Carson City Council
May 6, 2025

 Pavement maintenance being performed on Lomita Boulevard  Preparation of the upcoming scheduled slurry seal projects, in June, the team is doing asphalt patching and crack sealing in the designated locations. o Status as of July 25, 2024
 The team has completed the slurry sealing projects along with asphalt patching and crack sealing in designated locations. Special concrete projects have been undertaken by our team at Anderson and Carson Parks.
o Status as of Sept. 30, 2024
 Pavement maintenance is being performed on Lomita Boulevard, ongoing maintenance and monitoring until CIP project takes place in 2025.  Preparation of the upcoming scheduled slurry seal projects, the team is doing asphalt patching and crack sealing in the designated locations. Update: All slurry seal preparation tasks were completed mid–July 2024.
 Our team continues to work on special concrete projects still in progress at Anderson Park – assignments completed October 10, 2024. o Status as of December 19, 2024
 The contractor will use a two-to-three-week rotation for the seven maintenance zones. Service requests to address large potholes, deteriorated surface areas and/or sinkholes due to sub-grade/base failures will be addressed immediately.  Temporary asphalt ramping will be used to eliminate sidewalk deviations for safe pedestrian travel until permanent concrete repairs can take place. o Status as of January 16, 2025
 Ongoing asphalt & concrete pavement maintenance and repair tasks by maintenance zones 1-7 on a 2 to 3 weeks rotation per maintenance zone. Also, immediate repair by service requests to eliminate known large potholes that pose hazards, deteriorated surface areas and/or sinkholes due to sub-grade/base failure or from undergrade structure failures.
 Temporary asphalt ramping to eliminate sidewalk deviations immediately for safe pedestrian travel until permanent concrete repairs can to place.  Vegetation and debris abatement/illegal dumping removal citywide. o Status as of February 20, 2025:
 On-going maintenance, repair/replacement of asphalt pavement sections maintenance zones 1-7
 Sidewalk inspection per maintenance zones 1-7 grinding, ramping for safe pedestrian travel and/or replacement
 On-going temporary repairs on Lomita Blvd. until CIP project takes place  Respond and address service requests city -wide for pavement, sidewalks/curb & gutter, illegal dumping and overgrown vegetation by priority. o Status as of March 20, 2025:
o Asphalt crew is currently working paving Del Amo eastbound from Main Street to Kay Calas bridge.
o Concrete is finishing up concrete maintenance on Broadacres. o Status as of April 21, 2025: Northbound Figueroa between Del Amo Blvd and I405 concrete, curb and gutter project scheduled for completion on April 24, 2025. Del Amo Blvd from Main Street to Kay Calas Bridge concrete project is scheduled for completion on April 23, 2025.

• MAINTENANCE: SIGNING & STRIPING AND GRAFFITI ABATEMENT o Location: Citywide
o Description: Monthly summary of work performed by City maintenance crews who regularly inspect the City’s infrastructure and perform preventative maintenance to ensure safe and cost-effective operations.

Public Works Department April 2025 Monthly Report

o Status as of October 2024:
 Traffic sign asset management underway (over 5,000 traffic signs) on the main arterial streets throughout the city . Replacements, upgrades per CA -MUTCD and repairs.
o Status as of May 20, 2024:
 Curb painting maintenance citywide.
 Fabricate and install new traffic signs per approved engineered traffic plans at various locations.
 ONGOING-Sign Shop-Fabricate traffic signs per California-Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) to replace deteriorated or obsolete signs that have surpassed their life expectancy and no longer have the proper reflectivity per MUTCD standards.
 Prepare for annual (in-house) city wide restriping to start by Mid-Nov. to early Dec. 2024 weather permitting.
o Status as of July 25, 2024
 Layout and re-striping of newly slurry sealed streets city-wide. o Status as of August 26, 2024
 Traffic signs & pavement marking maintenance citywide per maintenance zones one (1) through seven (7).
 Fabricate and install new traffic signs per work orders from city engineering division and service requests from the public regarding damaged and missing signage.
o Status as of December 19, 2024
 Layout and re-striping of newly slurry sealed streets city-wide.  Ongoing:
• Traffic signs & pavement marking maintenance citywide per maintenance zones one (1) through seven (7).
• Fabricate and install new traffic signs per work orders from the Engineering Division and public service requests.
o Status as January 16, 2025:
 Curb painting maintenance citywide.
 Fabricate and install new traffic signs per approved engineered traffic plans at various locations.
• ONGOING-Sign Shop-Fabricate traffic signs per California-Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) to replace deteriorated or obsolete signs that have surpassed their life expectancy and no longer have the proper reflectivity per MUTCD standards.
• Annual (in-house) citywide restriping will start after winter months winter months.
o Status as of January 16, 2025:
 Layout and re-striping of newly slurry sealed streets city-wide, weather permitting. • ONGOING
• Traffic signs & pavement marking maintenance citywide per maintenance zones one (1) through seven (7).
o Status as of February 20, 2025: Ongoing
 Fabricate and install new traffic signs per work orders from city engineering division and service requests from the public regarding damaged and missing  Graffiti Abatement citywide
 Restore/maintenance pavement markings per maintenance zones 1-7 o Status as of March 20, 2025:

Public Works Department April 2025 Monthly Report

 Fabricate and install new traffic signs per work orders from city engineering division and service requests from the public regarding damaged and missing  Graffiti Abatement citywide
 Restore/maintenance pavement markings per maintenance zones 1-7. o Status as of April 21, 2025: Ongoing

• TREE MAINTENANCE: TRIMMING CITYWIDE
o The city contract for tree maintenance is scheduled to expire in the Fall of 2024. Staff are gathering information to create an RFP.
o In-house tree crew working on (backlog) work order/service requests in all maintenance zones (1 – 7).
o In-house tree crew maintain newly planted trees according to tree watering route. o West Coast Arborist (city contractor) is currently working on the maintenance tree route. o Status as of late July 2024: Special tree planting projects started at Carson Park o Status as of August 26, 2024: Special tree planting was completed as scheduled. o Status as of December 19, 2024: West Coast Arborist (city contractor) is currently working on the maintenance tree routes.
o Status as of February 20, 2025:
 Tree pruning by city contractors in tree maintenance zones  In-house tree crew performing maintenance per maintenance zones 1-7  City crew planting new trees in locations where trees have been removed or need to be replaced
 Respond and address tree service requests city-wide
o Status as of March 20, 2025:
 Tree pruning by city contractors in tree maintenance zones  In-house tree crew performing maintenance per maintenance zones 1-7  City crew planting new trees in locations where trees have been removed or have died
 Respond and address tree service requests city-wide
o Status as of April 21, 2025: No update

FLEET AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE DIVISION

The Fleet & Facilities Maintenance Division is the second half of Public Works’ operations at the Corporate Yard. It is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the municipal and park facilities in addition to the City’s fleet vehicles and heavy equipment. These services enhance the cleanliness of the city, enable the safe use of public spaces, and provide greenery to increase the beautification of the city.

• PW 1640: PARK PLAYGROUND RUBBERIZED SURFACE REPLACEMENT o Location: All Parks that have rubberized play surfaces. Dolphin Park excluded. o Description: Replace the damaged and worn-out rubberized play surface at all parks o Status: ON HOLD
 City staff have used all available materials and are preparing a Purchase Order for additional materials to continue repair work.
o Status as of July 25, 2024: ON GOING
o Status as of August 26, 2024: ON GOING
o Status as of April 21, 2025: City staff continue to patch deteriorated areas at playgrounds city wide.

Public Works Department April 2025 Monthly Report

• PW 1712: PARK HVAC SYSTEMS
o Location: All Parks
o Description: Assess and replace over 50 HVAC units that are past their useful and serviceable life at all 12 park facilities. Design and install brand new HVAC at Veterans Park and Gym.
o Status: Anderson Park, Dolphin Park Office, Foisia Park Office have been completed. o Current Phase: PROJECT ONGOING
o Status as of February 21, 2024: No update
o Status as of April 24, 2024: No update
o Status as of May 20, 2024: No update
o Status as of July 25, 2024: No update
o Status as of August 26, 2024: New package units have been procured. o Status as of February 20, 2025: No update
o Status as of March 20, 2025: 3 New Package Units installed at Hemingway Park. o Status as of April 21, 2025: Ongoing

• P W1416: CALAS & FOISIA PARK RE-ROOFING
o Location: Calas & Foisia Park
o Description: Repair the roof at both snack bar and main office due to leaking roof. o Current Phase: Construction at Calas Park is Complete; Pre-procurement for Foisia Park o Status as of October 26, 2023: PROJECT COMPLETE
o PREPARING FORMAL PROJECT CLOSEOUT
o Status as of February 21, 2024: PROJECT CLOSEOUT
o Status as of April 24, 2024: No update
o Status as of May 20, 2024: No update
o Status as of July 25, 2024: No update
o Status as of August 26, 2024: No update
o Status as of January 16, 2025: Preparing scopes and specs for IFB in preparation for re- roof at Foisia Park.
o Status as of February 20, 2025: Ongoing
o Status as of March 20, 2025:
 Finalizing scope of work and preparation for IFB
o Status as of April 21, 2025: Scope of work has been completed preparing for IFB.

• PROJECT: SECURITY WALKING LIGHTS
o Location: Various parks and facilities Citywide
o Description: Repair of the damaged light poles at various parks o Status: COORDINATING
 Coordinating with Community Services staff to determine the desired lighting style.  Status as of April 24, 2024: No update
 Status as of July 25, 2024: No update
 Status as of August 26, 2024: No update
 Status as of January 16, 2025: Procured light poles for Perry Park  Status as of February 20, 2025: All existing light poles at Perry Park have been replaced.
 Status as of March 20, 2025: Ongoing installation of new lighting fixtures at Dominguez Park
 Status as of April 21, 2025: The new light pole installation at Perry Mini Park , Stevenson Park and Dominguez Park have been completed.

Public Works Department April 2025 Monthly Report

• PROJECT 1630: ELECTRICAL PANEL UPGRADE
o Location: Anderson Park
o Description: Install new electrical panel and switch gear o Status as of September 21, 2023: Staff soliciting proposals. o Status as of February 21, 2024: Three proposals received. o Status as of March 18, 2024: Going to City Council Meeting on May 7 , 2024, to award contract.
o Status as of April 24, 2024: City Attorney’s Office is drafting contract. o Status as of May 20, 2024: Currently being advertised in four trade journals per City Attorney’s direction.
o Status as of June 20, 2024: No update
o Status as of July 25, 2024: No update
o Status as of August 26, 2024: In procurement
o Status as of January 16, 2025: No update
o Status as of February 20, 2025: No update
o Status as of March 20, 2025: Electrical switchgear and fabrication at Anderson Park o Status as of April 21, 2025: Currently constructing a custom-made s witch gear panel approximately six (6) months out to completion.

• SAFETY NETTING INSTALLATION
o Location: City Hall
o Description: Install safety Netting to prevent injury from obsolete/damage ceiling tiles.

Approximately 20K Sq. Ft.
o Status as of February 8, 2025: 16K Sq. Ft. Completed
o Status as of February 20, 2025: Ongoing
o Status as of March 20, 2025: Ongoing – 80% Complete
o Status as of April 21, 2025: Ongoing – 90% Complete

• CITYWIDE FILTER REPLACEMMENT
o Location: All Civic Center, Corporate Yard and Park Facilities o Description: Purchase and replace all HVAC related filters due to the smoke from fires in the LA area.
o Status as of February 20, 2025: Ongoing
o Status as of March 20, 2025: Ongoing
o Status as of April 21, 2025: Project completed

• COMMUNITY CENTER REYKEY
o Community Center:
o Description: Remove and install new locksets, cores and keyways in all doors throughout the Community Center.
o Status as of February 20, 2025: Ongoing
o Status as of March 20, 2025: 50% Complete – Additional materials in procurement o Status as of April 21, 2025: Ongoing

• DOMINGUEZ PARK, ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING
o Location: Dominguez Park
o Description: Field lighting required due to copper wire theft. o Status as of March 20, 2025: 90% Complete
o Status as of April 21, 2025: COMPLETE: A new vandal-proof access cover, requiring a unique key to access, has been installed.

Project Name Citywide Fire Alarm Repairs and Enhancements Service Provider West Coast Fire & Integration
Summary July 5, 2022, Council approved the West Coast Fire & Integration contract for maintenance and monitoring services for all city fire systems from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2027.

Enhancing fire detection and safety for all facility users.

Update During the ongoing renovations to both the basement and second floor, our vendor has been an invaluable partner, ensuring that all Fire Life Safety (FLS) protocols are strictly adhered to while also assisting in updating any components that require enhancements. Their proactive collaboration with city personnel has been instrumental in identifying and addressing necessary improvements, ensuring that safety remains a top priority throughout the renovation process. Additionally, the city staff is actively working to enhance fire systems across all municipal facilities to align with the highest safety standards.

Project Name Public Safety/Emergency Services Community Initiatives Service Provider Public Safety/Emergency Services Department Summary Public Safety and Emergency Services Community Initiatives encompass a range of proactive efforts aimed at fostering safer and more resilient community. These initiatives typically involve engagement with the public, educational programs, and collaborative events. They focus on building positive relationships between law enforcement, Project Name Comprehensive Camera Coverage: City Facilities and Parks Service Provider Johnson Controls
Summary The Public Safety department is spearheading an initiative to implement video surveillance camera systems across all City and Park facilities. This proactive measure aims to discourage criminal activities and capture video evidence of any unlawful incidents. The objective is to enhance safety by reducing criminal incidents, creating a secure environment for both residents and park users.

Update Phase 3 of our citywide security enhancement project is nearing completion, and we’re excited to share updates on our continued efforts to improve safety across City of Carson facilities and recreational areas. As part of this initiative, access control systems are being expanded to include City Hall and Corporate Yard office suites—ensuring secure, controlled access for both staff and visitors.

Video surveillance and access control systems have already been successfully implemented at several parks, and the current phase focuses on expanding these efforts even further.

Phase 3 includes the installation of additional pole cameras to extend surveillance coverage across more parks and seamlessly integrate these upgrades into the city’s existing security infrastructure.

The team is actively evaluating system performance, identifying optimal camera placements, and incorporating advanced technology to strengthen monitoring capabilities.

These enhancements are designed to create a safer environment for the entire community by reinforcing security measures at key city locations.

Public Safety/Emergency Services Projects
emergency services personnel, and the community, ultimately enhancing preparedness and trust. Examples include public education on safety measures, community outreach events, and meetings to empower local leaders. Such initiatives are pivotal in strengthening the overall safety and well-being of a community.

Update Held a Block Captains Meeting on Wednesday, April 23rd, featuring speakers from the Community Relations Team and Community Development, highlighting Business Watch initiatives.

Parking Control Officers launched an educational campaign for AB 413, which prohibits parking within 20 feet of any intersection for 2 months. Vehicles in violation received warnings, as of May 1st, Parking Control Officers will begin to issue citations for vehicles in violation.

Code Enforcement Officers are currently conducting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) inspections across the business community. These inspections, which apply to businesses that meet permit criteria, began recently and will continue through December 2025.

Additionally, we’re excited to welcome our newly hired Animal Control Officer, Cesar Vargas.

Emergency Services and Public Safety have been actively engaging with the community in various initiatives. Recent initiatives have included public education on safety measures, community outreach events, and empowering local leaders through informational meetings. These efforts aim to equip residents with the knowledge and resources they need to stay safe, prepare for emergencies, and contribute to a more connected and secure community. If you're interested in bringing a training to your area, please reach out to [email protected].

Project Name Enhancing Traffic Safety: Analysis of Accident Reduction and LPR Camera Deployment Service Provider Motorola Solutions
Summary The consultant will supply the city with the most up-to-date version of the L-Series Rapidly Deployable Solar Powered Camera. This camera system, known as an Automatic License Plate Recognition (LPR) camera, will assist the City, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, in capturing essential investigative information and enhancing the safety of its residents. These cameras will be strategically positioned in specific locations throughout the city, including public rights of way and entrances to city facilities.

The LPR system will collect comprehensive vehicle data, including make, model, color, and speed, both during daytime and nighttime conditions. The City's Public Safety department is working in partnership with LASD and Public Works to decrease traffic accidents within the city. Staff members have created data maps, and the Traffic Engineering Division will assess these maps to identify any recurring patterns and make infrastructure adjustments as necessary.

Update ALPR trailers have been deployed to the following locations:

Location #1: N Avalon Blvd/ Idabel Ave
Location #2: SB Wilmington Ave
Location #3: Santa Fe Ave / Madison
There is a dedicated effort to ensure the safety of children during school drop-off and pick- up times. This is achieved by providing daily school parking enforcement at schools throughout Carson. Two officers are assigned each day to offer both education and enforcement at the schools.

Project Name Upgrading Radio Systems Project
Service Provider Mission Critical Information Systems
Summary In 2021, the City Council granted approval for the 'Radio Upgrade Project,' which allocated funds for the procurement of radios, radio equipment, batteries, and chargers necessary for transitioning the City from its UHF radio system to the Los Angeles Regional Interoperability Communication System (LA-RICS). Subsequently, the City Council sanctioned a contract with Mission Critical Information Systems to oversee the installation and programming, thus marking the successful completion of Phase 2 of the project. In September 2022, the City of Carson formalized a Hold Harmless Agreement with LA-RICS, granting the city the privilege of utilizing the platform.

Update We’re pleased to share that all radio installations have been successfully completed across multiple departments, significantly enhancing communication capabilities citywide. The distribution of Motorola APX4500 mobile radios is complete, supporting improved coordination and reliability throughout city operations. Radios continue to undergo flashing and maintenance as needed to ensure peak performance.

The final phase of the project involves completing mobile radio installations for the new Public Works fleet, following the successful rollout for the Public Safety fleet.

Project Name Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Service Provider Witt O’ Brien’s
Summary FEMA mandates a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) update every five years for all jurisdictions. The city's second update, however, is currently overdue. This plan serves to identify potential natural and human-induced hazards that the city may face vulnerability to and outlines strategies for mitigating or reducing risks associated with such incidents and events.

Update We’re excited to share that the City of Carson’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) has been officially approved by FEMA and formally adopted by City Council marking a major milestone in our resilience planning efforts. With these approvals in place, we now move into the implementation phase, integrating the HMP into the City’s General Plan and putting our mitigation strategies into action.

Thank you to everyone involved in bringing this plan to completion. We look forward to implementing these strategies to enhance community safety and preparedness.

Project Name Basement/Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Upgrade Project Service Provider Westberg + White, GM Interiors, Johnson Controls Summary The project is currently in its planning phase. Initially, the project scope only covered the upgrade of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). However, during the planning phase, it became evident that the Public Safety, Information Technology, and Emergency Services sectors could also derive substantial benefits from the upgrade. As a result, the revised scope of work encompasses upgrades for all four areas.

Update Renovation work remains on track and is progressing steadily toward the anticipated completion deadline. Carpeting and doors have been successfully installed, marking key milestones in the project. The next major step is the arrival of furniture, which is scheduled for delivery on April 15. We’re excited to see the space coming together and will continue to provide updates as we move closer to project completion.

Project Name Organizational Resilience: Internal Emergency Management Training Service Provider Westward Disaster
Summary The city is responsible for the operation and management of its Emergency Operations Center (EOC), with the aim of enhancing preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for emergencies and large-scale events. The consultant will furnish subject matter experts and instructors to aid in the creation and execution of a tailored EOC training program for city department staff.

Update Our Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Awareness Course took place on April 18th and received overall positive feedback. The course was a success and brings our city and leadership one step closer to being prepared for the next emergency. Next, Westward and the City of Carson will be working on the upcoming EOC role-specific training.

ITS CAPITAL PROJECTS
April 2025

1. WIFI IN PARKS
Description: WiFi Internet access at all City facilities to increase public safety, education, programs, and events.

Contract: Datagear
Term: 3 year maintenance
Budget: $420,272 ($350,000 [ARPA] + 70,272)
Current Spend: $286,373.60 (68.14%)
Project Start: May 15, 2023
Project Complete: March 18, 2024
Status: COMPLETED
Notice of termination issued to vendor on December 4, 2023.

Replacement vendor completed remaining (5) parks on March 18, 2024. • Mills Park 100%
• Carson Park 100%
• Veterans Park 100%
• Foisia Park 100%
• Stevenson Park 100%
• Anderson Park 100%
• Dominguez Park 100%
• Del Amo Park 100%
• Calas Park 100%
• Hemingway Park 100%
• Dolphin Park 100%
• Carriage Crest Park 100%

2. TYLER UPGRADE / ENERGOV IMPLEMENTATION
Description: Upgrade Tyler Munis to latest version, enable Cloud access, and add inventory module. Implement new p lanning, permitting , licensing, asset management, and citizen request software platform Energov.

Contract: Tyler Munis/Integrated Technology Partners
Term: 6 years
Budget: 1.3M [ARPA]
Current Spend: $921,965 incurred to date (71%)
Project Start: September 30, 2022
ETA: June 30, 2025
Status: ON SCHEDULE
• Employee Access Module Complete, In Production
• EP&L Planning Module Setup Complete, In Production
• EP&L Permitting Module Setup Complete, In Production
• Open Finance (Socrata) Module Setup Complete, In Production • 311 Civic Access Module Setup Complete, In Production • EP&L Business License Module Setup In Production

• Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) Module, Project Initiation Phase

Next Step:

• Review of Asset Inventory with Stakeholders
• Enterprise Asset Management Configuration Training

3. NETWORK SERVICES RELOCATION
Description: Ensure rapid recovery, accessibility, and increased security for all business-critical application services by re locating to a more equipped offsite location.

Contract: TBD
Term: 5 Years
Budget: TBD
Current Spend: $0
Project Start: December 1, 2023
ETA: June 30, 2025
Status: ON SCHEDULE
• RFP issued 12/1/23.
• Sole bid rejected 1/23/24.
• Data Center Colocation award to vendor 4/2/24.
• Contract Executed
• Phase 1 Relocation completed 8/19/24.
• Phase 2 Relocation scheduled for 6/30/25.

4. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUDIO/VIDEO

IMPROVEMENT
Description: Upgrade Council Chambers broadcast equipment.

Contract: In Progress
Term: 5 Years
Budget: City Hall Council Chambers A/V: $542,444.57 (PEG: $398,707 General Fund: $143,737.57)
Current Spend: $0
Project Start: December 1, 2023
ETA: February 28, 2025
Status: COMPLETED
• RFP issued 12/1/23.
• Notice of Intent to Award 1/23/24.
• Contract Executed 5/1/24.
• Purchase Order
• Audiovisual Hardware Installation Complete
• Agenda Management/AV Control Software Implementation Complete • Agenda Management/AV Control Software Staff Training Complete

• Systems Testing Complete
• Punch List Item Completed
• Project Completed 2/18/25

5. CARSON EVENT CENTER AUDIO/VIDEO IMPROVEMENT
Description: Upgrade Carson Event Center Audiovisual broadcast equipment.

Contract: In Planning/Budgeting
Term: 5 Years
Budget: Carson Event Center A/V: TBD
Current Spend: $0
Project Start: July 1, 2024
ETA: December 31, 2025
Status: ON SCHEDULE
• Project Planning Meetings with ITS, Public Works, and Community Services staff on mitigation of scheduled event impact

CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 21. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael George, Assistant to the City Manager  Subject: CONSIDER TAKING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION AND SENDING A CORRESPONDING LETTERREGARDING SENATE BILL 634, WHICH WOULD RESTRICT THE POWER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BYPROHIBITING REGULATIONS OR POLICY THAT WOULD IMPOSE CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PENALTIES ON APERSON EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item transmits a request for the City Council to consider taking a position of opposition and sending acorresponding letter regarding Senate Bill 634. The proposed letter is included as Exhibit 1 and the Bill Analysis isincluded as Exhibit 2.  If enacted, SB 634 would prohibit local governments from adopting any regulation, policy, or guidance that imposescivil or criminal penalties on a person experiencing homelessness. By eliminating all enforcement mechanisms, SB634 gives people the right to stand, sit, lay, sleep, or put up a tent in any public place. While the City of Carsonrecognizes the bill’s intent, SB 634 would severely limit cities' ability to respond to the growing homelessness crisisin communities across California. The proposed letter is attached as Exhibit 1 and the Bill Analysis is included asExhibit 2.

SB 634 was heard in committee for the first time on April 23. But just one hour before the hearing, the League ofCalifornia Cities was alerted to major, last-minute amendments. Now, the bill is moving to the Senate JudiciaryCommittee and cities have been advised there will be no opportunity to review or respond to the new languagebefore it’s heard again. This rushed process shuts out meaningful input from local governments and stakeholders.With no time to negotiate amendments or address concerns, interested members of the public and elected officialsare encouraged to call our lawmakers and urge them to make SB 634 a two-year bill.

II. RECOMMENDATION
TAKE a position of OPPOSITION to Senate Bill 634 and DIRECT staff to transmit a corresponding letter.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate and that is consistent with applicable laws.

IV. BACKGROUND
As noted in the attached letter, cities are implementing balanced approaches that protect both the rights of individuals experiencing homelessness and the broader community’s needs for clean, safe, and accessible public spaces. SB 634 hinders this progress by prohibiting local governments from adopting any regulation, policy, or guidance that imposes civil or criminal penalties on a person experiencing homelessness. By eliminating all enforcement mechanisms, SB 634 gives people the right to stand, sit, lay, sleep, or put up a tent in any public place.

Cities have been sued by business owners for allowing encampments to block access to businesses and by disability rights advocates over encampments that have obstructed sidewalks and public spaces. Without the ability to use civil or criminal enforcement remedies, cities would face increased legal liability and more importantly, have no meaningful way to respond to urgent health and safety concerns. The City of Carson recognizes that we must remain focused on connecting unhoused residents to housing and services, but cities also need basic tools to meet their legal obligations and protect public spaces.

SB 634 also directly contradicts cities’ efforts to address encampments in response to the Governor’s November 2024 executive order. The order directed state departments and agencies to adopt policies to address homeless encampments on state properties and encouraged local governments to adopt similar policies or risk losing access to state homelessness funding. Cities want to help the state to realize our shared vision of reducing homelessness and supporting our most vulnerable residents. However, SB 634 leaves cities without any enforcement tools, hindering cities' ability to carry out the Governor’s directive and jeopardizing state funding cities receive to address homelessness.

Local jurisdictions are already working within a complex and evolving legal landscape, including recent federal court decisions like Johnson v. Grants Pass, which clarified constitutional limits on how cities can address homelessness through enforcement actions. In response to the Grants Pass ruling, the Governor stated:
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”
SB 634 directly undermines this decision by stripping local governments of the authority to tailor enforcement strategies to their unique circumstances. It also disregards the years of legal effort cities have invested to gain the clarity now provided by the Court.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
None, as this item is only for approval of the letter.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Proposed Letter to Oppose SB 6342. Bill Analysis

Attachments
Proposed Letter
Bill Analysis

May 6, 2025

The Honorable Thomas Umberg
Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
1021 O Street, Room 3240
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 634 (Pérez) Homelessness: civil and criminal penalties Notice of OPPOSITION

Dear Senator Umberg,

The City of Carson must respectfully oppose SB 634 (Pérez), which, as currently drafted, would prohibit local jurisdictions from adopting or enforcing ordinances to address homelessness.

While the City of Carson appreciates the author’s willingness to amend SB 634 in response to local concerns, the proposed changes raise new and complex issues that require careful analysis.

Unfortunately, no amended bill language has been made available, and time is running out for cities to provide meaningful feedback.

Specifically, SB 634 was heard in committee for the first time on April 23, during which the author committed to major last-minute amendments. The Senator has committed to amending the bill to:

1. Prohibit cities from criminalizing efforts to assist homeless individuals residing in encampments.

2. Prohibit cities from banning supportive housing and shelter in their communities.

3. Prohibit cities from imposing regulations on homeless services providers that are not placed on other types of social services agencies.

This is the only information the City Carson received — no draft language, no time to evaluate potential impacts. Given more time, we would welcome the chance to provide meaningful feedback. For example, under existing law supportive housing is a "use by right" which a city must permit (Government Code 65651); and every city must plan for emergency shelter by identifying one or more zones in which a city must permit an emergency shelter without a conditional use or other discretionary permit (Government Code 65583). In the absence of additional detail, it is difficult to assess how this proposal would interact with or alter these existing requirements.

Without a chance to offer meaningful feedback, the City of Carson urges the Legislature to press pause and make SB 634 a two-year bill. Rushing these sweeping changes through without local input undermines collaboration and risks unintended consequences for our communities. For these reasons, the City of Carson must oppose SB 634 (Pérez).

Sincerely,

City of Carson City Council

cc. Senator Laura Richardson & Assemblymember Gipson and Assemblymember Lowenthal Jeff Kiernan, Public Affairs Manager (via email)
League of California Cities, [email protected]

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 634 Hearing Date: 4/23/25
Author: Pérez Fiscal: Yes
Version: 3/26/25 Consultant: Peterson
HOMELESSNESS: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Prohibits a state agency or local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a regulation or ordinance that imposes civil or criminal penalties on a person who is homeless or assists an individual experiencing homelessness.

Background
Police power. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental ‘police power’ that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including how people use public spaces.

Local ordinances. Local agencies can impose fines and penalties for violations of local ordinances. A violation of a local ordinance is a misdemeanor, unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. State law allows specified fines for infractions.

Any local agency can make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty (SB 814, Alquist, 1995). Administrative fines and penalties are subject to the same maximum fine limits. The local agency must adopt an ordinance specifying the administrative procedures that govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review of the fines or penalties.

California’s homelessness crisis. In its December 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated 187,084 Californians are experiencing homelessness, and California accounts for 24% of all people experiencing homelessness in the United States.

Local laws targeting individuals experiencing homelessness. A recent report by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that since 2016, there has been a growth in laws that punish those that are homelessness.1 For example, of 187 surveyed cities, 72 percent had at least one law restricting camping in public, 51 percent have at least one law restricting sleeping in public, 53 percent have one or more laws prohibiting sleeping or lying down in public, and 60 percent had one or more laws restricting living in vehicles.

In 2018, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the Martin v. City of Boise case that cities could not prohibit individuals experiencing homelessness from camping in public places (e.g.

1 http://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOT-HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf SB 634 (Pérez) 3/26/25 Page 2 of 7

sidewalks, public parks) unless the city had adequate shelter available. Until 2024, this meant California cities could no longer arrest, charge fines, or punish people for camping out in public if adequate shelter space is unavailable. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision held that local ordinances with civil and criminal penalties for camping on public land do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of individuals experiencing homelessness. This ruling lifted restrictions on local ordinances regulating homelessness.

The author wants to limit public agencies’ ability to adopt regulations or impose penalties on individuals experiencing homelessness.

Proposed Law
Senate Bill 634 prohibits a state agency or local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a regulation or ordinance that imposes civil or criminal penalties on a person who is homeless for any act immediately related to homelessness or basic survival, or on a person who is assisting a person who is homeless with any act related to basic survival.

SB 634 defines an “act immediately related to homelessness” to mean standing, sitting, laying, or sleeping in a public place, including, but not limited to, a public street, public park, or other outdoor area that is open to the public. An “act related to basic survival,” includes, but is not limited to, the possession of a tent or tarp, erection of a tent or tarp, eating or drinking, possessing and utilizing blankets or pillows, seeking shade, and other activities to protect oneself from the elements.

The measure defines its terms, and makes findings and declarations to further its intent.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 634 will prohibit local and state government entities from imposing civil or criminal penalties on unhoused individuals for engaging in necessary survival activities, such as sleeping, eating, seeking shelter, or resting in public spaces.

