Agenda packet — Sierra Madre City Council, September 23, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

APPENDIX
1 12of15
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
13of15
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 2

CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Sun Settlement and their counsel.

In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Sun Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Sun Settlement Agreement and CA Sun Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Sun Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the Attorney Fee Fund will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Sun Settlement Agreement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Sun Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Sun Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
1 Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 1 Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Zydus Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Zydus Settlement Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2025, and any revision thereto (the “Zydus Settlement Agreement”), including Section VI and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Zydus Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections V and VI of the Zydus Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Section X of the Zydus Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Zydus Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.

2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Zydus Settlement Agreement. b) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California.
c) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. d) Opioid Defendant means any defendant including but not limited to Alvogen, Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Apotex Corp., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.; Indivior Inc.; Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”); Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc.; Kroger Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walgreen Co., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., Cencora, Inc. f/k/a AmerisourceBergen Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Dr.

Richard S. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, David Sackler, Marianna Sackler, Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.

Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 2 3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Zydus Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Zydus Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Zydus Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section VI(D)(1) of the Zydus Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section VI(B)(2) of the Zydus Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

This Agreement does not apply to funds received by California1 pursuant to Section X of the Zydus Settlement Agreement, including payments for Private Attorney Fees and the Additional Remediation Amount.

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California, pursuant to the Zydus Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”).

A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.

B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit.

Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 3 Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Zydus Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as the county is a CA Participating Subdivision; provided, however, that if a city currently receives direct payment of its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors Cencora, Inc. (f/k/a AmerisourceBergenCorporation), Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”), that city’s Local Allocation amount will be paid directly to the city. If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight). d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Zydus Settlement Agreement and this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State.

Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 4 ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Zydus Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction;
(5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list. d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Zydus Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Zydus Settlement Agreement and this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 5 Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Zydus Settlement Agreement and this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Zydus Settlement Agreement or this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Zydus Settlement Agreement or this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.

C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Zydus Settlement Agreement and this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioidrelated expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 6 However, in no event shall more than one third (5% out of the 15%) of CA Subdivision Funds be used for litigation-related fees and expenses.

D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the settlement agreements with other Opioid Defendants.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use up to one-third (5% out of the 15%) of its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(X), of the Zydus Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, provided that: (1) such payments, together with any payments to contingency-fee counsel from the Private Attorneys Fee amount related to such Plaintiff Subdivision, do not exceed 15% of a Plaintiff Subdivision’s total gross recovery under this Zydus Settlement Agreement; and (2) the Plaintiff Subdivision certifies that any payments made under a State Back-Stop agreement will be made in accordance with the 95% Opioid Abatement use requirements under Section VI(B)(1) of the Zydus Settlement Agreement. Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Zydus Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 2 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 2. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 7 5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Zydus Settlement Agreement and this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Zydus Settlement Agreement and this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section VI(B)(2) of the Zydus Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Zydus. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Zydus Settlement Agreement, this CA Zydus Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 8 Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Zydus Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D 9 The undersigned, Sierra Madre city, CA, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds –Zydus Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Zydus Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Zydus Settlement.

Signature: /signer_1_som/
Name: /name_1_som/
Title: /title_1_som/
Date: /date_1_som/
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Zydus Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change.

Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
1of15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
2of15
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
3of15
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

APPENDIX
1 4of15
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Canada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

APPENDIX
1 5of15
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

APPENDIX
1 6of15
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

APPENDIX
1 7of15
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

APPENDIX
1 8of15
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
9of15
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
10of15
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D APPENDIX 1
11of15
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allcation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Zydus Settlement Agreement and CA Zydus Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Zydus Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL] from [SUBDIVISION’S] CA Subdivision Fund allocation will not exceed [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OR 5% OUT OF THE 15%] out of the [SUBDIVISION’S] 15% CA Subdivision Fund allocation; provided further that such payments, together with any contingency-fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the Attorney Fee Fund will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Zydus Settlement Agreement. [COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Zydus Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Zydus Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
1 Docusign Envelope ID: 63D63F7A-C74A-48DB-A2E6-AA2C77B1383D

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Arnulfo Yanez, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Michael Bruckner, City Manager
DATE: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN SCE’S LS-1 OPTION E STREETLIGHT

CONVERSION PROGRAM

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve participation in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) LS-1 Option E Streetlight Conversion Program, authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement, and select a preferred color temperature for installation (2,700K or 3,000K).

ALTERNATIVES
A. Approve participation in LS-1 Option E (Staff Recommendation) x Immediate energy and cost savings; no upfront capital outlay x Modern light-emitting diode (LED) technology with available warmer color temperatures
x Lower electricity use contributes to statewide greenhouse gas reduction efforts x SCE maintains ownership, operation, and replacement responsibility at no additional cost to the City
x Participation commits the City to a 20-year recovery period as part of the LS-1 tariff; early exit may result in financial penalties
City of Sierra Madre

AGENDA REPORT
Robert Parkhurst, Mayor
Kristine Lowe, Mayor Pro Tem
Edward Garcia, Council Member
Gene Goss, Council Member
Kelly Kriebs, Council Member
Sue Spears, City Treasurer

B. Decline participation
x Avoids committing to a 20-year agreement
x City retains higher-cost, less efficient high-pressure sodium fixtures, missing out on energy savings and lighting improvements.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2016, SCE has offered the LS-1 Option E program which is a turnkey program for local governments to replace aging High Pressure Sodium (HPSV) “cobra head” streetlights with new, more efficient LED streetlights. Under the program, SCE facilitates and manages the replacements of these lights at no-cost to the City. SCE absorbs the conversion costs using an incentive program offered by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The deadline to participate in this program is October 1, 2025.

ANALYSIS
Sierra Madre currently has about 385 eligible streetlights under the LS-1 program for replacement. LS-1 is SCE’s official utility rate schedule for streetlights, known as “Lighting – Street and Highway 1.” Under LS-1, SCE owns, operates, and maintains the streetlight fixtures, and the City pays a monthly fee for each fixture that covers electricity, maintenance, and future replacement.

The LS-1 Option E program provides a mechanism for cities to upgrade their SCEowned streetlights from old high-pressure sodium lamps to modern, energy-efficient LED fixtures. SCE pays all upfront costs for new lights and installation, and the City pays back the cost gradually over 20 years through a small surcharge included in its existing LS-1 monthly bill; however, because the LED lights are more efficient, the cost of surcharge is absorbed through lower electricity consumption which actually results in net savings in electrical costs to the City. Maintenance and future replacements remain the responsibility of SCE, so the City has no additional ongoing upkeep cost.

The new LED fixtures will provide superior optics compared to the older generation HPSV lights, are dark sky compliant, and more effectively place light on the street surface with less light intrusion to residents. The lights also improve visual acuity, allowing drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists to see more clearly with more detail during the evening hours, providing a safer night environment for Sierra Madre residents. SCE can utilize a standard wattage ratio to match existing lights or the wattage can be adjusted. The City’s current street light temperature is 2,300 kelvin which is not available in LED but the City Council can adjust to 2,700 kelvin which is the closest option for a more yellow, warm lighting or 3,000 kelvin for a slightly whiter, cooler lighting.

In addition, SCE continues to own and take care of these lights. That means SCE and

not the City, handles installation, keeps the lights maintained, and replaces them when needed, all at no added cost. This saves Sierra Madre time and money, while giving everyone safer, modern lighting that’s used in other cities nearby too. Cities near Sierra Madre including Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, and Pasadena have already upgraded their streetlights through similar programs, showing that this is a reliable, well-tested solution that brings benefits to communities throughout the region.

ENVIRONMENTAL(CEQA)
The proposed action does not constitute as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be determined with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
The LS-1 Option E Streetlight Conversion Program advances the City’s Strategic Plan under several specific points:
x Goal: Organizational Sustainability
x Objective: Fiscal Stability
x Initiative: Long-Range Planning (Initiative 1.2.1 – Capital Improvement Program and reserve policy integration, Initiative 1.2.2 – Long-term financial planning and forecasting)
x Project: Five-year forecast and capital project-affordability updates (Project

1.2.2A), led by Administrative Services–Finance, Public Works, and City Manager’s Office.

This agenda item also strongly supports Infrastructure Growth Management goals, specifically:
x Objective: Strategically Align Infrastructure Improvements with Population Growth
x Initiative: Enhance and sustain street maintenance and improvement (Initiative

3.1.5 – Enhance and sustain street maintenance to improve Pavement Condition Index; Project 3.1.5A – Annual Street Rehabilitation Program overlays/slurry, utility coordination).

