Hermosa Beach City Council
March 24, 2026

G-6
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $154,000 General Requirements 5.0% $154,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $462,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $3,847,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $115,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $96,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $192,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $96,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $115,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $154,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $1,154,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $5,769,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2045 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $12,641,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Field Investigations 120 DAY 5/15/2043 9/12/2043
Design Plans & Specifications 150 DAY 9/12/2043 2/9/2044Environmental Permitting 420 DAY 2/9/2044 4/4/2045Bidding & Contracting 150 DAY 4/4/2045 9/1/2045Construction 210 DAY 9/1/2045 3/30/2046

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
2045 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-7
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 19 EA $5,000 $95,000 $8,000 $152,000 $13,000 $247,000 $26,000 $494,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 325 CF $275 $89,375 $1,100 $357,500 $1,050 $341,250 $2,425 $788,125C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 190 LF $30 $5,700 $40 $7,600 $55 $10,450 $125 $23,750D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 330 CF $275 $90,750 $1,100 $363,000 $1,150 $379,500 $2,525 $833,250E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 500 LF $30 $15,000 $40 $20,000 $60 $30,000 $130 $65,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 2400 LF $8 $19,200 $2 $4,800 $15 $36,000 $25 $60,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 7300 SF $40 $292,000 $5 $36,500 $60 $438,000 $105 $766,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 700 SF $70 $49,000 $55 $38,500 $90 $63,000 $215 $150,500J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $30,000 $60,000 $95,000 $190,000 $175,000 $350,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $3,531,000 PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE 2050 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS

G-8
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $177,000 General Requirements 5.0% $177,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $530,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $4,415,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $132,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $110,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $221,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $110,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $132,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $177,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $1,325,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $6,622,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2050 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $17,654,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Field Investigations 120 DAY 5/14/2048 9/11/2048
Design Plans & Specifications 150 DAY 9/11/2048 2/8/2049Environmental Permitting 420 DAY 2/8/2049 4/4/2050Bidding & Contracting 150 DAY 4/4/2050 9/1/2050Construction 210 DAY 9/1/2050 3/30/2051

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
2050 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-9
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 20 EA $5,000 $100,000 $8,000 $160,000 $13,000 $260,000 $26,000 $520,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 355 CF $275 $97,625 $1,100 $390,500 $1,050 $372,750 $2,425 $860,875C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 210 LF $30 $6,300 $40 $8,400 $55 $11,550 $125 $26,250D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 390 CF $275 $107,250 $1,100 $429,000 $1,150 $448,500 $2,525 $984,750E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 600 LF $30 $18,000 $40 $24,000 $60 $36,000 $130 $78,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 2600 LF $8 $20,800 $2 $5,200 $15 $39,000 $25 $65,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 8000 SF $40 $320,000 $5 $40,000 $60 $480,000 $105 $840,000H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 800 SF $70 $56,000 $55 $44,000 $90 $72,000 $215 $172,000J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $30,000 $60,000 $95,000 $190,000 $175,000 $350,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $3,897,000 PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE 2055 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS

G-10
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $195,000 General Requirements 5.0% $195,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $585,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $4,872,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $146,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $122,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $244,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $122,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $146,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $195,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $1,462,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $7,309,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2055 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $23,706,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Field Investigations 120 DAY 5/14/2053 9/11/2053
Design Plans & Specifications 150 DAY 9/11/2053 2/8/2054Environmental Permitting 420 DAY 2/8/2054 4/4/2055Bidding & Contracting 150 DAY 4/4/2055 9/1/2055Construction 210 DAY 9/1/2055 3/29/2056

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
2055 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-11
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 21 EA $5,000 $105,000 $8,000 $168,000 $13,000 $273,000 $26,000 $546,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 390 CF $275 $107,250 $1,100 $429,000 $1,050 $409,500 $2,425 $945,750C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 230 LF $30 $6,900 $40 $9,200 $55 $12,650 $125 $28,750D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 440 CF $275 $121,000 $1,100 $484,000 $1,150 $506,000 $2,525 $1,111,000E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 750 LF $30 $22,500 $40 $30,000 $60 $45,000 $130 $97,500F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 2900 LF $8 $23,200 $2 $5,800 $15 $43,500 $25 $72,500G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 8900 SF $40 $356,000 $5 $44,500 $60 $534,000 $105 $934,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 900 SF $70 $63,000 $55 $49,500 $90 $81,000 $215 $193,500J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place 2 EA $50,000 $100,000 $30,000 $60,000 $95,000 $190,000 $175,000 $350,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $4,280,000 PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE 2060 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS

G-12
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $214,000 General Requirements 5.0% $214,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $642,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $5,350,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $161,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $134,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $268,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $134,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $161,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $214,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $1,605,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $8,027,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2060 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $31,676,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Field Investigations 120 DAY 5/15/2058 9/12/2058
Design Plans & Specifications 150 DAY 9/12/2058 2/9/2059Environmental Permitting 420 DAY 2/9/2059 4/4/2060Bidding & Contracting 150 DAY 4/4/2060 9/1/2060Construction 210 DAY 9/1/2060 3/30/2061

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
2060 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-13
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 22 EA $5,000 $110,000 $8,000 $176,000 $13,000 $286,000 $26,000 $572,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 430 CF $275 $118,250 $1,100 $473,000 $1,050 $451,500 $2,425 $1,042,750C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 255 LF $30 $7,650 $40 $10,200 $55 $14,025 $125 $31,875D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 490 CF $275 $134,750 $1,100 $539,000 $1,150 $563,500 $2,525 $1,237,250E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 850 LF $30 $25,500 $40 $34,000 $60 $51,000 $130 $110,500F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 3200 LF $8 $25,600 $2 $6,400 $15 $48,000 $25 $80,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 9700 SF $40 $388,000 $5 $48,500 $60 $582,000 $105 $1,018,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 1000 SF $70 $70,000 $55 $55,000 $90 $90,000 $215 $215,000J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place 3 EA $50,000 $150,000 $30,000 $90,000 $95,000 $285,000 $175,000 $525,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $4,833,000 PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE 2065 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS

G-14
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $242,000 General Requirements 5.0% $242,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $725,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $6,042,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $181,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $151,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $302,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $151,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $181,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $242,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $1,813,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $9,063,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2065 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $43,512,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Field Investigations 120 DAY 5/15/2063 9/12/2063
Design Plans & Specifications 150 DAY 9/12/2063 2/9/2064Environmental Permitting 420 DAY 2/9/2064 4/4/2065Bidding & Contracting 150 DAY 4/4/2065 9/1/2065Construction 210 DAY 9/1/2065 3/30/2066

