Hermosa Beach City Council
September 10, 2024

Cost Approach – Land Valuation 36
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
The property is located directly along the beach. The property is zoned C-2, or Downtown Commercial, and is surrounded by similar commercial uses. The structural improvements were built in 1965 and have deferred maintenance, although they also serve as an interim use prior to redevelopment. The FAR of the existing structural improvements at the time of sale was 0.39:1.

At the time of sale, the agent reported that the property would be redeveloped. However, at the date of value, the property had not been redeveloped.

It is noted that the while it is not located on Pier Plaza, the frontage along the Strand, makes the location similar to the typical property on Pier Plaza.

The following table summarizes the adjustments and comparisons we make to each comparable sale, relative to the Pier Plaza properties.

Cost Approach – Land Valuation 37
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Land Sales Adjustment Grid - Hermosa Beach Downtown District Subject Comparable 1 Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 Comparable 5 Comparable 6 Name In-Lieu Parking
Fee Analysis
901 Hermosa Ave 700-716 Santa
Monica
Boulevard
1124 Broadway 2701 Pacific Coast
Highway
Lincoln Boulevard
E/O Sunset
Avenue
1106 The Strand
Address Downtown
District
901 Hermosa Ave. 700-716 Santa
Monica Blvd.
1124 Broadway 2701 Pacific Coast
Hwy.

Lincoln Blvd. 1106 The Strand
City Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Santa Monica Santa Monica Hermosa Beach Venice Hermosa Beach County Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles State California CA CA CA CA CA CA
Sale Date Sep-22 Feb-22 Sep-21 Jul-20 Jan-19 Jun-17
Sale Status Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed
Sale Price $5,000,000 $12,500,000 $1,500,000 $4,850,000 $4,000,000 $9,154,000 Price Adjustment – – – – – –
Description of Adjustment
Effective Sale Price $5,000,000 $12,500,000 $1,500,000 $4,850,000 $4,000,000 $9,154,000 Square Feet 30,000 8,189 15,000 2,138 23,958 7,760 11,564 Acres 0.69 0.19 0.34 0.05 0.55 0.18 0.27
Price per Square Foot $610.58 $833.33 $701.75 $202.44 $515.46 $791.59 Property Rights Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple % Adjustment – – – – – –
Financing Terms Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller Cash to seller % Adjustment – – – – – –
Conditions of Sale None None None None None None
% Adjustment – – – – – –
Market Conditions 11/15/2022 Sep-22 Feb-22 Sep-21 Jul-20 Jan-19 Jun-17 Annual % Adjustment 2.5% – 2% 3% 6% 10% 14%
Cumulative Adjusted Price $610.58 $850.00 $722.81 $214.58 $567.01 $902.42 Location Similar Superior Superior Slightly Inferior Superior Similar Access/Exposure Slightly Superior Similar Similar Inferior Slightly Inferior Superior Size Superior Superior Superior Similar Superior Superior Shape and Topography Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Zoning Similar Superior Superior Similar Similar Similar Beach Proximity Superior Slightly Inferior Slightly Inferior Similar Inferior Superior Entitlements Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Improvements Inferior Superior Inferior Superior Similar Superior Economic Characteristics Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Final Adjusted Price $610.58 $850.00 $722.81 $214.58 $567.01 $902.42 Overall Adjustment Slightly Superior Superior Superior Sig. Inferior Slightly Inferior Superior Indicated Value $600.00

Cost Approach – Land Valuation 38
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Land Value Conclusion – Hermosa Beach
Based on the foregoing discussion of comparability, the market data and the analyzed market segment may be arrayed as shown below:

Land Sale Valuation Array
Item No. Overall Comparability
Cumulative Adjusted Value Per
Developable Square Foot
6 Superior $902.42
2 Superior $850.00
3 Superior $722.81
1 Slightly Superior $610.58
Alternative Parking Site - Downtown District
5 Slightly Inferior $567.01
4 Significantly Inferior $214.58
Based on this overall analysis, our opinion of fair market value of the fee simple interest in the underlying land, as of the date of this report, is indicated in the following table.

Land Value Conclusion - East of Hermosa Avenue
Indicated Value per Square Foot $600.00
It is noted that this value is based on a hypothetical site that would be available for development of an alternative parking structure within the Downtown District of Hermosa Beach.

Cost Approach - Improvement Valuation 39
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Cost Approach – Land Value Conclusion
In this study of the In-Lieu Parking fee, we are considering the total cost of the underlying land, plus the cost to develop a structure, broken down into a cost per space. This allows us to conclude to an In-Lieu Parking fee on a per-space basis.

The following table uses data from Marshall Valuation Services (MVS) Section 14, Page 34. It shows the low-end average required square footage per space is 310 for a parking garage. A typical garage in MVS is five stories in height. As such five parking spaces can be developed on one square foot of land.

In other words, the floor area ratio (FAR) for a 5 story parking garage is 5:1.

In this scenario, with a 5:1 FAR, the structural improvements have an area that is five times greater than the surface area of the land. This is accomplished through the development of five stories (potentially including above and below ground levels). To attribute the land area to the structure on a per space basis, the area requirement per space is divided by five. The land area per parking space at this FAR is subsequently reduced to 62 square feet per space. This area is then multiplied by the concluded land value per square foot to indicate an overall value of land per parking space for this cost approach analysis.

Land Value Per Parking Space
Item
Average Area Per
Space (SF)
Structure
Stories
Land Area Per
Space (SF)
Indicated
Land Value
Total Land Value
Per Space
Land Value Per Parking 310 ÷ 5 = 62 x $600.00 = $37,200 Cost Approach - Improvement Valuation
In this section, we evaluate the cost of the structural development of a parking garage on a per space basis. Once concluded, this can be added to the previously concluded land value per space for an overall cost per space.

The average cost to develop a parking garage per space is found in the same section of MVS (Section 14 Page 34) and is $20,000 per space, prior to current and local cost multipliers. After adding the multipliers, the cost increases to $27,140 per space. The following table uses a unit value per space that is inclusive of current and local multipliers. Additional indirect costs and entrepreneurial profit are also added, as these costs would be incurred in order for a structure to be built.

The following table indicates the overall cost of structural improvements, per space.

Cost Approach - Improvement Valuation 40
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Cost of Garage Per Parking Space
Item Garage Unit Value*
Indicated
Cost
Parking Garage 1 $27,140.00 $27,140.00
Subtotal $27,140.00
Add Additional Indirect Costs @ 10% $2,714.00
Subtotal $29,854.00
Add Entrepreneurial Profit @ 15% $2,985.40
Total Value of Site Improvement Impact $32,839.40
Rounded $32,839
*Unit value utilizes a Marshall Valuation Services base costs and applies a current and local multiplier.

As a test of reasonableness and to ensure multiple sources were considered, we also obtained parking garage costs from various cost estimating sources, including The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) and Wantman Group, Inc. (WGI).
 The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) indicated in 2022 that the cost to develop a parking structure in the Los Angeles area is $79.79 per square foot, or $26,653 per space. This is higher than the national average, which is $74.09 per square foot, or $24,748 per space.  Wantman Group, Inc. (WGI) estimated in 2021 that construction costs for a parking garage in the Los Angeles area would be $91.12 per square foot, or $30,532 per space. This source also indicates that the national median is $76.70 per square foot, or $25,700 per space.

These costs are not inclusive of land or soft costs, such as architectural and engineering fees, environmental evaluations, special inspections, finance, insurance, and other administrative or legal costs associated with developing a site. Therefore, these additional data sources are generally supportive of the MVS-based conclusion, which is inclusive of both indirect costs and entrepreneurial profit.

Cost Approach – Overall Valuation 41
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Cost Approach – Overall Valuation
The following table consists of the sum of the cost of land per parking space and, plus the cost of the parking garage per space. The resulting figure is the overall cost per space, per the cost approach analysis.

Total Cost Per Parking Space - Land and Structure
Item
Total Per
Parking Space
Land $37,200
Parking Garage $32,839
Total $70,039
Rounded $70,000
The indicated cost approach is rounded to a total cost of $70,000 per parking space. It is noted that this is substantially above what any of the surveyed municipalities charge as their in-lieu parking rate.

As noted most rates are within the range of $20,000 to $40,000 per space. Only Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills was found to exceed $50,000. A majority of the municipalities have not adjusted their rates in several years. Even if they were to be adjusted based on hypothetical CPI increases, most would not exceed $33,000 per space.

Some municipality representatives informed us that the Cities sometimes try to keep the in-lieu fees low, or at least similar to surrounding areas, so that they can encourage new development and welcome commercial expansion. In our earlier survey of municipalities, we noted that the nearby City of El Segundo established that the market-derived in-lieu parking fee was $35,000 per space, but the City Council decided to reduce the fee to $17,500 (or half) to incentivize businesses to expand into the area. This sets a precedent for a reduction in parking fees as excessive fees could potentially deter future developers and force them to consider another city with lower fees.

Furthermore, we note that there are already multiple parking lots in the Downtown District and Hermosa Avenue is configured with four parking lanes, a unique feature rarely found on arterial roads.

As a result of the existing public parking infrastructure already in place, and the relatively high fee associated with a one-to-one charge for the cost of a parking space, we have considered a reduced InLieu Parking fee that is based on only 50% of the cost of a new space, instead of 100% of the cost.

The following table indicates a reduced fee, that does not equate to the entire cost of a replacement space and is more in line with the existing In-Lieu fees found in surrounding communities.

Reduced In-Lieu Parking Fee
Total Cost Per
Parking Space
Percentage of Parking Lot
Construction Cost
Indicated In-Lieu
Parking Fee
$70,000 x 50% = $35,000

Overall Value Conclusion 42
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Overall Value Conclusion
The purpose of this appraisal is to determine the market rate for In-Lieu Parking fees for the Downtown District of Hermosa Beach. To determine a fee, we analyzed the existing Hermosa Beach ordinance, surveyed local municipalities for their existing fees, and developed a cost approach for an alternative parking structure. The following four items indicate the most relevant data points.  Hermosa Beach is currently charging $28,900 per space of In-Lieu Parking fees.  Our survey of municipalities indicates a typical range of $20,000 to $40,000 for similar coastal areas.
 The cost of a replacement parking structure, before any reduction, is $70,000 per space.  The cost of in-lieu parking after a 50% reduction is $35,000 per space. There is precedence for not charging a fee that corresponds with the total cost of a replacement space.

Based on these points, we have concluded that the in-lieu parking fee is $35,000. This seems more appropriate for an area that already has existing parking infrastructure and can even potentially build the parking structure on land already owned by the City and used as a surface parking lot. It also allows the City to remain generally competitive with many of the surrounding communities and avoid discouraging new development.

Value Conclusion
Value Type & Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion
(Per Parking Space)
In-Lieu Parking Fees Fee Per Parking Space to
Satisfy Off-Street Parking
Zoning Requirements
November 15, 2022 $35,000
Based on our research, we found that other coastal cities such as Santa Monica, El Segundo, and Huntington Beach have annual increases. It is recommended that CPI increases are implemented to ensure that the rate continues to appropriately increase over time.

Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. None

1. None
The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

Certification 43
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Certification
We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding the agreement to perform this assignment.

5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

8. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as well as applicable state appraisal regulations.

9. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

11. Beth Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE, made a personal inspection of the area that is the subject of this report. Adam M. Bogorad, MAI, has personally inspected the subject area in conjunction with a previous assignment.

12. Brian M. DeGuzman has provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person(s) signing this certification in the form of data research and analysis.

13. We have experience in appraising properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP.

Certification 44
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis

14. As of the date of this report, Beth Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE, has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

Beth Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
#AG004030
Adam M. Bogorad, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
#AG038741

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 45
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
This appraisal and any other work product related to this engagement are limited by the following standard assumptions, except as otherwise noted in the report:

1. The title is marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, encroachments, easements and restrictions. The property is under responsible ownership and competent management and is available for its highest and best use.

2. There are no existing judgments or pending or threatened litigation that could affect the value of the property.

3. There are no hidden or undisclosed conditions of the land or of the improvements that would render the property more or less valuable. Furthermore, there is no asbestos in the property.

4. The revenue stamps placed on any deed referenced herein to indicate the sale price are in correct relation to the actual dollar amount of the transaction.

5. The property is in compliance with all applicable building, environmental, zoning, and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and codes.

6. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.

This appraisal and any other work product related to this engagement are subject to the following limiting conditions, except as otherwise noted in the report:

1. An appraisal is inherently subjective and represents our opinion as to the value of the property appraised.

2. The conclusions stated in our appraisal apply only as of the effective date of the appraisal, and no representation is made as to the effect of subsequent events.

3. No changes in any federal, state or local laws, regulations or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated.

4. No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this appraisal, and we reserve the right to revise or rescind any of the value opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies. If any environmental impact statement is required by law, the appraisal assumes that such statement will be favorable and will be approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies.

5. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, we are not required to give testimony, respond to any subpoena or attend any court, governmental or other hearing with reference to the property without compensation relative to such additional employment.

6. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or survey of the property included in this report is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered to be scaled accurately for size. The appraisal

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 46
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
covers the property as described in this report, and the areas and dimensions set forth are assumed to be correct.

7. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights, if any, and we have assumed that the property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, unless otherwise noted in our appraisal.