This bill also prohibits similar actions against organizations and entities that provide supportive services to unhoused Californians.
“Addressing the unhoused crisis in California effectively requires proven response efforts focused on housing, basic services, and financial support for unhoused individuals. Several state programs fund these types of efforts, including the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program successfully connecting over 57,000 unhoused Californians with permanent housing.[1] Despite state investments in these and other support service programs that link unhoused Californians to critical services, there is a troubling trend towards criminalizing poverty. New ordinances impose excessive fines and jail time on individuals simply for being unhoused. For instance, some ordinances place $1,000 fines on unhoused Californians for sleeping or sitting in a public place.[2] Other go further, targeting those who provide support services to unhoused individuals by charging them with aiding and abetting.[3] Instead of evidence-based intervention, such punitive policies deepen poverty by burdening

[1]https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/california.business.consumer.services.and.housing.agency/viz/HHAPReport/Overview [2] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/28/nx-s1-5195453/fresno-camping-ban-california-homelessness [3] https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/12/us/fremont-california-homeless-encampment-ban/index.html SB 634 (Pérez) 3/26/25 Page 3 of 7

unhoused individuals with debt and penalties they cannot afford, pushing them further into poverty rather than helping them escape it. One study showed that fines prolonged people’s homelessness by nearly two years. [4]
“SB 634 reaffirms California’s commitment to addressing the unhoused crisis through a common sense and humanitarian based approach. By requiring local ordinance to eliminate the penalties that create these financial and legal barriers, SB 634 ensures that people experiencing homelessness can access housing, services, income, and other essential forms of stabilization without additional obstacles. “

2. Home rule. The police power allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” SB 634 removes the authority for a local agency to adopt or enforce a regulation or ordinance that imposes penalties related to homelessness. Supporters of SB 634, like advocates for individuals experiencing homelessness and disability rights, contend that the measure would prevent local agencies from imposing heavy-handed penalties and jail time without preventing them from imposing other fines or jail time for other public health and safety violations.

Opponents of the measure, like many cities, argue that without these penalties, they would not have any enforcement tools left to get individuals into treatment and services, and clean up public health and safety hazards. Undoubtedly, SB 634 would take away local agencies ability to penalize someone for solely for activities related to homelessness, such as erecting a tent in a public place, which limits their ability to tailor enforcement practices to local priorities.

However, this would not limit their authority to impose other laws to regulate public health and safety. For example, crimes like illegal drug use would remain crimes. Accordingly, they could still enforce broadly applicable public health and safety requirements to address the concerns that arise from poorly managed encampments. The Committee may wish to consider whether additional clarity is necessary to ensure there is not any confusion over local agencies’ ability to enforce other laws.

3. Between a rock and a hard place. SB 634’s definitions of acts relating to homelessness and basic survival are broad. Acts related to homelessness includes everything from standing to sleeping in a public place. Acts related to basic survival includes everything from seeking shade to erecting a tent. While local officials could still ask someone to move away from a sidewalk or stop eating near a business, they would have legal challenges if they attempt to arrest or fine them. This puts local agencies in a bind. According to cities, this would mean they cannot force someone to move, but they may also be subject to other conflicting requirements. The one example they site is the federal American Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires public agencies to guarantee individuals with disabilities equal opportunities and access to public spaces and services. If a local agency determines it needs to clear a sidewalk of tents to make sure it is accessible, SB 634 might leave them with few tools to do so, which could lead to accessibility limitations and litigation. Are the definitions of acts relating to homelessness and basic survival too broad, which could lead to unintended consequences?

4. The mask slips in crisis. For individuals experiencing homelessness, acts necessary for basic survival often happen in public spaces. In jurisdictions that have criminalized these actions, these individuals break the law because they have no private space to live. While some local agencies have pursued efforts to build adequate shelter, others have been quicker to focus on fines and jail time. Before the ink dried on the Grants Pass decision, some local agencies sought

[4] https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/42/2/e107/5510723?login=false SB 634 (Pérez) 3/26/25 Page 4 of 7

to enact policies to limit where individuals experiencing homelessness could live. In February 2025, the City of Fremont enacted an ordinance that banned camping on public property and some private property. It also initially included a prohibition against aiding and abetting camping. Violations were punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1,000 per violation. Public outcry regarding the aiding and abetting provision led the City Council to announce future amendments to the ordinance to remove that provision. Because the city has approximately one shelter bed for every eight individuals experiencing homelessness, it is unclear that criminalization will result in a reduction in homelessness: a more effective approach could be to construct more shelter beds. SB 634 prevents local agencies from imposing fines and penalties, which might make it harder to clear certain public spaces, but it might also shift focus to housing and services instead.

5. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws.

Because the Constitution does not define municipal affairs, the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it is an issue of statewide concern. SB 634 says that its statutory provisions apply to charter cities because ensuring a compassionate, evidence-based approach to ending homelessness is a matter of statewide concern.

6. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of SB 634: first to the Committee on Local Government hear issues related to local powers and duties, and second to the Committee on Judiciary.

Support and Opposition (4/18/2025)
Support: Disability Rights California (Co-Sponsor)
Inner City Law Center (Co-Sponsor)
National Alliance to End Homelessness (Co-Sponsor)
Public Advocates (Co-Sponsor)
Western Center on Law & Poverty (Co-Sponsor)
Abode Housing Development
Abode Property Management
Abode Services
ACLU California Action
Alameda County Homeless Action Center
All Home, a Project of Tides Center
All of US or None Los Angeles
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (acce Action) Bay Area Community Services
Bill Wilson Center
Brilliant Corners
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Coalition for Youth
California Homeless Union Statewide Organizing Council
California Housing Partnership
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Cd11 Coalition for Human Rights
Center for Independent Living
Coalition for True World Change (C4TWC)
SB 634 (Pérez) 3/26/25 Page 5 of 7

Coalition on Homelessness
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
Community Lead Advocacy Program Clap
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Courage California
Destination: Home
Downtown Women's Center
Drug Policy Alliance
Enterprise Community Partners, INC.

Family Supportive Housing
Family Violence Law Center
Fremont for Everyone
Glide Foundation
Green Party of Santa Clara County CA
Homefirst Services of Santa Clara County
Homeless Action Center
Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom
Housing California
Human Impact Partners
Initiate Justice Action
Justice2jobs Coalition
Ktown for All
LA Community Action Network
LA Defensa
LA Family Housing
LA Forward
LA Raza Community Resource Center (san Francisco)
LA Voice
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Lift to Rise
Love and Justice in the Streets
Mhcan
My Friend's Place
National Homelessness Law Center
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Noho Home Alliance
Oakland Privacy
Peace and Freedom Party of California
Practical Strategies LLC
Rubicon Programs
Sacramento Homeless Union
Sacred Heart Community Service
Safe Place for Youth
San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition
San Francisco Safehouse
Showing Up for Racial Justice Santa Clara County (SURJ) Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
Silicon Valley De-bug
Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing
Ssg-hopics
SB 634 (Pérez) 3/26/25 Page 6 of 7

Starting Over INC.

Steinberg Institute
Supportive Housing Alliance
Swords to Plowshares - Vets Helping Vets
Sycamores
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
The Bride's Chamber
The Center for Common Concerns Dba Homebase
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
The People Concern
The Sidewalk Project
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
University of the Pacific Mcgeorge School of Law Homeless Advocacy Clinic Urban Habitat
Ywca Golden Gate Silicon Valley

Opposition: California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
City of Agoura Hills
City of Anaheim
City of Anderson
City of Arcadia
City of Artesia
City of Bellflower
City of Beverly Hills
City of Citrus Heights
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Corona
City of Cypress
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Downey
City of Duarte
City of El Centro
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Fullerton
City of Glendora
City of Grand Terrace
City of Grover Beach
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Hesperia
City of Highland
City of Huntington Beach
City of Inglewood
City of Kerman
City of LA Habra
City of LA Mirada
City of LA Palma (UNREG)
SB 634 (Pérez) 3/26/25 Page 7 of 7

City of LA Verne
City of Laguna Beach
City of Lake Forest
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood
City of Lakewood CA
City of Lathrop
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Los Banos
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Manteca
City of Merced
City of Mission Viejo
City of Montclair
City of Montebello
City of Newport Beach
City of Oceanside
City of Palmdale
City of Placentia
City of Porterville
City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of Redlands
City of Riverbank
City of Riverside
City of Rohnert Park
City of San Fernando
City of San Gabriel
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Santa Ana
City of Sausalito
City of Stanton
City of Taft
City of Temecula
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tulare
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
City of Wildomar
City of Woodland
City of Yorba Linda
League of California Cities
Orange County Council of Governments
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Town of Apple Valley
-- END --
CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 22. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael George, Assistant to the City Manager  Subject: CONSIDER TAKING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION AND SENDING A CORRESPONDING LETTERREGARDING SENATE BILL 79, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CITIES TO AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE CERTAINTRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT UP TO SEVEN STORIES HIGH AND AT A DENSITY OF 120 HOMES PERACRE (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item transmits a request for the City Council to consider taking a position of opposition and sending acorresponding letter regarding Senate Bill 79. The proposed letter is included as Exhibit 1 and the Bill Analysis isincluded as Exhibit 2.  If enacted, SB 79 would disregard state-certified housing elements and bestow land use authority to transitagencies without any requirement that developers build housing, including affordable housing. SB 79 defies cities’general plans and provides transit agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanenteasement, regardless of the distance from a transit stop. Transit agencies would have the power to determine allaspects of the development including height, density, and design, without any regard to local zoning or planning. The proposed letter is attached as Exhibit 1 and the Bill Analysis is included as Exhibit 2.

II. RECOMMENDATION
TAKE a position of OPPOSITION to Senate Bill 79 and DIRECT staff to transmit a corresponding letter.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate and that is consistent with applicable laws.

IV. BACKGROUND
As currently drafted, SB 79 will not spur much-needed housing construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. State-driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements. California will never produce the number of homes needed with an increasingly state-driven, by- right housing approval process. For these reasons, the City Council is asked to strongly oppose SB 79.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
None, as this item pertains only to approval of the letter.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Proposed Letter to Oppose SB 792. Bill Analysis

Attachments
Proposed Letter to Oppose SB 79
Bill Analysis

May 6, 2025

The Honorable Scott Wiener
Senator, California State Senate
1021 O St, Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 79 (Wiener) Transit-oriented Development
Notice of Opposition

Dear Senator Wiener,

The City of Carson writes to express our strong opposition to your SB 79 (Wiener), which would disregard state-certified housing elements and bestow land use authority to transit agencies without any requirement that developers build housing, let alone affordable housing.

SB 79 doubles down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing elements. This latest overreaching effort forces cities to approve transit-oriented development projects near specified transit stops — up to seven stories high and a density of 120 homes per acre — without regard to the community's needs, environmental review, or public input.

Most alarmingly, SB 79 defies cities’ general plans and provides transit agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanent easement, regardless of the distance from a transit stop. Transit agencies would have the power to determine all aspects of the development including height, density, and design, without any regard to local zoning or planning.

This broad new authority applies to both residential and commercial development. Transit agencies could develop 100% commercial projects — even at transit stops — and not provide a single new home, while simultaneously making the argument that more housing must be constructed around transit stops.

The City of Carson appreciates and respects your desire to pursue a housing production proposal.

However, as currently drafted, SB 79 will not spur much-needed housing construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. State-driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements.

California will never produce the number of homes needed with an increasingly state-driven, by- right housing approval process. What we really need is a sustainable state investment that matches the scale of this decades-in-the-making crisis. For these reasons, the City of Carson strongly opposes SB 79.

Sincerely,

City of Carson City Council

cc. Senator Laura Richardson & Assemblymember Gipson and Assemblymember Lowenthal Jeff Kiernan, Public Affairs Manager (via email)
League of California Cities, [email protected]

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 79 Hearing Date: April 22, 2025 Author: Wiener
Version: 4/9/2025 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Alison Hughes

SUBJECT: Local government land: public transit use: housing development:
transit-oriented development

DIGEST: This bill: (1) authorizes a residential development within a ¼ or ½ distance of transit stops in a residential, mixed-use, commercial, and light industrial zone, to be developed with maximum height, minimum density and FAR, and additional development benefits, as specified. (2) expands the definition of “agency’s use” under the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) to include any land leased to support public transit operations, thus exempting these sites from the provisions of the SLA, and exempts specified residential and commercial developments on those sites from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law, pursuant to the SLA:

1) Establishes procedures for the disposal of publicly-owned land that is surplus to the needs of local agencies, including to:

a) Require local officials that want to dispose of public property to declare that the land is no longer needed for the agency’s use in a public meeting and declare the land either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.” b) Designate certain types of land as “exempt surplus land,” which do not have to meet the requirements of the SLA.
c) Require local agencies to follow the procedures laid out in the SLA before surplus land can be sold, including, but not limited, to sending a notice of availability to various agencies and nonprofit groups (“housing sponsors”) that land is available for, among other things, low- and moderate-income housing. The local agency is not require to sell the land to a housing sponsor, but is required to negotiate in good faith for 90 days with any housing sponsors that respond.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 2 of 28

d) Allows the local agency to dispose of the property on the private market if agreement is not reached with a housing sponsor.
e) Requires that, if a property sold as surplus is not sold to a housing sponsor, but housing is developed on it later, 15% of the units must be sold or rented at an affordable cost to lower income households.
f) Imposes specified penalties for violations of the SLA.

Existing law, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (DBL):

2) Requires each city and county to adopt an ordinance that specifies how it will implement DBL. Requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development of five or more units seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at least one of the following:

a) 10% of the total units of a housing development for lower-income (LI) households;

b) 5% of the total units of a housing development for very low-income (VLI) households;

c) A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park;

d) 10% of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate- income households;

e) 10% of the total units for transitional foster youth, veterans, or people experiencing homelessness; or

f) 20% of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing development.

g) 100% of the units of a housing development for lower-income households, except that 20% of units may be for moderate-income households.

3) Requires a city or county to allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from 20% to 50%, depending on the percentage of units affordable to LI and VLI households, over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan.

Requires the increase in density on a sliding scale for moderate-income for-sale developments from 5% to 50% over the otherwise allowable residential density.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 3 of 28

4) Provides that the applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:

a) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10% of the total units for moderate-income households, 10% of the total units for lower- income households, or at least 5% for VLI households.

b) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20% of the total units for moderate-income households, 17% of the total units for lower income households, or least 10% for VLI households.

c) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30% of the total units for moderate-income households 24% of the total units for lower- income households, or at least 15% for VLI households.

d) Four incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 45% for persons and families of moderate-income in a development in which the units are for sale, or 16% of the units are for VLI households.

e) Five incentives or concessions for a project in which 100% of the households are affordable to lower income households, except that up to 20% of the units may be affordable to moderate-income households. If the project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or located in a love vehicle travel area, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of three additional stories or 33 feet.

Existing law:

5) Defines “major transit stop” to means a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, ferry terminal served by either bus or rail transit, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

6) Defines “extremely low income” (ELI) as those earning below 30% of the AMI.

7) Defines “very low-income” (VLI) as those earning below 50% of the AMI.

8) Defines “lower-income” (LI) as those earning between 50% and 80% of the AMI.

9) Defines “moderate-income” as those earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 4 of 28

10) Defines above moderate-income as those earning more than 120% of the AMI.
11) Provides, pursuant to Housing Element Law, that infill developments in localities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) numbers shall not be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as specified.
12) Provides, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that a local government may disapprove a housing development project under specified circumstances.

13) Requires, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, that lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project to prepare a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND), or environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, unless the project is exempt from the CEQA. If a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare a draft EIR.

This bill:

1) Expands the definition of “agency’s use,” for purposes of the SLA to include any land leased to support public transit operations, thus exempting these sites from the provisions of the SLA.

2) Provides that in the case of a public transit operator, “agency use” may include commercial or industrial uses or activities, including nongovernmental retail, entertainment, or office development or be for the sole purpose of investment or generation of revenue if the agency’s governing body takes action in a public meeting declaring that the use of the site will do one of the following:

a) Directly further the express purpose of agency work or operations; or

b) Be expressly authorized by a statute governing the local agency, as specified.

3) Allows a transit agency to adopt objective standards for both residential and commercial developments proposed to be constructed on land owned by the transit agency or on which the transit agency has a permanent easement, if the objective standards allow for the same or greater development intensity that is allowed by local standards or applicable state law.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 5 of 28

4) Provides that CEQA does not apply to a public or private residential, commercial or mixed-use project that is located entirely on land owned by a public transit agency, as specified.

5) Creates the following definitions:

a) “Adjacent” means sharing a property line with a transit stop, including any parcels that serve a parking or circulation purpose related to the stop. A parcel that meets any of the eligibility criteria under this bill and is adjacent to a Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 transit-oriented development stop, as defined below, shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio by 1.

b) “Bus service” means “bus rapid transit” or public mass transit service provided by a public agency or by a public-private partnership that includes all of the following features: i) Full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods; ii) Transit signal priority; iii) All-door boarding; iv) Fare collection system that promotes efficiency; and v) Defined stations.

c) “Frequent commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at least 24 trains per weekday across both directions and not meeting the standard for very high or high frequency commuter rail at any point in the last three years.

d) “Heavy rail transit” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high-speed railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high-speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separately rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading.

e) “High-frequency transit” means a commuter rail service operating a total of at least 48 trains across both directions at any point in the past three years.

f) “Residential floor area ratio” (FAR) means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. For the FAR provisions under this bill, a local government may not impose any other local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent the FAR established.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 6 of 28

g) “Light rail transit” includes streetcar, trolley, and tramway service.

h) “Tier 1 transit oriented development (TOD) stop” means a major transit stop, heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.

i) “Tier 2 TOD stop” excludes a Tier 1 stop, and means served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service, as specified.

j) “Tier 3 TOD stop” means a major transit stop, excluding Tiers 1 and 2 served by frequent commuter rail service or by ferry service.

k) “Transit Oriented Development stop” means a major transit stop excluding any stops served by rail transit with fewer than 10 total trains per weekday.

l) “Very high frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at least 72 trains per day across both directions at any point in the past three years.

6) Provides that a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop in a residential, mixed-use, commercial, and light industrial zone, is entitled to the following development standards:

TOD Stop Type Dist.
from
Stop
Standards for Project

Tier 1: Major
transit stop,
heavy rail
transit, or very
high frequency
commuter rail

¼
mile
from
stop

 Max Height: 75 ft or 95 ft if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 120 units per acre (u/a) plus any density bonus or 160 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3.5 or 4.5 if adjacent to stop
 + 3 concessions or incentives under DBL
¼ - ½
mile
from
stop
 Max Height: 65 ft or 85 ft if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
 + 2 concessions or incentives under DBL
Tier 2: Not Tier
1 major transit
stops served by
light rail transit,
high-frequency
¼
mile
from
stop
 Max Height: 65 ft or 85 ft if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
 + 2 concessions or incentives under DBL
SB 79 (Wiener) Page 7 of 28

commuter rail,
or bus rapid
transit

¼ - ½
mile
from
stop
 Max Height: 55 ft or 75 ft if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 80 u/a plus any density bonus or 120 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 2.5 or 3.5 if adjacent to stop
 + 1 concessions or incentives under DBL
Tier 3: Not Tier
1 or 2 major
transit stops
served by
frequent
commuter rail
service or by
ferry service.

¼
mile
from
stop
 Max Height: 55 ft or 75 ft if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 80 u/a plus any density bonus or 120 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 2.5 or 3.5 if adjacent to stop
 + 1 concession or incentive under DBL
¼ - ½
mile
from
stop
 Max Height: 45 ft or 65 ft if adjacent to stop
 Min Density: 60 u/a plus any density bonus or 100 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 2 or 3 if adjacent to stop
 No additional concessions or incentives

7) Provides that a project meeting the requirements of (6) shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements or other similar provision for purposes of the HAA.

8) Authorizes a project constructed by the provisions under (6) above to be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval process provided it complies with the applicable affordability requirements, as specified.

9) Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee compliance with the provisions of (6) above.

10) Authorizes a local government to adopt an ordinance within a TOD zone to revise the applicable zoning requirements on individual sites provided that those revisions maintain the average density allowed for the applicable Tier, or up to a 100% increase, subject to review by HCD, as specified.

Background

Housing near transit and existing programs. As part of California’s overall strategy to combat climate change, the Legislature began the process of encouraging more TOD with the passage of SB 375 (Steinberg, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). SB 375 is aimed at reducing the amount that people drive and associated GHGs by requiring the coordination of transportation, housing, and land SB 79 (Wiener) Page 8 of 28

use planning. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council, furthers the purposes of AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statues 2006) and SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes, 2008) by investing in projects that reduce GHG emissions by supporting more compact, infill development patterns, encouraging active transportation and transit usage, and protecting agricultural land from sprawl development. Funding for AHSC is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds. The Legislature subsequently allocated 20% of the ongoing Cap and Trade Program funds to AHSC. AHSC provides grants and/or loans to projects that achieve GHG reductions and benefit disadvantaged communities, low-income communities, and low-income households through increasing accessibility of affordable housing connected to high quality transit. High quality transit includes bus rapid transit with a headway frequency of every 15 minutes or less and service seven days a week.

Research has also demonstrated a positive relationship between increased transit ridership when lower-income households live near transit. A study by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, entitled Income, Location Efficiency, and VMT:

Affordable housing as a Climate Strategy, created a model to isolate the relationship of income on VMT. This model found that lower-income families living near transit were likely to drive less than their wealthier neighbors. More specifically, in metro regions, home to two-thirds of California’s population, identically composed and located low-income households were predicted to drive 10% less than the median, VLI households 25% less, and ELI households 33% less. By contrast, however, middle income households were predicted to drive 5% more and above moderate-income households 14% more. The patterns are similar for the other two Regional Contexts, although the differences are slightly reduced in Rural Areas.

Another report titled, Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is A Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy, shares similar findings.1 Specifically, it found that:
 Lower-income households drive 25-30% fewer miles when living within ½ mile of transit than those living in non-transit oriented areas. When living within ¼ mile of frequent transit they drove nearly 50% less.  Higher-income households drive more than twice as many miles and own more than twice as many vehicles as ELI households living within ¼ mile of frequent transit.

1 Transform and California Housing Partnership Corporation, May 2014.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 9 of 28

This research demonstrates the value of encouraging lower-income people to live near transit as they are more likely to increase transit ridership.

Comments

1) Author’s statement. “SB 79 tackles the root causes of California’s affordability crisis by allowing more homes to be built near major public transportation stops and on land owned by transit agencies – bolstering transit use, slashing climate emissions, and supporting public transportation in the process. SB 79 allows more homes near transit in two major ways. First, SB 79 allows for upzoning land for multi-family homes up to 75 feet within a half mile of specified major train stations and bus rapid transit stops. This will ensure that TODs are feasible and enhance access to transit. Second, SB 79 authorizes local transit agencies to develop at the same or greater density on land they own. All TODs under SB 79 are eligible for the streamlined ministerial approvals process under SB 423 (Wiener, 2023) if they meet the law’s environmental, labor, and affordability standards. California needs to build millions of new homes in sustainable locations to meet housing goals, slash climate emissions, and reduce the cost of living, but overly restrictive zoning codes make building such homes illegal. SB 79 allows building more homes near transit to lower costs for families while bolstering public transit use and supporting cash-strapped transit agencies.”

2) California’s housing crisis. California has the largest concentration of severely unaffordable housing markets in the nation, with the average home value in California at $773,363. To keep up with demand, HCD estimates that California must plan for the development of more than 2.5 million homes over the next eight years, and no less than one million of those homes must meet the needs of lower-income households (more than 640,000 VLI and 385,000 low- income units are needed). For decades, not enough housing was constructed to meet need, resulting in a severe undersupply of housing.

As a result of the severe housing shortage, millions of Californians, who are disproportionately lower-income and people of color, must make hard decisions about paying for housing at the expense of food, health care, child care, and transportation—one in three households in the state don’t earn enough money to meet their basic needs.

The state has taken several actions to spur housing development in the last few years, including:

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 10 of 28

a) Increasing the amount of land on which housing can be built within existing cities both by overriding local ordinances that prevent development and by requiring local governments to increase development capacity via the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process.
b) Expediting and simplifying the local housing approval process at the pre- entitlement, entitlement, and post-entitlement phases, including creating multiple pathways for by-right approvals for deed-restricted affordable housing and mixed-income housing.
c) Substantially increasing the funding for development of affordable housing and simplifying the process for applying for funding. d) Creating and funding enforcement capacity of state housing laws at HCD.

According to HCD, completed residential construction is up 13.1% (99,130 units in 2022 to 112,076 units in 2023). Construction has been up every year for 6 years in a row since 2018. Additionally, the share of lower-income units in new development has nearly doubled since 2018, now representing 19% of permitted units and 16% of completed units in 2023. VLI unit completions increased by 44.2% from 2022-2023, while low-income unit completions rose by 75.7%, a 61.5% overall increase in affordable housing production. Some of the unit growth can be attributable to reforms to density bonus law; the total deed-restricted affordable unit entitlements surged from 29,000 in 2021 to 48,000 in 2023. Reforms to the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) also attributed to this growth. Additionally, reforms to the SLA have resulted in the creation of 39,908 new units, of which 22,525 are affordable to lower income households.

Despite these positive results, there is more to be done before housing production reaches the levels necessary to ameliorate the housing crisis and meet statewide housing needs of 2.5 million new homes.

3) Zoning Codes and Designations. Zoning codes are generally adopted by cities and counties to identify allowable activities (e.g., office, retail, housing, etc.) as well as the allowed intensity of those activities (e.g., height, density, etc.) in specific areas of their jurisdiction. Zoning codes are as varied as cities and counties themselves. Some jurisdictions opt for broad, all-encompassing zoning designations that allow multiple uses. Others adopt remarkably specific zoning designations that regulate allowable uses to a fine degree of detail. In addition to identifying the types of uses allowed (and not allowed) within a specific zone, cities and counties may denote the conditions under which a use is allowed. For example, a city may allow single family housing construction as a use by right in a low density residential zone, but require a conditional use permit for multifamily developments of more than five units in that same zone.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 11 of 28

Cities and counties may also grant variances from strict application of the code to allow developments that otherwise would not comply with the strict interpretation of the zoning code. The process for granting a variance may be embedded in the zoning code and is typically subject to a hearing by the zoning administrator or the legislative body of the city or county. 4) Density Bonus Law (DBL). Given California’s high land and construction costs for housing, it is extremely difficult for the private market to provide housing units that are affordable to low- and even moderate-income households. Public subsidy is often required to fill the financial gap on affordable units. Density Bonus Law requires public entities to reduce or even eliminate local requirements for a particular project, if the waiver or concession of standards would increase financial feasibility for the project and allow a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning, in exchange for affordable units. Allowing more total units permits the developer to spread the cost of the affordable units more broadly over the market-rate units. The goal of DBL is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional financial subsidy. Under existing law, if a developer proposes to construct a housing development with a specified percentage of affordable units, the city or county must provide all of the following benefits: a density bonus; incentives or concessions; waiver of any development standards that prevent the developer from utilizing the density bonus or incentives; and reduced parking standards.

Incentives and concessions can mean a variety of things, including additional density, deviation from parking requirements, reductions in site development standards or modifications of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum state building standards, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements.

5) Authorizing Residential Development in Commercial Zones. The Legislature recently enacted several bills to facilitate the production of more housing by increasing the sites available for residential development. Notably, AB 2011 (Wicks) and the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022 (SB 6, Caballero, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022) both made certain types of housing developments an allowable use on land zoned for commercial uses; these bills effectively rezoned eligible parcels statutorily and increased the stock of land that could be developed into housing in California. Additionally, AB 2011 required local governments to ministerially approve housing developments on these parcels if they included specific levels of affordable housing and met other development criteria. Working in tandem, AB 2011’s statutory rezoning of commercial SB 79 (Wiener) Page 12 of 28

parcels, and its requirement for local governments to approve affordable housing projects ministerially, can dramatically expedite the approval and development of much needed housing in California.

While AB 2011 (Wicks) requires local governments to ministerially approve certain types of housing projects, it also included an extensive list of site- specific and development criteria that a housing development project must meet to qualify for ministerial approval. Additionally, AB 2011 (Wicks) requires the inclusion of affordable housing and specified labor standards.

6) Upzoning Near Transit. This bill would establish specific development criteria for residential developments that are near specified transit stops and in any of the following zoning designations: residential, mixed-use, commercial, and light industrial. Projects that are adjacent to a specified transit stop are entitled to an “adjacency amplifier” which allows for greater density, more height, and a greater FAR.

a) What benefits apply to TOD projects and where?

TIER 1 PROJECTS

Developer Benefits What does this look like?
¼ mile from stop

 Max Height: 75 ft or 95 ft if
adjacent to a transit stop
 Min Density: 120 units per acre
(u/a) plus any density bonus or
160 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3.5 or 4.5 i if adjacent to
stop
 + 3 concessions or incentives
under DBL
If 1 story = 10-14’, these projects could be
5-7 stories OR 7-9 stories if adjacent to the
stop. Projects also have increased
flexibility for lot coverage and minimum
density (i.e., more units per acre).

Additionally, the developer may ask for an
additional reductions/modification of 3 site
development standards (e.g., setbacks,
square footage, design). Applies in the
following zones: single family, multifamily,
mixed-use, light industrial.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 13 of 28
¼ - ½ mile from stop
 Max Height: 65 ft or 85 ft if
adjacent to transit stop
 Min Density: 100 u/a plus any
density bonus or 140 u/a if
adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
 + 2 concessions or incentives
under DBL
If 1 story = 10-14’, these projects could be
4-6 stories OR 6-8 stories if adjacent to the
stop. Projects also have increased
flexibility for lot coverage and minimum
density (i.e., more units per acre).

Additionally, the developer may ask for an
additional reductions/modification of 2 site
development standards (e.g., setbacks,
square footage, design). Applies in the
following zones: single family, multifamily,
mixed-use, light industrial.

TIER 2 PROJECTS

Developer Benefits What does this look like?
¼ mile from stop

 Max Height: 65 ft or 85 ft if
adjacent to transit stop
 Density allowed: 100 u/a plus
any density bonus or 140 u/a if
adjacent to stop
 FAR allowed: 3 or 4 if adjacent
to stop
 + 2 concessions or incentives
under DBL
If 1 story = 10-14’, these projects could be
4-6 stories OR 6-8 stories if adjacent to the
stop. Projects also have increased flexibility
for lot coverage and minimum density (i.e.,
more units per acre). Additionally, the
developer may ask for an additional
reductions/modifications of 2 site
development standards (e.g., setbacks,
square footage, design). Applies in the
following zones: single family, multifamily,
mixed-use, light industrial.

¼ - ½ mile from stop
 Max Height: 55 ft or 75 ft if
adjacent to transit stop
 Density allowed: 80 u/a plus any
density bonus or 120 u/a if
adjacent to stop
 FAR allowed: 2.5 or 3.5 if
adjacent to stop
 + 1 concessions or incentives
under DBL
If 1 story = 10-14’, these projects could be
4-6 stories OR 5-7 stories if adjacent to the
stop. Projects also have increased flexibility
for lot coverage and minimum density (i.e.,
more units per acre). Additionally, the
developer may ask for an additional
reduction/modification of 1 site
development standard (e.g., setbacks, square
footage, design). Applies in the following
zones: single family, multifamily, mixed-
use, light industrial.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 14 of 28

TIER 3 PROJECTS

Developer Benefits What does this look like?
¼ mile from stop

 Max Height: 55 ft or 75 ft if
adjacent to stop
 Density allowed: 80 u/a plus
any density bonus or 120 u/a if
adjacent to stop
 FAR allowed: 2.5 or 3.5 if
adjacent to stop
 + 1 concession or incentive
under DBL (but not for height)
If 1 story = 10-14’, these projects could be 4-
5 stories OR 5-7 stories if adjacent to the
stop. Projects also have increased flexibility
for lot coverage and minimum density (i.e.,
more units per acre). Additionally, the
developer may ask for an additional
reduction/modification of 1 site development
standard (e.g., setbacks, square footage,
design). Applies in the following zones:
single family, multifamily, mixed-use, light
industrial.