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report can be accessed on the City’s website at www.sierramadreca.gov.

FISCAL IMPACT
Participation in Southern California Edison’s LS-1 Option E Streetlight Conversion Program will not require any upfront capital expenditure by the City. All costs for new LED fixtures and installation are advanced by SCE and repaid over a period of 20 years through a small surcharge within the City's existing monthly LS-1 streetlight billing. As the new LEDs consume much less electricity than the older models, the City should expect to see immediate net savings reflected in lower monthly charges. These savings are projected to increase further once the 20-year recovery period ends and the surcharge is removed. All maintenance and future fixture replacement costs are the responsibility of SCE and remain embedded in the LS-1 tariff, resulting in no additional maintenance burden for the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. LS-1 Option E Primer (SCE, July 9, 2024)

2. LS-1 Option E Rate Agreement

LS-1 Option E
Background
x LS-1 Option E encourages local governments and street lighting customers to authorize SCE to replace aging utility owned street lights with new LED fixtures. x There is no up-front cost customers and SCE manages the project from start to finish. Current wait time is approximately seven months prior to commencing installation. x Fixture replacements are conducted quickly and safely, with virtually no disruption to local residents. There are no required outages and crews can work curbside safely. In fact, most people don’t even know SCE has replaced fixtures on their block until they notice the new street lighting. There are currently more than 340,000 streetlights that have been replaced under this program throughout SCE’s service territory.
x The new LED street lights utilize less energy and contribute significantly to the reduction of your community’s carbon footprint in addition to lowering cost and energy consumption.

Technology
x SCE utilizes GE Evolve Roadway Fixtures as the LED replacement technology. The fixtures are reliable, dark sky compliant, and robust in a variety of weather conditions. These lights provide vastly improved “visual acuity”, leading to increased night-time visibility and a safer environment for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians during evening hours. x The process of implementation is initiated once SCE receives the signed LS-1 Option E authorization and the jurisdiction confirms streetlight preferences (i.e. Warmer 3,000k or a mix of 3000k temperature in residential areas and 4,000k temperatures on main streets and arterials, or in certain circumstances, the warmest 2,700k). Once color preference has been confirmed, SCE will order material and begin installation within about seven months. x Life expectancy for the new technology is expected to be between 12-20 years. The streetlights will be replaced as needed by SCE as part of its routine streetlight maintenance program in the future.

Cost Recovery
x LS-1 Option E includes a recovery mechanism embedded within the tariff, which recovers the cost of the initial installation and materials over 20 years. Customers see an immediate reduction in street lighting costs after implementation on their energy bill and that savings grows after the initial 20 years. There is no up-front cost required and no interest associated with the recovery mechanism. SCE is happy to provide a savings outlook specific to your community.
x Savings are applied as soon as replacement efforts are completed. SCE credits an account from the date of completion, so that regardless of any billing implementation delays, the jurisdiction will still benefit.

For additional information or to set up a presentation, please contact SCE’s Streetlight Projects Manager, John King at [email protected].
6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD(GLVRQ 2ULJLQDO &DO38&6KHHW1R ( 5RVHPHDG&DOLIRUQLD
8(
&DQFHOOLQJ &DO38&6KHHW1R
6KHHW
6&+('8/(/6237,21(
(1(5*<()),&,(1&</,*+7(0,77,1*',2'(
/('
),;785(5(3/$&(0(17
5$7($*5((0(17
)RUP

7REHLQVHUWHGE\XWLOLW\
,VVXHGE\
7REHLQVHUWHGE\&DO38&

$GYLFH ( 521LFKROV 'DWH)LOHG -XQ 'HFLVLRQ 6HQLRU9LFH3UHVLGHQW (IIHFWLYH -XQ 1P8 5HVROXWLRQ
6287+(51&$/,)251,$(',621&203$1<
6&+('8/(/6237,21((1(5*<()),&,(1&</,*+7(0,77,1*',2'( /('

),;785(5(3/$&(0(175$7($*5((0(17
)RUP

7KLV6FKHGXOH/62SWLRQ((QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\/LJKW(PLWWLQJ'LRGH /('
)L[WXUH5HSODFHPHQW5DWH
$JUHHPHQW
$JUHHPHQW
HIIHFWLYH WKLV GD\ RI B
B
(IIHFWLYH 'DWH
LV HQWHUHG LQWR EHWZHHQ 6RXWKHUQ &DOLIRUQLD (GLVRQ &RPSDQ\ 6&(

DQGBBBBBBBB DQ 6&( FXVWRPHU WDNLQJ VHUYLFH RQ 6FKHGXOH/6 $SSOLFDQW
UHIHUUHGWR
FROOHFWLYHO\DV3DUWLHVDQGLQGLYLGXDOO\DV3DUW\ 7KLV$JUHHPHQWSURYLGHVIRU6&(DW$SSOLFDQW¶V UHTXHVWWRUHSODFHWKHH[LVWLQJVWUHHWOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVVHUYLQJ$SSOLFDQW¶VSUHPLVHVZLWK/LJKW(PLWWLQJ 'LRGH
/('
VWUHHW OLJKWLQJIL[WXUHV WR DFKLHYH HQHUJ\ HIILFLHQF\ EHQHILWVIRU $SSOLFDQW DV VHWIRUWK LQ 6SHFLDO&RQGLWLRQ2SWLRQ((QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\/LJKW(PLWWLQJ'LRGH /('
)L[WXUH5HSODFHPHQWRI
6FKHGXOH/6
7KH3DUWLHVDJUHHDVIROORZV

/('),;785(6
6&(VKDOOLQVWDOORZQRSHUDWHDQGPDLQWDLQ/(')L[WXUHVIRU$SSOLFDQWDVVHWIRUWKLQ([KLELW$ DWWDFKHGKHUHWRDQGLQFRUSRUDWHGKHUHLQE\WKLVUHIHUHQFH7KH/(')L[WXUHVSURYLGHGKHUHXQGHU VKDOODWDOOWLPHVUHPDLQWKHSURSHUW\RI6&(
/('),;785(5(3/$&(0(17&2676
7KHUHSODFHPHQWFRVWVRIWKH/(')L[WXUHVSURYLGHGKHUHXQGHUVKDOOEHERUQHE\ $SSOLFDQW
$SSOLFDQWVKDOOSD\WKHFKDUJHIRUWKH/(')L[WXUHV5HSODFHPHQWUDWHZKLFKLQFOXGHVDQ (QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\3UHPLXP&KDUJH
((3&
DQG D%DVH /('&KDUJHXQGHU2SWLRQ( RI
6FKHGXOH /6 $SSOLFDQW HOHFWV 2SWLRQ( LQ OLHX RI DQ XSIURQW RQHWLPH SD\PHQW RIWKH UHSODFHPHQWFRVWV
6&(GRHVQRWJXDUDQWHHWKDWDQ\HQHUJ\RUELOOVDYLQJVZLOODFFUXHWR$SSOLFDQWDVDUHVXOW RIWKH/(')L[WXUHUHSODFHPHQWV
&200(1&(0(172)6(59,&(
7KH3DUWLHVDJUHHWKDW6&(KDVWKHULJKWWRFKDUJH$SSOLFDQWDQG$SSOLFDQWKDVDQREOLJDWLRQWR SD\ 6&( IRU WKH FKDUJHV VHW IRUWK LQ 6FKHGXOH /6 2SWLRQ ( FRPPHQFLQJ RQ WKH GDWH 6&( EHJLQVVHUYLQJWKH/(')L[WXUHVLQVWDOOHGSXUVXDQWWRWKLV$JUHHPHQW 7(50$1'7(50,1$7,21
7KLV$JUHHPHQWVKDOOEHHIIHFWLYHDVRIWKH(IIHFWLYH'DWHDQGVKDOOFRQWLQXHIRUDWHUPRI WZHQW\

