RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_01_07_Items_1-3_Discussion_PointsCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK~
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2014
SUBJECT: PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS
REVIEWE,D: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER
SUMMARY
• There has been a dramatic increase in Public Records Act (PRA) requests received by
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes over the last six years as reflected below, with PRA
requests more than tripling in that time period.
Year No. of PRA requests
2013 79
2012 63
2011 60
2010 44
2009 45
2008 24
• PRA requests range from fairly straight-forward requests for which records are readily
accessible to those which require an enormous amount of staff time, effort, and expense
as staff searches for and reviews records for responsiveness. The more time
consuming PRA requests require staff members to redirect their attention from their
regular workload and projects to search for records. Unfortunately, little or no
reimbursement is recovered by the City for the time spent on PRAs. The City Attorney
has observed that PRA requests are being used by litigants, rather than the discovery
process pursuant to court rules, because PRA requests are essentially free and can
have broader scope.
• One of greatest frustrations is when a PRA request is submitted, the City notifies the
requestor that the records are ready for pickup and payment, and the City never
receives a response from the requestor.
• The City was unable to receive any reimbursement for the time and expenses incurred
for the PRA request.
Items 1-3, Page 1
Talking Points: Outages, Fire Impact, AB 66
Outage Background
Number of Outages: An average of 24 planned and 24 unplanned outages each year in Rancho Palos
Verdes. 119 unplanned outages 2008-2012.
2008-2012 Outages
:::11im!::n::::::::::Im::
2008 23 19 42
2009 34 29 63
2010 22 34 56
2011 26 27 53
2012 14 10 24
*Repair orders are planned outages.
Fire Impact:
• 8 fires larger than 1 acre since 2005 related to SCE or power-
lines
• 27 reports of fires involving SCE Equipment or downed power-
lines from 2005-2012
• The four largest fires since 2005 have burned 378 total acres
and 197 acres of Preserve open space
• A single fire in 2009 burned approximately 180 acres and
threatened numerous homes.
The Sierra Club, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy and other
organizations have also expressed their deep concern about the risk of
fires posed by electrical equipment problems
Recent Outage Impact:
9/15/13 outage: 115,000 South Bay residents without power; 6,200 in
RPV
Significant impact to quality of life and financial hardship for our
residents and businesses (spoiled food, damaged appliances, closed
businesses etc ... )
AB 66 Timeline
• Jan 2013 66th District Assemblymember Al Murastsuchi
introduces AB 66 with City of RPV sponsorship
• AB 66 intended to require electrical utilities to identify and
report to the CPUC on the areas of the state experiencing the
most frequent and longest outages.
Items 1-3, Page 2
• This information would be made available on the utilities'
websites and would be utilized by the CPUC to directed
resources and funding to the geographical areas that are most
adversely affected by outages and equipment failures.
• Supported by SBCCOG and other Peninsula and SB Cities
• Signed into law by Governor Brown on October 5, 2013 and
will go into effect on July 1, 2014.
Additional City Outreach:
• Several presentations by SCE staff to City Council on outages
and repair/upgrade efforts undertaken by SCE, most recently
10-1-13
• Several letters sent to SCE Management asking for more
in~ormation on improvements and an accelerated time table
• Multi-Department/Land Conservancy site visit to Nature
Preserve with SCE
• 2/29/12 Meeting of Peninsula Cities City Managers and staff
with SCE officials to discuss outages
• Regular meetings/discussions between SCE and City staff to
minimize impact of planned outages and infrastructure repairs
and upgrades
• At City's urging, SCE has installed approximately over 20 avian
protection devices on poles in the Nature Preserve to both
protect wildlife and also minimize the risk of wildfires.