¼ - ½ mile from stop  Max Height: 45 ft or 65 ft if
adjacent to stop
 Density allowed: 60 u/a plus
any density bonus or 100 u/a if
adjacent to stop
 FAR allowed: 2 or 3 if
adjacent to stop
 No additional concessions or
incentives
If 1 story = 10-14’, these projects could be 3-
4 stories OR 4-6 stories if adjacent to the
stop. Projects also have increased flexibility
for lot coverage and minimum density (i.e.,
more units per acre). Applies in the
following zones: single family, multifamily,
mixed-use, light industrial.

Zoning applications: anywhere goes. The projects authorized by this bill would apply in the following zones: single family, multifamily, mixed-use, and light industrial. Unlike similar legislation (such as AB 2011 (Wicks) as noted above), however, this bill does not exclude sites that could be environmentally sensitive or sites that could be hazardous to the occupants.

For example, other state laws to allow housing in commercial areas contain limitations to prohibit construction on sites or that adjoin where more than 1/3 of the square footage of the site is dedicated to industrial in order to protect public health; however those limitations are not present in this bill and instead authorizes housing on industrial sites. Additionally, unlike prior proposed upzoning bills, there is no exemption or accounting for sites that could exacerbate gentrification or promote segregation, particularly in commercial or light industrial areas.

Given the broad applicability of this bill, this bill could undermine the housing element process local governments have endeavored to undertake in recent years. This is because the provisions would apply regardless of local SB 79 (Wiener) Page 15 of 28

zoning or the identification of sites that are suitable for development – in particular for lower-income households – and without proactive community input. Additionally, this bill could undermine carefully crafted and adopted programs that seek to affirmatively further fair housing.

According to several groups representing affordable housing organizations, “a recent study by Karen Chapple and Taesoo Song found that while new market-rate units in Los Angeles decreased the probability of outmigration by 2%, in San Francisco, where market pressures are greater, new market- rate units increased the probability of outmigration by 14%. Inclusionary requirements and subsidized 100% affordable housing significantly decreased the probability of displacement across market contexts. Because SB 79 lacks affordability requirements and will make it harder for affordable housing developers to compete for sites, the bill may lead to displacement of low-income people and people of color in communities located in high- pressure housing markets.”

b) Applicable transit stations. According to the author and sponsors, Tier 1 is intended to apply to the following stations: BART, LA Metro B and D lines, and 25 commuter rail stations. Tier 2 is intended to apply to SacRT Light Rail, SF Muni Metro, SF Muni streetcars, SF Van Ness BRT, VTA Light Rail, LA Metro A, C, E, G, J, and K Lines, San Diego MTS Trolley, Santa Ana Streetcar, 15 commuter rail stations, and 13 additional light rail or BRT stations. Tier 3 is intended to apply to 60 commuter rail stations and 10 ferry stations. Some of the transit stop definitions in this bill are novel, and it’s not clear how to validate the application of the bill.

c) What kinds of projects could be developed near transit? This bill would allow developers to decide which requirements apply to their project.

Specifically, developers can identify requirements related to height, density, and FAR, which could take many forms. FAR relates to the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot.

For example, if you have a 1,000 square foot area with an FAR of 4.0, the development can be 4,000 square feet. These figures indicate how FAR works:

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 16 of 28

What a developer chooses to do with that square footage is up to them, and can take many forms under this bill. For example, if a project is within ½ mile of a "Tier 1 TOD” stop, such as a BART station, a developer can build up to 65 ft. high, with 100 units per acre, and a FAR of 3. Achieving a FAR of 3 would allow a developer to build 100 units that 1,307 sq. ft. each on a single acre2. Nothing prevents a developer from building below one or more of these maximum requirements. This could lead to a small number of large, luxury apartments or, alternatively a greater number of small, efficiency units. The measure appears to allow a developer to pick which of those standards is most financially viable. For example, if the developer decided to keep the 100 units per acre, but build with a FAR of 1, then the developer could build 100 units each equaling 437 sq. ft.3 On the other hand, if the developer decided they wanted to build with an FAR of 3, but only build 50 units per acre, then the developer could build 2,614 square feet units.4

These examples highlight the extreme range of building designs that this bill would provide developers. Granting this level of flexibility to developers could increase affordable transit-oriented housing; however, absent more safeguards, developers could use the latitude provided by this bill to develop projects that prioritize private interests and revenue generations over affordability and climate goals.

d) Affordable housing? Unlike other land use bills, this bill does not require the inclusion of any affordable units. The bill defers instead to any locally adopted inclusionary requirements, the ability for a developer to apply DBL to these projects, or specified streamlined ministerial approval processes. In order to benefit from DBL or specified streamlined, ministerial approval processes, a developer would generally need to include some affordable housing.

2 (43,560 sq. ft. / 100 units per acre) x 3 FAR = 1,306.8 sq. ft. (1 acre = 43,560) 3 (43,560 sq. ft. / 100 units per acre) x 1 FAR = 435.6 sq. ft. (1 acre = 43,560) 4 (43,560 sq. ft. / 50 units per acre) x 3 FAR = 2,613.6 sq. ft. (1 acre = 43,560)

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 17 of 28

Given that this bill would apply in most zoning designations (single family, multifamily, mixed use, commercial and industrial), allow for increased density and height provisions, and preclude a local government from applying “any local development standard or combination of standards that would prevent achieving” specified FARs, it’s not clear what additional flexibility a developer would require under DBL to make a project pencil.

Additionally, this definition seems to imply a developer could override an inclusionary ordinance. A coalition of low-income equity advocates assert that a developer would likely choose to avoid using other streamlining bill or density bonus law for these sites to avoid meeting affordability requirements, labor standards, or any environmental limitations those laws require.

An affordable housing developer seeking to develop the sites in this bill may struggle to compete against a more nimble market-rate developer. This is due to the part because an affordable housing developer generally needs to apply to 8-12 funding sources to make a project pencil, and these sources must be secured in a specific order, which takes time. Several groups representing affordable housing developers state that “upzoning increases land and property values because it enables larger and more lucrative housing projects. Affordable housing developers, especially nonprofit developers, have less capital available to acquire land than market-rate developers, so upzoning will make it harder for affordable housing developers to compete for and develop on transit-oriented sites.” They assert that instead, “affordable housing developers must have priority to acquire these sites.”

In other words, some projects could benefit from the provisions of this bill without providing any on-site affordable housing, despite the fact that lower- income households are more likely to ride transit. The committee may wish to consider the implications of granting significant benefits to developers which could result in few, if any, new affordable housing units.

f) Do locals retain any discretion? Putting together all the pieces of this bill, a developer is “authorized” to build a housing development under the bill’s specifications and further provides that for purposes of the HAA, any SB 79 develop “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements or other similar provisions.” The committee has not been able to identify any further objective standards that a TOD development may be subject to by a local government.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 18 of 28

While the bill does not explicitly state that TOD developments are exempt from CEQA, it could be that they are implicitly exempt. CEQA applies when a development project requires discretionary action; “by right” or “as of right” for a project means that the project complies with the local zoning and planning regulation, and that CEQA compliance is not required. Given that this bill likely does not require any discretion by the local government, does not provide for the application of any objective standards, and provides that the TOD projects are to be deemed consistent with local plans and ordinances, it is likely that these TOD projects are exempt from CEQA.

Several organizations writing in opposition express concerns over creating a new by-right, ministerial approval process without requiring standards for affordable housing, construction workforce protections, and environmental standards that have been included in other by-right, ministerial legislation.

According to the State Building and Construction Trades Council, this bill presents “[n]o analysis and mitigation for significant construction and operational air quality, noise, public health, utility, public services and other adverse impacts on the community.” Further, “projects approved pursuant to SB 79 would not be subject to local standards addressing air pollution, energy efficiency and public health, which are often unaddressed by other laws.”

7) SLA: Public lands for affordable housing development. One of the limiting factors in building new affordable homes is land—the high cost and acquisition of land suitable for housing. Public agencies own a significant amount of land located in or near urban areas, some of which exceed those agencies’ foreseeable needs, which could be used for housing. The SLA provides affordable housing developers notification when local agencies seek to dispose of surplus land, and requires local agencies to negotiate in good faith with them for these parcels. The goal is to help valuable pubic land develop into affordable housing, but this could be at the expense of a local agencies’ economic development opportunities.

This bill would allow transit agencies to ignore the SLA and use their land for any purpose that “generates revenue” for the agency. Some transit agencies want to be able to use their land to develop commercial properties as well as allow for 100% market rate housing – i.e., bypass the deed-restricted affordable housing requirement under the SLA – on their land in order to generate more revenue. Under the provisions of this bill. The term “agency use” will be expanded to include “land leased to support public transit operations.” If land is necessary for an agency’s use it is not “surplus land” and therefore not SB 79 (Wiener) Page 19 of 28

subject to the SLA. The term “leased to support public transit operations” is not defined and could include anything that financially supports public transit.

This bill also provides that CEQA will not apply to any “public or private residential, commercial, or mixed-used project that, at the time the project application is filed, is located entirely or principally on land owned by a public transit agency.” This means that the commercial projects or market rate projects that transit agencies develop —regardless of their location — under the SLA exemption, are exempt from CEQA review.

Writing in opposition to the changes to the SLA, the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) notes that the exemptions for transit agencies in this bill have been attempted in the past, but have not been proven necessary. NPH also notes that there are already exemptions to transit agencies, which include:

 Small sites: sites that are less than ½ acre and are not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for open space or low- or moderate-income housing are exempted from the SLA process.  Transit system-wide plan: transit systems can exempt many parcels at once, if they demonstrate a plan to develop 50% of their gross acreage to residential construction, with 25% of the resulting units meeting the requirements of affordable, as required in statute.3 SF Muni currently has such an approved plan.
 Short-term leases: leases that do not exceed 15 years in duration are not considered under the definition of “dispose.”
 Leases without construction/demolition: leases of any length of time that do not require construction or demolition on the site are not considered under the definition of “dispose.”

While the upzoning provisions of this bill are intended to create more housing near transit, the exemptions to the SLA could result in exclusively commercial development on transit agency land. Alternatively, these changes could result in luxury units being constructed directly near transit, instead of mixed-income or affordable housing developments, which result in increased ridership. The committee may wish to consider whether these results align with state goals and policies to create more affordable housing.

8) Past Upzoning bills. This bill is similar to SB 50 (Wiener, 2020) and SB 827 (Wiener, 2018). SB 827 would have created an incentive for housing developers to build denser housing near transit by exempting developments from certain low-density requirements, including maximum controls on SB 79 (Wiener) Page 20 of 28

residential density, maximum controls on FAR, as specified, minimum parking requirements, and maximum building height limits, as specified. A developer could choose to use the benefits provided in that bill if it met certain requirements. SB 827 required affordable housing be included, however that scheme applied to additional units granted by that bill, not the number of units in the base zoning.

SB 50 (Wiener) also would have reduced zoning requirements for specified housing projects, however that bill applied to sites near transit as well as “jobs- rich areas” that are traditionally “high-opportunity.” SB 50 provided that projects with 11-19 units may pay an in-lieu fee for affordable housing, if feasible, and required projects with 21 or more units to contain units affordable to lower-income households, as specified, or pay an in lieu fee. SB 50 also created a delayed implementation for sensitive communities, as defined, and permitted them to come up with a community plan that may include zoning and other policies to encourage multifamily development at varying income levels and protect vulnerable residents from displacement.

Following these efforts, the Senate passed a series of housing production bills in 2021, which were intended to address some of the policy objectives of SB 50 (Wiener). This package empowered homeowners who want to help solve the crisis, provided more land-use tools and flexibility to meet the needs of local governments and community partners, and streamlined procedural hurdles for specific types of housing developments. Included in that package of bills, were the following related bills:

 SB 8 (Skinner, Chapter 161, Statutes of 2021) — extended the provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, until 2030 and added clarifying language to ensure the intent of SB 330 to streamline the production of housing that meets a local jurisdiction’s existing zoning and that other rules is met.
 SB 6 (Caballero, Chapter 659, Statutes of 2021) — Established the Neighborhood Homes Act, which authorizes residential development on existing lots currently zoned for commercial office and retail space such as strip malls or large “big box” retail spaces. This bill requires the development of residential units be at a minimum density to accommodate affordable housing and abide by existing local planning and development ordinances.
 SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) — California Housing Opportunity & More Efficiency (HOME) Act, which promotes neighborhood-scale residential development by streamlining the process SB 79 (Wiener) Page 21 of 28

for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot in residential areas.
 SB 10 (Wiener, Chapter 163, Statutes of 2021) — Authorized a city or county to pass an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density, at a height specified by the local government in the ordinance, if the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site, as specified.
 SB 478 (Wiener, Chapter 363, Statutes of 2021) — allowed construction of small multifamily projects (3-10 units) in areas already zoned for multifamily housing, by ensuring that artificially low floor-area ratio regulation do not stop otherwise allowable projects. This bill also opens up small, legally created parcels for development.
 SB 791 (Cortese, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2021) — created the Surplus Lands Unit within HCD that provides assistance to local agencies to help them plan, finance, and develop affordable housing on their surplus land.

Additionally, as noted in Comment 2, the Legislature has passed hundreds of bills since 2016 with the intention of creating more opportunities for development to address the ongoing housing crisis.

9) Letters of Concern. A coalition of state and regional affordable housing groups, including Housing California, Southern California Association of Non- Profit Housing (SCANPH), California Coalition for Rural Housing (CCRH), and the Sacramento Housing Alliance (SHA), wrote a letter of concerns stating “SB 79 will lead to the production of market-rate housing near transit at the expense of affordable housing, rather than to the development of both in tandem. This would inhibit the state’s ability to meet the housing needs of low- income Californians and could lead to displacement of low-income people and people of color in some neighborhoods - both of which are central issues to the obligation of public agencies in California to affirmatively further fair housing.

Additionally, given that low-income people are more likely than high-income people to use public transportation when they live near it and that building affordable housing near transit is a highly effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, SB 79 misses an opportunity to make meaningful progress towards the state’s transit ridership and climate goals.”

10) Opposition. According to the League of California Cities and other local governments, this bill “defies cities’ general plans and provides transit agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanent easement, regardless of the distance from a transit stop. This broad new authority applies to both residential and commercial development. Transit agencies could develop 100% commercial projects — even at transit stops — SB 79 (Wiener) Page 22 of 28

and not provide a single new home, while simultaneously making the argument that more housing must be constructed around transit stops.” As noted above, a coalition of organization serving lower-income communities are opposed because this bill “overrides zoning near transit without ensuring affordability, disregards the clear connection between income and transit use, places public health and safety at risk, and silences the voices of low-income communities of color—communities that have long carried the burden of top-down zoning decisions.” They assert that this bill undermine climate, transportation, and housing goals, neuter low-income housing production laws, and disenfranchise communities of color and low-income communities.” Lastly, the State Building and Construction Trades are opposed, for reasons stated above, and because “SB 79 both eliminates requirements in existing streamlining laws and creates new by right and CEQA exempt provisions for housing without requiring standards for affordable housing, construction workforce protections, and other standards. SB 79 overrides local agencies’ ability to implement State-certified housing elements, obstructs affordable housing goals, and authorizes dense development with no review of impacts on the environment, public health or infrastructure capacity.”

10) Double referral. This bill was also referred to the Senate Local Government Committee.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 423 (Wiener, Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023) — expanded the applicability of a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain infill, multifamily, mixed- income housing projects that are proposed in local jurisdictions that have not met regional housing needs if the projects meet specific affordability and labor criteria.

SB 50 (Wiener, 2020) — would have required a local government to grant an equitable communities incentive, which reduces specified local zoning standards in “jobs-rich” and “transit rich areas,” as defined, when a development proponent meets specified requirements. This bill failed passage on the Senate Floor.

SB 827 (Wiener, 2018) — would have created an incentive for housing developers to build near transit by exempting developments from certain low-density requirements, including maximum controls on residential density, maximum controls on FAR, as specified, minimum parking requirements, , and maximum building height limits, as specified. A developer could choose to use the benefits provided in that bill if it meets certain requirements. This bill failed passage in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

SB 79 (Wiener) Page 23 of 28

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.)

SUPPORT:

Bay Area Council (CO-SPONSOR)
California Yimby (CO-SPONSOR)
Greenbelt Alliance (CO-SPONSOR)
Spur (CO-SPONSOR)
Streets for All (CO-SPONSOR)
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alexander Pedersen - Vice Mayor, Capitola
All Voting Members of The North Westwood Neighborhood Council Bay Area Council
Bike Culver City
Bike East Bay
Bike Long Beach
Bikesd
Brian Barnacle - Councilmember, Petaluma
Business for Good San Diego
Calbike
California Apartment Association
California Community Builders
California Nightlife Association (CALNIGHT)
Car-lite Long Beach
Casey Glaubman, Councilmember of Mount Shasta
Chamber of Progress
Circulate San Diego
City of Berkeley Councilmember Rashi Kesarwani
City of Gilroy Council Member Zach Hilton
City of Mountain View Council Member Lucas Ramirez
City of Santa Monica Council Member Jesse Zwick
City of South San Francisco Council Member James Coleman Claremont City Councilmember, Jed Leano
Climate Action Campaign
Climate Hawks Vote
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets
Council of Infill Builders
East Bay for Everyone
East Bay Leadership Council
SB 79 (Wiener) Page 24 of 28

East Bay Yimby
Eastside Housing for All
Emily Ramos - Vice Mayor, Mountain View
Environmental Protection Information Center
Everybody's Long Beach
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Fieldstead and Company, INC.

Fremont for Everyone
Glendale Yimby
Grow the Richmond
Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation
House Sacramento
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Inclusive Lafayette
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Laura Nakamura - Vice Mayor, Concord
Leadingage California
Lisc San Diego
Lucas Ramirez - Councilmember, Mountain View
Mark Dinan - Vice Mayor, East Palo Alto
Matthew Solomon, Councilmember - Emeryville
Mountain View Yimby
Napa-solano for Everyone
National Independent Venue Association of California
New Way Homes
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing - Orange County
People for Housing Oc
People for Housing Orange County
Phoebe Shin Venkat - Councilmember, Foster City
Prosperity California
Rebecca Saltzman, El Cerrito Councilmember
Redlands Yimby
Remake Irvine Streets for Everyone (RISE)
Ridesd
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Yimby
San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) Santa Cruz Yimby
Santa Rosa Yimby
Sergio Lopez - Mayor, Campbell
SB 79 (Wiener) Page 25 of 28

Sierra Business Council
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sloco Yimby
South Bay Yimby
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE)
Streets are for Everyone (SAFE) (ORG)
Strong Towns San Diego
Strong Towns Santa Barbara
Student Homes Coalition
UC San Diego Housing Commission
University of California Student Association
Ventura County Yimby
Walk Bike Berkeley
Walk San Francisco
Westside for Everyone
Wildlands Network
Yimby Action
Yimby Democrats of San Diego County
Yimby LA
Yimby Los Angeles
Yimby SLO
3 Individuals

OPPOSITION:

Allied Neighborhoods Association (of Santa Barbara)
Burton Valley Neighborhoods Group
California Association of Realtors
California Cities for Local Control
California Contract Cities Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Camarillo; City of
Catalysts for Local Control
Cheviot Hills (los Angeles) Neighborhood Association
Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara
Citizens Preserving Venice
City of Agoura Hills
City of Artesia, California
City of Azusa
City of Brentwood
City of Carlsbad
City of Chino
SB 79 (Wiener) Page 26 of 28

City of Cloverdale
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Cotati
City of Exeter
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom, California
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendora
City of Grand Terrace
City of Highland
City of Huntington Beach
City of La Mirada
City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California
City of Lakeport
City of Lakewood CA
City of Larkspur
City of Lathrop
City of Lawndale
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Manteca
City of Marina
City of Modesto
City of Moreno Valley
City of Napa
City of Oakley
City of Palm Desert
City of Palmdale
City of Paramount
City of Perris
City of Pico Rivera
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Redlands
City of Riverbank
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Rosemead
City of San Fernando
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Marcos
City of San Rafael
City of Sausalito
SB 79 (Wiener) Page 27 of 28

City of Scotts Valley
City of Stanton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tustin
City of Torrance
City of Upland
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
City of Yucaipa
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN)
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Communities for a Better Environment
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association 2025
Crescenta Valley Community Association 2025
Del Rey Residents Association
Fairfield; City of
Folsom; City of
Foothill Communities Association
Fullerton; City of
Grayburn Avenue Block Club
Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
Hesperia; City of
Hills2000_friends of the Hills
Homies Organizing the Mission to Empower Youth (Homey)
Kennedy Commission
Lafayette Homeowners Council
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
League of California Cities
Mission Street Neighbors
Mission Viejo; City of
Murrieta; City of
Neighborhoods United Sf
Neighbors for a Better San Diego
New Livable California Dba Livable California
Newport Beach; City of
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California
Oceanside; City of
Orange; City of
Our Neighborhood Voices
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Palmdale; City of
Paramount; City of
People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights (Poder) Public Advocates
SB 79 (Wiener) Page 28 of 28

Public Counsel
Public Interest Law Project
Rancho Cordova; City of
San Rafael/marin County Council of Mayors & Council Members; City of Save Lafayette
Simi Valley; City of
Spaulding Square Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) State Building and Construction Trades Council
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
Town of Apple Valley
Western Center on Law & Poverty
Westwood Hills Property Owners Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
Young Community Developers
190 Individuals
-- END --
CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 23. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael George, Assistant to the City Manager  Subject: CONSIDER TAKING A POSITION OF SUPPORT AND SENDING A CORRESPONDING LETTERREGARDING ASSEMBLY BILL 650, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROCESSFOR CITIES (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item recommends the City Council take a position of support and send a corresponding letter regardingAssembly Bill 650. If enacted, this bill which would allow local governments to begin the housing element updateprocess six months early, provide greater certainty and reduce ambiguity in the housing element review process. Since 1969, California’s local governments have planned and selected sites for housing at all income levels throughthe housing element portion of a local government’s general plan. Every five to eight years, local governments arerequired to adopt a blueprint outlining where developers can or cannot build residential developments within theirrespective communities and obtain certification from HCD. Local governments plan for their fair share of housingdevelopment as determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. AB 650 would provide greater clarity and certainty to the housing element process and help ensure that alljurisdictions adopt a certified housing element on time.

II. RECOMMENDATION
TAKE a position of SUPPORT for Assembly Bill 650 and DIRECT staff to transmit a corresponding letter.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action deemed appropriate by the City Council and consistent with applicable laws.

IV. BACKGROUND
As part of the RHNA process, local governments submit in their housing elements a variety of essential data, actions, and programs to promote fair, equitable, and affordable housing in their community. Currently, local jurisdictions are planning and zoning for nearly 2.5 million additional homes statewide.

During the 6th RHNA cycle, local governments experienced various challenges in obtaining certification from HCD.

Some of the challenges include a short timeline for completing these complex documents and responding to HCD’s feedback, a lack of clarity regarding what the state expects from local governments when reviewing additional housing element drafts, and the introduction of new requirements late in the housing element review process. AB 650 would address these issues by allowing local governments to begin updating their housing element six months early. The bill would also require HCD to provide specific text and analysis that must be included in the housing element to remedy deficiencies, ensuring that local governments are not penalized when HCD identifies additional deficiencies not previously identified in prior review letters.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact, as this item pertains only to approval of the letter.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Proposed Letter

2. Bill Analysis

Attachments
Proposed Letter
Bill Analysis

May 6, 2025

The Honorable Juan Carrillo
Chair, California State Assembly Committee on Local Government 1020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 650 (Papan) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Notice of SUPPORT (As of 4/24/25)

Dear Chair Carrillo,

The City of Carson strongly supports AB 650 (Papan), which would allow local governments to begin the housing element update process six months early, provide greater certainty and reduce ambiguity in the housing element review process.

Since 1969, California’s local governments have planned and selected sites for housing at all income levels through the housing element portion of a local government’s general plan. Every five to eight years, local governments are required to adopt a blueprint outlining where developers can or cannot build residential developments within their respective communities and obtain certification from HCD. Local governments plan for their fair share of housing development as determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process.

As part of this complex process, local governments submit in their housing elements a variety of essential data, actions, and programs to promote fair, equitable, and affordable housing in their community. Currently, local jurisdictions are planning and zoning for nearly 2.5 million additional homes statewide.

During the 6th RHNA cycle, local governments experienced various challenges in obtaining certification from HCD. Some of the challenges include a short timeline for completing these complex documents and responding to HCD’s feedback, a lack of clarity regarding what the state expects from local governments when reviewing additional housing element drafts, and the introduction of new requirements late in the housing element review process. AB 650 would address these issues by allowing local governments to begin updating their housing element six months early. The bill would also require HCD to provide specific text and analysis that must be included in the housing element to remedy deficiencies, ensuring that local governments are not penalized when HCD identifies additional deficiencies not previously identified in prior review letters.

AB 650 would provide greater clarity and certainty to the housing element process and help ensure that all jurisdictions adopt a certified housing element on time. For these reasons, the City of Carson is pleased to support AB 650 (Papan).

Sincerely,
City of Carson City Council

cc. Senator Laura Richardson & Assemblymember Gipson and Assemblymember Lowenthal Jeff Kiernan, Public Affairs Manager (via email)
League of California Cities, [email protected]
AB 650

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Matt Haney, Chair
AB 650 (Papan) – As Amended March 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation SUMMARY: Extends various timelines in the regional housing needs determination and allocation (RHNA) and housing element process, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to provide specific analysis or text to local governments to remedy deficiencies in their draft housing elements, and allows local governments to deny applications for “builder’s remedy projects” during certain portions of the housing element review process. Specifically, this bill:
1) Revises the required timeline for HCD, in consultation with each council of governments (COG), to determine each region’s existing and projected housing need, as specified, from two years prior to the scheduled housing element due date for the region as in existing law, to 30 months prior to the due date.
2) Revises the required timeline for HCD to meet and consult with the COG regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used by HCD to determine the region’s housing needs, from at least 26 months prior to the scheduled housing element due date for the region as in existing law, to 32 months prior to the due date.
3) Revises the required timeline for each COG or delegate subregion to develop, in consultation with HCD, a proposed methodology for distributing the RHNA to local governments within the region or subregion, from at least two years prior to the scheduled housing element due date as in existing law, to at least two and one-half years prior to the due date. Exempts COGs with a seventh cycle housing element due date in the 2027 calendar year from this timeline revision.
4) Revises the required timeline for each COG and delegate subregion to distribute a draft RHNA to each local government in the region or subregion and to HCD based on the methodology described in 3) above and to publish the draft RHNA plan on its website, from at least one and one-half years prior to the scheduled housing element due date as in existing law, to at least two years prior to the due date. Exempts COGs with a seventh cycle housing element due date in the 2027 calendar year from this timeline revision. 5) Adds a deadline of December 31, 2026 to the existing law requirement for HCD to develop a standardized reporting format for programs and actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing via the housing element, as specified.
6) Requires HCD, if it finds that a draft housing element or amendment does not substantially comply with housing element law, to do both of the following in a written communication to the planning agency:
a) Identify and explain the specific deficiencies in the draft element or draft amendment, including a reference to each subdivision of specified law that the draft does not comply with; and
AB 650

b) Provide the specific analysis or text that HCD expects the planning agency to include in the draft to remedy the deficiencies identified under a) above. 7) Requires a local government’s legislative body to consider HCD’s findings and the specific analysis or text required by HCD under 6) above prior to the adoption of its draft element or amendment.
8) Requires the local government’s legislative body, if HCD finds that the draft element or amendment does not substantially comply with housing element law, to do one of the following:
a) Include the specific analysis or text from HCD under 6) above in the draft element or amendment to substantially comply with housing element law; or b) Adopt the draft element or amendment without the specific analysis or text required by HCD and include written findings in its resolution of adoption that explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft substantially complies with housing element law despite the specific analysis or text required by HCD. 9) Allows a local government to deny a “builder’s remedy project,” as specified and notwithstanding specified law, within the planning agency’s jurisdiction during either of the following periods:
a) The duration of HCD’s review of a draft element or amendment revised under 8) a) above; and
b) 90 days from the date HCD notifies the planning agency of additional deficiencies not previously identified by HCD in response to the prior submission of the draft element or amendment.
10) Requires HCD, when reviewing adopted housing elements or amendments and any findings under 8) b) above, if it finds the adopted element or amendment is not in substantial compliance with housing element law, to identify each subdivision of specified law that the housing element does not substantially comply with and provide the specific analysis or text to the planning agency that, if adopted, would bring the housing element or amendment into substantial compliance.
11) Prohibits a local agency, under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), from disapproving or conditioning approval of a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate- income households or an emergency shelter in a manner that renders the project infeasible, unless the local agency makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that on the date an application for the project was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with housing element law, the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” and at least one of the conditions under 9) above applies.

