Hermosa Beach City Council
January 25, 2022

Emissions Reporting
The primary GHGs from the community and municipal operations are from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Because each of these gases has a different capacity for trapping heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP), a method of reporting is needed to be able to compare gases in the same terms. As a result, emissions are reported in carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO2e, with each GHG normalized and calculated relative to CO2 using its GWP.

Table 2 describes the GHGs analyzed in this report, their symbol, GWP, and primary community sources of emissions. While N2O has the highest GWP and may be considered the most dangerous on a permolecule basis, CO2 is by far the most prevalent, accounting for 88% of statewide emissions in 2005 (CARB 2011).

Table 2. GHGs Analyzed in the Inventories
Greenhouse Gas Symbol Global Warming
Potential Primary Community Sources
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1 Fossil fuel combustion
Methane CH4 25
Fossil fuel combustion, landfills,
wastewater treatment
Nitrous Oxide N2O 298 Fossil fuel combustion, wastewater treatment
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.

Emissions Sectors
The inventories identify the major sources of GHGs emissions caused by activities in sectors that are specific to community or municipal activities. A sector is a subset of the economy, society, or municipal operations whose components share similar characteristics. An emissions sector can also contain subsectors that provide more specificity about the source of emissions (e.g., natural gas and electricity are subsectors of the energy sector).
322
GHG Emissions Inventories 3
As mentioned above, inventories were completed for the community and municipal operations.

Because the majority of municipal activities occur within the boundaries of the City and therefore contribute to the overall emissions of the community, both inventories are interconnected, with the municipal inventory considered a subset of the community inventory. As a result, municipal emissions are included in numbers reported for the community. The municipal inventory is separated to highlight areas of emissions that the City has more direct control over and to identify where they can begin to set examples for the community on how reduction strategies can be implemented.

The following subsections describe the sectors used in the community and municipal inventories. It is important to note that both inventories capture similar types of information but may be categorized differently. For example, energy is reported in both the community and municipal inventory, but community level energy emissions are reported as “Residential” and “Non-residential”, whereas municipal energy emissions are more logically reported as “Buildings & Facilities” and “Streetlights”.2 Community Sectors
The community inventory is categorized by sectors based on the sector’s ability to be affected through regional and local programs, incentives, zoning, and other policies. The City’s community inventories were divided into the following sectors:
 Energy in the Community Inventory is further broken down into two sectors:
o Commercial/Industrial Energy includes emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption in non-residential buildings and facilities (including outdoor lighting) in the City.
o Residential Energy includes emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption in residential buildings in the City.
 On-road Transportation includes emissions from vehicle fuel use in trips wholly within the City (in-boundary) and trips that either originate or end in the City (cross-boundary). Emissions from in-boundary trips are fully accounted for in the inventory, whereas only half of the emissions from cross-boundary trips are accounted for. Trips that pass-through the City, (such as on State Route 1) are not accounted for in the inventory because the City has little or no control of these emissions. As a result, this methodology reflects only trips or parts of trips within City borders that the City has the ability to affect.
 Solid Waste includes emissions from waste that is generated in the community and sent to landfills.
 Water includes emissions from the electricity used to source, treat, and deliver imported water in the community that is not accounted for in the community utility data.  Wastewater includes emissions from treating wastewater generated in the community.

2 Streetlights are further categorized as SCE-owned or City-owned as described later. 323
4 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach  Off-road Sources include emissions from operating equipment for construction, commercial, light industrial and agricultural activities; lawn and garden equipment; and recreational vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles.

Municipal Sectors
Sources of municipal emissions are divided into the following sectors:
 Energy in the municipal inventory is further broken down into four sectors:
o Buildings and Facilities includes energy use by the government, including electricity and natural gas.
o SCE-owned Outdoor Lighting includes energy for streetlights on fixtures owned by SCE and outdoor lighting.
o City-owned Outdoor Lighting includes energy for streetlights on fixtures owned by the City, traffic control signals, and outdoor lighting.
o Water Pumping & Irrigation includes energy for water pumping and irrigation.  Vehicle Fleet & Equipment includes emissions from vehicles owned or operated by the government or contracted by the City for services such as street cleaning. It also includes equipment, such as emergency generators.
 Employee Commute includes emissions from fuel use in vehicle trips by municipal employees commuting to and from work in the City.
 Solid Waste includes emissions from waste generated by municipal employees or at municipally owned facilities.

Calculation Methodology
GHG emissions were calculated using activity data available (e.g., kilowatt-hours of electricity) for each sector and protocols for converting activity data to emissions output using relevant emission factors.

Emission factors relate the activity to GHG emissions and may vary by year (e.g., for electricity) and often are not affected by local actions or behavior, unlike activity data. The U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (ICLEI 2012) and the Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of GHG Emissions Inventories (LGOP) (CARB 2010) were the primary protocols used for developing the community and municipal inventories, respectively.

Activity data are reported in the community and municipal emissions subsections below, and emission factors are detailed in Appendix B.

Community Emissions
The community inventory includes the GHG emissions that result from activities within City boundaries.

This section presents the findings of the community inventory for four years: 2005 (baseline year), 2007, 2010, and 2012. It also provides more specific detail and findings on the energy sectors, which will form the basis of the reduction targets and reduction measures the City identifies in the EECAP. 324
GHG Emissions Inventories 5
2005—2012 Emissions Summary
 The City of Hermosa Beach reduced emissions 7.7% from 2005 to 2012, from 137,160 MT CO2e to 126,611 MT CO2e.
 On-Road Transportation, Commercial Energy, Solid Waste, Water, and Off-Road Sources sector emissions decreased while Residential Energy and Wastewater sectors increased emissions from 2005 to 2012.

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 3, the On-Road Transportation sector was the largest contributor to emissions in both 2005 (54%) and 2012 (54%) by producing 73,567 MT CO2e in 2005 and 68,235 MT CO2e in 2012. This change represents a 7.2% decrease in emissions from 2005 to 2012. Residential energy is the second-largest contributor to emissions, accounting for 23% of emissions in 2005 and 27% in 2012. This change represents a 4.7% increase from 2005 to 2012, from 32,293 MT CO2e to 33,808 MT CO2e. The proportion of emissions from the Commercial sector decreased 12.7% from 2005 to 2012, from 20,280 MT CO2e to 17,830 MT CO2e. Solid waste comprised 4% of the total (6,015 MT CO2e) in 2005, but accounted for 3% of the total (3,334 MT CO2e) in 2012. Water, Wastewater, and Off-road sources made up the remaining emissions in each year. Water and Off-Road Transportation emissions declined from 2005 to 2012; however, Wastewater sources increased 13.5% (from 52 to 59 MT CO2e) in the same period.

Figure 1. Community-Wide GHG Emissions by Sector for 2005 and 2012 54%
15%
23%
4% 3% <1%
1%
2005
54%
14%
27%
3%
2%
<1% <1%
2012
On-Road Transportation Commercial Energy
Residential Energy Solid Waste
Water Wastewater
Off-Road Sources
325
6 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table 3. Community-Wide GHG Emissions by Sector for 2005 and 2012 Sector 2005
(MT CO2e)
2012
(MT CO2e)
% Change
2005 to 2012
On-Road Transportation 73,567 68,235 -7.2%
Residential Energy 32,293 33,808 4.7%
Commercial Energy 20,280 17,830 -12.1%
Solid Waste 6,015 3,334 -44.6%
Water 4,065 2,600 -36.0%
Off-Road Sources 888 745 -16.1%
Wastewater 52 59 13.5%
Total 137,160 126,611 -7.7%
2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Inventories
Figure 2 and Table 4 show the GHG emissions by sector for all inventory years. Emissions are variable among the inventory years, and may reflect changes in the economy, weather, and programs implemented to reduce emissions. The table also lists the percentage of each sector relative to total emissions and shows that the proportion of each sector does not vary greatly by year.

Figure 2. Community GHG Emissions for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 -
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2007 2010 2012
MT CO2e
Off-Road Sources
Wastewater
Water
Solid Waste
Residential Energy
Commercial Energy
On-Road
Transportation
326
GHG Emissions Inventories 7
Table 4. Community GHG Emissions for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Sector 2005
(MT CO2e)
% of
Total
2007
(MT CO2e)
% of
Total
2010
(MT CO2e)
% of
Total
2012
(MT CO2e)
% of
Total
On-road
Transportation 73,567 54% 71,863 54% 70,277 55% 68,235 54% Residential Energy 32,293 24% 31,964 24% 32,700 26% 33,808 27% Commercial Energy 20,280 15% 19,792 15% 18,372 14% 17,830 14% Solid Waste 6,015 4% 4,584 3% 3,510 3% 3,334 3%
Water 4,065 3% 3,942 3% 2,552 2% 2,600 2%
Off-Road Sources 888 1% 588 <1% 419 <1% 745 1%
Wastewater 52 <1% 35 <1% 59 <1% 59 <1%
Total 137,160 132,768 127,889 126,611
% Change from
2005 -- -3.2% -6.8% -7.7%
Activity data can provide more insight into behavioral changes in the community, as these data are not affected by emission factors. Table 5 summarizes activity data for each sector and subsector. The activity data show that residential electricity, natural gas (residential and non-residential), wastewater, industrial off-road sources, and light commercial off-road sources increased from 2005 to 2012, while on-road transportation, commercial electricity, solid waste, water, recycled water, and off-road sources (lawn & garden, construction, recreation, and agriculture) decreased from 2005 to 2012. Wastewater and Off-road emissions use indicator data to attribute county-level emissions to the City and the indicator data are also shown in Table 5.

Demographic data also help provide perspective to changes in emissions over time. Table 6 shows the number of households, jobs, population, and service population (jobs + population) for each inventory year. Energy emissions in particular often reflect trends in demographic data. For example, the slight increase in population and households between 2005 and 2012 may explain some of the increase in Residential Energy emissions.
327
8 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table 5. Activity Data used in 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Community Inventories Sector 2005 2007 2010 2012 % Change
2005 to 2012
On-road Transportation
Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 140,684,101 138,727,165 139,197,605 138,350,955 -1.7% Residential Energy
Electricity (kWh) 47,843,215 49,976,195 49,906,427 49,778,450 4.0% Natural Gas (therms) 3,339,783 3,305,637 3,448,010 3,364,392 0.7% Commercial Energy
Electricity (kWh) 51,741,467 52,130,513 48,545,739 41,191,832 -20.4% Natural Gas (therms) 857,687 900,024 827,116 875,986 2.1% Solid Waste
Landfilled (tons) 24,578 18,490 14,230 13,511 -45.0%
ADC (tons) 1246 180 50 48 -80.7%
Water and Wastewater
Water (MG) 760.2 760.2 687.7 700.3 -7.9%
Recycled Water (MG) 30.9 30.9 26.4 27.7 -10.3%
Wastewater (City portion of
countywide residents) 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.5%
Off-road sources2(% of LA County emissions attributed to the City) Lawn & Garden (% Households) 0.30% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% -1.7% Construction (% Building
permits) 0.32% 0.20% 0.13% 0.24% -25.7%
Industrial (% Manufacturing
Jobs) 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 4.3%
Light Commercial (% Other
jobs) 0.17% 0.17% 0.17% 0.18% 5.9%
Recreation (Population
weighted by income) 0.36% 0.36% 0.35% 0.34% -6.3%
Agriculture (% Ag. Jobs) 0.10% 0.11% 0.06% 0.08% -17.6% 1 ADC is Alternative Daily Cover, which is green waste (grass, leaves, and branches) that is used to cover landfill emissions. They are reported separately by CalRecycle and therefore shown separately here. 2 Off-road emissions are available at the county level through CARB’s OFFROAD model. Emissions attributable to the City were derived using indicator data related to the off-road source. For example, the percentage of households in the City compared to the county was used to attribute the same percentage of lawn & garden equipment emissions to the City. See Appendix B for more methodology details.
328
GHG Emissions Inventories 9
Table 6. Demographic Data for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 2005 2007 2010 2012 % Change
2005-2012
Service Population (Population + Jobs) 26,199 26,421 26,173 26,419 0.8% Population 19,340 19,174 19,477 19,574 1.2%
Households 9,507 9,457 9,550 9,548 0.4%
Jobs 6,859 7,247 6,696 6,845 -0.2%
Energy
The EECAP ultimately will focus on increasing energy efficiency and reducing GHG gases from energy; therefore, it is important for the City to understand its current energy consumption to make informed decisions for reducing energy-related emissions. Energy use consists of electricity and natural gas.

Emissions from Commercial/Industrial and Residential energy use account for about 40% of the total community emissions in 2005 and 2012. Table 7 shows the breakdown in activity (kWh or therms) and GHG emissions by sector and energy source.

Table 7. Activity Data and GHG Emissions of Energy in 2005 and 2012 Sector
2005 2012
% Change in
Activity
2005-2012
% Change in
Emissions
2005-2012
Activity
(kWh or
therms)
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Activity
(kWh or
therms)
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Commercial/ Industrial
Electricity 51,741,467 15,719 41,191,832 13,172 -20.4% -16.2% Natural Gas 857,687 4,561 875,986 4,658 2.1% 2.1%
Residential
Electricity 47,843,215 14,534 49,778,450 15,918 4.0% 9.5% Natural Gas 3,339,783 17,759 3,364,392 17,890 0.7% 0.7% Total (MT CO2e) 52,573 51,638 -1.8%
329
10 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Commercial electricity use decreased 20.4%
between 2005 and 2012; emissions decreased by
more than 16%. Residential electricity use
increased by about 4% but emissions increased by
more than 9%. These changes are due to the
emission factor used for electricity for 2005 and
2012. Emission factors convert activity data into
GHG emissions and electricity emission factors
vary annually based on how electricity is
generated by the electricity provider (i.e., the
amount of renewables, natural gas, coal, etc.). In
2005, Southern California Edison (SCE) generated
electricity that resulted in an emission factor of 669.7 CO2e. In 2012, SCE’s electricity generation resulted in an emission factor of 705.0 CO2e. Therefore, a kilowatt-hour of electricity used in 2012 emitted more GHGs than a kilowatt-hour of electricity used in 2005. Future emissions could increase or decrease based on changes to SCE’s emission factors, which the City cannot directly affect, or through changes in usage, which can be affected by changes in local policy, outreach, or incentive programs.

Unlike electricity, the emission factor for natural gas is estimated on a national basis and remains fairly constant over time. Therefore, the natural gas GHG emissions follow the same trend as usage. In Hermosa Beach, Commercial/Industrial natural gas consumption (therms) decreased by 2.1% from 2005 to 2012; therefore the emissions also declined 2.1%. Residential natural gas therms used and GHG emissions declined nearly 0.7% from 2005 to 2012. Figure 3 shows the trend in electricity and natural gas emissions from 2005 to 2012 for the Commercial/Industrial and Residential sectors.

Electricity-Related Emissions
All emissions are comprised of activity data and
the emission factor, or GHG-intensity, of that
activity. For electricity, the activity data are the
kilowatt-hours (kWh) used by the city’s residents
and businesses and the energy intensity is based
on the sources of power that Southern California
Edison uses to generate electricity. Changes to
either component can affect the GHG emissions
from electricity in the City.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas
Commercial Residential
MT CO2e
2005 2012
Figure 3. GHG Emissions for Community Electricity and Natural Gas, by Sector 330
GHG Emissions Inventories 11
Municipal Emissions
As described earlier, a municipal GHG emissions inventory is a subset of the community inventory. The municipal inventory includes emissions from activities conducted as part of government operations in the City. While emissions from government operations are normally a fraction of the overall community emissions, the City has the most direct control over municipal emissions and the City can demonstrate leadership in the community by adopting and implementing energy and GHG reduction strategies. This section presents the findings of the municipal inventory for 2005 (the baseline year), 2007, 2010, and 2012. It also provides more specific detail and findings on the energy sectors, which will form the basis of the reduction measures the City identifies in the EECAP. 2005—2012 Emissions Summary
 Municipal emissions have decreased nearly 9% from 2005 to 2012, from 1,501 MT CO2e to 1,372 MT CO2e.
 The sector with the greatest reductions was Employee Commute, which decreased 130 MT CO2e between 2005 and 2012.
 Emissions from municipal operations account for 1% of community emissions.