\HDUV IURP WKH FRPPHQFHPHQW RI VHUYLFH DV VSHFLILHG LQ 6HFWLRQ DERYH

7HUP

$SSOLFDQWPD\WHUPLQDWHWKLV$JUHHPHQWDWDQ\WLPHGXULQJWKH7HUPXSRQDWKLUW\

GD\DGYDQFHZULWWHQQRWLFHSURYLGHGWKDW$SSOLFDQWSULRUWRRUZLWKLQWKHGD\DGYDQFH QRWLFH SHULRG DVVLJQV WKH $JUHHPHQW WR DQ\ 1HZ 3DUW\ ,Q 13,
WKDW RZQV UHQWV RU
OHDVHVWKHSUHPLVHVVHUYHGE\WKHVWUHHWOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHV UHSODFHGXQGHUWKLV$JUHHPHQW DQGZLOOWDNHVHUYLFHXQGHU2SWLRQ(RI6FKHGXOH/6HIIHFWLYHDVRIWKHGDWHRIWHUPLQDWLRQ
otherwise$SSOLFDQWVKDOOSD\DRQHWLPHWHUPLQDWLRQFKDUJHHTXDOWRWKHSUHVHQWYDOXHRI WKH EDODQFH RI WKH ((3& RI 2SWLRQ ( RYHU WKH UHPDLQLQJ 7HUP 7KH SUHVHQW YDOXH LV GHWHUPLQHGEDVHGRQ6&(¶VDXWKRUL]HGUDWHRIUHWXUQRQUDWHEDVHRUGLVFRXQWHGUDWHRI

6287+(51&$/,)251,$(',621&203$1<
6&+('8/(/6237,21((1(5*<()),&,(1&</,*+7(0,77,1*',2'( /('

),;785(5(3/$&(0(175$7($*5((0(17
)RUP

$0(1'0(176
$66,*10(176
$Q\FKDQJHVRUDPHQGPHQWVWRWKLV$JUHHPHQWPXVWEHLQZULWLQJDQGPXVWEHH[HFXWHG E\WKH$SSOLFDQWDQG6&(DQGLI UHTXLUHGEHDSSURYHGE\WKH&DOLIRUQLD3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV &RPPLVVLRQ
&RPPLVVLRQ

$SSOLFDQW VKDOO QRW DVVLJQ WKLV $JUHHPHQW ZLWKRXW WKH SULRU ZULWWHQ FRQVHQW RI 6&(
SURYLGHGKRZHYHUWKDW$SSOLFDQWPD\DVVLJQWKH$JUHHPHQWSXUVXDQWWRWKHWHUPVDQG FRQGLWLRQV RI 6HFWLRQ DERYH DQG WKH 13, PXVW DVVXPH DOO ULJKWV DQG REOLJDWLRQV XQGHUWKLV$JUHHPHQWIRUWKHUHPDLQLQJ7HUP$Q\DVVLJQPHQWDQGDVVXPSWLRQVKDOOEHLQ DIRUPDFFHSWDEOHWR6&(
127,&(
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
6&(

1DPH

%XVLQHVV&XVWRPHU'LYLVLRQ

7LWOH
6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD(GLVRQ&RPSDQ\
:DOQXW*URYH$YHQXH

$GGUHVV
5RVHPHDG&$

&LW\6WDWH=LS

121:$,9(5
7KHIDLOXUHRIHLWKHU3DUW\WRHQIRUFHDQ\RIWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRUWRH[HUFLVHDQ\ ULJKWRU SULYLOHJHLQWKLV$JUHHPHQWVKDOOQRWEHFRQVWUXHGDVDZDLYHURIDQ\VXFKWHUPDQGFRQGLWLRQVRU ULJKWV RU SULYLOHJHV DQG WKH VDPH VKDOO FRQWLQXH DQG UHPDLQ HQIRUFH DQG HIIHFW DV LI QR VXFK IDLOXUHWRHQIRUFHRUH[HUFLVHKDGRFFXUUHG
6(9(5$%,/,7<
,Q WKH HYHQW WKDW DQ\ RI WKH SURYLVLRQV RU SRUWLRQV WKHUHRI RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW DUH KHOG WR EH XQHQIRUFHDEOH RU LQYDOLG E\WKH &RPPLVVLRQ RU DQ\ FRXUW RI FRPSHWHQW MXULVGLFWLRQ WKH YDOLGLW\ DQGHQIRUFHDELOLW\RIWKHUHPDLQLQJSURYLVLRQVRUDQ\SRUWLRQWKHUHRIVKDOOQRWEHDIIHFWHG

$33/,&$%/(/$:658/(6$1'5(*8/$7,216
7KLV$JUHHPHQWVKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRDQGLQWHUSUHWHGXQGHUWKHODZVUXOHVGHFLVLRQVDQGUHJXODWLRQV RIWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLDZLWKRXWUHJDUGWRLWVFRQIOLFWRIODZVSULQFLSOHVWKH&RPPLVVLRQDQG6&( V
&RPPLVVLRQDSSURYHGWDULIIV
6287+(51&$/,)251,$(',621&203$1<
6&+('8/(/6237,21((1(5*<()),&,(1&</,*+7(0,77,1*',2'( /('

),;785(5(3/$&(0(175$7($*5((0(17
)RUP

&$/,)251,$38%/,&87,/,7,(6&200,66,21-85,6',&7,21 7KLV LV DILOHGIRUPWDULII DJUHHPHQW DXWKRUL]HG E\WKH &RPPLVVLRQIRU XVH E\6&(1R RIILFHULQVSHFWRUVROLFLWRUDJHQWRUHPSOR\HHRI6&(KDVDQ\DXWKRULW\WRZDLYHDOWHURU DPHQG DQ\ SDUW RI WKLV $JUHHPHQW H[FHSW DV SURYLGHG KHUHLQ RU DXWKRUL]HG E\ WKH &RPPLVVLRQ 7KLV $JUHHPHQW LV WR EH XVHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK 6FKHGXOH /6 DQG VXSSOHPHQWVWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKH$SSOLFDQW
VHOHFWULFVHUYLFHXQGHU6FKHGXOH
/6
7KLV $JUHHPHQW VKDOO DW DOO WLPHV EH VXEMHFW WR VXFK FKDQJHV RU PRGLILFDWLRQV E\ WKH &RPPLVVLRQ DV VDLG &RPPLVVLRQ PD\ IURP WLPH WR WLPH GLUHFW LQ WKH H[HUFLVH RI LWV MXULVGLFWLRQ
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJDQ\RWKHUSURYLVLRQVRIWKLV$JUHHPHQW6&(KDVWKHULJKWWRXQLODWHUDOO\ ILOH ZLWK WKH &RPPLVVLRQ SXUVXDQW WR WKH &RPPLVVLRQ V UXOHV DQG UHJXODWLRQV DQ
DSSOLFDWLRQIRUFKDQJHLQUDWHVFKDUJHVFODVVLILFDWLRQVHUYLFHRUUXOHRUDQ\DJUHHPHQW UHODWLQJWKHUHWR
(17,5($*5((0(17
7KLV$JUHHPHQWLQFOXGLQJ6&(¶V&RPPLVVLRQDSSURYHGWDULIIVFRQVWLWXWHVWKHFRPSOHWHDJUHHPHQW DQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJEHWZHHQWKH$SSOLFDQWDQG6&(UHJDUGLQJWKH/(')L[WXUHVUHSODFHPHQWFRVWV 3ULRU DJUHHPHQWV UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV XQGHUVWDQGLQJV ZKHWKHU H[SUHVVHG RU LPSOLHG DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQVRUDORUZULWWHQEHWZHHQWKH$SSOLFDQWDQG6&(VKDOOQRWEHFRQVWUXHGWREHDSDUW RIWKLV$JUHHPHQW
$87+25,=$7,216,*1$785(
,Q ZLWQHVV ZKHUHRI WKH 3DUWLHV KHUHWR KDYH FDXVHG WKLV $JUHHPHQW WR EH VLJQHG E\ WKHLU GXO\ DXWKRUL]HGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHV
$33/,&$17
%<

1$0(

7,7/(

'$7(6,*1('

6287+(51&$/,)251,$(',621&203$1<
%<

1$0(

7,7/(

'$7(6,*1('

)RUP

6287+(51&$/,)251,$(',621&203$1<
(;+,%,7³$´
6&+('8/(/6 237,21(
(1(5*<()),&,(1&</,*+7(0,77,1*',2'(
/('
),;785(5(3/$&(0(17
$33/,&$17

&86720(5$&&281712

6(59,&($&&281712

$GGLWLRQDODFFRXQWQXPEHUVDGGUHVVHVPD\EHDWWDFKHGKHUHWR
6(59,&($''5(66

$33/,&$175(48(67('5($'<726(59('$7(
^W
6&(5($'<726(59('$7(
'(6&5,37,212)/('),;785(66&23(2):25.
63(&,)<+2:0$1<675((7/,*+7,1*
),;785(5(3/$&(0(176$5(%(,1*5(48(67('$1'$*5(('7281'(57+,6 $*5((0(17$1'27+(55(/(9$17'(7$,/6
:21R
V

279687.v2
373079.1

TO: Honorable Mayor Parkhurst and Members of the City Council FROM: Arnulfo Yanez, Public Works Director
Gustavo Barrientos, Police Chief
REVIEWED BY: Michael Bruckner, City Manager
DATE: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION ON SCHOOL

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review this report, including associated cost estimates, and provide direction on potential next steps to improve traffic and pedestrian safety near Sierra Madre Elementary and Sierra Madre Middle Schools, particularly at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Auburn Avenue, and Highland Avenue and Canon Avenue.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:

1. Continue this discussion at a future meeting; and/or

2. Take action; provide direction to staff on full or phased implementation of recommended measures;

3. Direct staff to explore a formal agreement with Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) regarding crossing guard services;

4. Direct staff to maintain the current level of enforcement and signage;

5. 5. Provide alternate direction to staff concerning traffic safety alternatives.