EXISTING LAW:
1) Provides that each community’s fair share of housing be determined through the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)/RHNA process. Sets out the process as follows: (a) AB 650

Department of Finance (DOF) and HCD develop regional housing needs determination estimates or RHNDs; (b) COGs allocate housing via RHNA within each region based on these determinations, and where a COG does not exist, HCD conducts the allocations; and (c) cities and counties incorporate these allocations into their housing elements. (Government Code (GOV) 65584 and 65584.01)
2) Requires HCD, in consultation with each COG, to determine each region’s existing and projected housing need at least two years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided, and requires the COG or HCD to adopt a final RHNA that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city or county at least one year prior to the housing element due date for the region. (GOV 65584(b)) 3) Requires HCD to meet and consult with each COG regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used in determining the region’s housing needs at least 26 months prior to the housing element due date for the region. (GOV 65584.01(b)(1)) 4) Requires each COG or delegate subregion to develop, in consultation with HCD, a proposed methodology for distributing the RHNA to local governments within the region or subregion at least two years prior to the housing element due date for the region. (GOV 65584.04(a)) 5) Requires each COG or delegate subregion to distribute a draft RHNA based on the methodology under 4) above to each local government in the region and to HCD, and to publish the draft RHNA on its website, at least one and one-half years prior to the housing element due date for the region. (GOV 65584.05(a))
6) Requires each city and county to adopt a housing element, which must contain specified information, programs, and objectives, including:
a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs, including a quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels; an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development; an analysis of potential and actual governmental and nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels; and a demonstration of local efforts to remove constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need, among other things;
b) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and
c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, and timelines for implementation, that the local government is undertaking to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, including actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the local government’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the sites inventory without rezoning, among other things. (Government Code (GOV) Section 65583(a)-(c))
AB 650

7) Requires a local government to submit a draft housing element revision or amendment to HCD at least 90 days prior to adoption of a revision of its housing element, as specified, or at least 60 days prior to the adoption of a subsequent amendment to the housing element. (GOV 65585(b)(1)(A))
8) Requires HCD to review the draft and report its written findings to the planning agency within 90 days of its receipt of the first draft submittal for each housing element revision or within 60 days of its receipt of a subsequent draft. Prohibits HCD from reviewing the first draft submitted for each housing element revision until the local government has made the draft available for public comment for at least 30 days and, if comments were received, as taken at least 10 business days to consider and incorporate public comments, as provided. (GOV 65585(b)(1)(C))
9) Requires HCD, in its written findings under 8) above, to determine whether the draft element or amendment substantially complies with housing element law. (GOV 65585(d)) 10) Requires the legislative body of a local government to consider the findings made by HCD under 8) above prior to the adoption of its draft element or amendment. Allows the legislative body to act without the findings if HCD’s findings are not available within specified time limits. (GOV 65585(e))
11) Requires the legislative body of a local government, if HCD finds the draft element or amendment does not substantially comply with housing element law, to take one of the following actions:
a) Change the draft element or amendment to substantially comply with housing element law, as provided; or
b) Adopt the draft element or amendment without changes, and include written findings in its adoption resolution that explain the reasons the legislative body believes the draft element or amendment substantially complies with housing element law despite the findings of HCD. (GOV 65585(f))
12) Requires HCD to review adopted housing elements or amendments and any findings described under 11) b) above within 60 days and make a finding as to whether the adopted element or amendment is in substantial compliance with housing element law, and report its findings to the planning agency. (GOV 65585(h))
13) Requires HCD to develop a standardized reporting format for programs and actions taken in a housing element to affirmatively further fair housing, which must enable the reporting of specified components of assessing fair housing and include specified fields. (GOV 65583(c)(10)(D))
14) Prohibits, under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), a local government from disapproving or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible certain housing development projects, including a “builder’s remedy project,” which is defined to mean:
a) A housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate- income households;
AB 650

b) On or after the date an application for the project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with the law; and
c) The project meets specified density, location, and affordability requirements. (GOV 65589.5(d)(6), (f)(6), and (h)(11))
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “AB 650 will improve the housing element review process by addressing the delays and challenges local governments face in meeting housing requirements. This bill makes three key improvements: first, it starts the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process six months earlier, allowing municipalities to engage with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sooner; second, it mandates consistent and clear feedback from HCD to ensure local governments have the guidance they need to comply; and third, it provides relief to cities awaiting HCD’s determination by offering a stay on the builder’s remedy. These changes will help local governments develop compliant housing elements on time, supporting the production of much-needed housing while ensuring fairness and clarity in the process.”
California’s Housing Crisis: California is in the midst of a severe housing crisis. Over two- thirds of low-income renters are paying more than 30% of their income toward housing, a “rent burden” that means they have to sacrifice other essentials such as food, transportation, and health care. In 2024, over 185,000 Californians experienced homelessness on a given night, with a sharp increase in the number of people who became homeless for the first time. The crisis is driven in large part by the lack of affordable rental housing for lower income people. According to the California Housing Partnership’s (CHP) Housing Need Dashboard, in the current market, nearly 2 million extremely low-income and very low-income renter households are competing for roughly 750,000 available and affordable rental units in the state. Over three-quarters of the state’s extremely low-income households and over half of the state’s very low-income households are severely rent burdened, paying more than 50% of their income toward rent each month. CHP estimates that the state needs an additional 1.3 million housing units affordable to very low-income Californians to eliminate the shortfall. By contrast, production in the past decade has been under 100,000 housing units per year – including less than 20,000 units of affordable housing per year.1
Despite recent investments over the last few years, state and local governments have not significantly invested in affordable housing production in decades, leading to a lack of supply. In addition, local governments have failed to adequately zone or plan for new housing for decades.

In the last eight years, the state has taken major steps to increase the supply of housing by requiring local governments to plan and zone for 2.5 million new housing units, holding local governments accountable for approving housing, and streamlining both affordable housing and mixed-income housing.

1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml AB 650

RHNA and Housing Elements: The RHNA process is used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability level of those homes, each local government must plan for in its housing element to cover the duration of the next planning cycle. The state is currently in the sixth housing element cycle. The RHND is assigned at the COG level, while RHNA is suballocated to subregions of the COG or directly to local governments. RHNA is currently assigned via six income categories: very low-income (0-50% of AMI), low-income (50-80% of AMI), moderate income (80-120% of AMI), and above moderate income (120% or more of AMI). Beginning with the seventh cycle, two new income categories will be incorporated for acutely low-income (0-15% of AMI) and extremely low-income (15-30% of AMI).

The cycle begins with HCD and DOF projecting new RHND numbers every five or eight years, depending on the region. DOF produces population projections and the COG also develops projections during its Regional Transportation Plan update. Then, 26 months before the housing element due date for the region, HCD must meet and consult with the COG and share the data assumptions and methodology that they will use to produce the RHND. The COG provides HCD with its own regional data on several criteria, including:
 Anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases;  Household size data and trends in household size;
 The percentage of households that are overcrowded, as defined, and the overcrowding rate for a comparable housing market, as defined;
 The rate of household formation, or headship rates, based on age, gender, ethnicity, or other established demographic measures;
 The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy rates for healthy housing market functioning and regional mobility, as well as housing replacement needs, as specified;
 Other characteristics of the composition of the projected population;  The relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and housing;
 The percentage of households that are cost burdened and the rate of housing cost burden for a healthy housing market, as defined; and
 The loss of units during a declared state of emergency during the planning period immediately preceding the relevant housing element cycle that have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the data request.

HCD can take this information and use it to modify its own methodology, if it agrees with the data the COG produced, or can reject it if there are other factors or data that HCD feels are better or more accurate. Then, after a consultation with the COG, HCD makes written determinations on the data it is using for each of the factors bulleted above, and provides that information in writing to the COG. HCD uses that data to produce the final RHND, which must be distributed at least two years prior to the region’s expected housing element due date. The COG must then take the RHND and create an allocation methodology that distributes the housing need equitably amongst all the local governments in its region. The RHNA methodology is statutorily obligated to further all of the following objectives:
1) Increase the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the regional in an equitable manner, which must result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low-income households; AB 650

2) Promote infill development, socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and achievement of regional climate change reduction targets; 3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction;
4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category; and 5) Affirmatively further fair housing.

This bill would push back several RHND and RHNA deadlines for the seventh housing element cycle and beyond by six months, as follows:
 HCD would be required to consult with each COG at least 32 months prior to the scheduled housing element revision, rather than 26 months prior under existing law;  HCD must determine each region’s RHND 2.5 years (30 months) prior to the scheduled housing element revision, rather than two years under existing law;  Each COG must develop its proposed RHNA methodology at least 2.5 years prior to the scheduled housing element revision, rather than two years under existing law (except for COGs with due dates in the 2027 calendar year); and
 Each COG must distribute its draft RHNA allocation plan at least two years prior to the scheduled housing element revision, rather than 1.5 years under existing law (except for COGs with due dates in the 2027 calendar year).

When the draft RHNA plan is distributed, a 30-day shot clock starts for local governments and HCD to appeal the plan. If no appeals are filed, the COG or delegate subregion must adopt the final RHNA plan within 45 days. If appeals are filed, the COG or delegate subregion must publish all appeals and start a 45-day window for public comment. The COG must hold one public hearing within 30 days of close of the public comment period. The COG then has 45 days after hosting the public hearing to make a final determination on appeals and issue a proposed final RHNA. The COG must adopt the final RHNA within 45 days at another public hearing.

Subject to GOV 65584, this must be completed and the final RHNA must be adopted at least one year prior to the housing element deadline, but with the various shot clocks, this yields a total of 195 days from the publishing of the draft RHNA plan (18 months prior to the deadline) to accept and publish appeals, receive comments, hold a hearing, make a determination on appeals, and adopt the final RHNA. This provides local governments with one year at the minimum to prepare and adopt their housing elements, though COGs now have the authority to shorten some of these appeal timelines if they so choose.

The additional six months provided by this bill would mean that COGs would have to distribute their draft RHNA plan at least two years before the housing element due date. With the 195 day appeal timeline, this change would result in local governments receiving their final RHNA numbers about 1.5 years prior to the due date, providing them an extra six months to prepare their housing elements and submit them to HCD for review and approval.

Adoption and Implementation of Housing Elements: All of the state’s 539 cities and counties are required to appropriately plan for new housing through the housing element of each community’s General Plan, which outlines a long-term plan for meeting the community’s AB 650

existing and projected housing needs. Cities and counties are required to update their housing elements every eight years in most of the high population parts of the state, and five years in areas with smaller populations. Localities must adopt a legally valid housing element by their statutory deadline for adoption. Failure to do so can result in certain escalating penalties, including an accelerated deadline for completing rezoning, exposure to the “builder’s remedy,” public or private lawsuits, financial penalties, potential loss of permitting authority, or even court receivership.

Among other things, the housing element must demonstrate how the community plans to accommodate its share of its region’s RHNA, described above. To do so, each community establishes an inventory of sites designated for new housing that is sufficient to accommodate its fair share. Where a community does not already contain the existing capacity to accommodate its fair share of housing, it must undertake a rezoning program to accommodate the housing planned for in the housing element. Depending on whether the jurisdiction met its statutory deadline for housing element adoption, it will have either one year (if it failed to meet the deadline) or three years (if it met the deadline) from its adoption deadline to complete that rezoning program.

It is critical that local jurisdictions adopt legally compliant housing elements on time in order to meet statewide housing goals and create the environment locally for the successful construction of desperately needed housing at all income levels. Unless communities plan for production and preservation of affordable housing, new housing will be slow to build. Adequate zoning, removal of regulatory barriers, protection of existing stock and targeting of resources are essential to obtaining a sufficient permanent supply of housing affordable to all economic segments of the community. Although not requiring the community to develop the housing, housing element law requires the community to plan for housing. Recognizing that local governments may lack adequate resources to house all those in need, the law nevertheless mandates that the community do all that it can and that it not engage in exclusionary and harmful practices.

Local governments have a statutory deadline to submit a housing element based on region.

Ninety days before the deadline to adopt a housing element, localities must submit a draft to HCD. HCD is required to review the draft element within 90 days of receipt and provide written findings as to whether the draft amendment substantially complies with housing element law. If HCD finds that the draft element does not substantially comply with the law, the local agency may either make changes to the draft element to substantially comply with the law or adopt the element and make findings as to why it complies with the law despite the findings of the department. Following adoption of a housing element, a local agency submits it to HCD. When a local government adopts its housing element without making the changes HCD provides, the process is called “self-certification.” Despite the fact that the process allows a local agency to adopt a housing element without making the changes required by HCD to be in substantial compliance, a local agency is not considered compliant until receiving ultimate approval from HCD. Last year, AB 1886 (Alvarez), Chapter 267, further clarified that a housing element is in compliance when both a local agency has adopted a housing element and HCD had found the element in compliance.

This bill would require HCD’s findings of noncompliance for either a draft or adopted housing element to identify and explain the specific deficiencies, by reference to each subdivision of housing element law, that the draft does not comply with, and would require HCD to provide the specific analysis or text that would address the deficiencies if the local government were to include them in a revised element or amendment.

AB 650

Housing Accountability Act (HAA)/Builder's Remedy: In 1982, the Legislature enacted the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The purpose of the HAA is to help ensure that a city does not reject or make infeasible housing development projects that contribute to meeting their housing need without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with the HAA. The HAA restricts a city's ability to disapprove, or require density reductions in, certain types of residential projects. The HAA does not preclude a locality from imposing developer fees necessary to provide public services or requiring a housing development project to comply with objective standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to the locality's share of the RHNA.

One constraint within the HAA on local governments' authority to disprove housing is the “Builder's Remedy.” The Builder’s Remedy prohibits a local government from denying certain housing developments that do not conform to the local government's underlying zoning, if the local government has not adopted a compliant housing element. A number of developers have attempted to use the Builder’s Remedy in the last few years. Last year, AB 1893 (Wicks), Chapter 268, set parameters around the density, underlying zoning, and objective standards that a development must meet in order to qualify for the Builder’s Remedy, and reduced the amount of affordable housing a development must include to qualify.

This bill would allow a local government to deny a Builder’s Remedy project if the local government has not met its statutory deadline for adopting a compliant housing element and has submitted a second or subsequent draft of a housing element that they revised in response to an initial finding of noncompliance from HCD, for the duration of HCD’s review of the subsequent draft. HCD has 60 days to review second and subsequent drafts (90 days for initial drafts). The bill would also allow a local government to deny a Builder’s Remedy project for 90 days from the date HCD notifies the local government of additional deficiencies that were not previously identified by HCD in response to a prior draft element.

Arguments in Support: According to the League of California Cities, the bill’s sponsor, “During the 6th RHNA cycle, local governments experienced various challenges in obtaining certification from HCD. Some of the challenges include a short timeline for completing these complex documents and responding to HCD’s feedback, a lack of clarity regarding what the state expects from local governments when reviewing additional housing element drafts, and the introduction of new requirements late in the housing element review process. AB 650 would address these issues by allowing local governments to begin updating their housing element six months early.

The bill would also require HCD to provide specific text and analysis that must be included in the housing element to remedy deficiencies, ensuring that local governments are not penalized when HCD identifies additional deficiencies not previously identified in prior review letters.” Arguments in Opposition: The California Home Building Alliance writes in opposition, “State housing element law exists to ensure there is a sufficient supply of properly zoned sites for residential development in jurisdictions across the state to accommodate the various housing needs of our population over time. The Builder’s Remedy is a provision in the Housing Accountability Act, first enacted in 1990, that – when a local jurisdiction is out of compliance with state housing element law – allows housing development project applications to be submitted that conform to prescribed development standards and new affordability requirements recently added to the statute. For jurisdictions that want to avoid Builder’s Remedy projects, the law offers a pathway to do so: get their housing elements approved before the deadline.

Enforcement of state housing element law is key to addressing our housing affordability and AB 650

availability crises and, therefore, we must strongly oppose AB 650 unless amended because it would take us backwards in this effort.

Committee Amendments: Staff recommends the bill be amended as follows:
1) The Builder’s Remedy was modified just last year by AB 1893 (Wicks), which imposed new density and location restrictions in the HAA to better conform future Builder’s Remedy projects to their surrounding neighborhoods and created more certainty for developers utilizing the Builder’s Remedy in jurisdictions lacking compliant housing elements. The larger, more populous regions of the state will not begin preparing their seventh cycle housing elements until 2028, and other elements of this bill proposing to move the RHND and RHNA process earlier in sequence will mean local governments in the seventh cycle will have about 18 months to work on their housing elements, six months more time than under current law. Several factors converged in the sixth cycle that made the process more difficult than expected by many local governments and consultants who are often hired or contracted to prepare housing elements. These include changes to the RHND data methodology that more accurately captured the scale of the housing crisis and generated larger RHNA numbers, the inclusion of robust requirements to analyze fair housing issues and take steps to affirmatively further fair housing and delayed guidance from HCD on how to incorporate AFFH, new limitations on recycling old unbuilt or infeasible sites that prompted more intensive rezoning programs, and significant workload spikes for HCD staff reviewing lengthier and more involved housing elements that contributed to staff turnover challenges. Given the other provisions of this bill adding six months to the housing element preparation window for local governments and requiring HCD to provide more intensive, granular instructions on how to come into compliance, the committee may wish to consider striking the provisions of the bill allowing local governments to deny Builder’s Remedy projects:

GOV 65585. (f)(1) If the department finds that the draft element or draft amendment does not substantially comply with this article, the legislative body shall take one of the following actions:
(1) (A) Include the specific analysis or text in the draft element or draft amendment to substantially comply with this article, as required by the department pursuant to subdivision (d). (B) Any change to a draft element or draft amendment pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be completed in accordance with subdivision (b). This subparagraph does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
(C) Notwithstanding Section 65589.5, a jurisdiction shall not be required to approve a builder’s remedy project, as defined in paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) of Section 65889.5, within the planning agency’s jurisdiction during either of the following periods:
(i) The duration of the department’s review of a draft element or draft amendment revised pursuant to this paragraph.
(ii) Ninety days from the date the department notifies the planning agency of additional deficiencies not previously identified by the department in response to the prior submission of the draft element or draft amendment.

AB 650

GOV 65589.5 (d)(7) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project is a builder’s remedy project, and at least one of the conditions described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 65585 applies. 2) Both this bill and AB 1275 (Elhawary) propose to modify timelines in the RHND process in different ways. This bill would require HCD to determine each region’s RHND at least 30 months prior to the housing element deadline, while AB 1275 proposes to require HCD to determine the RHND at least 36 months prior to the deadline. The committee may wish to consider harmonizing the RHND and COG consultation portions of the two bills by requiring HCD to determine the RHND 36 months prior to the deadline for regions with a COG, and 30 months prior if HCD acts as the region’s COG, phased in for those with due dates in 2027-29 as follows:

GOV 65584. (b) The department, in consultation with each council of governments, shall determine each region’s existing and projected housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least 30 months three years prior to the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section 65588, except as provided in subparagraph (1). For cities and counties without a council of governments, the department shall determine each region’s existing and projected housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least 30 months before the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section 65588, except as provided in subparagraph (2). The appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties without a council of governments, the department, shall adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county at least one year prior to the scheduled revision for the region required by Section 65588. The allocation plan prepared by a council of governments shall be prepared pursuant to Sections 65584.04 and 65584.05. For the seventh housing element cycle, the department shall determine each region’s existing and projected housing need as follows:
(1) For regions with a council of governments, the department, in consultation with each council of governments, shall determine each region’s existing and projected housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 as follows:
(A) For regions with a scheduled housing element revision due date in the 2027 calendar year, the department shall determine the region’s housing need at least two years before the scheduled revision.
(B) For regions with a scheduled housing element revision due date in the 2028 calendar year or the first six months of the 2029 calendar year, the department shall determine the region’s housing need at least 32 months before the scheduled revision. (C) For regions with a scheduled housing element revision due date in the second six months of the 2029 calendar year or later, the department shall determine the region’s housing need at least three years before the scheduled revision. (2) For cities and counties without a council of governments and with a scheduled housing element revision due date in the 2027 calendar year or the first six months of the 2028 calendar year, the department shall determine their existing and projected housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least two years before the scheduled revision.

AB 650

GOV 65584.01. (b) (1) At least 32 38 months prior to the scheduled revision pursuant to Section 65588 and prior to developing the existing and projected housing need for a region, the department shall meet and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used by the department to determine the region’s housing needs, except for the seventh housing element cycle, for which the department shall meet and consult with the council of governments at least two months prior to developing the existing and projected housing need for a region pursuant to the timelines in subparagraph (1) of paragraph (b) of Section 65584. The council of governments shall provide data assumptions from the council’s projections, including, if available, the following data for the region: […] 3) While the bill modifies the timelines for a variety of RHND and RHNA code sections, it omits GOV 65584.03, which allows local governments to form a subregional entity underneath the COG that receives a direct allocation of the RHND from the COG and has the ability to establish its own RHNA methodology and allocation plan. The committee may wish to amend the bill to sync the deadlines in GOV 65584.03 with the amendments in 2) above to preserve the ability of local governments to form these entities.

GOV 65584.03. (a) At least 28 34 months prior to the scheduled housing element update required by Section 65588, at least two or more cities and a county, or counties, may form a subregional entity for the purpose of allocation of the subregion’s existing and projected need for housing among its members in accordance with the allocation methodology established pursuant to Section 65584.04. The purpose of establishing a subregion shall be to recognize the community of interest and mutual challenges and opportunities for providing housing within a subregion. A subregion formed pursuant to this section may include a single county and each of the cities in that county or any other combination of geographically contiguous local governments and shall be approved by the adoption of a resolution by each of the local governments in the subregion as well as by the council of governments. All decisions of the subregion shall be approved by vote as provided for in rules adopted by the local governments comprising the subregion or shall be approved by vote of the county or counties, if any, and the majority of the cities with the majority of population within a county or counties. (b) Upon formation of the subregional entity, the entity shall notify the council of governments of this formation. If the council of governments has not received notification from an eligible subregional entity at least 28 34 months prior to the scheduled housing element update required by Section 65588, the council of governments shall implement the provisions of Sections 65584 and 65584.04. The delegate subregion and the council of governments shall enter into an agreement that sets forth the process, timing, and other terms and conditions of the delegation of responsibility by the council of governments to the subregion. (c) At least 25 31 months prior to the scheduled revision, the council of governments shall determine the share of regional housing need assigned to each delegate subregion. The share or shares allocated to the delegate subregion or subregions by a council of governments shall be in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households assumed for the comparable time period of the applicable regional transportation plan. Prior to allocating the regional housing needs to any delegate subregion or subregions, the council of governments shall hold at least one public hearing, and may consider requests for revision of the proposed allocation to a subregion. If a proposed revision is rejected, the council of governments shall respond with a written explanation of why the proposed revised share has not been accepted.

AB 650

(d) Each delegate subregion shall fully allocate its share of the regional housing need to local governments within its subregion. If a delegate subregion fails to complete the regional housing need allocation process among its member jurisdictions in a manner consistent with this article and with the delegation agreement between the subregion and the council of governments, the allocations to member jurisdictions shall be made by the council of governments.

Related Legislation:

AB 1275 (Elhawary) of the current legislative session would requires HCD to determine each region with a COG’s existing and projected housing need three years prior to each region’s scheduled housing element revision, rather than two years as under existing law, and makes changes to how the transportation and job projections in a region’s sustainable communities strategy (SCS) must be incorporated into each COG’s RHNA methodology and final RHNA plan. This bill is currently pending a hearing before this committee.

AB 1886 (Alvarez), Chapter 267, Statutes of 2024: Clarified that a housing element or amendment is not considered substantially compliant with housing element law until the local agency has adopted a housing element that HCD has determined is in substantial compliance with housing element law, as specified.

AB 1893 (Wicks), Chapter 268, Statutes of 2024: Revised and clarified the Builder’s Remedy in the HAA.

Double-referred: This bill was also referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government where it will be heard should it pass out of this committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support
League of California Cities (Sponsor)
City of Artesia, California
City of Bell Gardens
City of Beverly Hills
City of Chino Hills
City of Citrus Heights
City of Corona
City of Cypress
City of Dinuba
City of Eastvale
City of Fullerton
City of Garden Grove
City of Hawaiian Gardens
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Indian Wells
City of Kerman
City of La Habra
City of LA Quinta
City of Lakewood
City of Lakewood
AB 650

City of Lodi
City of Lomita
City of Long Beach
City of Los Alamitos
City of Madera
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Martinez
City of Mission Viejo
City of Oakley
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Placentia
City of Redding
City of Redlands
City of Scotts Valley
City of Stanton
City of Temecula
City Of Thousand Oaks
City of Tulare
City of Tustin
City of Walnut Creek
City of Whittier
City of Woodland
Liz Morris, Councilmember, City of Delano
Individual - 1
Opposition
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth

Oppose Unless Amended

California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association (CBIA)
Greenbelt Alliance
SPUR
The Two Hundred
Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 24. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael George, Assistant to the City Manager  Subject: CONSIDER TAKING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION AND SENDING A CORRESPONDING LETTERREGARDING ASSEMBLY BILL 647, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CITIES TO MINISTERIALLY APPROVE UP TO 8UNITS ON ANY LOT ZONED WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item recommends the City Council take a position of opposition to Assembly Bill 647. If enacted, this bill would disregard state-mandated local housing elements and force cities to allow up to eight housing units — only one of which is required to be affordable — on lots with an existing single-family home or in an area zoned for eight units or less, without any environmental review or public input.

AB 647 would empower developers to bulldoze nearly any home and replace it with eight new units. Once those units are constructed, Government Code Section 66323(a)(4) requires local jurisdictions to allow up to an additional eight ADUs on the same lot, bringing the total allowable units to sixteen, while simultaneously ignoring existing height limits, density requirements, and parking standards.

The proposed letter of opposition is included as Exhibit 1 and the Bill Analysis is included as Exhibit 2.

II. RECOMMENDATION
TAKE a position of OPPOSITION to Assembly Bill 647 and AUTHORIZE staff to transmit a corresponding letter.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate and that is consistent with applicable laws.

IV. BACKGROUND
Unfortunately, AB 647 ignores local flexibility, decision-making, and community input, which are critical components that, when coupled with ongoing, dedicated funding, can help spur desperately needed housing construction in the state.

AB 647 and other ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement and costs associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and state-mandated housing elements that are certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. It is concerning that cities are being forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on housing plans only to have them pushed aside and replaced with one-size-fits-all zoning dictated by the Legislature.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
None, as this item pertains only to approval of the opposition letter.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Proposed Letter2. Bill Analysis

Attachments
Proposed Letter
Bill Analysis

May 6, 2025
The Honorable Mark González California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Suite 6150 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 647 (González, M.) Housing Development Approvals: Residential Units.

Notice of OPPOSITION (As of 3/28/25)

Dear Assembly Member González,
The City of Carson must oppose your AB 647 (González), which would disregard state- mandated local housing elements and force cities to allow up to eight housing units — only one of which is required to be affordable — on lots with an existing single-family home or in an area zoned for eight units or less, without any environmental review or public input.

AB 647 would empower developers to bulldoze nearly any home and replace it with eight new units. Once those units are constructed, Government Code Section 66323(a)(4) requires local jurisdictions to allow up to an additional eight ADUs on the same lot, bringing the total allowable units to sixteen, while simultaneously ignoring existing height limits, density requirements, and parking standards.

The City of Carson appreciates your desire to pursue a proposal that boosts housing production.

Unfortunately, AB 647 ignores local flexibility, decision-making, and community input, which are critical components that, when coupled with ongoing, dedicated funding, can help spur desperately needed housing construction in the state.

AB 647 and other ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement and costs associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and state-mandated housing elements that are certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. It is concerning that cities are being forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on housing plans only to have them pushed aside and replaced with one-size-fits-all zoning dictated by the Legislature.

For these reasons, the City of Carson regretfully must oppose AB 647 (González).

Sincerely,

City of Carson City Council

cc. Senator Laura Richardson & Assemblymember Gipson and Assemblymember Lowenthal Jeff Kiernan, Public Affairs Manager (via email)
League of California Cities, [email protected]

AB 647

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Matt Haney, Chair
AB 647 (Mark González) – As Amended March 28, 2025
SUBJECT: Housing development approvals: residential units SUMMARY: Establishes the Better Urban Infill and Livable Design (BUILD) Housing Act of 2025, which provides a streamlined and ministerial approval pathway for the development of up to eight residential units on a lot with an existing single family home, or a lot zoned for up to eight residential units. Specifically, this bill:
1) Provides a streamlined, ministerial approval pathway, without discretionary review or a hearing, for proposed housing developments containing no more than eight residential units that are located on a lot with an existing single-family home or are zoned for eight or fewer residential units meeting the following requirements:
a) The proposed development includes at least one deed-restricted affordable housing unit at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The unit must be deed-restricted affordable for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units; b) The units in the proposed development may be leased, sold, or conveyed in any manner under applicable law. For example, they can be rental housing, part of a common interest development, part of a tenancy in common, or part of a housing cooperative; c) The proposed development must be:
i) Located in a residential zone; or
ii) In an incorporated city, the boundaries of which include some portion of an urbanized area, or in an urbanized area or urban cluster as defined by the 2012 U.S. Census Bureau Federal Register;
d) The proposed development cannot involve the demolition or alteration of any of the following:
i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rent to levels affordable to persons and families of low, very low, or extremely low income; ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a local public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; and
iii) Housing occupied by tenants within the five years preceding the date of the application, including housing that has been demolished or that tenants have vacated before the submission of the application for a development permit; e) The proposed development will be served by a public water system and a municipal sewer system;
f) The housing development is not located on a site that is any of the following:

AB 647

i) In an area of the coastal zone that is:
(1) Between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tideline of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance; or
(2) On tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff.
(3) Vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise;
(4) On or within a 100-foot radius of a wetland, or on prime agricultural land; ii) On either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction;
iii) On wetlands;
iv) Within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, unless the site has adopted fire hazard mitigation measures such as certain building code or defensible space requirements;
v) On a hazardous waste site, unless:
(1) The site is an underground storage tank site that received a uniform closure letter based on closure criteria established by the State Water Resources Control Board for residential use or residential mixed uses. This does not alter or change the conditions to remove a site from the list of hazardous waste sites; or (2) The State Department of Public Health, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency made a determination that the site is suitable for residential use or residential mixed uses; vi) Within a designated earthquake fault zone, unless the development complies with applicable seismic building code standards;
vii) Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in any official maps published by FEMA. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this or is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval, a local agency shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local agency that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site on the 100-year flood map if either of the following are met:
(1) The site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by FEMA and issued to the local jurisdiction; or
AB 647

(2) The site meets FEMA requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program; viii) Within a regulatory floodway as determined by FEMA in any official maps published by FEMA, unless the development has received a no-rise certification. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval, a local agency shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local agency that is applicable to that site; ix) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, a habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, or other adopted natural resource protection plan;
x) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the California Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant Protection Act; or
xi) Lands under conservation easement.
2) Prohibits a local agency from applying any development standard that would physically preclude the construction of a housing development meeting the requirements in 1), unless the waiver or reduction of those standards would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
3) Prohibits a local agency from imposing development standards on projects meeting the requirements in 1) that do any of the following:
a) Impose any requirement that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the housing development receives approval under the BUILD Act; b) Require a setback between the units, except as required in the California Building Standards Code;
c) Require that parking be enclosed or covered;
d) Impose side and rear setbacks as follows:
i) No setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and with the same dimensions of an existing structure; and ii) Notwithstanding (i), a local agency may require a side and rear setback of up to four feet;
e) Impose height restrictions less than that of one story above the maximum height otherwise applicable to the parcel;
AB 647

f) Imposes off-street parking requirements; or
g) Imposes a floor area ratio (FAR) standard that is less than 2.0. 4) Prohibits a setback, height limitation, lot coverage limitation, FAR, or other standard that would limit residential development capacity from being required by a local government for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and within the same dimensions as an existing structure.
5) Requires a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, an application to construct housing under the BUILD Act within 60 days of a complete application. Failure to act on the application within 60 days will result in the application being deemed approved. If the local agency denies the application, the local agency shall, provide a full set of written comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the applicant can remedy the application. 6) Allows a local agency to disapprove a housing development under the BUILD Act if it makes written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
7) Allows a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the BUILD Act, and specifies that the adoption of said ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
8) Applies this bill to cities, counties, cities and counties, and charter cities. 9) Gives the Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) enforcement authority.

EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires a city or county to ministerially approve either or both of the following, as specified:
a) A housing development of no more than two units (duplex) in a single-family zone; and b) The subdivision of a parcel zoned for residential use into two approximately equal parcels (lot split), as specified. (Government Code (GOV) 65852.21 & 66411.7) 2) Requires a local agency to ministerially approve, within specified timelines, an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create one or more ADUs that meet all state and local requirements. (GOV 66310)
3) Requires a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a subdivision resulting in 10 or fewer parcels and a housing development resulting in 10 or fewer units, on certain residential lots. (GOV 66499.41)
AB 647

4) Establishes the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (Wicks), Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022, which allows the development of 100% affordable and qualifying mixed- income housing development projects in commercial zones and corridors. (GOV 65912.100- 65912.140)
5) Establishes, pursuant to SB 35 (Weiner), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017, and SB 423 (Weiner Chapter 423 Statutes of 2023), until 2036 a streamlined, ministerial review process for infill housing development projects that meet strict objective standards and are sites that are zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development. (GOV 65913.4)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “California’s housing crisis is not just a policy failure—it’s a moral failure. With millions of Californians struggling under the weight of sky- high rents and unattainable homeownership, we cannot afford to let outdated zoning laws and bureaucratic red tape continue to stand in the way of building the homes our communities desperately need. For too long, exclusionary zoning and restrictive housing policies have locked low-income families and communities of color out of high-opportunity neighborhoods— perpetuating segregation, deepening inequality, and denying countless Californians access to stable, affordable housing. AB 647, the Better Urban Infill and Livable Design (BUILD) Housing Act of 2025, is a direct response to these systemic barriers. By streamlining the approval process for small-scale, multi-unit housing in residential neighborhoods, this bill makes it easier to build the homes our state desperately needs—while also expanding access to historically exclusive areas.