The City’s Employee Commute is the sector with the largest percentage of emissions in 2005 (23%) and decreased to the third-largest contributor in 2012 (16%) as emissions from this sector decreased 37% over the period (Figure 4). The second largest-emitting sector for 2005 and 2012 was Buildings & Facilities, accounting for 20% of emissions in 2005 and 22% of emissions in 2012 (increasing from 301 MT CO2e to 305 MT CO2e). The Fleet & Equipment sector contributed 227 MT CO2e (15% of total emissions) in 2005 and increased by 44% 2012 (to 328 MT CO2e, or 24% of total emissions), making this sector the largest emissions sector in 2012. Emissions from Solid Waste declined 25% over the period (from 215 to 162 MT CO2e). Emissions from SCE-owned Outdoor Lights increased 4% from 2005 to 2012, while City-owned Outdoor Lights emissions decreased by 19% from 2005 to 2012. The smallest sector, Water Pumping & Irrigation, decreased emissions from 5 MT CO2e in 2005 to less than 1 MT CO2e between 2005 and 2012. The 2005 and 2012 emissions and changes are detailed in Table 8. 331
12 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table 8. Municipal GHG Emissions by Sector for 2005 and 2012 Sector 2005
(MT CO2e)
2012
(MT CO2e)
% Change
2005 to 2012
Employee Commute 348 218 -37%
Buildings & Facilities 301 305 1%
Outdoor Lights—City-Owned 264 213 -19%
Fleet & Equipment 227 328 44%
Solid Waste 215 162 -25%
Outdoor Lights—SCE-Owned 141 146 4%
Water Pumping & Irrigation 5.0 0.6 -87%
Total 1,501 1,372 -8.6%
Note: City-Owned Outdoor Lights includes streetlights, traffic signals, and area lighting. SCE-Owned Outdoor Lights includes streetlights and outdoor lighting.
20%
15%
23%
14%
10%
18%
<1%
2005
22%
24%
16%
12%
11%
15% <1%
Buildings & Facilities Fleet & Equipment
Employee Commute Solid Waste
Outdoor Lights—SCE-Owned Outdoor Lights—City-Owned
Water Pumping & Irrigation
2012
Figure 4. Municipal GHG Emissions by Sector for 2005 and 2012 332
GHG Emissions Inventories 13
2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Inventories
Figure 5 and Table 9 show the municipal GHG emissions by sector for all four inventory years. Emissions peaked in 2007 (1,541 MT CO2e) and were the lowest in 2010 (1,340 MT CO2e).

Figure 5. Municipal GHG Emissions for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Table 9. Municipal GHG Emissions for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Sector
2005
(MT
CO2e)
% of
Total
2007
(MT
CO2e)
% of
Total
2010
(MT
CO2e)
% of
Total
2012
(MT
CO2e)
% of
Total
Employee Commute 348 23% 333 22% 274 20% 218 16%
Buildings & Facilities 301 20% 333 22% 276 21% 305 22%
Outdoor Lights—CityOwned 264 18% 258 17% 185 14% 213 16% Fleet & Equipment 227 15% 270 18% 320 24% 328 24%
Solid Waste 215 14% 213 14% 162 12% 162 12%
Outdoor lights—SCEOwned 141 9% 134 9% 122 9% 146 11%
Water Pumping &
Irrigation 5.0 0% 0.49 0% 0.55 0% 0.64 0%
Total 1,501 1,541 1,340 1,372
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2005 2007 2010 2012
MT CO2e
Water Pumping & Irrigation
Outdoor Lights—SCE-Owned
Solid Waste
Fleet & Equipment
Outdoor Lights—City-Owned
Buildings & Facilities
Employee Commute
333
14 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table 10 summarizes activity data for each sector and subsector. City-Owned Fleet showed significant increases in compressed natural gas (CNG) and diesel fuel used, which reflects the increase in Fleet & Equipment emissions. The significant decrease in Employee Commute reflects the change in City employees from 2005 to 2012, which decreased 34%.

Table 10. Activity Data used in 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Municipal Inventories Sector 2005 2007 2010 2012 % Change
2005 to 2012
Buildings & Facilities
Electricity (kWh) 895,746 932,207 883,858 915,327 2%
Natural Gas (therms)15,383 11,977 4,621 2,542 -53%
Outdoor Lights
City-Owned Electricity (kWh) 868,589 895,841 643,360 664,636 -23% SCE-Owned Electricity (kWh) 464,752 466,608 424,794 455,210 -2% Fleet & Equipment
City-Owned Fleet
Gasoline (gallons) 12,665 17,406 20,481 20,341 61%
Diesel (gallons) 2,584 2,584 4,121 5,502 113%
LPG (gallons) - - 36 23 NA
CNG (standard cubic feet) 13,377 13,377 81,114 98,658 638% Contracted2
Gasoline (gallons) 3,640 3,640 3,640 3,640 0%
Diesel (gallons) 2,057 2,057 2,057 2,057 0%
LPG (gallons) 5,127 5,127 5,127 5,127 0%
Employee Commute
Gasoline (gallons) 794,170 760,056 634,526 506,797 -36% Diesel (gallons) 26,784 35,852 25,110 20,055 -25%
# Full Time Employee
Equivalents 186 184 154 123 -34%
Solid Waste2
Generated Waste (tons) 666 660 660 660 -1%
Water Pumping & Irrigation
Electricity (kWh) 17,033 1,712 1,907 1,999 -88%
1 Contracted fuel use was not available for 2010 and 2012. Data from 2007 were used. 2 Solid Waste data for 2010 and 2012 assumed 2007 values. 334
GHG Emissions Inventories 15
Energy
As with the community emissions, the EECAP will focus on increasing energy efficiency and reducing GHG gases from energy within municipal operations. The City has more direct control over energyrelated emissions than other sectors, such as employee commute. Municipal energy use includes Buildings & Facilities, SCE-owned Outdoor Lighting, City-owned Outdoor Lighting, and Water Pumping & Irrigation. Energy accounted for 47% of total emissions in 2005 and 48% in 2012. While both electricity and natural gas are used for Building & Facilities, Outdoor Lighting and Water Pumping & Irrigation only use electricity. Emissions from energy declined 7% from 2005 to 2012; electricity-based emissions declined almost 5% and natural gas related emissions decreased 52% (Table 11). As with community energy, municipal emissions use variable electricity emission factors and constant natural gas emission factors.

Table 11. Activity Data and GHG Emissions of Energy in 2005 and 2012 Sector
2005 2012 % Change
in Activity
2005-2012
% Change in
Emissions
2005-2012
Activity (kWh
or Therms)
Emissions
(MT CO2e) Activity (kWh) Emissions (MT CO2e)
B&F (kWh) 895,746 272 915,327 291 2% 7%
Outdoor Lighting—
City (kWh) 868,589 264 664,636 213 -23% -19%
Outdoor Lighting—
SCE (kWh) 464,752 141 455,210 146 -2% 4%
Water Pumping &
Irrigation (kWh) 17,033 5 1,999 0.64 -88% -87%
B&F (therms) 5,383 29 2,542 14 -53% -52%
Total 2,251,503 711 2,039,714 665 -9% -7%
Note: B&F is Buildings and Facilities.
335
16 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Figure 6 shows the trend in electricity and natural gas emissions from 2005 to 2012 for the municipal energy sectors.

Note: B&F is Buildings and Facilities.

Figure 6. GHG Emissions for Municipal Electricity and Natural Gas, by Sector -
50 100
150
200
250
300
B&F (Electricity) Outdoor Lighting—
City
Outdoor Lighting—
SCE
B&F (Nat Gas) Water Pumping &
Irrigation
MT CO2e
2005 2012
336
Inventory Forecasts 17
Inventory Forecasts
GHG emissions are forecast using two scenarios: a Business-as-Usual (BAU) and an Adjusted BAU scenario. The BAU scenario describes emissions based on projected growth in population and employment and does not consider policies that will reduce emissions in the future (that is, the policies in place in 2012 are assumed to remain constant through 2035). The Adjusted BAU scenario describes emissions based on projected growth and considers policies that will achieve GHG reductions in the future. Policies, described in detail below, include State-adopted or approved legislation that will affect future emissions. By evaluating the two scenarios, the City can see the effect that existing policies may have on future emissions and be better able to determine how local measures can provide additional reductions. Two future years are forecasted for each scenario: 2020 and 2035. The 2020 forecast year is consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which identifies a statewide GHG reduction target by 2020. The 2035 forecast year will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions beyond 2020.

Business-as-Usual Forecasts
The BAU forecasts estimate future emissions using current (2012) consumption patterns and emission factors with the anticipated growth in the City. Anticipated growth is estimated using data from regional planning scenarios developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City, and other relevant sources (Table 12). The most relevant growth factors are used to project emissions by sector. For example, future Residential Energy emissions were developed using current energy use per household (from the 2012 inventory) and the anticipated number of households in the future. Actual energy use is a function of several variables, not only the number of households; however, this approach is supported by current protocols and best practices within the State and provides a consistent approach to forecasting. Compound annual growth rates were developed using the growth projections from 2012 to 2020 and from 2021 to 2035, as shown Table 12.

In general, the City is expecting modest growth to 2020 and 2035 as population and jobs are expected to increase. SCAG is projecting fewer vehicle miles traveled from 2012 to 2020 despite population and job growth, but that trend is reversed after 2020, when vehicle miles traveled will again increase. Due to the relatively low growth, the City does not anticipate major staffing changes in its government services. 337
18 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table 12. Growth Factors for 2012, 2020, and 2035
Sector Demographic
Indicator 2012 2020 2035 2012-2020 CAGR1
2020-2035
CAGR1
Transportation Vehicle Miles
Traveled 138,350,955 126,238,272 129,742,671 -1.14% 0.18% Solid Waste,
Water,
Wastewater, OffRoad Sources
Service Population
(Population +
Jobs)
26,419 26,900 27,400 0.23% 0.12%
NA2Population 19,574 19,600 19,700 0.02% 0.03%
Residential
Energy Households 9,548 9,600 9,600 0.07% 0.00%
Commercial/
Industrial Energy Jobs 6,845 7,300 7,700 0.81% 0.36%
Municipal Jobs Municipal
Emissions3
106 F/T
34 P/T
137 F/T
60 P/T
146 F/T
65 P/T 3.9% 0.45%
Source: SCAG 2012.

F/T: Full-time employees; P/T: Part-time employees
1 Compound annual growth rate.
2 Not Applicable. Population data are shown for informational purposes but are not used for forecasting any sector. 3 The number of jobs in the City is used as an indicator for all municipal operation emissions.

Community Business-as-Usual Forecast
 BAU community emissions are expected to decrease 8.1% from baseline levels by 2020 and

5.8% by 2035.

The City’s BAU emissions in 2020 are estimated to be 125,982 MT CO2e, or an 8.1% decrease from baseline (2005) emissions. By 2035, emissions are estimated to decrease 5.8% from the baseline level to 129,157 MT CO2e (Table 13).

Table 13. Community BAU Forecast
Sector 2005
(MT CO2e)
2012
(MT CO2e)
2020
(MT CO2e)
% Change
2012-2020
2035
(MT CO2e)
%Change
2012-2035
On-Road Transportation 73,567 68,235 66,150 -3% 67,986 0% Residential Energy 32,293 33,808 33,969 0% 33,969 0%
Commercial Energy 20,280 17,830 18,930 6% 19,967 12%
Solid Waste 6,015 3,334 3,391 2% 3,454 4%
Water 4,065 2,600 2,645 2% 2,694 4%
Off-Road Sources 888 745 837 12% 1,026 38%
Wastewater 52 59 60 2% 61 3%
Total 137,160 126,611 125,982 0% 129,157 2%
% Change from 2005 -7.7% -8.1% -5.8%
338
Inventory Forecasts 19
Municipal Business-as-Usual Forecast
 BAU municipal emissions are expected to be 20% higher than baseline levels in 2020 and 28% higher than baseline levels in 2035.

The City is anticipating significant growth in city employees by 2020 or 2035 from current (2012) levels— 36% more full-time equivalent employees in 2020 compared with 2012, and 45% more employees in 2035 compared with 2012. Therefore, the activity data for municipal services is also expected to increase relative to 2012.

Table 14. Municipal BAU Forecast
2005
(MT CO2e)
2012
(MT CO2e)
2020
(MT CO2e)
% Change
2012-2020
2035
(MT CO2e)
% Change
2012-2035
Buildings & Facilities 301 305 400 31% 428 40%
Employee Commute 348 218 286 31% 306 40%
Solid Waste 215 162 213 31% 227 40%
Outdoor Lighting 405 359 471 31% 504 40%
Vehicle Fleet 227 328 430 31% 460 40%
Water Pumping & Irrigation 5.0 0.64 1 56% 1 56%
Total 1,501 1372 1801 31% 1926 40%
% Change from 2005 -9% 20% 28%
Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecasts
State legislation has been approved and/or adopted that will reduce GHG emissions in the City. These policies do not require additional local action, but should be accounted for in the City’s emissions forecasts to provide a more accurate picture of future emissions and the level of local action needed to reduce emissions to levels consistent with State recommendations. This forecast is called the Adjusted BAU forecast. The measures are described briefly below.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was developed as a result of Executive Order S-1-07, which mandates that the carbon intensity of transportation fuels in California are lowered 10% by 2020. The State is currently implementing this standard, which is being phased in and will achieve full implementation in 2020.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 and Advanced Clean Cars. AB 1493 directed CARB to adopt GHG standards for motor vehicles through model year 2015 that would result in reductions in GHG emissions by up to 25% in 2030. In addition, the State’s Advanced Clean Cars program includes additional components that will further reduce GHG emissions statewide, including more stringent fuel efficiency standards for model years 2017—2025 and support infrastructure for the commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. CARB 339
20 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach anticipates additional GHG reductions of 3% by 2020, 27% by 2035, and 33% by 20503. These are also known as “Pavley I” and “Pavley II” regulations.

California Building Code Title 24. California’s building efficiency standards are updated regularly to incorporate new energy efficiency technologies. The code was most recently updated in 2013 and went into effect for new development in 2014. For projects implemented after January 1, 2014, the California Energy Commission estimates that the 2013 Title 24 energy efficiency standards will reduce consumption by an estimated 25% for residential buildings and 30% for commercial buildings, relative to the 2008 standards. These percentage savings relate to heating, cooling, lighting, and water heating only; therefore, these percentage savings were applied to the estimated percentage of energy use by Title 24.

Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires energy providers to derive 33% of their electricity from qualified renewable sources. This is anticipated to lower emission factors (i.e., fewer GHG emissions per kilowatt-hour used) statewide. Therefore, reductions from RPS are taken for energy embedded in water, which uses energy sources throughout the state to move from the water source area to the City. However, no credit was taken for this measure for the SCE service region (i.e., for residential and commercial electricity used in the City supplied by SCE). Analysis of SCE’s current portfolio and the sources needed to replace the nuclear generation that has been taken out of service has revealed great uncertainty in how SCE’s emission factors may change over time. Therefore, the emission factor used in the 2012 inventory and the BAU forecast was also used in the Adjusted BAU forecast.