• Councilmember Jim Knight and staff attended the October 24,
2012 CPUC meeting to express the City's concerns about fires
and outages
Items 1-3, Page 3
CITY TEAMS WITH STAFF OFFICIAL BE
TO IMPROVE ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY II In recent years, the Peninsula and and report to the CPUC on the areas Fire South Bay cities-including Rancho of the state experiencing the most
Palos Verdes-have experienced frequent and longest outages. oth
an increasing number of power This information would be made trac
outages. The City has also seen available on the utilities' websites em(
citl2 an increase in brush fires related to and would be utilized by the CPUC well electrical equipment problems. to direct resources and funding 150 The largest of these burned 180 to the geographical areas that are Em1 acres and threatened homes in most adversely affected by outages thrc 2009. Fires associated with electrical and equipment failures. AB 66 was thel equipment failures pose a serious supported by other Peninsula and Polr threat to the lives and property South Bay cities that were similarly
of City residents, as well as to affected by power outages, as well CER
the viability of the City's open as by the South Bay Cities Council VEm
space areas. of Governments <SBCCOGl. It was Bay
Following a number of extended signed by Governor Brown on thel
October 5, 2013, and will go into RP\I power outages in late 2011 and the effect on July 1, 2014. for ·crest" fire in January 2012, the ven Rancho Palos Verdes City Council While AB 66 is expected to provide fire
began to exert more pressure on useful data on the frequency and me(
Southern California Edison <SCEl to duration of outages in the coming con
improve the safety and reliability of years, the City remains committed -its infrastructure on the Peninsula. to holding SCE accountable for its
However, progress has been slow promises to address these issues. cc and outages continued to occur Recently, Rancho Palos Verdes, San frequently. It was at this point SBCCOG and other South Bay cities
that the City turned to our State have reached out directly to the stat
legislators and the California CPUC for assistance, particularly lot<
Public Utilities Commission (CPUCl after a September 2013 outage that dlff'~
for assistance. affected 115,000 SCE customers in Witt
the South Bay and on the Peninsula. dlfi'i
In January 2013, 66th District The City has received a verbal recr
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi of commitment from the President reg I
Torrance introduced Assembly Bill of the CPUC - a former president of par~
No. 66 <AB 66l with the sponsorship SCE -to ·escalate" our communities' acr~
of the Rancho Palos Verdes City concerns to higher levels of Just
Council. AB 66 was intended to 1 reE
require electrical utilities to identify SCE management. mot
C<".ltl'
pm1
SAN RAMON CANYON PROJECT Tell
<Continued from page 1 l spo
remaining canyon slopes. The land-4,000-feet upstream, also continues, pas
scaping will include establishment including the inlet foundation, A~, I
of both native shrubs and bushes, walls and access road from the pat~
as well as hydro seeding, which is switchbacks that will allow for kcv
+-L-. .......................... , •.................... 1: ............ -1-:-.............. £ ............. -1-: ................. 1 ............ +. ................. : ...... .+-.................................... +. .................................... .L. 4-1 ........ <;nn
I
t
e
m
s
1
-
3
,
P
a
g
e
4
CITY OF 1RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Ron Dragoo, Senior Engineer~
Andy Winje, Associate Engineer~
December 18, 2013
Talking Points-MS4 Permit
Below, please see a couple of talking points regarding the MS4 permit for consideration
on your Sacramento visit.
1) Provide Attractive MS4 Funding Solutions
The recent attempt by LA County to use the taxing authority of the Flood Control District
to raise funds for MS4 compliance received much opposition. Reasons for the pushback
from agencies that need the funding was mostly due to the broad brush approach to
collection of the fee and distribution of the funds. Smaller agencies had no real
confidence that money collected in its jurisdiction would efficiently benefit its residents. A
funding mechanism that was structured to collect and distribute money among groups
sharing similar land use, pollutants of concern and existing programming, rather than the
broader Watershed Authority Groups \WAGs) could provide more favorable and
achievable results among agency officials and voters. The current driving force in L.A.
Co. MS4 compliance is the WMP or EWMP, with the jurisdictional delineation being
natural watersheds. WAGs, as an organizational structure, cannot be coordinated with
current municipal MS4 implementation through their WMPs or EWMPs.
The MS4 permit requirements are an unfunded mandate placing an inordinate strain on
local municipal budgets. Local municipalities need funding to meet the new standards
being place upon them. There are a limited number of grants, but they place
municipalities in competition for those funds.
Solution: Legislature should provide non-competitive MS4 compliance funding or
a template for funding mechanisms acceptable to local officials and voters.