AB 647 also includes strong affordability provisions, requiring that at least one unit in each development be reserved for low-income households. It also maintains key tenant protections and environmental safeguards, so that we build fairly, responsibly, and sustainably. California’s future depends on our ability to build homes for everyone across our entire state. With the BUILD Housing Act, we are making it clear: every community has a role to play in solving this crisis, and everyone deserves a fair shot at the California Dream.” California Housing Crisis: California’s housing crisis is a half-century in the making. 1 After decades of underproduction, supply is far behind need and housing and rental costs are soaring.

As a result, millions of Californians must make hard decisions about paying for housing at the expense of food, health care, child care, and transportation, directly impacting the quality of life in the state. 2 One in three households in the state doesn’t earn enough money to meet their basic needs. 3 In 2024, over 187,000 Californians experienced homelessness on a given night.4

1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan. March 2022, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/94729ab1648d43b1811c1698a748c136 2 IBID.
3 IBID.
4 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Point in Time Counts. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html AB 647

To meet this housing need, HCD determined that California must plan for more than 2.5 million new homes, and no less than one million of those homes must be affordable to lower-income households, in the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle. By contrast, housing production in the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 10,000 units of affordable housing per year.5
The state’s housing crisis is not equally experienced by all Californians. Testimony by the UC Berkeley Terner Center to this Committee showed that the impacts of the housing crisis are significantly more severe for lower-income individuals, single-earner households, Black and Latino Californians, younger and older populations, and those who reside in, or aspire to live and work in, the state’s highest-cost regions.6
Local Restrictions on Housing Development and their Implications: Planning for and approving new housing is primarily a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within [their] limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental authority—commonly called the police power—that cities and counties derive the ability to regulate behavior in order to preserve the public’s health, safety, and welfare, including through land use regulation. Cities and counties exercise this land use authority through zoning regulations that shape and limit development, such as maximum housing densities, height limits, required setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and maximum lot coverage ratios. These ordinances can also impose conditions on development to address aesthetics, community impacts, or other site-specific considerations.

While local governments do not typically build housing, the restrictions they impose on new housing production have contributed to the state’s severe housing shortage. Historically, housing supply closely followed market demand. However, this alignment shifted with the emergence of local zoning, which became widespread just over a century ago. The most prominent form of zoning in California limits development to single-family homes on large lots.7 This type of zoning effectively locks in low density, regardless of actual demand for housing, even as that demand now exceeds millions of additional homes across the state. This mismatch drives up home prices and values, which benefits existing homeowners, who are disproportionately white. 8 At the same time, rising housing costs disproportionately harm communities of color, who are less likely to have generational wealth, own property, or afford escalating rents. 9 Approximately every eight years, all jurisdictions in California are required to update the Housing Element of their General Plan, setting forth a blueprint for how they will meet the housing needs of current and future residents at all income levels. A key component of the Housing Element is the sites inventory, where jurisdictions must identify parcels with the

5 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml 6 UC Berkeley Terner Center Testimony by Ben Metcalf, Managing Director, at the State Housing Production Legislation: Actions, Outcomes, and Opportunities Informational Hearing, February 12, 2025 7 UC Berkeley Terner Center, 2018, Land Use in California survey of cities and counties:
https://californialanduse.org/
8 UC Berkeley Terner Center, 2018, Land Use in California survey of cities and counties:
https://californialanduse.org/
9 Bhutta et al, 2020, Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and- ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm AB 647

potential to accommodate housing development that meets their share of the state-mandated RHNA. Jurisdictions must demonstrate that these sites are realistically developable, particularly for lower-income housing, and often must complete rezonings to allow for higher densities or residential uses if their existing zoning is insufficient. This process is overseen by the California HCD, which reviews and certifies Housing Elements for compliance with state law.

California is currently in its 6th Housing Element cycle. In this cycle, HCD determined that the state must plan for the development of 2.5 million new homes, including more than 1 million affordable homes. This has prompted an unprecedented volume of rezoning at the local level.

However, housing advocates argue that significant improvements are still needed in the Housing Element review and rezoning process. For example, the City of Los Angeles’ recent rezoning effort to accommodate over 250,000 new homes has drawn substantial criticism. Despite the fact that single-family neighborhoods make up the majority of the city’s residential land, the plan largely excluded those areas from upzoning. Instead, nearly all rezoning was concentrated in already dense, transit-rich areas, particularly Downtown and along commercial corridors. Critics contend that this approach perpetuates racial and economic segregation, misses an opportunity to equitably distribute growth, and places disproportionate pressure on communities that have historically borne the brunt of inequitable planning decisions.

This bill seeks to directly address the perceived deficiencies in the Housing Element process when it comes to opening up exclusionary single-family neighborhoods to denser development.

It would do so by allowing up to eight units on lots already containing a single-family home or zoned for up to eight residential units in urban areas or urban clusters, as defined by the U.S.

Census Bureau in 2012. These small-scale developments under the BUILD Act would benefit from a streamlined, ministerial approval process. To qualify, the development must meet specific conditions, such as dedicating at least one unit to deed-restricted affordable housing for households earning 80% or less of the area median income, for 55 years (rentals) or 45 years (ownership). This bill takes existing lot conditions into account, by prohibiting the bill from being used on parcels that would require the demolition of affordable housing (either deed restricted or through local rent control), and housing that has been occupied by tenants over the past 5 years. It further excludes BUILD Act developments on parcels in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, high fire zones, or floodplains.

Notably, this bill would limit a local agency’s ability to impose certain development restrictions.

Under this bill, local governments cannot impose development standards on developments of up to eight units that would do the following:
1) Impose any requirement on a project solely or partially because it qualifies under the BUILD Act;
2) Require any setbacks between the units themselves, unless mandated by the California Building Standards Code;
3) Require parking to be enclosed (such as garages) or covered (such as carports); 4) Require side or rear setbacks for existing structures or for new structures built in the exact same location and dimensions of an existing structure; otherwise, side and rear setbacks may not exceed four feet;
AB 647

5) Impose a height limit that is less than one story above the maximum height otherwise allowed for the parcel;
6) Require any off-street parking;
7) Impose a floor area ratio (FAR) limit of less than 2.0; or 8) Impose any setback, height, lot coverage, FAR, or other standard that would reduce residential capacity for an existing structure or one rebuilt in the same footprint.

Together, these limitations are intended to prevent local jurisdictions from using traditional zoning tools like excessive setbacks, parking requirements, or restrictive height limits to block or downsize qualifying projects. Local governments would be required to act on applications pursuant to the BUILD Act within 60 days of a complete application. Failure to do so would result in the application being deemed approved.

Missing Middle Housing: A 2024 analysis by the UC Berkeley Othering and Belonging Institute found that 95.8% of all of the residential land in California is zoned for just one home at the local level.10 Single-family only zoning is one form of exclusionary zoning. The same analysis found that jurisdictions with more restrictive zoning have fewer non-white residents.11 Although California is only 35% white, cities with 96% single-family-only zoning are nearly 55% white.12 In recent years, the Legislature has sought to increase the amount of land available for housing development, sometimes by overriding local zoning regulations in these single-family communities to increase the allowable density.

In recent years, the Legislature has promoted a shift towards “gentle density,” e.g., ADUs, duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and other moderately dense developments that were common before the imposition of zoning. In 2016, SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720 and AB 2299 (Bloom) Chapter 735 permitted ADUs by right on all residentially-zoned parcels in the state. By permitting attached, detached, and JADUs on all single-family lots, these laws, among others, facilitated the construction of missing middle housing in exclusionary single-family neighborhoods and all residential areas.13 SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statues of 2021 furthered this trend by making duplexes by-right on single-family zoned properties. SB 1211 (Skinner), Chapter 296, Statues of 2024 increased the number of allowable ADUs on multifamily properties. SB 1123 (Caballero), Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024 and SB 684 (Caballero), Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023 made it legal to build up to 10 homes on vacant lots in single-family zones near jobs, schools, transit, and other amenities by providing a streamlined approval process.

Of the “missing middle” legislation passed to date, the cumulative effect of the ADU laws has been a bright spot when it comes to facilitating housing production. ADU laws have established a fast, predictable, uniform, and enforceable process for the approval of ADUs statewide. These laws have transformed ADUs from being less than 1% of new construction before 2017 to now

10 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-california-statewide-analysis 11 IBID.
12 IBID.
13 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/adu-handbook-update.pdf AB 647

being approximately 20%, with over 23,000 new ADUs legally completed in 2023.14 The number of ADUs is expected to continue growing as the ADU construction and financing industry matures, which will help meet the market feasibility for ADUs that is estimated to be approximately 1.8 million units in California.15 With thousands of affordable ADUs being added every year, ADUs have already become an important part of the state’s stock of new affordable housing, with a growth potential that is not subject to the state’s funding allocations.

Meanwhile, uptake has been slower for SB 9. According to a 2021 study from the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, the passage of SB 9 increased the amount of market- feasible homes statewide by 700,000.16 However, a 2023 analysis from the Terner Center determined that, in its first year, the effect of the law has been relatively limited.17 Los Angeles had the most activity, with 211 applications for new units under SB 9 in 2022. The state’s other large cities all reported very few applications for lot splits or new units. For example, the City of San Diego reported receiving just seven applications for new SB 9 units in 2022.

There are multiple reasons for this slow uptake. It often takes a few years for the construction process to catch up with changes to land use policy. Also, higher interest rates greatly increased the cost of financing a second unit, adding a chilling effect to the housing market. The City of San Diego has a generous local ADU program, providing a local pathway to increasing missing- middle housing, which is less restrictive than the provisions of SB 9. SB 450 (Atkins), Chapter 286, Statutes of 2024, amended SB 9 to address some of the early barriers to low utilization of SB 9. SB 450 (Atkins) added a 60-day review period for SB 9 applications, removed the ability of local agencies to deny certain SB 9 projects, prohibited a local agency from imposing standards on SB 9 projects that do not apply to the underlying zoning district, gave HCD explicit enforcement authority over SB 9, and strengthened the statewide concern findings that applied SB 9 to charter cities. The provisions of SB 450 became effective on January 1 of this year, so it is too early to judge the impact of those changes on SB 9 uptake.

This bill would expand significantly on the efforts to open up residential neighborhoods to gentle density by allowing up to 8 units to be built on any parcel that currently allows for one to eight units of residential development, with the above-mentioned limitations to protect tenants and ensure these developments are located in environmentally sound locations. By increasing development capacity, this bill will increase land values. A concern being raised about this bill is that the increased land value will facilitate speculative purchases of land by corporations, including institutional investors, and may lead to gentrification. Such concerns were also raised before and after the passage of the legislation that allowed ADUs and SB 9. However, thus far this concern does not appear to have been borne out: while corporations own 17% of California’s housing stock, only 8% of ADUs have been built on their property.18 One reason that corporations are not building as many secondary units is that construction is not part of their

14 Per HCDs “APR Dashboard” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data- tools/housing-element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard. Complete data for 2023 will be made available by June 30, 2024. This statistic relies on data pulled on May 28, 2024. 15 Monkonnen et al, 2020, One to Four: The Market Potential of Fourplexes in California’s Single-Family Neighborhoods, UCLA Working Paper Series: https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-potential-fourplexes/ 16 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf 17 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/sb-9-turns-one-applications/ 18 Chapple et al, 2020, Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and Progress to Date an d the Need for ADU Finance, UC Berkeley’s Terner Center and Center for Community Innovation:
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf AB 647

business model, which is instead predicated on rising rents providing a greater return than other investment alternatives. Furthermore, the BUILD Act allows for the units developed to be rental, condominiums, part of a tenancy in common, or part of a housing cooperative, potentially providing increased homeownership opportunities.

Policy Considerations:
1) Bonus! As currently drafted, this bill would allow developments containing 5-8 units to qualify for State Density Bonus Law (DBL), affording them added density, concessions, and incentives in exchange for some affordable units. The Committee may wish to consider if the stacking of the BUILD Act and DBL is appropriate, as the BUILD Act already imposes a statewide FAR of 2.0, increased density, a height limit one story above what is otherwise allowed by the local government, and relaxed setback requirements. 2) Urban? Further, this bill uses a definition of “urbanized areas” and “urban cluster” to define the urban areas where this bill would apply. Those definitions are from 2012 and are no longer supported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The U.S. Census Bureau now uses a 2022 definition of an “urban area.” The Committee may wish to consider having this bill use the current definition rather than an outdated one.
3) Parking. As currently drafted, a local government is prohibited from imposing any parking requirements on any developments under the BUILD Act. Parking is expensive to build in an already expensive construction environment, by some estimates adding tens of thousands of dollars per parking space to new developments. The state has taken significant steps to alleviate parking requirements near transit and provide developers with options to reduce parking to increase financial feasibility through the use of DBL. Furthermore, there is nothing preventing a developer from electing to add parking if they believe that is an amenity that will be important for future residents. Some jurisdictions, like San Francisco, have completely waived all requirements for new parking spaces in residential development.

Nonetheless, since the provisions of this bill apply statewide and not just near existing jobs and transit, the Committee may wish to consider whether the prohibition on any parking requirements is appropriate.

Arguments in Support: The Our Future LA Coalition, the bill sponsor, writes in support: “AB 647 is essential to desegregate California and open neighborhoods of opportunity to all Californians. Lower-income households often face a stark choice: pay upwards of half their income to live within a reasonable distance to their jobs, or accept long commutes from their homes. This is because job rich neighborhoods do not provide adequate housing affordable to all households. Essential workers including teachers, post office workers, and grocery store employees work in every neighborhood in California. Unfortunately, not every neighborhood has affordable housing for our essential community members. AB 647 will move California towards remedying this wrong.”
Arguments in Opposition: The California Association of Realtors writes in opposition: “Policies like AB 647 (González) only serve to widen our state’s generational wealth gap, as working families face an insurmountable number of state laws that exclude them from the dream of homeownership as state laws favor the investor (i.e., for-profit, non-profit, REIT, hedge fund, deed restricted housing developers, etc.), who seeks to maximize their return on investment using our state’s limited homeownership housing stock which is removed from the ownership housing market to increase shareholder profits.”
AB 647

Committee Amendments: The Committee may wish to consider the following amendments to address the policy considerations raised in 1) and 2), above:
1) Add the following language to prevent DBL from being used in conjunction with the BUILD Act:
(f) An application for a proposed housing development submitted pursuant to this section shall be ineligible for a density bonus, or any incentives, concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, or parking ratios, provided under Section 65915. 2) Use the current U.S. Census Bureau definition of an urban area, not the 2012 definitions of “urbanized area” and “urban cluster:”
(I) An incorporated city, the boundaries of which include some portion of an urbanized urban area.
(II) An urbanized area or urban cluster. urban area.
(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply: “urban area” means an urban area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 87, Number 249, on December 29, 2022.
(I) “Urbanized area” means an urbanized area designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012. (II) “Urban cluster” means an urban cluster designated by the United States Census Bureau, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 59, on March 27, 2012.

Related Legislation:

AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) of this legislative session would allow for up to 2 detached ADUs on any lot with an existing or proposed single-family home.

SB 1123 (Caballero), Chapter 294, Statutes of 2024 and SB 684 (Caballero), Chapter 783, Statutes of 2023 required local agencies to ministerially approve subdivisions for specified projects in urban areas that include 10 or fewer housing units.

AB 1033 (Ting), Chapter 752, Statutes of 2023: Allowed an ADU to be separately conveyed from the primary residence
SB 897 (Wieckowski), Chapter 664, Statutes of 2022: Created a process for the permitting of unpermitted ADUs.

SB 9 (Atkins), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021. Required the ministerial approval by a local agency of a duplex in a single-family zone and the lot split of a parcel zoned for residential use into two parcels.

AB 68 (Ting), Chapter 655, Statutes of 2019, AB 881 (Bloom), Chapter 659, Statutes of 2019, and SB 13 (Wieckowski), Chapter 653, Statutes of 2019: Collectively, these bills made changes to ADU and JADU laws, including narrowing the criteria by which local jurisdictions can limit AB 647

where ADUs are permitted, clarifying that ADUs must be ministerially approved if constructed in existing garages, eliminating for five years the potential for local agencies to place owner- occupancy requirements on the units, prohibiting an ordinance from imposing a minimum lot size for an ADU, and eliminating impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or less and capping fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or more to 25 percent AB 2299 (Bloom), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2016; and SB 1069 (Wieckowski), Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016: Provided legislative intent re ADUs and provided requirements and authorizations for the entitlement of ADUs.

AB 2406 (Thurmond), Chapter 755, Statutes of 2016: Established JADU law.

Double Referred: This bill was also referred to the Committee on Local Government, where it will be heard should it pass out of this Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support
Abundant Housing LA (Co-Sponsor)
Inner City Law Center (Co-Sponsor)
Our Future Los Angeles (Co-Sponsor)
United Way of Greater Los Angeles (Co-Sponsor)
Abundant Housing Los Angeles
Abundant Housing Pasadena
Abundant Housing Sunset
Active San Gabriel Valley
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE Action) Ascencia
Bet Tzedek Legal Services
Bike LA
Black Women for Wellness
Building WeHo
CA Native Vote Project
California Community Builders
California YIMBY
Climate Resolve
CTY Housing, INC.

Downtown Women's Center
DTLA 4 All
East Bay YIMBY
Eastside Housing for All
Everybody's Long Beach
Fathers and Mothers Who Care
Fieldstead and Company, INC.

Glendale YIMBY
Greenbelt Alliance
Grow the Richmond
Habitat for Humanity California
Habitat for Humanity Greater Los Angeles
AB 647

Healing and Justice Center
Homes for Whittier
HOPICS
Housing Action Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Inland Abundant Housing & Housing and Homeless Collaborative of Claremont Inquilinos Unidos (united Tenants)
Jewish Family Service LA
Justice in Aging
KIWA
LA Forward
LA Voice
Liberty Hill Foundation
LIBRE
LISC Los Angeles
LISC San Diego
Long Beach Forward
Long Beach Gray Panthers
Long Beach Residents Empowered
Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
Mental Health Advocacy Services
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County
Northern Neighbors
PATH
Peninsula for Everyone
Presbytery of the Pacific
Redlands YIMBY
Restore Neighborhoods LA
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Safe Place for Youth
San Fernando Valley for All
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Monica Forward
Santa Rosa YIMBY

SF YIMBY
Social Justice Learning Institute
South Bay Forward
South Bay YIMBY
South LA Solid
South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth
St Joseph Center
Stories from the Frontline
Streets for All
Sunset Abundant Housing
Sustainable Claremont
The Good Seed CDC
AB 647

The Hmong INC
The People Concern
The Sidewalk Project
Union Station Homeless Services
United Way Bay Area
Urban Environmentalists LA
Ventura County YIMBY
Westside for Everyone
YIMBY Action
YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Los Angeles

YIMBY SLO
Opposition
California Association of Realtors
City of Artesia, California
City of Brea
City of Cypress
City of Garden Grove
City of Hawaiian Gardens
City of Hermosa Beach
City of LA Habra
City of LA Mirada
City of Lakewood CA
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Montclair
City of Ontario
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of San Bernardino
City of Seal Beach
City of Stanton
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tulare
City of Walnut Creek
League of California Cities
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Individual - 1
Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 25. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael George, Assistant to the City Manager  Subject: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIACONSULTING, INC. FOR CITYWIDE PROFESSIONAL GRANT WRITING SERVICES (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item requests the City Council to consider approval of Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with California Consulting, Inc. ("California Consulting") to (1) extend the term by one year and (2) increase the consideration by $66,000 for continuance of citywide grant writing services to the City of Carson.

At its meeting on September 20, 2022, the City Council approved a contract with California Consulting for an initial three-year term with two City options to extend for additional one-year periods thereafter, for a not-to-exceed contract sum of $60,000 annually or $180,000 for the initial three-year term.

Approval of this item would exercise the first of the two one-year extension options and add $66,000 for the additional year of services, and would commence at the conclusion of the initial three-year term.

II. RECOMMENDATION

1. APPROVE Amendment No. 1 with California Consulting, Inc. to exercise a one-year term extension and increase the contract consideration by $66,000 (Exhibit 1; the “Amendment”).

2. AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute the Amendment, following approval as to form by the City Attorney.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action deemed appropriate by the City Council and consistent with applicable laws.

IV. BACKGROUND
At its meeting on September 20, 2022, the City Council approved a contract with California Consulting for an initial three-year term with two City options to extend for additional one-year periods thereafter, for a not-to-exceed contract sum of $60,000 annually or $180,000 for the initial three-year term. As detailed in the contract services agreement, California Consulting, has supported the City of Carson by providing professional grant writing services to help the City identify, pursue, and manage grants associated with the City’s goals and priorities. These mainly include, but are not limited to, the following: housing and community development, economic development, sustainability, livability, environmental enhancements, clean air, clean water, parks, and infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure refers to all water and transportation initiatives, including projects within City parks.

California Consulting has helped the City secure several federal, and state and local funds in the form of grants from the state and federal government, and other agencies. The types of grants pursued encompass all types and categories as well as sizes and complexities. Since the current contract was established in September 2022, California Consulting has helped secure several million dollars for the City of Carson. Additional information is included in Exhibit 2.

Section 3.4 of the existing contract provides, “The City has the option, at its sole discretion, to extend the term of the Agreement by up to two (2) additional years, in one (1) year increments, at the same rate of compensation as set forth in Exhibit “C” for the initial three-year term.” The current rate of compensation set forth in Exhibit “C” is $5,000 per month (equal to $60,000 per year of services). However, California Consulting has requested a $500 per month rate increase, to $5,500 per month, for the proposed first extension period. Staff is of the opinion that the requested rate increase is reasonable, given how much money Cal Consulting has brought into the City through grants. The proposed Amendment No. 1 to the contract has been prepared accordingly, with compensation not to exceed $66,000 for the proposed first extension period, and the same for the second extension period in the event it is exercised (which would be considered by the Council at a later date). However, if the Council would like to insist on continuing the current rates of compensation for the extension period based on the language of Section

3.4, Council may direct staff accordingly, in which case staff would seek to negotiate the rates with Cal Consulting and return to Council with a revised Amendment No. 1 after such negotiations are completed.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this item will authorize funding which will be allocated within Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget underAccount Code 101-50-501-100-6004.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Proposed Contract Amendment No. 1 with California Consulting2. Grant Award List

Attachments
Proposed Contract Amendment No. 1 with California Consulting Grant Award List

01007.0001 2000556.4
AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
(“Amendment No. 1”) by and between the CITY OF CARSON, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC. , a California corporation (“Consultant”) is effective as of the 29th day of September, 2025. City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement for Contract Services dated September 2 9, 2022 (“Agreement”), whereby Consultant agreed to provide professional grant writing services to the City for an initial three-year term expiring September 29, 2025, for a total not-to-exceed Contract Sum of $180,000.

B. Section 3.4 of the Agreement provides City the option , in its sole discretion, to extend the term of the Agreement by up to two (2) additional years, in one (1) year increments.

C. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to formalize City’s election to exercise the first of its two options pursuant to Section 3.4, thereby extending the term of the Agreement by one (1) year (unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of the Agreement), for a new scheduled term expiration date of September 29, 2026, with one City one- year option to extend remaining, and increasing the Contract Sum by $66,000 to fund the Services for the extension period from September 29, 2025 to September 29, 2026, thereby increasing the total not-to-exceed Contract Sum from $180,000 to $246,000.

TERMS

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein ( strikethrough represents deleted text while bold italics represents added text).

A. Section 2.1 (Contract Sum) is hereby amended as follows:
“2.1 Contract Sum
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference.

The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Forty -Six Thousand Dollars ($24 6,000) One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.8. In the event City exercises one or both of its options to extend the four-year term the

01007.0001 2000556.4
initial three-year term of this Agreement for an additional one-year period pursuant to Section 3.4, the compensation for each such one-year extension period shall not exceed Sixty-Six Thousand Dollars ($66,000 $60,000).” B. Section 3.4 (Term) is hereby amended as follows:
“3.4 Term
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding four (4) three (3) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).

The City has the option, at its sole discretion, to extend the term of the Agreement by one (1) up to two (2) additional year s, in one (1) year increments, at the same rate of compensation as set forth in Exhibit “C” for the fourth year of the initial three-year term.”
C. The first sentence of Section I of Exhibit “C” (Schedule of Compensation) is hereby amended as follows:
“Consultant shall perform the services for a flat monthly fee of $5,000 for the initial three years of the term and $5,500 for the fourth year of the term (inclusive of any out-of-pocket expenses for services), which services shall include grant research, grant identification, grant writing, and post - award administration as needed.”
D. Section IV of Exhibit “C” (Schedule of Compensation) is hereby amended as follows:
“IV. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $246,000 $180,000 as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.”

3. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement.

4. Affirmation of Agreement; Warranty Re Absence of Defaults. City and Consultant each ratify and reaffirm each and every one of the respective rights and obligations arising under the Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that there have been no written or oral modifications to the Agreement oth er than as provided herein . Each party represents and warrants to the other that the Agreement is currently an effective, valid, and binding obligation.

Consultant represents and warrants to City that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 1, City is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default under the Agreement.

01007.0001 2000556.4
City represents and warrants to Consultant that, as of the date of this Amendment No. 1, Consultant is not in default of any material term of the Agreement and that there have been no events that, with the passing of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a material default under the Agreement.

5. Adequate Consideration. The parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 1.

6. Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 1, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 1, and (iv) the entering into this Amendment No. 1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said party is bound.

7. Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, whether the signatures are originals, electronic, facsimiles or digital. All such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Amendment No. 1.

[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

01007.0001 2000556.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 on the date and year first-above written.

CITY:

CITY OF CARSON, a California municipal
corporation
_____________________________________
Lula Davis-Holmes, Mayor

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
____________________________
Sunny K. Soltani, City Attorney
[brj; mav]
CONSULTANT:

CALIFORNIA CONSULTING, INC., a California
corporation

By: _____________________________
Name:

Title:

By: _____________________________
Name:

Title:

Address: 214 Main Street, Suite 102 El
Segundo, CA 90245
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES

SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS

MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.

01007.0001 2000556.4

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

On __________, 2025 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _____________________________________

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

INDIVIDUAL

CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________

TITLE(S)

PARTNER(S) LIMITED

GENERAL

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

TRUSTEE(S)

GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

___________________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE

01007.0001 2000556.4

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

On __________, 2025 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the enti ty upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _____________________________________

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

INDIVIDUAL

CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________

TITLE(S)

PARTNER(S) LIMITED

GENERAL

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

TRUSTEE(S)

GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

___________________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE

www.californiaconsulting.org

City of Carson

Grant Awards
September 2022 – April 2025

Grant Name Award Date Award Amount
HUD - Federal Earmarked Request for Carson's Safe Routes to School Project February 2025 $2,000,000 (funds may not have been distributed yet)
South Coast Air Quality Management District - Carl Moyer Grant Program February 2025 $81,000 CalTrans - Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) February 2025 $346,500 CPUC - CASF Broadband Adoption Account Grant Program January 2025 $620,280 California Office of Traffic Safety - Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) October 2024 $78,000 DOT - Safe Streets for All (SS4A) - Planning & Demonstration Application September 2024 $967,840 SoCalGas - Climate Adaptation & Resiliency Planning Grant Program July 2024 $50,000 Parks California - Adventure Pass Grants Program May 2024 $10,000 Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) October 2023 $150,080 California Office of Traffic Safety - Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) October 2023 $83,000 California Department of Housing & Community Development - PLHA Grant Program October 2023 $353,116 U.S. Department of Justice - BJA Edward Bryne Local JAG Solicitation October 2023 $34,992

www.californiaconsulting.org

Department of Housing and Urban Development - Appropriation Request for Carson's Community Projects, including Environmental Enhancement and Energy Resilience at Veterans Park & Sports Complex
October 2023 $3,500,000
USDA - Urban and Community Forestry Grant September 2023 $1,000,000 CalTrans - Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 6 January 2023 $897,000 U.S. Department of Justice - COVID-19 Emergency Response Grant October 2022 $106,637 U.S. Department of Justice - BJA Edward Byrne Local JAG Solicitation (Formula Grant) October 2022 $32,488

Total Grant Awards - $10,310,933

CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 26. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael George, Assistant to the City Manager  Subject: CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT WITH KPMG, LLP FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ANDSTRATEGIC PLANNING SERVICES IN PREPARATION FOR THE 2028 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES(CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item transmits a recommendation for the City Council to award a contract services agreement to KPMG, LLP ("KPMG" or "Consultant") for strategic planning services in preparation for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games (the "Games") and the role of the City of Carson as a Venue City for the Games. The intended purpose of securing a professional consultant is to help ensure the City is well positioned to economically benefit from the Games occurring in the City of Carson, to equip the City with the tools, resources, and guidance needed to support the successful planning and implementation of the Games within Carson, while providing a world-class experience for residents and visitors alike during this historical event.

Approval of this recommendation (Recommendation items 1-2, below) would approve a contract services agreement with KPMG for a not-to-exceed contract sum of $326,750 for a one-year term. (Exhibit No. 1).

II. RECOMMENDATION

1. APPROVE the proposed contract services agreement with KPMG for strategic planning services in preparation of the 2028 Games, and the role of the City of Carson as a Venue City, for a not-to-exceed contract sum of $326,750 for a one-year term.

2. AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute the Agreement following approval as to form by the City Attorney.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate and that is consistent with applicable laws.

IV. BACKGROUND
The City of Carson is one of the Venue Cities for the forthcoming 2028 Games that will occur throughout the greater Los Angeles area in the summer of 2028. At present, the City of Carson is set to be a Venue City for field hockey, archery, rugby sevens, tennis, and track cycling, all of which are planned to occur at Dignity Health Sports Park. The hosted events are included as a reference but are subject to change as planning continues. Los Angeles previously hosted the Olympics in 1932 and 1984, and Carson was the home of the track cycling event during the 1984 Games.

To proactively prepare for the 2028 Games, City staff launched a formal Request for Proposals ("RFP") process to identify a qualified firm capable of developing a comprehensive strategic plan for the City. The goal for the plan is to equip the City with the tools, resources, and guidance needed to support the successful planning and implementation of the Games within Carson. The consultant’s role will be to provide assistance in planning for large-scale community and entertainment events related to the Games. Expected deliverables from the selected consultant include, but are not limited to detailed action plans; planning activity schedules; key milestones and goal timelines; resource identification and allocation strategies; and additional supporting materials as appropriate.

Ultimately, no proposals were received as part of the formal RFP process. In response, City staff proactively reached out to KPMG to request a proposal. KPMG prepared a proposal and was selected due to its ongoing involvement in providing strategic planning services for the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach as part of their respective 2028 Games preparations. Engaging KPMG will help ensure that the City of Carson benefits from the same high level of expertise as the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach in their 2028 Games planning efforts.

The proposed contract with KPMG, now presented for City Council consideration, outlines the scope of services KPMG shall provide to support Carson’s preparation for the 2028 Games, which includes the following:

A comprehensive work breakdown structure for all activities required to fulfill the City’s obligations for a successful Games event.