Senate Bill X7-7. California’s SB X7-7 requires water suppliers to reduce urban per capita water consumption 20% from a baseline level by 2020. The City is supplied by California Water Service and the reductions in GHG emissions from SB X7-7 were calculated by applying the reduction goals established by California Water Service to the City’s population in 2020 and 2035.

Community Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast
 Emissions are expected to decrease under the Adjusted BAU forecast and will be 19% lower in 2020 than 2005 and 31% lower than 2005 levels by 2035.

The City’s Adjusted BAU emissions in 2020 are estimated to be 111,690 MT CO2e in 2020 and 94,162 MT CO2e in 2035 (Table 15). This change represents an 18.6% reduction from 2005 by 2020 and 31% reduction by 2035. Due to the stringent State vehicle standards, the emissions from the Transportation sector are expected to decrease significantly over time, while the proportion of emissions from Residential and Non-residential Energy will increase. Emissions from Solid Waste are expected to increase while emissions from Water and Wastewater will remain steady over time, but all account for less than 10% of total emissions.

3 CARB Advanced Clean Cars Summary Sheet
340
Inventory Forecasts 21
Table 15. Community Adjusted BAU Emissions
Sector 2005
(MT CO2e)
2012
(MT CO2e)
2020
(MT CO2e)
2020 % of
Total
2035
(MT CO2e)
2035 % of
Total
Transportation &
Mobile Sources 74,455 68,980 53,857 49% 35,533 38%
Non-Residential Energy 20,280 17,830 18,742 17% 19,564 21% Residential Energy 32,293 33,808 33,953 30% 33,953 36%
Solid Waste 6,015 3,334 3,391 3% 3,454 4%
Water & Wastewater 4,117 2,659 1,747 2% 1,658 2%
Total 137,160 126,611 111,690 100% 94,162 100%
% Change from 2005 -8% -19% -31%
Municipal Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast
 Emissions are expected to increase under the Adjusted BAU forecast and are estimated to be 17% higher in 2020 and 25% higher in 2035 relative to 2005 levels.  The City will need to reduce emissions by 475 MT CO2e in 2020 from the forecasted level to meet a state-aligned target of 15% below 2005 levels.

The City’s Municipal Adjusted BAU emissions in 2020 are estimated to be 1,751 MT CO2e, which is 17% above the 2005 baseline level (Table 16). By 2035, the level of reductions is anticipated to be 25% above 2005 levels, or 1,872 MT CO2e. The Adjusted BAU emissions are slightly lower than the BAU emissions due to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard measure described earlier. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard would lower the carbon intensity of fuels used in both the City’s Vehicle Fleet and Employee Commute sectors.

Table 16. Municipal Adjusted BAU Emissions
Sector 2005
(MT CO2e)
2012
(MT CO2e)
2020
(MT CO2e)
2020 % of
Total
2035
(MT CO2e)
2035 % of
Total
Buildings & Facilities 301 305 400 23% 428 23%
Employee Commute 348 218 266 15% 284 15%
Solid Waste 215 162 213 12% 227 12%
Outdoor Lighting 405 359 471 27% 504 27%
Vehicle Fleet 227 328 400 23% 428 23%
Water Pumping & Irrigation 5 0.64 0.64 <1% 0.64 <1%
Total 1,501 1,373 1,751 100% 1,872 100%
% Change from 2005 -9% 17% 25%
341
22 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Reduction Targets
The State has set goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020 and 2050 through AB 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, respectively. The State has also provided guidance to local jurisdictions as “essential partners” in achieving the State’s goals by identifying a 2020 recommended reduction goal. That goal, stated in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, was for local governments to achieve a 15% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, which aligns with the State’s goal of not exceeding 1990 emissions levels by 20204. The State’s long term target is to emit no more than 20% of 1990 levels by 2050 (or, a reduction of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050). The State has not provided an interim target, nor has it provided guidance to local governments beyond the 2020 emissions target recommendations. It is however clear that the issue of climate change will not end in 2020 and continued reductions should be achieved to keep the State on a path toward the 2050 goal. A straight-line projection from the 2020 to 2050 goals would result in a reduction goal of 49% below 2005 levels by 2035 midpoint.

Ultimately, the City will determine the level of reductions that it can and should achieve. The recommended targets provided below are guidance based on consistency with the State’s goals.

Recommended Community Targets
In 2020, the City will meet the reduction target through existing efforts. In 2035, the City would need to reduce 24,210 MT CO2e emissions below the Adjusted BAU scenario to meet the State-aligned target (Table 17 and Figure 7).

Table 17. State-Aligned GHG Reduction Targets
Sector 2005 2012 2020 2035
BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 137,160 126,611 125,982 129,157 Adjusted BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 137,160 126,611 111,690 94,162 State-Aligned Target(% change from 2005) -15% -49%
State-Aligned Target (% change from 2012) -8% -45%
State-Aligned Emissions Goal (MT CO2e) 116,586 69,952
Reductions from Adjusted BAU needed to meet the
Target (MT CO2e) Target Met 24,210

4 In an analysis, the State concluded that a 15% reduction in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 would be equivalent to achieving 1990 emissions levels.
342
Reduction Targets 23
Municipal Targets
In 2010, the Hermosa Beach City Council declared its goal to become carbon neutral. The City is hoping to achieve this goal by 2020. Without this goal, the City’s emissions are anticipated to be 1,751 MT CO2e in 2020 and 1,872 MT CO2e in 2035. Therefore, the City must reduce emissions by 1,751 from the Adjusted BAU forecast to meet the 2020 goal and maintain this level in the future (Table 18 and Figure 8).

Table 18. State-Aligned Municipal GHG Reduction Targets 2005 2012 2020 2035
BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 1,501 1,372 1,801 1,926
Adjusted BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 1,501 1,372 1,751 1,872 Carbon Neutrality Target (% Reduction from 2005) -100% -100% Carbon Neutrality Emissions (MT CO2e) 0 0
Reductions from Adjusted BAU needed to meet the Target
(MT CO2e) 1,751 1,872
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
MT CO2e
Water & Wastewater
Solid Waste
Commercial Energy
Residential Energy
Transportation & Mobile
Sources
15% below 2005
49% below 2005
Path to 2035 from 2020 ABAU
(-3.1%/yr)
Figure 7. Community Emissions Inventories, Projections, and Targets 343
24 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Figure 8. Municipal Emissions Inventories, Projections, and Targets 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
MT CO2e
Water Pumping &
Irrigation
Solid Waste
Buildings & Facilities
Outdoor Lighting
Employee Commute
Vehicle Fleet
Path to 2020 from 2012
344
Conclusions and Next Steps 25
Conclusions and Next Steps
This Report presents the City’s community and municipal inventories, forecasts, and recommended reduction targets. It is the foundation of the EECAP and provides the City a first look at what will be needed to meet emissions reductions that are aligned with the State and to mitigate the City’s impacts on climate change. This Report also helps to guide the City in determining feasible energy efficiency reduction opportunities by detailing energy-related emissions, including electricity and natural gas from Residential and Non-residential sectors.

The next steps in the EECAP process are to review the information provided in this Report and to determine preliminary GHG reduction targets for the community and municipal operations. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments will also begin to work with the City to identify local and subregional energy efficiency measures that could be implemented to reach the City’s emissions targets. 345
26 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach References
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2013. The California Supplement to the United States Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Protocol.

California Air Resources Board. 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories version 1.1.

California Air Resources Board. 2011. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: 2000-2009.

ICLEI 2012. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions version

1.0. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC) 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.

Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 346
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Adjusted Business-as-Usual: A GHG forecast scenario that accounts for known policies and regulations that will affect future emissions. Generally, these are state and federal initiatives that will reduce emissions from the business-as-usual scenario.

Baseline Year: The inventory year used for setting targets and comparing future inventories against.

Business-as-Usual (BAU): A GHG forecast scenario used for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions at a future date based on current technologies and regulatory requirements and in the absence of other reduction strategies.

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e): This is a common unit for normalizing greenhouse gases with different levels of heat trapping potential. For carbon dioxide itself, emissions in tons of CO2 and tons of CO2e are the same, whereas one ton of nitrous oxide emissions equates to 298 tons of CO2e and one ton of methane equates to 25 tons of CO2e. The values are based on the gases’ global warming potentials.

Community Inventory: GHG emissions that result from the activities by residents and businesses in the city. An inventory reports emissions that occur over a single calendar year.

Emissions Factor: A coefficient used to convert activity data into greenhouse gas emissions. The factor is a measure of the greenhouse gas intensity of an activity, such as the amount of CO2 in one kilowatt-hour of electricity.

Global Warming Potential (GWP): The relative effectiveness of a molecule of a greenhouse gas at trapping heat compared with one molecule of CO2.

Metric Ton (MT): Common international measurement for the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. A metric ton is equal to 2205 lbs. or 1.1 short tons.

Municipal Inventory: GHG emissions that result from the activities performed as part of the government operations in the city and are a subset of the community inventory. An inventory reports emissions that occur over a single calendar year.

Reduction targets: GHG emissions levels not to be exceeded by a specific date. Reduction targets are often informed by state recommendations and different targets may be established for different years.

Sector: A subset of the emissions inventory classified by a logical grouping such as economic or municipal-specific category.
347
348
Appendix B: Methodology
This appendix provides a detailed description of the data sources, emission factors, policies, and assumptions used to develop the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories, forecasts under a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, forecasts under an Adjusted BAU scenario, and the recommended GHG reduction targets.

Protocols
The GHG inventories for 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 were calculated using tools and guidance documents developed or supported by government agencies. Calculation protocols have been developed to ensure consistency among community and municipal inventories. Specifically, the U.S.

Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Community Protocol) (ICLEI 2012) and the California Supplement (AEP 2013) were used for the community inventories and the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) was used for the municipal inventories (CARB 2010).

These protocols often have multiple calculation methods for a single emission source depending on the data available. There are two broad approaches for calculating emissions: “bottom-up” and “top-down”.

A bottom-up approach relies on end-use data, such as the city-level electricity usage. A top-down approach relies on aggregated data that is allocated to the city based on population, employment, or other relevant indicator. Bottom-up calculations were performed whenever possible to provide the most detailed and likely accurate picture of emissions within a jurisdiction; however, when detailed data were not available, other appropriate methods were used and are described in this appendix. Data were also calculated and managed to best fit the GHG inventory and planning software tool used for this project, called ClearPath. ClearPath was developed by the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC) which is a partnership between several statewide agencies, utilities, and non-profits to assist cities and counties in climate mitigation planning. ClearPath is further described at californiaseec.org. In addition, a South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) User’s Guide is being developed as part of this project to help cities and SBCCOG to maintain the data and provide for consistent reporting of emissions over time.

Global Warming Potential Factors
The inventories include the three GHGs most relevant to community and municipal emissions: CO2, CH4, and N2O. Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on their molecular properties and expected lifetime in the atmosphere, and it is useful to describe emissions in one unit of measurement. That unit of measurement is a CO2-equivalent, or CO2e and Global Warming Potential (GWP) factors are used to standardize emissions from various GHGs. GWP factors, developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), represent the heat-trapping ability of each GHG relative to that of CO2. For example, the GWP factor of CH4 is 25 because one metric ton (MT) of CH4 has 25 times the heat-trapping capacity as one MT CO2 (over a 100-year period). IPCC periodically updates the GWP factors of GHGs based on new science and updated background mixing ratios of CO2. CO2 always has a GWP factor of 1 and the other GHGs are calculated relative to CO2. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently updated their GWP factors to align with the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, as shown in Table B-1. GWP factors are unitless. Emissions in the inventories are reported in units of CO2e.
349
B-2 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table B-1. Global Warming Potentials
CO2 CH4 N2O
GWP 1 25 298
Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007.

Activity Data
Activity data is the end-use consumption amount of a sector, such as kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, and vehicle miles traveled for on-road transportation. In estimating the City’s historic GHG emissions, activity data at the City level were obtained when possible (a “bottom-up” approach). When not available, other data sources were used, generally at the county level (a “topdown” approach). Municipal data for 2005 and 2007 were obtained from the City’s previous inventory report. Other data were provided by the sources as identified Table B-12.

TableB-12. Activity Data Sources
Data Data Source Notes
Community Electricity Southern California Edison
Municipal Electricity Southern California Edison Maintained by SBCCOG Community Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
Municipal Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
Community Water California Water Service
Vehicle Miles Traveled Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Origin-destination approach,
described below
Demographic Data SCAG
Vehicle Fleet City
Employee Commute City
Off-Road Emissions OFFROAD Model County-level data
Waste CalRecycle
Origin-Destination VMT
For the community inventory, activity data (vehicle miles traveled) were based on an origin-destination approach used by the State in developing emissions target for metropolitan planning organizations under SB 375. This approach has also been the typical approach used in estimating emission within a city. This approach accounts for:
 Half of the emissions where one endpoint is in the City, for example either the origin or destination of the trip.
 All of the emissions where the trip begins and ends within the City.  None of the emissions that are “pass-through”; that is, a trip passes through the City but does not begin or end within its boundary.

This approach is used to account for trips or portions of trips that the city may have some control over. 350
Appendix B: Methodology B-3
Community Activity Data
Community activity data are shown in Table B-13, except for off-road emissions, which are shown in Table B-14 for Los Angeles County.

Table B-13. Activity Data used in 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Community Inventories Sector 2005 2007 2010 2012 % Change
2005 to 2012
On-road Transportation
Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 140,684,101 138,727,165 139,197,605 138,350,955 -1.7% Residential Energy
Electricity (kWh) 47,843,215 49,976,195 49,906,427 49,778,450 4.0% Natural Gas (therms) 3,339,783 3,305,637 3,448,010 3,364,392 0.7% Commercial Energy
Electricity (kWh) 51,741,467 52,130,513 48,545,739 41,191,832 -20.4% Natural Gas (therms) 857,687 900,024 827,116 875,986 2.1% Solid Waste
Landfilled (tons) 24,578 18,490 14,230 13,511 -45.0%
ADC (tons) 1246 180 50 48 -80.7%
Water and Wastewater
Water (MG) 760.2 760.2 687.7 700.3 -7.9%
Recycled Water (MG) 30.9 30.9 26.4 27.7 -10.3%
Wastewater (City portion of
countywide residents) 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.5%
Off-road sources2(% of LA County emissions attributed to the City) Lawn & Garden (% Households) 0.30% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% -1.7% Construction (% Building
permits) 0.32% 0.20% 0.13% 0.24% -25.7%
Industrial (% Manufacturing
jobs) 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 4.3%
Light Commercial (% Other jobs) 0.17% 0.17% 0.17% 0.18% 5.9% Recreation (Population weighted
by income) 0.36% 0.36% 0.35% 0.34% -6.3%
Agriculture (% Ag. Jobs) 0.10% 0.11% 0.06% 0.08% -17.6% 351
B-4 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table B-14. Emissions from Off-road Categories for Los Angeles County Off-road Class GHG
Type
2005
(MT CO2e /yr)
2007
(MT CO2e /yr)
2010
(MT CO2e /yr)
2012
(MT CO2e /yr)
Agricultural Equipment
CO2 921.79 910.27 893.24 882.09
CH4 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.12
N2O 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Construction and Mining
Equipment
CO2 268,646.23 277,541.76 290,911.26 299,875.79
CH4 34.12 31.44 28.24 26.28
N2O 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.26
Industrial Equipment
CO2 8,099.90 8,562.29 9,255.58 9,870.65
CH4 7.16 6.2 4.46 3.89
N2O 0.69 0.63 0.56 0.55
Lawn and Garden Equipment
CO2 2,581.13 2,737.30 2,968.71 3,215.02
CH4 4.98 4.87 4.76 4.96
N2O 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.13
Light Commercial Equipment
CO2 5,300.36 5,572.36 5,979.92 6,387.77
CH4 2.83 2.54 2.18 2.05
N2O 0.91 0.97 1.02 1.07
Recreational Equipment
CO2 286.54 309.8 343.68 369.04
CH4 2.14 2.32 2.58 2.77
N2O 0.52 0.57 0.64 0.68
Municipal Activity Data
Municipal activity data are shown in Table B-15.

