/05/2025 INV0025029 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 7/9 SUPPLIES/DC 25.00 Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 6 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount 08/05/2025 INV0025030 CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CAS 7/17 SUPPLIES/REC 43.07 Vendor 01357 - CITY OF LA PALMA PETTY CASH Total: 598.30 Vendor: 01368 - CIVICPLUS
08/05/2025 336721 CIVICPLUS JUL'25-JUN'26 WEBSITE FEE 21,027.80 Vendor 01368 - CIVICPLUS Total: 21,027.80
Vendor: 05706 - COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY PC
08/05/2025 66014 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH & JUN'25 RETAINER 9,020.00 08/05/2025 66014 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH & JUN'25 DISBURSEMENTS 34.16 5/20-6/30 ATTY 2,166.62
SVCS/PITCHESS-POLICE MATT
08/05/2025 66015 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH &
6/22-26 ATTY SVCS/TELECOM 462.40
MATTERS
08/05/2025 66017 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH &
6/10-19 ATTY 244.80
SVCS/LITIGATION MATTERS
08/05/2025 66019 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH &
6/2-30 ATTY SVCS/PW & 2,747.20
UTILITIES
08/05/2025 66020 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH &
Vendor 05706 - COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY PC Total: 14,675.18 Vendor: 05899 - COLLEEN HENEHAN
08/05/2025 07012025CH COLLEEN HENEHAN 7/1 Dental CLM 230.70 Vendor 05899 - COLLEEN HENEHAN Total: 230.70
Vendor: 01257 - CPS HR CONSULTING
08/05/2025 TRINV006258 CPS HR CONSULTING 7/17 SGT EXAM MAT'L/PD 379.50 Vendor 01257 - CPS HR CONSULTING Total: 379.50
Vendor: 05403 - CRYSTAL MONTANO
08/05/2025 1003830001 CRYSTAL MONTANO 13175 MAD SCIENCE RFD 115.00 08/05/2025 1003830001 CRYSTAL MONTANO 13175 MAD SCIENCE RFD 115.00 Vendor 05403 - CRYSTAL MONTANO Total: 230.00
Vendor: 01416 - CRYSTAL WILKERSON
08/05/2025 INV0024967 CRYSTAL WILKERSON 7/13 Vision CLM 102.79 08/05/2025 INV0024967 CRYSTAL WILKERSON 7/13 Vision CLM 154.19 Vendor 01416 - CRYSTAL WILKERSON Total: 256.98
Vendor: 05016 - DAO BRANNEN
08/05/2025 1014133002 DAO BRANNEN 7/5 GAZEBO DEPOSIT RFD 100.00 Vendor 05016 - DAO BRANNEN Total: 100.00
Vendor: 04735 - DAYNA EJERCITO
08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13169 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13169 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13168 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13168 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13168 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13168 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13169 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013808002A DAYNA EJERCITO 13169 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 Vendor 04735 - DAYNA EJERCITO Total: 536.00
Vendor: 01470 - DEPT OF CONSERVATION
APR-JUN'25 LESS 5% CITY -10.21
COLLECTION FEE
08/05/2025 INV0024972 DEPT OF CONSERVATION
08/05/2025 INV0024972 DEPT OF CONSERVATION APR-JUN'25 SMIP FEES 204.11 Vendor 01470 - DEPT OF CONSERVATION Total: 193.90
Vendor: 01472 - DEPT OF JUSTICE
08/05/2025 827181 DEPT OF JUSTICE Jun '25 Fingerprint/PD VOL(1) 32.00 08/05/2025 827181 DEPT OF JUSTICE Jun '25 Fingerprint/CS PT(3) 96.00 08/05/2025 827181 DEPT OF JUSTICE Jun '25 Fingerprint/PW FT(1) 32.00 08/05/2025 827181 DEPT OF JUSTICE Jun '25 Fingerprint/CS INST(1 320.00 Vendor 01472 - DEPT OF JUSTICE Total: 480.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 7 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 04436 - FIRST TWO INC
FY25/26 INVESTIGATION 4,800.00
SOFTWARE LIC/PD
08/05/2025 2955 FIRST TWO INC
Vendor 04436 - FIRST TWO INC Total: 4,800.00
Vendor: 05071 - FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC - ARCO
07/16/2025 NP68700761 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/3 GASOLINE/PD 326.89 07/16/2025 NP68700761 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/3 GASOLINE/REC 164.19 07/16/2025 NP68700761 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/3 GASOLINE/PW 467.12 07/16/2025 NP68700761 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/3 GASOLINE/WTR 452.39 Vendor 05071 - FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC - ARCO Total: 1,410.59 Vendor: 05272 - FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC - VP RACING
07/26/2025 NP68794581 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/15 GASOLINE/PD 429.08 07/26/2025 NP68794581 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/15 GASOLINE/PW 507.43 07/26/2025 NP68794581 FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/15 VOLUME DISCOUNT -6.37 Vendor 05272 - FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES INC - VP RACING Total: 930.14 Vendor: 01631 - FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
07/24/2025 INV0024977 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD State Tax Withholding 15.53 07/24/2025 INV0024983 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD State Tax Withholding 1.88 07/24/2025 CM0000234 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD State Tax Withholding -41.59 07/24/2025 INV0025012 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD State Tax Withholding 10,802.64 Vendor 01631 - FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Total: 10,778.46
Vendor: 05202 - GARZA INDUSTRIES INC
7/1 OFFICE & PATROL 1,330.46
SUPPLIES/PD
08/05/2025 2003803 GARZA INDUSTRIES INC
7/1 OFFICE & PATROL 469.80
SUPPLIES/PD
08/05/2025 2003803 GARZA INDUSTRIES INC
Vendor 05202 - GARZA INDUSTRIES INC Total: 1,800.26
Vendor: 01669 - GLOBALSTAR USA
08/05/2025 94928797 GLOBALSTAR USA 7/16 #254-241-0048 &49/PD 176.44 Vendor 01669 - GLOBALSTAR USA Total: 176.44
Vendor: 01678 - GOVERNMENT JOBS.COM INC
08/05/2025 INV139210 GOVERNMENT JOBS.COM INC FY25/26 Onboard SubscripƟo 4,548.60 Vendor 01678 - GOVERNMENT JOBS.COM INC Total: 4,548.60
Vendor: 01709 - HARTZOG & CRABILL INC
08/05/2025 250257 HARTZOG & CRABILL INC JUN'25 TRAFFIC ENG SVC/PW 1,790.00 Vendor 01709 - HARTZOG & CRABILL INC Total: 1,790.00
Vendor: 01695 - HDL COREN & CONE
JUL-SEP'25 PROPERTY TAX 2,098.10
SVCS
08/05/2025 SIN052675 HDL COREN & CONE
Vendor 01695 - HDL COREN & CONE Total: 2,098.10
Vendor: 05303 - HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES CENTER INC
08/05/2025 E0348439 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOU Aug'25 EAP 129.60 Vendor 05303 - HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES CENTER INC Total: 129.60 Vendor: 02642 - HOME DEPOT
08/05/2025 512570 HOME DEPOT 7/19 SUPPLIES/HALLOWEEN 34.91 08/05/2025 533888 HOME DEPOT 7/10 SUPPLIES/WTR 65.81
08/05/2025 7541525 HOME DEPOT 7/3 SUPPLIES/JUL4RUN 150.38 08/05/2025 8541393 HOME DEPOT 7/2 SUPPLIES/PW 97.41
Vendor 02642 - HOME DEPOT Total: 348.51
Vendor: 01764 - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
07/24/2025 INV0024976 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Federal Tax Withholding 38.83 07/24/2025 INV0024978 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Medicare 5.74 07/24/2025 INV0024982 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Federal Tax Withholding 4.71 07/24/2025 INV0024984 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Medicare 0.70 07/24/2025 CM0000233 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Federal Tax Withholding -96.98 07/24/2025 CM0000235 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Medicare -10.84 07/24/2025 INV0025011 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Federal Tax Withholding 27,233.78 Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 8 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount 07/24/2025 INV0025013 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Medicare 7,510.04 Vendor 01764 - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Total: 34,685.98 Vendor: 01775 - IRON MOUNTAIN
08/05/2025 KNCS436 IRON MOUNTAIN JUL'25 RECORDS STORAGE 300.17 Vendor 01775 - IRON MOUNTAIN Total: 300.17
Vendor: 03984 - J THOMPSON ELECTRIC INC
08/05/2025 25168 J THOMPSON ELECTRIC INC 6/18 ELECTRICAL SVCS/WW 1,340.00 08/05/2025 25170 J THOMPSON ELECTRIC INC 6/18 ELECTRICAL SVCS/WW 4,810.00 Vendor 03984 - J THOMPSON ELECTRIC INC Total: 6,150.00
Vendor: 01826 - JANELL ADAMS
08/05/2025 INV0024969 JANELL ADAMS 7/4 SUPPLIES/JUL4RUN 114.30 Vendor 01826 - JANELL ADAMS Total: 114.30
Vendor: 05481 - JASON HONG
08/05/2025 07182025JH JASON HONG 7/18 VISION CLM 100.00 08/05/2025 07182025JH JASON HONG 7/18 VISION CLM 60.00
08/05/2025 07182025JH JASON HONG 7/18 VISION CLM 40.00
Vendor 05481 - JASON HONG Total: 200.00
Vendor: 01856 - JESSE AMEND
08/05/2025 INV0025022 JESSE AMEND FY25/26 Annl Wellness Reimb 424.40 Vendor 01856 - JESSE AMEND Total: 424.40
Vendor: 05887 - JESSICA HEIDARI
08/05/2025 1014163002 JESSICA HEIDARI 13162 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1014163002 JESSICA HEIDARI 13162 TT RFD 53.00 Vendor 05887 - JESSICA HEIDARI Total: 42.00
Vendor: 05890 - JINHEE KIM
08/05/2025 1013892002 JINHEE KIM 13159 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013892002 JINHEE KIM 13157 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013892002 JINHEE KIM 13157 TT RFD 53.00
08/05/2025 1013892002 JINHEE KIM 13159 TT RFD 53.00
Vendor 05890 - JINHEE KIM Total: 84.00
Vendor: 05888 - KRYSTAL TANIOKA
08/05/2025 1013920002 KRYSTAL TANIOKA 13137 SOCCER & TBALL RFD 65.00 Vendor 05888 - KRYSTAL TANIOKA Total: 65.00
Vendor: 01975 - L P G E A
07/24/2025 INV0024992 L P G E A LPGEA Dues Withheld 216.00 Vendor 01975 - L P G E A Total: 216.00
Vendor: 01980 - LA PALMA CAR WASH
08/05/2025 2174 LA PALMA CAR WASH 6/2-30 CAR WASH/PD & REC 396.00 08/05/2025 2174 LA PALMA CAR WASH 6/2-30 CAR WASH/PD & REC 32.00 Vendor 01980 - LA PALMA CAR WASH Total: 428.00
Vendor: 01984 - LA PALMA INTERCOMMUNITY HOSPITAL
08/05/2025 INV0024964 LA PALMA INTERCOMMUNITY JUN'25 MEALS ON WHEELS 796.00 Vendor 01984 - LA PALMA INTERCOMMUNITY HOSPITAL Total: 796.00 Vendor: 01988 - LA PALMA POLICE ASSN
07/24/2025 INV0024993 LA PALMA POLICE ASSN LPPA Dues Withheld 1,610.74 Vendor 01988 - LA PALMA POLICE ASSN Total: 1,610.74
Vendor: 03208 - LAURA FUCHINO-ALLEN
08/05/2025 1013628002 LAURA FUCHINO-ALLEN 7/13 PAVILION DEPOSIT RFD 200.00 Vendor 03208 - LAURA FUCHINO-ALLEN Total: 200.00
Vendor: 05192 - LAZARO PEREZ
08/05/2025 INV0025017 LAZARO PEREZ 7/14-18 OC SRO SUMMIT/PD 199.00 Vendor 05192 - LAZARO PEREZ Total: 199.00
Vendor: 05319 - LEANNE TRAN
08/05/2025 1013895002 LEANNE TRAN 7/12 PAVILION DEPOSIT RFD 100.00 Vendor 05319 - LEANNE TRAN Total: 100.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 9 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 01976 - LPPEA
07/24/2025 INV0024994 LPPEA LPPEA Dues Withheld 90.00
Vendor 01976 - LPPEA Total: 90.00
Vendor: 02070 - M M A S C
7/10 MMASC COMM 10.00
WRKSHP/MA
08/05/2025 13318 M M A S C
Vendor 02070 - M M A S C Total: 10.00
Vendor: 05892 - MANAL HAIKAL
08/05/2025 1013853002 MANAL HAIKAL 13169 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013853002 MANAL HAIKAL 13170 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 08/05/2025 1013853002 MANAL HAIKAL 13170 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013853002 MANAL HAIKAL 13169 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 08/05/2025 1013853002 MANAL HAIKAL 13168 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1013853002 MANAL HAIKAL 13168 DAY CAMP RFD 145.00 Vendor 05892 - MANAL HAIKAL Total: 402.00
Vendor: 05896 - MARIE KEITH FAROL
08/05/2025 1013817002 MARIE KEITH FAROL 7/12 COMM CTR DEPOSIT RF 300.00 Vendor 05896 - MARIE KEITH FAROL Total: 300.00
Vendor: 01752 - MISSION SQUARE - PLAN 302549
07/30/2025 INV0024990 MISSION SQUARE - PLAN 302 Deferred Comp 46.61 07/30/2025 INV0025001 MISSION SQUARE - PLAN 302 Deferred Comp 1,410.00 07/30/2025 INV0025002 MISSION SQUARE - PLAN 302 Deferred Comp 3,805.90 Vendor 01752 - MISSION SQUARE - PLAN 302549 Total: 5,262.51 Vendor: 02201 - MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
FY25/26 RETAIL SVC 65,971.50
CONN/WTR
08/05/2025 17806 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Vendor 02201 - MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF Total: 65,971.50 Vendor: 02258 - O C CHIEFS OF POLICE AND SHERIFFS ASSN
FY25/26 OCCPSA DUES/PD 500.00
CHIEF
08/05/2025 INV0024958 O C CHIEFS OF POLICE AND S
08/05/2025 INV0024959 O C CHIEFS OF POLICE AND S FY25/26 OCCPSA DUES/PD CP 250.00 Vendor 02258 - O C CHIEFS OF POLICE AND SHERIFFS ASSN Total: 750.00 Vendor: 02260 - ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOV
FY 25/26 CDR Demographic 1,905.56
Svcs
08/05/2025 2025619 ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL O
08/05/2025 2025619 ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL O FY 25/26 OCCOG Dues 3,473.14 Vendor 02260 - ORANGE COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOV Total: 5,378.70 Vendor: 02280 - PERS - MEDICAL
Aug '25 Health Premium Adm 48.55
Fee/FT
08/05/2025 17993063 PERS - MEDICAL
Aug '25 Health Premium Adm 21.11
Fee/RET
08/05/2025 17993063 PERS - MEDICAL
Aug '25 Health Plan 10,796.94
Premium/RET
08/05/2025 17993063 PERS - MEDICAL
Aug '25 Health Plan 60,681.79
Premium/FT
08/05/2025 17993063 PERS - MEDICAL
Vendor 02280 - PERS - MEDICAL Total: 71,548.39
Vendor: 02279 - PERS RETIREMENT
CalPERS Employee 21.00
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0024974 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0024975 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 20.95 CalPERS Employee 2.85
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0024980 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0024981 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 2.84 CalPERS Employee 1,749.80
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0024995 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0024996 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 3,503.94 CalPERS Employee 1,144.53
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0024997 PERS RETIREMENT
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 10 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount 07/24/2025 INV0024998 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 1,659.56 CalPERS Employee 4,621.06
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0024999 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0025000 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 4,692.59 CalPERS Employee 1,932.17
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0025004 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0025005 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 6,290.28 CalPERS Employee 437.55
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0025006 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0025007 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 1,130.75 CalPERS Employee 9,233.83
ContribuƟon
07/24/2025 INV0025008 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0025009 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 9,210.27 Employee Survivor 48.36
ContribuƟon Amount
07/24/2025 INV0025010 PERS RETIREMENT
07/24/2025 INV0025045 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 15.32 07/24/2025 INV0025046 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 6.53 07/24/2025 INV0025047 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 53.66 07/24/2025 INV0025048 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 10.74 07/24/2025 INV0025049 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 1.87 07/24/2025 INV0025050 PERS RETIREMENT CalPERS Employer ContribuƟo 149.30 Vendor 02279 - PERS RETIREMENT Total: 45,939.75
Vendor: 02281 - PERS
FY26 UNFUNDED ACCRUED 862,194.00
LIABILITY/MISC 1 - RL 690
07/30/2025 100000017970815 PERS
FY26 UNFUNDED ACCRUED 1,326,585.00
LIABILITY/SFTY 1 - RL 691
07/30/2025 100000017970825 PERS
FY26 UNFUNDED ACCRUED 3,770.00
LIABILITY/SFTY 2 - RL 22020
07/30/2025 100000017970835 PERS
FY26 UNFUNDED ACCRUED 22,450.00
LIABILITY/SFTY 3 - RL 25729
07/30/2025 100000017970846 PERS
FY26 UNFUNDED ACCRUED 6,921.00
LIABILITY/MISC 3 - RL 27220
07/30/2025 100000017970855 PERS
FY26 UNFUNDED ACCRUED 6,282.00
LIABILITY/MISC 2 - RL 15005
07/30/2025 100000017970865 PERS
Vendor 02281 - PERS Total: 2,228,202.00
Vendor: 02313 - PETE'S ROAD SERVICE INC
7/10 (4)REPL TIRES&ALIGN/LP 1,482.05
-56
08/05/2025 INV0024970 PETE'S ROAD SERVICE INC
Vendor 02313 - PETE'S ROAD SERVICE INC Total: 1,482.05
Vendor: 02326 - PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES
08/05/2025 13067 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 6/30-7/3 LEGO CAMP 325.00 Vendor 02326 - PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES Total: 325.00
Vendor: 02338 - PRINT N COPY CENTER
(4400)JUL/AUG'25 SOURCE 617.81
NEWSLETTER/PD
08/05/2025 277633 PRINT N COPY CENTER
Vendor 02338 - PRINT N COPY CENTER Total: 617.81
Vendor: 04372 - QUADIENT INC
08/05/2025 17782357 QUADIENT INC 7/14 POSTAGE SUPPLIES 34.09 Vendor 04372 - QUADIENT INC Total: 34.09
Vendor: 04371 - QUADIENT LEASING USA INC
60 MAIL EQUIPMNT - 1ST 1,155.42
FISCAL YEAR ($4,354.20)
08/05/2025 Q1915572 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC
Vendor 04371 - QUADIENT LEASING USA INC Total: 1,155.42 Vendor: 05374 - RIL AUDIO VISUAL
7/17-8/7 SOUND/PARK 5,800.00
CONCERTS
08/05/2025 20003A RIL AUDIO VISUAL
Vendor 05374 - RIL AUDIO VISUAL Total: 5,800.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 11 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 05732 - RING CENTRAL INC
CITYWIDE PHONE SYSTEM & 2,185.19
SUPPORT - JULY'25
08/05/2025 CD_001160823 RING CENTRAL INC
Vendor 05732 - RING CENTRAL INC Total: 2,185.19
Vendor: 05883 - S C SIGNS AND SUPPLIES LLC
08/05/2025 260449 S C SIGNS AND SUPPLIES LLC (8)STREET SIGNS/PW 696.00 Vendor 05883 - S C SIGNS AND SUPPLIES LLC Total: 696.00 Vendor: 02876 - SHRED-IT
6/5 & 6/19 SHREDDING 96.40
SVC/PD & CH
08/05/2025 8011271682 SHRED-IT
6/5 & 6/19 SHREDDING 147.17
SVC/PD & CH
08/05/2025 8011271682 SHRED-IT
Vendor 02876 - SHRED-IT Total: 243.57
Vendor: 02535 - SMART & FINAL
08/05/2025 1401 SMART & FINAL 7/4 JUL4RUN SUPPLIES/PD 113.54 08/05/2025 14601 SMART & FINAL 7/3 JUL4RUN SUPPLIES/PD 56.35 08/05/2025 20001 SMART & FINAL 7/2 JUL4RUN SUPPLIES/PD 145.63 08/05/2025 29101 SMART & FINAL 7/2 SUPPLIES/EMPL RECOG 118.03 08/05/2025 3801 SMART & FINAL 7/2 KITCHEN SUPPLIES/PD 29.38 08/05/2025 3802/964144 SMART & FINAL 7/8 EMPL RECOG SUPPLIES/P 110.90 Vendor 02535 - SMART & FINAL Total: 573.83
Vendor: 04797 - SMART CIENEGA LLC
08/05/2025 INV0024961 SMART CIENEGA LLC JUN'25 CAM & INS/5414 LP 508.00 08/05/2025 INV0024962 SMART CIENEGA LLC JUL'25 CAM & INS/5414 LP 508.00 Vendor 04797 - SMART CIENEGA LLC Total: 1,016.00
Vendor: 02543 - SO CAL INDUSTRIES LLC
08/05/2025 754056 SO CAL INDUSTRIES LLC RESTROO RNTL/JUL4RUN 1,109.06 Vendor 02543 - SO CAL INDUSTRIES LLC Total: 1,109.06
Vendor: 02556 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
6/27 84115 11,530.27
MEADOWLARK/BSTR
07/21/2025 INV0025037 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
7/1 LS-1/ALL NIGHT ADD'L 49.27
LAMPS
07/21/2025 INV0025038 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
07/21/2025 INV0025039 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 LS-1/ALL NIGHT 14,210.09 07/21/2025 INV0025040 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 LS-2/METERED 421.16 07/21/2025 INV0025041 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 WALKER/91 FWY LAMPS 119.95 07/21/2025 INV0025042 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 LS-2/8172 MOODY 34.38 07/21/2025 INV0025042 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 LS-2 8231-1/2 WALKER 17.80 07/26/2025 INV0025043 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/21 7831 WALKER/CP 313.96 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 7792 WALKER/PD 8,200.31 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 LAURELWOOD/SCE LAMP 25.71 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 7821 WALKER/CC&CP 6,284.54 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 6750 WALKER SPRINKLER 14.63 7/1 7872-1/2 DENNI 14.76
SPRINKLER
07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
7/1 7711 MDY/ORGTHRPE 32.25
SPRNKLR
07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 LP/COMSTOCK SPRINKLER 15.64 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 BYRNE/WALKER LAMPS 110.93 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 7711 FURMAN RD POLE 77.15 07/26/2025 INV0025044 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/1 6800 WALKER/PUMP 10,131.74 7/15 5461 3.01
ORANGETHORPE/PED
07/21/2025 INV0025051 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
7/15 5549 3.01
ORANGETHORPE/PED
07/26/2025 INV0025052 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
7/16 5250 15.01
ORANGETHORPE/MEDIAN
07/26/2025 INV0025053 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
07/26/2025 INV0025054 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/17 7701 BARBI/PED 29.11 07/21/2025 INV0025055 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 6/25 5712 LA PALMA TC1 68.01 07/26/2025 INV0025056 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/16 7109 WALKER/PED 4.27 Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 12 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount 07/26/2025 INV0025057 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/11 5872 LA PALMA/MEDIA 20.33 7/11 7502 73.17
WALKER/HOUSTON TC1
07/26/2025 INV0025057 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
7/11 8172 125.05
MOODY/WINDSONG TC1
07/26/2025 INV0025057 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
07/26/2025 INV0025058 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 7/15 6998 WALKER TC1 116.73 Vendor 02556 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Total: 52,062.24 Vendor: 02568 - STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE
7/3 OFFICE & CERT 50.13
SUPPLIES/PD
08/05/2025 6036320139 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAG
7/3 OFFICE & CERT 30.87
SUPPLIES/PD
08/05/2025 6036320139 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAG
08/05/2025 6036320140 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAG 7/3 OFFICE SUPPLIES/PD 114.68 7/3 OFFICE & CERT 12.07
SUPPLIES/PD
08/05/2025 6036320141 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAG
7/3 OFFICE & CERT 29.89
SUPPLIES/PD
08/05/2025 6036320141 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAG
Vendor 02568 - STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE Total: 237.64 Vendor: 02576 - STEP SAVER INC
7/7 WTR TREATMENT 153.99
SUPPLIES/WW
08/05/2025 376257 STEP SAVER INC
Vendor 02576 - STEP SAVER INC Total: 153.99
Vendor: 05818 - THE DOT PRINTER
FY25/26 (15)BUDGET 2,531.45
BOOK/FIN
08/05/2025 356895 THE DOT PRINTER
Vendor 05818 - THE DOT PRINTER Total: 2,531.45
Vendor: 05829 - THE DREAMBOATS BAND LLC
08/05/2025 INV0024965 THE DREAMBOATS BAND LLC 8/7 CONCERTS IN THE PARK 4,000.00 Vendor 05829 - THE DREAMBOATS BAND LLC Total: 4,000.00
Vendor: 02654 - THE STANDARD
08/05/2025 INV0025021 THE STANDARD Jul '25 LTD Ins Prem/Misc Em 917.49 08/05/2025 INV0025021 THE STANDARD Jul '25 Life Ins Prem/All Empl 849.94 Vendor 02654 - THE STANDARD Total: 1,767.43
Vendor: 02655 - THE WORKSHOP
08/05/2025 74274 THE WORKSHOP (500)BUSINESS CARDS/CLERK 92.08 08/05/2025 74297 THE WORKSHOP (500)BUSINESS CARDS/PWM 92.08 Vendor 02655 - THE WORKSHOP Total: 184.16
Vendor: 04630 - T-MOBILE USA INC
6/16-7/15 INTERNET 21.81
TABLET/CEO
08/05/2025 INV0025014 T-MOBILE USA INC
6/21-7/20 UAS DATA PLAN/PD 33.00
- Acct. 971557340
08/05/2025 INV0025018 T-MOBILE USA INC
Vendor 04630 - T-MOBILE USA INC Total: 54.81
Vendor: 05895 - TONYA GROSS
08/05/2025 1013413002 TONYA GROSS 7/5 PAVILION DEPOSIT RFD 200.00 Vendor 05895 - TONYA GROSS Total: 200.00
Vendor: 02700 - TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
FY25/26 CRASH REPORT 156.32
SOFTWARE MAINT/PD
08/05/2025 130157975 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
Vendor 02700 - TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC Total: 156.32
Vendor: 05897 - TYREENA CAMPBELL
08/05/2025 1014107002 TYREENA CAMPBELL 7/12 GAZEBO DEPOSIT RFD 100.00 Vendor 05897 - TYREENA CAMPBELL Total: 100.00
Vendor: 02706 - U S BANK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST-WESTERN REGION PARS Part Time ReƟrement 1,592.86
ContribuƟons
07/30/2025 INV0025003 U S BANK INSTITUTIONAL TRU
Vendor 02706 - U S BANK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST-WESTERN REGION Total: 1,592.86 Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Warrant Register Payment Dates: 7/16/2025 - 8/5/2025
7/31/2025 11:49:10 AM Page 13 of 16
Payment Date Payable Number Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 04984 - ULINE INC
08/05/2025 194624637 ULINE INC 6/25 (2)TRASH CANS/REC 358.73 Vendor 04984 - ULINE INC Total: 358.73
Vendor: 03123 - UNIFORM DEPOT INC
08/05/2025 8852 UNIFORM DEPOT INC 6/26 UNIFORM/PD VIP 26.52 Vendor 03123 - UNIFORM DEPOT INC Total: 26.52
Vendor: 02702 - USA BLUE BOOK
08/05/2025 INV00737787 USA BLUE BOOK 6/12 TOOLS/WTR 1,306.69 08/05/2025 INV00749641 USA BLUE BOOK 6/25 SUPPLIES/WTR 1,480.84 Vendor 02702 - USA BLUE BOOK Total: 2,787.53
Vendor: 05894 - VAISHALI MEHTA
08/05/2025 1012833002 VAISHALI MEHTA 13168 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1012833002 VAISHALI MEHTA 13168 DAY CAMP RFD 165.00 08/05/2025 1012833002 VAISHALI MEHTA 13169 LESS CANCELLATION FE -11.00 08/05/2025 1012833002 VAISHALI MEHTA 13169 DAY CAMP RFD 165.00 Vendor 05894 - VAISHALI MEHTA Total: 308.00
Vendor: 05597 - VALERIE COTERA
08/05/2025 1014134002 VALERIE COTERA 7/5 GAZEBO DEPOSIT RFD 100.00 Vendor 05597 - VALERIE COTERA Total: 100.00
Vendor: 05885 - VAN DERMYDEN MAKUS LAW CORPORATION
JUN'25 Personnel AƩorney 3,776.50
Servcs
08/05/2025 34516 VAN DERMYDEN MAKUS LAW
Vendor 05885 - VAN DERMYDEN MAKUS LAW CORPORATION Total: 3,776.50 Vendor: 02742 - VERIZON WIRELESS
08/05/2025 6116223148 VERIZON WIRELESS 6/16 CELL PHONES/REC 29.86 08/05/2025 6116223148 VERIZON WIRELESS 6/16 MACHINE TO MACHINE 150.23 Vendor 02742 - VERIZON WIRELESS Total: 180.09
Vendor: 05736 - VERVE CLOUD INC
07/31/2025 4250690 VERVE CLOUD INC 7/15 BACKUP ISP 754.64 Vendor 05736 - VERVE CLOUD INC Total: 754.64
Vendor: 05889 - VIDYA BAHETI
08/05/2025 1014078002 VIDYA BAHETI 13068 LEGO CAMP RFD 325.00 Vendor 05889 - VIDYA BAHETI Total: 325.00
Vendor: 05593 - WATERWORKFORCE
MAY'25 ADD'L WTR 812.50
CONSULTING SVC/PW
08/05/2025 1387 WATERWORKFORCE
Vendor 05593 - WATERWORKFORCE Total: 812.50
Vendor: 05218 - WESTERN A/V
7/17 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 360.00
A/V ONSITE MAINT
08/05/2025 23114 WESTERN A/V
Vendor 05218 - WESTERN A/V Total: 360.00
Vendor: 02788 - WRIGHT EXPRESS
07/28/2025 105738459 WRIGHT EXPRESS 6/30 GASOLINE/PD 4,850.16 07/28/2025 105738459 WRIGHT EXPRESS 6/30 GASOLINE/PW 241.00 07/28/2025 105738459 WRIGHT EXPRESS 6/30 GASOLINE REBATE -28.24 07/28/2025 105738459 WRIGHT EXPRESS 6/30 GASOLINE/WTR 1,055.39 Vendor 02788 - WRIGHT EXPRESS Total: 6,118.31
Vendor: 03238 - YARDLEY ORGILL COMPANY
08/05/2025 1034100 YARDLEY ORGILL COMPANY 7/3 SUPPLIES/WTR 500.99 Vendor 03238 - YARDLEY ORGILL COMPANY Total: 500.99
Grand Total: 2,742,399.83
Docusign Envelope ID: 11751B14-AA71-4847-B98B-D20521A65B93
Agenda Item No. 3 August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 3
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Belinda Deines, Community Development & Public Works Director Julie Herrera, Management Analyst
AGENDA TITLE: County of Orange Stormwater Management Program Shared Costs Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve the County of Orange’s shared cost budget for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water quality permit compliance program;
2. Authorize the Interim City Manager, or their designee, to execute payment upon invoice receipt not to exceed $29,977.01; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit the attached letter (Attachment 1) supporting the County of Orange’s Stormwater Management Program FY 2025-26 budget.