City of Sierra Madre

AGENDA REPORT
Robert Parkhurst, Mayor
Kristine Lowe, Mayor Pro Tem
Edward Garcia, Council Member
Gene Goss, Council Member
Kelly Kriebs, Council Member
Sue Spears, City Treasurer
279687.v2
373079.1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the September 9, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council directed the City Manager to conduct outreach to PUSD regarding a potential cost share agreement for crossing guard services and to return to the City Council with an update on those efforts, as well as providing cost estimates to improve pedestrian safety through signage, related infrastructure improvements, and directed enforcement.

The City continues to receive concerns from parents and community members regarding traffic congestion, speeding, and failure to yield near Sierra Madre Elementary and Middle Schools. Concerns center on pedestrian safety during drop-off and pick-up, particularly at Highland Avenue and Auburn Avenue, and Highland Avenue and Canon Avenue.

While staff observations confirm that congestion is largely generated by parent driving behavior, enhancements to visibility, enforcement, and potential deployment of crossing guards remain potential policy options. This report provides cost estimates for proposed infrastructure, equipment, and service enhancements.

ANALYSIS
Repainting Crosswalks
Community members have noted that faded crosswalks reduce visibility for both drivers and pedestrians. Public Works estimates repainting costs at approximately $900 per location. Five crosswalks near the school are recommended for repainting at a total of $4,500 plus an estimated $650 for Marking Paint Low Colorized Rubber Coat.

Caution: School Zone Signage
Parents and staff have requested improved school zone visibility. Installation of four caution signs on Highland Avenue (east and west approaches) is recommended at a cost of $175 per sign, totaling $700. These would supplement existing stop signs and enhance driver awareness.

LED Stop Sign Replacements
To increase visibility and encourage compliance at critical intersections, staff recommends replacing existing stop signs with five LED-enhanced stop signs. The estimated cost is $850 each, for a total of $5,250.

In-Roadway Pedestrian Signs
To further address compliance with pedestrian right-of-way laws, staff recommends the installation of three in-roadway “Stop for Pedestrians” signs bolted into the roadway at key intersections. The estimated cost is $315 per sign, or $945 total. 279687.v2
373079.1
Police Motorcycle
Traffic enforcement near the school remains a community priority. A dedicated police motorcycle would provide SMPD greater flexibility and visibility for targeted enforcement. The estimated cost for acquisition is approximately $45,000.

Crossing Guards
Crossing guards remain the most frequently requested measure by parents and community members. Staff recommends two crossing guards be stationed at Sierra Madre Elementary (Highland/Auburn and Highland/Hermosa) and one at Sierra Madre Middle School (Canon/Highland). Based on three hours of coverage daily during school start and dismissal, the estimated cost per crossing guard is $18,000 annually. With three guards, the total annual cost would be $54,000. This program would require either an agreement with PUSD or the creation of a new City budget allocation, as no crossing guard classification currently exists within the City.

Collaboration with PUSD
The City Manager has contacted Pasadena Unified School District to discuss crossing guard responsibilities. PUSD has since responded, and requested cost estimates in advance, and has agreed to meet with the City to review this matter. Continued partnership discussions are recommended to address implementation options.

ENVIRONMENTAL(CEQA)
The proposed action does not constitute as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be determined with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
This item aligns with the City’s Strategic Goal of Community Safety, ensuring safe pedestrian access to schools and reducing neighborhood traffic concerns.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report can be accessed on the City’s website at sierramadreca.gov

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the recommended school safety measures consists of both one-time and ongoing operational costs. The costs for repainting crosswalks ($5,150), school zone signage ($700), and in-roadway pedestrian signs ($945), a combined total of $6,795, 279687.v2
373079.1
would be absorbed as one-time expenditures within the FY 2025/2026 Public Works budget.

Acquisition of a new police motorcycle at a cost of $45,000 will also support directed enforcement efforts in school zones. Funding for the motorcycle can be acquired through a combination of Police Asset Forfeiture Funds and Police Donation Funds.

The crossing guard program is estimated at $54,000 annually for three guards. It is recommended that the City seek a cost sharing agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD).

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Gustavo Barrientos, Police Chief
Grant Cadzow, Police Sergeant
REVIEWED BY: Michael Bruckner, City Manager
DATE: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING

THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ENFORCEMNT PILOT

PROGRAM

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review this report and provide direction on potential next steps regarding the Municipal Parking Services (MPS) Pilot Program, including consideration of pausing the pilot program to conduct a Downtown Parking Study to ensure strategies align with community needs and long-term priorities.

ALTERNATIVES
City Council may:

1. Provide staff with direction on further steps concerning the Automated Downtown Parking Enforcement Pilot Program.

2. Continue this discussion at a future meeting, and/or

3. Take no action

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the May 27, 2025, City Council meeting, staff presented a proposal to launch a one-year pilot program with MPS utilizing the SafetyStick technology. This pilot was designed to address one of the most frequent complaints received from downtown businesses and residents: violations of the City’s 20-minute and 2-hour parking ordinances.

City of Sierra Madre

AGENDA REPORT
Robert Parkhurst, Mayor
Kristine Lowe, Mayor Pro Tem
Edward Garcia, Council Member
Gene Goss, Council Member
Kelly Kriebs, Council Member
Sue Spears, City Treasurer
Since that meeting, the Sierra Madre Police Department has conducted community, business, and neighborhood surveys, distributed over 2,600 mailers with QR codes, promoted outreach through social media and local newspapers, and engaged directly with businesses via foot beat patrols. The findings indicate that while many recognize the importance of stronger enforcement and turnover, there are mixed levels of support for automated enforcement. Concerns center on fairness of fines, aesthetics, ADA accessibility, and vendor reputation.

The City requested that Municipal Parking Services (MPS) provide a five-year projection on the effectiveness of the new solar-powered parking meters. These figures are based on estimates, as the meters have only been in operation since 2022. At this time, no agency has operated the solar-powered meter model for a full five-year period. As a result, actual long-term performance data does not yet exist, and only two-years of usage data are available. The remaining projections are therefore based on estimated figures rather than proven outcomes.

Because of this, the five-year projections are intended to be illustrative only. They are not supported by historical data and therefore have limited value in predicting actual future outcomes.

The consensus is that the second year of actual data provides the most realistic baseline, and that figure was carried forward as a consistent estimate for subsequent years. It is important to note that while these numbers provide a framework for planning, they should not be relied upon as long-term indicators of effectiveness. Actual performance may vary as more historical data becomes available.

Municipal Parking Services provided the City with projected revenue estimates for the implementation of 145 SafetyStick devices. Over a five-year period, the program is expected to generate approximately $1.88 million in total revenue. Annual gross profit estimates range from $180,677 to $361,355, depending on citation frequency and collection rates. After accounting for costs such as mailer notices, the City’s share of net revenue remains substantial, averaging over $289,000 annually in later years. These estimates demonstrate a sustainable revenue stream that supports both the program’s operational expenses and the City’s broader public safety initiatives.

Given these findings, the City may consider placing a pause ongoing implementation of the MPS pilot and purse a Downtown Parking Study to provide unbiased data, ensure transparency, and develop long-term solutions.