Employee Commute
Data for Employee Commute in ClearPath are entered as gasoline or diesel. Annual vehicle miles traveled is entered as is the percent of miles traveled by passenger cars, light trucks, and heavy trucks.

The City conducted a ridership survey in 2013 through SurveyMonkey.com and presented the results in a 2014 report titled “The City of Hermosa Beach Employee Commute Survey: 2013 & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies”. 108 employees completed the survey, representing 76% of employees.

The results were summarized and extrapolated to the total number of City employees in 2010 and 2012.

Employee commute vehicle miles traveled by fuel type for 2005 and 2007 were taken from the City’s previous GHG inventories. The number of employees for 2010 was assumed to be the same as in 2012. 352
Appendix B: Methodology B-5
Table B-15. Activity Data used in 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012 Municipal Inventories Sector 2005 2007 2010 2012 % Change
2005 to 2012
Buildings & Facilities
Electricity (kWh) 895,746 932,207 883,858 915,327 2%
Natural Gas (therms)15,383 11,977 4,621 2,542 -53%
Outdoor Lights
City-Owned Electricity (kWh) 868,589 895,841 643,360 664,636 -23% SCE-Owned Electricity (kWh) 464,752 466,608 424,794 455,210 -2% Fleet & Equipment
City-Owned Fleet
Gasoline (gallons) 12,665 17,406 20,481 20,341 61%
Diesel (gallons) 2,584 2,584 4,121 5,502 113%
LPG (gallons) - - 36 23 NA
CNG (standard cubic feet) 13,377 13,377 81,114 98,658 638% Contracted2
Gasoline (gallons) 3,640 3,640 3,640 3,640 0%
Diesel (gallons) 2,057 2,057 2,057 2,057 0%
LPG (gallons) 5,127 5,127 5,127 5,127 0%
Employee Commute
Gasoline (gallons) 794,170 760,056 634,526 506,797 -36% Diesel (gallons) 26,784 35,852 25,110 20,055 -25%
# Full Time Employee Equivalents 186 184 154 123 -34%
Solid Waste2
Generated Waste (tons) 666 660 660 660 -1%
Water Pumping & Irrigation
Electricity (kWh) 17,033 1,712 1,907 1,999 -88%
1 Contracted fuel use was not available for 2010 and 2012. Data from 2007 were used. 2 Solid Waste data for 2010 and 2012 assumed 2007 values.

Emission Factors
Emissions factors are used to convert activity data to GHG emissions. An emission factor is defined as the average emission rate of a given GHG for a given source, relative to units of activity. By definition, an emission factor is related to activity data. The emission factors used in the inventories are described by sector below.
353
B-6 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Electricity
California utilities report the average CO2 content per output of electricity on an intermittent basis. The CO2-intensity of electricity varies by utility and year, due to changes in supply, renewable generation, and other factors. The community and municipal operations use electricity provided by SCE except for embedded energy in water, which travels throughout the state and therefore utilizes electricity from multiple utilities (and are shown under the Water Sector).

Southern California Edison
SCE reported CO2 factors for 2005 and 2007 through the Climate Registry, and a CO2e factor for 2012 in their 2012 Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability Report. When an emission factor is unknown for a certain year, it is standard to use the most recently-reported historic factor until (and if) there is an updated factor. There is no published SCE emission factor for 2010; therefore the factor for 2007 was used for SCE electricity-related emissions calculations in 2010 (Table B-2).

Table B-2. Southern California Edison Electricity Emission Factors Year CO2 CH4 N2O Proxy Year Data Source
2005 665.72 0.03 0.011 NA
CO2: Climate Registry.

CH4 and N2O: U.S. Community Protocol
2007 630.89 0.029 0.010 NA
CO2: Climate Registry.

CH4 and N2O: U.S. Community Protocol
2010 630.89 0.029 0.010 2007
CO2: Climate Registry.

CH4 and N2O: U.S. Community Protocol
2012 7051NA NA NA 2012 Corporate Responsibility &
Sustainability Report
NA: Not Applicable.
1 The 2012 factor was reported as CO2e; therefore, there are no CH4 and N2O factors.

Natural Gas Combustion
Emission factors for natural gas do not vary greatly over time or by supplier. Therefore, emission factors are U.S. averages as listed in the Community Protocol and are applied for all years (TableB-4).

Table B-4. Natural Gas Emission Factors
CO2 CH4 N2O Data Source
kg /MMBtu 53.02 0.005 0.0001 U.S. Community Protocol
Transportation and Mobile Sources
EMFAC Model
CO2 emission factors for transportation and mobile sources are calculated using the State-developed Emissions Factor (EMFAC) model, which can be downloaded at http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/.

Emissions are available at the county level and emission factors were developed and applied to vehicle miles traveled specific to each inventory year. Data are aggregated as annual emissions for all vehicle 354
Appendix B: Methodology B-7
model years and speeds, but separated by vehicle category. Vehicle categories include light-duty autos, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles.1These categorizations are used to develop an emissions factor for gasoline and diesel vehicles. Emission factors were developed using total CO2 exhaust, which includes emissions from vehicles in motion, idling, and ignition. While emissions from idling and ignitions are not directly related to mileage, they were included so that reductions from measures that may decrease idling could be accounted for in future inventories.

On-Road Transportation
Emissions were converted to emission factors as grams of CO2 per mile for gasoline and diesel vehicle using EMFAC and a 3-step process (for each inventory year):

1. Calculate the vehicle-class average fuel efficiency (miles/gallon) using EMFAC vehicle miles traveled and gallons of fuel consumed for Los Angeles County;

2. Calculate the vehicle-class average CO2 emission factor using EMFAC CO2 emissions2and gallons of fuel consumed for Los Angeles County;

3. Calculate the average grams CO2/mile traveled factor weighted by vehicle class miles traveled for Los Angeles County.

EMFAC does not provide emissions for CH4 and N2O; therefore, factors from the Community Protocol were used (Table B-5).

Table B-5. Fleet-Average Emission Factors
Gasoline On Road Average Factor
(grams/mile)
Diesel On Road Average Factor
(grams/mile)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O
2005 466.062 0.030 0.034 1329.797 0.001 0.001
2007 464.019 0.028 0.029 1331.634 0.001 0.001
2010 458.638 0.028 0.029 1280.045 0.001 0.001
2012 442.657 0.028 0.029 1302.653 0.001 0.001
Employee Commute
Emissions from employee commute in the municipal operations are calculated using annual vehicle miles traveled for gasoline and diesel. CO2 emissions are estimated using a default emission factor of

8.78 and 10.21 kg/gallon for gasoline and diesel, respectively3and fuel economy, which is based on EMFAC outputs for each inventory year and vehicle class. Vehicle miles traveled are converted to CH4

1 Vehicle categories may use either EMFAC2007 or EMFAC2011 categorizations and result in the same data for the purposes of these inventories; EMFAC2007 categories were used here EMFAC2011 further disaggregates medium heavy-duty vehicles and heavy heavy-duty vehicles into 29 vehicle categories. This level of detail is not needed for these inventories. More information on vehicle categories is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/vehiclecategories.xlsx. 2 For 2010 and 2012, the emissions accounting for the effects of existing policies (Pavley and Low Carbon Fuel Standard) were used. These standards did not exist in 2005 and 2007. 3 Information from ClearPath developers e-mail dated June 19, 2014. 355
B-8 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach and N2O emissions using emission factors from the Community Protocol. Table B-6 shows the miles per gallon and grams (CH4 and N2O) per mile used to estimate emissions from employee commute by vehicle class.

Vehicle Fleet
Vehicle fleet consists of City-owned and contracted vehicles used to perform City services. Vehicle Fleet requires input of gallons of fuel used by fuel type to estimate CO2 emissions. Vehicle miles traveled are used to estimate CH4 and N2O. The factors used for the City are shown in Table B-6.

Table B-6. Employee Commute and Vehicle Fleet Emission Factors 2005 2007 2010 2012
Gasoline
Passenger Vehicle
MPG 21.700 21.875 22.027 22.064
g CH4/mi 0.030 0.028 0.028 0.028
g N2O/mi 0.034 0.029 0.029 0.029
Light Truck
MPG 16.575 16.666 16.795 16.823
g CH4/mi 0.035 0.031 0.031 0.031
g N2O/mi 0.049 0.043 0.043 0.043
Heavy Truck
MPG 12.754 12.806 12.854 12.856
g CH4/mi 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033
g N2O/mi 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Diesel
Passenger Vehicle
MPG 27.558 27.662 29.006 29.889
g CH4/mi 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
g N2O/mi 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Light Truck
MPG 27.032 27.251 27.705 28.498
g CH4/mi 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
g N2O/mi 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Heavy Truck
MPG 17.343 17.588 18.797 18.858
g CH4/mi 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
g N2O/mi 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
Note: MPG is miles per gallon and is derived from EMFAC at the county level. CH4 and N2O emission factors are from the Community Protocol; Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck emission factors have data for 2005 and later; Heavy Truck only have 2010 data.

Off-Road
Off-road emissions include emissions from agriculture, construction, industrial, lawn and garden, light commercial, and recreational equipment. Annual emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O are available at the county level from the State’s OFFROAD model. To estimate values for each city, relevant indicator data are used to estimate the proportion of county-level emissions attributable to the city. Table B-7 lists the 356
Appendix B: Methodology B-9
indicator used to estimate the City’s portion of emissions for each category and Table B-8 shows Cityspecific data. City- and county-level indicator data were obtained from SCAG.

Table B-7. Off-road Emissions Indicators
Category Indicator
Agriculture Equipment Agriculture Jobs
Construction Equipment Building Permits Issued
Industrial Equipment Manufacturing Jobs
Lawn and Garden Equipment Households
Light Commercial Equipment Non- Manufacturing or Agriculture Jobs Recreational Equipment Population, Weighted by Median Income Table B-8. Off-road Emissions Indicator Data
Ag. Jobs Building
Permits
Mfg.

Jobs Households Other Jobs1 Population Income ($)
2005
City 3.786 1 136 2,884 3,646 8,058 123,702
County 13,562 25,623 461,099 3,178,736 4,045,922 9,816,200 48,606 % 0.03% 0.00% 0.03% 0.09% 0.09% 0.21%
2007
City 4.002 59 144 2,902 3,854 7,939 130,825
County 13,562 20,303 461,099 3,224,053 4,045,922 9,780,800 51,439 % 0.03% 0.29% 0.03% 0.09% 0.10% 0.21%
2010
City 3.69 2 114 3,100 3,572 8,064 142,286
County 10,598 7,466 362,157 3,454,093 3,758,244 9,818,605 56,000 % 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.09% 0.10% 0.21%
2012
City 3 3 116 3,100 3,660 8,097 117,305
County 10,798 18,926 369,005 3,454,093 3,829,313 9,889,632 53,880 % 0.03% 0.02% 0.03% 0.09% 0.10% 0.18%
Note: Some percentages may appear off due to rounding. Ag. = Agriculture. Mfg. = Manufacturing. 1 Other indicates non-manufacturing and non-agricultural.

Water
Emissions from water are indirect. Water requires energy to move from its source to final treatment and the energy for most of these processes is not captured in local utility data (i.e., the portion that is used in a home or business and therefore contained in the owner’s utility bill). This portion is termed the “embedded energy” in water and particularly for southern California, the energy embedded in water is high and should be accounted for in a community inventory. The California Energy Commission (CEC) developed a report, titled Refining Estimates for Water-Related Energy Use in California, which estimates the energy required to supply, convey, distribute, and treat water in northern and southern California. Recycled water is less energy-intensive because it does not require the supply and conveyance energy. Outdoor water infiltrates into the ground and therefore does not have the 357
B-10 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach wastewater energy treatment component. Therefore, the emission factors are adjusted to account for the proportion of recycled and outdoor water. The amount of water used for indoor or outdoor use was not available at the City level; however, the 2010 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Urban Water Management Plan states that 61% of water is for indoor use for the City of Los Angeles. The water usage is assumed to be similar for the South Bay sub-region. Therefore, the embedded energy in a million gallon (MG) of water in the City is estimated in Table B-9 using the CEC report and estimated indoor vs. outdoor water usage in the region.

Table B-9. Energy Embedded in Water
Conventional1(kWh/MG) Recycled (kWh/MG)
Supply and Convey 9,727 --
Treatment 111 111
Distribution 1,272 1,272
Wastewater Treatment 1,911 1,911
Total 13,022 3,294
South Bay Factor 12,275.71 2,548.71
1 From CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates for Water-Related Energy Use in California, for Indoor water use in southern California.

Statewide Average Electricity
For energy embedded in water, a statewide average emission factor is applied because water in the South Bay sub-region is supplied from various regions in the State (Table B-3). Similar to SCE data, statewide emission factors are not available for each inventory year. For 2010 and 2012, the 2009 statewide emission factors were used as the proxy year.

Table B-3. California Statewide Electricity Emission Factors Year CO2 CH4 N2O Proxy Year Data Source
2005 948.28 0.03 0.011 NA U.S. Community Protocol
2007 919.64 0.029 0.010 NA U.S. Community Protocol
2010 658.68 0.029 0.006 2009 U.S. Community Protocol
2012 658.68 0.029 0.006 2009 U.S. Community Protocol
NA: Not Applicable.

Wastewater
The emissions for wastewater include the CH4 and N2O emissions from processing which consist of three sources: stationary, process, and fugitive emissions.

Stationary emissions are derived from combustion of digester gas at a centralized treatment facility. The City is served by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP). JWPCP is a centralized treatment facility that uses an anaerobic digester process and does not employ a formal nitrification/denitrification (N/DN) system. Detailed information regarding the amount of digester gas produces was not available, so an alternative method using City population information 358
Appendix B: Methodology B-11
was used. Default factors from the Community Protocol were applied to estimate CH4 and N2O emissions for stationary emissions. Although CO2 emissions are also produced, the fuel source is considered a biofuel, and the resulting CO2 emissions are considered “biogenic” and are not reported4.

Process emissions include N2O emissions as a result of N/DN processes at the treatment facility. All wastewater facilities have emissions from N/DN—some facilities have a formal N/DN process, which would result in greater N/DN emissions, but for the JWPCP, N/DN emissions are solely a result of natural processes. The recommended approach to estimating these emissions is through the population served and default factors listed in the Community Protocol. In an advanced, centralized treatment facility, stationary and process emissions are relatively small compared to fugitive emissions. The Community Protocol, and likewise ClearPath, recommends multiplying the population-derived emissions by 1.25 to account for commercial and industrial discharges to the system. Regions without any commercial and industrial sources should use a factor of 1.0. Because the City is largely residential, a factor of 1.0 was applied to these emissions.

Fugitive emissions occur from inflow (septic systems) and effluent discharge. JWPCP reports facilitywide effluent, and effluent nitrogen content, which are factors used in estimating fugitive emissions (Table B-10). The City’s portion was determined by estimating the proportion of the population served by JWPCP. The ClearPath tool requires the daily N load in kg N per day. This is calculated using the factors listed in Table B-9 and the Community Protocol Equation WW.12:

Daily N Load for the City (kg N/day) = Effluent X Effluent Nitrogen Content X gallons/liter X City Population/Service Population,
Where Effluent is the facility-wide discharge in millions of gallons per day (MGD), Effluent Nitrogen Content is the average nitrogen content per volume (mg/L), and gallons/liter is a conversion factor (3.79). The Daily N Load entered into ClearPath was adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to account for the difference in emission factors for direct ocean discharge and stream/river discharge. In ClearPath, ocean discharge is not an option; however, the emissions are estimated to be ½ of those from discharge to a stream or river (see Community Protocol Appendix F). Therefore, the Daily N Load was adjusted by 0.5 to account for this difference.