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
2065 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-15
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 23 EA $5,000 $115,000 $8,000 $184,000 $13,000 $299,000 $26,000 $598,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 475 CF $275 $130,625 $1,100 $522,500 $1,050 $498,750 $2,425 $1,151,875C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 280 LF $30 $8,400 $40 $11,200 $55 $15,400 $125 $35,000D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 540 CF $275 $148,500 $1,100 $594,000 $1,150 $621,000 $2,525 $1,363,500E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 950 LF $30 $28,500 $40 $38,000 $60 $57,000 $130 $123,500F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 3500 LF $8 $28,000 $2 $7,000 $15 $52,500 $25 $87,500G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 10700 SF $40 $428,000 $5 $53,500 $60 $642,000 $105 $1,123,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 1200 SF $70 $84,000 $55 $66,000 $90 $108,000 $215 $258,000J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place 3 EA $50,000 $150,000 $30,000 $90,000 $95,000 $285,000 $175,000 $525,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $5,266,000 PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE 2070 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS

G-16
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $263,000 General Requirements 5.0% $263,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $790,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $6,582,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $197,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $165,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $329,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $165,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $197,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $263,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $1,975,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $9,873,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2070 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $57,670,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Field Investigations 120 DAY 5/14/2068 9/11/2068
Design Plans & Specifications 150 DAY 9/11/2068 2/8/2069Environmental Permitting 420 DAY 2/8/2069 4/4/2070Bidding & Contracting 150 DAY 4/4/2070 9/1/2070Construction 210 DAY 9/1/2070 3/30/2071

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
2070 PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-17
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Replacement Planning Cost Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Demolish Existing Pier $157 / SF Cutoff Concrete Piles at Mudline & Dispose 135 EA $10 $1,350 $260 $35,100 $295 $39,825 $565 $76,275 Remove & Dispose Concrete Pile Caps 36 EA $170 $6,120 $8,950 $322,200 $9,460 $340,560 $18,580 $668,880 Remove & Dispose Concrete Deck Panels 24840 SF $2 $49,680 $50 $1,242,000 $60 $1,490,400 $112 $2,782,080 Remove & Dispose Metal Railing 2360 LF $2 $4,720 $15 $35,400 $30 $70,800 $47 $110,920 Remove & Dispose Utilities 24840 SF $1 $24,840 $5 $124,200 $5 $124,200 $11 $273,240 Relocate / Salvage Surface Amenities 85 EA $1 $85 $25 $2,125 $100 $8,500 $126 $10,710 (~60 Surfer Plaques, ~25 Benches, ~10 Trash Cans)B) Build New Pier Structure $589 / SF Build New Concrete Pier Structure 25000 SF $165 $4,125,000 $135 $3,375,000 $270 $6,750,000 $570 $14,250,000 Install New Metal Guardrailing 2500 LF $75 $187,500 $25 $62,500 $75 $187,500 $175 $437,500 Install New Metal Gate 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000C) Pier Utilities & Amenities $103 / SF Electrical, Lighting, Water, Sewer, Telecomm 25000 SF $25 $625,000 $15 $375,000 $40 $1,000,000 $80 $2,000,000 Benches, Trash Cans, Bait Stations, Fog Horn 25000 SF $8 $200,000 $3 $75,000 $8 $200,000 $19 $475,000 Utility Realignment at New Pierhead 1 LS $35,000 $35,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $100,000 $100,000D) Pier Construction Phasing Staging, Temporary Conditions, Traffic Controls 18 MO $400 $7,200 $5,000 $90,000 $30,000 $540,000 $35,400 $637,200 Phasing / Temporary Structure for Pier Access 18 MO $30,000 $540,000 $25,000 $450,000 $50,000 $900,000 $105,000 $1,890,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $950 / SF $23,742,000Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $1,187,000 General Requirements 5.0% $1,187,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $3,561,000 PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

REPLACE MUNICIPAL PIER

G-18
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Replacement Planning Cost Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $29,677,000Construction Design & Administration Planning Studies 1.0% $297,000 Public Outreach 1.0% $297,000 Environmental Assessment & Permitting 4.0% $1,187,000 Grant Funding Applications - Consultant Assistance 0.5% $148,000 Field Investigations 1.0% $297,000 Topographic & Hydrographic Surveys 0.5% $148,000 Geotechnical Investigations 1.0% $297,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $1,484,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 1.0% $297,000 Special Inspections 2.0% $594,000 Construction Administration 3.0% $890,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $8,903,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $1,781 / SF $44,516,000 TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COST IN 2032 DOLLARS ASSUMING ANNUAL INFLATION OF 4.0% $58,580,000 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Start Finish
Planning Studies & Public Outreach 540 DAY 12/7/2025 5/31/2027 18 months Environmental Assessment 1020 DAY 5/31/2027 3/16/2030 34 monthsField Investigations 180 DAY 3/16/2030 9/12/2030 6 monthsDesign Plans & Specifications 180 DAY 9/12/2030 3/11/2031 6 monthsEnvironmental Permitting 420 DAY 3/11/2031 5/4/2032 14 monthsBidding & Contracting 150 DAY 5/4/2032 10/1/2032 5 monthsConstruction 540 DAY 10/1/2032 3/25/2034 18 months