A plan that outlines identified significant activities and milestones to create a successful blueprint to guide City preparation for being a Venue City for the Games.

An implementation plan that provides direction on how to execute identified activities and reach suggested milestones.

A resource plan for the delivery of the schedule, including identifying potential responsible internal and external stakeholders for activities delivery, and identifying relevant City staffing needs.

Proposed coordination plan with external partners, including but not limited to other cities, businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Proposed performance metrics to measure progress towards activities and milestones.

Establishment of comprehensive and accurate cost estimates for the delivery of activities by the City.

Legal Considerations
It should be noted that the Consultant requested a limitation of liability clause be added to the agreement where Consultant’s liability is limited to the amount of fees paid by City but this point was negotiated so that liability will be limited to five times the contract amount of $326,750. Additionally, there will be no limitation on liability for claims or liabilities arising from death, bodily injury, damage to tangible property, infringement of intellectual property, or occurring as a result of Consultant’s fraud, gross negligence, or willful misconduct.

Procurement Standard
Carson Municipal Code Section 2611(c) provides that the procurement of professional services shall be based on demonstrated competence, the professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of the required services, and a fair and reasonable price, after notice to a number of potential offerors adequate to permit reasonable competition consistent with the nature and requirements of the procurement. The proposed consulting and strategic planning services are professional services, so any award is required to be made in accordance with Section 2611(c). Award of the contract to KPMG is consistent with this procurement standard.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this contract would encumber $326,750 from current Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget account 101-52-510-101-6004- for Professional Services. No additional funding approval is being sought from the City Council atthis time.

VI. EXHIBITS
Proposed Agreement

Attachments
Proposed Agreement

CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between

CITY OF CARSON
and

KPMG, LLP

-1-

AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARSON AND

KPMG, LLP
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of _____ ________, 2025 by and between the CITY OF CARSON , a California municipal corporation (“City”) and KPMG, LLP , a Delaware limited liability partnership (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services.

C. Pursuant to the City of Carson’s Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.

D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein .

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder.

As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest

-2-
professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first - class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.

1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.

The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid as set out in its Proposal to Serve City of Carson 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games Strategic Planning Request for Proposals No. 24-022 dated January 21, 2025 (“Proposal”), which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agre ement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

1.5 Familiarity with Work.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facil ities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the co nditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until writt en instructions are received from the Contract Officer.

1.6 Care of Work.

The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.

-3-

1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other.

1.8 Additional Services.

City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifi cally set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other contractors. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.

1.9 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.

ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($326,750) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section

1.8. -4-

2.2 Method of Compensation.

The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified in the Sch edule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.

Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.

2.4 Invoices.

Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance.

By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub -category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub -contractor contracts . Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.

City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.5 Waiver.

Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.

-5-
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of th e Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any government al agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Term.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).

ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant .

The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Bindiya Khurana Principal (Name) (Title)

-6-

(Name) (Title)

(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.

4.2 Status of Consultant .

Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.

4.3 Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall be David C. Roberts, Jr. , City Manager, or as otherwise designated by the City Manager . It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

4.4 Independent Consultant .

Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,

-7-
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant.

4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whe ther for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consult ant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

5.1 Insurance Coverages.

The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement including any extension thereof, the following policies of insurance which shall cover all elected and appointed officers, employees and agents of City:
(a) General Liability Insurance ( Coverage Form ISO CGL CG 00 01 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy of insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or if a general aggregate limit is used, then the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. (b) Worker’s Compensation Insurance . A policy of worker’s compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Consultant against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement , with Employer’s Liability insurance coverage limits of at least $1,000,000.
(c) Automotive Insurance (Coverage Form ISO CA 00 01 including “any auto” and endorsement CA 0025 or equivalent ). A policy of comprehensive automobile liability

-8-
insurance written on a per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less than $1,000,000. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased, hired cars and any automobile.
(d) Professional Liability. Professional liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession, as determined by the City’s Risk Manager, provided that the limits shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and no less than $2,000,000 general aggregate. This coverage may be written on a “claims made” basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The professional liability insurance required by this Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based upon, arising out of or related to services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must be maintained for at least 5 consecutive years following the completion of Consultant’s services or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional 5 -year period, Consultant shall annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage.
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
(g) Broader Coverages and Higher Limits . Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, if Consultant maintains broader coverages and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverages and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant.

5.2 General Insurance Requirements.

All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and any insurance maintained by City or its officers, employees or agents may apply in excess of, and not contribute with Consultant’s insurance. The insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. Moreover, the insu rance policy must specify that where the primary insured does not satisfy the self-insured retention, any additional insured may satisfy the self-insured retention.

All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled by the insurer or any party hereto without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail return receipt requested to the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, the Consultant shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with Section 5.1 to the Contract Officer.

No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant has provided the City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insured endorsement forms or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certi ficates of Insurance or binders are approved by the City. City reserves the right to inspect complete, certified copies of and endorsements to all required insurance policies at any time. Any failure to comply

-9-
with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches or warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City.

All certificates shall name the City as additional insured (providing the appropriate endorsement) and shall conform to the following “cancellation” notice:

CANCELLATION:

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE

CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATED THEREOF,
THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL THIRTY (30) -DAY

ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER
NAMED HEREIN.
[to be initialed] ______________
Consultant Initials
City, its respective elected and appointed officers, directors, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities Consultant performs; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or any automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, and their respective elected and a ppointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers or the Consultant shall procure a bond gua ranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims. The Consultant agrees that the requirement to provide insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Consultant’s activities or the activities of any person or persons for which t he Consultant is otherwise responsible nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification liabilities as provided in Section 5.3.

In the event the Consultant subcontracts any portion of the work in compliance with Section 4.5 of this Agreement, the contract between the Consultant and such subcontractor shall require the subcontractor to maintain the same policies of insurance that the Consultant is required to maintain pursuant to Section 5.1, and such certificates and endorsements shall be provided to City.

5.3 Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative,

-10-
arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or e ntity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreemen t, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to per form the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, in cluding but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall no t be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

5.4 Sufficiency of Insurer.

Insurance required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by companies qualified to do business in California, rated “A” or better in the most recent edition of Best Rating Guide, The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager of the City (“Risk

-11-
Manager”) due to unique circumstances. If this Agreement continues for more than 3 years duration, or in the event the risk manager determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City, the Consultant agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk Manager.

ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

6.1 Records.

Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and r ecords if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.

6.2 Reports.

Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing desi gn services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated incr eased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.

6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of

-12-
ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s g uarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.

6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information .
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorneys fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct. (d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, inte rrogatories, request for admiss ions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

7.1 California Law.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions

-13-
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

7.2 Disputes; Default.

In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default.

This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.

7.3 Retention of Funds .

Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, cost s, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

7.4 Waiver.

Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.

Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.

Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

-14-

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercis e by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et. seq. and 910 et. seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.

7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter ti me as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursua nt to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.

7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant .

If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set -off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.

-15-

7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.

If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON -DISCRIMINATION

8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Emplo yees.

No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

8.2 Conflict of Interest .

Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performan ce of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financi al interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, r eligion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.

-16-

8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first -class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Carson, 701 East Carson, Carson, California 90745 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy -two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.

9.2 Interpretation.

The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

9.3 Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, whether the signatures are originals, electronic, facsimiles or digital. All such counterparts shall together co nstitute but one and the same Agreement.

9.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

-17-

9.5 Severability.

In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.

No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial inte rest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in v iolation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “non -interests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or cons equence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.

Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not l imited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or oth er conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.

Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______

9.7 Corporate Authority.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreeme nt, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

-18-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.

CITY:

CITY OF CARSON, a municipal corporation

Lula Davis-Holmes, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

Sunny K. Soltani, City Attorney
[brj; rjl]
CONSULTANT:

KPMG, LLP, a Delaware limited liability
partnership
By:

Name:

Title:

By:

Name:

Title:

Address: 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2629
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES

SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS

MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSIN ESS ENTITY.

01007.0001/1053148.1

CALIFORNIA ALL -PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On __________, 2025 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _____________________________________

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and coul d prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form .

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

INDIVIDUAL

CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________

TITLE(S)

PARTNER(S) LIMITED

GENERAL

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

TRUSTEE(S)

GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

___________________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

01007.0001/1053148.1

CALIFORNIA ALL -PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On __________, 2025 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _____________________________________

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and coul d prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form .

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

INDIVIDUAL

CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________

TITLE(S)

PARTNER(S) LIMITED

GENERAL

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

TRUSTEE(S)

GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

___________________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

01007.0001/1053148.1 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services:

Provide strategic planning and preparation services for the City of Carson’s citywide large- scale entertainment and sports events for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, as set out in the Proposal.

II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following deliverables to the City in accordance with Exhibit “D”:

A. A comprehensive work breakdown structure for all activities required to fulfill the City’s obligations for a successful games event.

B. A plan that outlines identified significant activities and milestones to create a successful blueprint to guide City preparation for the hosting of the games.

C. An implementation plan that provides direction on how to execute identified activities and reach suggested milestones.

D. A resource plan for the delivery of the schedule, including identifying potential responsible internal and external stakeholders for activities delivery, and identifying relevant City staffing needs.

E. Proposed coordination with external partners, like other cities, businesses and nonprofits.

F. Proposed performance metrics to measure progress towards activities and milestones.

G. Establish comprehensive and accurate cost estimates for the delivery of activities by the City.

III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City apprised of the status of performance by delivering the following status reports:

A. As requested by Contract Officer.

B. Consultant to confirm and provide updates on shipment and delivery of all award items/packages after order placement.

IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by the City.

V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:

01007.0001/1053148.1 A-2
A. Bindiya Khurana
B. Romie Barriere
C. Joel Finlay
D. Liam Kelly
E. William Zizic
F. Shawn Quill
G. Mary Conibear
H. Bob McMahon

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
(new text show in bold italics, deleted text in strikethrough) I. The first paragraph of Section 5.1 (Insurance Coverages) is hereby amended as follows:
“5.1 Insurance Coverages.

The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement including any extension thereof, the following policies of insurance which shall cover all elected and appointed officers, employees and agents of City, and Consultant will require all Consultant Resources and Vendors to obtain and maintain professional liability insurance compliant with Consultant’s obligations to maintain professional liability insurance noted below:
(a) General Liability Insurance (Coverage Form ISO CGL CG 00 01 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy of insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or if a general aggregate limit is used, then the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. (b) Worker’s Compensation Insurance . A policy of worker’s compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Consultant against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement, with Employer’s Liability insuran ce coverage limits of at least $1,000,000.
(c) Automotive Insurance (Coverage Form ISO CA 00 01 including “any auto” and endorsement CA 0025 or equivalent) . A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written on a per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less than $1,000,000. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased, hired cars and any automobile.
(d) Professional Liability. Professional liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession, as determined by the City’s Risk Manager, provided that the limits shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and no less than $2,000,000 general aggregate. This coverage may be written on a “claims made” basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The professional liability insurance required by this Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based upon, arising out of or related to services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must be maintained for at least 5 consecutive years following the completion of Consultant’s services or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional 5 -year period, Consultant shall annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage.

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-2
(e) Cyber Liability. As part of professional liability insurance, technology professional liability errors & omissions insurance appropriate to Consultant’s profession and the Services hereunder with limits not less than $1,000,000 per claim/loss, and $1,000,000 in the aggrega te. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations undertaken by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, copyright, trademark, invasion of privacy violations, information or data breach, theft, loss, damage or misuse, release of private information, extortion and network security, associated with the Services, including Consultant Property and Enabling Tools. If coverage is maintained on a claims -made basis, Consultant shall maintain such coverage for an additional period of three (3) years following termination of the contract. The insurance shall include the following coverage:
i. Liability arising from the theft, dissemination and/or use of confidential or personally identifiable information; including credit monitoring and regulatory fines arising from such theft, dissemination or use of the confidential information. ii. Network security liability arising from the unauthorized use of, access to, or tampering with computer systems.
iii. Liability arising from the failure of Consultant’s proprietary technology products (software) required under the contract for Consultant to properly perform the services intended.
iv. Electronic Media Liability arising from personal injury, plagiarism or misappropriation of ideas, domain name infringement or improper deep -linking or framing, and infringement or violation of intellectual property rights. v. Liability arising from the failure to render professional services as defined by industry standards appropriate to the technology being used. (fe) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (gh) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
(hg) Broader Coverages and Higher Limits . Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, if Consultant maintains broader coverages and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverages and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant.”

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-3
II. The first paragraph of Section 5.2 (General Insurance Requirements) is hereby amended as follows:
“5.2 General Insurance Requirements.

All of the above policies of insurance , except Automobile Liability, shall be primary insurance and shall name the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and any insurance maintained by City or its officers, employees or agents may apply in excess of, and not contribute with C onsultant’s insurance. With the exception of Professional Liability, Tthe insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. Moreover, the insurance policy must specify that where the primary insured does not satisfy the self-insured retention, any additional insured may satisfy the self-insured retention.” III. The third paragraph of Section 5.2 (General Insurance Requirements) is hereby amended as follows:
“5.2 General Insurance Requirements.

No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant has provided the City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insured endorsement forms or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certi ficates of Insurance or binders are approved by the City. City reserves the right to inspect complete, certified copies of and endorsements to all required insurance policies at any time. Any failure to comply with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches or warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City. ”
IV. Section 5.3 (Indemnification) is hereby renamed “General and Intellectual Property Indemnification” and amended as follows:
“5.3 General and Intellectual Property Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or cl aimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, Consultant Resources and Vendors, any of their its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant, Consultant Resources or Vendors , or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement by Consultant, Consultant Resources or Vendors, and in connection therewith:”

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-4
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to per form the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding , including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
(d) Consultant represents and warrants that it owns or is otherwise authorized to grant City the right to use, all intellectual property rights associated with Consultant’s provision of the Services, including Consultant Property and Enabling Tools, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and pay all damages (including reasonable a ttorneys’ fees) relating to any third party claim, demand, cause of action, or proceedings (whether threatened, asserted, or filed) (“IP Claims”) against City to the extent that such IP Claims are based upon the City’s use of the such intellectual property (excluding third party products) directly infringing a United States patent, registered United States copyright, or registered United States trademark, provided that such use is in compliance with this Agreement.

The indemnity obligation shall be binding o n successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.
(e) In the event of any IP Claims, or in Consultant’s opinion is likely to occur, Consultant shall at its option and expense and with prior notice to City: (a) modify the Services to be non -infringing; or (b) obtain for City the right to use the Services as se t out in this Agreement at no cost to City. Consultant’s options set forth in this paragraph, whether or not exercised, shall in no way eliminate, reduce, curtail or abridge Consultant’s obligations to indemnify and defend City in the event of any IP Claims. (f) Consultant shall have no liability hereunder for any claim of intellectual property infringement based on the combination, operation or use of the Services with software, hardware or other materials not furnished or approved in writing by Consultant if such infringement would have been avoided without such software, hardware or other materials.

Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall no t be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-5
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities result ing in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.”
V. Section 6.3 (Ownership of Documents) is hereby renamed “Grant of License; Ownership of Documents” and amended as follows:
“6.3 Grant of License; Ownership of Documents.

Consultant hereby grants to City, its employees, officials, and agents a non -revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferrable, non-sublicensable, royalty-free perpetual license to use such Consultant Property solely in connection with City’s internal use of the deliverables. “Consultant Property ” shall mean all intellectual property, technology, know -how, methodologies, works of authorship, and other materials pre-existing the Agreement or created, acquired, or licensed separately from the Agreement, or created in performance of the Agreement which are not specific to City, including any modifications, enhancements, improvements, or derivative works. Notwithstanding anything herein that may be construed to the contrary, City agrees that nothing in this Agreement prevents Consultant from using residual knowledge, which includes generalized knowledge, experience, know -how, or any of the ideas, concepts, methodologies, tools or techniques derived from or discovered during the provision of the Services performed under the Agreement.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement or the completion and payment for the applicable deliverable, if earlie r, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall inde mnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.”

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-6
VI. Section 6.4 (Confidentiality and Release of Information) is hereby amended as follows:

“6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant , Consultant Resources or Vendors in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant , Consultant Resources or Vendors . Consultant, Consultant Resources and Vendors shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer. (b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Consultant, Consultant Resources or Vendors, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, Consultant Resources or Vendors, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant, for any damages, costs and fees, including attorneys fees, caused by or incurred as a result of any such wrongful Consultant’s conduct. (d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discov ery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.”
VII. Section 7.2 (Disputes; Default) is hereby amended as follows:

“7.2 Disputes; Default.

In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may must give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default in order for City to withhold compensation for services . The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be ex tended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-7
discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.”

VIII. Section 7.6 (Legal Action) is hereby amended as follows:

“7.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et. seq. and 910 et. seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.

The Parties agree that any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement or the Services provided thereunder shall first be submitted to non -binding mediation as a prerequisite to litigation. Any mediation will take place locally to the City at a location to be designated by the Parties using the Mediation Procedures of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, with the exception of paragraph 2 (Selecting the Mediator), and the Parties must utilize a mutually acceptable mediator, with costs shared unless otherwise agreed. If, after good faith efforts, the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute through mediation within ninety (90) days after the issuance by one of the Parties of a request for mediation, then the Parties may pursue all other legal and equitable remedie s available.

The Consultant must still pursue a statutory claim prior to filing engaging in any legal action against the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from filing a timely formal claim in accordance with applicable California law provided, however, that Consultant shall, if permitted, seek a stay of said claim during the pendency of any mediation. Either party may seek to enforce any written agreement reached by the parties during mediation in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

IX. Section 8.2 (Conflict of Interest) is hereby amended as follows:

“8.2 Conflict of Interest.
“Consultant covenants to the best of its knowledge after reasonable inquiry that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor and assigned to perform services under this Agreement without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-8
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financi al interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.” X. Section 9.8 (Limitation on Liability) is hereby added as follows:

“Section 9.8 Limitation on Liability.

Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement to the contrary, including all exhibits, the liability of the Consultant on account of any actions, damages, claims, liabilities, costs, expenses or losses in any way arising out of or relating to the Agreement or the services performed under the Agreement shall be limited to the amount of five (5) times the Contract Sum. Neither party shall be liable for consequential, special, indirect, incidental, punitive or exemplary damages, costs, expenses, or losses ( including, without limitation, lost profits and opportunity costs). The provisions of this paragraph shall apply regardless of the form of action, damage, claim, liability, cost, expense, or loss asserted, whether in contract, statute, rule, regulation or tort (including but not limited to negligence) or otherwise.

The limitation on liability in this section 9.8 shall not apply to claims or liabilities for death, bodily injury, damage to tangible property, infringement of intellectual property, or occurring as a result of Consultant’s fraud, gross negligence, or willful misconduct.”

XI. Section 9.9 (CPA Disclosure) is hereby added as follows:

“Section 9.9 CPA Disclosure.

Consultant is owned by professional who hold CPA licenses as well as by professionals who are not licensed CPAs. Depending on the Services Consultant is providing, non-CPA holders may provide the Services under this Agreement.”

XII. Section 9.10 (Consultant Resources) is hereby added as follows:

“Section 9.10 Consultant Resources.

Consultant may engage member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms and/or affiliated third-party providers (“Consultant Resources”), which may be in or outside the United States, to assist in the performance of the Services. Consultant remains responsible to City for the performance of such Services, and adherence to obligations of confidentiality, by any Consultant Resources to the same extent Consultant is obligated under the terms of this Agreement. With the understanding that Consultant will remain responsible to City for the Consultant Resources, City acknowledges and agrees that the Consultant Resources will not be subject to flow-down terms set forth in the Agreement.”

01007.0001/1053148.1 B-9
XIII. Section 9.11 (Third Party Service Provider) is hereby added as follows:

“Section 9.11 Third Party Service Provider.

City acknowledges and agrees that Consultant’s third -party service providers (“Vendors”), including Consultant’s cloud service providers, may have access to confidential information from onshore and offshore locations, and that the Consultant uses Vendors within and outside of the United States to provide at Consultant’s direction administrative or cleri cal services to Consultant. These Vendors may in the performance of such services have access to City’s confidential information. Consultant represents to City that with respect to the Vendors, Consultant has technical, legal and/or other safeguards, measures, and controls in place to protect Confidential Information of City from unauthorized disclosure or use.”

XIV. Section 9.12 (Use of Technologies) is hereby added as follows:

“Section 9.11 Use of Technologies.

Consultant may license certain proprietary and third-part software tools (“Enabling Tools”) for use by City to facilitate the Services. All other use is prohibited. City may not redistribute, reproduce (except as necessary to run), modify, commercialize, a llow third parties to access (unless authorized by Consultant in writing), or reverse engineer or decompile (except where such rights cannot be limited by applicable law) Enabling Tools. Enabling Tools are not intended to be used as a system of record, repository, or hosting service, and City access to the Deliverables and other documents will be removed from the Enabling Tools within three (3) years following the conclusion of the engagement to which they relate. City shall download such Deliverables and documents for its records. City acknowledges that use of Enabling Tools may be used notwithstanding other requirements of this Agreement and may be subject to additional terms specified in an engagement letter or other agreement.”

01007.0001/1053148.1 D-1
EXHIBIT “C”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:

Reimbursable Expenses (not to exceed): $20,000
II. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include, to the extent applicable:

A. Line items for all items describing the applicable pricing rate.

B. Line items for any materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.

C. Line items for any other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.

D. Line items for any approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, and materials, properly charged to the Services.

III. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $ 326,750 as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.

IV. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.

01007.0001/1053148.1 D-2
EXHIBIT “C-1”

BILLING RATES

01007.0001/1053148.1 D-3
EXHIBIT “D”

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule:

Upon completion of the last item above, there will be ongoing project management and stakeholder engagement for a period of 4 months.

II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products , as detailed in Exhibit A.II of this Agreement, to the City by the following dates.

A. Deliverable A by no later than November 30, 2025.

B. Deliverable B by no later than November 30, 2025.

C. Deliverable C by no later than November 30, 2025.

D. Deliverable D by no later than November 30, 2025.

E. Deliverable E by no later than November 30, 2025.

F. Deliverable F by no later than November 30, 2025.

G. Deliverable G by no later than November 30, 2025.

II. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2.

CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 27. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Dr. Arlington Rodgers, Director of Public Works PW Engineering Subject: CONSIDER AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITYOF CARSON AND THE LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADESCOUNCIL AND THE SIGNATORY CRAFT COUNCILS AND UNIONS (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
The City of Carson and Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Unions entered into a Project Labor Agreement (Exhibit 3) on March 4, 2020 which established the labor relations Policies and Procedures for the City and for the craft employees represented by the Unions engaged in the City’s improvement projects. The Agreement term was for five (5) years with three options to extend for one-year periods upon mutual written agreement. City, Council and Unions now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term by one (1) year, from March 4, 2025 through March 3, 2026, effective retroactive to March 3, 2025.

II. RECOMMENDATION
TAKE the following actions:

1. Retroactively APPROVE Amendment No. 1 to the Project Labor Agreement with the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Unions effective March 3, 2025, and

2. AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute the same upon approval as to form by the City Attorney.

3. DIRECT staff to explore further changes to the Project Labor Agreement with the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Unions.

III. ALTERNATIVES

1. DENY approval of the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Project Labor Agreement with the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Unions; or

2. TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the law.

IV. BACKGROUND
The City of Carson Charter states that the City shall make “all best efforts to negotiate a City-wide project labor agreement with the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council.” Section 915 of the City of Carson Charter provides in part that…”in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of City construction projects, the City shall make all best efforts to negotiate a City-wide project labor agreement with the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council to cover all City construction projects where the cost to the City is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more. The project labor agreement shall, in addition to complying with Public Contract Codes Section 2500 et seq.:

1. Bind all City contractors and subcontractors on the construction project through the inclusion of specifications in all relevant solicitation provisions and contract documents;

2. Not allow contractors and subcontractors to compete for or perform City contracts and subcontracts without otherwise assenting to the project labor agreement for covered projects;

3. Contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions;

4. Provide for a preference in the hiring of a local work force;

5. Set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the term of the project labor agreement;
. Provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health; and

7. Ensure compliance with applicable State, Federal, and local laws and regulations governing safety and health, equal employment opportunity, local labor preferences, labor and employment standards, and other matters.” A PLA is a form of pre-hire agreement, negotiated before any employees are hired by a contractor, and becomes part of the bid specification that all winning contractors for a public works project must follow. The PLA is "the policy of the City for the [construction work to be performed on City property or within easements secured by the City consisting of the construction of public projects] to be contracted exclusively to Contractors who agree to be bound by the terms of the [PLA]… and to require each of its subcontractors, of whatever tier, to be become bound.” (Preamble, PLA.)
The City of Carson and Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Unions entered into a Project Labor Agreement (Exhibit 2) on March 4, 2020 which established the labor relations Policies and Procedures for the City and for the craft employees represented by the Unions engaged in the City’s improvement projects. The Agreement term was for five (5) years with three options to extend for one-year periods upon mutual written agreement.

The City Charter suggests a PLA cover all City construction projects where the cost to the City is five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more. However, the March 2020 approval settled on a PLA which covers “all construction and rehabilitation work pursuant to prime multi-trade contacts that exceed $125,000 and all subcontracts arising from these prime contracts” as well as “all prime specialty contracts that exceed $25,000, and all subcontracts arising from these specialty contracts.” (Section 2.2, PLA.) On March 19, 2025, the Unions' legal counsel provided City staff a letter (Exhibit 2) requesting the opening of PLA renewal negotiations.  While staff was not able to accommodate immediate negotiations discussions due to limited time, staff did inform the Union counsel that an amendment for a one year PLA extension/renewal was amenable to the City, pending City Council approval.  Additionally, staff did commit to further discussion on adjustments to the PLA in the upcoming amendment term. Should City staff and the Unions find tentative agreement on any PLA provisions, staff will return to City Council with a new amendment for consideration and approval.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the proposed Amendment to the PLA will maintain increased costs to the City for eligible capital projects that meet the expense threshold.  The construction cost for each PLA project is approximate 10% to 30% higher, and the city will continue to contract an external consultant to monitor compliance for the City.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Amendment No. 1 to the PLA

2. Union Request to Open PLA Renewal Negotiations

3. 2020 Project Labor Agreement (PLA)

Attachments
PLA Amendment 1(2003146.1).pdf
City of Carson PLA renewal request letter.pdf
2020 FULLY EXECUTED PLA_FINAL.pdf
01007.0002 2003146.1
AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARSON
AND

LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES

COUNCIL AND THE SIGNATORY CRAFT COUNCILS AND UNIONS

THIS AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) by and among the City of Carson, a California municipal corporation (“City”), the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (“Council”), and the signatory Craft Councils and Local Unions signing this Amendment (collectively, the “Unions”) is effective as of the 3rd day of March, 2025. The City, Council and Unions are hereinafter referred to herein, as the context may require, as “Party” or “Parties.”

RECITALS

A. City, Council and Unions entered into that certain Project Labor Agreement dated March 4, 2020 ( “Agreement”) which establishes the labor relations Policies and Procedures for the City and for the craft employees represented by the Unions engaged in certain of the City’s improvement projects.

B. The Agreement term is for five (5) years with three options to extend for one -year periods upon mutual written agreement.

C. City, Council and Unions now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term by one (1) year, from March 4, 2025 through March 3, 2026, effective retroactive to March 3 , 2025.

TERMS

1. Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein (new text in bold italics and deleted text in strikethrough).

A. Section 18.1 (Duration) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Section 18.1 Duration.

(a) This Agreement shall be effective from the date signed by all Parties for all contracts that are executed after ____, 2019, and shall remain in effect for a period of sixfive (65) years (through March 3, 2026) with twothree one-year renewals upon mutual written agreement of the Parties, unless either Party provides written notice of its intent to terminate , sent no later than sixty (60) days prior to the termination date or successor termination date; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties . Any covered Project awarded during the term of this Agreement shall continue to be covered hereunder, until completion of the Project, notwithstanding the expiration date of this Agreement. 01007.0002 2003146.1
(b) This Agreement may be extended by mutual consent of the City and the signatory Unions for such further periods as the Parties shall agree to.”

2. Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment.

3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, whether the signatures are originals, electronic, facsimiles or digital. All such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same Amendment.

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

01007.0002 2003146.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the P arties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date(s) and year written below.

CITY OF CARSON LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION

TRADES COUNCIL

Dated: _____________________________ Dated: _____________________________

By: ________________________________ By: ________________________________ Lula Davis-Holmes, Mayor Ernesto Medrano, Executive Secretary

ATTEST:

Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ________________________________
Sunny K. Soltani, City Attorney

01007.0002 2003146.1

LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION

TRADES COUNCIL CRAFT UNIONS AND DISTRICT COUNCILS

Asbestos Heat & Frost Insulators (Local 5) ______________________________ Boilermakers (Local 92) ______________________________ Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (Local 4) ______________________________ Cement Masons (Local 600) ______________________________ Electricians (Local 11) ______________________________ Elevator Constructors (Local 18) _____________________________ Iron Workers (Reinforced – Local 416) ______________________________ Iron Workers (Structural – Local 433) ______________________________ Southern California District Council of Laborers ______________________________ LiUNA (Gunite Workers Local 345)
LiUNA (Local 1309) ______________________________ LiUNA (Local 300) (Remediation) ______________________________ LiUNA (Local 1184) ______________________________ LiUNA (Plaster Tenders Local 1414) ______________________________ Operating Engineers (Local 12) ______________________________ Operating Engineers (Local 12) ______________________________ Operating Engineers (Local 12) ______________________________ Painters & Allied Trades DC 36 ______________________________ Pipe Trades (Local 250) ______________________________ Pipe Trades (Local 345) ______________________________ 01007.0002 2003146.1
Pipe Trades (Plumbers Local 78) ______________________________ Pipe Trades (Sprinkler Fitters Local 709) _____________________________ Plasterers (Local 200) ______________________________ Roofers & Waterproofers (Local 36) ______________________________ Sheet Metal Workers (Local 105) _____________________________ Teamsters (Local 986) ______________________________ Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ______________________________

Via E-Mail
March 19, 2025
Arlington Rodgers
Public Works Director
City of Carson
Public Works Department
[email protected]

Re: Request to open PLA renewal negotiations

Dear Dr. Arlington Rodgers,

The Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council currently has a Project Labor Agreement with the City of Carson effective 2019 and expiring in March of 2025.

The Council hereby requests that the City open negotiations to renew the Agreement.

Sincerely,

Lisa Demidovich, Attorney
Altshuler Berzon LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108-1718

On behalf of the Los Angeles/Orange Counties
Building & Construction Trades Council

CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 28. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sunny Soltani, City Attorney, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP CAO Legal Subject: CONSIDER RESOLUTION NO. 25-064 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 06- 092 ANDRESCINDING, REPLACING, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTIUON NO. 22- 236, APPROVING ADJUSTMENTSTO THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT, AND LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR MAYOR AND CITYCOUNCIL MEMBERS (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
The City Council recently approved successor Memorandums of Understanding with several of the full-time bargaining units.  The multi-year agreements included various cost of living enhancements to salary and retirement benefits for city employees.  Additionally, the City’s unrepresented management employees also received similar increases to match the level of compensation of subordinate employees.  Once approved, the Mayor and City Council directed staff to return with a proposal for salary and benefit increases for the Mayor and City Council Members.  As such, staff is seeking approval of adjustments to defined contribution retirement benefits, and life insurance benefits for Mayor and City Council Members via the attached Resolution No. 25-064 (Exhibit 1).