Table B-10. Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant Data Used in Wastewater Fugitive Emissions
2005 2007 2010 2012
Effluent (MGD) 403a296b237c264d
Effluent Nitrogen content (mg/L) 40a36.7b39.7 e41.1d
a Default assumption based on influent.
b 2008 annual report data.
c 2011 annual report data.
d 2013 annual report data.
e Based on communication with Los Angeles County Sanitation District for 2009.

4 Emissions from digester gas combustion are automatically calculated in ClearPath when population is entered. 359
B-12 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Solid Waste
Emissions from solid waste are primarily in the form of fugitive emissions of methane from decomposition. Emission factors are derived from the Community Protocol, based on the type of waste disposed. The State conducts a Waste Characterization Study (Study) every 4 to 6 years to determine the amount of waste attributable to each waste type. The Study is conducted at the State level by economic sector; therefore, community-level characterizations are not available. For the community inventory, the overall composition of California’s disposed waste stream was used to convert total tons into waste types (Table B-11). For the municipal inventory, the characterization for public administration was used (Table B-11). In addition to community-generated waste, some diverted green waste is used as landfill cover rather than importing landfill cover from other regions. This green waste is known as alternative daily cover (ADC) and is reported by CalRecycle for each community. The ADC characterization was determined through communication with the developers of ClearPath and does not vary by year or community. The emission factor to determine methane generation varies if the landfill operates a methane flare or generates electricity from methane capture. The Community Protocol recommends using an average factor of 75% recovery from landfill gas, although some landfills with have much higher gas recovery systems, and other landfills do not have any. Carbon dioxide generated by decomposition of waste in landfills is not considered anthropogenic because it would be produced through the natural decomposition process regardless of its disposition in the landfill. Nitrous oxide is not a by-product of decomposition and therefore no fugitive emissions of nitrous oxide are anticipated from this source. The waste characterizations and emission factors used to estimate emissions from solid waste are provided in Table B-11. The “Category in in the 2004 and 2008 Studies” detail which Study categories make up the ClearPath Category.

Table B-11. Waste Characterization and Emission Factors for Solid Waste ClearPath
Category
Category in 2004 and
2008 Studies
Alternative
Daily Cover1
2004
Study2
2008
Study3
Public
Administration
Emission
Factor1
Newspaper Newspaper 0% 2.2% 1.3% 5.5% 0.043
Office Paper
White/Colored Ledger Paper
+ Other Office Paper + Other
Miscellaneous Paper
0% 5.4% 4.9% 13% 0.203
Cardboard Uncoated Corrugated
Cardboard + Paper Bags 0% 6.7% 5.2% 5.1% 0.120
Magazine/ Third
Class Mail
Magazines and Catalogs +
Remainder/ Composite Paper 0% 6.5% 5.9% 15.4% 0.049
Food Scraps Food 0% 14.6% 15.5% 9.8% 0.078
Grass Leaves and Grass 30% 2.1% 1.9% 8.05% 0.038
Leaves Leaves and Grass 40% 2.1% 1.9% 8.05% 0.013
Lumber Branches and Stumps +
Prunings and Trimmings 0% 9.6% 14.5% 0.1% 0.062
Branches Lumber 30% 2.6% 3.3% 5% 0.062
1 Breakdown from ClearPath Developers via e-mail dated June 19, 2014. Used for all inventory years. 2 2004 Waste Characterization Study for California, Overall Waste Stream. Used for 2005 inventory. Does not total 100% as not all waste is organic.
3 2008 Waste Characterization Study for California, Overall Waste Stream Used for 2007, 2010, 2012 inventories. Does not total 100% as not all waste is organic.
360
Appendix B: Methodology B-13
Forecasts
The forecasts are an estimate of what emissions in the City may be in 2020 and 2035. The forecasts were developed using standard methodologies under two scenarios: Business-as-Usual (BAU) and Adjusted BAU.

Business-as-Usual Forecasts
The BAU scenario uses current (2012) consumption patterns and predicted growth in the City in the absence of state and federal legislation that would reduce future emissions. The growth assumptions are those estimated by SCAG in their 2012 Regional Transportation Plan and are applied to emissions sectors based on their relevance. For example, future Residential Energy emissions were developed using current energy use per household (from the 2012 inventory) and the anticipated number of households in the future. Table B-16 shows the growth factors used to project emissions in the City.

Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecasts
The Adjusted BAU scenario also uses growth estimates for the City, also accounts for legislation that will reduce emissions in the future, regardless of City actions. Table B-17 summarizes the legislation that will reduce the City’s emissions in the future and which sectors the legislation applies to.

TableB-16. Emissions Sectors and Demographic Growth Indicators Sector Demographic Indicator
Residential Energy Households
Commercial/ Industrial Energy Jobs
Solid Waste, Water, Wastewater, Aviation, Off-Road Sources Service Population (Population + Jobs) Transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled, modeled by SCAG
Municipal Jobs Municipal Emissions1
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
1 The number of jobs in the City is used as an indicator for all municipal operation emissions except Aviation, which is forecast consistent with the community forecast (by change in service population).

Table B-17. Legislation Applied to Adjusted BAU Forecasts Legislation Description Emissions Sector Affected
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
Reduce carbon intensity of transportation fuels
10% by 2020.

On-road Transportation, Employee
Commute, Vehicle Fleet
AB 1493 and
Advanced Clean Cars
Implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles,
implement zero-emission vehicle program, support
clean fuels outlet regulation.

On-road Transportation
California Building
Code Title 24
Improved energy efficiency standards for new
residential and non-residential construction.

Residential Energy, Non-residential
Energy
Renewable Portfolio
Standard1
Provide 33% of electricity from renewable sources
by 2020. Water
Senate Bill X7-7
Reduce urban per capita water consumption 20%
by 2020. Water
1 Potential GHG reductions from this legislation were not applied to the electricity in SCE’s service territory due to the uncertainty in SCE’s generation sources after the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 361
B-14 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Low Carbon Fuel Standard, AB 1493, and Advanced Clean Cars Changes in on-road emissions in Los Angeles County were modeled using EMFAC, which models both the emissions with and without Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Pavley I. Additional modeling was conducted to estimate the change in emissions due to Advanced Clean Cars. The rate of reductions from on-road transportation measures through 2020 was assumed to be 0.0344% per year for gasoline and

0.0106% per year for diesel. After 2020, the rate of reductions was assumed to be 0.03452% per year for gasoline and 0.0251% per year for diesel.

California Building Code Title 24
Title 24 updates will raise the minimum energy efficiency standards for new buildings, thereby decreasing the expected energy consumption of future development in the City. Under the adjusted BAU scenario, it was assumed that the 2013 Title 24 standards that went into effect in 2014 will make new residential and non-residential buildings more efficient than they would be under the 2008 Title 24 standards for new residential buildings. The energy savings were estimated using analyses developed by the California Energy Commission and the applied to the expected new development in the City to 2020 and 2035. The rate of reductions was applied to the City’s 2012 energy use (kWh or therms) per household (for Residential energy) or per job (for Commercial energy). Savings were applied to new development anticipated in the City. Detailed energy savings assumptions are below.

Residential
Residential electricity is estimated to be 32.6% lower under the new standards.5This percentage savings is relative to heating, cooling, lighting and water heating only and do not include other appliances, outdoor lighting that is not attached to buildings, plug loads, or other energy uses. Electricity consumption due to heating, cooling, lighting, and water heating accounts for 34% of total household electricity use.6Therefore, the percentage of total residential electricity that will be reduced as a result of the 2013 Title 24 standards is 11.1%.

Residential natural gas savings were estimated 5.8% lower under the new standards. Again, this percentage savings pertains only to the energy sources affected by Title 24 Standards. Natural gas consumption due to space and water heating accounts for 86% of total household natural gas use.7 Therefore, the percentage of total residential natural gas that will be reduced as a result of the 2013 Title 24 standards is 5.0%.

Commercial
Commercial Electricity savings were estimated to be 21.8% lower under the new standards. Title 24- related measures would impact 77.2% of total electricity use in commercial buildings8; therefore, 16.8% reduction in electricity consumption may be expected in new commercial development.

5 CEC Impact Analysis, California’s 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, July 2013. CEC-400-2013-008. 6 CEC 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Appliance Study, October 2010. CEC-200-2010-004. 7 CEC 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Appliance Study, October 2010. CEC-200-2010-004. 8 CEC 2006. California Commercial End-Use Survey. March 2006. CEC-400-2006-005. 362
Appendix B: Methodology B-15
Natural gas savings were estimated to be 16.8% under the new standards compared to the previous standards. Heating and cooling account for 69.7% of natural gas consumption in commercial facilities; therefore, 11.7% reduction in natural gas consumption may be expected from 2013 Title 24 standards applied to new commercial development.

Renewable Portfolio Standard
The Renewable Portfolio Standard will be fully implemented in 2020. The level of implementation varies by utility; however, ICLEI estimates that the average statewide level of implementation is 5% per year, compounded annually. As noted in the Report, this reduction is only taken for electricity used in the transport and treatment of water, which moves throughout the State. The reduction is not taken for electricity wholly within SCE’s territory.

Senate Bill X7-7
SB X7-7 will be implemented by individual water districts. For the City’s water provider, California Water Service Company, the level of implementation was estimated using an annualized reduction rate from the Company’s baseline water consumption rate (141 gallons per capita per day, GPCD) to the target water consumption rate (126 GPCD).

Target Setting
The state-aligned targets are provided to assist the City in determining appropriate emission reduction goals. Recommended targets are based on existing California climate change legislation and State guidance relevant to establishing a GHG reduction target. While State goals are based on a 1990 baseline year, the City’s baseline year is 2005. Therefore, the reduction targets are expressed as a percent reduction below 2005 levels. Targets are recommended for 2020 to align with AB 32 and 2035, which is a midpoint between the 2020 goal and the State’s long-term 2050 goal. Planning beyond 2035 is considered speculative, as legislation and technology may change significantly before 2050. While it is important for continued reductions well beyond 2035, no local targets are recommended at this time.

Table B-18 provides a summary of the State’s goals and the State’s guidance to local governments regarding GHG reduction targets. This guidance applies to and communitywide emissions reductions efforts. The City has adopted a carbon neutrality goal for municipal operations by 2020.

Table B-18. Summary of State Reduction Targets and Guidance on Local Government Targets Aligned with State Targets
2020 Interim Year Between
2020-2050 2050
State Targets
(AB 32 and EO S-3-05) 1990 levels NA 80% below 1990 levels State Guidance on Local Government
Targets (AB 32) Scoping Plan
Recommended Target and Attorney
General’s Office Guidance
15% below
2005-2008 levels
Demonstrate a trajectory
toward statewide 2050 levels
(e.g., 49% below 2005 levels
by 2035)
NA
363
B-16 Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report – City of Hermosa Beach Table B-19 demonstrates how the local targets are aligned with State targets.

Table B-19. Comparison of 1990 Baseline Targets vs. 2005 Baseline Targets Target Year Percent below
1990 Emission Levels
Percent below
2005 Emission Levels
2020 0.0% 15.0%
2021 2.7% 17.3%
2022 5.3% 19.5%
2023 8.0% 21.8%
2024 10.7% 24.1%
2025 13.3% 26.3%
2026 16.0% 28.6%
2027 18.7% 30.9%
2028 21.3% 33.1%
2029 24.0% 35.4%
2030 26.7% 37.7%
2031 29.3% 39.9%
2032 32.0% 42.2%
2033 34.7% 44.5%
2034 37.3% 46.7%
2035 40.0% 49.0%
364
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 10, 2015

COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (CCA) CONTRACT-LANCASTER
(Environmental Analyst Kristy Morris)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends that:
1) City Council direct staff to continue exploring two opportunities for implementing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) in Hermosa Beach: (1) the Los Angeles County CCA model, and (2) Lancaster Choice Energy CCA model;
2) Transfer $77,000 of prospective expenditures to a newly established account and to utilize funds to contract with the City of Lancaster to prepare an implementation plan, which will include a feasibility study, for the City of Hermosa Beach CCA as described in the attached scope of work; and,
3) Adopt Agreement for Consulting Services by and between the City of Hermosa Beach and the City of Lancaster.

Background
On February 24th 2015 City Council adopted the Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan and adopted a goal to be carbon neutral as a municipality by 2020. The Municipal Carbon Neutral Plan recommends the City of Hermosa Beach pursue Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), which can leverage buying power to offer renewable, zero-emissions power to all electricity accounts in Hermosa Beach, starting in 2017. Although a goal for the community carbon emissions has not been established, the draft General Plan for a Low-Carbon Future will likely recommend 2040 as a goal. CCA has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from municipal and community sources that are attributed to electricity generation and supply. Emissions from this source comprise up to 41% of City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory according the GHG Inventory, Forecasting, and Target-Setting Report for an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (2015).

City staff is concurrently exploring two opportunities for Community Choice Aggregation in Hermosa Beach: (1) the Los Angeles County CCA model, and (2) Lancaster Choice Energy CCA model. On September 24 2015, staff convened a Community Choice Aggregation Study Session to update City Council and the community on Community Choice Aggregation options for Hermosa Beach, and discuss the opportunities and challenges of the various models. Jason Caudle and Barbara Boswell from the City of Lancaster, and Joe Galliani of South Bay Clean Power were present to answer questions regarding Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) and LA County CCA, respectively. Staff File #: REPORT 15-0803, Version: 1
City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 5 Printed on 11/30/2021 powered by Legistar™365
File #: REPORT 15-0803, Version: 1
questions regarding Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) and LA County CCA, respectively. Staff confirmed that the City is committed to participating in the LA County CCA through South Bay Clean Power while expediting the implementation of CCA for Hermosa Beach through Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE).

On Monday September 21, 2015, staff spoke with Howard Choy, General Manager of the Los Angeles County Office of Sustainability, to discuss the current status of the Los Angeles County CCA Program and discuss the City’s options for pursuing CCA simultaneously with Los Angeles County and the City of Lancaster. In a follow-up email (Attachment 1) from Mr. Choy he confirms that if we submit our data, we are included in the County Feasibility Study and Program, and we can pursue the Lancaster CCA however we choose.

At this time, staff proposed the City pursue both the Los Angeles County and Lancaster CCA models simultaneously in the initial start-up phase and that staff return to council with a contract with the City of Lancaster for $77,000 to develop an Implementation Plan, which will include a feasibility study, for Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) for the City of Hermosa Beach.

Lancaster Choice Energy
Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris and the Lancaster City Council have led a comprehensive effort to implement renewable energy throughout the City of Lancaster in an effort to preserve the environment and protect their local air quality, with the ultimate goal of becoming the nation's first netzero electricity city. Following a long and steadily increasing series of successful renewable energy projects, ranging from residential rooftop solar programs and energy storage to utility-scale solar developments, Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE) is the most recent step in the City's quest to reach net-zero status. The mission to establish LCE officially began on May 13, 2014, when the Lancaster City Council approved the implementation plan which outlined the City’s intent to establish a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA). A month later, the approved plan was submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for review and certification, making LCE the first CCA in Southern California Edison (SCE) territory. In October of this year, Lancaster became the State’s first fully operational City CCA.