SUMMARY:
The Countywide shared costs budget is a cooperative project of the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the incorporated cities of Orange County. This Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 budget has been prepared in accordance with the terms of the Orange County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit Implementation Agreement. This agreement requires the County to develop an operating budget, for review and approval by permittees, for shared costs of the NPDES stormwater quality permit compliance program.
The term “shared costs” includes expenses incurred by the County acting as designated lead (Principal Permittee) for the Orange County (OC) Stormwater Program (Program). These costs are principally incurred in the areas of (1) implementation, program development, and coordination; (2) regulatory agency liaison and reporting; (3) public education and outreach; and (4) environmental quality monitoring and assessment.
Major county-wide efforts and services supported by this budget include: (1) continued delivery of a training program covering key program elements; (2) continued implementation of the H2OC public education and outreach program across the County; and (3) continued administration of the water quality laboratory and laboratory information management system (LIMS), including procurement of equipment and materials for implementation of the required monitoring programs across Orange
Agenda Item No. 3 August 5, 2025 | 2
County.
The total county-wide proposed budget for all cities is approximately $9.6 million. This amount consists of program support, monitoring costs, participation in the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Monitoring Task Force, South OC WQIP MAP implementation costs, consultant services related to South OC regional project planning, a five-year integrated assessment, and adaptive management in the San Diego Region, and anticipated water management planning for required Santa Ana River Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit.
The City’s FY 2025-26 contribution will be $29,977.01, a $200.29 increase (less than 1%) from last year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Sufficient funding for the City’s share is included in the Adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget (Acc# 001-405-6000-40030).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Approval Letter
2. FY 2025-26 NPDES Budget County Transmittal Letter
3. FY 2025-26 NPDES Cost Share Budget Narrative
www.cityoflapalma.org PHONE
714 690 3300
7822 Walker Street
La Palma, CA 90623-1771
August 5, 2025
Ms. Katie Kelly and Ms. Sarah Chiang
OC Stormwater Program
OC Public Works
2301 N. Glassell Street
Orange, CA 92865
Sent via electronic mail only
Subject: Approval of OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26
Dear Ms. Kelly and Ms. Chiang,
As requested, the City of La Palma has reviewed the proposed OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget for FY 2025-26. Upon review, the City approves the budget of $9,597,843 as presented.
Sincerely,
Mark I. Waldman
Mayor
June 4, 2025
To: OC Stormwater Program Managers
Sent via electronic mail only
Subject: Approval of OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26
Dear OC Stormwater Progam Manager:
Enclosed is the proposed OC Stormwater Program National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Shared Costs Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26. This budget has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the OC Stormwater Program NPDES Technical Advisory Committee and the Orange County City Managers Association – Water Quality Committee (see attached memorandum). We respectfully request your approval of the recommended budget by submitting a scanned signed copy of your jurisdiction’s approval letter to the following email address: [email protected] For questions, please contact Katie Kelly (714) 955-0657 or Sarah Chiang at (714) 955-0672.
Sincerely,
Grant Sharp, Manager James Fortuna, Manager
South OC Watershed Management Area North OC Watershed Management Area Enclosures: 1) Proposed FY 2025-26 Shared Costs Budget
2) OCCMA – WQC Memorandum
3) Template approval letter
Docusign Envelope ID: 925E1BD1-CE65-48E6-BBB5-73D17F339223
OC Stormwater Program
NPDES Shared Costs Budget
For Fiscal Year 2025-26
A cooperative project of the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated cities of Orange County
May 2025
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-1
Table of Contents
1 Shared Costs Budget Overview .........................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 2025-26 Work Plan ...................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1.2 Program Management .......................................................................................................................1-2
1.1.3 Plan Development ..............................................................................................................................1-3
1.1.4 Legal Authority....................................................................................................................................1-3
1.1.5 Municipal Activities ............................................................................................................................1-3
1.1.6 Public Education & Outreach ...........................................................................................................1-3
1.1.7 New Development/Significant Redevelopment...........................................................................1-4
1.1.8 Construction ........................................................................................................................................1-4
1.1.9 Existing Development........................................................................................................................1-4
1.1.10 Illegal Discharges/Illicit Connections (ID/IC) ................................................................................1-4
1.1.11 Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment..................................................................................1-5
1.1.12 Basin Planning .....................................................................................................................................1-5 2 Budget Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Salaries and Employee Benefits ..............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 North and South OC Stormwater ...................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Monitoring and Data Assessment ..................................................................................................2-2
2.2 Services and Supplies ................................................................................................................................2-3
2.2.1 Staff Field Gear (Account 600).........................................................................................................2-3
2.2.2 Equipment and Maintenance (Account 1300) ..............................................................................2-4
2.2.3 Software Maintenance and Support (Account 1340)..................................................................2-4
2.2.4 General Maintenance (Account 1400) ...........................................................................................2-4
2.2.5 Laboratory Supplies (Account 1500) ..............................................................................................2-5
2.2.6 Memberships (Account 1600)..........................................................................................................2-5
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-2
2.2.7 Printing Costs (Accounts 1800 and 1801).....................................................................................2-5
2.2.8 Professional and Specialized Services (Account 1900)...............................................................2-6
2.2.9 Publications and Notices (Account 2000)......................................................................................2-7
2.2.10 Special Departmental Expense (Account 2400) ...........................................................................2-7
2.2.11 General Transport and Travel (Account 2601) .............................................................................2-7
2.2.12 Other Transport and Travel (Account 2700).................................................................................2-8
2.2.13 Equipment (Account 4000)...............................................................................................................2-8 3 Permittee Shares of FY 2025-26 Budget.........................................................................................................3-1
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-1
1 Shared Costs Budget Overview
This Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 budget has been prepared in accordance with the terms of the Orange County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit Implementation Agreement. This agreement requires the County to develop an operating budget, for review and approval by Permittees (includes the 34 cities plus the County and Orange County Flood Control District), for shared costs of the NPDES stormwater quality permit compliance program.
The term “shared costs” include costs incurred by the County acting as designated lead (Principal Permittee) for the Orange County (OC) Stormwater Program (Program). These costs are principally incurred in the areas of (1) implementation, program development, and coordination; (2) regulatory agency liaison and reporting; (3) public education and outreach; and (4) environmental quality monitoring and assessment.
1.1 2025-26 Work Plan
1.1.1 Introduction
The principal work effort in FY 2025-26 for the North OC Watershed Management Area (WMA) will be conducting the existing program, implementing the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements alongside associated technical studies (including continued development of a revised MRP to iterate and improve the existing monitoring programs), and coordinating watershed planning efforts to address anticipated permit requirements in the Santa Ana Region (SAR). Additionally, Permittees from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, collectively known as the Tri-Country Group, will continue to engage with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Water Board) regarding the proposed Regional Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (Regional MS4 Permit), Tentative Order R8-2024-0001. The timing for adoption of the SAR Regional MS4 Permit is uncertain, but this budget includes elements to begin implementation should adoption occur in 2025-26 (current forecast is by early 2026). Upon adoption, the Program will re-evaluate existing program elements to align with the SAR Regional MS4 Permit requirements, as well as implement new requirements such as the development of watershed management plans (WMPs) where appropriate.
For the South OC WMA, FY 2025-26 will be the eighth full year of Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) implementation. The principal work effort for the South OC WMA is to continue adaptive management of the WQIP to incorporate recommendations from the 5 Year Integrated Assessment and implement annual milestones for the next 5 years of WQIP implementation. In addition, the South OC WMA will continue the implementation of strategies to address the three Highest Priority Water Quality Conditions (HPWQCs), pathogen health risk, unnatural water balance, and channel erosion. HPWQC efforts will include the implementation of the Comprehensive Human Waste Source Reduction Strategy (CHWSRS) Work Plan, performing source investigations and abatement efforts within prioritized areas of investigation (AOI), and continuing the Outfall Capture Feasibility Studies (OCFS) strategy to inform management actions to address persistent dry weather flows at outfalls. The H2OC RainSmart Rebates Pilot Program will target large landscape upgrade projects on commercial and homeowner association properties to achieve bacteria load reduction, as detailed in the Bacteria TMDL Wet Weather Reasonable Assurance Demonstration (Wet Weather RAD). The branding “H2OC” was developed by the Program’s regional public education and outreach program to support various programmatic compliance strategies
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-2
and can be used to promote public participation in this pilot program (see below and Section 1.1.6 for additional details of H2OC’s efforts). Stormwater capital improvement project (CIP) delivery increases in priority for FY 2025-26, as several of the 46 candidate stormwater CIPs in the aforementioned Wet Weather RAD are scheduled for construction within the next fiscal year. The candidate projects in the Wet Weather RAD are needed to achieve compliance with bacteria load reduction requirements during wet weather by the April 2031 deadline. Implementation of the WQIP Monitoring and Assessment Program (MAP) will also continue. Activities surrounding the reissuance of the San Diego Regional MS4 Permit are anticipated to increase in FY 2025-26 and will require review and coordination with Permittees from San Diego and Riverside counties.
Major countywide efforts and services supported by this budget include: (1) continued delivery of a training program covering key Program elements; (2) continued implementation of the H2OC public education and outreach program across the County; and (3) continued administration of the water quality laboratory and laboratory information management system (LIMS), including procurement of equipment and materials for implementation of the required monitoring programs across Orange County.
The major work tasks planned for FY 2025-26 are presented below.
1.1.2 Program Management
• Regulatory agency liaison regarding development and implementation of compliance program elements across the County, which includes a focus on implementation of the South OC WQIP for the San Diego Region;
• Administrative support to restructure and align the Program governance with evolving compliance needs;
• Oversight and management of consultant support contracts for Program training, public education and outreach, stormwater CIP planning, and land development support related to the implementation of low impact development (LID) and hydromodification management requirements;
• Preparation of the WQIP Annual Reports (San Diego Region) and Program Effectiveness Assessment (PEA) annual reports and templates (Santa Ana Region); • Data collection, management, assessment, and reporting to meet compliance needs; • Delivery of relevant news and programmatic updates to the Permittees and content management of websites and web-based applications;
• Implementation of WQIP strategies in South OC to address the three HPWQCs. For FY 2025-26, featured efforts will include continued implementation of CHWSRS and OCFS strategies, stormwater CIP planning, and the advancement of large landscape upgrade projects through the H2OC RainSmart Rebates Pilot Program;
• Coordinate and lead permit reissuance activities in each region as needed. For North OC, this includes ongoing collaboration with Santa Ana Water Board staff and Permittees from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties to review and draft comments on the revised SAR Regional MS4 Permit Tentative Order language, and participating in related public workshops prior to permit adoption. Similarly, in South OC, these efforts include participation in a series of public focus meetings addressing proposed changes to the San Diego Regional MS4 permit, review of the
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-3
San Diego Regional MS4 permit staff working proposal, and coordination with Permittees in San Diego and Riverside counties.
1.1.3 Plan Development
• Implementation of relevant Drainage Area Management Program (DAMP) elements in conjunction with forthcoming watershed planning efforts and potential new Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit requirements;
• Implement adaptive management recommendations from the 5 Year Integrated Assessment and position Permittees to achieve annual milestones for the next 5 years of WQIP implementation; • Continue CHWSRS source investigations and abatement efforts within prioritized AOIs; • Initiation of new WMP requirements in North OC, as required, including incorporation of Watershed Improvement Project Subcommittee (WIPS) efforts; • Participation in regional research opportunities and studies; • Participation in Basin Plan and water quality standard review studies; and • Water quality and hydrologic modeling activities to support regional stormwater CIP planning, develop and update reasonable assurance demonstrations, and demonstrate pollutant load reduction progress and water quality improvement to meet MS4 permit requirements.
1.1.4 Legal Authority
• Legal counsel support of Permittees’ compliance with existing and proposed regulatory requirements, including legal review during the permit renewal process; • Legal counsel support for unfunded mandates test claims and permit petitions for review; and • Support with Legal/Regulatory Authority Task Force.
1.1.5 Municipal Activities
• Ongoing support for the Municipal Activities Program including implementation of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy and IPM certification program.
1.1.6 Public Education & Outreach
• Implementation of countywide public and business education and outreach programs1; • Development, update, and translation of public education and outreach materials; • Development and placement of advertising;
• Development and ongoing maintenance of social media and website (https://h2oc.org/) content; • Development and implementation of targeted behavior change campaigns; 1The approved H2OC Public Education Adapative Program Strategy is available at https://ocgov.box.com/s/q2ceuaykxqamnopojl1lrpyytw857qde
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-4
• Ongoing school outreach;
• Conduct a triennial public awareness survey and assess results; • Individual support for Permittee public education and outreach needs, upon request; • Support for the H2O for HOAs annual event;
• Support various programmatic compliance strategies, such as using H2OC to promote and support public participation in the development of the H2OC RainSmart Rebates Pilot Program (https://h2oc.org/rainsmart/); and,
• Support for the Public Education Sub-Committee.
1.1.7 New Development/Significant Redevelopment
• Implementation of a Land Development Program to meet MS4 Permit requirements, including administration of the “Land Development Technical Help Desk” to support individual projects; • Delivery of any needed North OC and South OC Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) training programs to internal and external audiences; and • Implementation of selected elements identified in the Land Development Program Work Plan for improvements, enhancements, and updates to the Technical Guidance Document, Model WQMP, South OC Hydromodification Management Plan, and other land development tools and resources as prioritized by the Permittees.
1.1.8 Construction
• Delivery of training programs to internal and external audiences, including annual pre-wet season construction inspection training.
1.1.9 Existing Development
• Ongoing support for the Existing Development Program, including distribution of food facility inspection data from Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) on NPDES observations; and • Delivery of training programs to internal and external audiences.
1.1.10 Illegal Discharges/Illicit Connections (ID/IC)
• Ongoing support for the ID/IC Program, including distribution of incident reports to Permittees received from various sources including the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), MyOCeServices, and the Water Pollution Hotline;
• Delivery of ID/IC and water pollution response training through the Inspection Subcommittee and other opportunities; and
• Implementation of the NOC Dry Weather Monitoring Program at targeted outfalls to detect illegal discharges and illicit connections; includes additional follow up work on the Smart Sensor Project to evaluate an improved methodology for implementing this ID/IC monitoring program under a potentially revised MRP.
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 1-5
1.1.11 Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
• Implementation of the North OC MRP requirements, which anticipates submission of a revised MRP to the Santa Ana Water Board and planned implementation upon approval in accordance with new Santa Ana Regional MS4 permit requirements;
• Management of a laboratory information management system (LIMS); • Implementation of the South OC Monitoring and Asessment Program (MAP); • Implementation of the CHWSRS work plan in South OC;
• Implementation of the OCFS strategy in South OC;
• Conduct pre- and post-stream rehabilitation project bioassessment and California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) monitoring;
• Participation in regional monitoring programs such as the Unified Beach Water Quality Monitoring Program, Bight ’23, Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition (SMC), and the Santa Ana River Watershed Bacteria Monitoring Program; and
• Evaluation and dissemination of monitoring program data, including the development of data visualization products to help inform management actions.
1.1.12 Basin Planning
• Coordination with Riverside and San Bernardino Counties on the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Monitoring Task Force for bacteria;
• Follow up data review and regulatory agency coordination related to the 2026 Integrated Report and potential associated impacts to South OC waterbodies in the San Diego Region; and • Participate and coordinate with Permittees in the San Diego Region (County of San Diego, Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District, City of San Diego) as needed.
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-1
2 Budget Analysis
The total proposed budget is $9,597,843, of which, $6,677,283 is allocated for countywide program support; $845,560 for North OC monitoring costs and participation in the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Monitoring Task Force; and $685,000 for South OC WQIP MAP implementation costs.
Additionally, $680,000 are allocated for consultant services for South OC WQIP implementation, regional stormwater CIP planning, and adaptive management efforts in the San Diego Region, while $710,000 is allocated for WMP development and associated planning efforts anticipated to be required for the upcoming SAR Regional MS4 Permit. For a detailed summary of the total costs, see Table 1.
Consultant costs for specialized WMP (and supportive WIPS) tasks are shared by the North OC Permittees on a watershed basis based upon proportionate shares of watershed land area and population (see Section
2.2.8 and Tables 3.4 – 3.7). Consultant services costs for WQIP project planning and adaptive management efforts described above will be shared by South OC Permittees (see Section 2.2.8 and Table
3.8).
2.1 Salaries and Employee Benefits
The total number of Principal Permittee staff required to implement Program elements, including water quality monitoring, is 13.64 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). The labor overhead and burden rate decreased by 2% compared to FY 2024-25. County employee hourly rates have increased for FY 2025-26 due to a cost of living adjustments per renewed County labor contracts. The salaries and benefits budget includes $28,000 for Extra Help positions to support various programs, including BMP inventory, tracking, and maintenance within the OC Stormwater Tools (OCST) web-based platform; permit reissuance; stormwater program development; implementation of monitoring programs, and other Program priorities. Overtime is included within each business unit for storm event sampling conducted outside of normal business hours and for additional staff time that is needed to meet critical deadlines to support the Permittees such as compliance reporting. The following is the proposed FY 2025-26 staffing budget (including overtime):
Combined North and South OC Stormwater Sections $1,975,955 OC Monitoring and Assessment Sections $1,913,468
Extra help $28,000
Total $3,917,423
2.1.1 North and South OC Stormwater
North OC Stormwater personnel coordinate the development and implementation of MS4 permit compliance strategies in the Santa Ana Region, and South OC Stormwater serves the same role within the San Diego Region. For FY 2025-26, County personnel in North OC Stormwater will total 3.51 FTE and South OC Stormwater will total 3.23 FTE (6.74 FTE combined).
The primary responsibilities of North and South OC Stormwater are to:
• Lead and coordinate permit reissuance efforts for the Permittees in each region;
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-2
• Provide support for watershed planning and development of a regional stormwater CIP framework efforts across Orange County;
• Coordinate implementation of core strategies of the South OC WQIP to address HPWQCs and achieve pollutant load reduction in stormwater runoff;
• Develop, provide technical and administrative support, and inform Permittees on the progress of other pertinent special studies, municipal programs, pilot projects, etc.; • Develop, implement, and maintain strategies, guidance materials, and tools, such as the OC Stormwater Tools platform, to support MS4 permit compliance; • Provide guidance on performance standards to promote uniform and consistent implementation of BMPs appropriate to each jurisdiction and implement a data-driven approach to support Permittee management actions;
• Oversee and implement an iterative approach in each region, including the adaptive management approach detailed in the South OC WQIP;
• Compile technical information and prepare annual compliance reports for submittal in each region; • Develop and use a performance-based and headline indicators reporting approach to document progress in stormwater runoff pollutant load reduction/water quality improvement and optimize regional Permittee reporting efforts;
• Communicate with Permittees and the public on MS4 permit compliance activities; • Participate in the review of state water quality policy initiatives and contribute comments on behalf of the Permittees;
• Coordinate and conduct activities, including contract management, committee meetings, and training for Program elements; and
• Coordinate the countywide public education and outreach program (H2OC) including contracted services.
