The LAPD and the county’s Probation Department joined forces for the first time more than two years ago to battle the San Fernando Valley’s rising tide of gang violence. The idea: to embed a deputy probation officer in LAPD gang details in six Valley stations to provide a missing dimension to gang enforcement.

The result, according to police and probation officials, has been a significant drop in gang-related violence in the Valley since the Community Impact Teams hit the streets. Valley gang crime has fallen 18 of the 28 months the program has been in existence – including ten of the latest 12 months, ending in June, 2009, for which statistics are available. “It’s clearly trended down and CIT has been a part of that,” says Paul Vinetz, Probation Director for the Third District, who helped design the program.

As members of Community Impact Teams, six deputy probation officers roll with LAPD Valley gang officers to answer emergency calls as well as make proactive community police stops. They focus on assessment and case management of high-risk gang-involved offenders in crowded neighborhoods. The probation officers have conducted thousands of face-to-face contacts, home visits and searches that have yielded hauls of firearms and other weapons. In 2009, CIT officers seized 35 firearms through August, including one June incident that yielded a sawed-off shotgun and two assault weapons.

Teaming up with Probation officers give LAPD gang cops a greater ability to identify probationers quickly and make warrantless “probation searches” of cars or homes that can turn up drugs or weapons. Being out with the LAPD officers gives the Probation Department greater street presence to spot problems with individual probationers. Working in dense neighborhoods with significant gang problems, probation officers say that their skills and sensitivity have helped them to flag hot spots and act on crime trends that might be invisible to traditional law enforcement alone. “We bring a different focus that complements what the LAPD officers do,” says Probation Director Jose Jimenez, who heads the Intensive Gang Supervision Program that includes the CIT.

Beyond crime suppression efforts, the embedded probation officers also provide another set of eyes and ears on the alert for youngsters at-risk from exposure to gangs and drugs. Probation officials say officers can then make more timely and effective referrals to the Department of Children and Family Services’ child abuse hotline. They can also refer probations and families to other services, including mental health, education, drug treatment and domestic violence.

With the Metro board’s recent approval of long range transportation projects for the region, the Westside Subway extension is embarking on an important new stage in its journey. With Santa Monica envisioned as the line’s ultimate destination, there is currently $4.1 billion in local funding, mostly from Measure R, to get it as far as Westwood. Federal dollars will be essential to finish the job.

Some critics of the proposed line argue that it will take too long to build, divert resources from other parts of the region and tunnel through some geological challenges. But proponents, including Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, an MTA board member, say the subway’s projected ridership success makes it the best bet for getting federal dollars, particularly since Measure R already is funding projects such as Expo Phase II, the Gold Line/Foothill extension and the Crenshaw Transit Corridor.

Key decisions are still to come on design and technical matters; community meetings are taking place to help determine the placement of stations, and there’s a new video to promote the project (thanks to Steve Hymon for flagging this at Metro’s new blog, The Source.)

So even though the first phase of the project—to Fairfax–won’t be completed until 2019, it’s not too early to know what’s driving the train.

It will go where jobs are.

The Westside has hundreds of thousands of jobs in a relatively concentrated area—currently 429,000 of them, according to the latest mid-year forecast by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.– and commuters who live in outlying areas where housing is more affordable will be able to take advantage of them. That will be a boon to area business owners who’ve long complained about difficulties in hiring and retaining workers frustrated with time-consuming commutes, says Jack Kyser of the Kyser Center for Economic Research, one of the forecast’s authors. A bonus: those jobs are the highest-paying in the county—averaging $66,497 a year. The area also is home to UCLA, the 7th largest employer in the region, with more than 28,000 faculty and staff members.

It will create jobs.

Thousands of jobs will be created. As a rule of thumb, the building trades industry estimates 6,000 construction- and construction-related jobs per $1 billion invested in a project. The exact number of jobs in the long run, however, is hard to predict because those initially hired could stay with the project for multiple years, thus driving down the overall job count.

It will benefit commuters throughout the county.

Metro estimates that 64% of the line’s benefits—a federal formula measuring ridership and time saved–would go to those outside the Westside, with the greatest benefit (22 percent) accruing to the San Gabriel Valley. Metro research shows that more than 310,000 people travel into the Westside from across the region each morning, while 137,000 others leave it and 88,000 travel within it. Meanwhile, UCLA, California’s largest university, is a major area-wide draw with nearly 38,000 students, and the subway extension also has the potential of boosting cross-town access to a variety of major cultural venues, from Disney Hall and the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Royce Hall.

It will save thousands of hours in commuting time.

A hypothetical twice-a-day commuter from Koreatown to Westwood would get back the equivalent of eight days in saved commuting time each year by using the subway, according to Metro estimates. Someone commuting from Pasadena would save even more time–12 days a year. To put it another way, that Pasadena commuter currently spending 82 minutes to get from Pasadena to Westwood on public transportation would be able to make the one-way trip in just 50 minutes. “It actually shrinks the city, in a sense,” says David Karwaski, planning and policy manager in UCLA’s Transportation Services Department.

It will help LA to get a greater share of federal transit dollars.

Putting this project in the pipeline sets the stage for Los Angeles to get an allotment that’s more like the New York/New Jersey behemoth, shown in this Metro graphic representing 2010 federal funding for new transit starts. A far more robust showing is possible in the future now that the board has adopted its long range projects priority list. Move over, New York and Salt Lake City. Hello, Los Angeles.

It will help relieve overcrowding on the region’s busiest bus corridor, Wilshire Boulevard.

The Wilshire corridor is the most heavily used bus corridor in the County of Los Angeles, with some 70,000 boardings every weekday from downtown to Santa Monica. With tens of thousands of office workers pouring into the area each day, and bumper-to-bumper traffic at peak hours not only on Wilshire but on the Santa Monica Freeway, the project provides a new option for bus riders while also easing the overall traffic crunch.

It beats taking the 10.

Need we say more?

Check out this Metro-produced video on the Westside Subway

The new Expo Line, originally envisioned to be up and running from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City by next summer, is now expected to open sometime in 2011. But efforts are underway to determine whether a “partial opening” of the light rail line—perhaps as far as the Crenshaw station—can take place before the end of next year.

The shifting timetable means that the Culver City station is not expected to open until 2012.

Meanwhile, work is progressing on the final environmental impact report for Phase 2 of the project, which would extend the line from Culver City to Santa Monica.

Responding to direction from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the Expo staff is now working with community groups to resolve concerns about traffic, grade crossing safety, proposed parking restrictions on Westwood Boulevard and Overland Avenue, and the line’s proposed Santa Monica maintenance facility.

“We are working with the communities to address their concerns,” says Expo spokeswoman Gabriela G. Collins.

The Exposition Construction Authority’s board will be asked to approve the final environmental impact report for Phase 2 at its January meeting.

When completed, Phase 1 of the Expo Line will be roughly 8.6 miles in length and parallel the heavily congested Santa Monica Freeway. The estimated travel time from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City will be less than 30 minutes, with a projected ridership of 27,000 by 2020. By the time Phase 2 is complete, it would possible to travel the entire length of the line—from the 7th Street station downtown to Santa Monica—in 44 to 50 minutes. The total ridership is expected to reach up to 64,000 a day by 2030.

Expo officials describe the line as a “Transit Parkway” that will include bike and pedestrian paths, as well as trees and landscaping along the alignment.

Transportation projects tend to move slowly, but those seeking a jolt of instant gratification can take a video ride on the Expo line, courtesy of this clip created by the Urban Simulation Team at UCLA.

Other information about the project is available at here.

Updated 12/16:

With the final environmental impact report on Phase 2 of the Expo Line expected to be released later this week, the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority has agreed to postpone till Feb. 4 the Expo board’s vote on the plan.

The delay, requested by Los Angeles City Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Bill Rosendahl and supported by Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, will allow more time for interested residents and community and elected leaders to review the plan before it comes before the Expo board.

Once the final environmental impact report is certified by the board, a contractor can be selected and the construction phase will begin.

Updated 12/21:

The final environmental impact report for Expo Phase 2 has been released. Read it here. The Exposition Construction Authority’s Board of Directors will consider it on Thursday, February 4. The meeting will start at 2 p.m. and will be held in the Board of Supervisors’ hearing room on the third floor of the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, 90012.

Jorge Montoya knew he was no longer in the private sector, brainstorming marketing strategies with the likes of Fox, Paramount and Yahoo.

Hired in 2002 by L.A. County’s Public Health Department to help run its sexually transmitted diseases program, Montoya says he found himself surrounded by nurses and doctors who looked at him “like a crazy man” as he preached the gospel of product branding, social marketing and behavioral research.

Montoya says his new government colleagues simply hadn’t been exposed to the kind of cutting-edge techniques that the county would need to crash through the media clutter and reach its targeted audiences.

“We’ve come along way,” he says. “There’s been a lot of learning.”

Today, those seemingly exotic marketing methods infuse every aspect of the county’s multi-faceted campaign to reduce the region’s high rate of STDs, especially among the high-risk populations of gay men and young women of color. By all accounts, the county’s effort has emerged as one of most innovative and far-reaching in the nation.

The newest addition to the campaign— www. dontthinkknow.org, a website where women can confidentially order home test kits for chlamydia and gonorrhea—already is producing promising results, potentially saving women from infertility and other long term health affects associated with untreated STDs.

In the first three months after the site’s June launch, nearly 2,000 kits were requested, with about half of them returned to the county for testing. Of those, health officials say, about nine percent came back positive for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea. Nearly 90 percent of the infected women, Montoya says, have sought treatment—a good number, he says, but not good enough. “We want 100 percent and we won’t rest until we get there,” he vows.

Under the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the Public Health Department revamped and intensified its STD prevention program in late 2006, as infections in the county ranked among the highest in the U.S. Particularly alarming was the fact that syphilis, after leveling off for several years, had started soaring again.

Dr. Peter Kerndt, director of public health’s STD program and Montoya’s boss, says that the success of HIV medications had brought an unintended consequence. “There were a whole lot of gay men who were feeling good and they returned to some of the same old risky behaviors,” Kerndt says. “They were getting syphilis and gonorrhea and chlamydia and infecting others.”

This was especially worrisome, he says, because those infected with syphilis are up to five times more likely to pass the HIV virus to partners.

To turn the tide, two distinct campaigns were created through a contract with Fraser Communications, a Los Angeles advertising and marketing firm that handles a mix of public and private sector clients.

One campaign, called “I Know,” is targeted at young black and Latina women, who have disproportionately high rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea. The other, dubbed “Check Yourself,” urges gay and bisexual men to get tested for syphilis. In both cases, the idea behind the marketing strategy was to create a sense among the targeted audiences that “whoever is talking to me understands my emotions and my drives,” according to Fraser account director Dean Stephens.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky provided a crucial infusion of $700,000 from Third District funds to underwrite the inaugural media efforts of the two campaigns. He would later provide an equal amount for both the second and third years.

Among other things, the money paid for a social marketing campaign that has included ads in magazines and on billboards, bus shelters and niche websites. Tens of thousands of posters and postcards have been placed in South L.A. hair and nail salons as part of the “I Know” campaign. The “Check Yourself” effort has included advertising slides in movie theaters and the distribution of more than 100,000 coffee cup sleeves and 76,000 bar coasters in West Hollywood and other targeted neighborhoods.

Outreach teams, meanwhile, have taken to the streets in communities with the highest infection rates, handing out thousands of “palm cards,” as well as lip balm and condom key chains paid for by the non-profit California Family Health Council.

As a result, Montoya says, there has been a “significant association” between women who’ve been exposed to the “I Know” campaign and those who’ve sought testing and treatment. As for the men, they’re more problematic. “They’re easier to reach,” Montoya says, “but harder to motivate.”

Gay men have been bombarded with so many health messages for so long that they’ve become fatigued and desensitized to them, he says.

So the county’s approach for the “Check Yourself” campaign was to come up with clever, provocative images with new kinds of messages to hopefully inspire men to act. As Fraser account director Stephens put it: “We purposely decided we would not be shy. You can’t deny that people do respond to sexually charged ads.”