LCE offers customers two renewable energy rate options: 1) Clear Choice is 35% renewable and is offered at a rate 3% lower, on average, than SCE; and 2) Smart Choice is 100% renewable and is offered at an additional $10 month to Clear Choice. LCE rates are set annually by the Lancaster City Council. LCE searches for the best transactions on both conventional and renewable energy sources from three categories:
1) Local renewable energy sources
2) Non-local, California renewable energy sources
3) Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) purchased from projects both in and out of California.

For 2015, LCE renewable energy mix includes 50% from category 1, 10% category 2, and 40% City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 5 Printed on 11/30/2021 powered by Legistar™366
File #: REPORT 15-0803, Version: 1
category 3. This is expected to change in 2016 when a large, local solar project comes online. The LCE webpage provides more information on rate options, billing and opting-out:
<http://www.lancasterchoiceenergy.com/index.php>.

Analysis
To date, there have been two types of CCA’s formed in California. The first type is Marin and Sonoma County models in which a regional entity took the initiative to organize a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the purpose of creating a regional CCA. The second is a stand-alone City CCA.

In this case, the only operational City CCA in California is the City of Lancaster. Other possible models have been presented by private firms that look and act similar to a franchise system. In recommending a preferred approach that is a hybrid, staff is not suggesting the existing models are not effective, but rather to seek the best alternative to the current opportunities specific to Hermosa Beach. Otherwise, there are strengths and weaknesses to all of these approaches.

In the regional LA County JPA model, each member City when becoming a member receives one voting position on the respective board, and must submit control to the collective group of members.

In exchange, the JPA provides all the service, and takes all the risk such as financial exposure or potential sudden cost increases to the customer. This scenario has proven very effective in situations where like-minded cities and like-minded areas pool their resources and attributes to make the group stronger.

In the stand-alone City model, the City assumes all the responsibilities and roles, in addition to all the risks related to financial exposures and energy market fluctuations. However, the City retains all control of the rate setting, operation, and operational revenues. This allows opportunities to tailor programs, and benefit from the continuing revenue stream as a community. The difficulty in this approach (or model) is the effort it takes to gain the required experience and expertise for the creation of such an entity. In addition, the knowledge gained is only used once, in that a City is only required to set up the CCA one time. This model works well where no cooperative like-minded Cities exist, and/or the City has capable Council and staff willing and able to implement such a venture.

In the private firm model, the risk is minimized, a portion of the revenue is retained by the City, staff time is minimal, and the Council’s control is limited. This model works for a City that is not near an existing CCA, or is unwilling to submit to the JPA model, and has limited staff resources. There is a time and place for each model. Determining which model fits is essential to long term success.

In researching each of the JPA and CCA formation alternatives, it became apparent that first, one size does not fit all, and second, alternative JPA models can be created to mitigate the risk, share in experience, and allow member agencies to maintain control, and program revenues. Contracting with Lancaster to prepare an Implementation Plan, which includes a feasibility study, provides Hermosa Beach the ability to decide which model is best suited to achieve its goals while keeping all options open.

Summary
Staff has been working closely with LA County, through South Bay Clean Power, and the City of Lancaster to assess and pursue CCA options for the City of Hermosa Beach. As a result of this effort, staff recommends that it will be most prudent to stay the course with each opportunity as both models provide complementary and distinctive opportunities. The City of Lancaster has proposed City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 5 Printed on 11/30/2021 powered by Legistar™367
File #: REPORT 15-0803, Version: 1
preparing an Implementation Plan, which includes a feasibility study, for a Hermosa Beach CCA. The attached Scope of Services describes the detailed scope of work and price. In addition, at the end of this process, Hermosa Beach will be the fourth certified CCA in the state.

At that point, staff will begin discussion and community outreach to determine the community interest.

Senate Bill 790 describes how each customer is given an opportunity to opt-out of their community’s aggregation program within 60 days or two billing cycles of the date of their automatic enrollment without penalty. The community choice aggregator will inform participating customers at least twice within two calendar months, or 60 days, in advance of the date of commencing automatic enrollment through notifications such as direct mailings to customers, or inserts in water, sewer, or other utility bills. To ensure the success of the program, the City of Hermosa Beach would conduct a poll to determine community interest in participating in the CCA.

Once sufficient interest has been gauged, City Council will discuss implementation strategies, determine rates, type of energy, and begin the procurement process if that is the direction of City Council (Figure 1). In the instance that City Council does not pursue the expedited Lancaster CCA proposal, it may be prudent to revise the 2020 carbon neutrality goal for municipal facilities and operations since CCA is one of the main tools identified for reducing municipal-generated carbon emissions.

Figure 1. Timeline for Hermosa Beach CCA Implementation Fiscal Implications:

The cost of the contract is $77,000. These funds will be transferred from prospective expenditures to a newly established account to contract with the City of Lancaster to conduct the attached scope of work. At the conclusion of the project, the City of Hermosa Beach will be the fourth registered CCA in the state, and will be prepared to take the next steps in securing our energy future.

Attachments:

1. Email from Howard Choi, Los Angeles County Office of Sustainability

2. Agreement for Consulting Services
Respectfully Submitted by: Kristy Morris, Environmental Analyst Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach Page 4 of 5 Printed on 11/30/2021 powered by Legistar™368
File #: REPORT 15-0803, Version: 1
Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney
Approved: Tom Bakaly, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Page 5 of 5 Printed on 11/30/2021 powered by Legistar™369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
[DATE]
Suja Lowenthal
City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Ms. Lowenthal:

Clean Power Alliance (CPA) understands that the Hermosa Beach City Council is considering taking the required actions necessary for the City to join Clean Power Alliance before December 31st, 2022 so that customers in your city could begin enrollment in CPA in 2024. We welcome your interest and look forward to working with you.

Should the City Council decide to move forward, the process to join will involve several steps as outlined below.

1. Data gathering (begin immediately): Hermosa Beach will need to submit a Form 14- 769, Community Choice Aggregator Non-Disclosure Agreement, and Form 14-770, Community Choice Aggregation Service Declaration, to Southern California Edison (SCE) authorizing SCE to supply energy usage data for your community for the most recent period available. CPA will assist you with this request to SCE.

2. Applicant Impact Study (completed by the end of August): CPA will conduct an analysis of the impact to existing CPA customers should Hermosa Beach join. The study will be at a fixed fee cost of $10,000, payable by the City of Hermosa Beach.

The study will determine what, if any, conditions may apply to Hermosa Beach’s membership and will include the following elements:
a. Impact on CPA peak load and total generation
b. Financial analysis including net benefits compared to additional procurement, administrative, financing, implementation costs, and any other financial impacts.
c. Impacts to renewable energy and greenhouse gas content of CPA’s overall portfolio.
d. Sensitivity analysis of various market scenarios.
e. Summary of expected impacts and recommended mitigation measures, if needed.
406
DRAFT

3. CPA Board considers Applicant Study (considered at the September 1, 2022 CPA Board meeting): The CPA Board will decide if Hermosa Beach should be invited to join the JPA and, if so, any special conditions that would apply.

4. Hermosa Beach adopts Ordinance to join CPA and adopts JPA Agreement (completed by end of November): Hermosa Beach adopts implementing ordinance and JPA agreement. Please note that the ordinance adoption requires two readings and that both votes must take place by the end of November.

5. Updated Implementation Plan and JPA amendment (considered at the December 1, 2022 CPA Board meeting): CPA Board votes to amend its JPA to include Hermosa Beach and to file an amended Implementation Plan with the CPUC to cover the addition of Hermosa Beach beginning in 2024. CPA may do the Implementation Plan Amendment in-house or engage a consultant to prepare this filing. Depending on the results of the feasibility study and any subsequent conditions attached by the CPA Board to Hermosa Beach’s invitation to join CPA, Hermosa Beach and any other cities joining CPA in 2022 may be asked to share in the costs of preparing the Implementation Plan Amendment.

Please note that the process outlined above only applies to Hermosa Beach joining CPA during 2022. The process may look different in 2023 and a new impact analysis would be required at that time. If you agree with the terms outlined in this letter, please sign and return the attached Authorization to Proceed and CPA staff will begin conducting the impact study.

We look forward to working together through the process. If you have any additional questions please contact Karen Schmidt, Senior Advisor, Strategy, at (805) 798-1629 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ted Bardacke
Chief Executive Officer
Enc: Authorization to Proceed Form
407
DRAFT
Authorization to Proceed
The City of Hermosa Beach hereby authorizes Clean Power Alliance of Southern California to conduct an Applicant Impact Study which will cover the items listed in the above [DATE] letter from CPA Chief Executive Officer Ted Bardacke. The cost of the Applicant Impact Study will be a fixed fee of $10,000, payable within 30 days of invoicing. _____________________________ ___________________________ Suja Lowenthal Date
City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
408
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk; Ann Yang; City Council; Angela Crespi; Suja Lowenthal Subject: New eComment for City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) Date: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:49:21 AM
SpeakUp
New eComment for City Council Hybrid Meeting
(Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00
PM)
Tracy Hopkins submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) Item: c. REPORT 22-0043 DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE

CITY'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GOALS AND CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION OPTIONS (Environmental Programs Manager Doug Krauss) eComment: Community Choice Aggregation is a new program that allows California city governments to operate “communitywide electricity buyers’ programs.” Commonly known as community choice aggregators, or CCAs, these are new government agencies created by Joint Powers Agreement among several cities. Additionally, individual cities may run their own CCA programs. Our local utility company, Edison, will still provide transmission, distribution and customer billing services to the CCA agency for a fee that is passed along to consumers. Once our city council decides to join or establish a CCA, all residents are automatically enrolled in the program. It will be up to individual residents to “opt out” and continue with their regular service with Edison. CCAs are vulnerable to changing market conditions. Energy procurement is risky, complex, costly and long-term. Because withdrawal from CCA membership is cost-prohibitive, our city’s decision to join binds future City Councils and future generations of taxpayers. CCAs operate without adequate oversight, virtually invisible to the public. Creating Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs), such as CCAs, costs taxpayers money. JPAs employ staff, set up offices and, most importantly, make decisions -- such as issue debt -- for which taxpayers are responsible but have no knowledge or say. JPA governing board members are not directly elected by voters, which contributes to their relative obscurity and lack of transparency. Does the nominal increase in renewable energy use promised by CCAs justify their risks? Unequivocally, no. Local government doesn’t belong in the electricity business. It is reckless for government to gamble on risky ventures for which it is ill-prepared and unqualified. “Green” energy companies, consultants, activists and lobbyists all stand to gain politically and financially from the proliferation of CCAs. Public agencies rely on some of these same sources for advice on CCAs - - a clear conflict of interest. Today’s cities and counties struggle to provide essential services, including basic public safety and human services. Throwing precious tax dollars into a CCA 409
money pit won’t help the environment, but will burden future generations with additional unwanted debt. Thank you for you consideration
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
410
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
411
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
412
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Honorable Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem
Jackson and Council Members
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
11027 Westwood Blvd.

Culver City, CA 90230-4956
Los
Angeles,
CA 90012
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Angeles Chapter Re: Agenda Item #XIVc for Tuesday, January 25, 2022 – Discussion of Next Steps Towards Achieving the City’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goals and Consideration of Community Choice
Aggregation Options
Dear Mayor Michael Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Raymond Jackson and Councilmembers Stacey Armato, Mary Campbell, and Justin Massey:

The Sierra Club writes in strong support for Hermosa Beach pursuing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), and specifically for developing a feasibility study of joining the Clean Power Alliance at the 100% renewable energy default rate.

The City of Hermosa Beach has long been a leader in addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and has committed itself to the GHG emissions reductions spelled out in the Kyoto Protocol. In pursuit of these goals, the City of Hermosa Beach was one of the first cities in the South Bay to seriously consider the CCA model.

Since then, Clean Power Alliance (CPA) has become the largest CCA in California and is the largest provider of 100% renewable energy in the USA. As the staff report states, “Joining Clean Power Alliance would be the most efficient and impactful strategy for further reducing the City’s overall GHG emissions.” California’s 2020 wildfire season was the worst in recorded history, involving 4% of California land and more than 30 fatalities, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
i We can expect more of this, more
extreme weather events, droughts and fires due to an unnaturally rapid rate of global warming. The United Nations IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report warns that we need to transition off of fossil fuels as soon as possible or face a global and catastrophic climate crisis by 2040.ii
At a time when the world needs leadership, you are in a unique position to send a message of hope and commitment by joining CPA and setting a 100% renewable energy default for the City of Hermosa Beach. This is what the majority of your constituents want. The Public Policy Institute of California recently surveyed Californians and reported, “Majorities support action on climate change even if it brings increased costs.”iii
413
People are willing to pay more to avert a climate crisis. The good news is that in this case those costs are minimal. Southern California Edison (SCE) recently indicated that on March 1, 2022, the Power Change Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) (exit fee) charged by SCE to CPA customers will be reduced, resulting in bill reductions for CPA customers of approximately six percent. If that forecast becomes reality, all three CPA rate products will be less expensive than SCE, at least for 2022.

You can take the step of setting a 100% tier default without foisting higher costs on anyone who doesn’t want that tier or can’t afford it. Everyone will be offered multiple opportunities to choose a 50% or 40% renewable energy plan at the outset and can opt down any time. The wishes of any residential or small business customer who already opted down to lean power would be honored, meaning that they would not be opted up to 100% green power with the rest of the city. In addition, you have time to do extensive education about this option to make sure everyone is informed.

What’s more, for those communities with a 100% default, CARE and other lowincome customers will have the plan benefit at no additional cost. Clean Power Alliance created a $2 million COVID-19 Relief Program that provides bill credits to help impacted customers manage their electricity payments. From a social and environmental justice perspective, this is ideal. The most financially vulnerable customers will be protected but still enjoy the benefits of using clean, renewable energy. And those communities most afflicted by pollution associated with fossil fuel power production will breathe easier because of the choice you made to direct more investment in renewable energy instead. It will also be a driver of jobs.

Renewable energy is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economyiv and employs more people in the U.S. than fossil fuels.v A 100% default would be good for Hermosa Beach’s image as a great place to live, work, and visit. It would inspire other cities and counties. Almost 200 cities across the country have joined Sierra Club’s “Ready for 100” campaign by committing to 100% renewable energy. Within the Clean Power Alliance, to date Ventura County and the cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Culver City, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Ojai, Oxnard, Rolling Hills Estates, Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, Ventura City, and West Hollywood have all decided to go with 100% renewable energy defaults.

Recently, Beverly Hills, Redondo Beach and Los Angeles County decided to go up to 100% renewable energy as the default rate, so Hermosa Beach will be in very good company.

As Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group says about their report that was written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies, “The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future.” This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs. 414
The next few years are probably the most important in our history.” We urge you to act on behalf of City of Hermosa Beach, to consider the local context, the decision you are empowered to make, and choose to be on the right side of history with a 100% renewable energy default.

With best regards,
David A. Haake, MD
Chair, Clean Break Team, Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club Chair, Clean Power Alliance Community Advisory Committee i CalFire website (https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/) ii “Sixth Assessment Report”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, August, 2021 (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/)
iii Californians’ Views on Climate Change, Public Policy Institute of California, September 2018 (http://www.ppic.org/publication/californians-views-on-climate-change/) iv “Renewable Energy Is Creating Jobs 12 Times Faster Than the Rest of the Economy,” Fortune, 2017 (http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/) v “U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment,” NRDC summary of a Department of Energy Report, February 2017 (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/us-clean-energyjobs-surpass-fossil-fuel-employment) 415
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
416
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of January 25, 2022

DISCUSSION OF ENCROACHMENT FEES FOR TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT PROGRAM
(Environmental Programs Manager Doug Krauss)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council consider the information presented by staff and provide direction regarding possible fees for the City’s temporary outdoor dining permit programs.