8. We accept no responsibility for considerations requiring expertise in other fields. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, legal descriptions and other legal matters such as legal title, geologic considerations such as soils and seismic stability; and civil, mechanical, electrical, structural and other engineering and environmental matters. Such considerations may also include determinations of compliance with zoning and other federal, state, and local laws, regulations and codes.

9. The distribution of the total valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the reported highest and best use of the property. The allocations of value for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. The appraisal report shall be considered only in its entirety. No part of the appraisal report shall be utilized separately or out of context.

10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute) shall be disseminated through advertising media, public relations media, news media or any other means of communication (including without limitation prospectuses, private offering memoranda and other offering material provided to prospective investors) without the prior written consent of the persons signing the report.

11. Information, estimates and opinions contained in the report and obtained from third-party sources are assumed to be reliable and have not been independently verified.

12. Any income and expense estimates contained in the appraisal report are used only for the purpose of estimating value and do not constitute predictions of future operating results.

13. If the property is subject to one or more leases, any estimate of residual value contained in the appraisal may be particularly affected by significant changes in the condition of the economy, of the real estate industry, or of the appraised property at the time these leases expire or otherwise terminate.

14. Unless otherwise stated in the report, no consideration has been given to personal property located on the premises or to the cost of moving or relocating such personal property; only the real property has been considered.

15. The current purchasing power of the dollar is the basis for the values stated in the appraisal; we have assumed that no extreme fluctuations in economic cycles will occur.

16. The values found herein are subject to these and to any other assumptions or conditions set forth in the body of this report but which may have been omitted from this list of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions.

17. The analyses contained in the report necessarily incorporate numerous estimates and assumptions regarding property performance, general and local business and economic

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 47
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
conditions, the absence of material changes in the competitive environment and other matters. Some estimates or assumptions, however, inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved during the period covered by our analysis will vary from our estimates, and the variations may be material.

18. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific survey or analysis of the property to determine whether the physical aspects of the improvements meet the ADA accessibility guidelines. We claim no expertise in ADA issues, and render no opinion regarding compliance of the subject with ADA regulations.

Inasmuch as compliance matches each owner’s financial ability with the cost to cure the nonconforming physical characteristics of a property, a specific study of both the owner’s financial ability and the cost to cure any deficiencies would be needed for the Department of Justice to determine compliance.

19. The appraisal report is prepared for the exclusive benefit of you, your subsidiaries and/or affiliates. It may not be used or relied upon by any other party. All parties who use or rely upon any information in the report without our written consent do so at their own risk.

20. No studies have been provided to us indicating the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the subject property or in the improvements, and our valuation is predicated upon the assumption that the subject property is free and clear of any environment hazards including, without limitation, hazardous wastes, toxic substances and mold. No representations or warranties are made regarding the environmental condition of the subject property. IRR - Los Angeles, Integra Realty Resources, Inc., and their respective officers, owners, managers, directors, agents, subcontractors or employees (the “Integra Parties”), shall not be responsible for any such environmental conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.

Because we are not experts in the field of environmental conditions, the appraisal report cannot be considered as an environmental assessment of the subject property.

21. The persons signing the report may have reviewed available flood maps and may have noted in the appraisal report whether the subject property is located in an identified Special Flood Hazard Area. However, we are not qualified to detect such areas and therefore do not guarantee such determinations. The presence of flood plain areas and/or wetlands may affect the value of the property, and the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that wetlands are non-existent or minimal.

22. We are not a building or environmental inspector. The Integra Parties do not guarantee that the subject property is free of defects or environmental problems. Mold may be present in the subject property and a professional inspection is recommended.

23. The appraisal report and value conclusions for an appraisal assume the satisfactory completion of construction, repairs or alterations in a workmanlike manner.

24. IRR - Los Angeles is an independently owned and operated company. The parties hereto agree that Integra shall not be liable for any claim arising out of or relating to any appraisal report or any information or opinions contained therein as such appraisal report is the sole and exclusive responsibility of IRR - Los Angeles. In addition, it is expressly agreed that in

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 48
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
any action which may be brought against the Integra Parties arising out of, relating to, or in any way pertaining to the engagement letter, the appraisal reports or any related work product, the Integra Parties shall not be responsible or liable for any incidental or consequential damages or losses, unless the appraisal was fraudulent or prepared with intentional misconduct. It is further expressly agreed that the collective liability of the Integra Parties in any such action shall not exceed the fees paid for the preparation of the assignment (unless the appraisal was fraudulent or prepared with intentional misconduct).

It is expressly agreed that the fees charged herein are in reliance upon the foregoing limitations of liability.

25. IRR - Los Angeles is an independently owned and operated company, which has prepared the appraisal for the specific intended use stated elsewhere in the report. The use of the appraisal report by anyone other than the Client is prohibited except as otherwise provided.

Accordingly, the appraisal report is addressed to and shall be solely for the Client’s use and benefit unless we provide our prior written consent. We expressly reserve the unrestricted right to withhold our consent to your disclosure of the appraisal report or any other work product related to the engagement (or any part thereof including, without limitation, conclusions of value and our identity), to any third parties. Stated again for clarification, unless our prior written consent is obtained, no third party may rely on the appraisal report (even if their reliance was foreseeable).

26. The conclusions of this report are estimates based on known current trends and reasonably foreseeable future occurrences. These estimates are based partly on property information, data obtained in public records, interviews, existing trends, buyer-seller decision criteria in the current market, and research conducted by third parties, and such data are not always completely reliable. The Integra Parties are not responsible for these and other future occurrences that could not have reasonably been foreseen on the effective date of this assignment. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur that will likely affect actual performance. While we are of the opinion that our findings are reasonable based on current market conditions, we do not represent that these estimates will actually be achieved, as they are subject to considerable risk and uncertainty. Moreover, we assume competent and effective management and marketing for the duration of the projected holding period of this property.

27. All prospective value opinions presented in this report are estimates and forecasts which are prospective in nature and are subject to considerable risk and uncertainty. In addition to the contingencies noted in the preceding paragraph, several events may occur that could substantially alter the outcome of our estimates such as, but not limited to changes in the economy, interest rates, and capitalization rates, behavior of consumers, investors and lenders, fire and other physical destruction, changes in title or conveyances of easements and deed restrictions, etc. It is assumed that conditions reasonably foreseeable at the present time are consistent or similar with the future.

28. The appraisal is also subject to the following:

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 49
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

1. None

1. None
The use of any extraordinary assumption or hypothetical condition may have affected the assignment results.

The value conclusions are based on the following hypothetical conditions. A hypothetical condition is a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.

The value conclusions are subject to the following extraordinary assumptions. An extraordinary assumption is an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.

Addenda
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Addendum A
Appraiser Qualifications

Beth B. Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE Integra Realty Resources - Los Angeles
irr.com
T 818.290.5400
16030 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 620
Encino, CA 91436-4473
Experience
Ms. Finestone, Managing Director for and a principal of INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES – LOS ANGELES, has been with the firm since 2004 and has been appraising in Southern California since 1981. She has specialized in valuation and consulting services related to public agency clients and for major, investment grade commercial properties, e.g., office, industrial, retail, multifamily, land, and special purpose properties, for over 30 years.

Ms. Finestone previously held senior positions with Finestone & Associates and Cushman & Wakefield of California. At Finestone & Associates from 1996 through 2003, she specialized in real estate appraisal, valuation and consulting services with focus on preparation of appraisals for industrial, commercial, and special purpose properties. This focus included consultation services, due diligence work, litigation support, and expert witness designation.

At Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. from 1983 through 1996, Ms. Finestone was in the Los Angeles Appraisal Services Group, specializing in real estate valuation and consulting. By the end of her tenure, she was responsible for the management the Los Angeles Valuation Advisory Services Group, including preparation and review of appraisal reports, business development, consulting and litigation work, management and coordination of multi property assignments and national accounts, professional staff development, and support staff supervision.

Ms. Finestone’s clients include public agencies, right of way firms, lenders, institutional investors, major corporations, law firms, and individual property owners. Her services include a wide range of specialized studies including value diminution (from both internal and external influences), market demand, feasibility, severance damages and project benefits, investment analysis, assessment allocation, reuse analysis, and the valuation of partial interests including leasehold, leased fee, possessory interests, and minority interests.

Recent assignments include the 22 flowage easements for the State of California Department of Water Resources, 35 easements related to a culvert upgrade project in Los Angeles County, more than 100 partial acquisitions related to the California High Speed Rail Authority Project, 39 properties for the SR 91 Improvement Project, 10 properties for the Devore Interchange Improvements Project, and 28 properties for the Lakeview and Tustin Avenues/Rose Drive Grade Separation Project. Ms. Finestone has also been active in the appraisal of large tracts of mitigation land for Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). She has been involved in the appraisal of a number of mitigation parcels in Northern California for the High Speed Rail Authority. These involved land banks and conservation easements.

Ms. Finestone also has significant experience valuing transportation corridor properties and pipeline easements. She has been extensively involved in valuing and doing counseling and consulting work related to rail corridors and crossings as part of the proposed high speed rail project in Central California. In addition, she has also appraised a number of federally owned properties, including the West Los Angeles Federal Building, federal courthouses in Los Angeles and Orange counties, and two Army
[email protected] - 818.290.5455

Beth B. Finestone, MAI, AI-GRS, FRICS, CRE Integra Realty Resources - Los Angeles
irr.com
T 818.290.5400
16030 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 620
Encino, CA 91436-4473
Experience (Cont'd)
Reserve centers in the Los Angeles area. Much of this work has included a consulting component to aide clients in making feasibility and reuse studies of their properties. Ms.

Finestone also has significant appraisal review experience and has reviewed large numbers of appraisals for Hatch Mott MacDonald, OCTA, City of Ontario, and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Professional Activities & Affiliations
Appraisal Institute, Member (MAI) , December 1988
Appraisal Institute, General Review Specialist, June 2015 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Fellow (FRICS) , August 2008 Member: International Right of Way Association
Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) , November 2015
Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, AG004030, Expires August 2024 Education
M.B.A., Pepperdine University
B.S., Kinesiology, University of California, Los Angeles Successfully completed numerous real estate and related courses and seminars sponsored by the Appraisal Institute, accredited universities, and others Currently certified by the Appraisal Institute’s program of continuing education for its designated members
Qualified Before Courts & Administrative Bodies
Superior courts in California within the counties of Los Angeles and Orange Tax Appeal Boards of Los Angeles and San Diego counties Arbitration testimony at hearings in Los Angeles County Miscellaneous
Los Angeles Business Journal 2009 Nominee for Executive of the Year – Women Making a Difference, May 2009
Designated one of Real Estate Southern California’s 2006 Women of Influence, October 2006 [email protected] - 818.290.5455

Adam M. Bogorad, MAI Integra Realty Resources - Los
Angeles
irr.com
T 818.290.5400
16030 Ventura Blvd.

Suite 620
Encino, CA 91436-4473
Experience
Mr. Bogorad, Senior Director, joined INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES – LOS ANGELES in January 2008 and has been a licensed real estate appraiser since 2005. His past work includes the completion of appraisals for a wide variety of property types, including major commercial, industrial, office, multi-residential projects, and special-use properties. He has worked on many high-profile right-of-way projects, including the California High Speed Rail project, the Los Angeles Metro Expo Line expansion, and the Redondo Beach King Harbor revitalization, among many others. His work also encompasses litigation support related to potential value diminution, eminent domain, and other issues. Prior experience in the financial services industry offers Mr. Bogorad an insight into economic factors that impact the real estate markets.

Mr. Bogorad has qualified as an expert witness in the Superior Court of California and has testified during trial. In 2012 Mr. Bogorad was one of five employees among over 900 to receive the Integra Excellence Award. In 2015 Mr. Bogorad was invited to be a guest presenter at the International Right of Way Association (IRWA) Annual Education Conference in San Diego to showcase complex case studies related to previously completed work on the California High Speed Rail project. In 2017 Mr. Bogorad was nominated as a member of the Education Subcommittee for the Southern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute after having served for two years as a Regional Representative. In 2019 he became committee chair and a voting board member for the Chapter. Mr. Bogorad is a Partner, Principal and Shareholder of INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES – LOS ANGELES.

Professional Activities & Affiliations
Member of the Appraisal Institute, June 2013
Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, AG038741, Expires November 2023 California, Real Estate Salesperson, 01423238
Education
B.A., Communications (with emphasis in Business/Economics), University of California, Santa Barbara Successful completion of the following courses and seminars:

Advanced Applications (Appraisal Institute)
Advanced Income Capitalization (Appraisal Institute)
Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approach (Appraisal Institute) Inland Empire Market Trends Seminars (Appraisal Institute) Los Angeles and Orange County Market Trends Seminars (Appraisal Institute) Annual SCCAI Litigation Seminars (Appraisal Institute)
Litigation Development Workshop (Appraisal Institute)
Forecasting Revenue (Appraisal Institute)
Subdivision Valuation (Appraisal Institute)
Appraising Convenience Stores (Appraisal Institute)
USPAP Update Courses (Appraisal Institute)
Rates and Ratios (Appraisal Institute)
[email protected] - 818.290.5418

Adam M. Bogorad, MAI Integra Realty Resources - Los
Angeles
irr.com
T 818.290.5400
16030 Ventura Blvd.