The latest round of print ads, which were tested with focus groups, are certainly risqué by government norms. They show men, barely covered, in a series of witty morning-after scenarios, including one in which a man is wearing only an inflatable rubber duck around his hips as he tip-toes across a pool deck. In the background, several nude men are sleepily sprawled across lounges. The headline: “Check Yourself: You can’t escape the night before.”

Fraser’s research shows that, despite an extremely competitive landscape, the ads have grabbed the attention of more than 80 percent of gay men surveyed by the firm. Fraser and the county are now evaluating whether that awareness has translated into more tests.

“Can we change behavior?” asks Montoya. “That’s the challenge.”

In November 1996, County voters approved by a 65%-35% margin Yaroslavsky’s proposal to establish a $319 million park-and-open-space property assessment to fund the acquisition and preservation of endangered wilderness lands, and to rehabilitate and improve dozens of park and recreational facilities throughout Los Angeles County. Dubbed “Baby A,” the measure was modeled on an earlier successful 1992 Prop. A parks measure which generated $540 million in funding for park improvements and open-space preservation.

FINAL TEXT AS AMENDED ON JUNE 18, 1996
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, LEVYING AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AMENDING THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF DISTRICT REVENUES FOR ANY AUTHORIZED PURPOSE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ELECTORATE

WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) has serious unmet needs for park, recreation, youth and senior facilities, and for positive recreational alternatives for at-risk youth to assist in gang prevention and intervention efforts, and contains irreplaceable park, recreation, beach, wildlife and natural open space land; and

WHEREAS, on November 3, 1992, sixty-four percent (64%) of voters within the County voting on the matter authorized formation of the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District (the “District”), the levy of a benefit assessment within the District, and a plan of expenditure of the proceeds of such assessment; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County, acting as the legislative body of the District (the “Board”), finds and determines that the development, acquisition, improvement, restoration and maintenance of parks, recreational, cultural and community facilities and open space lands within the District confer a direct and special benefit to all parcels within the District by improving economic, environmental and recreational conditions resulting in maintained or enhanced property values; and

WHEREAS, the Board further finds and determines that the public interest and convenience require, and that it is in the best interest of the residents of the County, that an additional assessment be levied within Landscaping and Lighting District No 92-1, which is coterminous with the District, to fund the purposes of the District consistent with the plan of expenditure set forth in the Engineer’s Report referred to below; and

WHEREAS, the County has many unique natural lands and is rich in biological diversity, and it is necessary and important that these natural resources be protected permanently and restored for the purposes of conserving biological diversity, protecting the health of the County’s environment and for the enjoyment of this and future generations; and

WHEREAS, the Board further finds and determines that in order to provide for a more equitable apportionment of the assessment among the several properties within the District, the portion of any vacant parcel, and the vacant portion of any partially improved parcel, in excess of two and one-half acres shall not be assessed, and it is necessary and appropriate to amend the method of assessment to reflect the foregoing change in the method of assessment of vacant or partially improved parcels which are greater than two and one-half acres in size, as detailed in the Engineer’s Report referred to below; and

WHEREAS, the Board further finds and determines that it is in the best interest of the residents of the County to permit the District to expend any of its funds for any authorized purpose of the District, including the application of proceeds derived from the original assessment within the District to the plan of expenditure for the additional assessment set forth in this resolution, and vice versa; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing on the matters set forth in this resolution was called and held on June 13, 1996, and this resolution shall not take effect unless and until the question of approval of the matters set forth herein shall have been submitted to the electorate of the County and approved by a majority of voters voting on the question;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, acting as the governing body of the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District, as follows:

Section 1.  (a)  This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 5539.9(d)(2) of the Public Resources Code of the State of California (the “State”).  The Board hereby adopts and approves the final engineer’s report relating to the Additional Assessment  (the “Engineer’s Report”) and filed with the Executive Officer-Clerk of the Board.  The Additional Assessment shall be levied within the District at a rate not to exceed the amount set forth in the Engineer’s Report, in accordance with the Engineer’s Report and this resolution.  The Engineer’s Report describes the boundaries of the assessment district, the locations of certain of the improvements to be funded by the District, the method and rationale for spreading the proposed Additional Assessment in proportion to the benefit received by each lot or parcel of land within the District, and the proposed amendments to the method of assessment.

The Engineer’s Report is by this reference incorporated herein as though set forth in full at this place.

Section 2.  As used in this resolution, the following terms have the indicated meanings:

“Additional Assessment” means the assessment levied within the District pursuant to this resolution.

“Board” is used as defined in the recitals to this resolution.

“County” is used as defined in the recitals to this resolution.

“Department of Beaches and Harbors” means the Department of Beaches and Harbors of the County.

“Department of Children and Family Services” means the Department of Children and Family Services of the County.

“Department of Natural History Museum” means the Department of Natural History Museum of the County.

“Department of Parks and Recreation” means the Department of Parks and Recreation of the County.

“Department of Public Works” means the Department of Public Works of the County.

“District” is used as defined in the recitals to this resolution.

“Engineer’s Report” is used as defined in Section 1 of this resolution.

“Financial Consultant” is used as defined in the Master Indenture, and also includes the independent auditing firm described in Section 21(I).

“Master Indenture” means the Master Indenture of Trust dated as of May 1, 1994, between the District and the Auditor-Controller of the County, as fiscal agent.

“Natural Lands” means an area of relatively undeveloped land which (a) has substantially retained its characteristics as provided by nature or has been substantially restored, or which can be feasibly restored to a near-natural condition and which derives outstanding value from its wildlife, scenic, open space, parkland or recreational characteristics, or any combination thereof, or (b) meets the definition of open-space land in Section 65560 of the California Government Code.

“1992 Assessment” means the assessment levied within the District pursuant to the 1992 Order.

“1992 Order” means the order of the Board, as amended on March 17, 1992, and approved by the voters of the County on November 3, 1992, pursuant to which the District was formed and the first assessment levied therein.

“Nonprofit Organization” means any charitable organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which has among its purposes the provision of park, recreation or community services or facilities, gang prevention and intervention, tree-planting, or the conservation and preservation of wetlands or of lands predominantly in their natural, scenic, historical, forested or open-space condition, or restoration of lands to a natural, scenic, historical, forested or open-space condition.

“Park” means a tract of land with scenic, natural, open-space or recreational values, set apart to conserve natural, scenic, cultural, historical or ecological resources for present and future generations, and to be used by the public as a place for rest, recreation, education, exercise, inspiration or enjoyment.

“Parks Fund” means the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District Park Fund, into which all revenue generated by the District is required to be deposited, in accordance with Section 21(e) of this resolution and Sections 21  and (d) of the 1992 Order.

“Public Agency” means any governmental agency established pursuant to the laws of the State that is authorized to acquire, develop, improve and restore real property for beach, wildlife, park, recreation, community, cultural, open space, water quality, or gang prevention and intervention purposes.

“State” is used as defined in Section 1 of this resolution.

“State Lands Commission” means the Lands Commission of the State of California.

Section 3.  The following funds shall be awarded for the purposes set forth below, in amounts not to exceed the following:

(a)  Sixty-nine million fifty thousand dollars ($69,050,000) to the County for the acquisition, development, improvement, restoration or rehabilitation of real property for recreational facilities, parks and park safety, gang prevention, senior citizen recreation facilities, wildlife habitat, natural lands, improvement of Santa Monica Bay, multi-use sports facilities, lakes, fishing and boating facilities, trails, rivers and streams, significant ecological areas, equestrian facilities, and museums and cultural facilities, in accordance with the following schedule:

(1)  Fifty-one million fifty thousand dollars ($51,050,000) to the Department of  Parks and Recreation for the acquisition, development, improvement, restoration or rehabilitation of real property for parks, recreation, wildlife habitat or natural lands in accordance with the following schedule:

A.   One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for general improvements, including landscape and/or irrigation, at Amigo Park.

B.   Six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) for improvements to County parks in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

C.   Three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) for acquisition and/or preservation of wetland habitat in the Antelope Valley, including interpretive exhibits, public facilities and/or restoration.

D.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for development of soccer facilities and/or general park improvements at Belvedere Park.

E.   Seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) for security improvements at Bethune Park.

F.   One million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) for rehabilitation of the swim beach and/or general park improvements at Bonelli Regional Park.

G.   Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for development and improvement of recreation facilities, including development a multi-purpose recreation facility, at Burton Park.

H.   Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for improvements to the community center at Campanella Park.

I.   Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for general park improvements including security, landscape and/or irrigation improvements at Castaic Sport Complex.

J.   One million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) for rehabilitation of swim beach and/or general park improvements to the recreation and park facilities at Castaic Lake.

K.   Two million ten thousand dollars ($2,010,000) for expansion, development, and/or rehabilitation of facilities serving senior citizens or to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) at parks in the Central area of the County including, but not limited to Athens, Del Aire, and Keller Park.

L.   One million three hundred ninety-six thousand dollars ($1,396,000) for renovation and/or general improvements to park and recreation facilities at Cerritos Park.

M.   Two million dollars ($2,000,000) for development and/or general improvements, including development of gymnasium/community activity facility, at City Terrace Park.

N.   Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for security and/or general improvements at Devils Punchbowl.

O.   One million six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,650,000) for expansion, development, and/or rehabilitation of facilities serving senior citizens or to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) at parks in the East Los Angeles and San Gabriel Valley areas including, but not limited to, Avocado Heights, Basset, Salazar, Atlantic Blvd., and/or Belvedere.

P.   One million seven hundred thousand ($1,700,000) for development, rehabilitation and/or general improvements at El Cariso Park.

Q.   One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) for rehabilitation and/or general park improvements at Franklin D. Roosevelt Park.

R.   Two million two hundred seventy-four thousand dollars ($2,274,000) for development of community recreation facilities and/or general improvements to the facilities at Gunn Avenue Park.

S.   One million dollars ($1,000,000) for renovation of campground and/or general park improvements at Hart Regional Park.

T.   One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) for development of regional pool facilities and/or other park improvements at Jackie Robinson Park.

U.   One million seven hundred forty-eight thousand dollars ($1,748,000) for development, rehabilitation and/or other general park improvements at Jesse Owens Park.
V.   One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) for general renovation and improvements to facilities at John Anson Ford Theatre.

W.   One million three hundred ten thousand dollars ($1,310,000) for renovation and/or general improvements at La Mirada Park.

X.   Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for development and/or general improvements at Ladera Park.

Y.   One hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for development and/or improvement of recreational facilities at Lake Los Angeles which are open and accessible to the public.

Z.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for development, improvements and/or expansion at Lennox Park.

AA.  One million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) for development of gymnasium/community activity facility and/or general improvements at Loma Alta Park.