The total FTE for each position title within North and South OC Stormwater Sections are as follows:
• Manager (0.46 FTE)
• Senior Environmental Resources Specialist (1.00 FTE)
• Environmental Resources Specialist (3.20 FTE)
• Environmental Resources Technician (2.08 FTE)
2.1.2 Monitoring and Data Assessment
Monitoring and Data Assessment personnel coordinate the implementation of environmental monitoring and data evaluation elements in the Santa Ana and San Diego Regions. For FY 2025-26, Monitoring and Data Assessment staffing will total 6.90 FTE.
The primary responsibilities of Monitoring and Data Assessment staff are to:
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-3
• Develop and implement the water quality monitoring and assessment programs and related activities necessary for compliance with each MS4 permit, including implementation of the current MRP in the Santa Ana Region and the South OC MAP (WQIP section 4) in the San Diego Region; • Continue to develop a revised MRP for the Santa Ana Region to be considered for regulatory approval to iterate and improve these monitoring program elements; • Develop and implement other regulatory and nonregulatory monitoring, including regional monitoring programs and special studies;
• Analyze, interpret, visualize, and report monitoring data and prepare reports as required by the MS4 permits, including the Unified Annual Progress Report for the SAR and the South OC WQIP Annual Report;
• Provide data, maps, analysis, presentations, and other data visualization products upon request from Permittees, the general public, and regulatory agencies; • Implement and update as needed, the South OC WQIP MAP Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP);
• Develop and maintain quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols for sample collection as well as laboratory analysis of samples;
• Operate and maintain the laboratory information management system (LIMS) to store and analyze water quality data;
• Manage contracts for analytical services and equipment maintenance; • Operate and maintain an on-site laboratory to inventory, store, and process water quality samples; and,
• Conduct specialized flow monitoring studies in support of water quality monitoring, including managing time series flow data in the Hydstra database.
The total FTE for each Monitoring and Assessment position title are as follows:
• Manager (0.23 FTE)
• Senior Environmental Resources Specialist (0.60 FTE)
• Environmental Resources Specialist (1.70 FTE)
• Environmental Resources Technician (4.37 FTE)
2.2 Services and Supplies
2.2.1 Staff Field Gear (Account 600)
Includes personal protective equipment such as clothing, hats, boots and protective gear for staff working in the field.
Staff field gear $1,896
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-4
2.2.2 Equipment and Maintenance (Account 1300)
The implementation of the water quality monitoring programs will require equipment maintenance contracts for specialized pieces of equipment listed below and other related items. With WQIP implementation, additional equipment maintenance is needed to support strategies designed to achieve pollutant load reduction and water quality improvement.
Analytical balance maintenance $600
Annual calibration service for automatic pipettors $1,000 Supplies and materials for environmental monitoring
programs
$12,000
Maintenance of multiparameter water quality probes $12,000 Automatic sampler maintenance $15,000
Maintenance for SAR dry weather monitoring field
equipment $2,500
Equipment for dry weather monitoring, including
equipment and test kit supplies $5,000
Water purification system servicing $8,000
Total $56,100
2.2.3 Software Maintenance and Support (Account 1340)
A proprietary web-based laboratory information management system (LIMS) is used to manage water quality monitoring data to meet MS4 permit requirements. Annual software licenses for cloud hosting and support of the LIMS platform are required in FY 2025-26.
LIMS Software Licenses and Upgrades $60,000
2.2.4 General Maintenance (Account 1400)
Monitoring stations are set up countywide to support compliance with NPDES permit requirements. A budgetary allocation for maintenance and repair of these stations is included. This includes the use and placement of irrigation piping, housing structures, fasteners, and other supplies to properly mount and protect automatic samplers, sample tubing, flow meter devices/cables, monitoring probes, and other related equipment to conduct water quality analyses. This budget also accounts for anticipated setup of new monitoring stations, as required.
Installation, repair, and/or maintenance of water
quality monitoring stations $15,000
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-5
2.2.5 Laboratory Supplies (Account 1500)
Laboratory and sampling equipment parts, supplies, and reagents are needed to implement the water quality monitoring and assessment programs.
Laboratory parts, supplies and reagents, including
certified reference materials and quality assurance
standards
$35,000
2.2.6 Memberships (Account 1600)
Associate membership in the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) provides collaborative and cost-effective scientific strategies, tools, and technologies to support watershed and stormwater runoff management. Participation in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) as an areawide program member provides statewide coordination on common stormwater issues. CASQA takes the lead on technical oversight of State and Federal initiatives related to surface water quality management as well as developing and delivering guidance and training on stormwater runoff management strategies. The Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange provides access to a practitioner network that is designed to accelerate green stormwater infrastructure implementation through resources and networking. Membership for the Center for Watershed Protection provides access to training resources, webcasts, and stormwater runoff management resources that support compliance with MS4 permit requirements.
SCCWRP $144,909
CASQA $96,250
Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange $3,250
Center for Watershed Protection $2,000
Total $246,409
2.2.7 Printing Costs (Accounts 1800 and 1801)
A printing allocation is needed to maintain a baseline of printed materials and effectively distribute materials to Permittees based on the adopted Materials Ordering Policy. Duplication, printing and mailing of NPDES materials is required for compliance with NPDES stormwater permits and includes printing of the Construction Runoff Guidance Manual.
Public Education Materials Printing $40,000
Duplication, printing, and mailing of NPDES materials $5,000 Total $45,000
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-6
2.2.8 Professional and Specialized Services (Account 1900) Consultant services are needed to support DAMP and WQIP implementation. The professional and specialized services are organized into the twelve DAMP sections (see Table 2 for a detailed summary).
The Countywide Program elements budget below includes $582,000 for the countywide public education and outreach program (H2OC), which consists of the following2:
• $5,000 to develop and update public education and outreach materials, • $185,000 to develop and place advertising,
• $115,000 to develop and implement targeted behavior change campaigns, • $35,000 for program support,
• $76,000 for school outreach through coordination of the Stormwater Quality Leadership (SQL) Internship Program and the Municipal Water District of Orange County School of Choice Program, • $50,000 for Permittee support as identified by strategic planning efforts, and • $6,000 to support the H2O for HOAs Annual Event and the Sustainable Campus Challenge.
Additionally, Countywide Program elements also include:
• $110,000 for Water Quality Laboratory support,
• $75,000 for implementation of human waste source reduction strategies, • $340,000 for implementation of pollutant load reduction strategies, including continuing the OCFS strategy and countywide efforts to develop the H2OC RainSmart Rebates Pilot Program, • $120,000 for legal support,
• $10,000 for installation of remote aquatic sensors to streamline existing monitoring programs, • $231,275 for OC Stormwater Tools technical support services and enhancements, • $175,000 for exploration of a Regional Stormwater Capital Improvement Program framework across Orange County, and
• $450,000 for general Program implementation, including support for permit renewal negotiations, response to regulatory initiatives, program effectiveness assessments, municipal staff training, and preparation of mandated reports and other required documents.
Region-specific costs for monitoring and strategy planning and development are detailed below. FY 2025- 26 accounts for potential WMP development (and associated WIPS integration) with the anticipated adoption of the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit for North OC. Strategy planning efforts associated with the South OC WQIP have increased for FY 2025-26 due to: (1) adaptive program management; (2) local implementation activities for the H2OC RainSmart Rebates Pilot Program in South OC; and (3) targeted stormwater CIP delivery to achieve Bacteria TMDL load reduction targets for wet weather by the April 2031 deadline. Cost savings for monitoring efforts in both the Santa Ana and San Diego Region are primarily due to the wrap up of the North Orange County Dry Weather Smart Sensor Pilot Program and 2 This list represents general budget categories and associated estimated funding allocations. Actual funding allocations are based on work approved by the Public Education Sub-committee.
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-7
reduced pre- and post- rehabilitation project bioassessment and CRAM monitoring in South Orange County.
Countywide Program elements $2,093,275
Santa Ana Region Water Quality Monitoring $845,560
Santa Ana Region WMP development with WIPS
integration $710,000
WQIP Monitoring and Assessment Program $685,000
San Diego Region stormwater CIP planning, adaptive
management, and pollutant load reduction strategies $680,000 Total $5,013,835
2.2.9 Publications and Notices (Account 2000)
Publications and notices are needed in some instances, including notices for public meetings, workshops, plan updates, etc.
Publications and notices $1,000
2.2.10 Special Departmental Expense (Account 2400)
Special expenses for the Program are listed below.
Transportation Corridor Agencies Toll Road fees $500
Use of County vehicles related to the NPDES program $56,000 Stormwater Monitoring Coalition $100,000
Stormwater program staff training $2,843
Children’s Water Education Festival $5,000
Total $164,343
2.2.11 General Transport and Travel (Account 2601)
Covers the cost of mileage reimbursements for the use of personal vehicles.
Private mileage $2,250
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 2-8
2.2.12 Other Transport and Travel (Account 2700)
Includes the costs of representing the Program at CASQA, meetings with State and Federal agencies, and stormwater-related conferences. This also includes specialized training for the water quality monitoring program.
California Aquatic Bioassessment Workgroup
Conference
$29,587
California Water Quality Monitoring Council
CASQA Annual Conference
ESRI International User Conference
Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange Annual
Meeting
State Water Board hearings/workshops
Unplanned travel to Sacramento and other
meetings/conferences
Water Environment Federation
2.2.13 Equipment (Account 4000)
Includes the costs of purchasing additional automatic samplers used for the water quality monitoring programs.
Automatic samplers and associated parts $10,000
FY 2025-26 OC Stormwater Program NPDES Shared Costs Budget 3-1
3 Permittee Shares of FY 2025-26 Budget
The method used to calculate each Permittee's share of the Shared Costs Budget is derived from the NPDES Stormwater Permit Implementation Agreement. The figures for population are May 2025 estimates from the California Department of Finance, and the figures for areas are based on the 2025 annual report by the County Surveyor, minus the acreage as described in the Implementation Agreement.
The Permittee shares are presented in Tables 3.1 – 3.8, and summarized in Table 4, which illustrates the total cost to each Permittee based on the program elements being split into the following categories and funded accordingly:
• Table 3.1 – Countywide program elements, funded by all Permittees • Table 3.2 – Santa Ana Region Monitoring and Reporting Program elements, funded only by North OC Permittees
• Table 3.3 –South OC MAP implementation funded only by South OC Permittees • Consultant services for North OC WMP development (and supportive WIPS efforts), funded only by North OC Permittees within specific watersheds:
− Table 3.4 – San Gabriel River – Coyote Creek
− Table 3.5 – Anaheim Bay – Huntington Harbor
− Table 3.6 – Newport Bay
− Table 3.7 – Santa Ana River
• Table 3.8 – Consultant services for watershed project planning and adaptive management efforts, funded by South OC Permittees
Additionally, Figure 1 shows the NPDES Shared Costs Budget versus expenditures from 2002 to 2025.
Region Account Budget Items 2025-26 2024-25 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 Salaries, Employee Benefits and Overtime
North and South OC Stormwater $1,975,955 $1,991,900 $1,919,794 $1,747,678 $1,642,423 $1,566,731 Data and Assessment $1,913,468 $1,995,319 $1,693,717 $1,541,229 $1,480,611 $1,317,198 102 Extra Help $28,000 $28,000 $45,530 $36,016 $0 $0
600 Staff field gear - clothing, hats and protective gear $1,896 $1,896 $1,896 $1,896 $705 $940 1300, 1301 Equipment Maintenance $56,100 $51,100 $51,000 $42,886 $42,750 $43,193 1340, 2140 Licenses $60,000 $60,000 $75,000 $30,843 $16,923 $6,110 1400 General Maintenance $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $2,290 $2,350 1500 Laboratory $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $33,173 $29,232 $37,600 1600 Memberships $246,409 $187,209 $169,735 $33,640 $28,500 $22,588 1800, 1801,
1806 Printing, Mailing, and Duplication/Correspondance $45,000 $40,000 $0 $5,987 $10,044 $9,682 1900 Countywide Professional/Specialized Services * $2,093,275 $2,005,050 $1,557,390 $1,479,325 $1,376,661 $1,422,650 2000 Publications & Notices $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,949 $2,350 2300 Small Tools/Instruments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,800
2400 Special Department Expenses $164,343 $128,506 $119,421 $138,963 $138,718 $126,571 2601 Transport/Travel General $2,250 $1,922 $1,922 $1,922 $1,949 $1,457 2700 Other Transport/Travel $29,587 $28,439 $33,871 $28,008 $12,365 $14,923 3100 Contributions to Other Agencies $0 $0 $0 $132,613 $128,750 $283,390 4000 Equipment $10,000 $10,000 $85,000 $179,134 $39,400 $17,860 $6,677,283 $6,580,341 $5,806,276 $5,445,313 $4,953,270 $4,894,393 1900 Santa Ana Region Water Quality Monitoring Costs *
1900 Santa Ana River Regional Monitoring Task Force
1900 Santa Ana Region Watershed Improvement Projects $710,000 $710,000 $710,000 $250,000 $100,000 $159,800 $1,555,560 $1,562,672 $1,446,467 $863,985 $617,000 $676,800 1900 San Diego Region Water Quality Monitoring Costs * $685,000 $710,000 $690,000 $609,202 $504,000 $547,800 1900 San Diego Region Water Quality Improvement Plan $680,000 $555,000 $535,000 $423,695 $370,000 $220,500 $1,365,000 $1,265,000 $1,225,000 $1,032,897 $874,000 $768,300 $9,597,843 $9,408,013 $8,477,743 $7,342,195 $6,444,270 $6,339,493 * See Table 2 for details
$845,560 $852,672 $736,467
FY TOTAL
TABLE 1
FY 2025-26 Stormwater Program Total Shared Costs
Countywide
Santa Ana
Region
San Diego
Region
$613,985
100,103
Countywide Shared Costs TOTAL
Santa Ana Region Shared Costs TOTAL
San Diego Region Shared Costs TOTAL
$517,000 $517,000
2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Region DAMP Section Budget Item Description 2025-26 2024-25 2023-24 2022-23 Ongoing program management support and assistance with annual progress report and program management IT solution
a a a a
Watershed project planning and grant-funded project support $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $47,390 OC Stormwater Tools Hosting $44,126 $43,050 $30,000 $14,217 OC Stormwater Tools Technical Support Services $32,149 $32,000 $70,000 $50,000 OC Stormwater Tools Enhancement Services $155,000 $100,000 Regional Stormwater Capital Improvement Program Framework $175,000 $150,000 Human Waste Source Reduction Strategy Implementation - H2OC RainSmart Rebates Pilot Program $290,000 $225,000 $100,000 $168,956 Outfall Capture Feasibility Studies $75,000 $75,000 $50,000 $75,824 Basin planning $18,956
Section 3
Plan Development NPDES stormwater permit implementationa $450,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 Permit Legal Issues: County Counselb $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $47,390 Permit Legal Issues: Contract Counsel $50,000 $50,000 $47,390 $47,390 Support for the model water quality ordinance b b b b
Ongoing support for municipal activities program and assistance with annual progress report a a a a Support for Trash Provisions-related work
Development of web-based training materials and information dissemination a a a a Training modules, including:
Program Manager & Program Manager Update
Program Approach and Framework, Fixed Facilities and Field Programs IPM, Fertilizer and Pesticide Program Approach and Framework and Fertilizer and Pesticide Applications a a a a
H2O for HOAs Annual Event Contribution $3,000
Sustainable Campus Challenge $3,000
School outreach internship program coordination and implementation $76,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Water Quality Laboratory Support $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Environmental Monitoring Database Development/Acquisition/Enhancement $60,000 $150,000 $130,000 $28,434 Aquatic Sensor Service $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $9,478
$2,093,275 $2,005,050 $1,557,390 $1,479,325
Ongoing support for the water quality monitoring program, data analysis and assistance with annual progress report including regional, watershed and jurisdictional summaries Urban Stream Bioassessment
Benthic Infaunal Analysis
Mass emission monitoring (water & sediment chemistry)
Estuary/Wetlands Monitoring (water & sediment chemistry) Dry Weather Monitoring (water chemistry) and Contract Field Technician Support Bacteriological/Pathogen Monitoring
Santa Ana Regional Bacteria Monitoring Program
Toxicity Testing (water & sediment chemistry)
Nutrient TMDL
Special Studies (water, sediment chemistry, remote sensors, and special SMC projects) QA/QC (water & sediment chemistry)
Santa Ana Region Monitoring Sub-Total $845,560 $852,672 $736,467 $613,985 Section 12
Watershed Planning Santa Ana Region Watershed Management Plans/Watershed Improvement Projects Sub-Total $710,000 $710,000 $710,000 $250,000 Ongoing support for the water quality monitoring program, data analysis and assistance with annual progress report including regional, watershed and jurisdictional summaries Urban Stream Bioassessment
Mass emission monitoring (water & sediment chemistry)
Unified Beach Water Quality Program (coastal bacteria)
Toxicity Testing (water & sediment chemistry)
Wet Weather Outfall Monitoring
Dry Weather Outfall Monitoring
Highest Priority Water Quality Conditions Monitoring
Special Studies (water & sediment chemistry)
QA/QC (water & sediment chemistry)
San Diego Region Monitoring Sub-Total $685,000 $710,000 $690,000 $609,202 Section 12
Watershed Planning San Diego Region Water Quality Improvement Plan Sub-Total $680,000 $555,000 $535,000 $423,695 TOTAL 1900 Budget $5,013,835 $4,832,722 $4,228,857 $3,376,207 Note:
a
The budget is included in the NPDES stormwater permit implementation item b
The budget is included in the Permit Legal Issues items c
This list represents general budget categories and associated estimated funding allocations. Actual funding allocations are based on work approved by the Public Education Sub-committee.
Section 9
Existing Development
Section 11
Water Quality Monitoring
Conduct countywide public education program assistance with annual progress report (PR Consultant)c:
Update and Development of H2OC Materials
Development and Placement of Advertising
Targeted Behavior Change Campaigns
Program Support
_..Permittee Support
' Triennial Survey
$500,000
TABLE 2
Stormwater Program Countywide and Region Specific
Professional/Specialized Services Detail (Account 1900) Countywide
Section 2
Program Management
Section 4
Legal Authority
Section 5
Municipal Activities
Section 6
Public Education
$521,290
Section 7
New Development and
Redevelopment
Section 8
Construction
$500,000
Santa Ana
Region
Section 11
Water Quality Monitoring
$852,672
San Diego
Region
Section 11
Water Quality Monitoring
$685,000 $710,000 $609,202
a
$845,560
$500,000
The NPDES stormwater permit implementation item above includes:
Ongoing support for new development, redevelopment, construction, existing development, and ID/IC programs and assistance with annual progress reports.
Training modules, including construction Instructors, Contractors, and/or QSP/QSD; Authorized Inspectors; and Incident Responders.
a
Countywide Sub-Total
a
$736,467
$690,000
a
$613,985
Section 10
Illegal Discharges/Illicit
Connections
2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Costs (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Aliso Viejo 50,213 6.92 1.171333087 $78,213.23
Anaheim 341,773 49.90 8.157376842 $544,691.14
Brea 47,900 12.43 1.50409683 $100,432.80
Buena Park 82,667 10.55 1.872107534 $125,005.92
Costa Mesa 110,321 15.85 2.615966175 $174,675.46
Cypress 49,499 6.58 1.138652135 $76,031.03
Dana Point 32,730 6.28 0.880905231 $58,820.54
Fountain Valley 56,560 9.06 1.403544689 $93,718.65
Fullerton 141,469 22.32 3.486857279 $232,827.33
Garden Grove 171,492 17.93 3.620745141 $241,767.40
Huntington Beach 193,134 26.18 4.475962824 $298,872.70
Irvine 318,629 65.97 8.896592023 $594,050.63
La Habra 61,202 7.57 1.369866653 $91,469.87
La Palma 15,110 1.80 0.333863574 $22,293.02
Laguna Beach 22,763 8.81 0.907368214 $60,587.54
Laguna Hills 30,309 6.65 0.870987099 $58,158.27
Laguna Niguel 65,257 14.79 1.906838553 $127,325.01
Laguna Woods 17,183 3.31 0.463075694 $30,920.87
Lake Forest 87,639 16.78 2.356681806 $157,362.31
Los Alamitos 12,006 1.92 0.297557825 $19,868.78
Mission Viejo 91,740 18.01 2.496129103 $166,673.60
Newport Beach 82,654 22.04 2.63537684 $175,971.57
Orange 139,724 25.76 3.690868997 $246,449.77
Placentia 53,982 6.74 1.212623178 $80,970.28
Rancho Santa Margarita 46,341 12.94 1.515942359 $101,223.76 San Clemente 62,865 17.90 2.079957125 $138,884.62
San Juan Capistrano 35,329 13.49 1.396854323 $93,271.92 Santa Ana 315,325 27.39 6.287660319 $419,844.87
Seal Beach 24,400 4.10 0.618084868 $41,271.28
Stanton 40,552 3.10 0.780886969 $52,142.03
Tustin 79,326 11.14 1.863796644 $124,450.98
Villa Park 5,738 2.08 0.219349087 $14,646.56
Westminster 90,295 10.05 1.947047425 $130,009.87
Yorba Linda 66,267 19.72 2.248763973 $150,156.33
County of Orange 133,033 171.52 13.27627958 $886,494.76 OCFCD 0 0.00 10 $667,728.30
TOTALS 3,175,427 677.58 100 $6,677,283.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.1
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Cost Sharing For Countywide Program
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Anaheim 341,773 49.90 10.58454093 $89,498.64
Brea 47,900 12.43 2.000897872 $16,918.79
Buena Park 82,667 10.55 2.415351295 $20,423.24
Costa Mesa 110,321 15.85 3.39198408 $28,681.26
Cypress 49,499 6.58 1.471607745 $12,443.33
Fountain Valley 56,560 9.06 1.828474599 $15,460.85
Fullerton 141,469 22.32 4.539405371 $38,383.40
Garden Grove 171,492 17.93 4.633567252 $39,179.59
Huntington Beach 193,134 26.18 5.789491514 $48,953.62
Irvine 318,629 65.97 11.72006498 $99,100.18
La Habra 61,202 7.57 1.76504916 $14,924.55
La Palma 15,110 1.80 0.429545561 $3,632.07
Laguna Hills (17.77% in SAR) 5,386 1.18 0.204407111 $1,728.38 Laguna Woods (64.27% in SAR) 11,044 2.12 0.390820031 $3,304.62 Lake Forest (69.24% in SAR) 60,681 11.62 2.142333092 $18,114.71 Los Alamitos 12,006 1.92 0.387595925 $3,277.36
Newport Beach 82,654 22.04 3.509987229 $29,679.05
Orange 139,724 25.76 4.837662595 $40,905.34
Placentia 53,982 6.74 1.563078485 $13,216.77
Santa Ana 315,325 27.39 7.989401151 $67,555.18
Seal Beach 24,400 4.10 0.806867187 $6,822.55
Stanton 40,552 3.10 0.987700072 $8,351.60
Tustin 79,326 11.14 2.414321066 $20,414.53
Villa Park 5,738 2.08 0.295865272 $2,501.72
Westminster 90,295 10.05 2.49796191 $21,121.77
Yorba Linda 66,267 19.72 3.008956398 $25,442.53
County of Orange (45.11% in SAR) 60,011 77.37 8.393062121 $70,968.37 OCFCD 0 0.00 10 $84,556.00
TOTALS 2,637,147 472.48 100 $845,560.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.2
Santa Ana Region Water Quality Monitoring Cost Sharing
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Aliso Viejo 50,213 6.92 5.716653958 $39,159.08
Dana Point 32,730 6.28 4.114111678 $28,181.66
Laguna Beach 22,763 8.81 3.834932093 $26,269.28
Laguna Hills (82.23% in SDR) 24,923 5.47 3.282865204 $22,487.63 Laguna Niguel 65,257 14.79 8.699884884 $59,594.21
Laguna Woods (35.73% in SDR) 6,139 1.18 0.772440843 $5,291.22 Lake Forest (30.76% in SDR) 26,958 5.16 3.386454887 $23,197.22 Mission Viejo 91,740 18.01 11.62081475 $79,602.58
Rancho Santa Margarita 46,341 12.94 6.712717624 $45,982.12 San Clemente 62,865 17.90 9.183833166 $62,909.26
San Juan Capistrano 35,329 13.49 5.914245112 $40,512.58 County of Orange (54.89% in SDR) 73,022 94.15 26.7610458 $183,313.16 OCFCD 0 0.00 10 $68,500.00
TOTALS 538,280 205.10 100 $685,000.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.3
San Diego Region Water Quality Monitoring Cost Sharing
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement.