8.3 years

ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

REPLACE MUNICIPAL PIER
PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST

G-19
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket EA $5,000 $8,000 $13,000 $26,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 35 CF $275 $9,625 $1,100 $38,500 $1,050 $36,750 $2,425 $84,875C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 50 LF $30 $1,500 $40 $2,000 $55 $2,750 $125 $6,250D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish CF $275 $1,100 $1,150 $2,525E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit LF $30 $40 $60 $130F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 400 LF $8 $3,200 $2 $800 $15 $6,000 $25 $10,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 350 SF $40 $14,000 $5 $1,750 $60 $21,000 $105 $36,750H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates SF $70 $55 $90 $215J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $138,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 15 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-20
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $7,000 General Requirements 15.0% $21,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $21,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 35.0% $187,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 8.0% $15,000 Environmental Permitting 7.0% $13,000 Design Plans & Specifications 9.0% $17,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 3.0% $6,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $6,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $7,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $56,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 64.0% $307,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 15 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-21
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 4 EA $5,000 $20,000 $8,000 $32,000 $13,000 $52,000 $26,000 $104,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 50 CF $275 $13,750 $1,100 $55,000 $1,050 $52,500 $2,425 $121,250C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 60 LF $30 $1,800 $40 $2,400 $55 $3,300 $125 $7,500D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 25 CF $275 $6,875 $1,100 $27,500 $1,150 $28,750 $2,525 $63,125E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 50 LF $30 $1,500 $40 $2,000 $60 $3,000 $130 $6,500F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 600 LF $8 $4,800 $2 $1,200 $15 $9,000 $25 $15,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 600 SF $40 $24,000 $5 $3,000 $60 $36,000 $105 $63,000H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates SF $70 $55 $90 $215J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $380,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 20 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-22
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $19,000 General Requirements 10.0% $38,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $57,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 30.0% $494,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 9.0% $44,000 Environmental Permitting 6.0% $30,000 Design Plans & Specifications 7.0% $35,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 3.0% $15,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $15,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $20,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $148,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 62.0% $801,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 20 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-23
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 5 EA $5,000 $25,000 $8,000 $40,000 $13,000 $65,000 $26,000 $130,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 100 CF $275 $27,500 $1,100 $110,000 $1,050 $105,000 $2,425 $242,500C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 70 LF $30 $2,100 $40 $2,800 $55 $3,850 $125 $8,750D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 50 CF $275 $13,750 $1,100 $55,000 $1,150 $57,500 $2,525 $126,250E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 100 LF $30 $3,000 $40 $4,000 $60 $6,000 $130 $13,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 800 LF $8 $6,400 $2 $1,600 $15 $12,000 $25 $20,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 1100 SF $40 $44,000 $5 $5,500 $60 $66,000 $105 $115,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates SF $70 $55 $90 $215J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $656,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 25 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-24
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $33,000 General Requirements 8.0% $52,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $98,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 28.0% $839,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 6.0% $50,000 Environmental Permitting 3.5% $29,000 Design Plans & Specifications 6.0% $50,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $21,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $25,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $34,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $252,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 55.0% $1,300,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 25 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-25
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 6 EA $5,000 $30,000 $8,000 $48,000 $13,000 $78,000 $26,000 $156,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 125 CF $275 $34,375 $1,100 $137,500 $1,050 $131,250 $2,425 $303,125C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 80 LF $30 $2,400 $40 $3,200 $55 $4,400 $125 $10,000D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 100 CF $275 $27,500 $1,100 $110,000 $1,150 $115,000 $2,525 $252,500E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 200 LF $30 $6,000 $40 $8,000 $60 $12,000 $130 $26,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 1100 LF $8 $8,800 $2 $2,200 $15 $16,500 $25 $27,500G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 1900 SF $40 $76,000 $5 $9,500 $60 $114,000 $105 $199,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates SF $70 $55 $90 $215J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $975,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 30 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-26
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $49,000 General Requirements 6.0% $59,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $146,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 26.0% $1,229,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 4.5% $55,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $31,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $61,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $31,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $37,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $49,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $369,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 51.5% $1,862,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 30 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-27
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 7 EA $5,000 $35,000 $8,000 $56,000 $13,000 $91,000 $26,000 $182,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 150 CF $275 $41,250 $1,100 $165,000 $1,050 $157,500 $2,425 $363,750C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 90 LF $30 $2,700 $40 $3,600 $55 $4,950 $125 $11,250D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 150 CF $275 $41,250 $1,100 $165,000 $1,150 $172,500 $2,525 $378,750E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 300 LF $30 $9,000 $40 $12,000 $60 $18,000 $130 $39,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 1600 LF $8 $12,800 $2 $3,200 $15 $24,000 $25 $40,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 3200 SF $40 $128,000 $5 $16,000 $60 $192,000 $105 $336,000H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates SF $70 $55 $90 $215J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $1,351,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 35 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-28
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $68,000 General Requirements 5.0% $68,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $203,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $1,690,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $51,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $42,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $85,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $42,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $51,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $68,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $507,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $2,536,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 35 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-29
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 8 EA $5,000 $40,000 $8,000 $64,000 $13,000 $104,000 $26,000 $208,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 200 CF $275 $55,000 $1,100 $220,000 $1,050 $210,000 $2,425 $485,000C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 100 LF $30 $3,000 $40 $4,000 $55 $5,500 $125 $12,500D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 200 CF $275 $55,000 $1,100 $220,000 $1,150 $230,000 $2,525 $505,000E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 400 LF $30 $12,000 $40 $16,000 $60 $24,000 $130 $52,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 2100 LF $8 $16,800 $2 $4,200 $15 $31,500 $25 $52,500G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 6000 SF $40 $240,000 $5 $30,000 $60 $360,000 $105 $630,000H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 300 SF $70 $21,000 $55 $16,500 $90 $27,000 $215 $64,500J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $2,010,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 40 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-30
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $101,000 General Requirements 5.0% $101,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $302,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $2,514,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $75,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $63,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $126,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $63,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $75,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $101,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $754,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $3,771,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 40 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-31
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 1 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL A) Pile Jacket Repair Install Fiberglass Grouted Pile Jacket 9 EA $5,000 $45,000 $8,000 $72,000 $13,000 $117,000 $26,000 $234,000B) Pile Cap Spall Repair Spall Repairs - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 250 CF $275 $68,750 $1,100 $275,000 $1,050 $262,500 $2,425 $606,250C) Pile Cap Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Pile Caps 110 LF $30 $3,300 $40 $4,400 $55 $6,050 $125 $13,750D) Deck Panel Soffit Spall Repair Soffit Spalls - Demo, Rebar, Prep, Patch, Finish 250 CF $275 $68,750 $1,100 $275,000 $1,150 $287,500 $2,525 $631,250E) Deck Panel Soffit Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Soffit 500 LF $30 $15,000 $40 $20,000 $60 $30,000 $130 $65,000F) Deck Panel Top Crack Repair Epoxy Crack Injection - Deck Top Surface 2600 LF $8 $20,800 $2 $5,200 $15 $39,000 $25 $65,000G) Deck Panel Top Spall Repair Top Surface Spalls - Demo, Prep, Patch, Finish 6500 SF $40 $260,000 $5 $32,500 $60 $390,000 $105 $682,500H) Deck Panel FRP Strengthening Panel Soffit - FRP Laminates 400 SF $70 $28,000 $55 $22,000 $90 $36,000 $215 $86,000J) Deck Panel Replacement in-kind Deck Panels - Remove, Cast-in-Place EA $50,000 $30,000 $95,000 $175,000Raw Construction Cost Subtotal $2,384,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 45 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-32
DATE PREPARED:

SHEET: 2 OF 2
ACTIVITY AND LOCATION: A/E CONTRACT NUMBER: A/E PROJECT NUMBER:

Hermosa Beach Pier Capital Planning Hermosa Beach, CA ESTIMATED BY: TASK NUMBER:

PROJECT TITLE: ESN ENGINEERING, PLLC
Municipal Pier Cost / Benefit Analysis STATUS OF DESIGN: PHASE NUMBER:Hermosa Beach, California Capital Improvement Planning

ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL Construction General Requirements Mobilization 5.0% $119,000 General Requirements 5.0% $119,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit 15.0% $358,000Burdened Cost SUBTOTAL 25.0% $2,980,000Construction Design & Administration Field Investigations 3.0% $89,000 Environmental Permitting 2.5% $75,000 Design Plans & Specifications 5.0% $149,000 Designer Construction & Bid Support 2.5% $75,000 Special Inspections 3.0% $89,000 Construction Administration 4.0% $119,000 Construction Contingency 30.0% $894,000TOTAL PROJECT COST IN 2025 DOLLARS 50.0% $4,470,000NEW PIER ANTICIPATED MAINTENANCE COSTS - 45 YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTED PLANNING BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE (2025 Dollars) PRELIMINARY 11/13/2025

QUANTITY MATERIAL COST EQUIPMENT COST LABOR COST ENGINEERING ESTIMATE

G-33
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year that Pier is Replaced Total Costs: $ 108,130,694 $ 106,957,513 $ 106,615,124 $ 106,229,554 $ 106,117,090 $ 105,599,978 $ 103,898,975 $ 104,542,547 $ 105,211,863 $ 105,659,695 $ 107,625,922 $ 109,670,798 $ 111,797,469 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 1 2026 $ 17,120,133 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 2 2027 $ 16,049,502 $ 16,049,502 $ 877,718 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 3 2028 $ 16,691,482 $ 16,691,482 $ 16,691,482 $ 5,624 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 4 2029 $ 11,699 $ 17,359,141 $ 17,359,141 $ 17,359,141 $ 5,849 $ 5,849 $ 5,849 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 5 2030 $ 12,167 $ 12,167 $ 18,053,507 $ 18,053,507 $ 18,053,507 $ 6,083 $ 6,083 $ 6,083 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 6 2031 $ 12,653 $ 12,653 $ 12,653 $ 18,775,647 $ 18,775,647 $ 18,775,647 $ 14,081,735 $ 6,327 $ 6,327 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 7 2032 $ 13,159 $ 13,159 $ 13,159 $ 13,159 $ 19,526,673 $ 19,526,673 $ 14,645,005 $ 14,645,005 $ 6,580 $ 6,580 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 8 2033 $ 13,686 $ 13,686 $ 13,686 $ 13,686 $ 13,686 $ 20,307,740 $ 15,230,805 $ 15,230,805 $ 15,230,805 $ 6,843 $ 6,843 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 9 2034 $ 14,233 $ 14,233 $ 14,233 $ 14,233 $ 14,233 $ 14,233 $ 15,840,037 $ 15,840,037 $ 15,840,037 $ 15,840,037 $ 7,117 $ 7,117 $ 1,247,960 10 2035 $ 14,802 $ 14,802 $ 14,802 $ 14,802 $ 14,802 $ 14,802 $ 14,802 $ 16,473,639 $ 16,473,639 $ 16,473,639 $ 16,473,639 $ 7,401 $ 7,401 11 2036 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 15,395 $ 17,132,584 $ 17,132,584 $ 17,132,584 $ 17,132,584 $ 7,697 12 2037 $ 98,303 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 16,010 $ 17,817,888 $ 17,817,888 $ 17,817,888 $ 17,817,888 13 2038 $ 102,236 $ 102,236 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 16,651 $ 18,530,603 $ 18,530,603 $ 18,530,603 14 2039 $ 106,325 $ 106,325 $ 106,325 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 17,317 $ 19,271,827 $ 19,271,827 15 2040 $ 110,578 $ 110,578 $ 110,578 $ 110,578 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 18,009 $ 20,042,700 16 2041 $ 115,001 $ 115,001 $ 115,001 $ 115,001 $ 115,001 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 $ 18,730 17 2042 $ 312,054 $ 119,601 $ 119,601 $ 119,601 $ 119,601 $ 119,601 $ 19,479 $ 19,479 $ 19,479 $ 19,479 $ 19,479 $ 19,479 $ 19,479 18 2043 $ 324,536 $ 324,536 $ 124,385 $ 124,385 $ 124,385 $ 124,385 $ 124,385 $ 20,258 $ 20,258 $ 20,258 $ 20,258 $ 20,258 $ 20,258 19 2044 $ 337,517 $ 337,517 $ 337,517 $ 129,361 $ 129,361 $ 129,361 $ 129,361 $ 129,361 $ 21,068 $ 21,068 $ 21,068 $ 21,068 $ 21,068 20 2045 $ 351,018 $ 351,018 $ 351,018 $ 351,018 $ 134,535 $ 134,535 $ 134,535 $ 134,535 $ 134,535 $ 21,911 $ 21,911 $ 21,911 $ 21,911 21 2046 $ 365,059 $ 365,059 $ 365,059 $ 365,059 $ 365,059 $ 139,916 $ 139,916 $ 139,916 $ 139,916 $ 139,916 $ 22,788 $ 22,788 $ 22,788 22 2047 $ 616,179 $ 379,661 $ 379,661 $ 379,661 $ 379,661 $ 379,661 $ 145,513 $ 145,513 $ 145,513 $ 145,513 $ 145,513 $ 23,699 $ 23,699 23 2048 $ 640,826 $ 640,826 $ 394,847 $ 394,847 $ 394,847 $ 394,847 $ 394,847 $ 151,334 $ 151,334 $ 151,334 $ 151,334 $ 151,334 $ 24,647 24 2049 $ 666,459 $ 666,459 $ 666,459 $ 410,641 $ 410,641 $ 410,641 $ 410,641 $ 410,641 $ 157,387 $ 157,387 $ 157,387 $ 157,387 $ 157,387 25 2050 $ 693,117 $ 693,117 $ 693,117 $ 693,117 $ 427,067 $ 427,067 $ 427,067 $ 427,067 $ 427,067 $ 163,682 $ 163,682 $ 163,682 $ 163,682 26 2051 $ 720,842 $ 720,842 $ 720,842 $ 720,842 $ 720,842 $ 444,150 $ 444,150 $ 444,150 $ 444,150 $ 444,150 $ 170,230 $ 170,230 $ 170,230 27 2052 $ 1,073,766 $ 749,676 $ 749,676 $ 749,676 $ 749,676 $ 749,676 $ 461,916 $ 461,916 $ 461,916 $ 461,916 $ 461,916 $ 177,039 $ 177,039 28 2053 $ 1,116,717 $ 1,116,717 $ 779,663 $ 779,663 $ 779,663 $ 779,663 $ 779,663 $ 480,392 $ 480,392 $ 480,392 $ 480,392 $ 480,392 $ 184,120 29 2054 $ 1,161,386 $ 1,161,386 $ 1,161,386 $ 810,849 $ 810,849 $ 810,849 $ 810,849 $ 810,849 $ 499,608 $ 499,608 $ 499,608 $ 499,608 $ 499,608 30 2055 $ 1,207,841 $ 1,207,841 $ 1,207,841 $ 1,207,841 $ 843,283 $ 843,283 $ 843,283 $ 843,283 $ 843,283 $ 519,592 $ 519,592 $ 519,592 $ 519,592 31 2056 $ 1,256,155 $ 1,256,155 $ 1,256,155 $ 1,256,155 $ 1,256,155 $ 877,015 $ 877,015 $ 877,015 $ 877,015 $ 877,015 $ 540,376 $ 540,376 $ 540,376 32 2057 $ 1,779,287 $ 1,306,401 $ 1,306,401 $ 1,306,401 $ 1,306,401 $ 1,306,401 $ 912,095 $ 912,095 $ 912,095 $ 912,095 $ 912,095 $ 561,991 $ 561,991 33 2058 $ 1,850,459 $ 1,850,459 $ 1,358,657 $ 1,358,657 $ 1,358,657 $ 1,358,657 $ 1,358,657 $ 948,579 $ 948,579 $ 948,579 $ 948,579 $ 948,579 $ 584,471 34 2059 $ 1,924,477 $ 1,924,477 $ 1,924,477 $ 1,413,003 $ 1,413,003 $ 1,413,003 $ 1,413,003 $ 1,413,003 $ 986,522 $ 986,522 $ 986,522 $ 986,522 $ 986,522 35 2060 $ 2,001,456 $ 2,001,456 $ 2,001,456 $ 2,001,456 $ 1,469,524 $ 1,469,524 $ 1,469,524 $ 1,469,524 $ 1,469,524 $ 1,025,983 $ 1,025,983 $ 1,025,983 $ 1,025,983 36 2061 $ 2,081,515 $ 2,081,515 $ 2,081,515 $ 2,081,515 $ 2,081,515 $ 1,528,304 $ 1,528,304 $ 1,528,304 $ 1,528,304 $ 1,528,304 $ 1,067,022 $ 1,067,022 $ 1,067,022 37 2062 $ 3,218,993 $ 2,164,775 $ 2,164,775 $ 2,164,775 $ 2,164,775 $ 2,164,775 $ 1,589,437 $ 1,589,437 $ 1,589,437 $ 1,589,437 $ 1,589,437 $ 1,109,703 $ 1,109,703 38 2063 $ 3,347,753 $ 3,347,753 $ 2,251,366 $ 2,251,366 $ 2,251,366 $ 2,251,366 $ 2,251,366 $ 1,653,014 $ 1,653,014 $ 1,653,014 $ 1,653,014 $ 1,653,014 $ 1,154,091 39 2064 $ 3,481,663 $ 3,481,663 $ 3,481,663 $ 2,341,421 $ 2,341,421 $ 2,341,421 $ 2,341,421 $ 2,341,421 $ 1,719,135 $ 1,719,135 $ 1,719,135 $ 1,719,135 $ 1,719,135 40 2065 $ 3,620,930 $ 3,620,930 $ 3,620,930 $ 3,620,930 $ 2,435,078 $ 2,435,078 $ 2,435,078 $ 2,435,078 $ 2,435,078 $ 1,787,900 $ 1,787,900 $ 1,787,900 $ 1,787,900 41 2066 $ 3,765,767 $ 3,765,767 $ 3,765,767 $ 3,765,767 $ 3,765,767 $ 2,532,481 $ 2,532,481 $ 2,532,481 $ 2,532,481 $ 2,532,481 $ 1,859,416 $ 1,859,416 $ 1,859,416 42 2067 $ 4,642,349 $ 3,916,398 $ 3,916,398 $ 3,916,398 $ 3,916,398 $ 3,916,398 $ 2,633,780 $ 2,633,780 $ 2,633,780 $ 2,633,780 $ 2,633,780 $ 1,933,793 $ 1,933,793 43 2068 $ 4,828,043 $ 4,828,043 $ 4,073,054 $ 4,073,054 $ 4,073,054 $ 4,073,054 $ 4,073,054 $ 2,739,131 $ 2,739,131 $ 2,739,131 $ 2,739,131 $ 2,739,131 $ 2,011,144 44 2069 $ 5,021,164 $ 5,021,164 $ 5,021,164 $ 4,235,976 $ 4,235,976 $ 4,235,976 $ 4,235,976 $ 4,235,976 $ 2,848,696 $ 2,848,696 $ 2,848,696 $ 2,848,696 $ 2,848,696 45 2070 $ 5,222,011 $ 5,222,011 $ 5,222,011 $ 5,222,011 $ 4,405,415 $ 4,405,415 $ 4,405,415 $ 4,405,415 $ 4,405,415 $ 2,962,644 $ 2,962,644 $ 2,962,644 $ 2,962,644 Year
Cost by Year