     BB.  Five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($550,000) for rehabilitation, renovation, development and/or general improvements at Los Robles Park.
CC.  Six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) for development of sports complex and/or general improvements at Magic Johnson Park.
DD.  Eight hundred ten thousand dollars ($810,000) for rehabilitation and/or general improvements at Manzanita Park.
EE.  Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for improvements to the campground at Marshall Canyon Regional Park.
FF.  Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for rehabilitation of park facilities at Mona Park.
GG.  Three million seven hundred thousand dollars ($3,700,000) for acquisition, development, rehabilitation and/or general improvements of parks, natural lands and/or recreation facilities in the North County area, including but not limited to George Lane and Charles White Parks, and including but not limited to, the communities of Acton, Altadena, Littlerock and Pearblossom.
HH.  One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) for development of regional pool facilities and/or other park improvements at Pamela Park.
II.  Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for refurbishment of picnic areas and camp grounds and/or general improvements at Peck Park.
JJ.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for acquisition, development, security improvements and/or general improvements at Placerita Canyon County Park.
KK.  One hundred twelve thousand dollars ($112,000) for development and/or general improvements at Rogers Park.
LL.  Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for development, refurbishment, rehabilitation and/or general improvements at Rosas Park.
MM.  One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for refurbishing hard courts and/or lighting at Rowland Heights Park.
NN.  One hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for development and/or general improvements to facilities at San Dimas Park.
OO.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for refurbishment and development and/or general improvements at Santa Fe Dam Park.
PP.  Seven hundred thirty thousand dollars ($730,000) for rehabilitation and development at Ume Grove and/or other general park improvements at Schabarum Park.
QQ.  Eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) for general improvements at facilities serving senior citizens in accordance with the following schedule:
I.   Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for general improvements and/or rehabilitation of senior citizen facilities in the North County.
ii.  Five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($550,000) for general improvements and/or rehabilitation of senior citizen facilities in the East Los Angeles area, the San Gabriel Valley, and the Puente Hills area of the County.
RR.  Two million one hundred sixty thousand dollars ($2,160,000) for accessibility improvements, general development, and rehabilitation of park and recreation facilities serving senior citizens, youth and/or at-risk youth in the Puente Hills and South County areas, including, but not limited to, Trailview, Country Wood and Blevins Parks.
SS.  Four hundred seventy thousand dollars ($470,000) for rehabilitation and/or general improvements at Steinmetz Park.
TT.  One hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) for improvement and/or general restoration of trails in the north county.
UU.  Two million dollars ($2,000,000) for development, improvement, and/or rehabilitation of urban park facilities serving the community, youth and/or at-risk youth in densely populated, highly urbanized areas in the Central area of the County including, but not limited to, the communities of Athens, Watts, Willowbrook, and Florence.
VV.  One million six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,650,000) for development, improvement, and/or rehabilitation of urban park facilities serving the community, youth and/or at-risk youth in densely populated, highly urbanized areas in the East Los Angeles area and the San Gabriel Valley.
WW.  Six hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($675,000) for acquisition, development and improvement of active sports fields at Val Verde Park.
XX.  One million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000) for development of nature center/museum, and/or general improvements at Vasquez Rocks Regional Park.
YY.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for development and/or general improvements at Victoria Park.
ZZ.  Three hundred sixty thousand dollars ($360,000) for refurbishment of the pool and/or facilities at Washington Park.
AAA. Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for general park and/or security improvements at the Whittier Narrows Nature Center.
BBB. Three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) for refurbishment, development, expansion and/or general improvements at Whittier Narrows Park.
(2)  Seven million dollars ($7,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for grants to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations throughout the District on a competitive basis for trails, senior citizen facilities, urban tree planting, graffiti prevention, rivers and streams, and acquisition and/or restoration of natural lands.
(3)  Seven million dollars ($7,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for grants to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations throughout the District on a competitive basis for acquisition, construction, development and/or improvement of at-risk youth recreation and service facilities throughout the District for gang prevention purposes.
(4)  Four million dollars ($4,000,000) to the Department of Public Works for capital outlay projects to restore and improve the Santa Monica Bay by measurably reducing the toxicity of and/or pollutant load in urban runoff to the Bay, and in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 9 of this resolution.
(b)  Ninety-five million six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($95,650,000) for the acquisition, development, improvement, restoration or rehabilitation of real property for regional beaches, recreational facilities, parks and park safety, gang prevention, senior citizen recreation facilities, wildlife habitat, natural lands, State parks, trail and river systems, mountain ranges and canyons, significant ecological areas, and museums and cultural facilities in accordance with the following schedule:
(1)  Eight million dollars ($8,000,000) to the Department of Beaches and Harbors to acquire, develop or improve facilities to enhance beaches and public access, improve water quality, rehabilitate or restore existing facilities and improve the safety of beach facilities along the sixty miles of coastline within the County, at County-owned or operated beaches.

(2)  Eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for acquisition of lands for park, wildlife, natural and open space purposes, and for development of related recreation facilities and public access in the Baldwin Hills, including an amount not less than seven million dollars ($7,000,000) for acquisition of lands.
(3)  One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Los Angeles for improvement and development of the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium in accordance with Cabrillo Marine Aquarium Master Plan.

(4)  Three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for development and improvements at Descanso Gardens.

(5)  Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) to the California Museum of Science and Industry for land acquisition and improvements within Exposition Park and for improvements to the California Museum of Science and Industry in accordance with the California Museum of Science and Industry Exposition Park Master Plan, including an amount not less than eight million five hundred thousand dollars ($8,500,000) for the development and restoration of lands for park, recreational, community and open space use, and for walkways, tree-planting and landscape improvements, all within Exposition Park, including an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for active recreation facilities; an amount not more than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the improvement, development, renovation and rehabilitation of facilities, including exhibition spaces,  at the California Museum of Science and Industry in accordance with the California Museum of Science and Industry Master Plan; and an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for the improvement, development, renovation and rehabilitation of facilities at the California Afro-American Museum.

(6)  Eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the development, improvement, restoration and rehabilitation of the Hollywood Bowl, including rehabilitation of facilities and aging infrastructure, improvement of public access and facilities and improvement of access for persons with disabilities, in accordance with the approved Hollywood Bowl Master Plan, and/or for grants to qualified Nonprofit Organizations for these purposes.

(7)  One million four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,450,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the improvement, restoration and rehabilitation of the Los Angeles Arboretum, and/or for grants to qualified Nonprofit Organizations for these purposes.

(8)  Five million dollars ($5,000,000) to the Department of Natural History Museum for the improvement, development, restoration and/or rehabilitation of facilities of the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, including development of exhibition space, and/or for grants to qualified Nonprofit Organizations for these purposes.

(9)  Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) for the acquisition, development, improvement and restoration of lands along the Los Angeles River, Tujunga Wash, Verdugo Wash, Pacoima Wash, Arroyo Seco, and Compton Creek, and other tributaries of the Los Angeles River as may be included by the Board, consistent with the Los Angeles County Los Angeles River Master Plan, for the purposes of providing recreational opportunities and public access, developing trails for walking, hiking, bicycling, and equestrian use, and restoring natural habitat for wildlife, along the entire length of the Los Angeles River and its tributaries (as defined in this paragraph).   The MRCA shall consult with the Department of Public Works and the supervisorial districts through whose boundaries the Los Angeles River flows in developing the list of projects to be considered for expenditure of the funds pursuant to this paragraph and to be submitted to the Board for approval.  The Department of Public Works shall review each proposed project for consistency with the Los Angeles River Master Plan and with the flood control plan of the Los Angeles River, and shall provide its findings to the MRCA to be submitted to the Board concurrently with projects submitted to the Board.  The Board shall disapprove a project that it finds to be inconsistent with the Los Angeles River Master Plan or that it finds will negatively impact existing or proposed flood control projects.  Not less than four million dollars ($4,000,000) shall be allocated for projects along the Los Angeles River in the Cities of Maywood, Lynwood, Compton and Bell Gardens, including projects along Compton Creek.  First priority for all expenditures shall be given to land acquisition projects which result in a net increase of park, recreation and open space lands.  No funds shall be expended on projects that could negatively impact any existing or proposed flood control project as determined by the Board of Supervisors.

(10) Twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) to the City of Los Angeles for the development, improvement and rehabilitation of the Los Angeles Zoo.  The funds shall be spent on the site of the Los Angeles Zoo and in accordance with the Los Angeles Zoo Master Plan.

(11) Two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) to the City of Whittier for restoration and rehabilitation of the Pio Pico State Historic Park, in accordance with the Pio Pico State Historic Park General Plan.

(12) One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Santa Clarita for the acquisition and development of lands for the Santa Clara River Park in accordance with the Santa Clara River Water and Recreation Features Plan.

(13) One million three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,350,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for general improvements to facilities at the South Coast Botanical Gardens.

(14) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority for acquisition, improvement, and/or restoration of park and natural lands in the Puente Hills Wildlife Corridor east of Colima Road.

(c)    One hundred thirty-one million five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($131,550,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for grants to incorporated cities within the District and the County for the acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation or restoration of real property for parks and park safety, senior recreation facilities, gang prevention, beaches, recreation, community or cultural facilities, trails, wildlife habitat or natural lands in accordance with the following schedule:

(1)  Thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) for grants to all incorporated cities within the District and to the County on a per parcel basis, including funds on a per parcel basis to the County for the unincorporated area of the County.

(2)  Ninety-six million five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($96,550,000) for direct grants to cities in accordance with the following schedule:

A.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of Agoura Hills for the development of a regional community center and gymnasium in partnership with the City of Calabasas.

B.   Six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) to the City of Alhambra for the rehabilitation and development of a walking/jogging trail system at Almansor Park.

C.   Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to the City of Arcadia for the development and refurbishment of a soccer facility at Civic Center Park.

D.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of Artesia for the development of an at-risk youth recreation and service facility.

E.   Three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) to the City of Avalon for improvement of beaches and the recreational diving park at Casino Point in accordance with the Avalon Urban Waterfront Restoration Plan.

F.   Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) to the City of Baldwin Park for the rehabilitation and/or development of four regionally used sports fields.

G.   Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to the City of Bellflower for the development of Bellflower’s portion of the West Branch Greenway and Bikeway project.

H.   Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to the City of Beverly Hills for the development and rehabilitation of Beverly Gardens Park.

I.   Eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) to the City of Burbank for the development of the Stough Canyon Nature Center Project and to develop and/or improve camping facilities at Stough Canyon.

J.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of Calabasas for the development of a regional community center and gymnasium in partnership with the City of Agoura Hills.

K.   One million one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($1,175,000) to the City of Claremont for the rehabilitation and development of a community center at the Danbury School site.

L.   One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Covina or to the agency responsible for the operation of Charter Oak Park for development and improvement of Charter Oak Park.

M.   Four million two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000) to the City of Cudahy, in cooperation with the City of South Gate, for acquisition, improvement, and provision of public access for the Los Angeles River Recreation and Sports Complex adjacent to the Los Angeles River, and for restoration of riparian habitat.

N.   One million six hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($1,625,000) to the City of Culver City for development of the Culver City Senior Center.

O.   Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to the City of Downey for the rehabilitation and improvement of facilities at Rio San Gabriel Park.

P.   Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to the City of Duarte for rehabilitation of the Duarte Regional Teen Center in partnership with the City of Bradbury.

Q.   One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) to the City of El Monte for the development and improvement of the Community Center/Swimming Pool Complex.
R.   Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to the City of Gardena for the improvement and rehabilitation of park facilities at Rowley Park.

S.   One million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) to the City of Glendale for the development of the new Senior/Adult Recreation multi-purpose center.

T.   One million four hundred thousand dollars ($1,400,000) to the City of Glendora in accordance with the following schedule:

I.   Nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) for the development of a regional teen center.

ii.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the acquisition of wildlife lands and natural habitat in the Glendora Wildlife Corridor.

U.   Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to the City of Hawaiian Gardens for the expansion, improvement, and rehabilitation of the Lee Ware Community/Aquatics Facility.

V.   Five hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($575,000) to the City of Hawthorne for the development of Memorial Center Gymnasium.

W.   One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Hermosa Beach for the development, expansion and rehabilitation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier and Waterfront Plaza.

X.   One million seven hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($1,725,000) to the City of Inglewood for the development, improvement and rehabilitation of Centinela Park.

Y.   One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of La Mirada for the development of a Community/Senior Citizen Center.

Z.   Seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) to the City of La Puente for the development, improvement and/or rehabilitation of the La Puente Park Community Center with emphasis on facilities for at-risk youth and other community youth.

AA.  Six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) to the City of Lakewood in accordance with the following schedule:

I.   Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the rehabilitation of athletic safety field lights at three regionally used city facilities.
ii.  Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the development and rehabilitation of multipurpose courts at the following city parks: Boyar, Bloomfield, Bolivar, Del Valle and San Martin.

BB.  One million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) to the City of Lancaster in accordance with the following schedule:

I.   Eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) for the development of the Lancaster Regional Sports Complex.
ii.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) for the acquisition of prime desert woodland habitat and the development of public access to the Lancaster Prime Desert Woodland Preserve.

CC.  Two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000) to the City of La Verne to develop and improve the La Verne Regional Sports Parks.

DD.  One hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) to the City of Lawndale for the expansion and rehabilitation of Jane Addams Park.

EE.  Nine million nine hundred thousand dollars ($9,900,000) to the City of Long Beach in accordance with the following schedule:

I.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the development and rehabilitation of Belmont Pier.
ii.  Two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the rehabilitation of Belmont Plaza Pool including development of security systems.
iii. Three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) for the development of the Park on Golden in downtown Long Beach.
iv.  Three million nine hundred thousand dollars ($3,900,000) for the acquisition, development and improvement of Westside Park..