Suite 620
Encino, CA 91436-4473
Education (Cont'd)
Hotel/Motel Valuation (Appraisal Institute)
Business Practices and Ethics (Appraisal Institute)
Qualified Before Courts & Administrative Bodies
Expert Witness in the Superior Court of California
[email protected] - 818.290.5418

About IRR
Integra Realty Resources, Inc. (IRR) provides world-class commercial real estate valuation, counseling, and advisory services. Routinely ranked among leading property valuation and consulting firms, we are now the largest independent firm in our industry in the United States, with local offices coast to coast and in the Caribbean.

IRR offices are led by MAI-designated Senior Managing Directors, industry leaders who have over 25 years, on average, of commercial real estate experience in their local markets. This experience, coupled with our understanding of how national trends affect the local markets, empowers our clients with the unique knowledge, access, and historical perspective they need to make the most informed decisions.

Many of the nation's top financial institutions, developers, corporations, law firms, and government agencies rely on our professional real estate opinions to best understand the value, use, and feasibility of real estate in their market.

Local Expertise...Nationally!
irr.com

Addenda
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Addendum B
Comparable Data

Addenda
In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Land Sales

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 1
Location & Property Identification
Property Name: 901 Hermosa Ave
Sub-Property Type: Commercial
Address: 901 Hermosa Ave.

City/State/Zip: Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
County: Los Angeles
Submarket: South Bay
Market Orientation: Suburban
IRR Event ID: 2936231
Sale Information
Sale Price: $5,000,000
Effective Sale Price: $5,000,000
Sale Date: 09/12/2022
Recording Date: 09/12/2022
Sale Status: Closed
$/SF GBA: $642.67
$/SF NRA: $1111.11
Eff. Price/Unit: $50,000 /Self Storage Unit
$/Acre(Gross): $26,595,745
$/Land SF(Gross): $610.58
$/Land SF(Potential): $642.67
Grantor/Seller: Gregg Dahle, Trustee of the
Gregg Dahle and Kay J. Dahle
2013 Family Trust for their
Benefit
Grantee/Buyer: 901 Hermosa Avenue Partners
LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
Property Rights: Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed: 100.00
Financing: Cash to seller
Conditions of Sale: Arm's-length
Terms of Sale Comments: Conventional
Document Type: Deed
Recording No.: 891750
Verified By: Brian M. DeGuzman
Verification Date: 10/24/2022
Confirmation Source: Simon
Mattox - CBRE - 310-796-6229
Verification Type: Confirmed-Buyer Broker
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID: 4187-003-028
GBA-SF: 7,780
NRA-SF: 4,500
Acres(Gross): 0.19
Land-SF(Gross): 8,189
Property Class: B
No. of Units/Unit Type: 100/Self Storage Units
Density-Unit/Gross Acre: 531.91
Bldg. to Land Ratio FAR: 0.95
Zoning Code: C-2
Zoning Desc.: General Commercial
Source of Land Info.: Public Records
Comments
This is the sale of an improved retail property that sold for commercial land value in the city of Hermosa Beach. The rectangularly shaped site is 0.19 acres, or 8,189 square feet, in size and is located at 901 Hermosa Avenue. The property encompasses the entire block between 10th Court and 9th Street. The site is zoned C-2, or General Commercial, and is surrounded by supporting retail uses along the arterial, with residential properties along the local roads. The property is one block from the beach on the primary north-south arterial in Hermosa Beach. The
901 Hermosa Ave

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 1
Comments (Cont'd)
agent for the sale stated that the property was sold
off-market, and that the building was in poor condition. He stated that the buyer paid land value and intends to redevelop the property. He stated that the buyer was ultimately
responsible for demolition costs and this was mostly offset by the fact that it was rented at the time of sale, and capable of generating carrier income prior to redevelopment. The FAR of the existing structural improvements at the time of sale was

0.95:1.
901 Hermosa Ave

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 2
Location & Property Identification
700-716 Santa Monica
Boulevard
Property Name:

Sub-Property Type: Commercial
Address: 700-716 Santa Monica Blvd.

City/State/Zip: Santa Monica, CA 90401
County: Los Angeles
Submarket: SFV-West
Market Orientation: Urban
IRR Event ID: 2936263
Sale Information
Sale Price: $12,500,000
Effective Sale Price: $12,500,000
Sale Date: 02/02/2022
Recording Date: 02/02/2022
Sale Status: Closed
$/Acre(Gross): $36,295,006
$/Land SF(Gross): $833.33
Grantor/Seller: Aldonard Properties, a
California general partnership
Grantee/Buyer: 700 Santa Monica Los
Angeles, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company
Property Rights: Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed: 100.00
Financing: Cash to seller
Conditions of Sale: Arm's-length
Terms of Sale Comments: Conventional
Document Type: Deed
Recording No.: 132261
Verified By: Brian M. DeGuzman
Verification Date: 10/24/2022
Confirmation Source: Christian Holland - WESTMAC
Commercial
Brokerage - 310-966-4350
Verification Type: Confirmed-Seller Broker
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID: 4291-021-027
Acres(Gross): 0.34
Land-SF(Gross): 15,000
Zoning Code: NV, Neighborhood Village
Zoning Desc.: Neighborhood Village
Source of Land Info.: Public Records
Comments
This is the sale of an improved multi-tenant retail property that sold for commercial land value in the city of Santa Monica. The rectangularly shaped site is 0.34 acres, or 15,000 square feet, in size and is located at 700-716 Santa Monica Boulevard. The property is located at the northeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and 7th Street. The site is zoned NV, or Neighborhood Village, and is surrounded by mixed-use and commercial retail uses along the arterial, with high density residential uses along the local roads. The property is approximately half a mile northeast of the beach.

The property had improvements at the time of sale. The
agent stated that the property sold for land value and that the buyer plans redevelop the site but will maintain the
short-term leases until the entitlements for redevelopment are complete. He also stated that the buyer is responsible for the demolition and plans to develop the site with a 60-unit multifamily property with ground-floor retail. The FAR of the existing structural improvements at the time of sale was

0.67:1. There are no atypical adverse conditions that
impacted the sale price of the property.
700-716 Santa Monica Boulevard

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 3
Location & Property Identification
Property Name: 1124 Broadway
Sub-Property Type: Commercial
Address: 1124 Broadway
City/State/Zip: Santa Monica, CA 90401
County: Los Angeles
Submarket: SFV-West
Market Orientation: Urban
IRR Event ID: 2936353
Sale Information
Sale Price: $1,500,000
Effective Sale Price: $1,500,000
Sale Date: 09/16/2021
Recording Date: 09/16/2021
Sale Status: Closed
$/Acre(Gross): $30,549,898
$/Land SF(Gross): $701.75
Grantor/Seller: Jesus Lopez, Trustee of the
Jesus Lopez Trust dated May
17, 2021
Grantee/Buyer: ARSH Developments, LLC, a
California limited liability
company
Property Rights: Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed: 100.00
Financing: Cash to seller
Conditions of Sale: Arm's-length
Terms of Sale Comments: Conventional
Document Type: Deed
Recording No.: 1419038
Verified By: Brian M. DeGuzman
Verification Date: 10/24/2022
Verification Type: Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID: 4282-031-001
Acres(Gross): 0.05
Land-SF(Gross): 2,137
Zoning Code: MUBL, Mixed-Use Boulevard
Low
Zoning Desc.: MUBL, Mixed-Use Boulevard
Low
Source of Land Info.: Public Records
Comments
This is the sale of a property that sold for commercial land value in the city of Santa Monica. The rectangularly-shaped site is 0.05 acres, or 2,138 square feet, in size and is located at the northeast corner of Broadway and 11th Court or between Santa Monica Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. The site is zoned MUBL, or Mixed-Use Boulevard Low, and is surrounded by commercial office of the southwest and low to medium density residential uses in all other directions. This property is just under a mile northeast of the beach. The agent stated that the buyer plans to redevelop the site with a potential mixed-use development with ground floor retail and that there were no atypical adverse conditions that impacted the sale price of the property. The FAR of the existing structural improvements at the time of sale was 0.37:1 and the agent stated that the property sold for land value. The
improvements were a heavily depreciated single family
residence.
1124 Broadway

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 4
Location & Property Identification
Property Name: 2701 Pacific Coast Highway
Sub-Property Type: Commercial
Address: 2701 Pacific Coast Hwy.

City/State/Zip: Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
County: Los Angeles
Submarket: South Bay
Market Orientation: Urban
IRR Event ID: 2936376
Sale Information
Sale Price: $4,850,000
Effective Sale Price: $4,850,000
Sale Date: 07/08/2020
Recording Date: 07/08/2020
Sale Status: Closed
$/Acre(Gross): $8,818,182
$/Land SF(Gross): $202.44
Grantor/Seller: Segal Family, LLC, a California
limited liability company
Grantee/Buyer: Sepulveda Blvd. Properties,
LLC, a California **
Property Rights: Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed: 100.00
Financing: Cash to seller
Conditions of Sale: Arm's-length
Terms of Sale Comments: Conventional
Document Type: Deed
Recording No.: 747024
Verified By: Brian M. DeGuzman
Verification Date: 10/24/2022
Confirmation Source: Simon
Mattox - CBRE - 310-796-6229
Verification Type: Confirmed-Seller Broker
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID: 4169-036-020
Acres(Gross): 0.55
Land-SF(Gross): 23,958
Zoning Code: C-3, General Commercial and
Highway Commercial
Zoning Desc.: General Commercial and
Highway Commercial
Source of Land Info.: Public Records
Comments
This is the sale of an improved restaurant property that sold for commercial land value in the city of Hermosa Beach. The rectangularly-shaped site is 0.55 acres, or 23,958 square feet and is located mid-block along Pacific Coast Highway, between Gould Avenue and 30th Street. The site is zoned C-3, or General Commercial Zone, and is surrounded by retail uses on all sides. This property is located on a major arterial road in the area but does not have proximity to the beach. The
property is approximately a half mile northeast of the beach.

The property was previously utilized as a Round Table Pizza but was vacant at the time of sale. According to the agent, the is being utilized as a cafeteria for the nearby Skechers headquarters, until they eventually gain entitlements for the property and redevelop the site. The property was built in 1967 and the agent stated that the property was in fair shape, but with low lot coverage. The FAR of the existing structural improvements at the time of sale was 0.25:1. There were no atypical adverse conditions that impacted the sale price of the property.

The location of this site is not within the more desirable Downtown District of Hermosa Beach.
2701 Pacific Coast Highway

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 5
Location & Property Identification
Lincoln Boulevard E/O Sunset
Avenue
Property Name:

Sub-Property Type: Commercial
Address: Lincoln Blvd.

City/State/Zip: Venice, CA 90291
County: Los Angeles
Submarket: Central Los Angeles
Market Orientation: Urban
IRR Event ID: 2936554
Sale Information
Sale Price: $4,000,000
Effective Sale Price: $4,000,000
Sale Date: 01/22/2019
Recording Date: 01/22/2019
Sale Status: Closed
$/Acre(Gross): $22,459,293
$/Land SF(Gross): $515.46
Grantor/Seller: MMOF Venice Parking, LLC, a
California limited liability
company
Grantee/Buyer: Lincoln, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
Property Rights: Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed: 100.00
Financing: Cash to seller
Conditions of Sale: Arm's-length
Terms of Sale Comments: Conventional
Document Type: Deed
Recording No.: 58276
Verified By: Brian M. DeGuzman
Verification Date: 10/24/2022
Verification Type: Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID: 4243-018-031
Acres(Gross): 0.18
Land-SF(Gross): 7,760
Zoning Code: C2, Commercial
Zoning Desc.: Commercial
Source of Land Info.: Public Records
Comments
This is the sale of vacant commercial land located in the Venice neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles. The rectangularly shaped site is 0.18 acres, or 7,760 square feet, in size and is located midblock on an arterial road between two local roads, Flower Avenue and Sunset Avenue. The property is zoned
C2, or Commercial, and is surrounded by residential to the north as well as retail uses on all other sides and along Lincoln Boulevard, a major arterial in the region. The property is approximately one mile northeast of the beach. The site was vacant at the time of sale and represented a rare development opportunity in the area.

Lincoln Boulevard E/O Sunset Avenue

Land Sale Profile Sale No. 6
Location & Property Identification
Property Name: 1106 The Strand
Sub-Property Type: Commercial
Address: 1106 The Strand
City/State/Zip: Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
County: Los Angeles
Submarket: South Bay
Market Orientation: Urban
IRR Event ID: 2936550
Sale Information
Sale Price: $9,154,000
Effective Sale Price: $9,154,000
Sale Date: 06/22/2017
Recording Date: 06/22/2017
Sale Status: Closed
$/Acre(Gross): $34,478,343
$/Land SF(Gross): $791.59
Grantor/Seller: Stacy Siroon Haviland, who
acquired title as Stacy
Haviland Day
Grantee/Buyer: 1106 The Strand, LLC, a
Delaware, limited liability
company
Property Rights: Fee Simple
% of Interest Conveyed: 100.00
Financing: Cash to seller
Conditions of Sale: Arm's-length
Terms of Sale Comments: Conventional
Document Type: Deed
Recording No.: 691044
Verified By: Brian M. DeGuzman
Verification Date: 10/24/2022
Verification Type: Secondary Verification
Improvement and Site Data
Legal/Tax/Parcel ID: 4187-005-025
Acres(Gross): 0.27
Land-SF(Gross): 11,564
Zoning Code: C-2, General Commercial
Zoning Desc.: General Commercial
Source of Land Info.: Public Records
Comments
This is the sale of an improved restaurant property that sold for commercial land value in the city of Hermosa Beach. The rectangularly shaped site is 0.27 acres, or 11,564 square feet, in size and encompasses the entire block of 11th Street along the north side between Beach Drive and the Strand. The
property is located directly along the beach. The property is zoned C-2, or Downtown Commercial, and is surrounded by similar commercial uses. The structural improvements were built in 1965 and have deferred maintenance, although they also serve as an interim use prior to redevelopment. The FAR of the existing structural improvements at the time of sale was

0.39:1.