2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Anaheim 94,140 13.74 15.59715786 $27,684.96
Brea 34,128 8.85 7.772628761 $13,796.42
Buena Park 80,483 10.27 12.5243325 $22,230.69
Cypress 35,254 4.69 5.589763919 $9,921.83
Fullerton 141,469 22.32 24.34747981 $43,216.78
La Habra 61,202 7.57 9.391020306 $16,669.06
La Palma 15,110 1.80 2.282769695 $4,051.92
Los Alamitos 11,650 1.86 2.018117567 $3,582.16
Placentia 28,091 3.51 4.329060557 $7,684.08
Seal Beach 19,721 3.31 3.505172715 $6,221.68
Stanton 0 0.00 0 $0.00
County of Orange 3,339 4.31 2.642496314 $4,690.42
OCFD 0 0.00 10 $17,750.00
Totals: 524,586 82.23 100 $177,500.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.4
San Gabriel - Coyote Creek Watershed Management Planning NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Anaheim 69,813 10.19 12.00120586 $21,302.14
Buena Park 2,184 0.28 0.349602637 $620.54
Cypress 14,245 1.89 2.329243468 $4,134.41
Fountain Valley 20,744 3.32 3.756934796 $6,668.56
Garden Grove 171,344 17.91 24.8698074 $44,143.91
Huntington Beach 123,561 16.75 20.40968773 $36,227.20
Los Alamitos 356 0.06 0.064381682 $114.28
Orange 2,895 0.53 0.569312866 $1,010.53
Santa Ana 37,123 3.22 4.96524789 $8,813.32
Seal Beach 4,679 0.79 0.870891641 $1,545.83
Stanton 40,552 3.10 5.154503732 $9,149.24
Westminster 90,295 10.05 13.50062152 $23,963.60
County of Orange 1,274 1.64 1.158558774 $2,056.44
OCFD 0 0.00 10 $17,750.00
Totals: 579,067 69.75 100 $177,500.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.5
Anaheim Bay - Huntington Harbor Watershed Management Planning NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Aliso Viejo 1,496 0.21 0.147307158 $261.47
Costa Mesa 54,115 7.77 5.425611652 $9,630.46
Irvine 317,824 65.80 37.996569071 $67,443.91
Laguna Hills 5,385 1.18 0.663959021 $1,178.53
Laguna Woods 11,044 2.12 1.271114571 $2,256.23
Lake Forest 60,573 11.60 6.955595710 $12,346.18
Newport Beach 56,257 15.00 7.747712378 $13,752.19
Orange 10,003 1.84 1.126897270 $2,000.24
Santa Ana 188,652 16.39 15.653086919 $27,784.23
Tustin 79,326 11.14 7.874345358 $13,976.96
County of Orange 11,442 14.75 5.137800893 $9,119.60
OCFD 0 0 10 $17,750.00
Totals: 796,117 147.82 100 $177,500.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.6
Newport Bay Watershed Management Planning
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Anaheim 177,812 25.96 18.25309494 $32,399.24
Brea 13,772 3.57 1.837051062 $3,260.77
Costa Mesa 56,206 8.07 5.734056568 $10,177.95
Fountain Valley 35,816 5.74 3.815049317 $6,771.71
Garden Grove 148 0.02 0.013548476 $24.05
Huntington Beach 69,573 9.43 6.945351923 $12,328.00
Irvine 80 0.02 0.009537821 $16.93
Lake Forest 111 0.02 0.012773599 $22.67
Newport Beach 1,493 0.40 0.202125778 $358.77
Orange 126,840 23.38 14.33903238 $25,451.78
Placentia 25,891 3.23 2.509465988 $4,454.30
Santa Ana 89,550 7.78 7.75772673 $13,769.96
Villa Park 5,738 2.08 0.925196237 $1,642.22
Yorba Linda 66,267 19.72 9.524349626 $16,905.72
County of Orange 43,938 56.65 18.12163955 $32,165.93
OCFD 0 0 10 $17,750.00
Totals: 713,235 166.08 100 $177,500.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.7
Santa Ana River Watershed Management Planning
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Permittee Population * Area (sq. mi.) ** Weighted Average Share of Cost (%)
Budget Share
FY 2025-26
Aliso Viejo 50,213 6.92 5.716653958 $38,873.25
Dana Point 32,730 6.28 4.114111678 $27,975.96
Laguna Beach 22,763 8.81 3.834932093 $26,077.54
Laguna Hills (82.23% in SDR) 24,923 5.47 3.282865204 $22,323.48 Laguna Niguel 65,257 14.79 8.699884884 $59,159.22
Laguna Woods (35.73% in SDR) 6,139 1.18 0.772440843 $5,252.60 Lake Forest (30.76% in SDR) 26,958 5.16 3.386454887 $23,027.89 Mission Viejo 91,740 18.01 11.62081475 $79,021.54
Rancho Santa Margarita 46,341 12.94 6.712717624 $45,646.48 San Clemente 62,865 17.90 9.183833166 $62,450.07
San Juan Capistrano 35,329 13.49 5.914245112 $40,216.87 County of Orange (54.89% in SDR) 73,022 94.15 26.7610458 $181,975.10 OCFCD 0 0.00 10 $68,000.00
Totals: 538,280 205.10 100 $680,000.00
* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Sacramento, California, May 2025.
Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates-E1/ TABLE 3.8
South Orange County Water Quality Improvement Plan
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
** Source: Orange County Public Works - Geomatics (updated 12/2024). Area was calculated in miles using the dry land area figures and subtracting areas in each jurisdiction for national forests, state parks, airports, landfills and military installations as determined in the NPDES Implementation Agreement. 2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Monitoring
San Gabriel River -
Coyote Creek
WIPS
Anaheim Bay -
Huntington Harbor
WIPS
Newport Bay
WIPS
Santa Ana River
WIPS Monitoring WQIP
Aliso Viejo $78,213.23 $261.47 $39,159.08 $38,873.25 $156,507.03 $150,137.98 4% Anaheim $544,691.14 $89,498.64 $27,684.96 $21,302.14 $32,399.24 $715,576.12 $709,532.20 1% Brea $100,432.80 $16,918.79 $13,796.42 $3,260.77 $134,408.78 $133,325.14 1% Buena Park $125,005.92 $20,423.24 $22,230.69 $620.54 $168,280.39 $167,436.46 1% Costa Mesa $174,675.46 $28,681.26 $9,630.46 $10,177.95 $223,165.13 $220,836.87 1% Cypress $76,031.03 $12,443.33 $9,921.83 $4,134.41 $102,530.60 $101,800.47 1% Dana Point $58,820.54 $28,181.66 $27,975.96 $114,978.16 $110,245.01 4% Fountain Valley $93,718.65 $15,460.85 $6,668.56 $6,771.71 $122,619.77 $121,637.64 1% Fullerton $232,827.33 $38,383.40 $43,216.78 $314,427.51 $311,256.32 1% Garden Grove $241,767.40 $39,179.59 $44,143.91 $24.05 $325,114.95 $322,925.54 1% Huntington Beach $298,872.70 $48,953.62 $36,227.20 $12,328.00 $396,381.52 $393,462.22 1% Irvine $594,050.63 $99,100.18 $67,443.91 $16.93 $760,611.65 $751,006.48 1% La Habra $91,469.87 $14,924.55 $16,669.06 $123,063.48 $122,059.72 1% La Palma $22,293.02 $3,632.07 $4,051.92 $29,977.01 $29,776.72 1% Laguna Beach $60,587.54 $26,269.28 $26,077.54 $112,934.36 $107,940.33 5% Laguna Hills $58,158.27 $1,728.38 $1,178.53 $22,487.63 $22,323.48 $105,876.29 $102,209.52 4% Laguna Niguel $127,325.01 $59,594.21 $59,159.22 $246,078.44 $234,596.93 5% Laguna Woods $30,920.87 $3,304.62 $2,256.23 $5,291.22 $5,252.60 $47,025.54 $45,979.70 2% Lake Forest $157,362.31 $18,114.71 $12,346.18 $22.67 $23,197.22 $23,027.89 $234,070.98 $228,505.13 2% Los Alamitos $19,868.78 $3,277.36 $3,582.16 $114.28 $26,842.58 $26,620.66 1% Mission Viejo $166,673.60 $79,602.58 $79,021.54 $325,297.72 $311,794.45 4% Newport Beach $175,971.57 $29,679.05 $13,752.19 $358.77 $219,761.58 $217,942.96 1% Orange $246,449.77 $40,905.34 $1,010.53 $2,000.24 $25,451.78 $315,817.66 $312,675.52 1% Placentia $80,970.28 $13,216.77 $7,684.08 $4,454.30 $106,325.43 $103,621.86 3% Rancho Santa Margarita $101,223.76 $45,982.12 $45,646.48 $192,852.36 $185,310.92 4% San Clemente $138,884.62 $62,909.26 $62,450.07 $264,243.95 $252,871.98 4% San Juan Capistrano $93,271.92 $40,512.58 $40,216.87 $174,001.37 $166,600.72 4% Santa Ana $419,844.87 $67,555.18 $8,813.32 $27,784.23 $13,769.96 $537,767.56 $529,795.00 2% Seal Beach $41,271.28 $6,822.55 $6,221.68 $1,545.83 $55,861.34 $55,484.61 1% Stanton $52,142.03 $8,351.60 $0.00 $9,149.24 $69,642.87 $69,013.65 1% Tustin $124,450.98 $20,414.53 $13,976.96 $158,842.47 $157,389.51 1% Villa Park $14,646.56 $2,501.72 $1,642.22 $18,790.50 $18,612.75 1% Westminster $130,009.87 $21,121.77 $23,963.60 $175,095.24 $173,222.87 1% Yorba Linda $150,156.33 $25,442.53 $16,905.7200 $192,504.58 $190,939.86 1% County of Orange $886,494.76 $70,968.37 $4,690.42 $2,056.44 $9,119.60 $32,165.93 $183,313.16 $181,975.10 $1,370,783.78 $1,330,644.00 3% OCFCD $667,728.30 $84,556.00 $17,750.00 $17,750.00 $17,750.00 $17,750.00 $68,500.00 $68,000.00 $959,784.30 $940,801.30 2% TOTALS $6,677,283.00 $845,560.00 $177,500.00 $177,500.00 $177,500.00 $177,500.00 $685,000.00 $680,000.00 $9,597,843.00 $9,408,013.00 2% Percent Change
TABLE 4
NPDES Permittee Shares of Costs
Fiscal Year 2025-26
Santa Ana Region San Diego Region
Total Permittee Budget Share by FY
FY 24-25 to
FY 25-26 Proposed
Budget
FY 25-26
Proposed Budget
Permittee
Countywide
FY 24-25
Budget
2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
FIGURE 1
NPDES Shared Costs Budget
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Amount
Year
NPDES Shared Costs Budget
Budgeted Amount Actual Expenditures
2025-26 Budget 5/6/2025
Agenda Item No. 4 August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 4
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Belinda Deines, Community Development & Public Works Director Douglas Benash, City Engineer
AGENDA TITLE: Various Median Islands Project Notice of Completion RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work and authorize the Community Development & Public Works Director to file the Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work with the Orange County Clerk-Recorder for the Various Median Islands Project (City Project No. ST-371).
SUMMARY:
As part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), staff prepared plans and specifications to reconstruct several median islands and construct two (2) new median islands as follows:
Facility Limits
La Palma Avenue East City Limits to West City Limits
Moody Street South City Limits to Houston Avenue
Moody Street – Construct two new medians Malaga Dr to La Luna Drive Walker Street Orangethorpe Avenue to Bransford Drive
The scope of work included the removal of the existing landscaping and irrigation and grading to retain drainage in each median island, with subsequent construction of new drip irrigation, planting of new trees and drought-tolerant plants, installation of decorative river rock and connection to existing City irrigation controllers.
On October 18, 2023, the City advertised and solicited bids on OpenGov, the City’s public bidding platform for Project No. ST-371. On October 24, 2023, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held and eight (8) firms attended. The scheduled bid date was set for November 30, 2023, and two (2) bids were received. Staff reviewed all bid documents and confirmed Unispec Construction, Incorporated submitted a bid and met all the bidding requirements.
At its meeting on February 6, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of
Agenda Item No. 4 August 5, 2025 | 2
$2,533,643.70 to Unispec Construction Incorporated of San Pedro, California, for construction services for the Various Median Islands Project, City Project No. ST-371. The work was substantially completed on February 27, 2025.
The Contractor has completed the work and their quality of work is satisfactory. The final contract amount is $3,076,345.09 based on actual quantities constructed thirty-one (31) change orders over the bid amount. The summary of change orders is shown in Attachment No. 1. Unispec has disputed some work with the City, and this acceptance and final payment is meant only to address undisputed amounts owed to the Contractor.
The final 5% retention for the project is released to the contractor after the Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work is recorded with the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. There are no active liens or stop notices against the contractor or project; therefore, the final 5% retention payment will be released to the contractor as per the contract documents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2023-24 & 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget funded the project as follows:
Funding Source Account No. Amount
HUD Grant Funds (FY 23-24) 035-900-8134-00000 $220,000
HUD Grant Funds (FY 24-25) 035-900-8134-00000 $1,780,000 RMRA (SB 1) 010-900-8134-00000 $400,000
Measure M2 012-900-8134-00000 $500,000
Capital Outlay Reserve (COR) 035-900-8134-00000 $500,000 Total Budget $3,400,000
The final payment and retention for the project in the amount of $170,840.06 will be released to the Contractor following the filing of the Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work from the Capital Outlay Reserve account for Median Rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Change Order Summary
2. Notice of Completion - Unispec
Original Contract Amount $ 2,533,643.70
Contingency $ 253,400.00
$ 2,787,043.70
Additional "C" Budget CC 12.10.2024 [River Rocks+) $ 291,000.00 $ 3,078,043.70
Column 1 Column 2 Column 2A
Contingency Balance Approved CCOs Unilateral City CCOs
Added
Construction
Budget
CCO No. 1 $ 186,982.90 $ 66,417.10
CCO No. 2 $ 78,182.90 $ 108,800.00
CCO No. 3R [River Rocks] - See City Approved CCO#27 $ 78,182.90 $ - CCO 5 Irrigation Backflow LP Ave $ 75,794.73 $ 2,388.17 CCO 6 Irrigation Wires+valve $ 71,001.09 $ 4,793.64
CCO 7 - New Curb at Moody EW $ 35,579.13 $ 35,421.96
CCO 8 - AC @ Moody & Houston $ 32,673.44 $ 2,905.69
CCO 9 - AC at LP Ave & De Varies Ln $ 23,287.25 $ 9,386.19 CCO 10 AC @ 4 Locations LP Ave $ 5,152.17 $ 18,135.08
CCO 11 (Previous No. 4R) [Survey] $ 5,152.17 $ -
City's Unilateral Deductive CCO 3 - Eliminate Boulders $ 429,352.17 $ (133,200.00) $ 291,000.00 City's Unilateral Deductive CCO 4 Substitute 15 Gal Trees $ 498,952.17 $ (69,600.00) CCO 12 - New curb conflict with Sewer MH Covers $ 482,203.05 $ 16,749.12 CCO 13 (13R) - Locating Gas lIne Extrawork - Initially marked wrong by Digalert $ 470,026.34 $ 12,176.71
CCO 14 - Removal of AC Pavment in Walker St Medians $ 459,388.03 $ 10,638.31 CCO 15 - Removal of AC Pavment at Moody & Houston $ 448,287.73 $ 11,100.30 CCO 16 - Removal of AC pavment at Walker St Sht 13 $ 444,438.62 $ 3,849.11 CCO 17 - Extra work to avoid existing Concrete Box for
Conduit borings $ 441,361.96 $ 3,076.66
CCO 18 - Removal of AC Pavement along Moody St Medians
[La Palma Ave to Houston, Shts 11 and 12] $ 401,474.52 $ 39,887.44 CCO 19 - Removal of AC Pavement along Moody St Medians
[La Palma Ave to Houston, Shts 11 and 12] $ 373,338.72 $ 28,135.80 CCO 22 - Removal of AC Pavement along Moody St Medians
[La Palma Ave to Houston, Shts 10 and 11] $ 359,081.89 $ 14,256.83 CCO 23 - Extra Potholing needed for Utility lines at Crscent and Moody $ 351,829.44 $ 7,252.45
CCO 24 - Replace 24" Box Tree and Valve Pull Box Damaged by the weekend accident $ 350,895.24 $ 934.20
CCO 25 - Open trench xtra work to install Irrigation Sleeve at Moody and Crescent intersection for Utility line. $ 334,769.05 $ 16,126.19 CCO 26 - Plant 3 - 24" Piggy Palm Date Trees atCity
Monument on La Palma Median Island (Near Denni St) $ 332,969.05 $ 1,800.00 CCO 27 (old Unispec# 3R) - Deliver and Place 651 Tons of River Rocks $ 115,280.09 $ 217,688.96
CCO 28 - R&R Curb and Stamped Concrete on Moddy St
from Crescent to Huston $ 90,993.66 $ 24,286.43
CCO 29 - Repair/install damaged Backflow Preventer etc $ 87,257.64 $ 3,736.02 CCO 30 - Manual Watering Unispec $ 81,479.25 $ 5,778.39 CCO 31 - Repair Backflow Preventer at Moody/La Palma Av $ 78,113.61 $ 3,365.64 Overage Items Moody St [71,300+240+3,675+1,200] $ 1,698.61 $ 76,415.00 $ 466,286.39
Original Contract
Sub-total CCOs till 31
Overage Items Moody St [71,300+240+3,675+1,200]
$ 2,533,643.70
$ 76,415.00
Construction Budget $ 3,078,043.70
Contingency Balance $ 1,698.61
$ 3,076,345.09
Summary
City of La Palma
Project: ST-371 Various Median Islands Project
Federal Project No.: B-22-CP-CA-0123
Contractor: Unispec Construction
Summary CCOs and Construction Budget
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF LA PALMA
7822 WALKER STREET
LA PALMA, CA 90623-1771
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER’S FEES
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
AND
ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is public property.
2. The City of La Palma, 7822 Walker Street, La Palma, California 90623, as owner of the property hereinafter described caused improvement to be made, to wit:
Work includes the Various Medians Islands Project (City Project No. ST-371) in the City of La Palma.
3. The name and address of the contractor for the work of improvement as a whole is:
UNISPEC CONSTRUCTION, INC.
1621 W. 25th Street, #176
San Pedro, CA 90732
4. The notice is given for (check one):
❑ Completion of the work improvement as a whole
❑ Completion of a contract for a particular portion of the work of improvement (per CA Civ. Code § 8186
The contract for the doing of which was heretofore entered into on the 6 th day of
February, 2024, which contract was made with UNISPEC CONSTRUCTION, INC. as Contractor; that the work was actually accepted on the 5 th day of August,
2025 by the City Council of the City of La Palma; that title to said property is vested in the City of La Palma; that the surety for said Contractor is CONTRACTORS BONDING AND INSURANCE COMPANY, that the property hereinbefore referred to and on which said improvement was made is described as follows:
Various Medians Islands Project (City Project No. ST-371)
CITY OF LA PALMA EXEMPT FROM RECORDER’S FEES
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: August ____, 2025. ________________________________________ Place: La Palma, CA Belinda Deines
Community Development & Public Works Director
City of La Palma
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF LA PALMA )
VERIFICATION
I, BELINDA DEINES, state; I am the Community Development & Public Works Director of the City of La Palma identified in the foregoing Notice of Completion. I have read said Notice of Completion and know that contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August ___, 2025 at _______________________________________.
By ________________________________________
Belinda Deines
Community Development & Public Works Director
City of La Palma
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
County of ___________________________________
On ____________ before me, ________________________________________ 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.
Place Notary Seal Above Signature _________________________________ Signature of Notary Public
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Agenda Item No. 5 August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 5
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Belinda Deines, Community Development and Public Works Director
AGENDA TITLE: Response to 2024-25 Orange County Grand Jury Report entitled Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached response to the 2024-25 Grand Jury Report, Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals, and authorize submittal to the Orange County Grand Jury.
BACKGROUND:
On May 22, 2025, the Orange County Grand Jury released its 2024-25 Grand Jury Report, LongTerm Solutions to Short-Term Rentals. The purpose of the report was to investigate how effectively Orange County cities are managing short-term rentals (STRs) and identify best practices for cities' STR programs. The Grand Jury studied STR permits and the effectiveness of STR bans across the 34 cities in Orange County. Specifically, the Grand Jury examined permitting, enforcement, and collections strategies in order to provide cities with various tools that would assist in effectively balancing the expectations of residents and STR operators.
DISCUSSION:
The Grand Jury report found that of the 34 incorporated cities in Orange County, 19 cities had a ban on all STRs, while 15 allowed STRs. Through a survey of cities' STR policies and practices, the report determined that the overall impact of STRs on their respective communities varied by city based on established ordinances, policies, and enforcement practices, or lack thereof. However, the report also found that in nearly every city, STRs were generally regulated by ordinances defining operation rules, establishing fees for licensing and violations, and outlining the appeals process. Ultimately, the report determined that STRs can be good neighbors when cities have clear ordinances, concise permitting guidance, diligent code enforcement, an easy-to-use complaint system, and monthly electronic collection of TOT.
The Grand Jury report outlined twelve findings, 10 of which applied to La Palma:
1. F1 - Despite the increasing media coverage on Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.
Agenda Item No. 5 August 5, 2025 | 2
2. F2 - The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.
3. F5 - Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city's statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.
4. F6 - Direct remittance of taxes by OBAs does not capture all TOT for an STR because of direct booking practices.
5. F7 - Some cities in Orange County have outdated systems for tracking short-term rental TOT making the process less effective and more difficult for staff.
6. F8 - In some cases, STRs are improperly recharacterized as long-term rentals to circumvent the collection of TOT and any applicable penalties.
7. F9 - Online Booking Agencies in foreign languages are outside the current capabilities of Code Enforcement to monitor and track unpermitted STRs.
8. F10 - Cities that fail to routinely review their STR waiting lists potentially lose TOT revenue and contribute to a greater prevalence of unpermitted STRs.
9. F11 - Locations that have hosted major events have reported an outsizes increase in demand and pricing of STRs, a situation Orange County is likely to experience with the upcoming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
10. F12 - City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.
The Grand Jury report also outlined nine recommendations, nine of which applied to La Palma. Cities were advised to:
1. R1 - Review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter.
2. R2 - Consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter.
3. R3 - Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026.
4. R4 - Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026.
5. R5 - Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025.
6. R6 - Cities with a permit waiting list should implement strategies to remove non-revenuegenerating licenses to allow for fair access by December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter.
7. R7 - Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026.
8. R8 - Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter.
9. R9 - Have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026.
Staff have drafted the attached response, which the City Council is being requested to review and approve.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of receiving this report.
Agenda Item No. 5 August 5, 2025 | 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2024-25 Grand Jury Report on Short-Term Rentals
2. Response Letter to Grand Jury Report
2024-2025 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
Long-Term Solutions to
Short-Term Rentals
Grand Jury
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4 REASON FOR THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 5 METHOD OF STUDY ................................................................................................................. 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Cities Manage STRs......................................................................................................... 7 Code Enforcement’s Role ......................................................................................................... 8 STR Policies Vary in Orange County...................................................................................... 8 Cities With an STR Ban ........................................................................................................... 8 Cities Without a Specific STR Ordinance................................................................................ 9 How Cities Collect Complaints................................................................................................ 9 Issues with STR Code Enforcement ........................................................................................ 9 Tools That Help Code Enforcement Accomplish Their Goals............................................ 10 Legal Cases Uncover Gaps in STR Ordinances................................................................... 10 Managing Permit Scarcity...................................................................................................... 11 Collecting TOT Revenue ........................................................................................................ 12 Major Events Fuel Demand for STRs................................................................................... 13 STR Impact on Affordable Housing...................................................................................... 13 STRs Can be Good Neighbors................................................................................................ 14 FINDINGS................................................................................................................................... 15 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 16 RESPONSES ............................................................................................................................... 17 Responses Required ................................................................................................................ 18 Findings................................................................................................................................. 19 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 19 Requested Responses............................................................................................................... 19 Findings................................................................................................................................. 19 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 19
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................... 20 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 21 TABLES
Table 1: STR policies by city.......................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Models of short-term rentals............................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Recent selected legal findings related to STRs............................................................... 11 Table 4: STR permit limits and affordable housing needed (Housing Element).......................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 1: A single residence may appear on multiple websites...................................................... 7
ACRONYMS
ADU Accessory Dwelling Units
CCC California Coastal Commission
CE Code Enforcement
GIS Geographic Information System
HOA Homeowners Association
LI Low Income
OBA Online Booking Agency
STR Short-Term Rental
TOT Transient Occupancy Tax
VLI Very Low Income
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 4
SUMMARY
Short-term rental (STR) is defined as occupancy of a residence such as a home or an apartment for fewer than 30 days.
Some Orange County residents complain that the growth of STRs impinges on their quality of life and adds costs to city government for additional code enforcement. The 2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigation revealed that:
• Cities with a growing number of STRs did not always receive higher complaint volumes. • Some cities employ effective strategies to manage complaints and other cities can learn from their success.
• When cities ban STRs, this often leads to a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole”—as soon as one unpermitted STR is shut down, another opens. • Code Enforcement (CE) errs on the side of leniency.
• Some cities rarely pursue fines for STR violations or collect the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on unreported STR income.
• Some cities rely on the “honor system” for STR owners to report and pay the correct TOT.
• The commonly held belief that STRs negatively impact affordable housing is not evident in cities with STRs.