FF.  Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the City of Los Angeles in accordance with the following schedule:
i.   One million dollars ($1,000,000) to improve and restore natural habitat at the Ballona Lagoon Marine Preserve in accordance with the Ballona Lagoon Marine Enhancement Preserve enhancement plan.
ii.  One million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) for the development and improvement of Cabrillo Marine Aquarium in accordance with the Cabrillo Aquarium Master Plan.
iii. Two million dollars ($2,000,000) for the development and improvement of Compton-Slauson Park.
iv.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the acquisition and/or development of lands for park purposes near Eagle Rock.
v.   One million nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) for the development and improvement of park and recreation facilities at Elysian Park including trails, picnic facilities, playground and landscaping, in accordance with the Elysian Park Master Plan, Bishop Canyon Improvement Project.
vi.  One million nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) for the development, and/or rehabilitation of the Travel Town Locomotive Pavilion at Griffith Park.
vii. One million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) for the development of facilities and/or improvements related to the swim lake at Hansen Dam Recreation Area.

viii. Two million three hundred thousand dollars ($2,300,000) for the development, improvement, and/or rehabilitation of Housing Authority recreation facilities throughout the City of Los Angeles, including the San Fernando Valley.
ix.  Seven million dollars ($7,000,000) for acquisition, improvement, development and/or rehabilitation of park, recreation, community and open space lands and/or facilities, and/or for grants to Nonprofit Organizations for these purposes.

Funds shall only be spent in communities which meet the following criteria: 1) densely-populated, highly urbanized areas; 2) low per capita percentage of park, recreation, community or open space lands or facilities; 3) high population of youth, particularly at-risk youth, and where at least 25 percent of the community is under 18 years of age; and 4) lack of other positive recreation alternatives for youth.  Expenditure of funds shall result in a net increase of park, recreation, community or open space lands or facilities.  Not less than three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) of these funds shall be spent on acquiring land or facilities for the purposes described in this paragraph.  Priority shall be given to projects which have matching funds, to densely-populated areas, projects which serve multiple communities, or joint applications from Public Agencies and qualified Nonprofit Organizations.

x.   One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) for development and/or improvements at MacArthur Park including development of athletic fields.
xi.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the development and/or restoration of trails in the Northern and Northeast San Fernando Valley connecting to the Angeles National Forest, to be expended by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as the Public Agency responsible for implementation of the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor pursuant to subdivision of Section 33204.3 of the Public Resources Code.
xii. Two million eight hundred thousand dollars ($2,800,000) for the development, restoration and/or improvement of recreation facilities and restoration of natural lands at the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area, including an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bicycle trails connecting to Sepulveda Basin, excluding trails along the Los Angeles River.   Not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be spent on restoration of the Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Area and the development of a native plant/wildlife area west of the existing wildlife area.
xiii.     Four million dollars ($4,000,000) for the acquisition and improvement of land for park and open space purposes adjacent to and in the vicinity of Stoney Point in the San Fernando Valley, to be expended by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.  Any unexpended portion of these funds shall be used for acquisition of natural lands and open space within the wildlife corridor between Brown’s Canyon and the Santa Susana Mountains unit of the State Park System.
xiv. One million dollars ($1,000,000) for development and/or improvement of the Mid-Valley Senior Citizen Center in the San Fernando Valley.

GG.  Nine hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($975,000) to the City of Lynwood for the development and improvement of Mervyn M. Dymally Congressional Park.

HH.  Seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) to the City of Malibu for the rehabilitation and restoration of the Malibu Pier.
II.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of Manhattan Beach for the development and improvement of the Cultural Arts Community Center.

JJ.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of Monrovia for the development and rehabilitation of the Recreation Park Armory Facility.

KK.  Four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) to the City of Montebello for the development and rehabilitation of the City Park Aquatics Center.

LL.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Monterey Park for the development and rehabilitation of Barnes Park.

MM.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Norwalk in accordance with the following schedule:

i.   Three hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($375,000) for the development and improvements to Foster Street Greenbelt and Regional Trail Connection.
ii.  Six hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($625,000) for the development, rehabilitation, and improvement to the Norwalk Aquatic Pavilion.

NN.  Two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) to the City of Palmdale for the development of the Anaverde Basin/Sports Complex.

OO.  Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of Palos Verdes Estates for the acquisition of land for coastal access, trails and other open space purposes.

PP.  Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to the City of Paramount for the development of an at-risk youth center located at Progress Park.

QQ.  One million nine hundred thousand dollars ($1,900,000) to the City of Pasadena in accordance with the following schedule:
i.   One million dollars ($1,000,000) for the development and rehabilitation of Hahamonga Watershed Park in accordance with the Hahamonga Park Master Plan.
ii.  Nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) for the development and rehabilitation of Brookside Park’s Fannie Morrison Facility for the planned Kidspace Museum.

RR.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Pico Rivera for the development and rehabilitation of the Pico Rivera Community Center/Rio Hondo Park.

SS.  Four million dollars ($4,000,000) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the acquisition of critical natural lands and wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Portuguese Bend for preservation as open space.

TT.  Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) to the City of Redondo Beach for the rehabilitation, development and/or improvement of Seaside Lagoon.

UU.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for the acquisition of natural lands, wildlife habitat, open space and/or equestrian facilities.

VV.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) to the City of Rosemead for the development of Garvey Park Recreation Center.

WW.  One hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to the City of San Dimas for the development and rehabilitation of Horsethief Canyon Park Multi-Use Trail System.

XX.  Seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) for the City of San Fernando for the development of the Youth Activities Center at Las Palmas Park.

YY.  One million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) to the City of San Gabriel for the acquisition and/or development of park and recreation facilities located adjacent to Smith Park.

ZZ.  Two million dollars ($2,000,000) to the City of Santa Clarita for the development and improvement of the Santa Clarita Valley Regional Park.

AAA. One million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) to the City of Santa Monica for the improvement and rehabilitation of beach and bluff areas to improve access and to provide improvements for recreational activities.  Funds shall only be used for improvements to beach and park lands.

BBB. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) to the City of Signal Hill for the development of hiking trails around Signal Hill.

CCC. Two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000) to the City of South El Monte for the development of boxing and weight room facilities at the Aquatics and Community Fitness Center.

DDD. Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to the City of South Gate for the development and/or rehabilitation of an at-risk youth center at Hollydale Industrial Park.

EEE. One million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) to the City of Torrance in accordance with the following schedule:
i.   Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the development of a nature history center and improvements at Madrona Marsh Nature Preserve.
ii.  One million dollars ($1,000,000) for the development of the Sports Complex in Charles H. Wilson Park.
iii. Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for rehabilitation and improvements to the Victor E. Benstead Plunge.

FFF. Four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to the City of Walnut for the development of the Senior Citizens Activity Center.

GGG. One million one hundred thousand dollars ($1,100,000) to the City of West Hollywood for the development and improvement of the Plummer Park Youth, Senior and Community Center.

HHH. Three million dollars ($3,000,000) to the City of Whittier in accordance with the following schedule:
i.   Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for the development and improvement of Parnell Park.
ii.  Two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) for the acquisition of natural lands within the Whittier Hills Wilderness area for preservation of wildlife and natural lands and to provide public access and trails, to be expended by the Whittier-Puente Hills Conservation Authority.
(d)  Twenty-two million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($22,750,000) to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, pursuant to Division 23 of the Public Resources Code and the provisions of this resolution, to acquire sensitive and critical mountain and canyon lands, streams, wildlife lands, trails and scenic areas, and to develop parks, trails, public access, senior facilities and camps for at-risk youth in mountain and canyon areas, including lands and areas in the Santa Monica Mountains and the San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley foothills, including seventeen million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($17,750,000) for lands and areas in the Santa Monica Mountains and including five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the Santa Clarita Woodlands and/or the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor, with first priority being given to completion of the Santa Clarita Woodlands Park, and for grants to Nonprofit Organizations pursuant to Section 33204.2 of the Public Resources Code.

Section 4.  (a)  The grant funds authorized pursuant to Section 3 shall be subject to the District’s existing application and disbursement guidelines and procedures to the extent consistent with this resolution and as the same may be amended from time to time by the Board consistent with this resolution, and to the guidelines and procedures set forth in this resolution.  The Department of Parks and Recreation shall continue to administer the District’s grant application and disbursement program, and all applicants for a grant disbursed pursuant to Section 3 of this resolution shall submit an application to the Department of Parks and Recreation for grant approval.  The Department of Parks and Recreation shall notify all affected Public Agencies as to the date when funds for grants under this resolution will be available, which shall not be later than July 1, 1997.

     (b)  The recipient agency of funds for any specific identified project pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order shall hold a public hearing regarding funding such specific identified project, either individually or as part of a broader or more general public hearing prior to said agency’s application to the District for use of these funds.

     Section 5.  (a)  The grant funds authorized pursuant to subsection (c)(1) of Section 3 shall be allocated to cities which were incorporated on or prior to June 30, 1996, and to the County (representing the unincorporated area of the District), on the basis of each city’s and the unincorporated area’s respective total number of parcels of land (all as of June 30, 1996).  Such figures shall be determined by the Los Angeles County Assessor.

(b)  Individual applications for grants pursuant to subsection (c) (1) of Section 3 shall be submitted to the Department of Parks and Recreation for approval as to conformity with the requirements of this resolution.   In order to utilize available grant funds as effectively as possible, adjoining jurisdictions shall be encouraged to combine projects and submit joint applications.

(c)  The minimum amount that an applicant may request for any individual project is fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).  Any agency may allocate all or a portion of its per parcel share to a regional or state project or another neighboring jurisdiction and all agencies shall be encouraged to form partnerships with school districts for park and recreation purposes.

(d)  Funds allocated to per-parcel grants pursuant to subsection (c)(1) of Section 3 shall be available for expenditure not later than July 1, 1997.  These funds shall be expended or committed for expenditure by the recipient by June 30, 2001.  Commencing on July 1, 2001, any such grant funds under subsection (c)(1) of Section 3 which are not expended or committed to expenditure by the recipient shall be available for allocation to one or more classes of expenditures specified in Section 3 that the Board deems in its sole discretion to be of the highest priority, consistent with the purposes of this resolution, and per parcel grant funds that were originally allocated to incorporated cities shall only be spent within municipalities.   Upon reallocation by the Board, the original recipient of the funds shall have no further claim to the funds.

(e)  (1)  Funds allocated to grants for specific identified projects pursuant to subsections (a)(1), (b) excluding paragraph (9), and (c)(2) of Section 3 shall be available for expenditure not later than July 1, 1997, and shall be expended or committed for expenditure by the recipient prior to June 30, 2003.   If these funds are not expended or committed for expenditure prior to June 30, 2003, then, after July 1, 2003 (except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection), the agency to which the funds are originally allocated for a specific identified project may submit to the Board an alternative plan for expenditure of the funds in accordance with the purposes of this resolution within the city or area of the District in which funds were originally authorized to be expended.  The Board, in its capacity as governing body of the District, may approve the plan by a majority vote.  If the revised plan of expenditure is approved by the Board, the reallocated funds shall be expended or committed to expenditure within three years after Board approval of the new plan of expenditure, and if not so expended or committed to expenditure within such three-year period, the funds shall be available to the Board for appropriation and expenditure within one or more of the classes of expenditures specified in Section 3 that the Board deems in its sole discretion to be of the highest priority, consistent with the purposes of this resolution.

The provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall also apply to funds allocated pursuant to paragraph (9) of subsection (b) of Section 3, except that the date June 30, 2003, shall instead be June 30, 2005.

(2)  The agency to which funds are originally allocated under subsection (a)(1), (b) excluding paragraph (9), and (c)(2) of Section 3 may submit to the Board an alternative plan for expenditure of said funds prior to July 1, 2003, only if one or more of the following conditions exists: (A) that due to natural disasters or other acts of nature the project is incapable of being carried out at the original designated site; (B) if an acquisition project, that no lands are for sale or can be acquired within the original designated project area; (C) that the original specific identified project will be carried out using an alternate source of funds; or (D) that the original specific identified project described in Section 3 of this resolution has been completed for less than the amount allocated.  The governing body of the recipient agency shall adopt a resolution making findings that one or more of the above conditions exist and the agency shall submit such resolution, together with detailed supporting documentation of such condition(s), to the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall also apply to funds allocated pursuant to paragraph (9) of subsection (b) of Section 3, except that the date June 30, 2003, shall instead be June 30, 2005.