At the time of sale, the agent reported that the property would be redeveloped. However, at the date of value, the property had not been redeveloped.

It is noted that the while it is not located on Pier Plaza, the frontage along the Strand, makes the location similar to the typical property on Pier Plaza.
1106 The Strand

Kosmont Companies
Mailing Address: 1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #382 (424) 297-1070 Physical Address: 2301 Rosecrans Ave, Ste. 4140 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 www.kosmont.com El Segundo, CA 90245 September 4, 2024
Carrie Tai
Director
Community Development
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Review of In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
Dear Ms. Tai,
The City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) retained Kosmont Companies (“Kosmont”) to review an InLieu Parking Fee Analysis (“Analysis”) prepared by Integra Realty Resources (“Integra”) and dated December 23, 2022. The intent of the Analysis is to help provide guidance on an update to the City’s in-lieu parking fee. For reference, Kosmont has worked on projects that utilized the services of Integra in the past and has and continues to recommend Integra as a potential appraiser for clients / engagements it works with / on. As discussed in this review (“Review”), Kosmont concurs with the methodology utilized in the Integra Analysis, though considers modifications to some of the assumptions therein to be appropriate. Based on these modifications, the initial value of the in-lieu parking fee per space would increase from $35,000 in the Analysis to on the order of $113,000 per stall in this Review. It should be noted that this value does not consider the economic capacity / feasibility of the market to pay an in-lieu fee, but instead, it exclusively represents the estimated cost of actually constructing one parking stall in the downtown area of the City.

Fundamental Assumptions
The Analysis, and estimated cost of constructing a parking stall is reliant on a few key assumptions as follows:
• Construction Cost – The estimated cost of constructing a parking stall within an above ground parking structure.
• Square Feet Per Parking Stall – The average square feet / area required for one parking stall including drive isles / circulation.
• Cost of Land – The cost for land underlying a parking structure. • Stories in Parking Structure – The number of stories / levels in a parking structure. • Adjustment Factor – A blanket adjustment factor for the in-lieu fee.

City of Hermosa Beach
Review of In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
September 4, 2024
Kosmont Companies 2 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
Construction Cost
The Analysis evaluates potential construction costs based on Marshall Valuation Services (“MVS”) tables, and is validated against other general data sources. The construction cost per stall utilized in the Analysis is $32,839. This cost appears reasonable, though may understate potential construction costs within the City, especially if a small or moderately inefficient structure is utilized. Kosmont currently considers a value of $35,000 per above ground structured stall to be a reasonable placeholder. However, it is difficult to estimate construction costs without a specific design. As such, Kosmont considers the estimated construction cost of $32,839 to be suitable.

Square Feet Per Parking Stall
The Analysis utilizes data from MVS and a low-end average which provides an average deck area per parking stall of 310 square feet (includes vehicle circulation area). A figure of 325 – 350 square feet for an efficient structure is common. Kosmont’s review of Lot 3 suggests that an analogous structure would require approximately 400 square feet of deck area. This figure is similar to other smaller structures in the area. The larger deck area required is likely a function of what configuration was possible within a given lot shape and area. Given any potential lot or structure within the City would likely be constrained in overall size or dimension, which would likely constrain efficiency, Kosmont considers an assumption of 400 square feet per stall to be reasonable.

Cost of Land
The Analysis evaluates the cost of land underlying a potential parking structure based on evaluating sales comparables in the City, and other area beach communities. The Analysis provides a land value of $600 per square foot. Kosmont reviewed sales within the downtown area of the City within the last few years, and concurs that $600 per square foot of land area may be a reasonable assumption for the current cost of acquiring land proximate to the downtown core / corridors of the City.

Stories in Parking Structure
The Analysis assumes that a parking structure within the City would be five levels in height.

Kosmont anticipates that a five-story structure may be out of character for the community. Based on the profile of Lot 3, Kosmont considers a three-story structure to be a suitable assumption. For reference, like the required deck area per parking stall, the number of assumed stories in a hypothetical structure determines how many stalls a given area of land can support.

City of Hermosa Beach
Review of In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
September 4, 2024
Kosmont Companies 3 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
Land / Land Cost Per Stall
The Analysis calculated the land per stall at 62 square feet, which is 310 square feet divided by five stories. The Review adjusts the land area per stall to 133 square feet, which is 400 square feet divided by three stories and matches the efficiency of Lot 3. This results in a land cost of $80,000 per stall.

Adjustment Factor
The Analysis includes an adjustment factor that serves to reduce the estimated cost of delivering a parking stall by 50% based on factors discussed therein. In this Review Kosmont seeks to approximate the actual potential costs of delivering a parking stall, and thus this adjustment was not included.

Value Per In-Lieu Stall
Based on the elements and assumptions discussed herein, and as illustrated in the table below, the order of magnitude cost of delivering a parking stall as part of an in-lieu program is estimated to be approximately $113,000 versus $35,000 in the Analysis.

Other Considerations & Approaches to Parking
• Parking Revenue & Expenses - This evaluation does not consider the potential revenue that a parking stall may generate when parking is metered as an offset to the in-lieu fee, or ongoing maintenance and ultimately future replacement cost as an increase to the inlieu fee. However, based on a cursory review of revenue generated per stall at Lot C, it appears that such revenues may generally be considered in-line with ongoing operating, maintenance, and reconstruction / replacement costs. This ongoing revenue stream is Kosmont's
Review
Integra
Analysis
Structure Stories 3 5
Average Deck Area Per Stall (SF) 400 310
Land Area Per Stall (SF) 133 62
Land Cost Per Sqaure Foot $ 600 $ 600
Land Cost / Stall $ 80,000 $ 37,200
Construction Cost / Stall $ 32,839 $ 32,839
$ 112,839 $ 70,039
Rounded $ 113,000 $ 70,000
Adjustment Factor 0% 50%
In-Lieu Fee $ 113,000 $ 35,000

City of Hermosa Beach
Review of In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
September 4, 2024
Kosmont Companies 4 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
important, as while the in-lieu fee is typically a one-time payment, the need for the City to provide, operate, and maintain the parking stall exists in perpetuity. As parking structures have a limited lifespan, and must undergo either substantial rehabilitation, or be reconstructed periodically these ongoing revenue streams must also be available to support long term rehab and/or replacement costs.
• Automated Parking Facilities – Automated parking facilities are being refined, and increasingly being utilized as an alternative to self-park facilities. Automated parking facilities typically require less land area per quantity of parking stalls, and thus can provide an alternative with lower land costs, or the ability to develop more parking stalls on a given land area. The use of an automated parking facility could reduce initial development costs, though may have higher ongoing operating costs.
• Subterranean Parking – The use of subterranean parking can increase the size / capacity of a parking garage without increasing its above ground height. If a hypothetical garage included subterranean stalls, the cost of land per stall could be reduced, though the construction cost would typically be greater. For reference, if a single subterranean level were added to a three-story structure, the land cost per stall in this Review would decrease by $20,000 from $80,000 per stall to $60,000 per stall. This decrease in land cost of $20,000 is considered to be roughly equal to the potential increase in construction costs associated with constructing a below grade stall versus a stall in an above grade structure. • Financial Feasibility – This Review does not evaluate the financial feasibility of a given development project to support a given in-lieu fee. Part of the reasoning of the 50% adjustment factor included in the Analysis appears to be supporting economic development / ensuring the fee is financially practical. Kosmont anticipates that an in-lieu fee equal to the delivery cost of $113,000 per stall estimated in this Review could be a barrier to utilization of the in-lieu option, and ultimately a barrier to development programs that are unable to meet parking requirements on-site.
• Sensitivity – Approximately 30% of the $113,000 delivery cost in this Review is associated with the cost of constructing a stall, and the balance of approximately 70% is associated with the cost of land underlying a potential structure. Without modifying any other assumptions, if one were to assume delivery of parking via a four-level structure, the total cost per stall would be approximately $93,000. Assuming a five-level structure the cost per stall would be approximately $81,000.
• Shared Use – In practical application a parking stall constructed as part of an in-lieu program may not be utilized 100% of the time by the development that funded an in-lieu stall. Instead, the stall may be shared / utilized by multiple users over a given period. Thus, a downward adjustment to the in-lieu fee estimated in this Review may be appropriate if the potential for shared use of a stall is considered.

Findings
In conclusion, based on the assumptions discussed herein, Kosmont estimates the cost of providing one parking stall within the downtown area of the City to be approximately $113,000 in this Review versus the $35,000 identified in the Analysis. The drivers of this difference are (i) the assumption in this Review that each parking stall would require 400 square feet of deck area versus the 310 square feet assumed in the Analysis, (ii) the assumption in this Review that a

City of Hermosa Beach
Review of In-Lieu Parking Fee Analysis
September 4, 2024
Kosmont Companies 5 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
parking garage would be three stories in height versus the five stories assumed in the Analysis, and, (iii) the exclusion in this Review of the 50% adjustment factor included in the Analysis.

Kosmont is available to discuss its findings at your convenience.

Yours truly,
Wil Soholt
Senior Vice President

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CMO-032
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council

CITY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN AND PROTOCOLS UPDATE
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council review and approve modifications to the Public Information and Communications Plan (Attachment 2) based on City Council’s discussion and direction provided at its June 1, 2024 retreat.

Executive Summary:

The City’s current communications plans and protocols were adopted in 2015 and 2016.

To ensure that the City communicates efficiently with a unified voice reflecting Council and community priorities, the guidelines were reviewed by City Council at its June 1, 2024 retreat. This item presents recommended modifications based on City Council’s discussion and direction.

Background:

At its March 24, 2015 meeting, City Council adopted a City Communications Plan (Attachment 1) identifying the City’s Public Information Officer (PIO) as the unifying point person between all departments to ensure swift and accurate communication from the City. At its March 19 and 20, 2016 strategic planning workshop, City Council developed its Strategic Plan Leader’s Guide with Communications Protocols (Attachment 3) identifying protocols for City Council and City Manager that include communication guidelines detailed in the discussion section below.

In 2021, staff formed an internal communications team consisting of staff representatives from each department to ensure clear, cohesive, and time appropriate City communications through all platforms (City website, e-Newsletter, email notifications, Instagram, X–formerly known as Twitter, Facebook, Cable PEG Channels, and Alert Southbay). This collaborative, interdepartmental approach ensures that the City communicates with a unified voice reflecting Council and community priorities.

To ensure that the communications plan and protocols are accurate and reflect up-to-date processes, City Council reviewed the documents at its June 1, 2024 City Council retreat and provided updated directions to staff.

Past Council Actions

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 4
Meeting Date Description
March 24, 2015 City Council adopted a City Communications Plan March 19 and 20, 2016 Two-day City Council Strategic Planning Workshop June 1, 2024 City Council Retreat
Discussion:

The recommended updates to City’s Communication Plan include routine adjustments, such as updates on key community issues, replacing staff names with titles, reflecting the transition to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for fire protection services, and revisions to the list of communication assets used for information dissemination. Key changes discussed and directed by Council at its retreat focus on handling press releases, media inquiries, and official letters of support or opposition.

Press Releases
For critical issues requiring official communication through press releases—whether to relay significant Council decisions impacting the community or to address longstanding issues or debates—the City’s Public Information Officer (PIO) collaborates with the City Manager to craft key messages. Press releases are formal statements from the City distributed to the media to announce official positions, provide information, or make announcements. Currently, draft press releases are reviewed by the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem before distribution.

At the recent City Council retreat, staff explained that this practice of reviewing draft press releases with elected officials and receiving edits to them is unique compared to other municipalities. In most cities, press releases are handled entirely by staff, with elected officials reviewing and approving only quotes attributed to them. After deliberation, a majority of the City Council agreed that a staff-driven press release process would provide clearer, more cohesive, and timely communications. It would also prevent the perception of politicizing press releases by removing elected officials from the drafting process, except for their individual quotes.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission provides guidance on restrictions contained within the Political Reform Act (Act) related to mass mailings sent at public expense under Sections 89001–89003. While press releases sent to members of the media are not restricted by the Act’s mass mailing prohibition, cities are vigilant to ensure that official statements from the City, when stating City positions and policies, reflect the resulting City Council actions as a whole and not positions or votes of individual elected officials. Cities avoid the perception that press releases may serve as mass communication instruments by elected officials by having the press releases drafted and finalized by staff with quotes attributed to an elected official, such as the Mayor, approved by said official. To avoid any such perception, staff recommends maintaining a staff-driven process, with final approval of the press release by the City Manager, and individual quotes approved by the respective elected officials.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 4
Media Response
The retreat also included a robust Council discussion regarding media inquiries and responses. To ensure accuracy and timely responses, staff recommends that all official responses to media inquiries—whether general interview and information requests, commission-related questions, and inquiries concerning management of the City and Council—be reviewed by and distributed through the City’s PIO.