Executive Summary:

The temporary outdoor dining program was created during the COVID-19 pandemic as a means of supporting our residents and business during limited indoor operations. Since its original implementation, fees for this temporary program, as well as a variety of outdoor programs administered by the City, have been suspended. As directed by City Council, staff is currently working on the development of a permanent outdoor dining permit program including performing the necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. Staff recommends Council discuss and consider an encroachment fee for the temporary outdoor permit program for the dining decks until such time as the permanent program is developed.

Background:

The City has long supported and encouraged outdoor dining on private and public property to supplement indoor operations. With the onset of the pandemic and related heath orders, businesses were limited to conducting business outdoors. Recognizing this hardship, City Council suspended existing encroachment fees and approved a program to allow expanded outdoor dining and other commercial activity. The City also suspended zoning and parking requirements that allow outdoor dining on private property and established a temporary encroachment permit program allowing encroachments into sidewalks, public streets, and Pier Plaza. Both the private property programs and encroachment program (together, the “Outdoor Permit Program”) include a basic set of guidelines.

These guidelines include:
· Business hours no later than 11:00 P.M.;
City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™417
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
· Temporary furnishings to be brought in every night;
· Maintenance of cleanliness;
· Alcohol service only with food; and
· Insurance maintained by permitees.

At the May 12, 2020 City Council meeting, City staff presented an item describing a concept to repurpose sections of public right of way to improve multimodal traffic safety and expand physicaldistancing options for the public and businesses per Los Angeles County Health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council moved quickly to accommodate these programs and staff developed guidelines based on information gathered from existing programs in other cities and internal review of policies and regulations. This led to Council’s approval of downtown lane reconfigurations that allowed businesses to expand their on-street deck areas.

The City has issued over 60 permits during the term of the Outdoor Permit Program in a variety of commercial locations (Attachment 1). To date, City Council has allowed these uses without consideration of any encroachment area rents or reimbursement of lost parking meter revenue. At its June 22, 2021 meeting, City Council approved extension of this pilot program and authorized implementation of a reapplication process for outdoor dining areas that included:
- Renewal of applicants’ permissions from neighboring businesses where decks encroach upon the frontage of these other businesses.
- Requirement of a surety bond or deposit to fund any City costs related to deck removal in the event of maintenance emergencies or abandonment.

The City also approved an outdoor live music program for the outdoor dining encroachments. In October 2021, Council directed staff to develop permanent versions of these programs and in December of 2021, Council approved extension of the programs through June 30, 2022.

At City Council’s regular meeting on January 11, 2022, Mayor Pro Tem Jackson requested, and a unanimous vote of the City Council supported, directing staff to place on the next regular session agenda an item that includes a recommendation for an encroachment fee for the temporary outdoor permit program for the dining decks.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
June 9, 2020 Approved Ordinance 20-1410U allowing temporary permit program for outdoor dining in response to pandemic.

July 14, 2020 Directed staff to proceed with development of lane closure plans.

August 11, 2020 Chose a lane reconfiguration concept for Hermosa Avenue, extended it to 8th Street, authorized the City Manager to implement lane reconfiguration, and provided a six-month duration.

September 8, 2020 Chose a lane reconfiguration concept for Pier Avenue.

October 27, 2020 Awarded contract for construction of lane reconfigurations.

City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™418
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
Meeting Date Description
June 9, 2020 Approved Ordinance 20-1410U allowing temporary permit program for outdoor dining in response to pandemic.

July 14, 2020 Directed staff to proceed with development of lane closure plans.

August 11, 2020 Chose a lane reconfiguration concept for Hermosa Avenue, extended it to 8th Street, authorized the City Manager to implement lane reconfiguration, and provided a six-month duration.

September 8, 2020 Chose a lane reconfiguration concept for Pier Avenue.

October 27, 2020 Awarded contract for construction of lane reconfigurations.

June 22, 2021 Approved extension of the outdoor permit program through December 31, 2021.

July 13, 2021 Approved Resolution authorizing extension of lane reconfigurations.

October 26, 2021 Approved development and implementation of permanent versions of these programs and directed staff to return with item to discuss fees for outdoor encroachment programs
December 14, 2021 Approved extension of programs through June 30, 2022 Discussion:

As directed by Council from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, encroachment fees were suspended for all existing encroachment permittees and no new encroachment fees were created for new outdoor dining areas in the public right of way. Many of the businesses with existing encroachments, especially those on Pier Plaza, expanded their prior encroachment areas with no additional fee. Additionally, the City has not sought reimbursement of any parking meter revenues lost from on-street deck operators. Also, as part of its business assistance efforts, the City waived fees for the outdoor music program, temporary signs and banners, extended business license tax renewals, deferred business license taxes for businesses who were closed, and waived business license tax penalties and interest. The extended business license taxes and waived penalties and interest totaled $57,322 in revenue the City did not collect. The waived sign and banner fees are estimated at about $10,000 thus far. At its January 12, 2022 meeting, Council unanimously supported having a discussion regarding encroachment fees for the new outdoor dining areas.

For many years, Hermosa Beach businesses have been able to request use of the public right of way through an encroachment permit program. Fees for this use vary based on location and operating hours:

Location and Hours Fee per Square Foot
Pier Plaza, open after midnight $5
Pier Plaza, closed before midnight $2
Outside of Pier Plaza or snack shop $1
These fees generate approximately $283,000 annually and consequently, due to their suspension since the beginning of the pandemic in Spring of 2020, approximately $500,000 in encroachment City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™419
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
since the beginning of the pandemic in Spring of 2020, approximately $500,000 in encroachment fees have not been collected.

The new outdoor dining areas, permitted by the City’s pandemic related urgency orders, have not been charged any encroachment fees. Additionally, decks placed in on-street parking areas have not been charged for any lost parking meter revenue. Staff researched the historic parking meter revenue for the 60 parking spots currently occupied by deck areas. The individual annual revenue from these spaces ranges from approximately $2,000-6,000 each and, in total, these spots generated nearly $220,000 in 2019.

The City’s many encroachment areas vary in size, with some on Pier Plaza measuring over 1,000 square feet and some of the smallest under 100 square feet. The new on-street deck areas also have a wide range but, as a guide, a typical parking spot measures approximately 160 square feet and most decks utilize 2-3 parking spots at a minimum.

For comparison, the City of Manhattan Beach recently began charging its public right of way deck areas an encroachment fee. Manhattan Beach approved a $1 per square foot fee in September 2021 and increased that fee to $3 per square foot in December 2021. In their effort to develop a “nominal yet reasonable” fee, Manhattan Beach utilized a variety of factors including parking revenue lost and commercial lease rates. The neighboring agencies of El Segundo and Redondo Beach have not implemented fees for their on-street decks yet.

There are many rationales to be considered in the creation of these new fees. In reference to the existing encroachment fees, the new on-street decks compare to the areas being charged $1 per square foot because of their location off Pier Plaza and the fact that they close before midnight. A key difference is the decks’ use of on-street public parking spaces and the consequent loss of the space for wider public benefit and suspension of parking meter revenues. Assuming an average of $4,000 per parking spot in annual meter revenue and a typical deck size of three parking spots, it would require approximately $1,000 in monthly fees per typical deck to fully compensate for annual meter revenue loss. This is approximately $2 per square foot per month. A few possible encroachment fee scenarios are described in the table below:

At $1 per sq. ft. At $2 per sq. ft. At $3 per sq. ft.

Monthly Fee for an on-street
deck occupying 3 parking spots
Approximately
$480
Approximately$960 Approximately
$1,440
The benefit these decks provide to the City as a whole is also a consideration. Discussions with other agencies have anecdotally shown that, despite parking revenue loss from on-streets decks, there is an overall increase in visitors and the resulting parking revenue has offset a portion of the losses. A fee of $2 per square foot per month for the new on-street decks could be an efficient compromise City of Hermosa Beach Page 4 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™420
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
fee of $2 per square foot per month for the new on-street decks could be an efficient compromise between the various factors mentioned above. It would reflect the methodology of the existing public encroachment area fees while also including additional compensation to offset the parking meter revenue loss.

General Plan Consistency:

The proposed program options match the model of “living streets”, also known as “complete streets”, and a key guiding principle of the General Plan Vision is to foster a vibrant local economy.

A living street combines safety and livability while supporting ground floor and outdoor economic activities. This centers on designing streets that can be safely shared by both vehicular and nonvehicular traffic. A living street should also contribute to an engaging public realm and a vibrant local economy.

Relevant Goals and Policies are listed below:

Governance Element
Goal 6. A broad-based and long-term economic development strategy for Hermosa Beach that supports existing businesses while attracting new business and tourism.

Policies:
· 6.4 Business support. Support the Chamber of Commerce, retailers, tourist service businesses, artists, and other agencies to develop an aggressive marketing strategy with implementation procedures.
· 6.6 Pop-up shops. Develop plans and programs for underutilized spaces, such as vacant buildings, utility corridors, parkways, etc., for temporary retail, restaurant, and community promoting uses.

Mobility Element
Goal 1. Complete Streets (Living Streets) that serve the diverse functions of mobility, commerce, recreation, and community engagement for all users whether they travel by walking, bicycling, transit, or driving.

Policy:
· 1.1 Consider all modes. Require the planning, design, and construction of all new and existing transportation projects to consider the needs of all modes of travel to create safe, livable and inviting environments for all users of the system.

Goal 7. A transportation system that results in zero transportation-related fatalities and which minimizes injuries.

City of Hermosa Beach Page 5 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™421
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
Policy:
· 7.1 Safe public rights-of-way. Encourage that all public rights-of-way are for all users at all times of day where users of all ages and ability feel comfortable participating in both motorized and non-motorized travel.

Fiscal Impact:

The encroachment fees that have not been charged during the pandemic typically generate approximately $283,000 annually. Due to their suspension since the beginning of the pandemic in Spring of 2020, approximately $500,000 in encroachment fees have not been collected. A discussion of the existing encroachment fee schedule is anticipated for a revenue study session coming in Spring of 2022. The parking meter revenue lost to the newly-created on-street deck areas was approximately $220,000 in 2019. The deferred fees related to business license tax and associated waived penalties is $57,322. Revenue from any new fees charged for these new encroachment areas would depend on the rate approved by City Council. Based on the estimates described above, the following revenue projections could result:

At $1 per sq. ft. At $2 per sq. ft. At $3 per sq. ft. At $6 per sq. ft.

Total annual revenue for
60 on-street deck
encroachments (at 160
sq. ft. each)
$115,200 $230,400 $345,600 $691,200
Attachments:

1. Map of current encroachment areas and decks

2. Link to June 9, 2020 City Council Report

3. Link to July 14, 2020 City Council Report

4. Link to August 11, 2020 City Council Report

5. Link to September 8, 2020 City Council Report

6. Link to October 27, 2020 City Council Report

7. Link to June 22, 2021 City Council Report

8. Link to July 13, 2021 City Council Report

9. Link to October 26, 2021 City Council Report

10.Link to December 14, 2021 City Council Report
Respectfully Submitted by: Douglas Krauss, Environmental Program Manager Concur: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney
City of Hermosa Beach Page 6 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™422
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0044
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Page 7 of 7 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™423
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
A
v
e
Pier Ave
Ardmore Ave
M
a
n
h
a
t
t
a
n Ave
Valley Dr
Monterey Blvd
Manhatt
a
n
A
v
e
2nd St Hermosa Ave
Hermosa Ave
Greenwich
Village
Temporary Outdoor Encroachments
Encroachment Footprint (approximate)
424
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk; Ann Yang; City Council; Angela Crespi; Suja Lowenthal Subject: New eComment for City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:41:21 AM
SpeakUp
New eComment for City Council Hybrid Meeting
(Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00
PM)
Kristal Palomo submitted a new eComment.

Meeting: City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) Item: d. REPORT 22-0044 DISCUSSION OF ENCROACHMENT FEES FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT PROGRAM (Environmental Programs Manager Doug Krauss) eComment: Hello my name is Kristal, I am the owner of El Tarasco Mexican Restaurant on Pier Ave. We definitely support the dining decks staying permanently and have no issue paying a reasonable monthly deck fee. Having the decks is brought so much life to upper pier, especially now that the restaurant are able to have live entertainment outsides it brings so much foot traffic to upper pier. We even get very positive feed back with our surrounding business neighbors and how busier they also have gotten.

View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://granicusideas.com.

Unsubscribe from future mailings
425
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
426
From: Raymond Dussault
To: City Council; City Clerk; Suja Lowenthal
Subject: Outdoor dining decks
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:10:37 AM
Please add to council agenda.

Dear Council & Staff,
The outdoor dining decks have not only helped our local restaurants and retailers continue their recovery from the pandemic, they also have added a new vital social dynamic to our beautiful community.

There are costs to both businesses and the City. The staff recommendation of $2/foot seems fair for the high traffic Pier Plaza businesses. I would encourage you to consider a staggered approach, $2/square foot for Pier Plaza and $1/square foot for businesses on Hermosa and Pier Ave. where foot traffic has never been as high.

It is energizing to walk up Pier Avenue and find friends and neighbors enjoying a glass of wine and acoustic music at Uncorked and adjourning to Hermosa Brewing Co. for dinner as the sun sets over the Pacific. The added space on Pier Plaza makes it easier to find a table and has had zero negative impact on the public experience. I commend all of you for your continued support of this important change that is one of the few long-term benefits that have come from the trauma we survived.

The extended patios are not just helping the restaurants recover from the pandemic, they are helping us as residents too!
Sincerely,
Raymond Dussault
427
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
428

HERMOSA BEACH
CHAMBE R of COMMERCE
and VISITORS BUREAU
HBCHAMBER.NET | 310.376.0951 | [email protected]
January 25, 2022
City Council
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach CA 90254
RE: Dining Deck Fees
We are writing to you to with our comments on the recent staff report proposal for encroachment fees for outdoor dining decks.

Firstly, we would like to thank the City for being responsive and proactive in its approach to assisting businesses during the ongoing pandemic. We can say with certainty that quite a few Hermosa businesses would have shut down had it not been for the various measures taken by the City.

While we do appreciate the support from the City, as evidenced by the recent surge in COVID cases due to the Omicron variant, we are not out of the woods yet. Many Hermosa businesses are still struggling to recover from the two very difficult pandemic years of closures and restrictions.

In weighing the fee proposal, we believe that many factors need to be taken into consideration:
• The City staff report shows that while there has been parking revenue loss from on-street decks, there has also been an overall increase in visitors and the resulting parking revenue has offset a portion of the losses.
• Having the dining decks remain is vital for Hermosa’s existence as a desirable place to live, work and play for the next century and speak directly to Hermosa’s General Plan and model of “living streets.”
• Our neighboring cities provide us with data for comparison. Manhattan Beach has implemented an encroachment fee of $3/sq. ft. and Redondo has yet to charge an encroachment fee for their dining decks. Both neighboring cities have significantly higher foot traffic than Hermosa which is reflected in their commercial lease prices per square foot which, in the case of Manhattan Beach, is in many cases twice as high as Hermosa’s commercial lease rate.

We feel very strongly that the staff report proposal of $2/sq. ft. for dining deck encroachment fees is too high. We believe it will result in some businesses closing their dining decks and ultimately closing their businesses.
429
HBCHAMBER.NET | 310.376.0951 | [email protected]
On behalf of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, we believe that a square foot fee of no greater than $1.50/sq. ft. would be fair and equitable to the city and the businesses of Hermosa.

We appreciate Council considering all of the above-mentioned points and recognizing the multitude of benefits the dining decks bring to the City of Hermosa and its residents.