(3)  If funds allocated to grants for specific identified projects pursuant to subsections (a)(1) and (c)(2) of Section 3 are not expended or committed for expenditure by the recipient prior to June 30, 2003, and if an alternative plan for expenditure is not submitted to the Board prior to June 30, 2004, these funds shall be available to the Board for appropriation and expenditure within one or more of the classes of expenditures specified in Section 3 that the Board deems in its sole discretion to be of the highest priority, consistent with the purposes of this resolution.

Section 6.  (a)  Funds allocated to the City of Los Angeles pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (10) of subsection (b) of Section 3, and to the City of Santa Clarita pursuant to paragraph (12) of subsection (b) of Section 3 shall be subject to all of the provisions of this resolution which apply to the funds allocated pursuant to subsection 3(c).  Funds allocated to the City of Whittier pursuant to paragraph (11) of subsection 3(b) shall be subject to all of the provisions of this resolution which apply to the funds allocated pursuant to subsection 3(c), and the City of Whittier shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation that the State has authorized the City to expend such funds at the Pio Pico State Historic Park, and provided that the City has obtained all necessary approvals for such project; if the City of Whittier is unable to satisfy the conditions in this sentence, the funds shall be allocated for expenditure within the Whittier Hills in accordance with Section 3(c)(2)(HHH)(ii).

     (b)  If the City of Los Angeles elects to expend the funds allocated in subsection (c)(2)(FF)(iii) of Section 3 pursuant to an agreement with another Public Agency, the District shall grant these funds directly to said Public Agency, provided that the City of Los Angeles shall certify the long-term recreational use of the improvements.  The funds allocated to the City of Los Angeles in subsection (c)(2)(FF)(iv) of Section 3 shall be expended by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as the public entity responsible for implementation of the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor Master Plan pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 33204.3 of the Public Resources Code.

Section 7.  (a)  The funds allocated in subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 3 shall be available as grants on a competitive basis to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations.  The funds shall be encumbered by the recipient within three years of the date when such grants are awarded.  The Department of Parks and Recreation shall allocate a share of such competitive funds for expenditure in the unincorporated area of the District using the same procedures specified in subsection (a) of Section 5.  The funds allocated pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of Section 3 for competitive grant programs shall be divided equally among the respective purposes specified therein, consistent with the procedures developed by the District for similar competitive grant funds pursuant to the 1992 Order.

(b)  Competitive funds allocated pursuant to Section 3 and the 1992 Order shall be made available on a regular annual basis until all such funds are encumbered, and the Department of Parks and Recreation shall notify affected Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations of the availability of such funds.   Organizations representing ten or more cities shall be given the opportunity by the Department of Parks and Recreation to be fairly represented in the evaluation process established by the Department of Parks and Recreation pursuant to the 1992 Order to evaluate all competitive grant applications.  For all competitive grants awarded pursuant to Section 3 and the 1992 Order to Nonprofit Organizations and to Public Agencies from a city with a population of 100,000 or less, costs eligible for reimbursement shall include reasonable costs of preparation of documents needed to apply to the District for the grant, including costs of biological assessments required pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 8, up to three percent (3%) of the total grant amount awarded.  In each year that competitive grant funds are available, an amount not less than two and one-half percent (2.5%) of funds available to the District in that year for administrative purposes shall be expended by the District through grants or contracts to independent firms or qualified Nonprofit Organizations for the purpose of providing a technical assistance program to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations throughout the District in preparation of competitive grant requests.  The District shall prepare said technical assistance program for Board approval.  The Board shall have the ability to adjust the percentage of funds used for said purposes if it determines that the level of funding required to provide the Board-approved technical assistance program is less than the stated percentage.  Two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of the amount allocated for competitive grants for trails shall be allocated to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for expenditure within the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor, and two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of the amount allocated for competitive grants for trails shall be allocated to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for expenditure within the Santa Monica Mountains.

(c)        All other criteria being equal, priority for allocation of any competitive grants under this resolution shall be given to those cities, and to Nonprofit Organizations applying jointly with those cities, which are not designated recipients of funds for specific identified projects in subsection (c)(2) of Section 3 of this resolution or subsection (b)(2) of Section 8 of the 1992 Order.  Any city or Nonprofit Organization which would otherwise be entitled to a priority under this subsection (c) shall not be entitled to such priority after it has been awarded a competitive grant under this resolution or the 1992 Order.

(d)       In awarding competitive grants, priority shall be given to those proposals which provide for the employment of youth, and particularly at-risk youth, from the area in which the proposed project is located, or which include or are to be administered by a Nonprofit Organization with a demonstrated history of youth employment, gang prevention and intervention, and training programs for at-risk youth, including local community conservation corps and the California Conservation Corps.  Such priority shall give due consideration to the employment of female, as well as male, at-risk youth.  In furtherance of this goal, the Board may adopt such rules and regulations, and impose such conditions on the recipients of funds under this resolution and the 1992 Order, as the Board may determine to be necessary or appropriate.

(e)       One or more individual jurisdictions may enter into an agreement with one or more Public Agencies or Nonprofit Organizations for the purpose of carrying out a grant pursuant to this Section, subject to the requirements of Sections 10 and 11.

Section 8.  (a)  Funds allocated for competitive grants for rivers and streams pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of Section 3 and the 1992 Order shall be available on a competitive basis as grants to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations for the restoration, rehabilitation or acquisition of natural lands and the development of recreational resources along rivers and streams in the County, including the Santa Clara, San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers or their tributaries.  These funds shall be used only for the acquisition and/or restoration of lands for natural habitat, wildlife enhancement, and/or development of compatible recreational resources. No less than sixty percent (60%) of funds available for competitive grants for rivers and streams pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of Section 3 shall be used for acquisition, restoration and rehabilitation of natural lands along these rivers and streams.  Remaining funds shall be available for development of recreational resources compatible with any existing or restored natural habitat.

     (b)  Funds allocated for competitive grants pursuant to subsection (a)(3) of Section 3 shall be available as competitive grants for at-risk youth recreation and service facilities only for projects which demonstrate at least sixty percent (60%) usage of the facilities by at-risk youth.  The foregoing restriction shall also apply to funds allocated under the 1992 Order for competitive grants for at-risk youth recreation and service facilities.  Priority for these grants shall be given to those applications which demonstrate equal attention to the specific needs of girls and boys.  An amount not less than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) shall be granted to the Department of Children and Family Services for development and/or improvement of at-risk youth recreation and service facilities at MacLaren Hall.  An amount not less than two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) shall be allocated to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority for acquisition and development of an at-risk youth camp in the Whittier Puente Hills east of Colima Road for the use of, and accessible to, at-risk youth from densely-populated, highly-urbanized areas with a high population of at-risk youth and with low per capita percentage of park, recreation, community or open space lands or facilities.

(c)  Funds allocated for competitive grants for acquisition and/or restoration of natural lands pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of Section 3 shall be available on a competitive basis as grants to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations for the acquisition, improvement and/or restoration of natural lands including but not limited to coastal sage scrub, desert, coastal dunes, coastal prairies, chaparral, vernal pools, oak woodlands, forests and native grasslands habitat.  Applications for these grant funds shall include a biological assessment of the site including current and historical information, a restoration plan and a long-term habitat management plan.   Applicants shall provide documentation of consultation with experts in conservation biology and natural habitat restoration and shall provide documentation that said plans and assessments have been reviewed by these experts.

     Section 9.  (a)  Funds authorized pursuant to subsection (a) (4) of Section 3 shall be available for grants to Public Agencies and shall be expended only for capital outlay projects which meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) protect public health in recreational waters; (2) preserve and enhance the ecological integrity of significant watersheds containing Significant Ecological Areas; (3) are Best Management Practices as defined in the Storm Water NPDES permit for the County and approved by the Executive Officer of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board; and (4) reduce runoff into Santa Monica Bay where the runoff travels across lands that contribute large amounts of toxic pollutants to the storm drain system, or measurably reduce the toxicity of that runoff.  Proposed projects shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and approval.

(b)  The Department of Public Works shall prepare, and submit to the Board for approval, a timeline and proposed criteria and procedures for evaluating grants authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(4) of Section 3 of this resolution (and subsection (a)(6) of Section 8 of the 1992 Order) no later than March 30, 1997.   The Regional Water Quality Control Board shall in a public process review and give final approval to the criteria and procedures for evaluating these grants.

     Section 10.  No funds authorized under Section 3 may be disbursed to any recipient unless the recipient agrees:

(a)  To maintain and operate in perpetuity the property acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored with the funds.  With the approval of the granting agency, the recipient or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property in accordance with this Section.

(b)  To use the property only for the purposes of this resolution and to make no other use, sale, or disposition of the property, except as provided in Section 11.

(c)  Any beach, park or other public facility acquired, developed, rehabilitated or restored with funds derived under this resolution shall be open and accessible to the public without discrimination as to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious belief, national origin, marital status, physical or medical handicap, medical condition, or place of residence, to the extent consistent with the provisions of Section 13.  The recipient shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any person or organization seeking to use such facility based upon the place of residence of such person or the members of such organization.

(d)  To comply with each applicable requirement of Section 103 and Sections 141 through 150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to the extent necessary to maintain the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on any bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness issued to finance such disbursement of funds to such recipient.

The conditions specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this Section shall not prevent the transfer of property acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored with funds authorized pursuant to Section 3 of this resolution from the recipient to another Public Agency, to a Nonprofit Organization authorized to acquire, develop, improve, restore and/or operate real property for park, wildlife, recreation, community, open space or gang prevention and intervention purposes, or to the National Park Service,  provided that any such successor to the recipient assumes the obligations imposed by such conditions.

Section 11.  (a)  Before the use of any property acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored through a grant pursuant to this resolution is changed to one other than a use permitted under the category from which the funds were provided, or the property is sold or otherwise disposed of, the recipient of said funds must hold a public hearing relative to such proposed change in use or sale or other disposition of said property, and at the conclusion of such public hearing, the recipient must adopt a finding that the proposed change in use or sale or other disposition of said property will further the purposes of this resolution.  If the recipient adopts such a resolution and proceeds with the change in use or sale or other disposition of said property, an amount equal to the greater of (1) the amount of the grant, (2) the fair market value of the real property, or (3) the proceeds from the portion of such property acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated, or restored with the grant, shall be used by the recipient, subject to Section 10, for a purpose authorized in the category to which the funds were originally allocated or shall be reimbursed to the Parks Fund and be available for appropriation only for a use authorized in that category.

If the property sold or otherwise disposed of is less than the entire interest in the property originally acquired, developed, improved, rehabilitated or restored with the grant, an amount equal to the proceeds or the fair market value of the property interest sold or otherwise disposed of, whichever is greater, shall be used by the recipient, subject to Section 10, for a purpose authorized in the category to which the funds were originally allocated or shall be reimbursed to the Parks Fund and be available for appropriation only for a use authorized in that category.

(b)  Nothing in this Section shall limit a grantee from transferring property acquired pursuant to this resolution to the National Park Service or the State Park System, with or without consideration.

Section 12.  (a)  All real property acquired pursuant to this resolution shall be acquired in compliance with Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 7260) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code.  Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations receiving funds under this resolution shall certify compliance to the Department of Parks and Recreation.  Funds
disbursed to a Public Agency under this resolution may be expended by that receiving Public Agency, or by a joint exercise of powers entity established pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code pursuant to an agreement with such receiving Public Agency.

     (b)  For purposes of this resolution, the term “acquisition” includes gifts, purchases, leases, easements, the exercise of eminent domain if expressly authorized, the transfer or exchange of property of like value, transfers of development rights or credits, and purchases of development rights and other interests.