This report identifies best practices that city councils and their planning departments can use to more efficiently and effectively manage their STRs. This includes modifying STR ordinances, and for some cities, utilizing third-party digital tools for better code enforcement and data tracking to collect unreported TOT.
BACKGROUND
For many years, Orange County has been an international destination, with its forty-two miles of scenic coastline, Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, Angel Stadium, Honda Center, and other attractions. Vacation rental properties in Orange County’s beach communities go back many decades; for instance, in the 1920s, Crystal Cove State Park offered camping sites to the public, and in the 1940s it offered trailers.
For some, STRs are business opportunities. To others, STRs are a nuisance and impinge on neighbors’ quality of life. In response to these conflicting priorities, some cities in Orange County have banned STRs, some have limited their number, and some have no limits.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 5
Table 1: STR policies by city
Policy Choice Cities with the Policy
Banned (19) Aliso Viejo, Brea, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Hills,
Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Rancho
Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda
Allowed (15) Anaheim, Buena Park, Dana Point, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange,
Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Seal
Beach
The advent of online booking agencies (OBAs) has made it even easier for homeowners (and apartment lessees) to supplement their income by renting out their home or room and advertising to millions around the world. As a result, STRs’ visibility has increased, creating tension between STR operators and neighbors.
REASON FOR THE STUDY
Short-term rentals are a heated topic in Orange County cities. Various news reports have covered the impact of STRs on local communities, and this motivated the Grand Jury to investigate how effectively Orange County cities are managing STRs.
The scope of this study includes the thirty-four cities in Orange County, with a focus on cities with the largest number of STRs and cities with bans on STRs, as well as coastal cities.
The Grand Jury studied STR permits and the effectiveness of STR bans. Finally, the Grand Jury examined strategies to improve the quality of life for residents and to provide city planning departments a compilation of tools that will assist in effectively balancing the expectations of the residents and the business owners operating STRs.
METHOD OF STUDY
The Grand Jury conducted the following:
• Research on STR management and business models
o Survey of national publications with articles on STRs
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 6
o Review of websites, interviews, testimonials, and other materials produced by companies serving the STR and hospitality markets or from contractors with products for cities managing STRs
o Review of academic papers on STRs and their history
o Review of non-governmental agency white papers on STRs • In-person interviews of city personnel
• Review of:
o City meeting minutes and recordings of residents’ concerns o Various cities’ STR complaint processes
o City ordinances as well as state statutes
o California Coastal Commission guidance
o Third-party STR surveillance software used by cities
o Various cities’ STR complaints from June 2022 through June 2024 o Relevant legal rulings
• Analysis of TOT
INVESTIGATION
The Grand Jury learned that in most cases, STR operators are required to obtain a business license, register with their city for a permit, submit reports, pass an inspection, and pay TOT.
This is a city-level tax levied on any temporary lodging that is occupied for fewer than thirty days. All hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts must remit this tax. Short-term rentals permitting and other policies vary by city. A short-term rental’s TOT is paid either monthly, quarterly, or annually. Most cities allowing STRs require a twenty-four-hour, in-person contact to address complaints, within either thirty or sixty minutes.
Short-term rental operators often use one of the numerous OBAs, such as VRBO (from the phrase Vacation Rentals by Owner), Airbnb, Zumper, and HomeAway. In addition, some operators may advertise via direct booking sites (a website for their specific property) or through local rental agents. Multiple OBAs mean that a unique property may have as many as a dozen listings.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 7
Figure 1: A single residence may appear on multiple websites.
How Cities Manage STRs
In nearly every city, short-term rentals are regulated by ordinances that define operational rules, establish fees for licensing and violations, and outline the appeals process. Often these rules include disclosure to neighbors, a “Good Neighbor Policy” brochure for the renter, parking and garbage policies, and quiet hours for the neighborhood. An emergency contact who would be readily available to respond to a complaint is typically required. City ordinances may define who can own and operate an STR. Cities may limit operation to the primary homeowner or renter, or they may allow investors who own multiple STR properties.
The Grand Jury observed the following STR models:
Table 2: Models of short-term rentals
Hosted/Shared Housing Owner must be on the property/in
house
Primary Housing Rentals of an owner’s primary
residence are permitted
Unrestricted No restrictions on ownership (incomeproducing property) The Hosted/Shared model is when a homeowner or renter with an extra room rents it out for fewer than thirty days. The host stays at the property during the guests’ stay, either in the house or in an on-property Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The Primary Housing model is when the host rents out their principal home but is not present on the property. Unrestricted STRs are income-producing properties, often owned by corporations and managed by property management companies.
123 Your Street
VRBO.com
airbnb.com
Zumper.com
HomeAway.com
Booking.com
holidayhomes.com
vacasa.com
evolve.com
avantstay.com
agoda.com
flipkey.com
casamundo.com
9flats.com
onefinestay.com
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 8
Regardless of the model, neighbors have the expectation that STR businesses will be operated in a responsible and respectful manner. Owner-occupied models make it easier for a neighbor with a complaint to get resolution. In cities that use this model, formal complaints are fewer because neighbors can quickly resolve issues between themselves.
Code Enforcement’s Role
Code Enforcement (CE) responsibilities include initial and ongoing inspections of STRs to assure adherence to building codes, noise and parking requirements, along with monitoring city complaint portals and searching for nonpermitted STRs. Code Enforcement officers also investigate citizen complaints to substantiate claims and issue citations.
Revenue staff work in tandem with CE to process permits and licenses and to collect TOT and other fees. In at least one city that has a waiting list for STR permits, revenue staff rather than CE staff manage the list, which may delay or limit CE’s ability to find unpermitted STRs.
Several cities employ third-party platforms offering an array of services, including STR registration portals, a complaints hotline and/or online portal, and tax payment portals. These platforms offer efficient and potentially cost-effective options to aid staff monitoring STRs.
Cities may also select a third-party platform option that identifies both permitted and unpermitted STRs advertising on OBAs.
STR Policies Vary in Orange County
Each of the thirty-four cities in Orange County has its own policies. As of this writing, nineteen of the cities had a ban on all STRs and fifteen allowed STRs (see Table 1). Unincorporated areas of the county (e.g., Rossmoor, North Tustin) are covered by County of Orange policy through the OC Public Works department, which issues permits; however, the Grand Jury did not observe STR volumes in unincorporated areas warranting analysis.
Cities With an STR Ban
The Grand Jury learned that it is difficult for cities to enforce a ban. Cities report that after they enacted a ban, the volume of STRs saw a notable decline; however, some unpermitted STRs still continued to operate. Cities may use a rental identification database and a complaint portal to improve compliance, often through third-party software. These databases can often identify the address of an unpermitted STR and allow follow-up with the property owner. At least one city with technologically savvy CE staff has performed this task without help from a third-party platform.
All cities in the coastal zone have permits for STRs, and this is linked to mandates from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which issued a 2016 memo with guidance that coastal cities provide “lower cost visitor…facilities” and beach access via STRs.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9
Cities Without a Specific STR Ordinance
Some cities without an STR ordinance have operated on the assumption that because STRs are not defined by an ordinance, they are banned. However, when an STR operator challenges a citation, these cities have often discovered that the subsequent court ruling goes against the city, as evidenced by recent cases described below. Cities often respond to these losses by drafting new ordinances and amendments, but sometimes a new STR operator will find another legal gap, and the “whack-a-mole” game continues.
Multi-unit apartment complexes may also host unpermitted STRs in cities that have bans. Photos used in online advertising often make complexes easy to find, but identifying specific units may be difficult. Property managers are more familiar with the units and can sometimes help CE track these down.
Some properties without permits are advertised on foreign-language websites. Image searches may uncover these host sites, but the Grand Jury did not identify any solution yet for this challenge.
How Cities Collect Complaints
Many Orange County cities provide an online complaint portal as well as a telephone hotline; these services are staffed by a third-party platform or by city staff. In cities that allow STRs, Code Enforcement will reach out to the STR emergency contact to initiate complaint resolution.
Issues with STR Code Enforcement
Most STR operators want to avoid citations and fines. Neighbor complaints can lead to notices of violation, fines, and ultimately revocation of the STR operating permit. With effective enforcement, STRs that violate city codes receive a citation and/or fine. This can result in improved behavior on the part of the STR operator.
In the fifteen cities that allow STRs, neighbors face hurdles in complaint resolution. This, along with laxity in enforcement, may explain why fewer than ten percent of STRs record a complaint in a given year, a number that fails to reflect the frustration of STR neighbors.
Tracking and confirmation of complaints is often difficult. In order to enforce STR ordinance rules, code or law enforcement must first substantiate that the source is an STR. In some cities that permit STRs, Code Enforcement works only during regular business hours. Nuisance reports often occur in the evening or early morning, when CE may not be on duty. Therefore, residents or other complainants do not receive a timely response and the problem is not resolved at the time of the actual nuisance, if ever.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 10
Most ordinances require an emergency contact for each STR, but a review of hundreds of complaints between 2022 and 2024 shows that in a number of cases the contact does not respond either in the thirty- or sixty-minute required time frame.
Warnings and citations may take up to a week to issue and are recorded in an STR complaint log.
The STR operator may appeal the citation. Initial appeals are made through a city official or a third-party administrative officer. This can take some time, during which the STR may continue to operate. An ordinance without an appeals procedure may be challenged in the courts.
The Grand Jury learned that in most cities, CE investigates complaints with a fair bit of leniency.
First, the CE officer will visit the property and confirm the violation. The most common complaint is noise, and this violation must be observed and verified by the CE officer. Other complaints may involve vehicle parking, trash, and exceeding permitted occupancy. The CE officer often works through the emergency contact to resolve problems and often will issue a warning rather than a citation.
Tools That Help Code Enforcement Accomplish Their Goals Cities that allow STRs would benefit from a system that geographically integrates STR owner contact information, permit, and business license numbers. Having this information readily available would enable CE to respond to complaints more effectively. Some of the third-party platforms offer these tools, but using a third-party platform requires a degree of technical knowledge and an investment in Code Enforcement training. Some cities accomplish this work with internal tools and staff.
Beyond responding to complaints, CE in some cities proactively inspect permitted STRs and/or confirm the emergency contacts. These inspections confirm occupancy limits, ensure that safety equipment is onsite, and validate that no unpermitted construction has been done on the property.
Legal Cases Uncover Gaps in STR Ordinances
Recent cases up and down the state have established firm guidance for cities as they deal with STR issues. The Grand Jury identified a few cases that clarified areas of ambiguity in existing STR ordinances:
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 11
Table 3: Recent selected legal findings related to STRs Case Decision
People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71
Cal. App. 5th 715, 732-34 (2021)
Specificity in zoning language is necessary.
Length of occupancy was not specified in
code and therefore STR usage would be
permitted.
Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77
Cal. App. 5th 142 (2022)
The term “residence” alone is not effective in
banning STRs. A specific STR ordinance is
necessary.
Coastal Protection Alliance Inc. v.
Airbnb, Inc., 95 Cal. App. 5th 207,
270 (2023)
Operation of STRs in coastal zones does not
in and of itself constitute an increase in
density or intensity requiring changes in
zoning.
Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, 63
Cal. App. 5th 1089 (2021)
Coastal cities need to secure and comply with
Coastal Commission rulings before drafting
any limiting ordinances pertaining to STRs.
These rulings highlight gaps in city ordinances and may provide grounds for appeal of STR citations. In light of these rulings, the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana amended their codes to incorporate language that plugs the gaps, resulting in more effective STR enforcement.
Managing Permit Scarcity
Limits on the number of STR permits create a quasi-monopoly. In some cities, the permit limit was set at a point in time when no limit existed. The cities selected a number slightly greater than the inventory then in existence. Once the limit was set, these cities saw an acceleration in applications up to the limit.
In some cities, STRs are excluded only in certain zones. Single family home (R1) zones and Homeowner Associations (HOAs) often have exclusions. Other cities permit unlimited STRs in a “vacation home zone” near the beach or an attraction. Still others allow one STR in a fixed radius (typically 300 feet), which effectively limits permits.
At least three cities (Newport Beach, Dana Point, and Orange) have created waiting lists in response to having more applications than available permits. However, STR operators rarely voluntarily relinquish their permits. If an STR has been converted to a long-term rental, then it is no longer subject to TOT. Unless the STR operator informs the city of the conversion, a city that only collects TOT annually (as at least one city does) will not know for a year that the unit is no longer operating as an STR. At that point, as they have not received any TOT from the unit, the
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 12
city can initiate proceedings to rescind the STR permit and pass it on to the next applicant on the waiting list. However, the STR operator can appeal, and this can extend the process even longer.
Some cities allow permit holders to transfer their permit to a family member or to the new owner of their property, thus circumventing the waiting list altogether. A system where permits expire after a certain time would afford those on the waiting list an opportunity to be placed ahead of renewals, thus creating a more equitable process. One city, Dana Point, has set a limit on investor-owned properties, allowing more Hosted STRs to have priority in getting permits.
Collecting TOT Revenue
The fifteen cities that allow STRs (see Table 1) collect TOT on STR revenue, plus any fees charged to the renter. Operators report TOT to cities either annually, quarterly, or monthly.
Monthly reporting of TOT has several advantages: cities receive TOT sooner, the STR owner has a smoother and more predictable cash flow, and cities can quickly identify non-revenueproducing STRs.
In cities like Dana Point and Anaheim, TOT represents a substantial percentage of city revenue; however, nearly all of this comes from hotels. Short-term rental TOT in Newport Beach represents thirty percent of total TOT collections, contributing two percent of city revenues.
Newport Beach has the greatest share of TOT revenue from STRs (with 1,550 units) and the greatest number of STRs of all Orange County cities. Transient Occupancy Tax rates vary by city from eight to seventeen percent. Despite the limited amounts, each city that collects shortterm rental TOT increases their general fund.
Each city handles TOT collection differently. Newport Beach collects quarterly from agents who operate STRs and annually from STR homeowners, using paper-based forms. This system does not allow for easy tracking of short-term rental TOT by permit number because multiple units at the same address (with separate permits) may be combined on the form. A digital submission by unique permit number, such as is used by the City of Orange, is easy and provides greater detail to the city.
The City of Anaheim has agreements called Voluntary Collection Agreements (VCAs) with a number of Online Booking Agency platforms that enable monthly TOT remittance from shortterm rental advertising on the OBA. In most cases, OBAs share a spreadsheet with totals only; however, at least one platform remits with detailed addresses with amounts by address. It is possible for an OBA to send more detailed data and for the city to integrate it into its information systems, but as yet no city appears to have negotiated with an OBA to implement this direct reporting. Requiring an OBA to report more detail ensures that all STR tax from Online Booking Agency is reported, collected, and remitted to the city, whether the STR is permitted or not.
However, this system still would not capture STRs booked directly with the operator, which may be up to 30-60% of gross rental revenue.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13
At least one city (Orange) requires that TOT reporting include the number of days the STR is available for rent and number of days rented each month. Capturing these statistics facilitates desk auditing.
A “desk audit” is a remote review of the STR operators’ reported information to ensure compliance with TOT reporting requirements. This is in contrast to a “business-level audit,” which is performed by the city on site and involves verification of the reported information against third-party records, such as bank statements.
The Grand Jury’s review of a subset of Orange County cities did not identify any that did more than desk audits on short-term rental TOT receipts. Put simply, these cities currently rely on the “honor system.” Conducting business-level audits would allow cities to discover and collect additional funds. However, a city should consider the cost of enforcement versus the financial benefit of STR business audits, especially in smaller cities with limited short-term rental TOT.
Major Events Fuel Demand for STRs
Reports from the 2024 Olympic games indicate that the average price per night of STRs in and around Paris more than doubled during the Olympics, and total inventory grew by nearly fifty percent. With the coming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, these surges are likely to be seen in Orange County, especially with the Honda Center and Trestles Beach—both in Orange County—being used as Olympic venues. Orange County cities have not yet dedicated resources to plan around STRs for these major events.
STR Impact on Affordable Housing
Some housing advocates argue that STRs reduce the inventory of much needed and mandated affordable housing. The Grand Jury found that STRs have a negligible effect on affordable housing in cities that currently allow STRs. The Southern California Association of Governments, acting under the direction of the State Housing Element Law, sets a mandated volume of new units by city for Very Low Income (VLI) and Low Income (LI) units, and this analysis uses it as the estimate of needed affordable units.
The Grand Jury’s analysis of inland cites suggests that if their existing STR units were converted to affordable housing, they would contribute at most about eight percent (125/1,671 from Table 4) of the affordable units required (in the city of Orange), and a much smaller percentage in other inland cities.
On the other hand, in coastal cities, the STR volumes appear to meet a sizable portion of affordable unit goals. However, coastal cities must comply with State law enforced through the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC weighs in on all coastal development and changes, and any modification of a city’s zoning rules or limits on STRs would be subject to the CCC’s approval. The CCC’s stated goal is to preserve access to public beaches and low-cost
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14
short-term housing, which includes STRs. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that coastal STRs would be converted to long-term affordable housing in any sizeable number.
Table 4: STR permit limits and affordable housing needed (Housing Element) Housing Element 6th Series Unit Goals
Inland Cities
Limit on
STR Permits
Very Low
Income
(VLI)
Low
Income
(LI)
VLI+LI Unit
Goal
Anaheim 277 3,767 2,397 6,164
Buena Park 11 2,119 1,343 3,462
Fullerton 100 3,198 1,989 5,187
Orange 125 1,067 604 1,671
Coastal Cities*
Dana Point 115 147 84 231
Laguna Beach 300 118 80 198
Newport Beach 1,550 1,456 930 2,386
San Clemente 225 282 164 446
Seal Beach 33 258 201 459
*Subject to CCC legal requirements
Equally important is the fact that there is rarely a one-to-one relationship between STRs and long-term housing. In many areas of the County, STRs are luxury or large-scale homes. It is extremely unlikely that such homes could or would be easily converted into affordable housing or demolished to create multiple affordable dwellings. Aside from the complications of such an endeavor, the likelihood that neighbors would acquiesce to these changes is negligible.
Based on the above factors, the Grand Jury concludes that, contrary to widely held belief, STRs should not be considered a significant factor in the availability of affordable housing in Orange County cities with STRs.
STRs Can be Good Neighbors
The burden of getting STR operators to function in a community friendly way should be on the operator and government, not the neighborhood residents. Best practices include the following:
• Updated ordinances that limit how STRs can advertise and specifically exclude STRs from banned cities
• Concise city permitting guidance
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15
• An easy-to-use complaint system for residents
• Diligent code enforcement
• Requiring an in-person contact
• Permit numbers in all advertising
• Monthly electronic collection of TOT
Several Orange County cities, such as Seal Beach, Dana Point, and Orange, have clear permitting procedures that explicitly outline Good Neighbor policies, yielding low complaint rates.
Anaheim and Santa Ana have made ordinance revisions that improve the odds that their cities will prevail in appeals to STR citations. Newport Beach, Dana Point, and Anaheim perform regular inspections on new and existing STRs to ensure units are safe and code compliant.
Incorporating the above elements in a city’s ordinances and practicing effective code enforcement would enhance the relationship between STR business operators and their neighbors. Moreover, better communication among cities to share these best practices would greatly improve the management of STRs.
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2024-2025 Grand Jury requires (or as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation “Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals,” the 2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at twelve findings, as follows:
F1: Despite the increasing media coverage of Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.
F2: The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.
F3: Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’s statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.
F4: Anaheim’s ordinance requires OBAs to report Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) directly to the city. This has led to the favorable consequence that unpermitted STR income is reported to the city.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16
F5: Proactive home inspections of new and renewing STRs, which have been implemented in some Orange County cities, improve code enforcement and STR compliance with city ordinances.
F6: Direct remittance of taxes by OBAs does not capture all TOT for an STR because of direct booking practices.
F7: Some cities in Orange County have outdated systems for tracking short-term rental TOT making the process less effective and more difficult for staff.
F8: In some cases, STRs are improperly recharacterized as long-term rentals to circumvent the collection of TOT and any applicable penalties.
F9: Online Booking Agencies in foreign languages are outside the current capabilities of Code Enforcement to monitor and track unpermitted STRs.
F10: Cities that fail to routinely review their STR waiting lists potentially lose TOT revenue and contribute to a greater prevalence of unpermitted STRs.
F11: Locations that have hosted major events have reported an outsized increase in demand and pricing of STRs, a situation Orange County is likely to experience with the upcoming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
F12: City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2024-2025 Grand Jury requires (or, as indicated, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation described herein, the 2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine recommendations:
R1: Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter. (F4, F12) R2: Cities should consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter. (F11)
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17
R3: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026. (F4, F12) R4: Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026. (F7, F8)
R5: Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025. (F7, F8) R6: Cities with a permit waiting list should implement strategies to remove non-revenuegenerating licenses to allow for fair access by December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter. (F7, F10)
R7: Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10) R8: Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)
R9: City leaders should have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026. (F12)
RESPONSES
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report:
Penal Code Section 933:
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18
Penal Code Section 933.05:
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
Responses Required
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report from:
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19
Findings
City Councils of the following cities:
Dana Point, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach
F1, F2, F5, F6, F7,
F8, F9, F10, F11, F12
Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana F1, F2, F3, F12
Anaheim F1, F2, F4, F5, F6,
F7, F8, F9, F11, F12
Recommendations
City Councils of the following cities:
Anaheim, Dana Point, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5,
R6, R7, R8, R9
Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana R1, R2, R9
Requested Responses
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested within 90 days of the date of the publication of this report from:
Findings
City Councils of the following cities:
Buena Park, La Palma, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Placentia F1, F2, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12
Aliso Viejo, Brea, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Habra, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Rancho Santa Margarita, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda
F1, F2, F3, F12
Recommendations
City Councils of the following cities:
Buena Park, La Palma, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Placentia R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20
Aliso Viejo, Brea, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, La Habra, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Rancho Santa Margarita, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda
R1, R2, R9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Better Neighbors LA. "BNLA Annual Report 2022." February 24, 2023. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fc9845732f65217775cb3a5/t/63f8e87357c81b1848 48b95b/1677256830192/BNLA_Annual+Report_2022-web.pdf.
California Coastal Commission. "Short Term Vacation Rental Memo to Coastal Planning and Development Directors." December 6,
2016. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Short_Term_Vacation_Rental_to_Coastal_Plan ning_&_Devt_Directors_120616.pdf.
California Coastal Commission. "Recent LCP Policy Examples for Lower Cost Overnight Accommodations." 2023. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lower-cost-coastallodging/LCOA-Doc2.pdf.
Costar. "Summer Olympics Drove Paris Room Rates to All-Time Highs." CoStar, August 11, 2024. https://www.costar.com/article/54408592/summer-olympics-drove-paris-room-rates-to-alltime-highs.
Dubetz, Alissa, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven. "Staying Power: The Effects of ShortTerm Rentals on California’s Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability." Milken Institute, June 1, 2022. https://milkeninstitute.org/content-hub/research-and-reports/reports/staying-powereffects-short-term-rentals-californias-tourism-economy-and-housing-affordability Humphreys, Lucy. "Regulating Short-Term Rentals in California's Coastal Cities: Harmonizing Local Ordinances with the California Coastal Act." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 52 (2019): 309.
Jin, Ginger Zhe, Liad Wagman, and Mengyi Zhong. "The Effects of Short-term Rental Regulation: Insights from Chicago." November 19, 2023.
SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4638022 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4638022.
Reinhard, D., and J.J. Roth. "Renting Trouble? An Analysis of Crime and Calls to Police at Addresses with Different Rental Types." Crime Science 13, no. 35 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00232-8.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21
Safely. "The Best Alternatives to Airbnb and VRBO: The Rise of the Niche Platforms." Safely, February 17, 2025. https://safely.com/articles/the-best-alternatives-to-airbnb-and-vrbo-the-riseof-the-niche-platforms/.
Thompson, Robert. "Affordable Twenty-Four Hour Coastal Access: Can We Save a Working Stiff's Place in Paradise?" Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 12, no. 1 (2006). https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj/vol12/iss1/5/.
Urevich, Robin. "Is My Short-Term Los Angeles Rental Legal?" ProPublica, September 3, 2024. https://www.propublica.org/article/is-my-short-term-los-angeles-rental-legal.
Wachsmuth, David, and Danielle Kerrigan. "Short-Term Rentals in Los Angeles: 2022 Report." Urban Politics and Governance Research Group, McGill University, 2022. https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airbnb. “Vacation Rentals, Homes, Experiences & Places.” Airbnb.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.airbnb.com.
Leading booking platform for STRs.
AirDNA. “Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics.” AirDNA.co. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.airdna.co.
Platform that tracks the STR market, claiming listings of ten million properties that are then linked to partner data to detect reservations and calculate market performance. Market-level volumes are reported with projections. Subscriptions allow for detailed searching and market reports.
Booking.com. “Booking.com: Hotels, Apartments, Villas, Hostels & More.” Booking.com.
Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.booking.com.
Leading booking platform includes hotels and STRs.
Deckard. “Deckard Technologies.” Deckard.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.deckard.com.
Owner of Rentalscape product, a third-party platform working with cities, offering STR detection with address identification, complaint platform (call-center, web reporting), and tax collection.
Granicus. “Host Compliance.” Granicus.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://granicus.com/product/host-compliance/.