W:\LAUREN\WPMISC\MEMOS\2013\talking point MS4 rev .docx
Items 1-3, Page 5
MS4 Permit
December 18, 2013
Page2
2) Provide Guidelines for Practical Permit Compliance Interpretation
The real and unduly severe bite of the MS4 permit lies in the requirement for cities to
reduce pollutant concentrations over which they have no control and to extremely low and
often unattainable levels. While it is an admirable goal to maximize the reduction of
pollutants in our public water bodies, the burden of this achievement can
disproportionately fall on the MS4 operator. Often, the target concentrations for pollutants
are below what occurs naturally in the background. For instance, the maximum allowed
concentration of nitrogen in runoff to Machado Lake is actually below that found in the
drinking water supplied to that watershed. The sources of nitrogen in the environment
also occur from airborne deposition to that watershed. Should the cities be responsible
for cleaning up pollutants that occur from sources over which they have not control? At
other times, the pollutant limits are so low as to be achievable only in theory. For
instance, the Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris TMDL has a trash threshold of zero. In
other words, if a single gum wrapper is found on the beach the MS4 could be found in
violation of' that TMDL. Is it reasonable to expect that an MS4 operator could actually
prevent an open coastline form preventing any trash deposition on the
beach? Reasonable compliance mechanisms should be offered by the regulatory
agencies, so as to remove the oppression of complying with theoretical but practically
unattainable limits.
Solution: Legislature should provide guidelines for interpretation of practical and
attainable permit compliance with input from MS4 operators.
Thank you.
W:\LAUREN\WPMISC\MEMOS\2013\talking point MS4 rev .docx
Items 1-3, Page 6
20 November 2013 Draft
Stormwater Funding Options
The Path Forward on the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Initiative
COMMENTS FROM JIM KNIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER RANCHO PALOS VERDES
(Note: these comments are solely as an individual and do not necessarily represent a
consensus of my Council or staff)
First and foremost, the draft is an excellent summary Qf;1t ··••.history leading up to the
MS4 permit process, the positions of the parties iny;1 nd many of the concerns
municipalities are facing today with MS4 complia .·.··;I Jly helps me understand
the many seemingly disjointed regulations and>i~ues in o · · II written document.
,)Y
Before I get into the specifics of the draft, have a 1-2 page
eared toward executive summary with bullet points at th inning of the docu ·
your target audience. The bullet points can re Jenee dddbment pag
reference of the reader. "', -·:,:< ,{ ,'~~
. bers for easy
For instance, if the County Boa~''e, . ··'1!<isors isJ&~~t<;irget audience, then they
should not have to sift through 70+ p1a.~es.t!>t(~~f;l documeot~.:tp search out the salient
points that are pertine . ~what actiorrs,,,if anY,"tf1ey as de :. ·· n makers can pursue.
1)
nd questions:
dices of which I have not had a
· · 1kof the moving parts
:::~;~h • .•. ·. '.\ff>
I need~f:j.glearer idea\ef:J,fthe involvement of the various L.A. Co. Agencies in the
MS4 pefrlJ~tt(ng proce¥s;,(LACDPW, LACFD, CSD) Who is responsible for what?
Is there a rntr,pwith jurf$,'fjictional responsibility relative to the MS4 permits?
',<ivL -, ,~;'f~?~~\:,t
c,,,,. ·;.
For example, L nd the City of Los Angeles have:
-A regional wastewater collection and treatment with thirteen water reclamation
plants and two large ocean-discharging plants.
-A Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), which discharges treated
secondary effluent to the ocean off the Palos Verdes Peninsula and have
constructed ten upstream water reclamation plants (WRPs), nine of which
produce disinfected tertiary quality recycled water. Of those, six are part of the
Joint Outfall System that is connected to the JWPCP in Carson.
Items 1-3, Page 7
How are these LACSD and L.A. City projects deployed and how do they fit in with
the Regional Board's MS4 compliance for the various municipalities?
Another example is the Sun Valley Park Drain and Infiltration System. The L.A.
Co DPW has pumped millions of dollars into this project which alleviates L.A. City
from the need to address much of their MS4 requirements within the project
boundaries. Yet municipalities downstream are on their own to scramble for
general funds to comply with MS4 regulations. Do 't get me wrong. The Sun
Valley project is a great program. I just don't un nd where the jurisdictional
responsibility lays and at what point does a C gency use County funds to
collaborate with a local municipality's MS4
It is also not clear in light of the recent:~turt rulings , . er or not the LA CFO is
entirely responsible for storm water;.,;fti/tu::lff and, if so, wh ·• .!(.is the LARWQCB
requiring the municipalities to com'/5Yyl'.;<,lt would help me to i:i~fjerstand how all of
these jurisdictional moving parts fit togeth.,fJr. ··. \ .. ;
'!*l\('s·
{L~~-
1 could also use help with tanding: ·· '
-The relationship between TMDLs,
Effluent Levels) and their relevance
ations) and NELs (Numeric
-What was
to improve wa"
-What portion of th
addresses storm drain
, ne Water Quality Control Act
· d how do e separate out either Federal
wo separate mandates? .. ,,,·;;~ ..