(c)  All grants, gifts, devises, or bequests to the District, conditional or unconditional, for park, conservation, recreational, community, cultural, wildlife habitat, natural lands or other purposes for which real property may be acquired or developed pursuant to this resolution, shall be made in the name of the County and accepted and received on behalf of the District in the name of the County by the Board.  The grants, gifts, devises or bequests shall be available for expenditure for the purposes specified in Section 3.

     Section 13.  Reasonable public access to lands acquired in fee with funds made available pursuant to this resolution shall be provided except where that access may interfere with resource protection.  “Reasonable public access” includes, but is not limited to, parking and public restrooms.

Section 14.  All funds of the District allocated to projects which include tasks that can be performed by youth, including but not limited to the rehabilitation, restoration and/or development of beach, park, recreation, open space and/or natural lands, and recreation and community facilities, shall be used to the maximum extent feasible to employ at-risk youth from the community in which the particular project is being carried out.  In furtherance of the goal of increasing employment opportunities for at-risk youth, the Board may adopt such rules and regulations, and impose such conditions on recipients of funds under the 1992 Order and this resolution, as the Board may determine to be necessary or appropriate.

Section 15.  To the maximum extent feasible, Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations shall be encouraged to use funds received pursuant to this resolution to provide funding through agreements with community conservation corps, the California Conservation Corps, and with other community organizations, particularly when youth can be employed to work on restoration or rehabilitation projects being carried out in their own communities.   Such agreements shall be entered into solely for the accomplishment of the purposes set forth in this resolution.

Section 16.  Prior to recommending the acquisition of lands that are located on or near tidelands, submerged lands, swamp or overflowed lands, or other wetlands, whether or not those lands have been granted in trust to a local Public Agency, any agency receiving funds pursuant to this resolution shall submit to the State Lands Commission any proposal for the acquisition of those lands.  The State Lands Commission may, at its discretion, within ninety (90) days after such a submission, review the proposed acquisition, make a determination as to the State’s existing or potential interest in the lands, and report its findings to the entity making the submission and to the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Section 17.  (a) Funds that are granted pursuant to Section 3 for the purposes of development, improvement, rehabilitation and/or restoration shall be expended for these purposes only on lands owned by the applicant Public Agency or Nonprofit Organization or subject to a lease or other interest held by such Public Agency or Nonprofit Organization.  If such lands are not owned by the applicant or subject to such other interest held by the applicant, the applicant shall first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the administering agency that the project will provide public benefits commensurate with the type and duration of the interest in land held by the applicant.

(b)   No wetlands or riparian habitat acquired pursuant to this resolution shall be used as a dredge spoil area or shall be subject to revetment which damages the quality of the habitat for which the property was acquired.

(c)  Any restoration of natural habitat lands restored pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order shall use only species native to California to the maximum extent feasible.  Funds allocated pursuant to Section 3 that are used for landscaping, planting trees or any other planting projects shall use drip irrigation or other water conserving irrigation systems and shall use drought-resistant or xerophytic trees, plants, lawn or sod, except when such use can be shown to be infeasible.  When projects involve the rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems or the creation of new irrigation systems, reclaimed water should be used whenever possible and priority shall be given to development of reclaimed water irrigation systems.  Any recipient of funds for planting on natural lands shall make every effort to use only plant species and vegetation types which are appropriate to the local ecosystem of the site.

(d)  Notwithstanding subsection (e) of this Section, the development of recreational resources or facilities pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order shall not degrade the natural values present or being restored along rivers, tributaries and wetlands, nor shall they be used for flood control projects.

     (e)  Any project funded pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order shall include sufficient funds to mitigate damage done to natural lands as a result of said project as otherwise required by law. 

     (f)  No funds shall be used to pay for mitigation which is required to be carried out by state or federal law in connection with a project or activity which is not funded pursuant to this resolution or the 1992 Order.

Section 18.  No provision of this resolution shall be construed as authorizing the condemnation of publicly-owned lands.

Section 19.  Funds provided to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy shall be held and disbursed by the District and, upon application by the Conservancy, shall be expended solely for projects approved by the Board, pursuant to such criteria as the Board may in its discretion adopt; provided, that said funds shall be for projects identified in the annual work program of the Conservancy transmitted to the Governor and the Legislature pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 33208 of the Public Resources Code, as amended from time to time after a noticed public hearing, and provided that the Board may disapprove a project in an incorporated city only upon a finding that the acquisition or improvement of a project will involve the acquisition of or access to a site identified or proposed for present or potential future sanitary landfill purposes by the County, or involve any other land or project which may directly or indirectly hinder or impact the ability of the County to use any site so identified for such purposes.  All land acquired in whole or in part with funds allocated to the Conservancy hereunder shall be purchased from willing sellers, and in no event shall funds allocated to the Conservancy hereunder be used to pay or reimburse the purchase price of land acquired through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Disbursement of funds pursuant to subsection (d) of Section 3 shall be governed by the procedures specified for the 1992 order in the order of the Board dated March 29, 1994, and such method of disbursement shall continue to apply to the 1992 Order and to funds provided pursuant to this resolution, except that funds shall be expended within five years of disbursement.

Section 20.  If funds are allocated in a citywide measure adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 1996 for any project located at the site of a project identified in subsections (c)(2)(FF)(i) through (xiv), inclusive of Section 3, and in subsection (b)(3) or (b)(10) of Section 3, the funds allocated in this resolution for that project may be reallocated by the Board for another project with regional recreation or open space benefit consistent with the purposes of this resolution within the City of Los Angeles.  Such project shall be approved by the City Council of the City of Los Angeles.

Section 21.  (a)  The Department of Parks and Recreation shall administer for the District all funds for the projects and programs described in this resolution.  Administrative costs eligible for funds available for project planning and design of projects funded pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order shall include project design and inspection when said inspection is required by the agency responsible for carrying out the project.  In any year, a recipient agency may utilize an amount not more than one percent (1%) of the funds which it is eligible to receive under subsection (b) of Section 23 for reimbursement of accounting and bookkeeping costs as applicable overhead to pay for compliance with the District’s accounting and reporting requirements.

(b)  Consistent with subsection (a) of Section 23, proceeds of the Additional Assessment shall be used for: (i) costs of maintenance and servicing of projects funded by the District (whether such projects were funded through the application of cash proceeds of assessments or proceeds of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the District in accordance with this resolution or the 1992 Order) or otherwise acquired pursuant to this resolution, (ii) payment of actual administrative costs associated with carrying out the purposes of the District, by the District and recipient Public Agencies, and (iii) either to pay directly the costs of projects authorized pursuant to this resolution or the 1992 Order, or to pay debt service on any bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness of the District.

(c)  It is the intention of the District to issue bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness, to fund all or a portion of the costs of the projects listed in Section 3 of this resolution.  Such bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness may be issued in one or more series at such times and in such principal amounts as the Board may determine in its sole discretion.

     (d)  All proceeds of the Additional Assessment shall be deposited into the Parks Fund established pursuant to the 1992 Order.  The Auditor-Controller of the County, on behalf of the District, may create any other funds, accounts or subaccounts necessary or desirable to account for the funds of the District, including the proceeds of assessments and bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness issued by the District.

(e)  In accordance with the 1992 Order, all revenue generated by the District, including the proceeds from the issuance of any bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness, shall be deposited in the Parks Fund and shall be allocated among all affected Public Agencies within the District as defined in Section 5506.9 of the California Public Resources Code, for expenditure consistent with the purposes of Division 5, Chapter 3, Article 3 of said Public Resources Code and of the 1992 Order and this resolution.  The County shall be reimbursed from the Parks Fund for the actual costs of administration of the District and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness by the District.

(f)  If the County purchases a surety bond to replace cash in a debt service reserve fund, either before or after bonds are issued, the cash so replaced shall be allocated in the same manner described in Section 24.

(g)  No proceeds of any bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the District shall be used for any operations, maintenance or servicing purposes, except that such proceeds may be used to pay all costs incidental to the preparation and issuance of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness of the District.

(h)  The amounts of all allocations designated in Section 3 are net amounts, and shall not be reduced for administrative costs of the District.

(i)  The District shall contract for an independent audit to be conducted annually by an independent auditing firm for the purposes of determining compliance by the District with the terms of this resolution and the 1992 Order, and to report on the status of all expenditures, grants and contracts as of the end of each fiscal year, including all fund balances; such audit to be completed and such auditor’s report to be issued by January 1 of the following year.

The Board may establish by resolution the scope of the annual audit which may include among other things an audit of the funds received and expended pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order by any recipient agency, including but not limited to the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Beaches and Harbors.

(j)  The District shall manage its revenues and issue debt in a manner so as to ensure that sufficient funds are available in accordance with the terms of the Master Indenture to finance all capital outlay projects specified in Section 3 of this resolution and in Section 8 of the 1992 Order by the end of fiscal year 2008-09, and shall annually prepare a Plan of Revenues and Expenditures for the entire life of the 1992 Assessment and the Additional Assessment which demonstrates such availability of funds.  The annual Plan of Revenues and Expenditures shall be prepared following completion of the annual audit referred to in subsection (i) of this Section and shall be adopted by the Board prior to June 30 of each year.  In preparing the Plan of Revenues and Expenditures the District shall consult with an independent Financial Consultant, and may incorporate directly or by reference all or any portion of the engineer’s report prepared by the District for that fiscal year.

Section 22.  The Additional Assessment shall be levied for a period of twenty-two (22) years beginning with the fiscal year in which such Additional Assessment is first levied and collected by the District.

Section 23.  (a)  In each of the first twenty (20) years after the date the Additional Assessment is first levied and collected, a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of all proceeds of the Additional Assessment levied and collected by the District shall be used for capital outlay projects, including, but not limited to, acquisition and improvement of real property.  For purposes of this resolution, capital outlay projects include the servicing of bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the District.

(b)  On an annual basis, fifteen percent (15%) of all proceeds of the Additional Assessment and the 1992 Assessment (or such greater percentage of the proceeds of the Additional Assessment and the 1992 Assessment, not to exceed twenty percent (20%), as determined by the Board) shall be set aside and designated as the maintenance and servicing amount, and shall be used only to maintain and service capital outlay projects funded by the District pursuant to the 1992 Order and this resolution.

Such maintenance and servicing amount of the Additional Assessment and the 1992 Assessment shall be allocated each year as follows: (1) to the County (for the benefit of the Department of Parks and Recreation, or the Department of Beaches and Harbors, or any other applicable department as determined by the Board), an amount obtained by multiplying the aggregate amount of such maintenance and servicing funds to be allocated for such year by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of parcels of land in the unincorporated area of the County and the denominator of which is the total number of parcels of land in the County; (2) to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, or any other agency designated by it to manage properties acquired pursuant to this resolution or the 1992 Order by the Conservancy or any joint powers entity to which the Conservancy is a party which has acquired properties pursuant to the 1992 Order or this resolution, a percent of the total maintenance and servicing funds that equals the percent of the total capital outlay funds that are allocated to and/or to be expended by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority pursuant to Section 3 of this resolution; and (3) except as provided in the next paragraph, to each incorporated city within the District, an amount obtained by multiplying the maintenance and servicing funds remaining after the allocations described in the preceding clauses (1) and (2) by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of parcels of land in such city and the denominator of which is the total number of parcels of land in the incorporated areas of the County.  Of the maintenance and servicing funds allocated to the County in this resolution and the 1992 Order, the Department of Beaches and Harbors shall be allocated an amount obtained by dividing the total amount of funds allocated to the Department of Beaches and Harbors in this resolution and the 1992 Order by the total amount of funds allocated for specific identified projects and for per parcel grants to the Department of Parks and Recreation in this resolution and the 1992 Order.  On an annual basis, one million seven hundred thousand dollars ($1,700,000) shall be deducted from the maintenance and servicing funds allocated to the City of Los Angeles in this resolution and the 1992 Order, and such amount shall be used to pay debt service on bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness issued to fund the project described in Section 8(b)2.V.x of the 1992 Order.   In the event of an inconsistency between this Section and Section 23 of the 1992 Order, this Section shall prevail.