ANALYSIS
Pilot Program Overview
The proposed one-year pilot program could include up to approximately 200 Safety Stick poles in 20-minute and 2-hour spaces.

1. Technology: Solar-powered, camera-enabled devices that automatically monitor vehicles, detect overstays, and record license plate data for citation review.

2. Vendor Model: MPS provides devices, installation, maintenance, and violation management at no cost to the City under a revenue-sharing agreement.

3. Implementation Timeline: MPS indicated installation could be completed in 2–3 weeks, with flyers mailed to residents one week prior to activation. A grace period of warnings only could be included during the first month.

Community Feedback Findings

1. Community Survey: The community survey generated 365 responses, with 86 percent coming from Sierra Madre residents. Overall, 71 percent of respondents identified parking as a problem. About 41 percent expressed concerns with parking downtown, while 39 percent did not share those concerns, leaving the remainder neutral. Respondents described common issues such as overstaying posted time limits, double parking, and vehicles blocking crosswalks or curbs. Many residents also observed that peak demand occurs midday, between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. When asked about preferences, most residents supported maintaining the two-hour parking limit, while also expressing interest in amending short-term parking from 20 minutes to 30 minutes to provide more flexibility.

2. Business Survey: The business survey received 11 responses. While the sample size was modest, the feedback provides valuable insight into how parking affects downtown commerce. A majority of businesses, 55 percent, reported experiencing parking challenges on a daily or weekly basis, while 45 percent did not identify any concerns.

Business owners highlighted that customer turnover is hindered by a lack of consistent enforcement. While some respondents supported exploring automated enforcement options, others favored improvements to signage and a stronger presence of officer patrols.

3. Neighborhood Watch Feedback: Neighborhood Watch participants raised concerns related to residential parking enforcement, the fairness of citations, and the consistency of applying parking rules. They recommended that any new strategies be preceded by a community education campaign to help residents and business owners understand the changes to increase community trust.

4. Social Media & Outreach: A broad outreach campaign was conducted to ensure community awareness and input. On social media, Instagram posts reached approximately 6,384 community members and 616 business viewers, while Facebook reached about 647 residents but saw little engagement from businesses. Traditional media coverage was secured through the Mountain View News and Village View. Officers also hand-delivered flyers directly to downtown businesses, and approximately 2,600 informational mailers were sent to residents. To promote education and dialogue, four meetings were held—two focused on businesses and two on the broader community parking pilot program. These efforts were strengthened through collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Watch, and local businesses.

Considerations
x Benefits: Improved turnover, consistent enforcement, real-time analytics, equity, and potential revenue generation.
x Concerns: Community division, vendor reputation, fairness of fines, and the need for broader engagement. Additionally, every parking spot in the downtown will have a device installed, which will alter the aesthetic of the downtown. Should the pilot prove unsuccessful, the devices will need to be removed and the concrete in the downtown will need to be patched, repaired, or replaced.

Downtown Parking Study
A parking study is an analysis designed to assess current parking supply, demand, and patterns in a specific area, often for a city, development project, or business district. Its main function is to collect data about where, how, and when parking spaces are being used and to project future parking needs based on factors like population growth, development plans, or business activity, including:
x Inventories existing parking spaces (public and private, on- and off-street) to establish a baseline.
x Analyzes parking utilization by counting how many vehicles are parked at specific times and in different areas, often tracking space occupancy, duration, and turnover. x Assesses adequacy of parking supply compared to observed or projected demand.

Identifies shortages, surpluses, and peak usage periods. x Evaluates impacts of future developments, zoning, or policy changes on parking demand and supply.
x Recommends improvements for management strategies, such as pricing, time limits, signage, or facilities planning, to optimize parking availability and efficiency.

In summary, a Downtown Parking Study would the City and property owners understand whether parking resources are being used efficiently, if there is a real need for more or less parking, and how policies might affect parking behavior. The study’s findings can guide decisions on development approvals, parking regulations, and investments in infrastructure or alternative transportation modes.

ENVIRONMENTAL (CEQA)
The proposed pilot program is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), as installation involves minor alterations to existing curbsides and does not pose significant environmental impacts.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
This project aligns with the City of Sierra Madre Strategic Plan 2024–2029:
Goal 2: Enhance Public Safety and Community Livability – Improves enforcement of parking regulations, supporting traffic safety and accessibility. Goal 3: Promote Economic Vitality – Supports local businesses by promoting customer turnover and access.
Goal 5: Pursue Innovation and Operational Efficiency – Introduces smart technology and/or professional study recommendations to deliver effective services.

FISCAL IMPACT
According to MPS, the proposed pilot program would generate $289,000 in net revenue per year to the City; however, these numbers are an estimate. MPS has agreed to waive minimum monthly charges for the duration of the pilot. Should the City Council proceed with the pilot program, it is recommended that a new fund be created and a portion of the proceeds be allocated to that fund for future improvements in the Downtown. Staff will return to the City Council with a policy to consider this approach. Should the City Council choose to pursue a Downtown Parking Study, the City would solicit proposal from qualified firms. It is estimated that a study would cost $30,000 - $50,000. Downtown Assessment District Funds would be used for the study.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Over 2,600 flyers with QR code surveys were mailed to the community and also published in the Mountain View News and Village View. Additional flyers will be included in the upcoming City water bill to further extend outreach. The survey has been promoted across Instagram, Facebook, and the City and Police Department’s social media channels, while Officers Garcia and Rodriguez supported engagement by distributing flyers during their downtown foot beats. Looking ahead, future outreach could be expanded through a study process that will include public meetings and further stakeholder engagement.

This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report are available on the City’s website at sierramadreca.gov.

ATTACHMENTS

1. MPS Estimate 5-year revenue

2. MPS References

3. VP Response on Data

4. MPS Case Study Parking

&

*#-

$
%

*#-

Attachment 1

$

'

)

*#-

$

(

$%

*#-

$

(

$%

*#-

$

(

$%

*#-

$

(

$%

*#-

"'( '$

%

!'&(!"'#"

•

1!

#1#
!# %&"#'$!#1
#$

#4(

$0##.".&$12<>7397?0;977
o *( %
' &
*979:,!$'#*$%#! $&""!#%#.
o %%"$-//(((.( ".!/#%
/ ($/
!
/
&+# 0!& %*/$%*0$%
$0$ 0"#
0
$!
($0 0(

$0##0 !# %0'!
%! $0%
%$/<9:09;@0;=70;;0
@@780>:=:;;=
•

1 !
1#
&% %1!
4 "
.!#1@7?0;>;0?;>=
o *( %
'
%!#979:
o $%
$#"#$ %)!
%%2<0 &%# !$%# %
*97
&%$ #! %!%!$%
3
$!&$%!",#*# %
!#
.
o *&## %
*'9>$%
$(%"
$%!!#.
o
( %%!
!
!# !#% #$%'!
%! $# %
*.

•

1&+ #%1# #
1$# #%4$!#'

.!'1=8>0===0
::88)%>@<7
o %
'
*979;
o !&$!

$ &$$%!"$
o
!$% $
*"!"&
%& "
%*
(
8@!$% $
*"!"&
%
!#"!#%& "
%* %!& %#*
•

1 ! % %#$%! 1#%!#,%!* !# %

! % .%#$%! 4 '#!'.!#1>970@8:08>9<
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Volume 30 | Number 1 | JANUARY 2025
WWW.PARKINGTODAY.COM
With more than 80,000 residents living within 4.2 square miles, Somerville, Massachusetts, is one of the most densely populated cities in New England. Located just outside of Boston, Somerville is known for its thriving, bike-friendly neighborhoods and bustling commercial districts.

The high population density and major business
activity mean that Somerville must contend with the realities of limited parking, large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, and the need for safer transportation systems.