The majority of City Council agreed that, while not prohibited, it is generally inadvisable for individual City Councilmembers to speak directly with media regarding items on upcoming Council agendas or recently passed City Council actions. Allowing the PIO and City Manager to handle inquiries ensures final City Council actions are conveyed clearly and accurately.

Letters of Opposition or Support
Following Council retreat, staff added a new section to the Public Information and Communications Plan concerning letters of support or opposition. The update stipulates that, when timing permits, such letters shall be brought before City Council for approval.

In situations where time constraints exists, the Mayor and City Manager may use their discretion based on prior City Council actions, established City goals or Plan Hermosa, the City’s adopted General Plan.

Staff recommends City Council review the redlined version of the City’s Communications Plan and adopt the proposed changes to align with best practices amongst municipalities.

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 1. A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process.

Policy:
 1.2 Strategic Planning. Regularly discuss and set priorities at the City Council and management level to prioritize work programs and staffing needs.

Goal 8. A performance-based management and benchmarking program.

Policy:
 8.4 Strategic Plan alignment. Evaluate the Strategic Plan for alignment with the Vision, Goals, and Policies of PLAN Hermosa, and as necessary, amend as the community Vision evolves.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 4
Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact related to the recommended action.

Attachments:

1. 2015 Communications Plan

2. 2015 Communications Plan—Redlined

3. 2016 Strategic Plan Leader’s Guide Protocols: Operating Guidelines for City Council and City Manager (pages 103–109)
Respectfully Submitted by: Sara Russo, Senior Management Analyst Concur: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 103 Mayor and City Council Protocols: Operating
Guidelines for City Council and City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
Protocol 1 Simple Information
• Contact Department Director or City Manager.
• If Department Director is contacted, copy City Manager. • Department Head will contact City Manager.
• Council members should share expectations and your preferred form of communications.
• Acknowledge within 24 hours
Protocol 2 Council Requests
Key Issues:

A. Expectation immediate knowledge – let me check into it and get back to you with a complete answer
B. Expectation immediate response – drop current work project and handle this request
C. Responsiveness of Staff
Expectations:

A. Share expectations and timeframe
B. 24 hour acknowledge inquiry
C. Inform on citizen request – do you want notification before or after action D. Staff response on questions goes to all Mayor and City Council Action: Topic for Action
• Contact City Manager.
• Council may research a topic and bring information to the City Manager. • If research requires more than 1 hour; the topic will be taken to Council for direction.
• Council can bring up topic during “Other Matters” for direction. • Information reports may be shared with Council at the discretion of the City Attorney and City Manager.

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 104 Action: Citizen Service Request
A. First Contact
• Refer to City Manager and/or Department Head.
• Council members should share expectations of further
communication on actions or city follow up
• Acknowledge within 24 hours
B. Unsatisfactory Contact
• Refer to City Manager.
• City Manager will inform Council on follow up actions by the City.

Protocol 3 Council Reports
Key Issues:

A. Report bias
B. Complete reports with multiple options
C. Recommendations
D. Use of Decision Making Tool
Expectations:

A. Options presented
B. Council share concerns, issues and expectations without specific wording C. Present the context
D. Have an open mind
Action: Topic for Action
• Link to vision, goals, mission and decision making tools • Review “best practices” from other cities (similar cities) • Provide thorough analysis
• Evaluate options and alternatives
• Objective Report
• Provide strong professional recommendation(s)
• Frame discussion topic/question
• Avoid lobbying through others
Protocol 4 Employee Contact
A. Employee initiated

• Report contact to City Manager on topics: employment, management or policy direction.
• Refer employee to supervisor or Department Head.

B. Council initiated

• Social contact only.
• If a community issue of performance, contact the City Manager and not direct the City employee.

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 105 Protocol 5 Email Guidelines
• Communication from Council to Council majority sent to Clerk. • For private communications, Council should use phone or personal email address. • Avoid “Reply to All”.
• Use FYI for share information no reply.
• Hermosa Beach address is a public record.
• No weekend email needed, unless an emergency situation.

Protocol 6 New Ideas
• Contact City Manager.

Protocol 7 Commission Communications
• Commission communications is through responsible Department Director.

Protocol 8 Spokesperson on City Matters
• Official communication (including press release) through the Public Information Officer; Tested Mayor/Pro Tem.
• Mayor and City Manager reflect the City Policy
• Circulate to Councilmembers
Protocol 9 Performance Problem
• Go to the City Manager
• Avoid discussion at Council meeting
Protocol 10 Communications: Council and Staff
• City Manager will share the same information at the same time with all Councilmembers.
• City Manager will use Council as a resource.
• City Council and staff should avoid surprises or last minute items/information. • City Manager should inform Councilmember on topic of potential impact.

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 106 Protocol 11 Agenda Process
A. Placing an item

• Contact City Manager
• Place on “Other Matter” for Council direction.
• Two Councilmembers will determine the placement on a future Council agenda for initial discussion with brief staff report. (1 page) B. Question on item

• Contact (email or call) Department Director, with a copy to City Manager. • Presentation will incorporate the questions.
• Information will be shared with all Councilmembers.

C. Agenda Preview

• Identify topics for next Council agenda.

D. The City Manager will review the Council meeting agenda with the Mayor and Mayor ProTem
Protocol 12 Council Agenda
Key Issues:

A. Items on “Consent Agenda”
B. Minutes
C. Pulling a number of items
Criteria for Consent Agenda Item:

A. Routine item requiring Council action
B. Items in approved budget
C. Items with prior Council decision or direction
D. Items with no public input
E. Expenditure threshold: $100,000
Action: When pulling an item from the Consent Agenda

1. Pull item.

2. State reason for pulling item.

3. If opposed to item, comment on the item and your position. Item will not be pulled, but your opposition is noted in the minutes – a “No” vote.

4. Written comments may be submitted on Consent Agenda items.

5. Pulled items will be referred to “Other Matters” on the Agenda.

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 107 Protocol 13 Council Meetings - Management
Key Issues:

A. Long meeting going late into the night, early morning B. Long agendas
C. Actual meetings starting after 9 pm
D. Overload study sessions
E. Recycling, repetitive Council comments
F. Pulling items from “Consent Agenda”
G. Need an additional meeting?
Suggestions:

A. City Manager 1 on 1 meetings to discuss agenda, respond to questions B. Start public hearing at designated times
C. Limit “Recognitions and Presentations” to 3 (10 minutes each) D. Public input

1. Have public sign up

2. Have next speaker identified as “queued” up

3. Avoid commenting or engaging the public

4. Split comments on Agenda Items Early; and General Comments at the end of the meeting

5. Limit speakers: 2 minutes
E. Council comments and discussion focus on the issues
F. Follow Roberts Rules
G. Council comments: Time
H. Mayor summarizes before action
Actions:

A. Use first names at the Council meeting
B. Allow brief discussion before making the motion
C. Ask questions before the Council meeting
D. Public input: have individual sign in after presentation; be ready to speak; 3 minutes to speak
E. Council Presentations: avoid reading reports or overheads F. Brief staff/consultant presentation (10 minutes); 1 minute for announcing events G. Discourage applause, boos or emotional reactions
H. Clarifying direction from Mayor at end of discussion, before the vote I. Designate time for hearings

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 108 Protocol 14 Study Session
Key Issues:

A. Adequate time for Council discussion
B. Feeling “rushed” with time deadline
C. Providing clarity of direction to City Staff
Suggestions:

A. Separate Study Session from Council Meeting – 1st Wednesday, 6 – 9 pm B. Staff provides complete reports prior to meeting
C. Mayor and Council read reports
D. Staff Brief Presentation with identified questions needing direction E. Limit topics (1 – 3)
Actions:

A. Separate Study Session (7 pm – 9 pm)
B. Quarterly or as needed
C. Limited topics
D. Time for Council discussion
E. Brief Presentation
F. Background material sent to Mayor – Council ahead of meeting Protocol 15 Meeting Minutes
Key Issues:

A. Action Minutes or Transcript
Suggestions:

A. Name of presenters
B. Brief sentence: comment, summary, and position
C. Avoid significant time impact on Staff
Actions:

A. Time stamp on agenda
B. Maintain Action Minutes

Leader’s Guide 2016 Final Report/Mayor and City Council/Hermosa Beach, California Copyright © 2016: Lyle Sumek Associates, Inc. Project 160303 109 Protocol 16 City Bidding and RFP Process
Key Issues:

A. Efficient process
B. Systematic approach to recurring contracts
C. “Best qualified” contract
D. 3 – 5 year renewals
E. Competitive prices
F. More transparency process
G. Length of RFP process
Actions:

A. Notification to Mayor – Council of upcoming contract B. Avoid surprises
Protocol 17 City Manager Notification
The City Manager will inform Mayor – City Council through: e-mail Mayor – Council Reports

1 Public Information & Communications Plan

OVERVIEW
The communications plan for the City of Hermosa Beach is designed to cover six core topics, as defined by the City of Hermosa Beach’s Strategic Plan, and are designated as “news pillars” within the City’s communications matrix. These include:
 City Policy
 Business & Economic Development
 Environmental Sustainability / Consciousness
 Public Safety
 Proposed E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project Communications  Celebration of Beach Lifestyle / Culture
Within each “news pillar” a top-line designation of important story angles / community updates are identified that need to be communicated by the City throughout 2015. This document is considered a “working document” and will be updated throughout the year.

See attached Communications Matrix for reference; snapshot included below.

2 COMMUNICATIONS POLICIES
The City has a defined set of Communications policies in place, which are included in the Communications plan.

Additionally, the plan has been updated to identify critical issues within the community and established the proper way to communicate on behalf of City Hall in a timely and efficient manner. This is included in our current communications plan.

City Departments Communications Protocol
An overview of the communications protocol for all City departments is detailed within the following pages.
 City of Hermosa Beach p. 2
 Hermosa Beach Police Department p. 3
 Hermosa Beach Fire Department p. 4
 Critical Issues & City Response p. 5
 City Communications Assets p. 7
 Reports p. 8
City of Hermosa Beach Communications Protocol
According to the City’s Strategic Plan and Code of Conduct adopted by City Council in 2013, the City and addresses dealing with information requests, commission communication, created the protocols, or Operating Guidelines, for streamlining communications and other items related to the management of the council.

Important operating protocols in relations to news managed and distributed by the City’s Public Information Officer include the following:
 Protocol 3: Citizen Service Request
Referred to City Manager/City Department Head; Council members to share expectations of further communications on actions or City follow up  Protocol 5: Communications – Staff & Council
City Manager will share the same information at the same time with all Councilmembers. City Manager will use Council as a resource  Protocol 9: New Ideas
Contact City Manager
 Protocol 11: Spokesperson
Official communication (including press release) coordinated through Public Information Officer; tested by Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem
Mayor and City Manager reflect the City Policy

3 Hermosa Beach Police Department Communications Protocol The City’s communications protocol for the Police Department includes the following:

HBPD staff will draft all press materials, with the Chief to determine use of the City’s PIO for editing purposes and/or media distribution.

The Chief will approve all media materials, and the City’s Police Staff and/or the City’s PIO will distribute the news to City Council and the City Manager prior to press distribution.

Spokespersons for the HBPD include:
 Chief Sharon Papa
 Captain Milton McKinnon
 Lt. Tom Thompson
 Lt. Garth Gaines
 Sergeant Robert Higgins

4 Hermosa Beach Fire Department Communications Protocol The City’s communications protocol for the Fire Department includes the following:

HBFD staff will draft all press materials, with the Chief to determine use of the City’s PIO for editing purposes and/or media distribution.

Spokespersons for the HBFD include:
 Chief David Lantzer
 Capt. Mike Garofano
 Erin Concas, Emergency Management Coordinator
The City’s Emergency Management Coordinator will provide safety details, event updates and action items for the community in relation to an emergency event. They will work in tandem with the City’s PIO for fast, efficient and continuous updates to the City Manager, City Council and community regarding emergency-related items.

Beach Emergency Communications & Media Relations
If an emergency situation occurs in the ocean at Hermosa Beach, the following communications process is recommended:
 Immediate communication of Incident to the following: HBFD, HBPD, City Manager, Mayor, PIO
 Establishing facts of the incident as soon as they are available o Obtain information from County Lifeguards
o Utilize both LACoFD PIO and City PIO to provide talking points to first responders
o City PIO to create media alert and coordinate with LACoFD PIO for consistency in messaging and confirmation of the facts
o City PIO to work with City staff on dissemination of incident through Nixle Community Alert Service
o City PIO to provide City staff with updates re: spokesperson responsibilities based upon staff available (IE. Los Angeles County Fire Department Lifeguard Division Capt. Kyle Daniels, HBFD Chief David Lantzer, etc.)
 PIO to provide details, talking points, facts to spokesperson  If emergency is shark related, notify Dr. Chris Lowe of CSULB to speak as third-party expert for fact-based insights on emergency

5 Critical Issues Communications Protocol
Hermosa Beach has a number of critical issues that have the potential to divide the community. In order to dispel rumors and disrupt misinformation from reaching the public, the proper channels of communication need to be effectively utilized and the City’s key messages must reach the press in a timely manner.