G-34
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year that Pier is Replaced Total Costs:
1 2026
2 2027
3 2028
4 2029
5 2030
6 2031
7 2032
8 2033
9 2034
10 2035
11 2036
12 2037
13 2038
14 2039
15 2040
16 2041
17 2042
18 2043
19 2044
20 2045
21 2046
22 2047
23 2048
24 2049
25 2050
26 2051
27 2052
28 2053
29 2054
30 2055
31 2056
32 2057
33 2058
34 2059
35 2060
36 2061
37 2062
38 2063
39 2064
40 2065
41 2066
42 2067
43 2068
44 2069
45 2070
Year
Cost by Year
$ 114,009,207 $ 116,576,664 $ 120,065,705 $ 123,694,307 $ 127,468,054 $ 131,392,751 $ 135,668,102 $ 140,797,276 $ 146,131,618 $ 151,679,334 $ 157,448,958 $ 163,838,125 $ 171,089,126 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 7,697 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 8,005 $ 8,005 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 18,530,603 $ 8,325 $ 8,325 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 19,271,827 $ 19,271,827 $ 8,658 $ 8,658 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 20,042,700 $ 20,042,700 $ 20,042,700 $ 9,005 $ 9,005 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 20,844,408 $ 20,844,408 $ 20,844,408 $ 20,844,408 $ 9,365 $ 9,365 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 19,479 $ 21,678,185 $ 21,678,185 $ 21,678,185 $ 21,678,185 $ 9,740 $ 9,740 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 20,258 $ 20,258 $ 22,545,312 $ 22,545,312 $ 22,545,312 $ 22,545,312 $ 10,129 $ 10,129 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 21,068 $ 21,068 $ 21,068 $ 23,447,124 $ 23,447,124 $ 23,447,124 $ 23,447,124 $ 10,534 $ 10,534 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 21,911 $ 21,911 $ 21,911 $ 21,911 $ 24,385,009 $ 24,385,009 $ 24,385,009 $ 24,385,009 $ 10,956 $ 10,956 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 22,788 $ 22,788 $ 22,788 $ 22,788 $ 22,788 $ 25,360,410 $ 25,360,410 $ 25,360,410 $ 25,360,410 $ 11,394 $ 11,394 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 23,699 $ 23,699 $ 23,699 $ 23,699 $ 23,699 $ 23,699 $ 26,374,826 $ 26,374,826 $ 26,374,826 $ 26,374,826 $ 11,850 $ 11,850 $ 3,138,720 $ 24,647 $ 24,647 $ 24,647 $ 24,647 $ 24,647 $ 24,647 $ 24,647 $ 27,429,819 $ 27,429,819 $ 27,429,819 $ 27,429,819 $ 12,324 $ 12,324 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 25,633 $ 28,527,012 $ 28,527,012 $ 28,527,012 $ 28,527,012 $ 12,817 $ 163,682 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 26,658 $ 29,668,093 $ 29,668,093 $ 29,668,093 $ 29,668,093 $ 170,230 $ 170,230 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 27,725 $ 30,854,816 $ 30,854,816 $ 30,854,816 $ 177,039 $ 177,039 $ 177,039 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 28,834 $ 32,089,009 $ 32,089,009 $ 184,120 $ 184,120 $ 184,120 $ 184,120 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 29,987 $ 33,372,569 $ 191,485 $ 191,485 $ 191,485 $ 191,485 $ 191,485 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 31,187 $ 519,592 $ 199,145 $ 199,145 $ 199,145 $ 199,145 $ 199,145 $ 32,434 $ 32,434 $ 32,434 $ 32,434 $ 32,434 $ 32,434 $ 32,434 $ 540,376 $ 540,376 $ 207,110 $ 207,110 $ 207,110 $ 207,110 $ 207,110 $ 33,731 $ 33,731 $ 33,731 $ 33,731 $ 33,731 $ 33,731 $ 561,991 $ 561,991 $ 561,991 $ 215,395 $ 215,395 $ 215,395 $ 215,395 $ 215,395 $ 35,081 $ 35,081 $ 35,081 $ 35,081 $ 35,081 $ 584,471 $ 584,471 $ 584,471 $ 584,471 $ 224,011 $ 224,011 $ 224,011 $ 224,011 $ 224,011 $ 36,484 $ 36,484 $ 36,484 $ 36,484 $ 607,849 $ 607,849 $ 607,849 $ 607,849 $ 607,849 $ 232,971 $ 232,971 $ 232,971 $ 232,971 $ 232,971 $ 37,943 $ 37,943 $ 37,943 $ 1,025,983 $ 632,163 $ 632,163 $ 632,163 $ 632,163 $ 632,163 $ 242,290 $ 242,290 $ 242,290 $ 242,290 $ 242,290 $ 39,461 $ 39,461 $ 1,067,022 $ 1,067,022 $ 657,450 $ 657,450 $ 657,450 $ 657,450 $ 657,450 $ 251,981 $ 251,981 $ 251,981 $ 251,981 $ 251,981 $ 41,039 $ 1,109,703 $ 1,109,703 $ 1,109,703 $ 683,748 $ 683,748 $ 683,748 $ 683,748 $ 683,748 $ 262,061 $ 262,061 $ 262,061 $ 262,061 $ 262,061 $ 1,154,091 $ 1,154,091 $ 1,154,091 $ 1,154,091 $ 711,098 $ 711,098 $ 711,098 $ 711,098 $ 711,098 $ 272,543 $ 272,543 $ 272,543 $ 272,543 $ 1,200,255 $ 1,200,255 $ 1,200,255 $ 1,200,255 $ 1,200,255 $ 739,542 $ 739,542 $ 739,542 $ 739,542 $ 739,542 $ 283,445 $ 283,445 $ 283,445 $ 1,787,900 $ 1,248,265 $ 1,248,265 $ 1,248,265 $ 1,248,265 $ 1,248,265 $ 769,124 $ 769,124 $ 769,124 $ 769,124 $ 769,124 $ 294,783 $ 294,783 $ 1,859,416 $ 1,859,416 $ 1,298,196 $ 1,298,196 $ 1,298,196 $ 1,298,196 $ 1,298,196 $ 799,888 $ 799,888 $ 799,888 $ 799,888 $ 799,888 $ 306,574 $ 1,933,793 $ 1,933,793 $ 1,933,793 $ 1,350,124 $ 1,350,124 $ 1,350,124 $ 1,350,124 $ 1,350,124 $ 831,884 $ 831,884 $ 831,884 $ 831,884 $ 831,884 $ 2,011,144 $ 2,011,144 $ 2,011,144 $ 2,011,144 $ 1,404,129 $ 1,404,129 $ 1,404,129 $ 1,404,129 $ 1,404,129 $ 865,159 $ 865,159 $ 865,159 $ 865,159 $ 2,091,590 $ 2,091,590 $ 2,091,590 $ 2,091,590 $ 2,091,590 $ 1,460,294 $ 1,460,294 $ 1,460,294 $ 1,460,294 $ 1,460,294 $ 899,766 $ 899,766 $ 899,766 $ 2,962,644 $ 2,175,254 $ 2,175,254 $ 2,175,254 $ 2,175,254 $ 2,175,254 $ 1,518,706 $ 1,518,706 $ 1,518,706 $ 1,518,706 $ 1,518,706 $ 935,756 $ 935,756