The allocations described in this Section 23 shall be made only to those recipients which certify that (1) such funds shall be used only to maintain and service projects funded by the District pursuant to this resolution or the 1992 Order, and (2) such funds shall be used to supplement existing levels of service and not to fund existing levels of service.

(c)  If operation and maintenance and/or ownership of the County’s beaches are transferred to a non-County entity in the future, the funds allocated pursuant to this section for maintenance and servicing of the County’s beaches shall be re-allocated by the Board for maintenance and servicing of projects funded by this resolution or the 1992 Order.

Section 24.   (a)  To the extent permitted by applicable law and not inconsistent with the other provisions of this resolution, in each fiscal year, as determined by the independent audit conducted pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 21, a portion of the excess of (1) assessment revenues collected pursuant to this resolution and the 1992 Order plus investment earnings thereon, and any other revenues of the District (excluding bond proceeds or any other evidences of indebtedness, but including collections of delinquent assessments and interest and penalties thereon), all cumulative to the date of the independent audit, over (2) amounts expended for capital outlay (excluding capital outlay funded with bond proceeds or other borrowed funds), and amounts expended or allocated for maintenance and servicing, administrative costs and debt service, all cumulative to the date of the independent audit (such excess being hereinafter referred to as the “Excess”), shall be allocated by the Board for grants in furtherance of the purposes of this resolution and the 1992 Order.  The independent Financial Consultant referred to in subsection (j) of Section 21 shall annually determine what portion of the Excess from the prior year may be made available in the next fiscal year pursuant to this Section 24 without impairing the ability of the District to finance all capital outlay projects specified in Section 3 of this resolution and in Section 8 of the 1992 Order by the end of fiscal year 2008-09 and without impairing the District’s ability to issue or repay bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (such amount being hereinafter referred to as the “Available Excess”).  The independent Financial Consultant shall make a recommendation as to the Available Excess to the District for its use in preparing the annual Plan of Revenues and Expenditures referred to in subsection (j) of Section 21.  In each year, 80% of the Available Excess as identified in the Plan of Revenue and Expenditures approved by the Board shall be allocated by the Board pursuant to this section and in accordance with the following schedule (to the extent permitted by applicable law and not inconsistent with the other provisions of this resolution): 80% shall be allocated for capital projects and 20% shall be allocated for maintenance and servicing of those capital projects.

(b)  Over the life of the 1992 Assessment and the Additional Assessment, a total of ten percent (10%) of the funds expended for capital outlay pursuant to subsection (a) shall be allocated for competitive grants pursuant to subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 3, which shall be allocated equally among each supervisorial district; the remainder of the funds to be expended pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section shall be equally distributed between the category of highest priority regional open space and recreation projects (as defined in this Section) and the category of regional park and recreation facilities (as determined by the District).  Of the annual amount of funds allocated pursuant to this Section, capital funds shall be available only to those agencies which have expended or committed to expenditure the capital funds allocated to said agencies in any category of expenditure under this resolution and the 1992 Order, except that the amount available for the category of regional park and recreation facilities shall be equally distributed between grants to the County and incorporated cities.  Grants to incorporated cities shall be made only to those cities that have expended or committed to expenditure all funds allocated to them in all categories of expenditure under this resolution and the 1992 Order.  In any year, first priority for expenditure of funds under this section shall be given to land acquisition projects. Capital funds not encumbered in any fiscal year shall be available for reallocation by the Board, pursuant to this section, in the subsequent annual allocation.

(c)  For purposes of this section, “highest priority regional open space and recreation projects” shall mean projects for the purposes of and expended by the agencies identified in subsections (b)(2), (b)(9), (b)(14), and (d) of Section 3, including the Santa Clarita Woodlands, and for projects along Ballona Creek consistent with the purposes and conditions specified in subsection (b)(9).

Section 25.  Individuals who qualify for the California Property Tax Postponement Program (Sections 20581 et seq. of the California Revenue and Taxation Code) may also qualify for postponement of the Additional Assessment.  The Treasurer and Tax Collector of the County shall notify those individuals who have qualified for the Property Tax Postponement Program of this provision.

Section 26.  The method of assessment contained in the Engineer’s Report with respect to the 1992 Assessment is hereby amended to the extent and with the effect that the portion of any vacant parcel of land, and the vacant portion of any partially improved parcel of land, in excess of two and one-half acres shall not be assessed.  Notwithstanding any discrepancies, differences or variations between the Engineer’s Report with respect to the 1992 Assessment and the Engineer’s Report with respect to the Additional Assessment, it is the intent of this resolution that the method of assessment with respect to both the 1992 Assessment and the Additional Assessment shall be identical in all respects.  Any such discrepancies, differences or variations in the method of assessment shall be resolved in favor of the Engineer’s Report with respect to the Additional Assessment.

Section 27.  Any revenue generated by the District (including the proceeds of any indebtedness of the District) which is available for capital outlay purposes, may be applied to fund any project contemplated under the 1992 Order or this resolution.  In furtherance of this provision, proceeds of the 1992 Assessment which are to be applied to capital outlay purposes may be applied to fund projects under this resolution, and proceeds of the Additional Assessment which are to be applied to capital outlay purposes may be applied to fund projects under the 1992 Order.   In addition, any proceeds of the 1992 Assessment or the Additional Assessment which are to be applied to capital outlay purposes may be applied to pay the principal of, or interest on, any bonds, notes or other indebtedness of the District, regardless of the time of issuance or the use of the proceeds of such bonds, notes or indebtedness.

Section 28.  In case any provision of this resolution shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this resolution shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

Section 29.  This resolution shall not take effect unless approved by a majority of the voters of the County voting on the matter at a general or special election called by the Board for such purpose.  If so approved by the voters, this resolution shall take effect, and the Additional Assessment shall exist and be deemed approved, all as of the date of the election, without regard to the date of certification of the election results.

Section 30.  The officers and employees of the County and ex officio the officers and employees of the District, are and each of them acting alone is, hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions which are necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution and the 1992 Order.

Section 31.  The County Counsel is hereby authorized and directed to prepare a final text of this resolution, incorporating all amendments to the version on file with the Clerk of the Board on June 13, 1996, and approved by the Board, including appropriate paragraph numbering and/or lettering, cross references and other technical or conforming changes as County Counsel may deem necessary or desirable to carry out the Board’s intent and for clarity and ease of reading.  Technical and conforming changes shall include but not be limited to the insertion of new paragraphs in the appropriate place with an appropriate numerical or letter designation and the renumbering or re-lettering of other subsections and paragraphs to reflect the insertion, together with the updating of cross-references to such renumbered and re-lettered subsections and paragraphs in other portions of the resolution.

Section 32.  The list of improvements in the Final Engineer’s Report is amended to conform with descriptive and fiscal changes made to projects in Section 3 of this resolution.
The foregoing resolution was on the 18th day of June, 1996, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and ex-officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts, agencies and authorities for which said Board so acts.

JOANNE STURGES, Executive Officer-Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los
Angeles


By: _______________________________
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DE WITT W. CLINTON
County Counsel


By: _______________________________
       Principal Deputy County Counsel

In November 2002, County voters approved by a 73%-27% margin Yaroslavsky’s proposal to enact a 3 cents/sq.ft. parcel tax on improvements (buildings) to fund trauma and emergency services and bioterrorism preparedness efforts Countywide. The measure is expected to yield some $168 million annually, and represents the first increase in the base property tax approved by voters since the enactment of Proposition 13 in 1978.

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL TAX ELECTION TO BE
HELD IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002, AND CONSOLIDATING THE
SPECIAL TAX ELECTION WITH OTHER ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that it is necessary and desirable that the County of Los Angeles (the “County”) levy a special tax within the County to provide funding for the Countywide System of Trauma Centers, Emergency Medical Services, and Bioterrorism Response; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it necessary and essential to submit the question of a special tax to the qualified voters within the County at a special tax election to be held on November 5, 2002, and to consolidate such election with the other elections to be held on that date;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles as follows:

Section 1. A special tax election shall be held and the same is hereby called and ordered to be held in the County on the 5th day of November, 2002, for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the County the question of a special tax to be levied by the County in the amounts and for the purposes hereinafter set forth.

Section 2. Commencing with Fiscal Year 2003-2004, an annual special tax to raise revenue to support the Countywide System of Trauma Centers, Emergency Medical Services, and Bioterrorism Response, is hereby imposed upon all improved parcels located within the County of Los Angeles. For the initial fiscal year, July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, the special tax shall be the sum of 3 cents per square foot of structural improvements, excluding the square footage of improvements used for parking. For each fiscal year after 2003-2004, the Board of Supervisors shall by majority vote set the rate of the tax; however, in any fiscal year the rate may be set no higher than the amount of 3 cents per square foot, as adjusted by the cumulative increases, if any, to the medical component of the Western Urban Consumer Price Index from July 1, 2003, as established by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. If for any fiscal year the Board fails to set the rate, the tax shall continue at the same rate as the preceding year.

Section 3. As used in this resolution, the “Countywide System of Trauma Centers” refers to that System coordinated by the Department of Health Services, consisting of both public and privately operated resources, that seeks to build and sustain a Countywide system of prehospital and hospital trauma care including care provided in, or en route to, from, or between acute care hospitals, Trauma Centers, or other health care facilities. The funds raised by this tax will be used, in part, to maintain all aspects of the Countywide System of Trauma Centers; to expand the System to cover all areas of the County; to provide financial incentives to keep existing Trauma Centers within the System; to pay for the costs of Trauma Centers, including physician and other personnel costs; to defray administrative expenses related to the foregoing, including the payment of salaries and benefits of Department of Health Services personnel and other incidental expenses; and to recover the costs of the special election called pursuant to Section 1 hereof, and the reasonable costs incurred by the County in spreading, billing and collecting the special tax.

Section 4. As used in this resolution, the term “Trauma Center” refers to a hospital that maintains specialized equipment and a panel of physician specialists, including a trauma surgeon available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to treat trauma patients. In the case of private hospitals, “Trauma Centers” are designated by the County and operate pursuant to a contract with the County. Trauma is a critical injury most often caused by a physical force, frequently the consequence of motor vehicle crashes, falls, drowning, gun shots, fires and burns, stabbing, or blunt assault. Trauma is the leading cause of death in the first four decades of life, and the cost of maintaining a Trauma Center is often not fully reimbursed by insurance, even when a trauma patient has insurance.

Section 5. As used in this resolution, “Emergency Medical Services” refers to pre-hospital and hospital critical and urgent emergency care, including care provided in, or en route to, from or between acute care hospitals or other health care facilities. It is observed that in the 1990s there has been a decline in the number of facilities available in the County which provide Trauma Care or Emergency Medical Services, while at the same time the number of emergency and critical visits has dramatically increased. In addition, there is a growing percentage of emergency patients who are uninsured, such that emergency facilities are frequently uncompensated for their services. Eighty percent of California licensed emergency departments lost money during the 1998-99 fiscal year. These conditions have left many hospitals with no alternative but to close the doors of their emergency departments. As emergency care is often provided by the nearest available facility, such closures impact everyone in the County, whether or not they are insured.

Section 6. The funds raised by this tax will be used, in part, to coordinate and maintain a countywide system of Emergency Medical Services; to pay for the costs of Emergency Medical Services, including physician and other personnel costs; to defray administrative expenses related to the foregoing, including the payment of salaries and benefits of Department of Health Services personnel and other incidental expenses; and to recover the costs of the special election called pursuant to Section 1 hereof, and the reasonable costs incurred by the County in spreading, billing and collecting the special tax.

Section 7. As used in this resolution, “Bioterrorism Response” refers to activities undertaken, directly or through contract, or coordinated by, the County Department of Health Services to address the medical needs of persons exposed to bioterrorist or chemical attack. The funds raised by this tax will be used, in part, to enable the stockpiling of safe and appropriate medicines to treat persons affected by a bioterrorist or chemical attack; to train healthcare workers and other emergency personnel in dealing with the medical needs of those exposed to a bioterrorist or chemical attack; to provide medical screenings and treatment for exposure to biological or chemical agents in the event of bioterrorist or chemical attack; to ensure the availability of mental health services in the event of terrorist attacks; to defray administrative expenses related to the foregoing including the payment of salaries and benefits of Department of Health Services personnel and other incidental expenses; and to recover the costs of the special election called pursuant to Section 1 hereof, and reasonable costs incurred by the County in spreading, billing and collecting the special tax.