Third-party platform working with cities offering STR detection, a complaint platform and tax collection. Host Compliance product recently integrated into Granicus.
Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
2024-2025 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22
Rabbu. “Short-Term Rental Property Management.” Rabbu.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://rabbu.com.
One of several investment platforms that does market analysis for STR buyers.
STR. “Hotel Industry Data & Benchmarking.” STR.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.str.com.
Part of the Costar Group of real estate data companies; tracks data on hospitality markets with a primary focus on hotels, but STR data such as prices and volumes are also tracked.
Vacasa. “Vacation Rentals.” Vacasa.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.vacasa.com.
Vacation rental management and booking site. Provides services to owners and customers.
VRBO. “Vacation Rentals by Owner.” VRBO.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.vrbo.com.
Leading booking platform, part of Expedia travel group. Integrated Home Away in 2019.
Zumper. “Apartments for Rent.” Zumper.com. Accessed January 6, 2025. http://zumper.com.
One of many aggregating sites for rentals across platforms. Limits searches to strict city boundaries when searching.
www.cityoflapalma.org PHONE
714 690 3300
7822 Walker Street
La Palma, CA 90623-1771
August 5, 2025
Honorable Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Subject: Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals
Dear Judge Maria Hernandez:
The City of La Palma has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report, Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals. In compliance with the California Penal Code section 933.05(a) and (b), the City has responded to each of the findings and recommendations directed to the City in this report. Each finding and recommendation is listed below, followed by the City’s response.
The Grand Jury report outlined twelve findings, 10 of which applied to La Palma:
1. F1 - Despite the increasing media coverage on Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
2. F2 - The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
3. F5 - Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city's statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
4. F6 - Direct remittance of taxes by OBAs does not capture all TOT for an STR because of direct booking practices.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
5. F7 - Some cities in Orange County have outdated systems for tracking short-term rental TOT making the process less effective and more difficult for staff.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
2 6. F8 - In some cases, STRs are improperly recharacterized as long-term rentals to circumvent the collection of TOT and any applicable penalties.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
7. F9 - Online Booking Agencies in foreign languages are outside the current capabilities of Code Enforcement to monitor and track unpermitted STRs.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
8. F10 - Cities that fail to routinely review their STR waiting lists potentially lose TOT revenue and contribute to a greater prevalence of unpermitted STRs.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. At present, the City does not have a waiting list for STRs and routinely review active permits on an annual basis.
9. F11 - Locations that have hosted major events have reported an outsizes increase in demand and pricing of STRs, a situation Orange County is likely to experience with the upcoming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
10. F12 - City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.
The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.
The Grand Jury report also outlined nine recommendations, nine of which applied to La Palma. Cities were advised to:
1. R1 - Review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter.
This recommendation will be partially implemented. The City of La Palma adopted its STR ordinance on August 2, 2022. In the past three years, only nine (9) STR permits have been issued. Given the City’s limited staff and low demand for STRs, the City will consider reviewing and updating its ordinance by December 31, 2026.
2. R2 - Consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter.
This recommendation will be implemented at a staff level with monitoring and coordination through Code Enforcement staff.
3. R3 - Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026.
This recommendation will be implemented.
3 4. R4 - Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026.
This recommendation will be implemented.
5. R5 - Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025.
This recommendation will be implemented.
6. R6 - Cities with a permit waiting list should implement strategies to remove non-revenuegenerating licenses to allow for fair access by December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter.
This recommendation will not be implemented because the City of La Palma does not have a permit waiting list.
7. R7 - Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026.
In August 2024, the City of La Palma implemented an online permitting portal to streamline STR fee collection and TOT registration processes.
8. R8 - Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30, 2026, and annually thereafter.
This recommendation will be implemented.
9. R9 - Have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026.
This recommendation will be implemented. Commencing January 1, 2026, and occurring at least biannually, the City’s Economic Development/Land Use Ad-Hoc Committee comprised of two La Palma City Council members and City staff will be given the opportunity to discuss STR management strategies in conjunction with updates on Code Enforcement.
Sincerely,
Mark I. Waldman
Mayor
Agenda Item No. 6 August 5, 2025 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 6
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Chavira, Public Works Manager
AGENDA TITLE: Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work for City Yard Pump and Well Rehabilitation Phase I Project No 25-WTR-01
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council accept the work and authorize the Community Development & Public Works Director to file the Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work with the Orange County Clerk-Recorder for the City Yard Pump and Well Rehabilitation Phase I, Project No. 22-WTR02.
BACKGROUND:
On November 5, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to BESST Inc. in the amount of $321,000, with a 15% contingency, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $369,150. The project was needed to address rising arsenic levels, aging equipment, and lower water production from the City Yard Well.
Work included testing and profiling the City Yard Well, replacing the pump and motor, switching from oil to water lubrication, and collecting water and bacteria samples to help plan future well rehabilitation work.
On April 1, 2025, the City Council approved an amendment to the contract with BESST, Inc., increasing the not-to-exceed amount from $321,000 to $440,000. This amendment was intended to cover the cost of renting a temporary pump and motor so that City could continue using groundwater while new equipment was being built. However, delays in securing the rental equipment led the Water Division to shift to imported water, which offered better disinfection and water quality. In the end, the total cost of using imported water was about half of the approved contract amendment, and the expense was fully covered within the existing FY 2024–25 imported water budget.
DISCUSSION:
The well profile was completed during Phase I. Results show that the deeper part of the well produces good water, but the shallow zones have rising arsenic levels. The report suggests that microbial activity and clogging in the shallow screens may be causing these issues. There are signs that some bacteria may have migrated into the shallow areas through a damaged packer, making conditions worse.
Key findings include:
Agenda Item No. 6 August 5, 2025 | 2
• Higher ATP (a biological marker) in shallow zones, suggesting microbial growth; • Clogging in the upper screens causes more water to be pulled from arsenic-rich areas; • No clear presence of sulfur- or iron-reducing bacteria, making the cause complex.
Next steps for future well rehabilitation (Phase II) may include:
• Brushing and cleaning the shallow well screens;
• Airlifting and CO₂ or airburst cleaning;
• Microbial treatment;
• Fixing the upper packer;
• Continued testing and long-term maintenance every few years.
PROJECT COMPLETION:
The project was completed in mid-June 2025. All work was finished according to plans, and final inspections confirmed the well is now performing better, with improved water flow and stable arsenic levels under the State's maximum limit. This completes Phase I of the well rehabilitation. Phase II, which will include future work like cleaning shallow well screens, fixing the upper packer seal, and treating any microbial issues, will be proposed in a future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Council approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The project was completed within the authorized budget of $369,150. Funds were reallocated in the Adopted Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget from the Water Treatment Feasibility Study account (055-900- 9330-00000) to the Pump & Well Repair account (055-900-7100-00000).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. La Palma City Yard Well Report
2. Notice of Completion - BESST
Dynamic Flow and Chemistry Profiling
Report for Meadowlark/City Yard Well:
City of La Palma, CA
Date(s) of Profile: 3/12/2025 – 3/13/2025; 3/20/2025
Date of Publication: 5/16/2025
Reviewed By: Miles Koehler (Project Manager and Hydrogeologist), Noah Heller, (President, MSc. PG. 5792)
2 Table of Contents
Table of Figures 3
List of Tables 3
1 Introduction 4
2 Background Information 4
2.1 Study Area 4
2.2 Well Construction 5
2.3 GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA 8
3 Methodology 9
3.1 Dynamic Flow Profile 9
3.1.1 Calculations for Flow Contribution 10
3.2 Dynamic Chemistry Profile 12
3.2.1 Flow-Weighted Concentration Derivations from Laboratory Results 13 4 Results 14
4.1 City Yard Well Dynamic Flow 14
4.1.1 Dynamic Flow Figures 16
4.2 City Yard Well Chemical Mass Balance 20
4.2.1 Zonal Chemical Contribution Figures 21
4.3 Sources of Error and Uncertainties 28
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 28
6 References 29
7 Appendices 30
7.1 Appendix A: Wellsite Photos 30
7.2 Appendix B: Dynamic Flow Profile Data 36
7.3 Appendix C: Laboratory Chemistry Results 37
7.4 Appendix D: Mass Balance Results 39
7.5 Appendix E: Well Completion Report 41
7.6 Appendix F: Lithology Classification 56
7.7 Appendix G: Weck Sample Results 57
7.8 Appendix H: Water Systems Engineering Sample Results and Report 71
7.9 Appendix I: BESST 2022 Profile Report 85
7.10 Appendix J: BESST Post Well Modification Trend Analysis 124
7.11 Appendix K: BESST 2013 Profile Report 132
3 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of City Yard Well in La Palma, CA. .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. The City Yard Well construction diagram with the lithology, geophysical log information, and field executed tracer injection and groundwater sampling points. ............................................................. 9 Figure 3. La Palma City Yard Well borehole velocity by depth 2025 .......................................................... 16 Figure 4. La Palma City Yard Well cumulative borehole flow rate by depth 2025 ..................................... 16 Figure 5. La Palma City Yard Well zonal flow contribution by depth 2025 ................................................. 17 Figure 6. La Palma City Yard Well percent zonal flow contribution by depth 2025 ................................... 17 Figure 7. La Palma City Yard Well average zonal flow density by depth2025 ............................................ 18 Figure 8. La Palma City Yard Well zonal flow density 2025 versus lithology and geophysics..................... 19 Figure 9. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced total arsenic 2025 ............................................... 21 Figure 10. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced dissolved arsenic 2025 ...................................... 21 Figure 11: La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced initial ATP 2025 ................................................. 22 Figure 12: La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced 24-hour ATP 2025 ............................................. 22 Figure 13. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced conductivity 2025 ............................................. 23 Figure 14. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced total iron 2025 .................................................. 23 Figure 15. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced total manganese 2025 ...................................... 24 Figure 16. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced dissolved manganese 2025 ............................... 24 Figure 17. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced ORP 2025 .......................................................... 25 Figure 18. La Palma City Yard Well coarse zone mass-balanced sulfate 2025 ........................................... 25 Figure 19. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced TDS by Weck 2025 ............................................ 26 Figure 20. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced TDS by WSE 2025 .............................................. 26 Figure 21 Three profile comparison for La Palma City Yard Well profiles 2013 through 2025. ................. 27 Figure 22. La Palma City Yard Well wellhead and access pipe (circled in white) used for sampling and the initial (incomplete) flow profile. ................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 23. Dynamic profiling setup. ............................................................................................................ 31 Figure 24. City Yard Well wellhead and dynamic flow profiling tubing. ..................................................... 32 Figure 25. Fluorometer hose discharge. ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 26. Sampling tubing on counter for collection of depth-dependent samples. ................................ 34 Figure 27. Access pipe (circled in white) used for the second, full dynamic flow profile. .......................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Definitions of variables used in the dynamic profile calculations. ................................................ 11 Table 2. List of water sample analytes. Mass balanced and presented analyses are shown in yellow. ..... 13 Table 3. Summary of decreased production between 2022 and 2025. ...................................................... 14
4 1 INTRODUCTION
This report details the March 2025 dynamic flow and depth-dependent chemistry profile conducted by BESST, Inc. (BESST) at the City Yard Well (formerly known as the Meadowlark Well) located in La Palma, CA, as part of a continued study on the well to improve water quality and avoid treatment. This report includes the profiling field methods, data analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations for rehabilitation and other improvements to the well.
The main objective of the dynamic, steady-state, downhole profiling investigation at the City Yard Well was to identify the zonal inflow of groundwater and zonally mass-balanced chemical distributions of arsenic and other metals, as well as any bacteriological or microbial agents within the subsurface. The results of this survey will further refine understanding of the subsurface conditions in relation to zonal groundwater flow and water quality in the City Yard Well and will serve as a guide regarding potential well modifications, if needed.
Prior to the start of on-site fieldwork, a flow and water chemistry sampling plan was prepared based on the construction and surrounding geology of the well. A total of 25 flow measurements and 10 depthdependent water quality samples were collected under steady-state flow conditions. Dynamic flow measurements were collected using BESST’s proprietary, upgraded version of the USGS tracer flowmeter, and downhole groundwater samples were collected using BESST’s HydroBooster sampling pump. Two wellhead samples, one before and one after the downhole sampling, were collected from the discharge line downstream from the wellhead and analyzed for the same analytes as the downhole samples. The wellhead samples represented blended composites of the well’s overall water quality. Groundwater samples were analyzed for metals and total dissolved solids (TDS) by Weck Laboratories, Inc. (Weck) located in Industry, CA. Bacteriological analysis was performed by Water Systems Engineering, Inc. (WSE), located in Ottawa, KS.
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This background information section describes the well site study area, provides historical data on well construction, well modifications, and past surveys, and details the geology and geophysics surrounding the well in the subsurface.
2.1 STUDY AREA
The City of La Palma City Yard Well is located at 33.840306° north and 118.048063° west on the property sited at 8415 Meadowlark Lane, La Palma, CA (Figure 1). Photographs of the well site from the field effort can be found in Appendix A: Wellsite Photos.
5 Figure 1. Map of City Yard Well in La Palma, CA.
2.2 WELL CONSTRUCTION
The original construction of the City Yard Well, completed in 1984, consisted of a telescopic well design with a 20-in internal diameter (I.D.) blank casing to a depth of 290 feet (Ft.) and a 14-in casing from 290 to 1,435 Ft. below the ground surface (Ft. BGS). The 14-inch (in) well casing alternated between mild steel louvered casing with 3/32-in slot openings and mild steel blank casing, such that there were 10 screen sections encompassing 680 Ft. of well screen.
In 2007, General Pump Company installed a well liner to a total depth of 1206 Ft. BGS. The liner consists of a 16-in ID blank steel casing from the ground surface to 280 Ft. BGS connected to a 16-in to 12-in concentric mild steel reducer and a 13.25 outer-diameter (O.D.) stainless steel (SS) coupling, which transitions to a 12-in SS wire-wrap casing that is continuously screened from 283 to 783 Ft. BGS. A 12-in to 10-in concentric SS reducer connects the bottom of this wire-wrap screen with 420 Ft of 10-in continuous SS wire-wrap screen to its total depth of 1206 Ft BGS.
In 2013, BESST performed a dynamic flow and chemistry profiling of the City Yard Well. At that time, the well operated at 1,860 gallons per minute (GPM) and had non-compliant wellhead concentrations of arsenic (12.5 ug/L) and manganese (64 ug/L). Elevated zonal arsenic concentrations were determined through mass balance calculation to be located primarily within the intervals between 540 and 1020 Ft.
6 BGS. A well modification and packer feasibility study that excluded elevated arsenic concentration zones was proposed.
In 2016, informed by the 2013 dynamic profile, BESST, in conjunction with General Pump, conducted a well modification of the City Yard Well. The well modification comprised a 670-foot-long 8-in ID freestanding, standpipe insert outfitted with two mechanical rubber ring packers (comprised of NSF 61 rubber) and located at 1041 Ft. BGS and 534 Ft. BGS to prevent water contribution from the middle screen sections of the well. The lower section of the insert pipe was perforated with vertical slots from 1,047 to 1,203 Ft. BGS and aligned with compliant groundwater (below the lower packer) to enter the well from this interval. A blank casing rises from the top of the perforated section at 1,047 and extends to the top of the free-standing insert pipe, located at 534 FT BGS. Above the free-standing pipe and the upper packer, groundwater freely enters the well from 290 to 534 Ft. BGS – with no reduction in annular volume. A new line-shaft turbine pump was also installed with an intake depth of 229 Ft. BGS and a piggybacked 1.25-inch stainless steel access pipe to 239 Ft. BGS, granting tooling access below the pump Following the modification, arsenic and manganese wellhead concentrations decreased over a period of two and a half years during the extended monitoring program recommended by BESST. By the end of the program in early 2019, the wellhead concentrations for arsenic were between 5.6 ug/L and 6.9 ug/L, within the regulatory standards. Manganese was also within compliance, ranging from 34 ug/L to 42 ug/L. BESST’s final trend analysis report can be found in Appendix J.
In 2022, the City Yard Well contained three water conditioning practices: a chlorine line to inhibit bacteria development, a phosphate line to inhibit brown water corrosion and a sand separator. Based on verbal communication with the City of La Palma, a gradual increase in arsenic levels and sand content had been observed in the City Yard Well. BESST profiled the modified well in December of 2022 to characterize the new flow and chemistry distribution within the well. The 2022 profile found that arsenic was elevated in the shallow screens of the well above the top packer compared to the deep screen below the bottom packer. This represented a change in the apparent shallow arsenic concentrations compared to the 2013 profile, but agreed with the findings from the deepest portion of the well – showing little change. The two previous profile reports can be found in Appendices I and K.
The following well diagram (- Construction Diagram) combines the 1984 well construction report and drillers log, the 2007 well liner report, the 2016 feasibility installation report, and the pump as-built diagram. See Appendix F: Lithology Classification for more information on the lithology scheme used throughout the report.
7 2.3 GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA
The City Yard Well is located within the Coastal Plain of Orange County (Groundwater Basin 8-1), which underlies a coastal alluvial plain. The basin is characterized by a large, structurally low area containing a thick layer of freshwater-bearing interbedded marine and continental deposits, primarily composed of sand, silt, and clay deposits. The well draws water from the middle aquifer system, which is recharged by the Santa Ana River, local precipitation, and imported water (CA DWR 2003).
The borehole stratigraphy surrounding the City Yard Well comprises an interbedded lithology of gravel, silts, set sands, and clays. The lithologic units in which the well screen sections are located are primarily separated by thin clay-bearing units, which may serve as aquitards. The two packers installed in 2016 are aligned with silt layers associated with low resistivity values.
8 Figure 2.The City Yard Well construction diagram with the lithology, geophysical log information, and field executed tracer injection and groundwater sampling points.
9 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 DYNAMIC FLOW PROFILE
Prior to on-site fieldwork, a tracer injection and sampling plan (ISP) was prepared based on the previous investigations and the well construction specifications and surrounding subsurface conditions (). The BESST hydrogeological field team then implemented the plan by gathering flow data, collecting groundwater samples, and periodically recording drawdown levels and the pumping rate to ensure that steady-state conditions were satisfied. During the profile, the pumping water level (PWL) was approximately 162 Ft. BGS.
A partial dynamic flow profile was conducted on 03/13/2025 at an average pumping rate of 1154 gallons per minute (GPM). The survey tooling could not enter the 8-inch liner at 523 Ft. BGS and became wedged between the well liner and screen. A full dynamic flow profile was completed on a second visit to the site on 03/20/2025 at a similar pumping rate, as monitored using the onsite flowmeter. Groundwater levels and flowmeter measurements were recorded after each data collection depth. The tracer used was rhodamine red FWT 50, which has been safely used for decades and is approved by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF 60) for use in potable drinking water systems.
The dynamic flow injection method consisted of deploying high-pressure nylon tubing through a port at the surface. In the first attempted flow profile, the 1.25-inch access pipe was used to gain access past the pump; The second, full flow profile used the vent pipe for access after a successful access survey through the pipe. The tubing was fully loaded with the rhodamine tracer prior to testing, and during the flow profile was continuously refilled by means of an electronically controlled hydraulic reloading system. The tracer was released at each depth on command by a surface-based timer control unit programmed to control the volume and duration of each injection.
All injections and sampling depths were recorded with a mechanical counter through which the tubing was fed during deployment into the well. At each injection depth, approximately 100 ml of tracer was released into the well through an injection nozzle outfitted with multiple sideways injection ports; the injection pressure spreads the tracer sideways throughout the cross-sectional plane of the well, a patented process known as “Sideways Injection” (patent number 10,677,626). Following each injection, the tracer was pulled towards the pump intake, and the time travel time of the tracer’s return to a fluorometer was used to calculate in-well flow velocities. The inflow for each zonal interval was then calculated from sequentially paired velocity measurements. “Sideways Injection” is essential to obtaining accurate velocity measurements. The process consists of releasing the tracer sideways and simultaneously through multiple circumferentially spaced holes embedded in the tracer injection nozzle, such that the tracer comprises the entire cross-sectional flow area inside the well at any given injection depth. Since tooling centralization for flowmeter surveys is required (Smolen, 1996; Maliva, 2016) and tooling cannot easily be centralized when the pump is inside the well, the “Sideways Injection” method compensates for the lack of centralization of any type of flowmeter tooling by instantly spreading the tracer sideways throughout the cross-sectional plane of the
10 pipe. A complete measurement of pipe flow is therefore achieved, including the boundary, transitional, and axial pipe flow.
Downhole flow velocities were calculated as the change in feet between the injection points divided by the change in tracer return times to the surface fluorometer. The data was then used to calculate cumulative flow at each tracer injection depth. The algebraic difference between sequential cumulative flows equals the zonal flow contribution entering the well between the injection points. This calculation was performed iteratively throughout the well profile to estimate the flow contribution within each interval (in GPM and in percent of the total flow). The calculated flow data are tabulated in Appendix B:
Dynamic Flow Profile Data.
3.1.1 Calculations for Flow Contribution
Calculations were based on the well dimensions provided by the City of La Palma and field survey results.
Up to three measurements were collected at each discrete depth to determine an average cumulative flow.
Below (Table 1) is a list of definitions used in the dynamic flow and chemistry calculation tables:
11 Table 1. Definitions of variables used in the dynamic profile calculations.
A Well cross-sectional area (Ft2)
C Constant conversion factor (Ft3/min) to GPM
Cave Average analyte chemistry for all depth intervals to the ith degree, Cc Laboratory-measured cumulative concentration (mass/volume) Ci Zonal chemical concentration within interval i (mass/volume) Ctot Composite sample collected at the wellhead tap (mass/volume) 𝑑 Injection/sample depth (Ft. BGS)
𝑑
Dye tracer return (detection) depth (Ft. BGS)
𝑑
் Dye tracer pulse injection depth (Ft. BGS)
𝑖 Investigated depth interval between two injection or sample depths (Ft. BGS) mi Mass flux within interval i (mass/time)
n Number of investigated depths for each depth-dependent sample and injection ∆𝑄 Zonal flow contribution within interval i (GPM)
𝑄 Average cumulative borehole flow rate within interval i (GPM) 𝑄
Cumulative well discharge (GPM)
rcas Well casing inner radius (Ft.)
rcol Pump column outer radius (Ft.)
RSTDE
V
Relative standard deviation
𝑡 Time (minutes)
𝑡
Dye tracer return (detection) time at injection number n (min) 𝑡
் Tracer pulse injection time at injection number n (min) 𝑡
Peak travel time from injection depth d to the ground surface from injection number n (min)
𝑣 Average borehole velocity within interval i (Ft./minute)
12 Travel Time (Minutes)
1. 𝑡
= (𝑡ଵ
− 𝑡ଵ்
), (𝑡ଶ
− 𝑡ଶ்
), (𝑡ଷ
− 𝑡ଷ்
), … , (𝑡
− 𝑡்
)
Velocity (Ft./min):
2. 𝑣 =
(ௗభିௗమ)
൫௧మ
ುି௧భು൯
,
(ௗమିௗయ)
൫௧య
ುି௧మು൯
,
(ௗయିௗర)
൫௧ర
ುି௧యು൯
, … ,
(ௗିௗశభ)
൫௧శభ
ು ି௧ು൯
For depths below the pump intake, dn, dn+1, …, are calculated down and away from the intake.
Well Cross-Sectional Area (Ft.2):
3. 𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟௦
ଶ
for cross-sectional areas below the pump intake. The casing radius was updated depending on the diameter of pipe in which the measurement was collected.
Cumulative Flow (GPM):
4. 𝑄 = 𝑣 ∗ 𝐴 ∗ 𝐶
Zonal Flow Contribution (GPM):
5. ∆𝑄,ାଵ = 𝑄 − 𝑄ାଵ
3.2 DYNAMIC CHEMISTRY PROFILE
The chemistry profile was performed on 03/12/2025 with the HydroBooster, a high-pressure gas-drive sampling pump consisting of two conjoined nylon tubes connected to a proprietary valve assembly. The HydroBooster was developed by BESST under a research and development contract from the USGS in 2002 and was used to collect all downhole groundwater samples during the survey. The pump employs a gas-drive purging and sampling process that is differentiated from an air-lift system in that when using the HydroBooster system, no gas is introduced into the sample stream during sample collection. In contrast to airlifting, a gas-drive pump allows the gas to forcefully push onto the back end of the water column inside the gas-in tubing line so that, when the pump is under pressure, the water column is driven through a U-turn inside the pump and up to the ground surface. The groundwater contained in both tubing lines is lifted and exits the sample return line at the surface. Groundwater exiting the sample return line flows in a smooth, continuous stream until all the water volume from both lines is evacuated from the system. The gas pressure is then bled off by switching a three-way valve at the surface that allows both the gas-in and sample return lines to recharge with groundwater from the sample collection depth under hydrostatic pressure.
Prior to the first groundwater sample, the HydroBooster was purged five times, and at each subsequent depth the HydroBooster was purged two to three times prior to sampling. During the purge cycle, all groundwater inside the gas-in and sample return lines of the tubing was cleared in a single pump stroke.
The first purge cycle cleared the water from the previous sampling depth that was carried to the new sampling depth. The second purge cycle cleared the water from the new sampling depth, effectively rinsing the tubing internally with groundwater from the new depth. Following the two purges of the sampling tubing, a third and final purge cycle was used for sample collection at the surface.