G-35
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year that Pier is Replaced Total Costs:
1 2026
2 2027
3 2028
4 2029
5 2030
6 2031
7 2032
8 2033
9 2034
10 2035
11 2036
12 2037
13 2038
14 2039
15 2040
16 2041
17 2042
18 2043
19 2044
20 2045
21 2046
22 2047
23 2048
24 2049
25 2050
26 2051
27 2052
28 2053
29 2054
30 2055
31 2056
32 2057
33 2058
34 2059
35 2060
36 2061
37 2062
38 2063
39 2064
40 2065
41 2066
42 2067
43 2068
44 2069
45 2070
Year
Cost by Year
$ 178,630,167 $ 186,472,849 $ 194,629,239 $ 203,492,822 $ 213,311,141 $ 223,522,192 $ 234,141,686 $ 245,185,959 $ 257,156,385 $ 269,917,874 $ 283,189,822 $ 296,992,649 $ 311,347,589 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 12,817 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 13,329 $ 13,329 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 30,854,816 $ 13,862 $ 13,862 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 32,089,009 $ 32,089,009 $ 14,417 $ 14,417 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 33,372,569 $ 33,372,569 $ 33,372,569 $ 14,994 $ 14,994 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 34,707,472 $ 34,707,472 $ 34,707,472 $ 34,707,472 $ 15,593 $ 15,593 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 32,434 $ 36,095,771 $ 36,095,771 $ 36,095,771 $ 36,095,771 $ 16,217 $ 16,217 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 33,731 $ 33,731 $ 37,539,602 $ 37,539,602 $ 37,539,602 $ 37,539,602 $ 16,866 $ 16,866 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 35,081 $ 35,081 $ 35,081 $ 39,041,186 $ 39,041,186 $ 39,041,186 $ 39,041,186 $ 17,540 $ 17,540 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 36,484 $ 36,484 $ 36,484 $ 36,484 $ 40,602,833 $ 40,602,833 $ 40,602,833 $ 40,602,833 $ 18,242 $ 18,242 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 37,943 $ 37,943 $ 37,943 $ 37,943 $ 37,943 $ 42,226,947 $ 42,226,947 $ 42,226,947 $ 42,226,947 $ 18,972 $ 18,972 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,091,395 $ 39,461 $ 39,461 $ 39,461 $ 39,461 $ 39,461 $ 39,461 $ 43,916,024 $ 43,916,024 $ 43,916,024 $ 43,916,024 $ 19,730 $ 19,730 $ 6,335,051 $ 41,039 $ 41,039 $ 41,039 $ 41,039 $ 41,039 $ 41,039 $ 41,039 $ 45,672,665 $ 45,672,665 $ 45,672,665 $ 45,672,665 $ 20,520 $ 20,520 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 42,681 $ 47,499,572 $ 47,499,572 $ 47,499,572 $ 47,499,572 $ 21,340 $ 272,543 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 44,388 $ 49,399,555 $ 49,399,555 $ 49,399,555 $ 49,399,555 $ 283,445 $ 283,445 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 46,164 $ 51,375,537 $ 51,375,537 $ 51,375,537 $ 294,783 $ 294,783 $ 294,783 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 48,010 $ 53,430,559 $ 53,430,559 $ 306,574 $ 306,574 $ 306,574 $ 306,574 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 49,931 $ 55,567,781 $ 318,837 $ 318,837 $ 318,837 $ 318,837 $ 318,837 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 51,928 $ 865,159 $ 331,590 $ 331,590 $ 331,590 $ 331,590 $ 331,590 $ 54,005 $ 54,005 $ 54,005 $ 54,005 $ 54,005 $ 54,005 $ 54,005 $ 899,766 $ 899,766 $ 344,854 $ 344,854 $ 344,854 $ 344,854 $ 344,854 $ 56,165 $ 56,165 $ 56,165 $ 56,165 $ 56,165 $ 56,165 $ 935,756 $ 935,756 $ 935,756 $ 358,648 $ 358,648 $ 358,648 $ 358,648 $ 358,648 $ 58,412 $ 58,412 $ 58,412 $ 58,412 $ 58,412