Like a growing number of U.S. cities, Somerville adopted Vision Zero as part of its broader effort to improve public ƥôĻģƭǛȂôůĚȂŭźĐŋťŋƭǛȅȂůȂŋůƭģƟůôƭŋźůôťȂŋůŋƭŋôƭŋǑģȂǫƟƥƭȂôĚźƚƭģĚȂŋůȂǔģĚģůȂŋůȂǲǺǺǸȆȂÙŋƥŋźůȂîģƟźȂôŋŭƥȂƭźȂģťŋŭŋůôƭģȂƭƟôĻǫēȂfatalities and severe injuries through smarter infrastructure, education, and enforcement. This approach assumes that accidents are preventable and places responsibility on city systems, not just individual behavior. µƟôĻǫēȂēźůļģƥƭŋźůȂôůĚȂťŋŭŋƭģĚȂƚôƟšŋůļȂģǚôēģƟĐôƭģȂ
safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. The ēŋƭǛȩƥȂÙŋƥŋźůȂîģƟźȂŋůŋƭŋôƭŋǑģȂŋĚģůƭŋǫģĚȂƚôƟšŋůļȂǑŋźťôƭŋźůƥȂin critical areas, such as bus stops, crosswalks, and bike ťôůģƥȆȂôƥȂôȂƥŋļůŋǫēôůƭȂĐôƟƟŋģƟȂƭźȂôēņŋģǑŋůļȂŋƭƥȂļźôťƥȅȂÝņģůȂôȂvehicle blocks a crosswalk, for instance, it creates visibility hazards for drivers and pedestrians. Similarly, cars parked in bus stops force transit vehicles to unload passengers ŋůƭźȂôēƭŋǑģȂƭƟôĻǫēȂťôůģƥȅȂ Traditional enforcement methods, such as deploying

SMARTER ENFORCEMENT AND SAFER STREETS IN SOMERVILLE
Somerville, Massachusetts, leverages automated enforcement technology to target high-risk areas, improving safety for all road users. ƚôƟšŋůļȂēźůƭƟźťȂźĻǫēģƟƥȆȂôĚĚƟģƥƥȂƥźŭģȂźĻȂƭņģƥģȂŋƥƥƷģƥȅȂRźǔģǑģƟȆȂƟģƥźƷƟēģƥȂôƟģȂťŋŭŋƭģĚȆȂôůĚȂźĻǫēģƟƥȂēôůůźƭȂ Once a potential violation is identified, the
SafetyStick transmits the data to MPS’s cloudbased platform, where it is reviewed by city parking enforcement officers. Citations are issued only after officers confirm the violation and ensure that no ģǚƭģůƷôƭŋůļȂēŋƟēƷŭƥƭôůēģƥȂôƚƚťǛȅ Each SafetyStick installation includes prominent
signage to inform drivers about camera enforcement, said Suzanne Rinfret, the director of parking for Somerville. This approach emphasizes transparency and aims to encourage compliance rather than relying solely on penalties. “It's a big yellow sign saying, ‘Camera Enforcement,’” Rinfret said. “You can't really miss it.”׊¡ΑʒɦۯɊʞǻ̅ʒɦۯʱ̅ۯɂɦʞǻϒʱ̖͔׉ Somerville introduced the SafetyStick as part of a
60-day pilot program in Davis Square, one of the city’s busiest commercial districts. The trial targeted areas that frequently saw safety hazards due to illegal parking. Three of the devices were installed on Elm Street — a busy commercial corridor — with one at a bus stop, one ůģôƟȂôȂǫƟģȂņǛĚƟôůƭȆȂôůĚȂźůģȂĐģƥŋĚģȂôȂēƟźƥƥǔôťšȂǔņģƟģȂůźȂstanding, stopping, or parking is allowed.

During the trial, the devices recorded 420 violations
over 40 days, averaging more than 10 per day. Most violations occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. µņŋƟƭǛȔƥŋǚȂƚģƟēģůƭȂźĻȂǑŋźťôƭŋźůƥȂťôƥƭģĚȂĐģƭǔģģůȂǴȂôůĚȂ10 minutes and 22% of violations lasted more than 10 minutes, with some lasting up to 1 hour.

ȠµņģƥģȂƭǛƚģƥȂźĻȂǑŋźťôƭŋźůƥȂôƟģȂǑģƟǛȂĚŋĻǫēƷťƭȂƭźȂēôƭēņȡȂ ƷůťģƥƥȂôȂƚôƟšŋůļȂģůĻźƟēģŭģůƭȂźĻǫēģƟȂŋƥȂƚƟģƥģůƭȂôƭȂƭņģȂƥēģůģȆȂ§ŋůĻƟģƭȂƥôŋĚȅȂȠÝģȂēôƭēņȂƭņģŭȂƥźŭģƭŋŭģƥȂĐƷƭȂĚźůȣƭȂcatch them other times because we’re not there 24/7.” Having an automated tool that continuously monitors a
given location and does not depend on a camera mounted to a car or bus changes the behavior of most drivers, Rinfret noted. “People have a tendency not to break the law when someone's watching,” she said.

In fact, driver compliance with parking requirements
ņôƥȂŋŭƚƟźǑģĚȂƥŋļůŋǫēôůƭťǛȂŋůȂťźēôƭŋźůƥȂŋůȂǔņŋēņȂSafetySticks are present, said Rob Matthews, the vice president of business development and sales for w£ȅȂȠÝģȂƥôǔȂǲǱȂǑŋźťôƭŋźůƥȂƚģƟȂĚôǛȂĚƷƟŋůļȂƭņģȂƚŋťźƭȆȡȂMatthews said. “It’s now down to 1 a day or fewer. It's a huge change in behavior.” 18 PARKING TODAY
By Jay Landers
monitor every trouble spot continuously. Somerville needed a more comprehensive approach to tackle these persistent problems. For this reason, the city turned to an automated solution that enables it to target the most critical locations in a cost-effective manner.Initial pilot (ƷƟŋůļȂƥƷŭŭģƟȂǳǱǳǴȆȂźŭģƟǑŋťťģȂƚŋťźƭȔƭģƥƭģĚȂƭņģȂƚôƭģůƭģĚȂ Cherry Browne, left, and Stavros Moreira are parking control officers for the City of Somerville. At right: Somerville installed SafetySticks to monitor certain high-risk areas, such as this bus stop.

PHOTOS COURTESY OF MPS
Solar SafetyStick®, from Municipal Parking Services (MPS), to assess its potential for improving safety and compliance. A solar-powered device that resembles a bollard and is designed to continuously monitor illegal parking in critical zones, the SafetyStick is equipped with radar and a digital camera to capture timestamped images of violations, including a vehicle’s license plate and the duration of the infraction.

November 2024 19
20 PARKING TODAY
company offers a free lease on the hardware and manages ĚģǑŋēģȂŭôŋůƭģůôůēģȂôůĚȂēŋƭôƭŋźůȂƚƟźēģƥƥŋůļȂŋůȂģǚēņôůļģȂĻźƟȂôȂǫǚģĚȂťŋēģůƥģȂĻģģȅȂµņŋƥȂŭźĚģťȂģůôĐťģĚȂźŭģƟǑŋťťģȂƭźȂimplement the program without any upfront costs or ongoing maintenance or repair costs.

Before the city could begin using the SafetyStick, it had to make a minor legal adjustment so that it could conduct ôƷƭźŭôƭģĚȂƭŋēšģƭŋůļȅȂƚģēŋǫēôťťǛȆȂźŭģƟǑŋťťģȣƥȂēŋƭǛȂēźƷůēŋťȂapproved adhering to the section of Massachusetts law that allows cities to mail in-state citations within 5 business days or out-of-state citations within 10 business days.Strides toward safer streets The SafetyStick program is part of Somerville’s broader ÙŋƥŋźůȂîģƟźȂģĻĻźƟƭƥȂƭźȂģťŋŭŋůôƭģȂƭƟôĻǫēȂĻôƭôťŋƭŋģƥȂôůĚȂƥģƟŋźƷƥȂinjuries. By focusing on compliance in high-risk areas, particularly bus stops and crosswalks, the city has reduced hazards for pedestrians and cyclists and made strides toward creating safer streets.

ȨÝņģůȂƥźŭģźůģȂĚźƷĐťģȂƚôƟšƥȂźƟȂƚôƟšƥȂôƭȂôȂĐƷƥȂƥƭźƚȆȂ
that means the bus has to double park, which in turn makes people have to try to get to that,” Rinfret said. “It's not very safe. This initiative is getting people to ēźŭƚťǛȂǔŋƭņȂƭņģȂȜƭƟôĻǫēȝȂƟƷťģƥȂôůĚȂņģťƚŋůļȂƷƥȂôēņŋģǑģȂÙŋƥŋźůȂîģƟźȆȨȂƥņģȂƥôŋĚȅȂȠÝģȂôƟģȂƟģôťťǛȂƥģƟŋźƷƥȂôĐźƷƭȂVision Zero.” µņģȂēŋƭǛȂŋůƭģůĚƥȂƭźȂģǚƚôůĚȂŋƭƥȂôƷƭźŭôƭģĚȂĚģƭģēƭŋźůȂ
program to include SafetySticks in other “problem areas” in which the safety of vulnerable road users can be ŋŭƚƟźǑģĚȆȂ§ŋůĻƟģƭȂƥôŋĚȅȂȠÝģȩƟģȂůźƭȂļźŋůļȂƭźȂƥôƭƷƟôƭģȂthe city with them.” Rather, Somerville plans to deploy the devices at more bus stops, crosswalks, and bike and bus lanes.