Knowing this, the City’s PIO has worked alongside the City Manager and the Council’s Communications Subcommittee (Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem) to create the following:
 Identification of critical issues
 Communications protocol surrounding issues
 Key messages regarding issues
 Opportunity for Elected Officials / City Leadership quotes on issues Critical Issues
We have identified the following as critical issues within the community that should have a communications protocol when these items are raised. This list is a current point of reference; items will be reviewed throughout the year and additional items will be added to the list should they arise.
 Pet Ordinances
 Sewer Fees
 Parking / Tickets
 Meters
 Hotels
 Bars / Downtown Nightlife
 PCH / Aviation
 Ocean Accidents / Fishing / Shark Attacks
 Eminent Domain
Communications Protocol
With critical issues, timing is of the utmost importance for response to media and the community. We recommend that following protocol based upon the various ways that an issue comes into the spotlight within the community.

City Council Meetings
Should Council arrive at a decision that greatly impacts the greater community, or concludes with a decision that has been a longstanding issue and/or debate within the community, the following steps should be taken post-meeting:
 City Manager to provide overview of Council Decision to PIO  Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tem to issue quotes via email as soon as possible to PIO

6 The PIO shall then use discretion to advise City Manager and Communications Subcommittee of the following:
 Provide a statement to the press and not issue a press release  Draft a press release, and utilize it for media and community relations (via website, Nixle, etc.)
 Distribute communications and monitor media for feedback / errors in news reporting
 Report results/feedback to City Manager and Communications Subcommittee; PIO to suggest follow up items / strategy (if needed).

This could include tactics such as media deskside briefings on topics, community presentations, community advertisements, mailers, etc.

City Hearings
The City Manager, Council Communications Subcommittee and the PIO have agreed that additional efforts / budgets should be allocated for increased awareness for Public Hearings / Council meetings.

Once the date of the hearing has been determined, the PIO will create advertisements on behalf of the City and submit to the local newspapers (The Beach Reporter, Easy Reader) at least two weeks prior to the hearing. “Hot Buttons” – Animals, Taxes & Hotels
PIO to draft statement and / or press release for approval by City Manager & Communications Subcommittee that includes the following:
 History / Facts Surrounding Issues
 City Council Vote on Issue
 Quotes from Mayor / Mayor Pro Tem
 Quotes from City Staff Involved with CC Recommendation (I.e. City Manger, Police Chief, Fire Chief, etc.)
 Next steps on issue
 Who to contact for additional information
PIO to monitor story and suggest to City Manager and Communications Subcommittee if additional resources / programs need to be applied to issue (IE.

Host community presentation, more proactive/educational press outreach) Crisis Situations
Use established protocol and community resources including:
 Police Chief
 Fire Chief
 City Manager
 Mayor / Mayor Pro Tem
 Local Experts (Dr. Chris Lowe / Shark Attacks)

7 COMMUNICATIONS ASSETS
The City has a number of channels in which to engage the general community.

Below is a snapshot of the City’s Communications assets, and how they will be utilized throughout the year. The items in red are new initiatives we will launch in 2015. Items listed in red will be added within the upcoming year.

8 COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS
The PIO is to submit quarterly reports to the City Manager and City Council. These reports will include the following:
 Stories covered within each category of our “news pillars” of the Communications Matrix
 Snapshot of headlines & analysis of coverage from local papers  Opportunities / Quarterly Planning for City Communications in the upcoming Quarter
The delivery deadlines of these reports are included below:

Q1 (Jan. – March 2015) Due Friday, April 3
Q2 (Apr. – June 2015) Due Friday, July 10
Q3 (July – Sept. 2015) Due Friday, Oct. 9
Q4 (Oct. – Dec. 2015) Due Friday, Jan. 8
###

General
Business

- Management

Profiles

- Personnel

Hires

- Events
/

Partnerships

Business
Growth

- Hotel
(s)
News

- Business
News:

Skechers

Announcement

Business-­‐Friendly

- Free
Parking

Pilot
Program

- Economic
Dev.

Office
/

Business

Resources

Downtown
Core

Development

South
Park:

Upgrade

PCH
/
AviaBon

Mobility
Plan

Support
for
Top

Quality
Schools

Sewer

Replacement

Program

Capital

Improvement

Program

City
FaciliBes

Master
Plan

General
Plan

- ‘15
Event

Schedule

- Community

Awareness
/

AMendance

Green
Business

RecogniBon

Program

Municipal
Carbon

Neutral
AcBon

Plan

- 2020

Messaging
/

ExecuQon

Awards
/

RecogniBon:

- Submission
of

City
efforts
to

various
award

programs

ConQnue
to
work

with
City
staff,

Chief
Papa
and

Chief
Lantzer
for

coordinated

efforts
for
items

including:

HBPD

Alcohol
Awareness

campaign
with
LA

Kings

July
4th
BHS
Underage

Drinking

Symposium

HBFD

Pier
Fishing

CommunicaQons

Safety
Brochure/
Community

Partnerships

March
2015

ElecBon

- ProacQve

factual
press

outreach
and

community

materials
for

elecQon
dates,

items
on

ballot,
etc.
- Press
release
s

- Final
City

PresentaQon

of
EIR,
HIA
&

CBA
Reports

STRATEGY
NEWS

PILLARS

TACTICS
Environmental

Sustainability
/

Consciousness
Public
Safety
Proposed
Oil

Project
/

CommunicaBons
Business
&

Economic

Development
City
Policy
Proactively create and distribute news that supports the key pillars of the City’s Strategic Plan, short and long-term goals, as well as the mission of Hermosa Beach to be financially and environmentally responsible, govern the community, and provide first-class services in a friendly manner through valued employees and volunteers.

MEDIA

RELATIONS
MATRIX

CelebraBon
of

Beach
Lifestyle
/

Culture
City
Assets

- SpeakUp,

Hermosa!
City
Events

- Special

Olympics
Host

Town

- Summer

Concert
Series

Community

Partners
/

AcBviBes

- Chamber
of

Commerce

- Beach
CiQes

Health
District

- Local

Businesses

- Neighboring

Beach
CiQes

- Independent

event

producers

hosQng
events

in
the
City

The
media
relaQons
matrix
details
the
flow
of
important
communicaQons
items
for
the
City

and
provides
a
snapshot
detailing
how
all
of
the
press
materials
and
news
items
delivered
by

the
City
ladder
up
to
achieving
the
strategic
goals
with
public
relaQons
efforts.

1 Public Information & Communications Plan

OVERVIEW
The communications plan for the City of Hermosa Beach is designed to cover six five core topics, as defined by the City of Hermosa Beach’s Strategic Plan and are designated as “news pillars” within the City’s communications matrix. These include:
 City Policy
 Business & Economic Development
 Environmental Sustainability / Consciousness
 Public Safety
 Proposed E&B Oil Drilling & Production Project Communications  Celebration of Beach Lifestyle / Culture
Within each “news pillar” a top-line designation of important story angles / community updates are identified that need to be communicated by the City throughout 2015. This document is considered a “working document” and will be updated throughout the yearas needed.

See attached Communications Matrix for reference; snapshot included below.

Media
Relations
Matrix
The media
relations
matrix details
the flow of
important
communicati
on items for
the City and
provides a
snapshot
detailing
Formatted: Left: 0.75", Right: 0.75", Header distance
from edge: 1.1"
Formatted: Font: Century Gothic, Bold, Italic

2 how all the press materials and news items delivered by the City ladder up to achieving the strategic goals with public relations efforts.

Strategy Proactively create and distribute news that supports the key pillars of the City’s Strategic Plan, short and long-term goals, as well as the mission of Hermosa Beach to be financially and environmentally responsible, govern the community, and provide first-class services in a friendly manner through valued employees and volunteers.

News
Pillars
City Policy Business &
Economic
Development
Environmental
Sustainability /
Consciousness
Public
Safety
Celebration of Beach
Lifestyle / Culture
Tactics Downtown
Core
Development
General
Business
General Plan Alcohol
Awareness
SpeakUp, Hermosa
PCH/ Aviation
Mobility Plan
Business
Growth
Green Business
Recognition
Program
July 4th City Events
Support for
Top Quality
Schools
Business
Friendly
Awards &
Recognition
Underage
drinking
Community Partners /
Activities
Capital
Improvement
Program
Community
partnerships
Civic Facilities
Master Plan
Topics
identified by
Police Chief

COMMUNICATIONS POLICIES
The City has a defined set of Communications policies in place, which are included in the Communications plan.

Additionally, the plan has been updated to identify critical issues within the community and established the proper way to communicate on behalf of City Hall in a timely and efficient manner. This is included in our current communications plan.

City Departments Communications Protocol
An overview of the communications protocol for all City departments is detailed within the following pages.
 City of Hermosa Beach p. 2
 Hermosa Beach Police Department p. 3
 Hermosa BeachLos Angeles County Fire Department p. 34

3  Critical Issues & City Response p. 45
 City Communications Assets p. 67
Reports p. 8
City of Hermosa Beach Communications Protocol
According to the City’s Strategic Plan and Code of Conduct adopted by City Council in 2013, the City and addresses dealing with information requests, commission communication, created the protocols, or and Operating Guidelines, for streamlining communications and other items related to the management of the council.

Important operating protocols in relations to news managed and distributed by the City’s Public Information Officer (PIO) include the following:
 Protocol 3: Citizen Service Request
Referred to City Manager/City Department Head; Council members to share expectations of further communications on actions or City follow up  Protocol 5: Communications – Staff & Council
City Manager will share the same information at the same time with all Councilmembers.

City Manager will use Council as a resource
 Protocol 9: New Ideas
Contact City Manager
 Protocol 11: Spokesperson
Official communication (including press release) coordinated through Public Information Officer; tested by Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem.

Mayor and City Manager reflect the City Policy. City Manager retains final approval authority.

Hermosa Beach Police Department Communications Protocol The City’s communications protocol for the Police Department includes the following:

HbPD staffPIO will draft all press materials, with the Chief to determine use on what information to share, of the City’s PIO for editing purposes and/or media distribution.

4 The Chief and City Manager will approve all media materials, and the City’s Police Staff and/or the City’s PIO will distribute the news to City Council, and the City Manager, and the City’s internal Communications team in the City Manager’s Office prior to press distribution.re Spokespersons for the HbPD include:
 Chief of Police Sharon Papa
 Captains Milton McKinnon
 Police Officer PIOs
 Lt. Tom Thompson
 Lt. Garth Gaines
 Sergeant Robert Higgins
Hermosa BeachLos Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) Communications Protocol The City’s communications protocol for the Fire Department includes the following:

HBFD staffCity’s PIO and LACoFD PIO will work together to draft all press materials, with the Chief City Manager to determine use of the City’s PIO for editing purposes and/or media distribution.

Spokespersons for the HBFD include:
 City Manager
 Assistant BattalioFiren Chief
 Chief David Lantzer
 Capt. Mike Garofano
 Erin Concas, Emergency Management Coordinator
If an emergency situation occurs, the following communications process is recommended:
 Immediate communication of Incident to the following: LACoFD, HbPD, City Manager, Mayor, PIO
 Establishing facts of the incident as soon as they are available o Obtain information from LACoFD Fire and Lifeguards
o Utilize both LACoFD PIO and City PIO to provide talking points to first responders o City PIO to create media alert and coordinate with LACoFD PIO for consistency in messaging and confirmation of the facts
o City PIO to work with City staff on dissemination of incident through Alert Southbay Community Alert Service
o City PIO to provide City staff with updates re: spokesperson responsibilities based upon staff available (IE. Los Angeles County Fire Department Lifeguard Division, etc.)

5  PIO to provide details, talking points, facts to spokesperson  If emergency is shark related, notify Dr. Chris Lowe of CSULB to speak as third-party expert for fact-based insights on emergency
The City’s Emergency Management Coordinator will provide safety details, event updates and action items for the community in relation to an emergency event. They will work in tandem with the City’s PIO for fast, efficient and continuous updates to the City Manager, City Council and community regarding emergency-related items.

Beach Emergency Communications & Media Relations
If an emergency situation occurs in the ocean at Hermosa Beach, the following communications process is recommended:
 Immediate communication of Incident to the following: HBFDLACoFD, HbBPD, City Manager, Mayor, PIO
 Establishing facts of the incident as soon as they are available o Obtain information from County Lifeguards
o Utilize both LACoFD PIO and City PIO to provide talking points to first responders o City PIO to create media alert and coordinate with LACoFD PIO for consistency in messaging and confirmation of the facts
o City PIO to work with City staff on dissemination of incident through Nixle Alert Southbay Community Alert Service
o City PIO to provide City staff with updates re: spokesperson responsibilities based upon staff available (IE. Los Angeles County Fire Department Lifeguard Division Capt. Kyle Daniels, HBFD Chief David Lantzer, etc.)
 PIO to provide details, talking points, facts to spokesperson  If emergency is shark related, notify Dr. Chris Lowe of CSULB to speak as third-party expert for fact-based insights on emergency
Critical Issues Communications Protocol
Hermosa Beach has a number of critical issues that have the potential to divide the community.