M~4 to the California Toxics Rule (CTR)?
om!t <1~>the millions of fines collected?
500 million GO bonds designated for projects
ser fees is for storm drain repair and what portion
uality?
-How does the SMBRC Bay Restoration Plan of 2013 fit in with MS4 compliance?
-Does the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the Water
Environment Federation (WEF) and the Water Environment Research Foundation
(WERF) "The Water Resources Utility of the Future: A Blueprint for Action" have any
suggestions for solutions to the MS4 compliance for municipalities?
2) Collaborative participation of L.A. Co. Agencies
Items 1-3, Page 8
I fully agree that there are great opportunities to collaborate amongst the plethora
of Federal, State, County and municipal agencies in finding ways to achieve
common goals without an unnecessary duplication of efforts or taxpayer dollars.
I have the following suggestions for possible collaborations:
A) The Water Replenishment District (WRD) has established a long term water
replenishment program called GRIP (Groundwater Reliability Improvement
Program) with a goal of establishing 100% groundwater supply for L.A. Basin.
Currently they plan to use recycled water.
Here is a win-win opportunity to collabora
municipality's can meet MS4 requirem~
also recharges the WRD's aquifer. . ,
such as with SB 335, the "Water ffJ
2013".
Ground water gained by WRD sh lhe municipality
that has contributed to . e infiltration course, ho /cu/ate the
amount of recapture etization ecapture still ha to be worked
out. But, as a starter, it . . onsiden .~t the amount of acre feet of
MS4 project infiltration al )~£1eed fo , f/)t WRD to produce equal
quantity and c st of recycle·· ,water.'.'f·:,?1\. . ::;~··"·
f / t,''):,,< '
Some th·
JV rt is needed help guide the feasibility
much o ·L.A. Basin has a thick layer of clay. The
d infiltration mapping system and, hopefully, has a
ily integrated as a layer for a municipal G/S
BJ There 1l~fJ/so anot resource for coordination of GIS information and that is
L.A. Couft~M Lo.:~t/ge/es Regional Imagery Acquisition Consortium
(LARIAC) p . Hat already includes many South Bay cities. LARIAC is
embarking on · · 4 million sophisticated segment next year and could be an
opportunity for them to include a watershed GIS layer to help municipalities,
as well as regulatory agencies, have a clearer picture of those watersheds,
jurisdictional boundaries, monitoring points and projects proposed.
CJ We should reach out to coordinate our efforts with the Los Angeles Regional
Watershed Infrastructure Funding Workgroup (LACFCD and ASCE) to assess
options for a regional, sustainable long-term funding source as an alternative
to the use of City General Funds.
Items 1-3, Page 9
3) WMPs (Watershed Management Plans); not WAGs (Watershed Area
Groups) or WMAs (Watershed Management Areas)
Natural watersheds should drive the grouping parameters of programs and
funding -NOT the WAG or WMA mapping proposed by the LARWQCB. Many
of the cities are forming WMPs and EWMPs which follow natural water sheds
within their jurisdictions. The LARWQCB lists the Watershed Management
Plans online at:
htt :llwww.swrcb.ca. ovlrw cb4/water issues/J ro ,xamslstormwaterlmunici allw
atershed management/index. shtml
The WAGs create issues with funding and· ting MS4 projects. For
example, our city currently has an MOU MP with other Peninsula
cities that follows our local natural w G the County was
using for their failed Clean Beache ated, at least in our
case, a very inequitable situation. . . ity was placed in G that included
disjointed watersheds up the coast an~\;since we'had been . ssing our water
quality issues for years anq !Jad A+ ratinr/s1we~ qp:dry for our Stf .... ·:fVlonica Bay
watershed, the taxes coll " ··. · rom our resl(#~pfs would have gone'to other city
projec~s up the coast right . .,y\ gate. Tf1i8'.l;.reated an issue with Prop. 218
compltance. '''.·~~!~, ;~~.·,::·:);:,'.,. · : •.