To date, public response to the automated detection
program has been positive, Rinfret said. “The residents are for it,” she said. “They are appreciative of the fact that people are parking better and more in compliance.” Improved compliance, in turn, helps the city’s residents feel safer, Rinfret said. wźƟģȂĐƟźôĚťǛȆȂôƷƭźŭôƭģĚȂĚģƭģēƭŋźůȂŋƥȂģǚƚģēƭģĚȂƭźȂ
contribute to other city goals, including improved public transportation and better environmental outcomes. Reducing illegal parking in congested areas helps improve ƭƟôĻǫēȂǬźǔȆȂĐźźƥƭŋůļȂƭņģȂƚģƟĻźƟŭôůēģȂôůĚȂƟģťŋôĐŋťŋƭǛȂźĻȂpublic transportation. “This is one small step that we can do as a municipality to help that, because that's really the goal,” Rinfret said.

Greater use of mass transit and decreased vehicle use
also contribute to Somerville’s climate and sustainability goals, Rinfret noted. "Fewer cars in the city is better for the environment. It's a big full circle.” JAY LANDERS is the editor-in-chief
of Parking Today. He can be reached at [email protected].

It’s also precisely the type of change that Somerville
ǔôůƭƥȂƭźȂƥģģȅȂȠÝģȂĚźůȩƭȂǔôůƭȂƚģźƚťģȂƭźȂļģƭȂôȂƭŋēšģƭȆȡȂ§ŋůĻƟģƭȂƥôŋĚȅȂȠÝģȂǔôůƭȂƚģźƚťģȂƭźȂĐģȂŋůȂēźŭƚťŋôůēģȅȂXůȂôȂƚģƟĻģēƭȂworld, we would never issue a ticket. It's our goal to keep the public safe.”Data-driven decisionµņģȂƚŋťźƭȣƥȂƟģƥƷťƭƥȂĚģŭźůƥƭƟôƭģĚȂƭņģȂģǚƭģůƭȂźĻȂƭņģȂƚƟźĐťģŭȆȂƚƟźǑŋĚŋůļȂēŋƭǛȂźĻǫēŋôťƥȂǔŋƭņȂĚôƭôȂƭźȂƥƷƚƚźƟƭȂĐƟźôĚģƟȂimplementation. ȠÝģȂļôǑģȂƭņģŭȂƟģôťȂĚôƭôȂƭźȂļôŋůȂƭņģŋƟȂƭƟƷƥƭȆȡȂ§ŋůĻƟģƭȂƥôŋĚȅȂ“City councils want to be backed up with data. That's really important. This was able to provide that for us.” ôƥģĚȂźůȂƭņģȂƚŋťźƭȣƥȂƥƷēēģƥƥȆȂźŭģƟǑŋťťģȂģǚƚôůĚģĚȂƭņģȂSafetyStick program citywide. Today, 19 devices operate in high-risk locations, including Davis Square and Magoun Square, with the goal of helping the city achieve its Vision Zero initiatives to prevent pedestrian injuries and fatalities.The city also collaborates on monthly calls with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to prioritize enforcement near bus stops and along transit-heavy corridors. By keeping these areas clear, the ôĻģƭǛƭŋēšȂƥƷƚƚźƟƭƥȂŭźƟģȂģĻǫēŋģůƭȂĐƷƥȂźƚģƟôƭŋźůƥȂôůĚȂimproves safety for riders.Balancing efficiency with fairness A key element of the SafetyStick program is its reliance on human oversight. Although the device automatically ĚģƭģēƭƥȂƚźƭģůƭŋôťȂǑŋźťôƭŋźůƥȆȂƚôƟšŋůļȂģůĻźƟēģŭģůƭȂźĻǫēģƟƥȂreview the evidence before citations are issued by mail.

ȠȂƥǔźƟůȂźĻǫēģƟȂƟģǑŋģǔƥȂƭņģȂƭŋēšģƭȂƭźȂģůƥƷƟģȂƭņôƭȂƭņģȂ
license plate is right, that the color, make, and model of the vehicle are correct, and that the violation is correct,” Rinfret said. “It’s no different than when they’re writing a ticket” in person, she noted.

By combining automated detection with manual review,
ƭņģȂƥǛƥƭģŭȂĐôťôůēģƥȂģĻǫēŋģůēǛȂǔŋƭņȂĻôŋƟůģƥƥȆȂņģťƚŋůļȂƭźȂbuild public trust. At the same time, automated monitoring ŋůȂƭņźƥģȂťźēôƭŋźůƥȂģůôĐťģƥȂƭņģȂēŋƭǛȣƥȂģůĻźƟēģŭģůƭȂźĻǫēģƟƥȂto focus on broader priorities. This approach also helps to ģůƥƷƟģȂźĻǫēģƟȂƥôĻģƭǛȂĐǛȂƟģĚƷēŋůļȂēźůĻƟźůƭôƭŋźůƥȂǔŋƭņȂôůļƟǛȂmembers of the public who are upset about receiving a violation notice. “Think about the attitude of someone who blatantly
ignores public safety and parking laws,” Matthews said. “Are they more likely to harass or assault an enforcement źĻǫēģƟȌȂXȂƭņŋůšȂƥźȅȂµņģȂôĻģƭǛƭŋēšȂƚƟģǑģůƭƥȂƭņŋƥȆȡȂņģȂôĚĚģĚȅȂ µņģȂƚƟźļƟôŭȣƥȂǫůôůēŋôťȂƥƭƟƷēƭƷƟģȂôťƥźȂƚťôǛģĚȂôȂƟźťģȂ
in its viability. Under the city’s agreement with MPS, the Driver compliance with parking
requirements has improved
significantly in locations in which
SafetySticks are present.

City of Sierra
Madre
Agenda Report
Robert Parkhurst, Mayor
Kristie Lowe, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Kriebs,
Council Member
Gene Goss, Council Member
Edward Garcia, Council Member
Sue Spears City Treasurer
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Arnulfo Yanez, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Michael Bruckner, City Manager
DATE: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: Report, Discussion, and Direction on the Replacement of the City Hall/Public Safety Building Emergency Power Generator

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council discuss and provide direction to the City Manager on the replacement of the emergency power generator used to provide back-up power generation at City Hall and for emergency services operations.

ALTERNATIVES

A. Procure and install a new permanent stationary generator • Advantages: Provides long-term reliability and ensures compliance with current environmental standards; eliminates ongoing rental costs; supports continuity of operations for essential City services.
• Considerations: Requires upfront capital investment; project delivery dependent on procurement lead times, removal of the existing unit, installation logistics in a confined space, and permitting requirements.

B. Continue reliance on the temporary rental generator
• Advantages: Provides immediate, compliant backup power without an initial capital outlay.
• Considerations: Incurs ongoing costs of $2,700 per week (in addition to the $6,840 emergency installation charge) or about $148,000 per year; occupies the main walkway in the City Hall parking lot, limiting access; not a sustainable long-term solution.

SUMMARY
The City of Sierra Madre’s permanent emergency generator, manufactured in 1947, provides backup power to City Hall, the Police Department, and the Fire Department during electric utility outages. During a series of outages in late August and early September 2025, the generator failed to operate reliably, leaving essential City facilities vulnerable to service interruptions.

As an interim measure, the City secured a temporary Tier 4-compliant rental generator to ensure continuity of operations; however, the temporary unit incurs weekly rental costs of $2,700 (in addition to the $6,840 emergency installation charge). It has been positioned in the City Hall parking lot walkway, which creates access and operational concerns. A permanent replacement generator is required to ensure long-term reliability, regulatory compliance, and uninterrupted service during power outages.