In order to dispel rumors and disrupt misinformation from reaching the public, the proper channels of communication need to be effectively utilized and the City’s key messages must reach the press in a timely manner.

Knowing this, the City’s PIO has worked alongside the City Manager and the Council’s Communications Subcommittee (Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem) to create the following:
 Identification of critical issues
 Communications protocol surrounding issues

6  Key messages regarding issues
 Opportunity for Elected Officials / City Leadership quotes on issues Critical Issues
We have identified the following as critical issues within the community that should have a communications protocol when these items are raised. This list is a current point of reference; items will be reviewed throughout the year and additional items will be added to the list should they arise.
 Pet Ordinances
 Sewer Fees
 Parking / Tickets /
 Meters
 Hotels
 Bars / Downtown Nightlife /Pier Plaza
 PCH / / Aviation
 Ocean Accidents / Fishing / Shark Attacks
 Eminent Domain
Communications Protocol
With critical issues, timing is of the utmost importance for response to media and the community. We recommend that following protocol based upon the various ways that an issue comes into the spotlight within the community.

City Council Meetings
Should Council arrive at a decision that greatly impacts the greater community, or concludes with a decision that has been a longstanding issue and/or debate within the community, the following steps should be taken post-meeting:
 City Manager to provide overview of Council Decision to PIO  Mayor and/or Mayor Pro Tem to issue quotes via email as soon as possible to PIO The PIO shall then use discretion to advise City Manager and Communications Subcommittee of the following:
 Provide a statement to the press and not issue a press release  Draft a press release, and utilize it for media and community relations (via website, social media, NixleAlert Southbay, etc.)
 Distribute communications and monitor media for feedback / errors in news reporting
 Report results/feedback to City Manager and Communications Subcommittee; PIO to suggest follow-up items / strategy (if needed). This could include tactics

7 such as media deskside briefings on topics, community presentations, community advertisements, mailers, etc.

Individual City Council members should refrain from direct contact with media prior to or following a City Council decision. Members may direct inquiries to the recorded meeting video, meeting minutes, or PIO.

City Hearings
The City Manager, Council Communications Subcommittee and the PIO have agreed that additional efforts / budgets should be allocated for increased awareness for Public Hearings / Council meetings.

Once the date of the hearing has been determined, the PIO will create advertisements on behalf of the City and submit them to the local newspapers (The Beach Reporter, Easy Reader) at least two weeks prior to the hearing.
“Hot Buttons” – Animals, Taxes & Hotels
PIO to draft statement and / or press release for approval by City Manager & Communications Subcommittee that includes the following:
 History / Facts Surrounding Issues
 City Council Vote on Issue
 Quotes from Mayor / Mayor Pro Tem
 Quotes from City Staff Involved with CC Recommendation (I.e. City MangerManager, Police Chief, Fire Chief, etc.)
 Next steps on issue
 Who to contact for additional information
PIO to monitor the story and suggest to City Manager and Communications Subcommittee if additional resources / programs need to be applied to issue (IE. Host community presentation, more proactive/educational press outreach)
Crisis Situations
Use established protocol and community resources including:
 Police Chief
 Fire Chief
 City Manager
 Mayor / Mayor Pro Tem
 Local Experts or Partners (Dr. Chris Lowe / Shark Attacks)(as determined by PIO / City Manager)

8 Media Response
To ensure accuracy and timely responses, all official communications in response to media inquiries, including dealing with general interview and information requests, commission communication and other items related to the management of the City and cCouncil, are to be reviewed by and distributed through the PIO. Any inquiries directed to, or received by City staff, will be immediately forwarded to the City’s PIO.

While individual City Councilmembers are not prohibited from speaking directly with media, communication regarding upcoming Council items, recently past City Council actions, or operational issues should be directed to the City’s PIO for impartiality, clarity, and consistency.

Letters of Support or Opposition
The City may, from time to time, receive a request for a letter expressing its positions on legislation, partner agency actions, or issues of community interest. Where timing allows, these items shall be brought to City Council for approval. Where insufficient led time exists, the Mayor and City Manager may use their judgement based on prior City Council actions and/or the established goals or Plan Hermosa, the city’s adopted General Plan.

Individual City Council members may author letters of support or opposition on their own letterhead, but shall not use the official letterhead of the City.

COMMUNICATIONS ASSETS
The City has a number of channels in which to engage the general community. Below is a snapshot of the City’s Communications assets, and how they will be utilized.

City of Hermosa Beach- Communication Assets
Speak Up!
Engagement
Portal
Cable Access eNews
Communications
Alert Southbay Social
Media
Website
Resident surveys City meetings Bi-monthly enewsletterHbPD communications
Facebook
HbPD
General Plan
Policy feedback Local business
spotlights and
advertising
Community meeting
updates
Emergency
management
communications
Facebook
City of
Hermosa
Beach
Emergency
Preparedness
Community
discussions
Community
engagement/
Press release/ News
updates
City Manager
news/ urgent
Instagram
HbPD
City news/
upcoming

9 events community
updates (i.e. storm
related info,
sandbags, etc.)
events
Join discussions
centered on
local projects
and programs
Distinguished
speakers/
panels
City Council Policy
Items/News Brief
Instagram
City of
Hermosa
Beach
Link to sign up
for enotifications
City Hall
infomercials
and blog type
programs
Updates on critical
issues /media
coverage and/or
facts relating to
issues
X City of
Hermosa
Beach

COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS
The PIO is to submit quarterly reports to the City Manager and City Council. These reports will include the following:
 Stories covered within each category of our “news pillars” of the Communications Matrix
 Snapshot of headlines & analysis of coverage from local papers  Opportunities / Quarterly Planning for City Communications in the upcoming Quarter The delivery deadlines of these reports are included below:

Q1 (Jan. – March 2015) Due Friday, April 3
Q2 (Apr. – June 2015) Due Friday, July 10
Q3 (July – Sept. 2015) Due Friday, Oct. 9
Q4 (Oct. – Dec. 2015) Due Friday, Jan. 8
###
Formatted: Font color: Text 1

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CMO-034
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council

DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE & ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2024 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
(City Manager Suja Lowenthal)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Designate a voting delegate and an alternate for the League of California Cities General Assembly taking place on Friday, October 18, 2024 at the Long Beach Convention Center; and

2. Provide direction to the voting delegate and alternate regarding the City’s position on the League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution (Attachment 2).

Executive Summary:

It is customary for City Council to designate a voting delegate and alternate each year through a formal Council action in anticipation of the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo. In order to vote on any matter during the annual business meeting, City Council must designate a voting delegate and alternate to represent the City’s position.

This year, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) received one resolution to be considered at the annual conference. Additional petitioned resolutions may still be introduced during the conference, and if qualified, would be considered by the General Assembly.

Background:

The League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled for October 16 to 18, 2024. Each year, the conference includes an annual business meeting, where the Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish policy.

Cal Cities’ bylaws stipulate that each city is entitled to one vote on matters affecting municipal or Cal Cities policy. Therefore, in order to vote at the annual business meeting, Cal Cities has requested cities to designate by City Council approval a voting delegate and up to two alternates to represent their respective cities. In addition, proof of designation, which reflects the action taken by Council, is required.

Analysis:

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 3
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within Cal Cities. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through Cal Cities’ eight standing Policy Committees and the Board of Directors. The process allows timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop Cal Cities policy and help guide cities and Cal Cities in its efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness, and vitality of local government in California.

This year, there is only one resolution for consideration by the League’s membership. A summary of this resolution is provided below. A full description and formal analysis of the resolution by League staff and the respective sponsors can be found in the Annual Conference Resolutions Packet (Attachment 2).

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL

OFFICIALS AT ALL LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The policy proposal states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
This resolution states that examples of the California Legislature imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:
 The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq.;  “One-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
 Rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”); and
 Rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 3
The current City Council delegate to Cal Cities Los Angeles County Division is Mayor Dean Francois, currently registered for the Cal Cities Annual Conference, and the current alternate is Mayor Pro Tem Rob Saemann. However, any Councilmember may be designated the voting delegate or alternate for the annual business meeting. The voting delegate form must be submitted to Cal Cities through the online portal by Wednesday, September 25, 2024.

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 1. A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process.

Policy:
 1.6 Long-term Considerations. Prioritize decisions that provide long-term community benefit and discourage decisions that provide short-term community benefit but reduce long-term opportunities.

Goal 4. A leader and partner in the region.

Policies:
 4.1 Regional Governance. Play an active role in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, the Southern California Association of Governments and other regional agencies to protect and promote the interests of the City.  4.3 Collaboration with Adjacent Jurisdictions. Maintain strong collaborative relationships with adjacent jurisdictions and work together on projects of mutual interest and concern.

Fiscal Impact:

The League of California Cities Annual Conference will be held at the Long Beach Convention Center from October 16 to 18, 2024. Attendance is approved and funds are appropriated in in the adopted FY 2024–2025 Budget for conference travel and related expenses.

Attachments:

1. 2024 Voting Delegate Information Packet

2. 2024 Resolutions Packet
Respectfully Submitted by: Ann Yang, Executive Assistant Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). Page 776 of 807 2023-2024

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Daniel T. Parra
Mayor
Fowler
First Vice President
Lynne Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Second Vice President
Gabe Quinto
Council Member,
El Cerrito
Immediate Past President
Ali Sajjad Taj
Mayor Pro Tem,
Artesia
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 28, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, and City Clerks RE: Cal Cities 2024 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the Aug. 17 deadline.

The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, supporting letters from city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process.

We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a city position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.

Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Sept. 25. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The Cal Cities 2024 General Assembly will be held Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. in the Long Beach Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.

2024
Resolutions
Packet

2024 Resolutions Packet
Information on 2024 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, the Cal Cities President has referred the submitted resolution to the Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee. The committee will meet on Oct. 3 at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Oct. 17 at 1:30 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consists of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. to consider any qualified resolutions. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked-in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Oct. 17. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page four of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked-in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite.

1 Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). Page 780 of 807 2 2024 Resolutions Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The below table shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly.

3 2024 Resolutions Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. It an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.

4 2024 Resolutions Packet
2024 Resolution

1. Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels submitted by City of Glendora
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
ii. Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
iii. Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
iv. Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
v. John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes • Referred to Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:

5 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Fair and Equal
Treatment of All Governmental
Officials at All Levels submitted by
City of Glendora

6 2024 Resolutions Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE

FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS AT ALL

LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Source: City of Glendora
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
City Officials: April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia; Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa; Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne; Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita; John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Referred to: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy Committee
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities objects to the practice of the California Legislature of imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California; and WHEREAS, examples of such rules or regulations that apply to local city elected officials that do not otherwise apply to the elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:

California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq., which purport to “declare[] that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly,” but which limits its application to “local agencies,” but not including elected officials of the State of California; Creating “one-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which purportedly requires all government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project in order to demolish and then rebuild State offices for the Governor and other State officials;

7 2024 Resolutions Packet
Adopting rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”), by removing the exception for local elected officers from contribution limits requiring disqualification on development project decisions,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
Adopting rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office, including, but not limited to: prohibiting the making a contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject to the AB 571; requiring a candidate that has qualified as a committee to establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for each specific office; prohibiting a candidate from redesignating a committee for one election for another election.

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities now calls upon the Governor and the California Legislature to adopt a policy, practice, and procedure requiring, in their legislative activities, that “what applies to one applies to all.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2024 in Long Beach, California, that the League calls upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”

8 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence

9 July 10, 2024
The City Council of Glendora
is proposing the following resolution for consideration at the California League of Cities annual conference
on
October 18, 2024
Proposed Resolution: (“To ensure fairness and equal treatment for all government officials in California”)
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not approve, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
The following five city council members are in concurrence with their letters of support (attached):
✓ Mayor John Cruikshank, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
✓ Mayor Bill Uphoff, City of Lomita
✓ Mayor Robert Gonzales, City of Azusa
✓ Mayor April Verlato, City of Arcadia
✓ Mayor Tim Hepburn, City of La Verne
Please confirm receipt of this request.

Sincerely,
Michael Allawos
Council Member
City of Glendora

10

11

12

13

14

15 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis

16 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Johnnie Pina, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Committee: Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Summary:

This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
Background:

This resolution states that examples of the California Legislature imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:
• California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq.;
• “One-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
• Rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”); and
• Rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office.

Ralph M. Brown Act
The California Attorney General’s (AG) Office defines The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) as what governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The AG’s office states the Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other.

The Ralph M. Brown Act governs local agencies, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act covers all state boards and commissions, and Government code

17 9027 governs the state Legislature. The California Constitution also mandates open meetings for state agencies, boards, and commissions. Specifically, the Constitution requires that each local agency comply with the Brown Act (Article I, section 3(b)(7)): and that the proceedings of each house of the Legislature be open and public (with exceptions for employment matters; matters affecting security; confer with legal counsel; and to meet as a caucus (Article IV, section 7).

Although fairly detailed requirements apply to state agencies and other state bodies, they do not apply to the Legislature. The Legislature has Constitutional authority to adopt rules for its proceedings that are consistent with the requirement that the proceedings of each house and the committees be open and public.