II. RECOMMENDATION
WAIVE further reading and ADOPT Resolution No. 25-064, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 06-092 AND RESCINDING, REPLACING, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 22- 236, APPROVING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT, AND LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS"
III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action that City Council deems appropriate.

IV. BACKGROUND
The City Council recently approved successor Memorandums of Understanding with several of the full-time bargaining units.  The multi-year agreements included various cost of living enhancements to salary and retirement benefits for city employees.  Additionally, the City’s unrepresented management employees also received similar increases to match the level of compensation of subordinate employees.  Once approved, the Mayor and City Council directed staff to return with a proposal for salary and benefit increases for the Mayor and City Council Members.

On April 15, 2025, City Council conducted a first reading of Ordinance 25-2508, amending Section 2301 of Article II of the Carson  Municipal Code regarding the determination of Council Members' total wages/compensation and total retirement and health contributions.  The City Council is conducting a second reading of the ordinance and presumably adopting via another item on this same agenda in this public meeting.  While the Ordinance does establish the wages/compensation of this positions, it also states:
"C. The Council may, by resolution, establish in detail the total wages/compensation and any non- wage/compensation benefits including, but not limited to, retirement and health contributions." As such, at the request of City Council, staff is seeking approval of adjustments to defined contribution retirement benefits, and life insurance benefits for Mayor and City Council Members via the attached Resolution No. 25-064 (Exhibit 1). Specifically, the resolution proposes the following changes to the Mayor and Council Member benefits:

Allow for defined and deferred contributions to 457(b) and/or 401(a) plan(s) with a dollar for dollar match of up to $6,000 per year
Life insurance increased from $250,000 to $400,000 with evidence of insurability (EOI) It should be noted that Resolution No. 06-092 (Exhibit 2) is the most comprehensive document to have established the benefits of Mayor and City Council, with subsequent Resolution No. 22-236 which made several changes to those benefits most recently.  The proposed Resolution No. 25-064 would amend Resolution No, 06-92, and rescind and replace Resolution No. 22-236; if approved.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates a maximum potential impact of $40,000 annually if all five elected positions take advantage of the proposed voluntary benefit adjustments. There is sufficient funding in the current Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Council operating budget to absorb a prorated (May and June) increase, and the annual maximum increase in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 will be included in the upcoming budget proposal for adoption.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Resolution No. 25-064

2. Adopted Resolution No. 06-092

Attachments
Reso No. 25-064 - MMC Benefits.pdf
Reso No. 06-092.pdf
01007.0004/834182.2
RESOLUTION NO. 25-064

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 06 -092 AND RESCINDING, REPLACING, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 22- 236, APPROVING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION

RETIREMENT, AND LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

WHEREAS, the City Council has historically adopted a resolution establishing the benefits for Elected Officials, and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-092 on July 31, 2006, establishing benefits for the Mayor and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-235 on November 15, 2022, rescinding resolutiuon no. 12 -090, approving adjustments to the health insurance premiums, retirement benefits, tuition education reimbursement, and deferred compensation contribution provided for elected officials; and
WHEREAS, after discussions between the City Council and the City Manager regarding updating the pre-existing benefits resolution for Elected Officials, the City Council now desires to adopt Resolution No. 25-064 relating to the benefits for the Elected Officials, which supersedes and replaces any and all prior benefit resolutions for the Elected Officials, including, but not limited to Resolution No. 22-235; and furthermore, to the extent this Resolution No. 25-064 provides benefits in excess of or different from the benefits provided in Resolution Nos. 06-092, the provisions of this Resolution No. 25-064 shall control.

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

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. Resolution No. 22-236 is hereby rescinded and superseded by this resolution.

Furthermore, to the extent this Resolution No. 25-064 provides benefits in excess of or different from the benefits provided in Resolution No. 06-092, the provisions of this Resolution No. 25-064 shall control.

SECTION 3. The following are the benefits and other terms and conditions for the Mayor and City Council:

SECTION 4. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM:

4.1 Effective January 1, 2023, the City will pay the full family HMO premium from Kaiser Permanente of the Los Angeles Region (including Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties) for each Elected Official and eligible dependents.

4.2 The cafeteria cap on the use of excess monies shall be two hundred dollars ($200.00) per month, regardless of the number of dependents.

4.3 Elected Officials electing to discontinue or not electing health insurance coverage shall receive seventy-five percent (75%) of the lowest 2 -party premium, to be put into a City -sponsored

deferred compensation plan credited to the Elected Official. (Elected Officials currently receiving a higher amount than seventy-five percent (75%) of the lowest 2-party premium shall continue to receive the same amount to be placed into a City sponsored deferred compensation plan credited to the Elected Officials.) Elected Officials may elect to resume health coverage during any open enrollment period, as a result of any change in status, or any other period of time authorized by the policies and requirements of the City-sponsored health coverage plans.

4.4 Elected Officials shall have the right to use monies remaining from the monthly sum originally provided for health insurance to purchase additional term life insurance, vision care and/or long- term care insurance offered by the City.

4.5 If permitted under applicable laws, regulations, resolutions, and requirements, if the Councilmember retires from the City and upon his/her turning age 65, reimburse the Councilmember for the Medicare premium for the retiree only.

SECTION 5. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAMS:

5.1 The City shall sponsor voluntary deferred and defined compensation programs , including 457b and 401a.

5.2 The City agrees to match the amount, dollar for dollar, up to six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) per calendar year, contributed to the Mayor and City Council Members deferred and defined compensation plan(s); 457b and/or 401a.

SECTION 6. EDUCATION/TUITION REIMBURSEMENT

City will reimburse a Unit member up to the California State University in-state rate (per semester, quarter, or academic year: https://www.calstate.edu/attend/paying -for-college/tuition-by-year) for continuing education through an accredited program that either offers growth in an area related to the Unit member’s current position or that may lead to promotional opportunities, as determined by the Human Resources Director. This education may include college courses, continuing education units, adult education classes, certification examination fees, and job -related workshops/seminars/conferences not already paid for by the City on behalf of the employee.

The Unit member must take the course on the member’s own time. City time may not be used to attend educational opportunities covered by this program. If a course is only offered during regularly scheduled work hours, the Unit member’s supervisor and Depart ment Director may make reasonable efforts to adjust work schedules to accommodate the scheduling conflict.

A Unit member must secure a passing grade of "C" or its equivalent or obtain a certification to receive any reimbursement. Expenses must be validated by receipts and a copy of the final grade or certification received. Full-time, regular Unit members who h ave completed six-months of employment are eligible. The deadline for submitting Education Reimbursement Forms for any expenses of the prior Fiscal Year is the end of the second full pay period of July.

California State University Dominguez Hills Incentive

Unit members who are students enrolled in course work at California State University Dominguez

Hills shall be eligible for additional reimbursement of parking permits (excluding violation fees and citations) and required reading materials/textbooks, to be confirmed by instructor/school issued course syllabi or other official university documentation.

The Education Tuition Reimbursement program may be revoked or suspended by the City Council at anytime and at the City Council’s discretion, without requirement for meet and confer. Should the City Council decide to revoke or suspend the program, Unit members currently enrolled in course work will be permitted to complete and submit reimbursement requests for the current active term (quarter or semester).

SECTION 7. LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM:

7.1 The City shall provide the Mayor and City Council with term life insurance subject to any age reduction schedules mandated by the insurance company.

7.2 The City shall provide the Mayor and City Council with term life insurance coverage of not less than four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00) after an evidence of insurability (EOI) form is submitted and approved by the City’s life insurance carrier; if the EOI form is not submitted, $200,000.00 is the maximum coverage and is subject to any age reduction schedules mandated by the insurance company.

7.3 Mayor and City Council shall have the right to purchase additional (supplemental) term life insurance through the City -sponsored programs using monies remaining from the monthly sum originally provided by the City for the employee’s health insurance, or, if none, by paying the additional premiums themselves through payroll deduction. The maximum additional (supplemental) term life insurance the Mayor and City Council may purchase is up to the basic minimums listed above for each classification, provided the EOI form is submitted and approved by the City’s life insurance carrier. Otherwise, the maximum additional term life insurance (supplemental insurance) the Mayor and City Council may purchase is $200,000.00.

SECTION 8. DURATION:

8.1 This Resolution shall be binding on the Mayor and City Council Members when adopted by City Council.

8.2 Except as otherwise provided herein, this Resolution shall continue in full force and effect until such time as amended or superseded by City Council ordinance or resolution. ___________________________________________________________________

The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May 2025.

_________________________________
Lula Davis-Holmes, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________________
Sunny K. Soltani, City Attorney

ATTEST:

________________________________________
Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:

CITY OF CARSON )

I, Khaleah Bradshaw, City Clerk of the City of Carson, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 25-064, was passed and approved by the City Council of the City of Carson at its meeting held on May 6, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

________________________________________
Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 06- 092

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA,

ESTABLISHING BENEFITS FOR

THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
JULY 19 2006 - JUNE 30, 2007
ADOPTED JULY 31, 2006

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE I

COMPENSATION
SECTION 1 — SALARY:

1. 1 The Mayorand City Council salary is establishedby Ordinanceamendingthe Carson Municipal Code pursuant to Section 36516 of the Government Code of the State of California.

1. 2 The Mayor shall receive the monthly sum as provided by Ordinance No. 06-1356.

1. 3 The City Councilmembersshall each receivethe monthlysum as providedby Ordinance No. 06- 1357.

1. 4 Such salaries shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as salaries are paid to other officers and employees of the City.

SECTION 2 -- BUSINESS EXPENSE:

2. 1 The City shall reimburse the Mayor and City Councilmembers for their business expenses for official City business at the rate of seven hundred dollars ($ 700. 00) per month.

SECTION 3 — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAY:

3. 1 The City shall pay thirty dollars ($ 30. 00) for attendance at each regular, adjourned or special Redevelopment Agency meeting to the Mayor and City Councilmembers for up to four meetings per month.

ARTICLE 11

INSURANCE AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS
SECTION 1 — HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM:

1. 1 Effective January 1, 2007, the City shall pay up to, but not exceed, nine hundred thirty- one dollars ($ 931.00) per month for health insurance provided by the City for the Mayor and each Councilmember and his/ her eligible dependents, with a cafeteria cap on the use of excess monies of one hundred fifty-five dollars 155. 00) per month for member -only coverage and one hundred forty-four dollars ($ 144. 00) per month for member - plus one coverage. 1 1. 2 The Mayor or City Councilmembers may elect to discontinue or not elect health insurance coverage provided that they submit written proof of equivalent health insurance coverage. The Mayor or City Councilmembers electing to discontinue or not electing health insurance overage shall receive either 75% of the amount previously paid on the premium or 75% of the lowest 2 -party premium, whichever is greater, to be credited to their account in a City -sponsored deferred compensation plan.

1. 3 The Mayor and City Councilmembers shall have the right to use monies remaining from the sum originally provided for health insurance to purchase additional term life insurance, vision care and/or long term care insurance offered by the City.

SECTION 2 — DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUM:

2. 1 The City shall pay up to, but not exceed, the total amount of $60.00 per month for the dental insurance premium provided by the City for the Mayor and City Councilmembers.

2. 2 The Mayor or City Councilmembers may elect to discontinue or not enroll in dental insurance provided that they submit written proof of equivalent dental insurance coverage. If they elect to discontinue or not enroll in dental insurance coverage, they shall have 75% of the monthly premium, or $ 45. 00, credited to their account in a City -sponsored deferred compensation plan.

SECTION 3 — LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM:

3. 1 The City shall provide the Mayor and City Councilmembers with basic term life insurance coverage of not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars 250, 000. 00) after an evidence of insurability ( EOI) form is submitted and approved by the City' s life insurance carrier; if the EOI form is not submitted, 110,000 is the maximum coverage and is subject to any age reduction schedules mandated by the insurance company. The Mayor and City Councilmembers shall have the right to purchase additional ( supplemental) term life insurancethroughthe City -sponsoredprogramsusingmoniesremainingfrom the monthly sum originally provided by the City for health insurance or, if none, by paying the additional premiums themselves through payroll deduction. The maximum additional term life insurance ( supplemental insurance) the Mayor and City Councilmembers may purchase is up to the basic minimum of $ 250, 000, provided the EOI form is submitted and approved by the City's life insurance carrier. Otherwise, the maximum additional term life insurance ( supplemental insurance) the Mayor and City Councilmembers may purchase is $110, 000.

SECTION 4 — VISION CARE PLAN:

4. 1 The City shall sponsor a vision care plan for the Mayor and City Councilmembers. They shall pay the premium for the vision care plan and 2 increases in the premium for the duration of this resolution. The Mayor and City Councilmembers may use monies remaining from the sum originally provided by the City for health insurance to pay the premium for the vision care plan.

SECTION 5 — LONG TERM CARE PLAN:

5. 1 The City shall sponsor a long- term care plan for the Mayor and City Councilmembers. They shall pay the premium for the long-term care plan and increases in the premium for the duration of this resolution. The Mayor and City Councilmembers may use monies remaining from the sum originally provided by the City for health insurance to pay the premium for the long-term care plan.

SECTION 6 — SECTION 125 PLAN:

6. 1 The City shall provide a Section 125 Tax Code plan in order to allow the Mayor and City Councilmembers to deduct excess insurance premiums, unreimbursed medical expenses, and childcare payments before taxes.

SECTION 7 — LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM:

7. 1 The City shall provide long term disability insurance ( or " LTD") benefits for the Mayor and City Councilmembers as follows:
a. The City shall provide an LTD insurance plan for the Mayor and City Council under the terms, requirements and conditions set forth in the policy underwritten by Jefferson Pilot Financial (" JPF").

7. 2 The City shall provide short term disability insurance (or "STD") benefits for the Mayor and City Council as follows:
a. Solely in order to provide a maximum 60 -day waiting period, the City shall provide a STD insurance plan for the Mayor and City Council under the terms, requirements and conditions set forth in the policy underwritten by Jefferson Pilot Financial (" JPF"). Nothing herein shall bind the City to provide STD insurance coverage if an alternate LTD policy is available at a cost that is acceptable to the City with a 60 -day waiting period.

7. 3 After a maximum of a 60 -day waiting period:
a. An elected official who has been employed with the City for five ( 5) or more years, and who is disabled from his or her own occupation, shall be entitled to sixty- six and two- thirds percent ( 66/ 3%) of his or her base pay rate to a maximum pay rate of seven thousand five hundred dollars 7,500.00) per month at the commencement of disability leave up to age sixty- five ( 65); and
b. An elected official who has been employed with the City for fewer than five 5) years and who is disabled from his or her own occupation shall be 3 entitled to sixty- six and two- thirds percent ( 66%%) of his or her base pay rate to a maximum pay rate of seven thousand five hundred dollars 7,500. 00) per month at the commencement of disability leave for twenty- four (24) months. An elected official who has been employed with the City for fewer than five ( 5) years and who is disabled from all occupations shall be entitled to sixty- six and two- thirds percent ( 66%%) of his/her base pay rate to a maximum pay rate of seven thousand five hundred dollars 7,500.00) per month at the commencement of disability leave up to age sixty- five ( 65).

C. There shall be no reduction of LTD or STD benefits for a workers' compensation award.
d. There shall be no exclusion for " soft tissue injuries", including but not limited to musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, strains and sprains of the cervical, thoracic and lumbosacral spine. e. The only allowable offsets are those listed in the JPF LTD and STD policies.

7. 4 The provision of the JPF LTD Plan and the JPF STD Plan is conditioned upon the following:
a. The continued availability of insurance coverage for LTD and/ or STD at a comparable cost as set forth in the LTD and STD policies, subject only to increases in premium not to exceed applicable increases in the consumer price index for each year for the LTD and STD Plans underwritten by JPF or other insurance carrier.
b. Eligibility for and administration of benefits under the JPF STD Plan and the JPF LTD Plan and including the determination whether an elected official is disabled from his or her own occupation, shall be determined by JPF, not by the City.

C. Eligibility for and administration of benefits for existing LTD claimants, including the determination whether an elected official is disabled from his or her own occupation, shall be determined by the City after consultation with JPF.

7. 5 Except as to the existing LTD claimants discussed in 4.1b, above, the City is not required to provide LTD and/ or STD coverage or benefits on a self- funded basis, now or in the future. The City reserves the right to change the LTD carrier and/ or LTD benefits provided, on such terms as the City determines are in its best interests.

7. 6 For injuries and other disabilities covered under California workers' compensation laws, elected officials shall be paid their regular pay rate for up to seventeen ( 17) weeks from the date of such disability (" workers' compensation 4 leave") or until the City' s workers' compensation administrator terminates workers' compensation leave either due to payment of a " compromise and release" settlement, a disability and/ or service retirement, the elected official returns to work, or a refusal by the elected official to return to work following a determinationby a physicianthat the elected official is no longer temporarily disabled, whichever comes first. In the event of a dispute between the treating physician and another physician as to the elected official's temporary disability status, such dispute shall be resolved in accordance with applicable California Workers' Compensation laws. If an elected official is approved for workers' compensation leave, the elected official shall not be eligible for STD or LTD benefits during the period of such workers' compensation leave. LTD eligibility for elected officials who are still disabled after seventeen ( 17) weeks shall be determined by the terms of the LTD insurance plan described in section 7. 1, above.

SECTION 8 — CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CALPERS):

8. 1 The City shall include the Mayor and City Councilmembers in the CalPERS "3% at 60" Plan with the following optional public agency contract provisions:
a. The optional contract provision relating to one (1) year final compensation; b. The optional contract provision relating to military service credit as public service;
C. The optional contract provision relating to the 1959 Survivors Program at the level four benefits;
d. The optional contract provision relating to City payment of the elected official's normal CalPERS member contribution so long as the normal member contribution established by CalPERS does not exceed seven percent ( 7%) of the elected official' s salary. In the event the amount of normal CalPERS member contribution exceeds seven percent ( 7%) of the elected official's salary, the elected official shall be personally responsible for making any such additional CalPERS member contribution. e. The optional contract provision relating to the ability to participate in the part time buyback program, but solely at their own cost.

SECTION 9 — DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAMS:

9. 1 The City shall continue to sponsor voluntary deferred compensation programs.

9. 2 The City agrees to match the amount, dollar for dollar, up to two thousand dollars 2,000) per calendar year, contributed to the Mayor's and City Councilmember's deferred compensation account.
5 ARTICLE III
OTHER
SECTION 1 — DURATION:

1. 1 Except as otherwise provided herein, this resolution shall be in full force and effectfrom July 1, 2006 until such time as it is amendedby the City Councilby subsequent resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 31St DAY OF JULY, 2006.

ATTEST:
4 & - '( I ') f - 9 ---- -

CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
5 CITY A ORNEY
1 t

MAYOR JIM DEAR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF CARSON )
I, Helen S. Kawagoe, City Clerk of the City of Carson, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is five; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 06-092 was duly and regularly adopted by said Council at a special meeting duly and regularly held on the
31St
day of July 2006 and that the
same was passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Dear, Ruiz- Raber, Santarina, and Williams NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Gipson
By:

City Clerk, City of Ciiis-
onl
California
7 CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 29. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Debra Scott, Housing Specialist CMO Housing & Neighborhood Subject: CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION 25-054 TO RESCIND, REPLACE AND SUPERSEDERESOLUTION 25-018 REGARDING THE REALLOCATION OF CDBG AND CDBG-CV FUNDS (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
Staff requests the City Council to adopt Resolution No. 25-054 to rescind, replace and supersede Resolution No. 25-018 to correct the account numbers for each re-allocation.

On February 18, 2025, a public hearing was held and the City Council approved the Annual Action Plan of the city's Community Block Grant (CDBG) funds to re-allocate the available funding to the current year for the Neighborhood Pride residential rehabilitation Program (NPP), as well as the City's Annual Action Plan to re-allocate previously- budgeted Community Block Grant-Coronavirus CDBG-CV funds to existing COVID related rehabilitation program assisting mobile home owners with repairs. This Resolution is returning to the City Council only for the purposes of correct the account numbers for internal tracking purposes, and includes no other substantive changes.

II. RECOMMENDATION
WAIVE further reading and ADOPT Resolution No. 25-054, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, TO RESCIND, REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE RESOLUTION 25-018 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, RE-ALLOCATING $552,940.25 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FROM PROGRAM YEAR 2023-24 TO PROGRAM YEAR 2024-25 AND ALLOCATING THE FUNDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRIDE PROGRAM; AND RE-ALLOCATING UN- EXPENDED FUNDS OF $256,826.25 FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CORONAVIRUS FUND FROM THE PROGRAM YEAR 2019-2020 TO CONTINUE WITH REHABILITATION FOR MOBILE HOME PROJECTS"
III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate.

IV. BACKGROUND
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Each year, the City receives from HUD an entitlement amount of CDBG funding based on the City's overall population, it's proportion of low and moderate-income residents, and other demographic factors. However, if the all the funds are not expended in the program year they were allocated, the result is the accumulation of unexpected funds in the City's letter of credit balance with HUD.

The Neighborhood Pride Program has been the subject of overwhelming popularity for over four years and is in great demand, as demonstrated by the response received at the Housing Divisions' community meeting on November 4, 2024. Staff conducted a lottery number system in which over 100 residents were given numbers to participate in the program.

The 2024-25 Annual Action Plan includes an allocation of $466,207.00 for the NPP. Preliminary results for the end of the 2023-24 program year (ending June 30, 2024), indicates that there is a total of $552,940.25 of unused CDBG funds from that year. Staff is recommending that this amount be rolled over into the 2024-25 program year, and that is to be allocated fully to the city's NPP program.

The recommended action would increase the available funding for fiscal year 2024-25 to the NPP program to $1,019,147.25 as shown below:

Original Annual Action Plan
Entitlement Prior Year Total Funds Funds Allocation NPP $466,207.00 $552,940.25 $1,019,147.25

Based on the original Action Plan allocation, it was estimated that the NPP would assist approximately 15 households (low-and moderate income owner-occupants of single family residences and mobile homes) The additional funding from this recommended action would add approximately 25 households to this total, bringing the total to 40 households.

Community Development Block Grant-Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) COVID-Related Residential Rehabilitation: this program provides Residential Rehabilitation for low-and moderate- income residents aimed at remedying conditions to prevent and inhibit the spread of coronavirus (focusing on heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems, windows, doors, roofing, and mold abatement). The funds are primarily assisting mobile home owners. This program is active.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the general fund.

Within the Community Block Grant Fund:

Original 2024-25- Annual Action Plan Allocation
Account 215-50-720-964-6062 (Residential Rehabilitation/Neighborhood Pride Program), increased by $552,940.25.

Account 215-50-720-968-6062 (COVID-related residential rehabilitation) unexpended funds of $256,826.25 VI. EXHIBITS

1. Resolution No. 25-054

Attachments
Resolution 25-054
RESOLUTION NO. 25-054

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA, TO RESCIND,
REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE RESOLUTION 25-018 OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON,
CALIFORNIA, RE -ALLOCATING $552,940.25 IN

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDS FROM PROGRAM YEAR 2023 -24 TO
PROGRAM YEAR 2024 -25 AND ALLOCATING THE

FUNDS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRIDE
PROGRAM; AND RE -ALLOCATING UN -EXPENDED
FUNDS OF $256,826.25 FROM THE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CORONAVIRUS
FUND FROM THE PROGRAM YEAR 2019 -20 TO

CONTINUE WITH REHABILITATION FOR MOBILE

HOME PROJECTS

WHEREAS, the conclusion of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program year 2023-24 results in unexpended funds total $552,940.25; and WHEREAS, the City Council desire that these accumulated unexp ended funds to reallocated to current activity); and
WHEREAS, on March 27 th, 2020, the President of the United States signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the CARES Act, the City of Carson was awarded $1,152,051 in supplement Community Development Block Grant funding specifically to prevent, prepare for and respond to the coronavirus health emergency (CDBG-CV); and WHEREAS, the city has unexpended balance of $256,826.25 in CDBG-CV funding and;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to re-allocate these unexpended balances.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON,

CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The total sum of $552,940.25 in unexpended Community Block Grant funds from program year 2023-24 shall be transferred to the 2024-25 Annual Action Plan Budget.

Section 2. The total sum of $256,826.25 of unexpended balance of CDGB-CV funds to be re-allocated to COVID-Related Residential Rehabilitation.

Account Number Program & Object Description Amount
215-50-720-964-6062 NPP/Residential Rehabilitation $552,940.25

215-50-720-968-6062 COVID-Related Residential Rehabilitation $256,826.25

Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall keep a copy of this resolution on file, and effective as of May 6th, 2025, the same shall be in force and effect.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of May 2025.

Mayor Lula Davis-Holmes

ATTEST:

Dr, Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

CITY OF CARSON

File #: Version:

Report to City Council, Successor Agency, andHousing Authority Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 30. To: City Council, Successor Agency, and Housing Authority From: Joy Simarago, Deputy City Clerk CCO Administration Subject: ANNUAL REPORT - REGISTERED LOBBYISTS (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
This item is on the agenda pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (Lobbyist Registration) § 2357 (Duties of the City Clerk) of the Carson Municipal Code. In May of each year, City Clerk shall file an annual report with the City Council, compiling information filed by lobbyists who registered or re-registered with the City by April 2025.

Below is the list of lobbyists who are currently registered with the City:

1. Gabriela Medina, SoCalGas
Client(s):

SoCalGas

2. Gabe Kramer, Marathon Communications
Client(s):

Arevon – Avocet Project CUP
Ormat – Griffith Project CUP and DA

3. Richard Lichtenstein, Marathon Communications
Client(s):

Arevon – Avocet Project CUP
Ormat – Griffith Project CUP and DA

4. Nathan Shapiro, Marathon Communications
Client(s):

Arevon – Avocet Project CUP
Ormat – Griffith Project CUP and DA

5. Henry Barzotti, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Client(s):
701 East Carson Street
Phillips 66 – Carson refinery closure and redevelopment

6. Sonya Bishop, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Carson refinery closure and redevelopment

7. Nancy Perez, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Carson refinery closure and redevelopment

8. Nik Weinberg-Lynn, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Carson refinery closure and redevelopment

9. Heather Crossner, Politicom Law LLP
Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Refinery Closure and Redevelopment

10. Tom Marshall, Politicom Law LLP
Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Refinery Closure and Redevelopment

11. Tiffany Roberts, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Carson refinery closure and redevelopment

12. Dan Sachs, Politicom Law LLP
Client(s):

Phillips 66 – Refinery Closure and Redevelopment

13. Mike P. Murchison
Client(s):

Link Logistics
Verizon

14. John M. Edmond
Client(s):

The Orden Company

15. Victor Ibarra
Client(s):

Marathon Petroleum Corporation and its Subsidiaries - Carson Benefits Agreement and Carson Beautification Agreement, Carson Oil Tax, Right of Way Agreements, Street Improvements, LAR Air Monitoring System, Carson Emergency Notification System, Daily maintenance issues

16. Alex Cherin, Englander Knabe & Allen
Client(s):

Not listed

17. Kellie Hawkins, Englander Knabe & Allen
Client(s):

Not listed

18. Matt Knabe, Englander Knabe & Allen
Client(s):

Crown Castle Fiber, LLC – Communications Infrastructure II. RECOMMENDATION
RECEIVE and FILE.

III. ALTERNATIVES
None.

IV. BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Carson Municipal Code (CMC) § 2357 Duties of the City Clerk, states in part, “In May of each year,the City Clerk shall file an annual report with the City Council, compiling the information filed by lobbyists whore-register before April 1st of each year. All reports and statements filed with the City Clerk under this chapter shall be preserved by the City Clerk for aperiod of five (5) years from the date of filing. Such reports and statements shall constitute part of the publicrecords of the Clerk’s office and shall be open to public inspection.” The City Council of the City of Carson is authorized to regulate activities of persons and groups of personswho are hired or contracted for the purpose of lobbying or otherwise influencing municipal legislation. The Lobbyist Registration Statements are available on the City Clerk’s web page and in the Office of the CityClerk for public inspection.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
Revenue of $3,060 was received from lobbyist registrations.

VI. EXHIBITS
None.

Prepared by: Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk and Joy Simarago, Deputy City Clerk

CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 31. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Nguyen, Special Projects Manager CD Administration Subject: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KOSMONT FINANCIALSERVICES (KFS) FOR EIFD AND SPECIAL PROJECTS CONSULTATION SERVICES (CITY COUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
The formation of the Carson Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) was completed in 2022.   EIFDis is a powerful tool that can generate long-term revenues for the City.  EIFD does not increase the property tax for land owners, residents, or businesses within the EIFD area or outside the EIFD boundaries.  KosmontFinancial Services (KFS) assisted the City to establish the City's EIFD which is estimated to produce a lifetime$313,000,000 including 50% contribution ($156,500,000) from the County of Los Angeles. The said revenuesare generated by the tax increment generated from development of parcels within the EIFD.  This amount isthe sum of City's portion of the property tax (3.375% of City's portion of the 1% property tax) and an equalmatch from the County.  The City needs an on-call consultant experienced in EIFDs to implement and carry out the goals of the Carson EIFD. Additionally, with many areas of the City anticipated to undergo majorredevelopment in the near future, there is an opportunity to expand the current EIFD or establish a new EIFDto capture future property tax increment.  Staff is requesting the City Council to consider and approve theContract Services Agreement with KFS (Exhibit No. 1).

The scope under the Agreement generally includes: (1) EIFD administration to prepare annual reports pursuant to EIFD laws; (2) General consultation of EIFD technical matters; (3) Evaluation of new areas forEIFD expansion or formation of new financing district(s); (4) Implementation of EIFD expansion or formation;and (5) As-needed special projects or economic development advisory services, subject to purchasingordinance limitations. Certain modifications to the City's standard form insurance and indemnificationprovisions have been negotiated pursuant to KFS' request, and the negotiated modifications are shown in Sections II-IV of Exhibit B of the proposed contract.

As KFS was previously successful in the formation of the Carson EIFD (1 of 7 in the state where two or moretaxing entities share revenue), the Purchasing Manager has determined that a Sole Source purchasingdetermination is warranted for the proposed contract. Further elaboration of this determination is provided inthe Sole Source Determination section of the staff report.

II. RECOMMENDATION
TAKE the following actions:

1. WAIVE the formal bidding procedures as defined by the Carson Municipal Code pursuant to the CarsonMunicipal Code Sections 2611(e) (sole source purchasing);2. APPROVE the proposed Contract Services Agreement with KFS to provide consulting services for EIFDand Special Projects consultation services at a cost not to exceed $255,000 for a five-year term (Exhibit No. 1; "Agreement"); and,3. AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute the Agreement following approval as to form by the City Attorney.

III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate.

IV. BACKGROUND
Carson EIFD BackgroundThe City of Carson, in partnership with the County of Los Angeles, formed an Enhanced InfrastructureFinancing District (EIFD) in 2022 called the City of Carson EIFD. The EIFD encompasses approximately 1,735 acres of land, representing approximately 14% of the City's total 12,141 acres.  The primary source of revenue available to an EIFD, similar to Redevelopment project areas, istax increment revenue. As a result, an EIFD does not increase the property tax for land owners, residents, orbusinesses within the EIFD area or outside the EIFD boundaries. The purpose of the Carson EIFD is to assist in the provision of public facilities of community widesignificance that provide significant benefits and promote economic development within the Carson EIFD and City of Carson. The EIFD aims to support needed public infrastructure, low- and moderate income andworkforce housing, rehabilitation, and environmental mitigation and remediation of brownfields as describedby the Adopted Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP).  Kosmont Financial Services Kosmont Transactions Services, Inc., doing business as Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), has extensiveexperience with the evaluation and implementation of tax increment financing (“TIF”) districts such as EIFDsand other innovative public-private funding sources and financing mechanisms. Across the State ofCalifornia, KFS has facilitated the successful formation of more TIF Districts than any other firm since the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies in 2012 (20 of the approximately 31 fully formed EIFDs thus far).  Sole-Source Determination  Staff recommended a sole-source determination, and the Purchasing Manager has determined that theprocurement associated with the Agreement qualifies for the sole source exception pursuant to Carson Municipal Code Section 2611(e) (sole source purchasing), which provides as follows:

The Purchasing Manager may dispense with this Chapter’s bidding requirements if he or she finds that thematerials, supplies, equipment, services, or professional services are unique because of their quality, durability,availability, or fitness for a particular use and are available only from one (1) source.