G-36
Total Costs:
1 2026
2 2027
3 2028
4 2029
5 2030
6 2031
7 2032
8 2033
9 2034
10 2035
11 2036
12 2037
13 2038
14 2039
15 2040
16 2041
17 2042
18 2043
19 2044
20 2045
21 2046
22 2047
23 2048
24 2049
25 2050
26 2051
27 2052
28 2053
29 2054
30 2055
31 2056
32 2057
33 2058
34 2059
35 2060
36 2061
37 2062
38 2063
39 2064
40 2065
41 2066
42 2067
43 2068
44 2069
45 2070
Year
Cost by Year
$ 327,127,060 $ 343,537,711 $ 360,604,788 $ 378,354,548 $ 394,274,789 $ 408,207,042 40 41 42 43 44 45
2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070
$ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,687,920 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,755,437 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,206,979 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,255,258 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,305,469 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,109,432 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,153,809 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,199,961 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,247,960 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,297,878 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,617,043 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,681,724 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,748,993 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,818,953 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 1,891,711 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,161,046 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,247,488 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,337,387 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,430,883 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 2,528,118 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,138,720 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,264,269 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,394,840 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 3,530,634 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,052,796 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,214,908 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,383,505 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,558,845 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 4,741,198 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,415,228 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,631,838 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 5,857,111 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,091,395 $ 6,335,051 $ 6,335,051 $ 6,335,051 $ 6,335,051 $ 6,335,051 $ 6,335,051 $ 7,438,788 $ 7,438,788 $ 7,438,788 $ 7,438,788 $ 7,438,788 $ 7,438,788 $ 21,340 $ 7,736,340 $ 7,736,340 $ 7,736,340 $ 7,736,340 $ 7,736,340 $ 22,194 $ 22,194 $ 8,045,793 $ 8,045,793 $ 8,045,793 $ 8,045,793 $ 51,375,537 $ 23,082 $ 23,082 $ 8,367,625 $ 8,367,625 $ 8,367,625 $ 53,430,559 $ 53,430,559 $ 24,005 $ 24,005 $ 8,702,330 $ 8,702,330 $ 55,567,781 $ 55,567,781 $ 55,567,781 $ 24,965 $ 24,965 $ 9,859,299 $ 57,790,492 $ 57,790,492 $ 57,790,492 $ 57,790,492 $ 25,964 $ 25,964 $ 54,005 $ 60,102,112 $ 60,102,112 $ 60,102,112 $ 60,102,112 $ 27,002 $ 56,165 $ 56,165 $ 62,506,196 $ 62,506,196 $ 62,506,196 $ 83,341,595 $ 58,412 $ 58,412 $ 58,412 $ 65,006,444 $ 130,012,888 $ 173,350,518 Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year that Pier is Replaced

G-37
Hermosa Beach
Pier
September 5, 2025
Sensequake-based
Structural Integrity
Evaluation Report
[email protected]
www.jmc-2.com/contact-us Page 436 of 1126
Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report i Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report Hermosa Beach Pier
Prepared and approved by:

Vipul Ahuja, SE. ____________________
SE No:

Farshad Mirshafiei, Ph.D., P.Eng. ____________________
No P.E.O.: 100533861

Nathan Cao, MASc. __________________
Alexandre Darche, CEP. ____________________
No O.I.Q.: 6027466
S2908

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report ii Table of contents
I. Property and Confidentiality viii
II. Executive Summary ix
III. Mandate xiv
IV. Conditions and Restrictions xvi
1 Overview of Sensequake Technology 1

1.1 Sensing and Ambient Vibration Tests 1

1.2 Sensequake’s 3D-SAMTM Technology 2
2 Sensing Test 5

2.1 Sensing Test Summary 5
3 Ambient Vibration Testing – An Overview 7
4 Structural Health Monitoring 14

4.1 Structural Identification 14

4.2 Description of the Test 16

4.3 Dynamic Property Results (Stiffness Baselines) 18

4.3.1 Results of the Test - Bay 10-11 ......................................................................................................... 19