Another notable difference between the Legislature and a city council is the ability for Legislators to have a caucus to discuss a bill, express how they will vote, and to count votes. This is not allowed under the Brown Act. One other difference is that the laws governing teleconferencing for members of the state Legislature is far less flexible than it is for local bodies. However, state agencies have more flexibility than locals in that regard.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
The Resolution cites the Legislature's action in exempting from CEQA the reconstruction of the State Capitol Annex building. The State Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970, establishing it as a public disclosure law for the environmental review of discretionary projects and a process for mitigating or avoiding potential environmental impacts.

SB 174 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 74, Statutes of 2024 was signed into law July 2, 2024. This bill exempts the work performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this example the Legislature exempted themselves as not being considered a “public agency,” “state agency,” or “lead agency” under CEQA. A lead agency under CEQA is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that is subject to CEQA.

Over the years, the Legislature has also created many CEQA exceptions and exemptions for local projects involving local agencies as well.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Senate Bill No. 1439
SB 1439 (Glazer) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 848, Statutes of 2022 amends section 84308 and is aimed at preventing "pay-to-play" practices, in part by prohibiting parties, participants, and their respective agents in a

18 proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use from contributing more than $250 to an officer of an agency during a 12 month period. When the Levine Act was first enacted in 1982, Section 84308 applied to appointed members of boards and commissions who were running for elective office. SB 1439 expended this law to now apply to local elected officials. Since it is focused on permits and licenses, it now applies to State agencies and local agencies that approve permits and licenses. Section 84308 does not apply to the Legislature or the Courts. It is important to note that unlike local governments, neither issue permits and licenses.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Assembly Bill No. 571
AB 571 (Mullin) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 556, Statutes of 2019 established default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. This bill permitted a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

The Resolution cites AB 571 as an example of treating cities differently than the State. The Fair Political Practices Commission clarifies in their AB 571 fact sheet that under AB 571 a city may elect to have "no" contribution limit in which case the state contribution limit will not apply as a default for that jurisdiction. A city or county can set contribution limits higher than the default state limit, AB 571 sets a default in line with contributions Assembly Members and Senators if a city or county is silent on contribution limits.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown.

Existing Cal Cities Policy:

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe:
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility. The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities.
• Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy. The active participation of all city officials increases Cal Cities’ effectiveness.

19 • Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Comments:

Additional Examples
The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed many laws that apply to local governments and do not apply to the state or the state Legislature. This year AB 2561(McKinnor) was introduced, which requires local governments to present in a public meeting a detailed report about their vacancy rates and detailed information about their hiring practices. This is an attempt to address public sector vacancy rates. This bill does not apply to the state in a time when they are also dealing with high vacancy rates.

Additionally, there were several bills that aim to amend the Levine Act, which now applies to local elected officials, to make changes to SB 1439, referenced previously in the analysis. None of the bills would amend the law to be applicable to Assembly Members or Senators.

AB 817 (Pacheco), co-sponsored by Cal Cities tried to bring parity to the Brown Act by making the teleconference rules for state advisory bodies the same for local advisory bodies but the Legislature struck the bill down.

Applying to elected officials or to the legislative body? Legislature or the State? The resolution also states, “… applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate.”
This portion of the resolve clause is specifically speaking to local elected officials and State Assembly Members and Senators. However, many of the “where as” clauses are in reference to laws that apply to cities, the state and the Legislature as government agencies and not specifically to the elected officials on the governing bodies. For example, the Brown Act applies rules to the Legislative body and not the individual council member. Additionally, the city council as a whole is the lead agency under CEQA and not the individual council members.

Inherent Powers of the Legislative Branch
The resolution also states, “This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
It is unclear what inherent powers of the legislate branch under the California Constitution means in this context. The legislative branch does have the power

20 of preemption over cities and can state that a change in law is a matter of state wide concern. This allows the legislative branch to apply new laws or amend existing laws to apply to general law and charter cities. It seems like the last sentence of the resolve clause could negate the rest of the resolve clause if not clarified.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes

21 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Staff Report No. 24-CMO-035
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council

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

The tentative future agenda provides a preliminary preview of topics planned for discussion at upcoming City Council meetings over a specified period, typically the next three months. The items listed in this document are "tentatively" scheduled, meaning they are subject to change and should not be considered final until the official agenda for each meeting is posted. This document is a work in progress and offers a glimpse into the City's priorities and planned discussions, allowing stakeholders to anticipate and prepare for potential topics of interest.

Key Features of a Tentative Future Agenda Document:

1. Tentative Schedule: Each agenda item is assigned a tentative date, indicating when it is expected to be discussed. These dates are provisional and may be adjusted based on various factors.

2. Work in Progress: The document is continuously updated as new items emerge, priorities shift, or additional information becomes available. This flexibility ensures City Council can address the most pressing issues in a timely manner.

3. Transparency and Communication: By publishing a tentative future agenda, the City aims to maintain transparency with residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. It helps the community stay informed about potential topics of discussion and provides an opportunity for public engagement and preparation.

4. Fluid Scheduling: The scheduling of agenda items is fluid until the official agenda for a specific City Council meeting is posted. Changes can occur due to various reasons, such as new developments, additional preparatory work required, or changes in workload or priority.

Attachment:

Tentative Future Agenda Items

September 3, 2024
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council September 10, 2024

TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024 @ 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, CLOSED SESSION REPORT, ANNOUNCEMENTS,

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PRESENTATIONS

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE SERVICES AND
MCCORMICK AMBULANCE 2024 SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW
RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 2, 2024 AS CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR DAY

AND UPDATE ON CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE TRANSITION

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Public Works Director Update
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 July and August 2024
Finance Director Ongoing
Action minutes of the Civil Service Board Meeting of July 17, 2024 Interim Human Resources Manager Ongoing City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report for July and August 2024 City Treasurer Ongoing Cancellation of Certain Checks City Treasurer Ongoing
Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Action minutes of the Public Works Commission Meeting of July 17, 2024 Public Works Director Ongoing Action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Meeting of August 6, 2024
Community Resources Director Ongoing
Action Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2024 Community Development Director Ongoing Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Community Development Director Ongoing Approval of Long-Term Agreement Negotiations with Indivisible Arts for State of the Art
Community Resources Staff Request
Aug 28, 2024
Approval of 2025 Returning Impact Level III Events Community Resources Staff Request Aug 28, 2024
First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Civic Solutions for staff augmentation services
Community Development Director Staff Request
Aug 21, 2024

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Economic Development Strategy Progress Report Community Development Director Semi-Annual Approve Grant Agreement with the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for their Selective Traffic Enforcement Program Grant
Police Staff Request
Sept 3, 2024
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing

2 OCTOBER 8, 2024 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
OCTOBER 8, 2024 @ 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, CLOSED SESSION REPORT, ANNOUNCEMENTS,

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PRESENTATIONS

RECOGNIZING PLANNING COMMISSIONER MARIE RICE FOR HER SERVICE TO THE CITY PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 2024 AS BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH AND OCTOBER 13, 2024 AS METASTATIC BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Public Works Director Update
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
Action minutes of the Civil Service Board Meeting of August 21, 2024 Interim Human Resources Manager Ongoing Los Angeles Fire and Ambulance Monthly Report for August 2024 Emergency Management Coordinator
Monthly
Fourth Amendment to Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Willdan Engineering to Provide Staff Augmentation
Community Development Staff Request
Sept 3, 2024
PUBLIC HEARINGS – 6:30 PM

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2024

SPECIAL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION @ 5:00 P.M.

STUDY SESSION: LIVING STREETS @ 7:00 P.M.

3 OCTOBER 22, 2024 @ 4:00 PM

INTERVIEWS FOR PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 2024 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION

OCTOBER 22, 2024 @ 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, CLOSED SESSION REPORT, ANNOUNCEMENTS,

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PRESENTATIONS

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Public Works Director Update
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 September 2024
Finance Director Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report for September 2024 City Treasurer Ongoing Cancellation of Certain Checks City Treasurer Ongoing
Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Meeting of September 3, 2024
Community Resources Director Ongoing
Approval of 2025 Returning Impact Level III Special Events Community Resources Director Staff Request Action Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 15, 2024 Community Development Director Ongoing Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Community Development Director Ongoing

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2024

STUDY SESSION PLACEHOLDER

4 NOVEMBER 12, 2024 @ 4:00 PM

INTERVIEWS FOR LA COUNTY WEST VECTOR & VECTOR-BORNE DISEASE

CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 2024 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL

DATE CLOSED SESSION
NOVEMBER 12, 2024 @ 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, CLOSED SESSION REPORT, ANNOUNCEMENTS,

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

PRESENTATIONS

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Public Works Director Update
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
Action minutes of the Civil Service Board Meeting of September 18, 2024 Interim Human Resources Manager Ongoing Action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Meeting of October 1, 2024
Community Resources Director Ongoing
Los Angeles Fire and Ambulance Monthly Report for September 2024 Emergency Management Coordinator
Monthly
First Amendment to Contract for Pegasus Studios City Clerk Staff Request Aug 28, 2024
Maddy Act – List of Regular and Ongoing Board and Commission Appointive Terms that will Expire During 2025 Calendar Year City Clerk Staff Request
Aug 28, 2024
PUBLIC HEARINGS – 6:30 PM
Approval of 2025 New Special Events Community Resources Staff Request

MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Designation of a Maximum Amount of Fee Waivers for Special Events Held in 2025
Community Resources Staff Request
Appointment of a Representative to the Los Angeles County West Vector and Vector-Borne Disease Control District Board
City Clerk Two-Year Term
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2024

NO MEETING (DARK)

5 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2024

CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS AND

INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10 & 24, 2024

NO MEETINGS (DARK)

PENDING STRATEGIC PLAN ITEMS STATUS /

TENTATIVE MEETING DATE
Beach Policy/Regulations (Continued from meeting of October 27, 2016) Community Resources Director
This item will be addressed
through the creation of the
Volleyball Court Use Policy, to
be reviewed by City Council in
FY 2024-25 (tentative/date to
be determined)
Alternative Fuel Transportation Report, Nov. 2016 Environmental Analyst

PENDING NEW ITEMS STATUS /

TENTATIVE MEETING DATE
Approval of the Municipal Lease Policy
Initiated by: Staff Request Jun. 12, 2018
Community Resources
Director
Waiting on a building
assessment of the Kiwanis
Building, Rotary Building, and
Lawn Bowling Club to
determine the level of
maintenance, repairs, and
future upgrades that may be
needed and required by the
City.

Landscape and Street Lighting District Assessment Adjustment (mail-in election authorization)
Initiated by: Council Direction Jul. 9, 2019
Public Works Director Council approved $25,000 in
the FY 2023-2024 Budget to
study the District rates and to
consider creating a new
supplemental district. The
study will seek to address the
annual operating deficit, so that
no further subsidies from the
General Fund or other
discretionary funds would be
required. The study should
include District-related
recommendations from the
Parks Master Plan, thereby,
shifting completion of the study
to FY 2024-25. The study is
anticipated to take
approximately 4 to 6 months to
complete pending staff
availability. If council agrees to
then advance the adjustment, it
will need to go to a city-wide
ballot in compliance with
Proposition 218.

Public Records Request Guidelines
Initiated by: Staff Request Oct. 14, 2019
City Clerk
Emergency Services Municipal Code Chapter 2.56 Update Emergency Management
Coordinator
Waiting for State to review
proposed language changes

6 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
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
City to provide events for the
Mayor’s Pledge criteria
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
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
The next update to City
Council will be in 2026
Consideration of Non-Profit Grant Program
Initiated by: Council Direction March 9, 2022
Deputy City Manager
Consideration of rules that would govern operation of off-sale alcohol establishments in downtown and consideration of queuing for on-sale alcohol establishments. (supported by Massey, Saemann and Detoy) Initiated by: Council Direction June 13, 2023
Community
Development/Police
Chief/Deputy City
Manager
Ordinance to be established to
address items
Review of Los Angeles Metro C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance (supported by Jackson, Detoy and Francois)
Initiated by: Council Direction September 26, 2023
City Manager
Information Item: Discussion Regarding the Creation of an Informal Civic Facilities Community Advisory Group
(supported by Francois and Saemann)
Initiated by: Council Direction February 27, 2024
City Manager This item will return to City
Council when the community
engagement process is
expected to begin.

Consideration of a Revocation Policy for Parking Permits Related to ShortTerm Rental Violations Initiated by: Council Direction April 9, 2024
Community
Development Director
Consideration of a Letter of Support for AB 687
Initiated by: Council Direction April 9, 2024
Deputy City Manager
Update the City Communications Plan
Initiated by: Council Direction June 1, 2024
City Manager
Consideration of City to cover initial cost to establish Tourism Improvement District (TID) to be reimbursed by Chamber of Commerce (supported by Detoy, Francois, and Jackson)
City Manager

7 Initiated by: Council Direction June 25, 2024
Information Item on Options for Enforcement of Administrative Fines (supported by Jackson, Massey, and Saemann)
Initiated by: Council Direction July 23, 2024
Community
Development Director
Request Public Works Commission to review fines and other consequences involved with illegal tree removal and return to Council as an action item for discussion and deliberation.
(supported by Saemann, Francois, Detoy)
Initiated by: Council Direction August 13, 2024
Public Works