•;\'.ti i.;~~J·>
It makes more sens
their own WMPs
WMA boundaries. ·
4) Fu11·
for,ffieir own watersheds, form
... :JntJing instead of the WAG or
"~h)>'
ibi/1 ·J;Jt the Special Assessment District model might
so/Lit~ ·
ard h stab/ished the Landscaping and Lighting Act
ping and Lighting Act of 1972. The L.A. County has
Divisions and Zones addressing as much as 20-30
def could be delineated according to the WMPs and
·· Clividual cities.
It may require ad onal legislation to adapt this District model to storm water
projects. But it would be a flexible model that would be more equitable and relevant to a
particular municipality's desired watershed plan enhancing voter and elected official
buy-in.
LACFD's authority to charge fees for water quality under AB 2554 should be
considered. Or the model could function under the existing LA CFC District system.
I am sure there are experts that could vet this Special Assessment District model
and come back with a report on feasibility. I have introduced the idea to Supervisor Don
Knabe's staff and they seem to be interested.
Items 1-3, Page 10
Advantages of the District model:
--Districts could follow natural watersheds defined in the WMPs or EWMPs of
which would have a specific list of mitigation projects and would better comply with
Prop. 21 B's requirement that "No fee assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which
exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that
parcel".
-The fee would be directly related to specific proje · . and would by default take
into account previous water quality accomplishments '' WQ fees by the
municipality. For instance, those municipalities that en early WQ action would
have a less intensive WMP and therefore lower f~, ,Tis an existing WQ fee that
that provides for implementation of the WMP, thf3,fr e m ·1~if?ality could opt out of the
District. T~e fee should address ongoing morJit~ring and mafrlte9ance costs.
e tax dollars would be tied
,,·,
,',t<ft ,(,;~~; .. >{'~,~·
Some BMPs are workin~i~~t!·they can only be implemented at a rate a municipality can
afford to budget. CompliaYice timelines should take this into consideration. The old
standard of "maximum extent practicable" implies a municipality is working the best one
can with the resources available and BMPs should be evaluated on effectiveness and
feasibility as to implementation within budget constraints.
6) Credit for open spaces
There should be credit for preservation of open space areas with a distinction between
natural (no watering/chemicals) and active, manicured parks (watering/chemicals).
Items 1-3, Page 11
There is a need for a system of recapture credits for natural open space, drought
tolerant plants and if those open space areas use bioswa/es or some other type of
filtration system. Infiltration avoids increase cost of imported water. See discussion on
collaboration with the WRD above.
7) Credits for cities, schools and businesses
Credits should be applied to cities, schools and businesses that are either converting
impervious to pervious surfaces, designing impervious developments, or implementing
turf replacement, drought tolerant landscaping, bioswales,,and drain traps for trash.
~' t;/,;
'·»'-'
Terranea is a resort project along the coast in our cft · ~y have received many
awards for their sustainable hotel operation that irJ,fli,N. ·oswales, retention ponds
and bio-filters. Their storm water runoff is clea ~tlil"Bn b , evelopment of their site.
Yet under the previous Measure proposed b Board of isors, they were going
to be heavily taxed as though none of thei s existed.
Municipal, school or business efforts to add
system with any future fee structu[fj.
,r~·,:.,<;f;J;;·, ~'
-}:,/'f', ~'
8) Naturally occurring elemen~lE.,' '
tryiA:g\t9{1ddres~<i'f1¥~issue with naturally occurring bacteria
·. ·,.fiforrri,{~tE11 coliform, enterococcus). Malibu actually tested
eir bf:.fcterial non-compliance and showed that it was ograiri~eeds to be developed to separate out naturally
e watershed.
There needs to be a way address non-point source pollutants which are not
controllable by the municipalities. For example, vehicle braking systems (cars and
trucks) cause airborne elements to enter into the watersheds.
Jurisdictional issues arise such as if those vehicles are using Ca/trans roads, is
compliance for those elements the State's responsibility?
The working group has recommended that METRO consider using Measure R funds to
come up with projects that help mitigate this non-point source pollution. As a Board
Member of the South Bay Cities Council of Government I know firsthand that Measure
Items 1-3, Page 12
R funds are not enough to even satisfy the call for projects. If there were another
Measure proposed, maybe it could include some contribution to MS4 compliance. But
we need to make sure that there is good science as to the mitigation of regional
transportation contributions to water qµality issues and that the LARWQCB will accept
whatever projects from those funds that are implemented will qualify to comply with the
MS4 standards.