13 For the City Yard Well, the downhole groundwater survey consisted of collecting 10 depth-dependent samples. Sampling depths were based on the construction of the well, geologic information, and borehole geophysics. Two depth-dependent samples (270 and 650 Ft. BGS) were analyzed for additional constituents diagnostic for microbial activity. Two wellhead samples, representing blended composites of each contributing flow interval, were collected from the discharge tap of the well: the first one before downhole sampling started, and the second one following completion of downhole sampling. Once collected, groundwater samples were sent to Weck Laboratories, Inc. and Water Systems Engineering, Inc. for analysis. The laboratory results for each tested analyte are presented in a table in Appendix C:
Laboratory Chemistry Results.
Table 2. List of water sample analytes. Mass balanced and presented analyses are shown in yellow.
Reported Analyte
Mass
Balanced
Average Wellhead
Concentration
Arsenic (total) Y 9.6 ug/L
Arsenic (dissolved) Y 9.5 ug/L
ATP (initial) Y 30,000 cells/mL
ATP (24 hour) Y 24,000 cells/mL
Chloride N n/a mg/L
Conductivity Y 421.5 uS/cm
Iron (total) Y 74 ug/L
Iron (dissolved) N ND ug/L
Langelier Saturation Index N n/a m/a
Manganese (total) Y 45.5 ug/L
Manganese (dissolved) Y 45 ug/L
ORP Y 216.9 mV
pH N 8.0 pH
Phosphorous (as phosphate) N n/a mg/L
Plate count N ND CFU/mL
Sulfate (as SO4) Y n/a mg/L
TDS (Weck) Y 260 mg/L
TDS (WSE) Y 303.5 mg/L
Total Alkalinity N n/a mg/L
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) N ND mg/L
3.2.1 Flow-Weighted Concentration Derivations from Laboratory Results Estimates of analyte concentrations within the formation materials surrounding the well screen, were derived from the laboratory chemistry results for each of the depth-dependent groundwater samples.
The standard mass balancing procedure used to derive these estimates is called flow-weighting. The flowweighting calculation assumes constant mixing inside the well as groundwater moves towards the pump intake. Estimates of the average zonal chemical contributions from the surrounding subsurface environment were calculated from the cumulatively blended contributions inside the well between any two vertically paired, consecutive water samples. The flow-weighting calculation takes the difference in
14 products (cumulative flow × cumulative chemistry) between any two depths and divides this difference by the zonal flow contribution from the same interval. After the mass balance results were calculated for each interval, the sum of these results was then compared to the average of the actual wellhead concentration as measured in the wellhead samples on a percent agreement basis. The flow-weighting equations used in the analysis of the City Yard Well are presented below.
Zonal Chemical Contribution Concentrations:
7. ∆𝐶,ାଵ =
(ொభ∗భ)ି(ொమ∗మ)
൫∆ொభ,మ൯
,
(ொమ∗మ)ି(ொయ∗య)
൫∆ொమ,య൯
,
(ொయ∗య)ି(ொర∗ర)
൫∆ொయ,ర൯
,
(ொ∗)ି(ொశభ∗శభ)
൫∆ொ,శభ൯
Theoretical Average Analyte Chemistry:
8. 𝐶௩ =
(∆ொభ,మ∗∆భ,మ)ା(∆ொమ,య∗∆మ,య)ା(∆ொయ,ర∗∆య,ర)ା⋯ା(∆ொ,శభ∗∆,శభ) ொ
9. 𝑚 = ∆𝑄 ∗ ∆𝐶
4 RESULTS
4.1 CITY YARD WELL DYNAMIC FLOW
The results from the 2025 dynamic flow profile of the City Yard Well are illustrated in Figure 3 through Figure 8. Similar to the flow observed in the 2022 profile, about 35% of production is from the deep portion of the well, through the perforated section of the free-standing, 8-inch standpipe. Both profiles showed moderate levels of flow from the shallow screens, but the 2025 profile indicates a decrease in the zonal flow contribution from these shallow screens, compared to the 2022 profile. For example, the 2025 profile measured about 10% of flow from the shallowest screen (290 – 330 Ft. BGS), but the 2022 profile measured about 16% of flow from that screen. The interval just above and around the upper packer (510 – 534 Ft. BGS), contributed a large amount of flow in both profiles, and it appears to have increased in the intervening time: about 37% of flow was contributed from this interval in 2025 compared to about 24% in 2022.
Table 3. Summary of decreased production between 2022 and 2025.
Interval Number Depth Interval 2022 Flow % 2025 Flow %
1 290 – 330 Ft. BGS 15.63% 10.18%
2 390 – 410 Ft. BGS 9.93% 5.98%
3 480 – 510 Ft. BGS 14.14% 11.15%
4 510 – 534 Ft. BGS
screen plus around
leaking packer
23.5% 36.8%
5 1041 – 1193 Ft. BGS 36.75% 35.88%
2022 Specific Capacity 2025 Specific Capacity
13 GPM/Ft. 10 GPM/Ft.
15 Flow tracer measurements suggest that the upper packer is leaking, which is circumstantially supported by video inspection in 2022 showing the rubber packer ring disconnected from its retention flange and positioned in a contorted configuration between the standpipe and the wire-wrapped screened section of the liner. Damage to the upper packer likely occurred during the installation of the free-standing standpipe in 2016. The breach appears to be allowing groundwater from the sequestered section of the well between the two mechanical packers to flow upwards and mix with groundwater entering the well from 290 to 534 Ft. BGS.
The overall pumping rate was slightly lower in the 2025 profile compared to the 2022 profile, and more drawdown was observed during pumping, suggesting a loss of well capacity. The specific capacity during the 2025 profile was about 10 GPM/Ft. of drawdown, lower than the 2022 specific capacity of about 13 GPM/Ft. of drawdown.
Within each screen interval, we observed that the flow density is generally correlated with the resistivity log, measuring higher flow densities in highly resistive intervals (Figure 8). The trend is particularly noticeable in the bottom screen section.
16 4.1.1 Dynamic Flow Figures
Figure 3. La Palma City Yard Well borehole velocity by depth 2025 Figure 4. La Palma City Yard Well cumulative borehole flow rate by depth 2025
17 Figure 5. La Palma City Yard Well zonal flow contribution by depth 2025 Figure 6. La Palma City Yard Well percent zonal flow contribution by depth 2025
18 Figure 7. La Palma City Yard Well average zonal flow density by depth2025 .
Note:
**Zonal flow rate inferred through comparison between adjacent flow measurements.
19 Figure 8. La Palma City Yard Well zonal flow density 2025 versus lithology and geophysics
20 4.2 CITY YARD WELL CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE
The primary analyte of concern at the City Yard Well is arsenic due to its incremental rise to just under the MCL. Other analytes considered in the 2025 profile include: iron, manganese and constituents which may suggest microbial or bacterial activity within the well. During the 2025 profile, arsenic was just below the MCL at 9.6 ug/L, but still presents a concern for the City as seasonal and demand fluctuations may result in levels above the MCL of 10 ug/L.
Results of the water quality survey show that arsenic is present at concentrations above or near the MCL throughout much of the shallow screens, but significantly lower in the deepest screen. The highest concentrations detected were in the 390 – 410 Ft. BGS screen (16.8 ug/L) and the shallowest interval from 290 – 300 Ft. BGS (12.7 ug/L). These intervals represent relatively minor flow contributions of 69 GPM and 36 GPM respectively. However, the interval just above the liner and around the leaking packer from 510 – 534 Ft. BGS produces 424 GPM of 11.9 ug/L arsenic-bearing water. The high level of arsenic from the intervals around or even below the leaking packer is reinforced by the fact that the highest raw lab value (not mass balanced) for arsenic was in the 530 Ft. BGS sample, just 4 Ft. above the upper, breached packer. In contrast to the shallow screens above the liner, mass-balanced values within the deep screen were all below the MCL, ranging from 4.8 ug/L to 8 ug/L.
In broad strokes, these findings mirror the 2022 profile which found arsenic concentrations above the MCL for the shallow screens and compliant water in the deepest screen. Both recent profiles differ from the original 2013 survey, which found compliant water in the shallow screened intervals.
Manganese in the 2025 profile shows a similar distribution to arsenic. The wellhead concentration for both total and dissolved manganese was about 45 ug/, just below the secondary MCL of 50 ug/L. As with arsenic, the greatest concentrations were detected in the shallow intervals and the samples from the deep screen were below the SMCL.
Total iron was below the regulatory standards at the wellhead, and all downhole intervals returned mass-balanced concentrations below the SMCL. Dissolved iron was not detected within any sample.
The constituents analyzed as potential indicators for microbial activity include ATP, plate count, ORP, sulfate and TOC, as well as sulfate-reducing bacteria and iron and manganese-oxidizing bacteria. Many of these constituents were inconclusive with regard to identifying zones of bacterial activity. For example, the plate count analysis was not detectable in the wellhead samples and returned variable results from downhole samples with no identifiable trend.
In place of plate counts, we also analyzed ATP because it was detectable in the wellhead samples. The raw and mass-balanced ATP results do indicate high microbial activity in the shallow screen compared to other intervals within the well, but do not show a particularly high concentration in the samples just above the packer. Analyses for sulfur-reducing and iron/manganese-oxidizing bacteria were negative in all samples. TOC, which is often an indicator of food sources for microbes, was negative at all sample locations.
Figure 9 through Figure 20 show zonal plots of zonal concentration and zonal flow distribution with depth for each of the 12 mass-balanced analytes. Figure 21 shows a comparison across all three profiles of the flow, arsenic and manganese, with the raw ATP results.
21 4.2.1 Zonal Chemical Contribution Figures
Figure 9. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced total arsenic 2025 Figure 10. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced dissolved arsenic 2025 Note:
~ negative mass balance results.
22 Figure 11: La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced initial ATP 2025 Figure 12: La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced 24-hour ATP 2025
23 Figure 13. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced conductivity 2025 Figure 14. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced total iron 2025
24 Figure 15. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced total manganese 2025 Figure 16. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced dissolved manganese 2025
25 Figure 17. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced ORP 2025 Figure 18. La Palma City Yard Well coarse zone mass-balanced sulfate 2025
26 Figure 19. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced TDS by Weck 2025 Figure 20. La Palma City Yard Well zonal mass-balanced TDS by WSE 2025
27 Figure 21 Three profile comparison for La Palma City Yard Well profiles 2013 through 2025.
28 4.3 SOURCES OF ERROR AND UNCERTAINTIES
Changes in the well diameter due to the installation of two liners can lead to aberrations in borehole velocities. BESST’s dye tracer data was highly reproducible in the field, and any aberrations observed were able to be smoothed out by standard practices such as the flow model assuming flow at the top of each screened interval is equal to the flow through the blank above it. The well’s overall pumping rate remained stable during the profile and the flow rate between the sample and flow days was within 1% across each data collection process.
As mentioned in the results section, the wellhead samples did not contain detectable plate count levels of bacteria, but the downhole samples did. This may indicate potential cross-contamination from moisture within the nylon sampling tubing. ATP is therefore considered a better measurement as the downhole results were similar to the wellhead results, suggesting minimal contamination from the tubing.
Reverse mass balance calculations for the metals and TDS show a close match between theoretical and actual wellhead concentrations, with a deviation ranging from 0% to 2.2% for inorganic analytes. A greater deviation of 16.8% was calculated for the ATP (initial) samples, suggesting that those findings are less precise than the metals analyses.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2025 profile of the City Yard Well reinforces the findings from the 2022 profile, that the shallow portions of the well are no longer compliant with regards to arsenic levels, but the deep screen of the well produces water lower than arsenic MCL that is key to keeping the wellhead concentration below the MCL of 10 ug/L.
The cause of the shift from the 2013 profile (and the successful 2016 well modification) to the increased arsenic concentrations in the shallow well screens is not obvious. The hypothesis following the 2022 profile was that microbial activity below the upper packer had increased in the stagnated area between the upper and lower packers, and that over time, some of these microbes migrated around the breached packer to the shallower sections of the well, between 290 and 534 Ft. BGS, stimulating biogeochemical reductive dissolution of arsenic in the sediments surrounding these shallower screens.
The 2025 profile found some indications that this may be the case: namely, the raw ATP was elevated in the shallow screen and just above the leaking packer. The mass balanced results generally agree and show that both ATP and arsenic are more prevalent in the shallow screens, though the correlation is not exact. However, contrary to these findings, the profile did not detect the presence of any sulfurreducing or iron and manganese-oxidizing bacteria that would be expected to be associated with arsenic (WSE report, 2025).
The contradictory findings now point us in the direction that elevated ATP in the upper screened sections of the well (from 290 to 534 Ft. BGS) is largely a byproduct from indigenous microbes in the sediments that surround the upper well screens and secondarily from microbial migration around the upper breached packer. Clogging of the upper well screens over time has caused more water to be drawn from around the breached packer, adding to the problem, and possibly inducing a more favorable
29 anerobic environment within these sediments (between 290 to 534 Ft. BGS) to support reductive microbial activity. Pumping stresses on the fine and coarser-grained interlayered sediments around the upper well screens causes the interlayered clays to compress and squeeze out reductively dissolved solutions with higher arsenic content into the coarser-grained materials which are then transported into the well under pumping conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The change in flow around the upper packer coincides with a reduction in the flow contributed from the shallowest screen intervals and a reduction in the well’s specific capacity. These decreases suggest a gradual clogging of the shallow screen intervals, leading the well to pull additional water from around the compromised packer, pulling from the arsenic bearing zones identified in the 2013 profile. i. The rehabilitation effort of the shallow screen should be tailored to simultaneously alleviate the clogging and any potential bacterial activity which may be degrading the shallow water quality. The deep well screen does not appear to require rehabilitation effort as it is producing in similar water quality and quantity to the 2022 profile. Rehabilitation steps for the upper well screens should include:
a. Brushing.
b. Repeated Dual swab airlifting.
c. Repeated CO2 injection or Airburst.
d. Potentially adding SRB microbicides into the well prior to CO2 injection or Airburst. e. Step and Pump Testing with chemical sampling at the wellhead. f. Potentially reprofiling the well during the pump test to quantify zonal flow and geochemical improvements.
g. Developing a long-term rehab program for the well, possibly rehabbing the shallow screens of the well every 3 to 5 years.
The seal around the upper packer should be repaired and reinforced to prevent leakage of arsenic-rich water.
6 REFERENCES
Maliva, R. G., 2016. Aquifer Characterization Techniques. 617 pp. Springer Int. Publishing.
Smolen, James J., 1996. Cased Hole and Production Log Evaluation, 269-293 pp, PennWell Publishing Company.
California Department of Water Resources (CA DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118.
Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin.
30 7 APPENDICES
7.1 APPENDIX A: WELLSITE PHOTOS
Figure 22. La Palma City Yard Well wellhead and access pipe (circled in white) used for sampling and the initial (incomplete) flow profile.
31 Figure 23. Dynamic profiling setup.
32 Figure 24. City Yard Well wellhead and dynamic flow profiling tubing.
33 Figure 25. Fluorometer hose discharge.
34 Figure 26. Sampling tubing on counter for collection of depth-dependent samples.
35 Figure 27. Sounding pipe (circled in white) used for the second, full dynamic flow profile.
36 7.2 APPENDIX B: DYNAMIC FLOW PROFILE DATA Depth Interval Average Velocity
Cumulative
Flow Rate
Average Zonal
Flow Density
Ft. BGS Ft./Min. GPM GPM % GPM/Ft. Screen
159 PWL - 282 (Blank 16-in) 116 1154 0.0 0.0% 0.0
282 - 290 Blank (12-in) 206 1154 0.0 0.0% 0.0
290 - 300 206 1154 36.1 3.13% 3.61
300 - 320 200 1118 58.0 5.03% 2.90
320 - 330 190 1060 23.4 2.03% 2.34
330-390 Blank 185 1036 0.0 0.0% 0.0
390 - 395** 185 1036 30.4 2.63% 6.07
395 - 410 180 1006 38.7 3.35% 2.58
410 - 480 Blank** 173 967 0.0 0.0% 0.0
480 - 485 173 967 69.1 5.99% 13.8
485 - 510 161 898 59.9 5.19% 2.40
510 - 534 Leaky Packer ** 150 838 424 36.8% 17.7
534 - 1041 Blank Insert 167 414 0.0 0.0% 0.0
1041 - 1070 Leaky Packer 167 414 83 7.18% 2.86
1070 - 1080 133 331 100 8.66% 10.0
1080 - 1110 93.1 231 18.4 1.59% 0.61
1110 - 1130 85.7 213 67.1 5.82% 3.36
1130 - 1160 58.7 146 53.6 4.65% 1.79
1160 - 1193 37.1 92.2 92.2 7.99% 2.79
Zonal Flow
Contribution
37 7.3 APPENDIX C: LABORATORY CHEMISTRY RESULTS SAMPLE # Sample Depth TDS (Weck) Arsenic (total) Arsenic (dissolved) Iron (total) Iron (dissolved) Manganese (total) Manganese (dissolved) Unit Ft. BGS mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
RL -- 10 0.4 0.4 30 30 1 1
MCL -- 500.00 10.00 10.00 300.00 300.00 50.00 50.00
1 WH1 260.0 9.7 9.5 79.0 ND 46.0 45.0
12 WH2 260.0 9.4 9.5 69.0 ND 45.0 45.0
N/A WH avg 260.0 9.6 9.5 74.0 ND 45.5 45.0
2 270 260.0 9.6 9.3 71.0 ND 45.0 44.0
3 300 250.0 9.5 9.4 70.0 ND 45.0 45.0
4 320 260.0 9.5 9.4 59.0 ND 44.0 45.0
5 370 250.0 9.8 9.5 59.0 ND 45.0 43.0
6 460 260.0 9.3 8.9 65.0 ND 42.0 42.0
7 510 250.0 9.1 9.0 52.0 ND 38.0 41.0
8 530 GRAB 250.0 10.0 11.0 46.0 ND 41.0 43.0
9 650 240.0 6.2 6.1 66.0 ND 36.0 35.0
10 1080 250.0 6.8 7.0 39.0 ND 31.0 31.0
11 1130 250.0 8.0 7.9 56.0 ND 31.0 31.0
Weck Laboratory Data
Lab Results Analytes
38 SAMPLE # Sample Depth TDS (WSE) Phosphorus, reactive (as phosphate) Chlorides (as Cl) Iron (resuspended) Langelier Saturation Index (at 16 C) Sulfate (as SO4) pH Value Total Alkalinity Conductivity Total Organic Carbon Plate Count ATP (initial) ATP (24 hours) ORP Unit Ft. BGS mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L NA mg/L NA mg/L uS/cm mg/L CFU/mL cells/mL cells/mL mV RL -- 10 0.06 1 0.02 NA 2 NA 4 NA 0.3 NA NA NA NA
MCL -- 500.00 NA 250.00 0.30 NA 250.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 WH1 303.00 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 8.03 NA 421.0 NA 0.0 30000.0 26000.0 218.5 12 WH2 304.00 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 8.02 NA 422.0 NA 0.0 30000.0 26000.0 215.3 N/A WH avg 303.5 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 8.03 NA 421.5 NA 0.0 30000.0 26000.0 216.9 2 270 302.0 0.4 23.9 0.05 0.25 41.0 8.03 144.0 420.0 ND 750.0 28000 29000 230.8 3 300 308.00 n/a n/a 0.08 n/a n/a 8.06 n/a 428.0 n/a 1000.0 36000 40000 202.2 4 320 293.00 n/a n/a 0.08 n/a n/a 8.16 n/a 407.0 n/a 190.0 32000 36000 207.4 5 370 291.00 n/a n/a 0.06 n/a n/a 8.12 n/a 404.0 n/a 133.0 30000 31000 202.7 6 460 292.00 n/a n/a 0.08 n/a n/a 8.13 n/a 405.0 n/a 200.0 31000 28000 201.6 7 510 293.00 n/a n/a 0.06 n/a n/a 8.27 n/a 407.0 n/a 1500.0 36000 32000 203.5 8 530 GRAB 293.00 n/a n/a 0.05 n/a n/a 8.07 n/a 423.0 n/a 750.0 33000 25000 207.0 9 650 295.0 0.2 22.4 0.06 0.29 38.0 8.05 176.0 410.0 ND 118.0 29000 24000 213.7 10 1080 292.00 n/a n/a 0.04 n/a n/a 8.09 n/a 406.0 n/a 530.0 34000 25000 207.4 11 1130 297.00 n/a n/a 0.05 n/a n/a 8.14 n/a 412.0 n/a 100.0 28000 24000 209.7 Water Systems Engineering Laboratory Data
Lab Results Lab Results
39 7.4 APPENDIX D: MASS BALANCE RESULTS Sample Depth Depth Interval Cumulative Flow TDS (Weck) TDS (WSE) Arsenic (total) Arsenic (dissolved) Iron (total) Iron (dissolved) Manganese (total) Manganese (dissolved) Iron (resuspended) pH Value Conductivity Plate Count ATP (initial) ATP (24 hours) ORP Ft. BGS Ft. BGS Ft. BGS GPM % mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L NA uS/cm CFU/mL cells/mL cells/mL mV
10.00 10.00 0.40 0.40 30.00 30.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA 260.00 303.00 9.70 9.50 79.00 ND 46.00 45.00 0.11 8.03 421.00 0.00 30000 26000 218.50 260.00 304.00 9.40 9.50 69.00 ND 45.00 45.00 0.09 8.02 422.00 0.00 30000 26000 215.30 260.00 303.50 9.55 9.50 74.00 ND 45.50 45.00 0.10 8.03 421.50 0.00 30000 26000 216.90 260.00 302.00 9.68 9.30 73.40 ND 45.02 44.00 0.09 8.03 420.00 2039.15 35043 38750 230.80
0.0% 0.5% 1.4% 2.1% 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 2.2% 8.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 16.8% 49.0% 6.4% n/a 270-290 Blank 1154 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 270 290-300 1154 36.1 3.1% 570.0 116.0 12.7 6.2 102.0 ND 45.0 13.0 0.01 7.10 172.0 100 0 0 1117.4 300 300-320 1118 58.0 5.0% 67.4 581.9 9.5 9.4 270.9 ND 63.3 45.0 0.08 6.23 811.5 15792 109049 113049 107.2 320 320 - 330 1060 23.4 2.0% 702.8 381.6 0.2 5.0 59.0 ND 0.5 133.6 0.97 9.93 539.9 2714 120569 257423 415.5 n/a 330-390 Blank 1036 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 370 390-410 1036 69.0 6.0% 109.9 277.0 16.8 17.9 15.0 ND 87.0 57.0 0.01 7.98 390.0 100 15989 73033 218.1 n/a 410-480 Blank 967 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 460 480-510 967 129 11.2% 325.0 285.5 10.6 8.3 149.5 ND 68.0 48.5 0.21 7.22 392.0 100 0 2000 189.3 510 510-534 Packer 838 424 36.8% 259.8 291.0 11.9 11.8 38.3 ND 40.0 46.9 0.06 8.48 404.1 2848 42829 39805 193.5 650 534-1041 Liner 414 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.0 0.0 0.00 8.05 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 n/a 1041 Packer -1080 414 183 15.8% 227.3 298.8 5.4 5.0 100.2 ND 42.3 40.1 0.09 8.00 415.1 100 22672 22734 221.7 1080 1080-1130 231 85.5 7.4% 250.0 283.5 4.8 5.5 10.0 ND 31.0 31.0 0.02 8.00 395.8 1264 44235 26706 203.5 1130 1130-1203 146 146 12.6% 250.0 297.0 8.0 7.9 56.0 ND 31.0 31.0 0.05 8.14 412.0 100 28000 24000 209.7 Mass Balance Flow Data Analytes Zonal Flow
Reporting Limit
Well Head #1
Well Head #2
Actual Well Head Average
Theoretical Well Head Average
Relative Change from Actual Well Head Average
40 Sample Depth Depth Interval Cumulative Flow Phosphorus, reactive (as phosphate) Chlorides (as Cl) Langelier Saturation Index (at 16 C) Sulfate (as SO4) Total Alkalinity Ft. BGS Ft. BGS Ft. BGS GPM % mg/L mg/L NA mg/L mg/L
0.060 1.000 NA 2.000 4.000
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
290 Upper screen 290 - 543 1154 740 3% 0.4 24.7 0.2 42.7 126.1 650 Lower screen 1047 - 1203 414 414 0% 0.2 22.4 0.3 38.0 176.0 Mass Balance Zonal Flow
Reporting Limit
Full Suite Analytes
Well Head #1
Well Head #2
Actual Well Head Average
Theoretical Well Head Average
Relative Change from Actual Wellhead Average
41 7.5 APPENDIX E: WELL COMPLETION REPORT
56 7.6 APPENDIX F: LITHOLOGY CLASSIFICATION
The lithology classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
57 7.7 APPENDIX G: WECK SAMPLE RESULTS
[TOC_
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Report Date:
Project:
Attn:
Client:
P.O. #:
Fax:
Phones:
Turnaround Time:
Received Date:
4/09/2025
3/13/2025
Normal La Palma City Yard
Billing Code:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
Aaron Marriott
Besst Inc.