Section 8. The Auditor-Controller of the County of Los Angeles shall create a new account into which the proceeds from the special tax authorized herein shall be deposited. The Auditor-Controller shall file a report with the County Board of Supervisors, by no later than January 1, 2005, and by January 1 of each year thereafter, stating the amount of funds collected and expended pursuant to this measure, and also the status of the projects required or authorized to be funded pursuant to sections 3, 6 and 7 herein.

Section 9. The Department of Health Services of the County of Los Angeles shall expend the revenues raised from this special tax only for the purposes identified in sections 3, 6 and 7 herein.

Section 10. The Treasurer and Tax Collector of the County of Los Angeles shall collect the special tax authorized herein, for the initial Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and for subsequent fiscal years, on the tax roll at the same time and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties as the ad valorem property taxes fixed and collected by or on behalf of the County of
Los Angeles.

Section 11. Insofar as feasible, all laws and procedures regarding exemptions, due dates, installment payments, corrections, cancellations, refunds, late payments, penalties, liens and collections for secured roll ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the collection of this special tax. The secured roll tax bills shall be the only notices required for any special tax levied. The Assessor shall establish and administer an appeals process to address and correct potential errors or inequities in the levy of the special tax authorized herein.

Section 12. The Proposition for the County to levy a special tax shall appear on the ballot substantially as follows:
PRESERVATION OF TRAUMA CENTERS AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; BIOTERRORISM RESPONSE.
To avoid the life-threatening shutdown of Los Angeles County’s trauma network, maintain and expand the trauma network countywide, ensure more timely response to critical and urgent medical emergencies and respond effectively to biological or chemical terrorism, shall all property owners pay an annual tax of three cents per square foot of improvements (buildings) on developed property?
YES ____
NO ____
Section 13. The votes cast for and against the Proposition shall be separately counted and if the Proposition receives the required number of votes, two-thirds of the votes of the qualified electors voting on the Proposition, the special tax in the amounts and for the purposes stated herein shall be effective and levied by the County.

Section 14. All qualified voters residing within the County shall be permitted to vote in the election and in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held as nearly as practicable in conformity with the Elections Code of the State of California.

Section 15. The special election called by this resolution shall be consolidated with the elections conducted by the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to be held in the County of
Los Angeles on November 5, 2002, and the Proposition shall be placed on the same ballot to the extent the elections are concurrent, and the same precincts, polling places, election officers and facilities shall be used for the elections.
Section 16. Based upon all of the facts before it on this matter, the Board of Supervisors finds that the submission of this question of a special tax to the voters is not subject to, or is exempt from, the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) on the independent grounds that:
A. It is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15378
(b)(3 ) relating to ballot measures submitted to a vote of the people. The proposal for a special tax is required by law to be submitted to a vote as set out in this Resolution.
B. It is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15378 (b)(4) relating to the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
Further, the Board finds that the submission of this question to the voters also would be exempt from CEQA, if it were a project, on the independent basis of the following exemptions:
A. It is exempt based upon Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b)(8) and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15273 (a) because the Board of Supervisors finds as specifically set out in this Resolution, that the special tax is for the purpose of (A) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, (B) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials, (C) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and ( D) obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas;

B. It is exempt based upon 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15301 relating to the operation and minor alteration of existing public or private structures with a negligible expansion of an existing use;
C. It is exempt based upon 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061 (b)(3) which provides the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the submission of this question to the voters will have a significant effect on the environment.

The foregoing resolution was on the _____ day of July, 2002, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and ex-officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts, agencies and authorities for which said Board so acts.
VIOLET VARONA-LUKENS, Executive Officer-Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles
By:________________________________
Deputy
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LLOYD W. PELLMAN
County Counsel
By:_____________________________
Deputy
Home | Supervisor’s Biography | Meet The Staff | District Map and Communities | Legislative Accomplishments
Press Releases | Yaroslavsky’s Enacted Ballot Measures | County Budget | How To Get In Touch | Archives
Los Angeles County Online

Zev Yaroslavsky, L.A. County Supervisor, Third District

During a career in public life spanning nearly four decades, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has been at the forefront of Los Angeles County’s biggest issues, from transportation to the environment to health care to the arts. He has been a pioneering advocate for the region’s homeless population and has played a key role in efforts to reform the county’s law enforcement agencies.

Yaroslavsky was first elected to office in 1975, stunning the political establishment by winning the Los Angeles City Council’s coveted 5th District seat at the age of 26. On the council, Yaroslavsky honed his fiscal skills as chairman of the Finance Committee and earned a reputation as being unafraid to tackle controversial issues, including the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of excessive force and its improper spying on law-abiding residents. He co-authored two landmark initiatives with his colleague, the late Councilman Marvin Braude: Proposition U, which cut in half the size of new commercial developments near residential neighborhoods, and Proposition O, which banned oil drilling along the city’s shoreline.

As the Los Angeles Times said of his City Hall tenure: “Yaroslavsky was more often than not a dominant player in virtually every municipal initiative of note since he joined the City Council.”

In 1994, Yaroslavsky was elected to the five-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, representing the western part of the county and a constituency of two million people. He is now serving his fifth term as the board’s Third District representative. Because of term limits, he will leave office at the close of 2014.

As a member of the Board of Supervisors, Yaroslavsky quickly emerged as a leader on fiscal, health care, transportation, cultural and environmental matters. He authored the 1996 Proposition ‘A’ park bond, which resulted in the preservation of a broad swath of rural open space and the development of urban parks throughout the county. He also authored the 2002 Proposition ‘B’ trauma tax, approved by more than 73% of county voters—a measure credited with saving two public hospitals from potential closure and keeping the county’s emergency services intact.

Yaroslavsky was the driving force behind the hugely successful Orange Line busway across the San Fernando Valley, which opened in 2005 to record ridership, and he pushed hard for creation of the new light rail Expo Line, which, when completed by 2015, will travel to Santa Monica from Downtown Los Angeles. (The current terminus is in Culver City.) At the same time, Yaroslavsky, a member of the Metro board of directors, is leading the drive to bring a subway—the Purple Line—to the Westside.

In the area of social and human services, Yaroslavsky has launched a series of groundbreaking initiatives that have measurably improved life for individuals and families on the margins of society. For example, he is bringing innovative school-based health clinics to largely working-class neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley, where many residents are living below the poverty line and rarely seek medical attention. One of those is based on the Sun Valley Middle School campus, while two more are being constructed at Monroe and San Fernando high schools. Yaroslavsky also has been credited with helping to restore the lives of the region’s chronically homeless through his widely praised Project 50 program and its spinoffs, which have provided permanent supportive housing for hundreds of people who’ve been identified as most likely to die on the streets.

In the arts, meanwhile, Yaroslavsky championed efforts to rebuild and modernize the world famous Hollywood Bowl amphitheater and was instrumental in the development of architect Frank Gehry’s iconic Walt Disney Concert Hall, home of the L.A. Philharmonic Orchestra. He has also helped fund major investments in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Natural History and the Valley Performing Arts Center.

More recently, Yaroslavsky is credited with playing a leading role in the sweeping reforms now underway in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. In 2011, he authored the board’s motion to create the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence, a blue-ribbon panel that investigated alleged deputy brutality in the nation’s biggest county lockup and suggested dozens of measures to restore the department’s integrity.

Beyond his work with Los Angeles County, Yaroslavsky has long been associated with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., that promotes the development of democratic institutions in burgeoning democracies. He has monitored four elections for NDI: Romania (1990), Mexico (2000), Ukraine (2004) and Nigeria (2011). He has conducted seminars on democratic institution-building in Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Bosnia/Herzegovina.

Yaroslavsky was born December 21, 1948 in Los Angeles, California. He earned an M.A. in British Imperial History and a B.A. in Economics and History, both from UCLA. He is a graduate of Fairfax High School in Los Angeles.

It’s been more than a week since the Metrolink crash and I’m still haunted by Beckie Pompel.

I met her at Chatsworth High School well past midnight on that horrible Friday night, September 12. She was among more than 100 people who’d gathered there in gut-wrenching uncertainty, awaiting word on the fate of loved ones whose names were missing from lists of the injured. There was despondency, and there were tears.

I’d arrived at the school after spending hours at the scene of the head-on collision. There, amid the overpowering smell of diesel fuel, I witnessed first-hand the heroic response of an army of firefighters and law enforcement officers as they clawed through the tangled debris, where 25 Metrolink commuters perished.

At one point, when the flag-draped body of uniformed LAPD officer Spree Desha was lifted from the train, I watched the firefighters halt their grim work. With helmets off, they sat motionless atop the Metrolink’s toppled first passenger car, as though the magnitude of what they’d been doing since early evening had finally sunk in.

For me, I could think only of how that single tragedy was being multiplied across two dozen other families, of the fragile and fleeting nature of life—thoughts that would become even more overpowering in the hours ahead at Chatsworth High.

When Sheriff Lee Baca first asked me to accompany him to the school, I was reluctant. I didn’t want to deal with the immense grief I knew would be awaiting us. However, I also thought that perhaps I could provide a measure of comfort, that maybe I could hold someone’s hand or put an arm around a shoulder. So, despite my anxiety, I went.

Over the years, I’ve seen too many fatal disasters—plane crashes, fires, floods, earthquakes, even the last Metrolink crash in Glendale. Yet none of them, not even this accident, had the emotional impact of what I’d encounter at Chatsworth High, with scores of distraught people praying for the best but fearing for the worst. Many had been waiting for news about their families and friends for eight hours. They were increasingly anxious, despite the best efforts of our fine County mental health specialists and the L.A. city volunteers who’d been dispatched to the school.

Beckie Pompel seemed to be an exception.

When I arrived, the 63-year-old wife of Metrolink passenger Howard Pompel recognized me and immediately introduced herself. She was kind and open, and she instantly put me at ease. As we shook hands, she told me she was reasonably optimistic that her husband had survived the crash, even though there was no record of him being transported to a hospital. He always rode in the last car, the safest one. He’ll turn up, she said.

My heart sank. I couldn’t be as upbeat. A few hours earlier, I’d been told by fire officials that two commuters, whom they did not identify, had in fact died in that final car. I gamely encouraged her to keep praying but, in my gut, I had a sinking feeling that she was never going to see her husband again.

That night, after getting home in the wee hours, I couldn’t sleep. I kept thinking about all those shattered lives and about Beckie Pompel. I felt a bond with her. And, like her, I wanted to believe.

Sometime after 4:00 a.m., the names of the fatalities began to trickle in. When I first saw the list, I quickly searched for Howard Pompel, hoping beyond hope his name wasn’t there. But it was. The discovery sucked the air out of me. I knew that the smiling, optimistic face I’d seen only hours earlier was now gone, replaced by grief and anguish over the loss of a 69-year-old husband, the father of three, a grandfather of five.

I know that the public is often cynical about why politicians dash to the scenes of calamitous events, as I did on that tragic Friday night. The rap is that we’re just looking for publicity and visibility. In some cases, that cynicism is justified.

I can only speak for myself: Throughout my political life, I’ve made it a practice to get out of the comfort zone of my Civic Center office and into the communities I serve. In my experience, this is the only way to get unfettered and unfiltered information on the performance of our government agencies. What’s more, County workers on the front-lines have told me that they appreciate the show of support. We are, after all, on the same team.

Maybe more important, in times of tragedy I have the chance to see and feel the real-life struggles that people confront, to develop a level of empathy that can’t be achieved by reading the statistical reports and charts that move across my desk.

To me, this deeper understanding of the kind of pain suffered by Beckie Pompel and so many others like her is essential to my service as an elected official. Sure, we’ll learn from this tragedy. We’ll plug the safety gaps that were exposed in this accident. Rules will change, new regulations will be imposed and investments in new technology will be made. The sooner the better.

But more than anything else, I’m motivated by an unconditional commitment to never having to look another Beckie Pompel in the eye.

Click here to read more blog entries.