ANALYSIS
The existing generator presents three principal challenges:

Reliability: At nearly eighty years (80) old, the generator cannot be relied upon to start or maintain operations during extended utility outages. Its mechanical systems are deteriorated, and replacement parts are no longer available.

Regulatory Compliance: The generator predates all modern standards and does not meet current South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements. New stationary diesel units must generally be Tier 4 Final certified; however, given the City’s existing 261 kW diesel turbine, a properly sized replacement in the 250–300 kW range may meet operational requirements while aligning with emissions standards.

Operational Impacts: To maintain continuity of operations, the City is currently utilizing a rental generator positioned in the main walkway of the City Hall parking lot. While this unit provides compliant power, it creates safety and accessibility concerns and incurs an ongoing cost of $2,700 per week, in addition to the initial emergency installation charge of $6,840.

Cost considerations: Preliminary budgetary quotes indicate significant capital costs for a permanent generator:
• Valley Power Systems (Blue Star 250 kW Tier 3 - Diesel): $150,225 (equipment only), plus $8,575 for optional 800A transfer switch. The manufacturer's delivery timeline is approximately 10 months after the order. Extraction and installation to be quoted separately, at an estimate of $75,000.
• Energy Systems (Generac 500 kW Tier 4 - Diesel): $204,875 (equipment only).

The manufacturer's delivery timeline is approximately 4 to 6 months after the order.

Extraction and installation to be quoted separately, at an estimate of $75,000.

Tier 3 and Tier 4 power generators mainly differ in how they control emissions. Tier 3 models use simpler technology, such as exhaust gas recirculation and particulate filters, to reduce pollutants while keeping costs and maintenance manageable. They work well in areas with fewer regulations or limited maintenance resources. Tier 4 generators, on the other hand, use advanced systems like selective catalytic reduction and diesel oxidation catalysts, often requiring diesel exhaust fluid, to cut emissions by up to 90% compared to Tier 3. They are cleaner and more fuel efficient but come with higher costs and more complex upkeep. The choice between the two depends on regulations, budget, and priorities—Tier 3 being more practical for cost and simplicity, and Tier 4 better for strict compliance and sustainability.

Furthermore, there will be additional site preparation and integration costs with the City’s existing fuel tank which is unknown at this time; however, staff estimates it’s about 10- 15% of the generator acquisition cost. Upon receiving the new generator, the estimated timeline of project construction is 10 to 12 days.

Based on City Council’s direction, staff will return with a budget amendment for the rental agreement or a purchase order for the acquisition and installation of a new generator.

FINANCIAL REVIEW / SOURCE OF FUNDING
There is no impact to the General Fund. Sufficient funding is available in the Facilities Management Internal Service Fund for the acquisition and installation of a new generator or the continued rental of a temporary generator.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
This project directly implements Strategic Initiative 3.3.2, “Plan, design, and implement backup power systems, seismic retrofits, and life-safety improvements for critical City facilities” (Goal 3: Infrastructure & Growth Management), ensuring operational resilience and public safety for the Civic Center complex including the Fire and Police Departments and City Hall which fulfills the City’s commitment to exceptional, sustainable public service.

CEQA REVIEW

The proposed action does not constitute as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be determined with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment.

PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report are available at the City Hall public counter and at the Sierra Madre Public Library and can be accessed on the City’s website at sierramadreca.gov.

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Tegart, Community Services Supervisor
Laura Aguilar, Director of Administrative Services
REVIEWED BY: Michael Bruckner, City Manager
DATE: September 23, 2025
SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE

FORMATION OF A MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS AD HOC

COMMITTEE

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council discuss and provide direction on the creation of a Major Sporting Events Ad Hoc Committee and potential changes to the City’s short-term rental (STR) ordinances.

ALTERNATIVES
1) The City Council can choose not to approve the creation of a Major Sporting Events Ad Hoc Committee and provide further direction to staff.
2) The City Council may request additional information from staff regarding the formation of a Major Sporting Events Ad Hoc Committee.
3) The City Council may elect to deny the formation of a Major Sporting Events Ad Hoc Committee.

SUMMARY
The Los Angeles region will host several major international sporting events over the next few years, including the 2026 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup, the 2027 National Football League (NFL) Super Bowl LXI, and the 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. These events are expected to bring worldwide attention, significant tourism, and meaningful economic opportunities to the region. Sierra Madre’s proximity to the City of Los Angeles positions our community to benefit from this increased activity. The City also has a strong history of community celebrations, cultural events, and civic engagement that can be City of Sierra Madre

AGENDA REPORT
Robert Parkhurst, Mayor
Kristine Lowe, Mayor Pro Tem
Edward Garcia, Council Member
Gene Goss, Council Member
Kelly Kriebs, Council Member
Sue Spears, City Treasurer

expanded to align with these international sporting moments.

ANALYSIS
The proposed Major Sporting Events Ad Hoc Committee would serve as an advisory body to the City Council and staff. Its role would be to:
x Plan and Recommend Local Programming: Develop community-based events, viewing parties, cultural activities, and celebrations connected to the World Cup, the Olympics, and other related events.
x Promote Business Engagement: Identify opportunities for local businesses to participate and benefit from regional tourism.
x Coordinate with Regional Efforts: Liaise with the LA28 Olympic Committee, World Cup Host Committee, and neighboring municipalities for collaboration and partnership. x Foster Civic Pride: Create inclusive opportunities for Sierra Madre residents to participate in international celebrations, strengthening community pride and unity.

Proposed Committee Structure
x Membership: Members appointed by the City Council
x Composition: Community members, local business representatives, Transportation Committee, Community Services Commission, and Senior Community Commission liaisons, and other stakeholders.
x Duration: Temporary, with dissolution following the conclusion of the 2028 Olympic Games unless otherwise extended by Council.

Staff is developing a collaborative, citywide community events calendar to better coordinate programming. Staff also recommends inviting liaison representatives from local community organizations to identify additional opportunities tied to these regional events. Finally, another option for the City Council to consider are temporary changes to the City’s short-term rental regulations in the Sierra Madre Municipal Code Section 17.22.130 and consider targeted adjustments to those restrictions. SMMC 17.22.130 states:

17.22.130 - Rental restrictions.

A. An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit may be rented for terms no less than thirty days. The person or party responsible for ownership of property that has an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall obtain and maintain an annual business license, in accordance with Title 5, for dwelling accommodations when actively renting or advertising the rental of the dwelling unit.

B. No accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be used or advertised as a short-term rental.

The City does not have hotels or similar accommodations for tourists and travelers. With our proximity to nearby events scheduled for the Rosebowl, Brookside Aquatic Center, Arcadia County Park, and Azusa, the City Council could consider a moratorium to the current restrictions on short-term rentals. The moratorium would provide travelers attending nearby events an opportunity to stay in Sierra Madre, with the likelihood that those tourists will contribute to the

local economy. Given the relatively few short-term rentals in the City, it is difficult to estimate the impacts of a moratorium.

ENVIRONMENTAL(CEQA)
The proposed action does not constitute as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be determined with certainty that it will have no impact on the environment.

STRATEGIC PLAN CORRELATION
Contributes towards Goal 4- Community Enrichment aimed at promoting an unparalleled quality of life win an engaged and collaborative culture.

FISCAL IMPACT
Establishing the Major Sporting Events Ad Hoc Committee is expected to be fiscally neutral, with meeting noticing, agenda preparation, and staff liaison duties absorbed within existing departmental budgets. Any future fiscal effects associated with event programming or short-term rental (STR) policy changes will be brought to the City Council with detailed estimates, funding sources, and recommended budget actions.

PUBLIC NOTICE
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report can be accessed on the City’s website at sierramadreca.gov ATTACHMENTS:
1) S.M.M.C 17.22.130

Created: 2025-09-09 15:13:15 [EST]
(Supp. No. 39)

Page 1 of 1 ends

17.22.130 Rental restrictions.

A. An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit may be rented for terms no less than thirty days.

The person or party responsible for ownership of property that has an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall obtain and maintain an annual business license, in accordance with Title 5, for dwelling accommodations when actively renting or advertising the rental of the dwelling unit.

B. No accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be used or advertised as a short-term rental.
(Ord. No. 1454, § 3(Exh. 2), 5-24-22; Ord. No. 1465, § 8, 3-28-23) Attachment 1

Sierra Madre City CouncilSeptember 23, 2025

Sierra Madre City Council
September 23, 2025