10) Non-ending compliance requirements
From the draft: "The MS4 permit can be 'reopened' at an · e to add new TMDLs as
they are adopted". ·
It appears that the bar keeps getting raised as to Jfinf for WQ compliance. Is
there ever going to be a point where a municip lfty~.has a . .l~~ed their WMP goal and
has finally reached a point where they are d. Or is this a:~f!Jrpetual process whereby
compliance this year becomes non-compli · • next year due t(f,~a{sing standards?
Does storm water have to reach a level of €1.tfqkable (or purified) sff;i;'; ards?
: ~·,·::\ ~·1:: ~r~1~~"
I think that cities need to see that flere is lighf ~~0
otherwise there will be constant . s and res
.. the comp/1 tunnel
··to the requireme ts set forth by
the LARWQCB.
11) Timing of compli'!.IJ.f;,'3 suits
ex pen
the Gou
dep/oymen .·
...
:$tic timeline for compliance
.. orEWMP.
pliance before they planned to
their WMP plan and the purchase of
· ier ... :· . manda ..... · · mpliance date became far more all~~e'a o keep ((, their WMP plan schedule. In their case,
ce d · . as within months of the WMP scheduled
gh dlff~rence of time to be significant. ·
,:;!~>';,
12) Non-competlti11re fund
:<>:"t' 'T~,· ; . .;:~'.'":~·,
The Grant funding is llffllt/iJ': nd requires cities to compete with each other, rewarding
some and leaving other out at no fault of the cities. The amounts allocated fall far short
of the real costs of MS4 compliance. A non-competitive funding model needs to be
established.
13) Central website or online resource for information on MS4
It would be helpful to have a one-stop online resource as to the measures available for
municipalities to comply with the MS4 requirements and other relevant MS4 information.
Items 1-3, Page 13
The data base might include:
-Links to the relevant agencies with their policies and practices
-List of WQ mitigation measures for WMPs and recommendations by the
Technical Advisory Committee. I.e., if a City implements the L.A. Co. Landscape
Ordinance requirements (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB 1881) does
this qualify as a BMP compliance?
-Link to the LACDPW's quarterly reports on the sta(!f0S of the Regional Board's
implementation and enforcement of the MS4 StormwatetF?f!rmit
-Links to reports from the County Chief E>f,fi?~~~j~~.~irector, Director of PW and
LACSD reaching out to the water conveyers to dtJr'0ss urlil!4111unoff.
'?'.t;;·: if~,'>"
Since LACFCD's hands are tied by law from advo
the online data base/website could help t r> : et the word out as
current programs and possibilities with futurti2'4 rams I anothe
Coalition for Our Water Future cqµkj be the ad'< t< orm.
1~r~~~~~~~~t1:;;i:·';t
political causes,
ccesses of
· such as the
gical Hazard Area Districts
;l~to maintain land stability.
t on the Nov. 2013 Storm Water
onse as well as reading the
/
Jim Knight
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Items 1-3, Page 14
STATE CAPITAL DISCUSSION POINTS
JANUARY 7, 2014
RDA Succession/Clean Up Legislation
City Loan
• The California Department of Finance position on recalculating loans from cities to
former redevelopment agencies is to use a recent Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
rate to recalculate accrued interest for the entire life of the loan.
• LAIF rate is currently 0.263%.
• Using the recent LAIF rate drives our City loan down to $7 million.
• We believe the historical LAIF rate should be used to recalculate accrued interest on the
loan; which would result in a balance of $12 million.
Long-Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP)
• The land owned by our Successor Agency is essentially worthless to a developer.
• The parcels are in an active landslide area.
• Most all of the coastal property is encumbered with deed restrictions, as it was acquired
with state grant money.
• Our LRPMP proposes that the land be transferred to the City for continued use as
Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, open space, and landslide access.
• We would like the DOF to approve our LRPMP and subsequent transfer of land to the
City.
Oversight Board Appointment
• The Oversight Board Member appointed by the California Community Colleges
Chancellor's (CCCC) Office has resigned.
• The CCCC Office was notified in September of the resignation.
• We do not yet have a new appointment from the CCCC Office.
Items 1-3, Page 15