(415) 453-2501
Work Orders: 5C13110
DoD-ELAP ANAB #ADE-2882 ● DoD-ISO ANAB # ● ELAP-CA #1132 ● EPA-UCMR #CA00211 ● ISO17025 ANAB #L2457.01 ● LACSD #10143
This is a complete final report. The information in this report applies to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain-of-custody document. Weck Laboratories certifies that the test results meet all requirements of TNI unless noted by qualifiers or written in the Case Narrative. The report may include analytes that are not currently accreditable by some state agencies or accrediting bodies. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Dear Aaron Marriott,
Enclosed are the analytical results for the samples submitted under the attached Chain of Custody document. All analyses adhered to the method criteria, except where noted in the case narrative, sample condition checklist, and/or data qualifiers.
Rahul R. Nair
Reviewed by:
Project Manager
5C13110 Page 1 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Sample Condition
Temperature 1.00 C
COC present COC completed properly
COC matches sample labels Wet ice
Blue ice Sample(s) intact
Sample(s) using proper containers Sample(s) have sufficient sample volume Sample(s) received within hold time Sample(s) labels have correct preservation Sample(s) have acceptable pH Sample(s) have acceptable Cl [TOC_1
[TOC_1
Sample Summary
Sample Name Sampled By Lab ID Matrix Sampled Qualifiers WH1 Miles Koehler 5C13110-01 Water 03/12/25 08:23
WH2 Miles Koehler 5C13110-02 Water 03/12/25 14:47
CY-270 Miles Koehler 5C13110-03 Water 03/12/25 08:36
CY-300 Miles Koehler 5C13110-04 Water 03/12/25 09:00
CY-320 Miles Koehler 5C13110-05 Water 03/12/25 09:29
CY-370 Miles Koehler 5C13110-06 Water 03/12/25 09:54
CY-460 Miles Koehler 5C13110-07 Water 03/12/25 10:35
CY-510 Miles Koehler 5C13110-08 Water 03/12/25 11:22
CY-530 Miles Koehler 5C13110-09 Water 03/12/25 14:35
CY-650 Miles Koehler 5C13110-10 Water 03/12/25 12:00
CY-1080 Miles Koehler 5C13110-11 Water 03/12/25 13:10
CY-1130 Miles Koehler 5C13110-12 Water 03/12/25 13:47
5C13110 Page 2 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
[TOC_1
Sample Results
Sample: WH1 Sampled: 03/12/25 8:23 by Miles Koehler
5C13110-01 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 260 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.079 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.5 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.7 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 46 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Sample Results
Sample: WH2 Sampled: 03/12/25 14:47 by Miles Koehler
5C13110-02 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 260 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.069 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.5 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.4 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
5C13110 Page 3 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-270 Sampled: 03/12/25 8:36 by Miles Koehler
5C13110-03 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 260 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.071 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.3 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.6 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 44 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-300 Sampled: 03/12/25 9:00 by Miles Koehler
5C13110-04 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 250 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.070 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.4 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.5 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
5C13110 Page 4 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-320 Sampled: 03/12/25 9:29 by Miles Koehler
5C13110-05 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 260 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.059 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.4 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.5 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 44 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-370 Sampled: 03/12/25 9:54 by Miles Koehler
5C13110-06 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 250 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.059 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.5 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.8 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 43 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 45 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
5C13110 Page 5 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-460 Sampled: 03/12/25 10:35 by Miles Koehler 5C13110-07 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 260 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.065 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 8.9 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.3 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 42 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 42 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-510 Sampled: 03/12/25 11:22 by Miles Koehler 5C13110-08 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 250 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.052 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 9.0 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 9.1 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 41 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 38 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
5C13110 Page 6 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-530 Sampled: 03/12/25 14:35 by Miles Koehler 5C13110-09 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 250 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.046 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 11 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 10 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 43 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 41 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-650 Sampled: 03/12/25 12:00 by Miles Koehler 5C13110-10 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 240 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:46
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1752 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/25/25
Iron, Total 0.066 0.030 mg/l 1 03/25/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/24/25 11:38
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1753 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 6.1 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Arsenic, Total 6.2 0.40 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Dissolved 36 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
Manganese, Total 35 1.0 ug/l 1 04/04/25
5C13110 Page 7 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-1080 Sampled: 03/12/25 13:10 by Miles Koehler 5C13110-11 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 250 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:58
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1754 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/26/25
Iron, Total 0.039 0.030 mg/l 1 03/26/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/25/25 11:40
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1756 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 7.0 0.40 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Arsenic, Total 6.8 0.40 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Manganese, Dissolved 31 1.0 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Manganese, Total 31 1.0 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Sample Results (Continued)
Sample: CY-1130 Sampled: 03/12/25 13:47 by Miles Koehler 5C13110-12 (Water)
Analyte Result MRL Units Dil Analyzed Qualifier
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Method: SM 2540C
Prepared: 03/17/25 10:29
Instr: OVEN17
Batch ID: W5C1192 Preparation: _NONE (WETCHEM) Analyst: ism Total Dissolved Solids 250 10 mg/l 1 03/17/25
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Method: EPA 200.7
Prepared: 03/24/25 09:58
Instr: ICP03
Batch ID: W5C1754 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: kvm
Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l 1 03/26/25
Iron, Total 0.056 0.030 mg/l 1 03/26/25
Method: EPA 200.8
Prepared: 03/25/25 11:40
Instr: ICPMS06
Batch ID: W5C1756 Preparation: EPA 200.2 Analyst: JWC
Arsenic, Dissolved 7.9 0.40 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Arsenic, Total 8.0 0.40 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Manganese, Dissolved 31 1.0 ug/l 1 03/28/25
Manganese, Total 31 1.0 ug/l 1 03/28/25
5C13110 Page 8 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
[TOC_1
Quality Control Results Results
Conventional Chemistry/Physical Parameters by APHA/EPA/ASTM Methods Analyte Result MRL Units
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Qualifier
Batch: W5C1192 - SM 2540C
Blank (W5C1192-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 03/17/25
Total Dissolved Solids ND 10 mg/l
LCS (W5C1192-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 03/17/25
Total Dissolved Solids 50.0 10 mg/l 50.0 100 97-103
Duplicate (W5C1192-DUP1) Source: 5C13112-01 Prepared & Analyzed: 03/17/25 Total Dissolved Solids 6660 10 mg/l 6550 2 10
Quality Control Results
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods
Analyte Result MRL Units
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Qualifier
Batch: W5C1752 - EPA 200.7
Blank (W5C1752-BLK1) Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/25/25 Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l
Iron, Total ND 0.030 mg/l
LCS (W5C1752-BS1) Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/25/25 Iron, Dissolved 208 30 ug/l 200 104 85-115
Iron, Total 0.208 0.030 mg/l 0.200 104 85-115
Matrix Spike (W5C1752-MS1) Source: 5C13110-01 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/25/25 Iron, Total 0.289 0.030 mg/l 0.200 0.0791 105 70-130
Matrix Spike (W5C1752-MS2) Source: 5C13110-02 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/25/25 Iron, Dissolved 279 30 ug/l 200 24.9 127 70-130
Iron, Total 0.279 0.030 mg/l 0.200 0.0694 105 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1752-MSD1) Source: 5C13110-01 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/25/25 Iron, Total 0.289 0.030 mg/l 0.200 0.0791 105 70-130 0.1 30 Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1752-MSD2) Source: 5C13110-02 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/25/25 Iron, Dissolved 282 30 ug/l 200 24.9 128 70-130 0.9 30
Iron, Total 0.282 0.030 mg/l 0.200 0.0694 106 70-130 0.9 30 Batch: W5C1753 - EPA 200.8
Blank (W5C1753-BLK1) Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 04/04/25 Arsenic, Dissolved ND 0.40 ug/l
Arsenic, Total ND 0.40 ug/l
Manganese, Dissolved ND 1.0 ug/l
Manganese, Total ND 1.0 ug/l
LCS (W5C1753-BS1) Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 04/04/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 53.3 0.40 ug/l 50.0 107 85-115
Arsenic, Total 53.3 0.40 ug/l 50.0 107 85-115
Manganese, Dissolved 52.8 1.0 ug/l 50.0 105 85-115
Manganese, Total 52.8 1.0 ug/l 50.0 105 85-115
5C13110 Page 9 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Quality Control Results (Continued)
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods (Continued)
Analyte Result MRL Units
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Qualifier
Batch: W5C1753 - EPA 200.8 (Continued)
Matrix Spike (W5C1753-MS1) Source: 5C13110-04 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 04/04/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 62.8 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.36 107 70-130
Arsenic, Total 62.8 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.48 107 70-130
Manganese, Dissolved 97.6 1.0 ug/l 50.0 45.4 104 70-130 Manganese, Total 97.6 1.0 ug/l 50.0 45.0 105 70-130
Matrix Spike (W5C1753-MS2) Source: 5C13110-05 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 04/04/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 62.9 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.45 107 70-130
Arsenic, Total 62.9 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.45 107 70-130
Manganese, Dissolved 98.2 1.0 ug/l 50.0 44.6 107 70-130 Manganese, Total 98.2 1.0 ug/l 50.0 44.1 108 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1753-MSD1) Source: 5C13110-04 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 04/04/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 62.5 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.36 106 70-130 0.4 30 Arsenic, Total 62.5 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.48 106 70-130 0.4 30 Manganese, Dissolved 96.6 1.0 ug/l 50.0 45.4 102 70-130 1 30 Manganese, Total 96.6 1.0 ug/l 50.0 45.0 103 70-130 1 30 Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1753-MSD2) Source: 5C13110-05 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 04/04/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 62.5 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.45 106 70-130 0.5 30 Arsenic, Total 62.5 0.40 ug/l 50.0 9.45 106 70-130 0.5 30 Manganese, Dissolved 97.1 1.0 ug/l 50.0 44.6 105 70-130 1 30 Manganese, Total 97.1 1.0 ug/l 50.0 44.1 106 70-130 1 30 Batch: W5C1754 - EPA 200.7
Blank (W5C1754-BLK1) Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Iron, Dissolved ND 30 ug/l
Iron, Total ND 0.030 mg/l
LCS (W5C1754-BS1) Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Iron, Dissolved 209 30 ug/l 200 104 85-115
Iron, Total 0.209 0.030 mg/l 0.200 104 85-115
Matrix Spike (W5C1754-MS1) Source: 5C12011-01 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Iron, Dissolved 257 30 ug/l 200 49.0 104 70-130
Iron, Total 0.257 0.030 mg/l 0.200 0.0490 104 70-130
Matrix Spike (W5C1754-MS2) Source: 5C12011-04 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Iron, Dissolved 207 30 ug/l 200 ND 104 70-130
Iron, Total 0.207 0.030 mg/l 0.200 ND 104 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1754-MSD1) Source: 5C12011-01 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Iron, Dissolved 258 30 ug/l 200 49.0 104 70-130 0.2 30
Iron, Total 0.258 0.030 mg/l 0.200 0.0490 104 70-130 0.2 30 Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1754-MSD2) Source: 5C12011-04 Prepared: 03/24/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Iron, Dissolved 211 30 ug/l 200 ND 105 70-130 2 30
Iron, Total 0.211 0.030 mg/l 0.200 ND 105 70-130 2 30
5C13110 Page 10 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
Quality Control Results (Continued)
Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods (Continued)
Analyte Result MRL Units
Spike
Level
Source
Result %REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Qualifier
Batch: W5C1756 - EPA 200.8
Blank (W5C1756-BLK1) Prepared: 03/25/25 Analyzed: 03/28/25 Arsenic, Dissolved ND 0.40 ug/l
Arsenic, Total ND 0.40 ug/l
Manganese, Dissolved ND 1.0 ug/l
Manganese, Total ND 1.0 ug/l
LCS (W5C1756-BS1) Prepared: 03/25/25 Analyzed: 03/28/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 55.0 0.40 ug/l 50.0 110 85-115
Arsenic, Total 55.0 0.40 ug/l 50.0 110 85-115
Manganese, Dissolved 53.3 1.0 ug/l 50.0 107 85-115
Manganese, Total 53.3 1.0 ug/l 50.0 107 85-115
Matrix Spike (W5C1756-MS1) Source: 5C11006-01 Prepared: 03/25/25 Analyzed: 03/28/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 55.5 0.40 ug/l 50.0 0.0951 111 70-130 Arsenic, Total 55.5 0.40 ug/l 50.0 0.0951 111 70-130
Manganese, Dissolved 55.9 1.0 ug/l 50.0 3.60 104 70-130 Manganese, Total 55.9 1.0 ug/l 50.0 3.60 104 70-130
Matrix Spike (W5C1756-MS2) Source: 5C12011-02 Prepared: 03/25/25 Analyzed: 03/28/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 57.6 0.40 ug/l 50.0 1.95 111 70-130
Arsenic, Total 57.6 0.40 ug/l 50.0 1.95 111 70-130
Manganese, Dissolved 89.1 1.0 ug/l 50.0 37.8 102 70-130 Manganese, Total 89.1 1.0 ug/l 50.0 37.8 102 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1756-MSD1) Source: 5C11006-01 Prepared: 03/25/25 Analyzed: 03/28/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 55.0 0.40 ug/l 50.0 0.0951 110 70-130 0.8 30 Arsenic, Total 55.0 0.40 ug/l 50.0 0.0951 110 70-130 0.8 30 Manganese, Dissolved 55.5 1.0 ug/l 50.0 3.60 104 70-130 0.6 30 Manganese, Total 55.5 1.0 ug/l 50.0 3.60 104 70-130 0.6 30 Matrix Spike Dup (W5C1756-MSD2) Source: 5C12011-02 Prepared: 03/25/25 Analyzed: 03/28/25 Arsenic, Dissolved 57.3 0.40 ug/l 50.0 1.95 111 70-130 0.6 30 Arsenic, Total 57.3 0.40 ug/l 50.0 1.95 111 70-130 0.6 30 Manganese, Dissolved 90.1 1.0 ug/l 50.0 37.8 104 70-130 1 30 Manganese, Total 90.1 1.0 ug/l 50.0 37.8 104 70-130 1 30 5C13110 Page 11 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Besst Inc. Reported:
50 Tiburon St., Ste. 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
La Palma City Yard
Aaron Marriott
04/09/2025 14:12
Certificate of Analysis
FINAL REPORT
[TOC_1
Notes and Definitions Definiti
Item Definition
%REC Percent Recovery
Dil Dilution
Method Reporting Limit (MRL) is the minimum levels, concentrations, or quantities of a target variable (e.g., target analyte) that can be reported with a specified degree of confidence. The MRL is also known as Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) MRL
NOT DETECTED at or above the Method Reporting Limit (MRL). If Method Detection Limit (MDL) is reported, then ND means not detected at or above the MDL.
ND
RPD Relative Percent Difference
Source Sample that was matrix spiked or duplicated.
Any remaining sample(s) will be disposed of one month from the final report date unless other arrangements are made in advance.
All results are expressed on wet weight basis unless otherwise specified.
All samples collected by Weck Laboratories have been sampled in accordance to laboratory SOP Number MIS002. 5C13110 Page 12 of 12
14859 Clark Avenue,City of Industry CA, 91745 | Phone: (626) 336-2139 www.wecklabs.com
71 7.8 APPENDIX H: WATER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SAMPLE RESULTS AND REPORT
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. ♦ An Investigative Water Consulting & Design Laboratory 3201 Labette Terrace, Ottawa, Kansas 66067 ♦ phone: 785.242.6166 ♦ http:www.h2osystems.com Date: April 29, 2025
Lab Report No. 23292
Miles Koehler
Besst Inc.
50 Tiburon St.; Suite 7
San Rafael, CA 94901
Project Description: City of La Palma, CA, City Yard Well; Samples dated 03/12/2025 Complete Well Profile (1); Bacterial Assessments (10)
Test Description:
The Complete Well Profile analysis is designed for comparative analysis of two samples, typically one static and one pumping sample. The Complete Well Profile utilizes a series of inorganic chemical and microbiological tests to identify fouling and corrosion issues with potential impacts on the operation of the sampled well. The tests include a number of inorganic chemical parameters such as pH, total dissolved solids/conductivity, hardness, alkalinity, oxidation reduction potential (ORP), bicarbonate, carbonates, silica, sodium, potassium, chloride, iron, manganese, phosphate, nitrate, sulfate, and total organic carbon (TOC). Biological assessment is designed to quantify the total bacterial population, identify two dominant populations of bacteria, assess anaerobic conditions, and identify the presence of iron related bacteria and sulfate reducing organisms. Also included are tests for Adenosine triphosphate (ATP), heterotrophic plate count (HPC), and a microscopic evaluation; and in potable systems, total coliform and E. coli coliform presence/absence.
Testing Procedures:
All laboratory testing procedures are performed according to the guidelines set forth in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater as established by the American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF).
Corrosion analyses are performed in accordance with the guidelines as set forth by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE). In general, these methods are approved by both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and AWWA for the reporting of water and/or wastewater data.
Sample collection and shipment is the responsibility of the customer, performed according to protocol and procedures defined by the laboratory in advance of the sampling event with regards to the specific project and nature of the problem.
Disclaimer:
The data and interpretations presented are based on an evaluation of the samples and submitted data.
Conclusions reached in this report are based upon the data available at the time of submittal and the accuracy of the report depends upon the validity of information submitted. Any recommendations presented are based on laboratory and field evaluations of similar fouling occurrences within potable water systems. Further investigative efforts, such as efficiency testing, site inspection, video survey, or other evaluation methods may offer additional insight into the system’s condition and the degree of fouling present.
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. 785.242.6166 http://www.h2osystems.com 23292.w.pw.p-b.LaPalma.CityYardWell Page 2 of 13
ND - Not Detected City Yard Well Detection
Limits NA - Not Applicable 270’ 650’
* as CaCO3 - 12:00
pH Value 8.03 8.05 NA
Phenolphthalein Alkalinity* ND ND 4 mg/l
Total Alkalinity* 144 176 4 mg/l
Hydroxide Alkalinity* ND ND 4 mg/l
Carbonate Alkalinity* ND ND 4 mg/l
Bicarbonate Alkalinity* 144 176 4 mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids 302 295 1.0 mg/l
Conductivity (µS/cm) 420 410 NA
ORP (mV) + 230.8 + 213.7 NA
Langelier Saturation Index (at 16°C) + 0.25 + 0.29 NA
Total Hardness* 148 148 4 mg/l
Carbonate Hardness 144 148 4 mg/l
Non Carbonate Hardness 4 ND 4 mg/l
Calcium* 148 128 4 mg/l
Magnesium* ND 20 4 mg/l
Sodium (as Na) 43.10 42.90 0.02 mg/l
Potassium (as K) 1.9 2.0 0.1 mg/l
Phosphorus, Reactive (as PO4
3-
) 0.37 0.24 0.06 mg/l
Chlorides (as Cl) 23.9 22.4 1 mg/l
Nitrate (Nitrogen) ND ND 0.3 mg/l
Chlorine (as Cl) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Dissolved Iron (as Fe2+) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Suspended Iron (as Fe3+) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Iron Total (as Fe) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Iron (resuspended) 0.05 0.06 0.02 mg/l
Copper (as Cu) ND ND 0.04 mg/l
Manganese (as Mn) 0.070 0.051 0.007 mg/l
Sulfate (as SO4) 41 38 2 mg/l
Silica (as SiO2) 21.0 20.7 1.0 mg/l
Tannin/Lignin ND ND 0.1 mg/l
Total Organic Carbon (C) ND ND 0.3 mg/l
Client: Besst Inc.
Date: April 29, 2025
Lab Report No. 23292
Re: City of La Palma, CA, City Yard Well; Samples dated 03/12/2025 Complete Well Profile (1); Bacterial Assessments (10)
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. 785.242.6166 http://www.h2osystems.com 23292.w.pw.p-b.LaPalma.CityYardWell Page 3 of 13
Biological Analysis (Complete Profile):
Microscopic Evaluation:
270’: Very low visible bacterial activity.
650’: No visible bacterial activity.
City Yard Well Detection
270’ Limit 650’
12:00
Plate Count (colonies/ml) 750 118 NA
Anaerobic Growth (%) <10 <10 NA
Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Fe/Mn Oxidizing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
ATP (cells per ml) Initial 28,000 29,000 NA
ATP (cells per ml) 24 Hour 29,000 24,000 NA
Total Coliform Negative Negative NA
E. Coli Negative Negative NA
Bacterial Identification Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
Acinetobacter
delafieldii NA
Bacterial Identification Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia
Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia NA
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. 785.242.6166 http://www.h2osystems.com 23292.w.pw.p-b.LaPalma.CityYardWell Page 4 of 13
Bacterial Assessments:
Microscopic Evaluation:
300’: No visible bacterial activity.
320’: No visible bacterial activity.
ND - Not Detected City Yard Well Detection
Limits
NA - Not Applicable 300’ 320’
09:00 09:29
pH Value 8.06 8.16 NA
Total Dissolved Solids 308 293 NA
Conductivity (µS/cm) 428 407 NA
ORP (mV) + 202.2 + 207.4 NA
Chlorine (as Cl) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Iron (resuspended) 0.08 0.08 0.02 mg/l
Plate Count (CFU/ml) 1,000 190 NA
ATP (cells per ml) initial 36,000 32,000 NA
ATP (cells per ml) 24 hr 40,000 36,000 NA
Anaerobic Growth (%) <10 <10 NA
Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Fe/Mn Oxidizing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Total Coliform Negative Negative NA
E. coli Coliform Negative Negative NA
Bacterial Identification Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia
Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia NA
Bacterial Identification Microbacterium
maritypicum
Rathayibacter
tritici NA
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. 785.242.6166 http://www.h2osystems.com 23292.w.pw.p-b.LaPalma.CityYardWell Page 5 of 13
Bacterial Assessments continued:
Microscopic Evaluation:
370’: No visible bacterial activity.
460’: No visible bacterial activity.
ND - Not Detected City Yard Well Detection
Limits
NA - Not Applicable 370’ 460’
09:54 10:35
pH Value 8.12 8.13 NA
Total Dissolved Solids 291 292 1.0 mg/l
Conductivity (µS/cm) 404 405 NA
ORP (mV) + 202.7 + 201.6 NA
Chlorine (as Cl) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Iron (resuspended) 0.06 0.08 0.02 mg/l
Plate Count (CFU/ml) 133 200 NA
ATP (cells per ml) initial 30,000 31,000 NA
ATP (cells per ml) 24 hr 31,000 28,000 NA
Anaerobic Growth (%) <10 <10 NA
Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Fe/Mn Oxidizing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Total Coliform Negative Negative NA
E. coli Coliform Negative Negative NA
Bacterial Identification Microbacterium
maritypicum Cupriavidus gilardii NA
Bacterial Identification Micrococcus
luteus B
Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia NA
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. 785.242.6166 http://www.h2osystems.com 23292.w.pw.p-b.LaPalma.CityYardWell Page 6 of 13
Bacterial Assessments continued:
Microscopic Evaluation:
510’: No visible bacterial activity.
530’: No visible bacterial activity and trace of iron oxide.
ND - Not Detected City Yard Well Detection
NA - Not Applicable 510’ 530’ Limits
11:22 14:35
pH Value 8.27 8.07 NA
Total Dissolved Solids 293 305 1.0 mg/l
Conductivity (µS/cm) 407 423 NA
ORP (mV) + 203.5 + 207.0 NA
Chlorine (as Cl) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Iron (resuspended) 0.06 0.05 0.02 mg/l
Plate Count (CFU/ml) >1,500 750 NA
ATP (cells per ml) initial 36,000 33,000 NA
ATP (cells per ml) 24 hr 32,000 25,000 NA
Anaerobic Growth (%) <10 <10 NA
Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Fe/Mn Oxidizing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Total Coliform Negative Negative NA
E. coli Coliform Negative Negative NA
Bacterial Identification Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia
Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia NA
Bacterial Identification Clavibacter
michiganensis
Pseudomonas
mendocina NA
Water Systems Engineering, Inc. 785.242.6166 http://www.h2osystems.com 23292.w.pw.p-b.LaPalma.CityYardWell Page 7 of 13
Bacterial Assessments continued:
Microscopic Evaluation:
1080’: No visible bacterial activity.
1130’: No visible bacterial activity.
ND - Not Detected City Yard Well Detection
NA - Not Applicable 1080’ 1130’ Limits
13:10 13:47
pH Value 8.09 8.14 NA
Total Dissolved Solids 292 297 1.0 mg/l
Conductivity (µS/cm) 406 412 NA
ORP (mV) + 207.4 + 209.7 NA
Chlorine (as Cl) ND ND 0.02 mg/l
Iron (resuspended) 0.04 0.05 0.02 mg/l
Plate Count (CFU/ml) 530 100 NA
ATP (cells per ml) initial 34,000 28,000 NA
ATP (cells per ml) 24 hr 25,000 24,000 NA
Anaerobic Growth (%) <10 <10 NA
Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Fe/Mn Oxidizing Bacteria Negative Negative NA
Total Coliform Negative Negative NA
E. coli Coliform Negative Negative NA
Bacterial Identification Acidovorax
delafieldii
Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia NA
Bacterial Identification Pseudomonas
stutzeri - NA