The signed Purchasing Waiver authorizing use of the sole source purchasing exception is attached as Exhibit No. 2. As detailed in the Purchasing Waiver, sole source is justified given KFS has successfully assisted theCity establish the Carson EIFD in 2022. The Carson EIFD is one of only seven formed EIFDs in California withtwo or more taxing entities.  KFS has been involved with five of these EIFDs, which is the most EIFDs inSouthern California. Staff recommends building on this accomplishment through an expansion of theexisting EIFD or the establishment of a new EIFD or formation of a new type of financing district to incorporate current and future city-wide development projects. Given that KFS, through its affiliate companies(Kosmont & Associates, Inc.), were integral to the initial EIFD formation and are extremely familiar with theEIFD, the City, and formations of most other EIFDs, having another consultant perform the work and replicatethe same success would be difficult.  Moreover, KFS has established working relationships with Los Angeles County, a current taxing entity partner in the Carson EIFD. Specifically, based on action made by the County of Los Angeles Supervisorial District #2(SD2) Supervisor Holly Mitchell in February 2023, the County Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO)retained KFS to conduct an analysis of the feasibility of utilizing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District(EIFD) to address the lack of critical infrastructure in several unincorporated SD2 communities. In addition,KFS is the most experienced consultant to form EIFDs in Los Angeles County, and are, with their experience and contract, essentially the sole source.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of this five year contract is $255,000 and is proposed to be paid from the following account:101-70-701-100-6004.

Formation of financing district can provide substantial revenues to Carson long-term. Previously, KFS, through its affiliate companies (Kosmont & Associates, Inc.), was successful in forming the Carson EIFD, a lifetime$313,000,000 district that includes 50% contribution ($156,500,000) from the County of Los Angeles. Oneintent of this Agreement is to evaluate possible expansion of the existing EIFD or form another similar districtthat can generate revenue to Carson long-term. If a new district formation is successful, the long term fiscalimpacts to Carson is significantly positive long-term.

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Contract Services Agreement - Kosmont Financial Services

2. Signed Purchasing Waiver

Attachments
Exhibit No. 1 - Contract Services Agreement - KFS (Final Draft) Exhibit No. 2 - Sole Source Purchasing Exception

CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between

CITY OF CARSON
and

KOSMONT FINANCIAL SERVICES

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -1-

AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARSON AND

KOSMONT FINANCIAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 7th day of May, 2025 by and between the CITY OF CARSON , a California municipal corporation (“City”) and Kosmont Transactions Services, Inc. doing business as Kosmont Financial Services , a California corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. City has sought, the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.

B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was identified by the City Manager as a Sole Source Purchasing provider pursuant to Section 2611(e) of the Carson Municipal Code, and was selected by the City to perform those services.

C. Pursuant to the City of Carson’s Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into and execute this Agreement.

D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Scope of Services.

In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or “work” hereunder.

As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -2-
quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first - class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.

1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.

The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid which shall be incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

1.3 Compliance with Law.

Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is rendered.

1.4 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.

Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agre ement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City hereunder.

1.5 Familiarity with Work.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facil ities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the co nditions there existing, prior to commencement of services hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until writt en instructions are received from the Contract Officer.

1.6 Care of Work.

The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -3-

1.7 Further Responsibilities of Parties.

Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible for the service of the other.

1.8 Additional Services.

City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant, incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the wr itten approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other contractors. No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures established in this Section are followed.

1.9 Special Requirements.

Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.

ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.

2.1 Contract Sum.

Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($255,000) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section

1.8. 01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -4-

2.2 Method of Compensation.

The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.

2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.

Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5, and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.

Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.

2.4 Invoices.

Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance.

By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub -category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub -contractor contracts . Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.

City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided herein or any applicable law.

2.5 Waiver.

Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -5-
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE

3.1 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

3.2 Schedule of Performance.

Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.

3.3 Force Majeure.

The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of th e Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather, fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes, wars, litigation, and/or acts of any government al agency, including the City, if the Consultant shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement pursuant to this Section.

3.4 Term.

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one (1) years from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”).

ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK

4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.

The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:

Larry J. Kosmont, CRE® President & CEO (Name) (Title)

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -6-
Joseph Dieguez Senior Vice-President (Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.

Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such performance.

4.2 Status of Consultant.

Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.

4.3 Contract Officer.

The Contract Officer shall be James Nguyen, Special Projects Manager , or as otherwise designated by the City Manager . It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shal l have authority, if specified in writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

4.4 Independent Consultant.

Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an independent contractor of City a nd shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -7-
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise with Consultant.

4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.

The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whe ther for the benefit of creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consult ant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.

ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

5.1 Insurance Coverages.

The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement including any extension thereof, the following policies of insurance which shall cover all elected and appointed officers, employees and agents of City:
(a) General Liability Insurance ( Coverage Form ISO CGL CG 00 01 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy of insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or if a general aggregate limit is used, then the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. (b) Worker’s Compensation Insurance . A policy of worker’s compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Consultant against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injur ies or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement , with Employer’s Liability insuran ce coverage limits of at least $1,000,000.00.
(c) Automotive Insurance (Coverage Form ISO CA 00 01 including “any auto” and endorsement CA 0025 or equivalent) . A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written on a per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -8-
than $1,000,000. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, leased, hired cars and any automobile.
(d) Professional Liability . Professional liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession, as determined by the City’s Risk Manager, provided that the limits shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and no less than $1,000,000 general aggregate. This coverage may be written on a “claims made” basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The professional liability insurance required by this Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based upon, arising out of or related to services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must be maintained for at least 5 consecutive years following the completion of Consultant’s services or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional 5 -year period, Consultant shall annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage.
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein. (f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
(g) Broader Coverages and Higher Limits . Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, if Consultant maintains broader coverages and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverages and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant.

5.2 General Insurance Requirements.

All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and any insurance maintained by City or its officers, employees or agents may apply in excess of, and not contribute with Consultant’s insurance. The insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. Moreover, the insu rance policy must specify that where the primary insured does not satisfy the self-insured retention, any additional insured may satisfy the self-insured retention.

All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled by the insurer or any party hereto without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail return receipt requested to the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, the Consultant shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with Section 5.1 to the Contract Officer.

No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant has provided the City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insured endorsement forms or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certi ficates of Insurance or binders are approved by the City. City reserves the right to inspect complete, certified copies of and endorsements to all required insurance policies at any time. Any failure to comply

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -9-
with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches or warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City.

All certificates shall name the City as additional insured (providing the appropriate endorsement) and shall conform to the following “cancellation” notice:

CANCELLATION:

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE

CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATED THEREOF,
THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL THIRTY (30) -DAY

ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER
NAMED HEREIN.
[to be initialed] ______________
Consultant Initials
City, its respective elected and appointed officers, directors, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities Consultant performs; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or any automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, and their respective elected and a ppointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers or the Consultant shall procure a bond gua ranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims. The Consultant agrees that the requirement to provide insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Consultant’s activities or the activities of any person or persons for which t he Consultant is otherwise responsible nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification liabilities as provided in Section 5.3.

In the event the Consultant subcontracts any portion of the work in compliance with Section 4.5 of this Agreement, the contract between the Consultant and such subcontractor shall require the subcontractor to maintain the same policies of insurance that the Consultant is required to maintain pursuant to Section 5.1, and such certificates and endorsements shall be provided to City.

5.3 Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative,

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -10-
arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or e ntity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreemen t, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to per form the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, in cluding but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall no t be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

5.4 Sufficiency of Insurer.

Insurance required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by companies qualified to do business in California, rated “A-” or better in the most recent edition of Best Rating Guide, The Key Rating Guide or in the Federal Register, and only if they are of a financial category Class VII or better, unless such requirements are waived by the Risk Manager of the City (“Risk

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -11-
Manager”) due to unique circumstances. If this Agreement continues for more than 3 years duration, or in the event the risk manager determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to the City, the Consultant agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance policies may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk Manager.

ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION

6.1 Records.

Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business, custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and r ecords if a public records request is made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records Act.

6.2 Reports.

Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.

6.3 Ownership of Documents.

All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes, computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”) prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full rights of

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -12-
ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s g uarantee and warranties shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, with respect to any documents and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.

6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorneys fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct. (d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, inte rrogatories, request for admiss ions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION

7.1 California Law.

This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -13-
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

7.2 Disputes; Default.

In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default.

This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.

7.3 Retention of Funds.

Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant (whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, cost s, liabilities, or damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.

7.4 Waiver.

Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.

Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.

Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -14-

7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.

Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercis e by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.

7.6 Legal Action.

In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 905 et. seq. and 910 et. seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.

7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.

This Section shall govern any termination of this Agreement except as specifically provided in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) day s’ written notice to Consultant, except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pur suant to this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.

7.8 Termination for Default of Consultant.

If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereund er exceeds the compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set -off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -15-

7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.

If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be grante d, whether legal or equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment.

ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION

8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.

No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

8.2 Conflict of Interest.

Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of servi ces under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.

No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financi al interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.

8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.

Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, r eligion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -16-

8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.

Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq. , as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

9.1 Notices.

Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Carson, 701 East Carson, Carson, California 90745 and in the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in seventy -two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.

9.2 Interpretation.

The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

9.3 Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, whether the signatures are originals, electronic, facsimiles or digital. All such counterparts shall together co nstitute but one and the same Agreement.

9.4 Integration; Amendment.

This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -17-

9.5 Severability.

In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.

No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial inte rest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or in v iolation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of “financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be “remote” or “non -interests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or other thing of value as a result or cons equence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.

Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s), omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money, consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not l imited to, any City official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or oth er conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render this Agreement void and of no force or effect.

Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______

9.7 Corporate Authority.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agr eement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 -18-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.

CITY:

CITY OF CARSON, a municipal corporation

Lula Davis-Holmes, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dr. Khaleah K. Bradshaw, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

Sunny K. Soltani, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:

Kosmont Transaction Services, Inc. doing business
as Kosmont Financial Services , a California
Corporation
By:

Name: Larry Kosmont
Title: Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief
Financial Officer
By:

Name:

Title:

Address:

Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2) Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES

SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS

MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On __________, 2025 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same i n his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _____________________________________

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

INDIVIDUAL

CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________

TITLE(S)

PARTNER(S) LIMITED

GENERAL

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

TRUSTEE(S)

GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

___________________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On __________, 2025 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same i n his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: _____________________________________

OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

INDIVIDUAL

CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________

TITLE(S)

PARTNER(S) LIMITED

GENERAL

ATTORNEY-IN-FACT

TRUSTEE(S)

GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________

___________________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________

SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services:

The General Scope of Services described herein is:

A. Task 1: EIFD Administration
Consultant will assist City staff with preparation of the required EIFD Annual Report, collaborating with the City Attorney’s office regarding review and revision in advance of the required annual Public Financing Authority public hearing.

Consultant will additionally assist City Community Development and Finance staff with communications with the County Auditor -Controller regarding EIFD tax increment revenue calculations and reporting. Administration is for the City of Carson EIFD formed in 2022 and referred to as “Carson EIFD, and any new EIFD formed hereunder.

B. Task 2: General Consultation of EIFD Technical Matters Consultant will provide general consultation to City staff and/or the City Council on EIFD technical matters, including, but not limited to, scoping and prioritization of projects for EIFD funding, complementary funding and economic development strategies, and updated fiscal and financial projections. Consultant will prepare for and participate in public meetings related to the EIFD as mutually agreed upon by City and Consultant.

C. Task 3: Evaluation of New Areas for EIFD Expansion or Formation of New Financing District(s)
Consultant will assist City staff in the evaluation of new areas within the City for expansion of the existing EIFD or for formation of new financing districts, such as a new EIFD or a Climate Resilience District (“CRD”). Potential areas for evaluation may include refinery properties expected to decommission. Consultant will prepare boundary alternative analysis, tax increment revenue projections, general fund fiscal impact analysis, and initial outreach to the County regarding interest in partnership.

D. Task 4: Implementation of EIFD Expansion or Formation of New Financing District
Based on Task 3 findings, Consultant will collaborate with City staff on the implementation of EIFD expansion or formation of a new financing district, including required financial analysis, preparation of the required documentation (Infrastructure Financing Plan Amendment or new Infrastructure Financing Plan), assistance with required staff reports, resolutions, and public notices, and preparation and presentation in required public meetings and hearings of the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and Public Financing Authority.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 A-2
E. Optional Task 5: Other As-Needed Special Projects or Economic Development Advisory Services
As directed by the City Manager and staff, Consultant will provide other economic development advisory services as mutually agreeable by Consultant and the City as available budget may allow. These services will be limited to tax increment financing tools such as additional EIFD formation s or other special projects or economic development advisory services where Consultant’s services are unique because of their quality, durability, availability or fitness for a particular purpose as determined by the City’s Purchasing Manager consistent with the City’s purchasing ordinance (Carson Municipal Code Article II, Chapter 6).

EIFD-Related Municipal Advisory Services
Consultant may participate as the City’s Financial Advisor or Co-Financial Advisor in the evaluation or implementation of any EIFD-related public financings (e.g., tax increment allocation bonds, and/or City lease revenue financing to be repaid or guaranteed/committed in whole or in part with EIFD tax increment and other revenues, and/or financing utilizing engagement of the EIFD PFA) . Consultant shall be compensated on an hourly basis as provided herein for such service; provided however that the City may approve an amendment to this contract to provide for increased funds for such services and a relevant scope of services.

II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work products to the City:

Task 1 - EIFD Administration (including EIFD Annual Report and Motor Vehicles in Lieu of License Fees Calculations and Reconciliation with LA County) Task 2 - General Consultation of EIFD Technical Matters. Consultant shall provide such reports or work product as may be requested by the Contract Officer from time to time.

Task 3 – Evaluation of New Areas for EIFD Expansion or for formation of New District. Consultant shall provide such financial and document work product as may be requested by the Contract Officer and information recommended by the Consultant to best evaluate the areas and type of district.

Task 4 – Implementation or formation of New District. Consultant shall provide financial analysis, preparation of the required documentation (Infrastructure Financing Plan Amendment or new Infrastructure Financing Plan), assistance with required staff reports, resolutions, and public notices, and preparation and presentation in required public meetings and hearings of the City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and Public Financing Authority.

Optional Task 5 – Other As-Needed Special Projects or Economic Development Advisory Services. Consultant shall provide such reports or work product as may be requested by the Contract Officer from time to time.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 A-3

III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services, Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the following status reports:

A. Monthly updates either by email, phone or videoconference.

B. Monthly (or more frequent) meetings with status report either by videoconference or in person, as requested by the Contract Officer.

IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted by City.

V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:

A. Larry Kosmont, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer B. Joseph Dieguez, Senior Vice-President
C. Dan Massiello, Senior Vice-President

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 C-1
EXHIBIT “B”

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
(added text shown in bold italics, deleted text shown in strikethrough font) I. Section 3.4, “Term,” of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“3.4 Term

Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding five (5) one (1) years from the date hereof which is May 7, 2030, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit “D”) (the “Term”).

II. Section 5.1, “Insurance Coverages,” of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“5.1 Insurance Coverages.

The Consultant shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to City, during the entire term of this Agreement including any extension thereof, the following policies of insurance which shall cover all elected and appointed officers, employees and agents of City:
(a) General Liability Insurance (Coverage Form ISO CGL CG 00 01 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy of insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or if a general aggregate limit is used, then the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. (b) Worker’s Compensation Insurance . To the extent Consultant has employees, a policy of worker’s compensation insurance in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for the Consultant against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement, with Employer’s Liability insurance coverage limits of at least $1,000,000.00.
(c) Automotive Insurance ( Coverage Form ISO CA 00 01) including “any auto ” and endorsement CA 0025 or equivalent). A policy of comprehensive automobile liability insurance written on a per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less than $1,000,000. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned, lease, hired cars and any automobiles.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 C-2
(d) Professional Liability. Professional liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession, as determined by the City’s Risk Manager, provided that the limits shall be no less than $1,000,000 per claim and no less than $1,000,000 general aggregate. This coverage may be written on a “claims made” basis, and must include coverage for contractual liability. The professional liability insurance required by this Agreement must be endorsed to be applicable to claims based upon, arising out of or related to services performed under this Agreement. The insurance must be maintained for at least 4 5 consecutive years following the completion of Consultant’s services or the termination of this Agreement. During this additional 4 year 5-year period, Consultant shall annually and upon request of the City submit written evidence of this continuous coverage. (e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
(g) Broader Coverages and Higher Limits . Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, if Consultant maintains broader coverages and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverages and/or higher limits maintained by Consultant.” III. Section 5.2, “General Insurance Requirements,” of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“5.2 General Insurance Requirements.

All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City, its elected and appointed officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and any insurance maintained by City or its officers, employees or agents may apply i n excess of, and not contribute with Consultant’s insurance. The insurer is deemed hereof to waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against the City, its officers, employees and agents and their respective insurers. Moreover, the insurance policy must specify that where the primary insured does not satisfy the self-insured retention, any additional insured may satisfy the self-insured retention.

All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled by the insurer or any party hereto without providing thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail return receipt requested to the City. In the event any of said policies of insurance are cancelled, the Consultant shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with Section 5.1 to the Contract Officer.

No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Consultant has provided the City with Certificates of Insurance, additional insured endorsement forms or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coverages and said Certificates of Insurance or binders are approved by the City. City reserves the right to

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 C-3
inspect complete, certified copies of and endorsements to all required insurance policies at any time. Any failure to comply with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches or warranties shall not affect coverage provided to City.

All certificates shall name the City as additional insured (providing the appropriate endorsement) and shall conform to the following “cancellation” notice:

CANCELLATION:

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE

CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATED THEREOF,
THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL MAIL THIRTY (30) -DAY

ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE TO CERTIFICATE HOLDER
NAMED HEREIN.
[to be initialed] ______________
Consultant Initials
City, its respective elected and appointed officers, directors, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities Consultant performs; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or any automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, and their respective elected and a ppointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self - insured retentions as respects City or its respective elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, defense expenses and claims. The Consultant agrees that the requirement to provide insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Consultant may be held responsible for the payment of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Consultant’s activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the Consultant is otherwise responsible, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification liabilities as provided in Section 5.3.

In the event the Consultant subcontracts any portion of the work in compliance with Section 4.5 of this Agreement, the contract between the Consultant and such subcontractor shall require the subcontractor to maintain the same policies of insurance that th e Consultant is required to maintain pursuant to Section 5.1, and such certificates and endorsements shall be provided to City.”
IV. Section 5.3, “Indemnification,” of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 C-4
“5.3 Indemnification.

To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial, administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’ negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith; (b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work, operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers, agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceedin g, including but not limited to, reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall no t be a waiver hereof. This indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence, except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assig ns of Consultant and shall survive termination of this Agreement for a period not to exceed four (4) years.”

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 C-5
EXHIBIT “C”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the ir personnel billing rates under Exhibit C -1 and not to exceed the following sub-budget, unless approved by the Contract Officer:

TASK SUB-BUDGET
A. EIFD Administration $12,500 annually
B. General Consultation of EIFD
Technical Matters
$10,000 annually
C. Evaluation of New Areas for EIFD
Expansion or For Formation of New
Financing District(s)
$20,000
D. Implementation of EIFD Expansion
or Formation of New Financing
District
$47,500
E. As- Needed Special Projects /
Advisory Services
$15,000 annually

II. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task sub -budget to another so long as the Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are approved per Section 1.8.

III. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:

A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours worked, and the hourly rate.

B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.

C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting documentation.

D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials, and travel properly charged to the Services.

IV. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed $255,000 as provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.

V. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 C-1
EXHIBIT “C-1”

PERSONNEL BILLING RATES

LABOR CATEGORY HOURLY RATE
President & CEO $525.00
Senior Managing Director / Senior Vice President
/ Senior Advisor
$395.00
Vice President $295.00
Senior Project Analyst $205.00
Project Analyst / Project Research $195.00
Assistant Project Analyst / Assistant Project
Manager
$165.00
Project Promotion / Graphics / GIS Mapping
Services
$95.00
Clerical Support $80.00

01007.0001 2000990.1 4/23/2025 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all services timely in accordance with the following schedule:

Description Deadline Date
A. Task 1 EIFD Administration Ongoing
Annual Report Due April 30 Annually on April 30
B. Task 2 General EIFD Consultation Ongoing, as requested C. Task 3 Evaluation of New EIFD/Districts January 2026 D. Task 4 Implementation of EIFD Expansion July 2026
E. Task 5 As-Needed Special Projects TBD
The Contract Officer may modify and/or extend the deadlines for the above Tasks during the Term of the Agreement.

II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the following dates.

Work Products Deadline Date
EIFD Annual Report for FY 2024-2025 May 14, 2025
MVLF Calculations for submission to LA County
Auditor Controller (and their satisfaction)
May 14, 2025
Evaluation of New Areas for EIFD Expansion or
for Formation of New Financing Districts
January 31, 2026
Documents required for Implementation of EIFD
Expansion or Formation of New Financing
District
July 31, 2026
The Contract Officer may modify and/or extend the deadlines for the above Tasks during the Term of the Agreement.

III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in accordance with Section 3.2.

City of Carson
Purchasing Division
701 E. Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
(310) 952-1758
Purchasing Waiver
In compliance with Chapter 6 (Purchasing System) of Article II (Administration) of the Carson Municipal Code (CMC), Staff are seeking to exercise waiver of the following requirements (check all that apply):
☒(A) Formal Bidding (Section 2611)
☐(B) Written Contract (Section 2605(1)(iii))
If (A) is selected above, please select the exception being exercised for this purchase:
☐(d) Emergency Purchasing (Section 2611(d))
☒(e) Sole Source Purchasing (Section 2611(e))
☐(f) Piggyback Purchasing (Section 2611(f))
☐(g) Cooperative Purchasing (Section 2611(g))
☐(i) Other Purchase Exceptions (Section 2611(i)(1) through 2611(i)(18)) If (e) or (f) are selecte d above, please specify the contrac t number, awarding agency, and other contracting parties being exercised for this purchase:
1$
Req # (if available):1$
Vendor Name: Kosmont Financial Services
Formal bidding and/or a written contract would normally be required because the purchase is for an amount $75,000 or more; here, the amount is $255,000.

Written justification or summary of purchase

6HHDWWDFKHG
Authorized Department Staff:
________________________________
Name/Title: James Nguyen, Special Projects
Purchasing:
________________________________
Josilla Togiola, Purchasing Manager

Date:4/22/2025
*Attach all relative applicable documents including , but not limited to vendor quote , statement of sole source justification on vendor letterhead, relative contract agreements for piggybacking or cooperative purchasing exceptions, etc.
**Attach a copy of the fully executed waiver to the corresponding requisition.

Sole-Source Determination
Sole source is justified given KFS has successfully assisted the City establish the Carson EIFD in 2022. The Carson EIFD is one of only six EIFDs in California with two or more taxing entities.

Kosmont has been involved with majority of these EIFDs, which is the most EIFDs in Southern California. Staff recommends building on this accomplishment through an expansion of the existing EIFD or the establishment of a new EIFD or formation of a new type of financing district to incorporate current and future city-wide development projects including but not limited to redevelopment projects associated with closing refineries. Given that KFS, through its affiliate companies (Kosmont & Associates, Inc.), were integral to the initial EIFD formation and are extremely familiar with the EIFD, the City, and formations of most other EIFDs, having another consultant perform the work and replicate the same success would be difficult given the uniqueness of the quality, availability, and fitness alike for the City's particular use.

Moreover, KFS has established working relationships with Los Angeles County, a current taxing entity partner in the Carson EIFD. Specifically, based on action made by the County of Los Angeles Supervisorial District #2 (SD2) Supervisor Holly Mitchell in February 2023, the County Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) retained Kosmont Companies to conduct an analysis of the feasibility of utilizing an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to address the lack of critical infrastructure in several unincorporated SD2 communities. In addition, KFS is the most experienced consultant to form EIFDs in Los Angeles County, and are, with their experience and contract, essentially the sole source.

CITY OF CARSON 701 East Carson Street
Report to Honorable Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, May 6, 2025, 5:00 PM
CONSENT 32. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: John Raymond, CRA Executive Director and Assistant City Manager CD Administration Subject: CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 25-060 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25BUDGET IN THE GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR2024-25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INCORPORATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF LENARDODRIVE (PROJECT NO. 1617) TO BE FUNDED, IN PART, BY THE 2024 LEASE REVENUE BONDS (CITYCOUNCIL) I. SUMMARY
On July 16, 2024, the City Council and the Carson Public Financing Authority authorized and directed execution of certain financing documents and certain related actions in connection with the issuance of its 2024 Lease Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $92,000,000.  This strategy was intended to provide immediate funding for high priority capital projects without depleting the City’s General Fund Reserves.  One of the projects on the capital project list to be funded from the bonds was the construction of Project No. 1617 Lenardo Drive (Stadium Way) in the District at South Bay project, at $26,000,000.

Lenardo Drive is a public street about a mile in length to be constructed between Main Street and Avalon Boulevard, south of Del Amo Boulevard.  There is also a section of Stamps Road, from Del Amo to Lenardo, included as part of the project.  These are native soil corridors located within the 157-acre former Cal Compact Landfill serving the future District at South Bay project with retail, commercial, industrial, and potentially residential development.  The construction of the street is undertaken by the Carson Reclamation Authority, the owner of the site, while the City is funding the public improvements pursuant to Cooperation Agreements between the City and the Authority.  The Notice to Proceed by the Authority's Development Manager was issued on April 14, 2025, and the project has now moved from the pre-construction period to construction.

The 2024 Lease Revenue Bond revenues were deposited into the General Fund Reserve in September, 2024.

Staff is seeking City Council approval to allocate $5,000,000 in proceeds from the Lease Revenue Bonds, now in the City’s General Fund Reserve, to Lenardo Drive for pre-construction and construction activities for the remainder of the current fiscal year, with the remainder of the $26,000,000 allocation to be included in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Program Budget.  Staff is requesting City Council approve amendment of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Five Year Capital Improvement Program to appropriate these funds for the current year.

II. RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT Resolution No. 25-060 “A RESOLUTION OF THE CARSON CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 BUDGET IN THE GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INCORPORATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF LENARDO DRIVE (PROJECT NO. 1617) TO BE FUNDED, IN PART, BY THE 2024 LEASE REVENUE BONDS” III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action deemed appropriate by the City Council as allowed by law.

IV. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2024 the City Council and the Carson Public Financing Authority adopted Resolution Nos. 24-071 and 24-01-CPFA respectively, authorizing and directing execution of certain financing documents and directing certain related actions in connection with the issuance of its 2024 Lease Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $92,000,000.  One of the projects on the capital project list to be funded from the bonds was the construction of Lenardo Drive (Stadium Way) in the District at South Bay project, at $26,000,000.

The construction of Lenardo is included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2024-25 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, shown as being paid from 2019 Measure R / Measure M Bonds.  This new funding from the 2024 Lease Revenue Bonds is in addition to the original bond allocation.  The total cost of Lenardo is in excess of the combined $48,000,000 available from the two separate bond issues, and sources of funds also includes a developer contribution from Carson Goose Owner, LLC, the developer of a portion of the site.

Lenardo Drive is a public street about a mile in length to be constructed between Main Street and Avalon Boulevard, south of Del Amo Boulevard.  It is the original haul road from the days of landfill operation and is a native soil corridor located within the 157-acre former Cal Compact Landfill serving the future District at South Bay project with retail, commercial, industrial, and potentially residential development.  The road was largely removed to be reconstructed under the prior Carson marketplace project in the 2009-2011 period.  Due to the regulatory issues arising from the site's history as a landfill, the construction of the new street is being undertaken by the Carson Reclamation Authority, the owner of the site, while the City funds these public improvements pursuant to Cooperation Agreements between the City and Authority.  The Notice to Proceed by the Authority's Development Manager was issued in April and the project has moved from the pre- construction period to construction.

The construction of Lenardo is the full construction of a street where currently no functioning street exists.  It includes the completion and replacement of sections of sewer and storm drain; design and installation of domestic water and recycled water; completion of the gas, electric, and telecom systems; and grading, backfill, paving, and striping of the street itself.  Also included is landscaping, streetlight, and traffic signals.

One of the most challenging aspects of the street construction is the installation of 13 landfill gas vaults and associated gas header at the edge of the street along Cell 2, as well as a landfill "buffer zone" on each side of the street to create distance to the unclosed portions of the landfill from any occupied portion of the site.

The street will provide access to the Cell 2 Project and the District at South Bay project on Cells 3, 4, and 5.

Cell 1, at the corner of Del Amo and Main, will have access but could potentially also be served by the two other public streets.  The Authority and its development manager are negotiating a guaranteed maximum price contract for the street (“GMAX”) with the horizontal general contractor on the Site.  Lenardo went to bid on December 4 on several elements of the construction, notably the earthwork and grading, sewer and storm drain systems, and components of the street improvement plan.

The Authority has worked over the past several years to complete the civil engineering design including grading, hydrology, stormwater, street improvement plans, striping and signaling, streetlights; median island landscaping, geotechnical; and utility design; utilities including Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, Spectrum, AT&T, California Water Service (domestic water), West Basin Municipal Water District (recycled water), and LA County Public Works (sewer and storm drain). Electrical is still in design due to SCE’s concerns about constructing any of their infrastructure on top of landfill.  The relinquishment process for the Caltrans right of way on the Avalon Boulevard side of the Torrance Lateral to allow for Lenardo to connect to Avalon is underway and has a path forward for construction access, while full relinquishment will need to be approved by the California Transportation Commission.  In addition to vehicular access to the Site from Avalon, this is also necessary to finalize the domestic water plan as the water line will extend over the bridge as well.

The additional scope of work that remains to be bid is largely buffer zone work. One of the impacts of the termination of the Cell 2 project agreements is that the Authority now needs to construct the buffer zone on Cell 2 rather than just coordinating its road-building contractors with the developer's environmental contractors installing the liner on the site.  The estimated cost for the buffer zone plus the installation of 13 landfill gas vaults on Cell 2 is estimated to be $11 million, which is included in the overall street costs noted above.

The Bond funds have been deposited into the City General Fund Reserve.  Sufficient funds are available to allocate to the Lenardo Drive project referenced in this staff report via Resolution No. 25-060.

V. FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is requesting a budget amendment of $5,000,000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund the Lenardo Drive Construction Project through June 30, 2025, with the remaining $21,000,000 to be included in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Project budget.  This year's action is outlined in Resolution No. 25-060 (Exhibit 1).

VI. EXHIBITS

1. Resolution No. 25-060
Prepared By: John Raymond, Assistant City Manager

Attachments
Reso 25-060 Appropriating $5M from Lease Revenue Bonds 05-06-2025.pdf Resolution No. 25-060