Sincerely,
Dave Davis
Chairman of the Board
Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
430
1 Susan Morrow
To: Ann Yang
Subject: RE: Dining Decks Agenda Item
From: Megg Sulzinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:21 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Suja Lowenthal <[email protected]>; Ann Yang <[email protected]>
Subject: Dining Decks Agenda Item
Dear Council & Staff,
The outdoor dining decks have not only helped our local restaurants and retailers continue their recovery from the pandemic, they also have added a new vital social dynamic to our beautiful community.

There are costs too and the staff recommendation of $2/foot seems fair for the high traffic Pier Plaza businesses. I would encourage you to consider a staggered approach, $2/square foot for Pier Plaza and $1/square foot for businesses on Hermosa and Pier Ave. where foot traffic has never been as high.

It is energizing to walk up Pier Avenue and find friends and neighbors enjoying a glass of wine and acoustic music at Uncorked and adjourning to Hermosa Brewing Co. for dinner as the sun sets over the Pacific. The added space on Pier Plaza makes it easier to find a table and has had zero negative impact on the public experience. I commend all of you for your continued support of this important change that is one of the few long-term benefits that have come from the trauma we survived.

The extended patios are not just helping the restaurants recover from the pandemic, they are helping us as residents too! Megg Sulzinger
[email protected]
Hermosa Beach, CA
431
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0061
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of January 25, 2022

UPDATE REGARDING THE PARKING STUDY
SESSION SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 31, 2022
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Receive an update regarding the parking study session scheduled to be held on January 31, 2022; and

2. Provide staff direction on whether to schedule a special meeting of the City Council following the parking study session to discuss and decide whether to postpone the 2022-2023 Residential and Employee parking permit sales and renewals to allow for a review of the current rates.

Executive Summary:

To facilitate a public discussion regarding issues related to the parking system, City Council will hold a parking study session on January 31, 2022. During the study session, staff will present information regarding existing parking infrastructure and programs and facilitate a discussion regarding strategies to effectively address and manage current and future parking needs. The study session is intended for discussion only and does not contemplate an increase in parking permit rates. Mayor Pro Tem Jackson has expressed a strong desire to allow Council the opportunity to act on parking rate adjustments following the study session, prior to the opening of the 2022 parking pass sales, which is scheduled to take place on February 1, 2022. Council has the option of adjourning to a special meeting with actionable items on the agenda immediately after the study session.

Background:

In recent years, the City has prepared two very important and forward-thinking planning documents to analyze issues and identify goals related to parking management. In 2017, the City adopted PLAN Hermosa, which includes a mobility element. A few years later in 2019, the City completed its Coastal Zone Parking Management Study as a basis to revise parking standards and make necessary adjustments to residential and employee parking permit and fee programs within the Coastal Zone.

City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™432
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0061
Discussion:

The agenda for the January 31, 2022 parking study session agenda includes an update on the status of the Coastal Zone Parking Management Study; a review of street metered and public parking lot metered programs; and a review of the residential and employee parking permit program (Attachment 1). Staff will provide information and updates regarding these select parking system elements. Discussions from the meeting will guide the development of policy and programs to meet the City’s diverse and changing mobility demands.

As noted, one item on the study session agenda is an update regarding the Residential and Employee parking permit programs. Sales and renewals for the 2022-2023 permits are set to begin on February 1, 2022, the day following the parking study session. The 2022-2023 permits are valid from March to February. If desired, City Council may provide direction to extend the effective dates of the 2021 pass and postpone sale dates of the 2022 passes to allow for a review of the current rates.

At least one Councilmember has expressed a desire to contemplate changes to the parking rates on January 31, 2021, the date of the parking study session. To do so, City Council may adjourn from the study session to a special meeting. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code does not allow action items to be undertaken during a study session.

General Plan Consistency:

This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:

Governance Element
Goal 2. The community is active and engaged in the decision-making processes.

Policy:
· 2.4 Public Forums. Host periodic public forums on issues important to the community, facilitating theses forums with the purpose of guiding policy.

Goal 4. A parking system that meets the parking needs and demand of residents, visitors, and employees in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Policies:
· 4.1 Shared parking. Facilitate park-once and shared parking policies among private developments that contribute to a shared parking supply and interconnect with adjacent parking facilities.
· 4.2 Encourage coastal access. Ensure parking facilities and costs of such facilities are not a barrier to beach access by the public.
· 4.3 Reduce impacts. Reduce spillover parking impacts due to employee parking and City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™433
Staff Report
REPORT 22-0061
seasonal and event-based demands.
· 4.4 Preferential parking program. Periodically study and evaluate the current inventory of public parking supply and update the preferential parking program. · 4.7 Parking availability. Optimize parking availability through dynamically adjusted pricing and new technology to manage available spaces for short-term parking use to encourage rates of turnover that are responsive to fluctuating demands. · 4.8 Ensure commercial parking. Ensure that prime commercial parking spaces are available for customers and other short-term users throughout the day. · 4.9 Encourage TDM strategies. Encourage use of transportation demand management strategies and programs such as carpooling, ride hailing, and alternative transportation modes as a way to reduce demand for additional parking supply. · 4.10 Visitor parking information. Manage information about passes and accessing public parking lots to facilitate use by longer-distance visitors with limited transportation choices.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions. Any impacts that may result from changes in parking programs or rates would be presented to City Council at the time of the proposed modification.

Attachments:

1. Draft Parking Study Session Agenda
Respectfully Submitted by: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™434
City Council DRAFT Adjourned Meeting Agenda January 31, 2022 1 5:00 P.M. – STUDY SESSION
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda as a business item. Comments from the speaker are limited to three minutes per speaker.

VII. OPENING REMARKS (Suja Lowenthal)
VIII. REVIEW OF CITY PARKING PROGRAMS
a. REPORT REVIEW STATUS OF COASTAL ZONE PARKING

MANAGEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council receive and discuss the status and priorities of the 12 recommendations in the Parking Management Study and challenges of coordinating all these efforts with goals of Plan Hermosa and the City’s efforts to certify a Local Coastal Program with the Coastal Commission
Attachments: 1. Power Point Presentation

2. Table of Recommendations and Status

3. 2019 Coastal Zone Parking Management Study
b. REPORT REVIEW STREET METERED AND PUBLIC PARKING LOT

METERED PROGRAMS INCLUDING RATES
(Community Services Manager Peter Ahlstrom)
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council receive an update and discuss the following topics:

1. Parking Rates

2. Parking Time Limits

3. Parking Citation Fine Comparisons with Other Cities

4. Coastal Commission Review and Approval Process
Attachments: 1. Meter and Lot Rate Comparisons with Other Cities

2. Parking Citation Fine Comparisons with Other Cities
435
City Council DRAFT Adjourned Meeting Agenda January 31, 2022 2 c. REPORT REVIEW RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE

PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson
and Community Services Manager Peter Ahlstrom)
Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council receive an update and discuss the following topics:

1. Resident Permit Program and Fees

2. Employee Permit Program and Fees

3. Coastal Commission Review and Approval Process
Attachments: 1. City’s Coastal Development Permit for Residential Preferential Parking District IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda as a business item. Comments from the speaker are limited to three minutes per speaker.

X. ADJOURNMENT
436
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
437
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
22-0052
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of January 25, 2022

TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.

Attachments:

Tentative Future Agenda Items
City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 5/24/2023
powered by Legistar™438
January 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 25, 2022

TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2021 @ 5:00 PM
PARKING STUDY SESSION:
1) Review Residential and Employee Parking Permit Program 2) Review Street Metered and Parking Garage Program
FEBRUARY 8, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
FEBRUARY 8, 2022 @ 6:00 PM

PRESENTATIONS
COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE SERVICES AND MCCORMICK AMBULANCE SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Police Chief Update

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Acceptance of Donation Finance Director Staff Request
Dec. 14, 2021
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of January 4, 2022
Community Resources Manager Ongoing
Los Angeles Fire Services and McCormick Ambulance Monthly Report for December 2021
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing
Approve new job description for Senior Management Analyst Human Resources Manager Staff Request Jan. 18, 2021
Approve changes to Accountant job description Human Resources Manager Staff Request Jan. 18, 2021
Approve changes to GIS Analyst job description Human Resources Manager Staff Request Jan. 18, 2021
Approve eligibility list for Senior Account Clerk Human Resources Manager Staff Request Jan. 18, 2021
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
NO MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2022

CANCELLED DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM
439
2 THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

REVENUE STUDY SESSION
MARCH 8, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
MARCH 8, 2022 @ 6:00 PM

PRESENTATIONS
COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT

PRESENTATION FROM WEST BASIN WATER DISTRICT AND

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE ON WATER CONSERVATION

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Police Chief Update

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Revenue Report, Expenditure Report and CIP Report by Project for December 2021 and January 2022
Finance Director Ongoing
2020-21 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Including Report from Independent Auditor)
Finance Director Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report for December 2021 and January 2022
Finance Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 15, 2022
Community Development Director Ongoing
Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Community Development Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting of February 7, 2022
Community Development Director Ongoing
Review of submittal of the 2021 Hermosa Beach Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Community Development Director Annual
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of February 1, 2022
Community Resources Manager Ongoing
Los Angeles Fire Services and McCormick Ambulance Monthly Report for January 2022
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing
South Bay Workforce Investment Board 2
nd Quarter Summary for 2021-2022 City Manager Quarterly

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Midyear Budget Review 2021-22 Finance Director Annual
Leadership Hermosa Beach Class of 2022 Class Project ?? Annual FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
440
3 MARCH 22, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
MARCH 22, 2022 @ 6:00 PM

PRESENTATIONS
COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Police Chief Update

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Revenue Report, Expenditure Report and CIP Report by Project for February 2022
Finance Director Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report for February 2022 City Treasurer Ongoing Cancellation of Certain Checks City Treasurer Ongoing
Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 2022
Community Development Director Ongoing
Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Community Development Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting of March 7, 2022
Community Development Director Ongoing
Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing
PUBLIC HEARINGS – 6:30 PM
Approval of Amendments to HBMC Chapter 12.20 Beach and Strand Regulations to Require a 50-foot Distance from the Strand Wall for Recreational Activities Including Temporary Volleyball Courts; Prohibition of Recreational Activities from Blocking Beach Access Points or Emergency Lanes; and Additional Language Updates to Reflect Modern Uses of the Beach
Community Resources Manager Staff Request
July 7, 2021

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Economic Development Committee Six Month Progress Report Community Development Director Six Months

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Tentative Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

ADA STUDY SESSION
441
4 APRIL 12, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
APRIL 12, 2022 @ 6:00 PM

PRESENTATIONS
COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT TENTATIVE – PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL AS DONATE LIFE MONTH

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Police Chief Update

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of March 1, 2022
Community Resources Manager Ongoing
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting of April 4, 2022
Community Development Director Ongoing
Los Angeles Fire Services and McCormick Ambulance Monthly Report for February 2022
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the preparation of a report for the Annual Levy of Assessments within the Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District during FY 2022-2023
Public Works Director Annual
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2022 @ 5:00 PM
FY 2022-2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STUDY SESSION
442
5 APRIL 26, 2022 @ 5:00 PM

INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
APRIL 26, 2022 @ 6:00 PM

PRESENTATIONS
COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Police Chief Update

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates

CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing
Revenue Report, Expenditure Report and CIP Report by Project for March 2022
Finance Director Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report for March 2022 City Treasurer Ongoing Cancellation of Certain Checks City Treasurer Ongoing
Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 2022
Community Development Director Ongoing
Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Community Development Director Ongoing Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Upcoming Vacancies: One Civil Service Board Term Expires July 15, 2022, (Recommendation to advertise with filing deadline of Thursday, June 23, 2022)
City Clerk 4 year term

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Tentative Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
443
6 PENDING STRATEGIC PLAN ITEMS

STATUS /

TENTATIVE MEETING DATE
Update Personnel Policies Human Resources
Manager
Pending Labor
Negotiations/Meet & Confer
Process
Beach Policy/Regulations (Continued from meeting of October 27, 2016) Community Resources Manager On hold by Council
Alternative Fuel Transportation Report, Nov. 2016 Environmental Analyst Community Choice Aggregation Direction, Dec. 2016 Environmental Programs Manager

PENDING NEW ITEMS

STATUS /

TENTATIVE MEETING DATE
Approval of the Municipal Lease Policy
Initiated by: Staff Request Jun. 12, 2018
Community Resources
Manager
Document Retention Policy
Initiated by: Staff Request Nov. 28, 2018
City Clerk Pending Deputy City Clerk
Appointment
Landscape and Street Lighting District Assessment Adjustment (mail-in election authorization)
Initiated by: Council Direction Jul. 9, 2019
Public Works Director To be included in Revenue
Strategy Study Session (March
3, 2022). PW staff has funding
to prepare an assessment
adjustment study and will
advance that effort – it is
anticipated that the study will
take approximately 2 to 3
months to complete. If council
agrees to advance the
adjustment, it will need to go to
a city-wide ballot.

The annual assessment is
required to go to council each
year for approval and may need
to go to council separately
before the ballot vote. It was
last approved at the 7/13/2021
council meeting.

Pavement Condition Index Update
Initiated by: Staff Request Sept. 23, 2019
Public Works Director The new pavement
management plan report is
being prepared and is
anticipated to be completed in
approximately 2 to 3
months. PW staff will prepare
a staff report with the updated
document and have our
consultant available to present
the item to council.

Public Records Request Guidelines
Initiated by: Staff Request Oct. 14, 2019
City Clerk/Assistant to
the City Manager
Pending Deputy City Clerk
Appointment
Emergency Services Municipal Code Chapter 2.56 Update Emergency Management
Coordinator
Waiting for State to review
proposed language changes
Return to Council to discuss a full ban on tobacco sales and to include all available data related to other communities who have adopted complete bans Initiated by: Council Direction Jan. 28, 2020
Community
Development Director
Staff to work with BCHD to
consider appropriate timing to
return to consider a full ban
Consideration of licensing agreement/fees for use of City logo Initiated by: Council Direction Jun. 9, 2020
City Attorney The City will develop a
licensing agreement for
commercial uses of the City
444
7 logo as part of a comprehensive
Administrative Memorandum
(AM) on City Branding and
Logo Use by City Staff. City
staff will begin drafting the
AM after finalizing the City’s
style guide and filing its “Intent
to Use” trademark application
for the City logo with the
USPTO. As part of developing
a Licensing Agreement for the
Commercial Use of the City
Logo, staff will establish a
process for reviewing and
handling these requests. This
process will likely include the
negotiation of royalties and as
well as the preparation of a
staff report to obtain Council
approval to enter into the
agreement. Only once after the
City receives the issuance of a
Notice of Allowance from the
USPTO can it begin approving
applications for commercial
uses of the logo.

Follow-up on Mayor’s Pledge
Initiated by: Council Direction August 25, 2020
City Manager’s
Office/Police Chief
Pending proposal from Sunny
Lee
Ordinance to regulate nuisance Outdoor Lighting
Initiated by: Staff Request June 3, 2021
Community
Development Director
Council referred to Planning
Commission at June 2021
meeting, tentatively scheduled
for Planning Commission,
February 2022
An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adding Chapter

12.42 to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to require property owners to repair the sidewalk area abutting their real property
Initiated by: Staff Request June 12, 2021
City Attorney
Update on single use plastics ordinance and resources needed to meet compliance (Supported by Massey, Campbell, Armato)
Initiated by: Council Direction October 26, 2021
Environmental Program
Manager
PLAN Hermosa 5-year check-in on milestones
(Supported by Massey, Campbell, Armato, Jackson)
Initiated by: Council Direction October 26, 2021
Community
Development
Director/Environmental
Program Manager
445