4.3.2 Results of the Test - Bay 12-13 ......................................................................................................... 22

4.3.3 Results of the Test - Bay 13-14 ......................................................................................................... 25

4.3.4 Results of the Test - Bay 15-16 ......................................................................................................... 28

4.3.5 Results of the Test - Bay 18-19 ......................................................................................................... 31

4.3.6 Results of the Test - Bay 21-22 ......................................................................................................... 34

4.3.7 Results of the Test - Bay 27-28 ......................................................................................................... 37

4.3.8 Results of the Test - Bay 30-31 ......................................................................................................... 40

4.3.9 Results of the Test - Bay 32-33 ......................................................................................................... 43

4.3.10 Results of the Test - Bay 35-36 ......................................................................................................... 46 5 Discussions: Integrity Evaluation 49

5.1 Mode Shape Evaluation – Bay 10-11 54

5.2 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 12-13 57

5.3 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 13-14 60

5.4 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 15-16 63

5.5 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 18-19 67

5.6 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 21-22 70

5.7 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 27-28 75

5.8 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 30-31 80

5.9 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 32-33 84

5.10 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 35-36 88

5.11 Frequency Comparison and Discussion 93
6 Conclusion 95
7 References 97
Appendix A – Sensor Layout 98

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report iii List of Figures
Figure II-1 Combined Heat Maps for bay 10-11 .........................................................................................................x Figure II-2 Combined Heat Maps for bay 12-13 .........................................................................................................x Figure II-3 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 13-14........................................................................................................xi Figure II-4 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 15-16........................................................................................................xi Figure II-5 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 18-19........................................................................................................xi Figure II-6 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 21-22....................................................................................................... xii Figure II-7 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 27-28....................................................................................................... xii Figure II-8 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 30-31....................................................................................................... xii Figure II-9 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 32-33...................................................................................................... xiii Figure II-10 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 35-36.................................................................................................... xiii Figure 1-1: The wireless Sensequake Larzé sensors used for ambient vibration testing..........................................1 Figure 1-2: The 3D-SAMTM methodology ...................................................................................................................3 Figure 1-3: Steps of Sensequake’s baseline integrity evaluations for structures.......................................................4 Figure 2-1: (a) Sensequake Larzé sensor; (b) Sensequake Larzé sensor and control application ...........................5 Figure 3-1: Operational Modal Analysis (OMA) process ............................................................................................7 Figure 3-2: Mathematical analysis techniques for OMA.............................................................................................8 Figure 3-3: Brief overview of Frequency Domain Decomposition; a) Power Spectral Density matrix formulation followed by its Singular Value Decomposition; b) Definition of modal behavior of structure in terms of its frequency, mode shape and damping; c) Correlation of the modal response with the Singular Value Decomposition ....................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 3-4: Raw output of Sensor #1, Hermosa Beach Pier ......................................................................................9 Figure 3-5: Spectrogram of measured velocity of Sensor #1, Hermosa Beach Pier .............................................. 10 Figure 3-6: Power spectral density of Sensor #1, Hermosa Beach Pier ................................................................. 11 Figure 4-1: Hermosa Beach Pier (Google Maps).................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4-2 Structural numbering of the Hermosa Beach Pier ................................................................................. 15 Figure 4-3: Testing of the Hermosa Beach Pier ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4-4: 3D Model of the Hermosa Beach Pier with sensor locations................................................................ 17 Figure 4-5: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier...... 19 Figure 4-6: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier...... 22 Figure 4-7: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier...... 25 Figure 4-8: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier...... 28 Figure 4-9: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier...... 31 Figure 4-10: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier.... 34 Figure 4-11: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier.... 37 Figure 4-12: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier.... 40 Figure 4-13: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier.... 43

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report iv Figure 4-14: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier.... 46 Figure 5-1 Effect of localized curvature change on pier mode shapes (Transverse mode).................................... 50 Figure 5-2 Example calculation for the curvature.................................................................................................... 51 Figure 5-3 Curvature categorization and color coding ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 5-4 Example of Excessive Vertical Flexibility ............................................................................................... 53 Figure 5-5: Structural condition based on quantified vertical curvature change ..................................................... 54 Figure 5-6: Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 10-11........................................................................................ 54 Figure 5-7 Vertical Heat map for Bay 10-11............................................................................................................ 56 Figure 5-8 Combined heat maps comparison for Bay 10-11................................................................................... 57 Figure 5-9 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 12-13......................................................................................... 57 Figure 5-10 Vertical displacement on Bay 12-13 Panel C....................................................................................... 58 Figure 5-11 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 12-13.......................................................................................................... 59 Figure 5-12 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 12-13.................................................................................................... 60 Figure 5-13 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 13-14....................................................................................... 60 Figure 5-14 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 13-14.......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 5-15 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 13-14.................................................................................................... 63 Figure 5-16 Delamination on Panel B of Bay 13-14 ................................................................................................ 63 Figure 5-17 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 15-16....................................................................................... 64 Figure 5-18 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 15-16.......................................................................................................... 65 Figure 5-19 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 15-16.................................................................................................... 66 Figure 5-20 Panel B with large spalling area for Bay 15-16.................................................................................... 66 Figure 5-21 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 18-19....................................................................................... 67 Figure 5-22 Unexpected transverse movement on shear key C-D Bay 18-19........................................................ 69 Figure 5-23 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 18-19.......................................................................................................... 69 Figure 5-24 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 18-19.................................................................................................... 70 Figure 5-25 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 21-22....................................................................................... 70 Figure 5-26 Unexpected Longitudinal Flexibility on the bents................................................................................. 72 Figure 5-27: Bent 21 Unexpected Longitudinal Flexibility (Front view) ................................................................... 73 Figure 5-28 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 21-22.......................................................................................................... 74 Figure 5-29 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 21-22.................................................................................................... 74 Figure 5-30 Panel B large cracking and spalling area Bay 21-22 ........................................................................... 75 Figure 5-31 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 27-28....................................................................................... 75 Figure 5-32 Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 27-28.............................................................. 77 Figure 5-33 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 27-28.......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5-34 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 27-28.................................................................................................... 79 Figure 5-35 Large cracks have been observed on Panel A Bay 27-28................................................................... 79 Figure 5-36 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 30-31....................................................................................... 80

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report v Figure 5-37 Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 30-31.............................................................. 82 Figure 5-38 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 30-31.......................................................................................................... 82 Figure 5-39 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 30-31.................................................................................................... 83 Figure 5-40 Panel C large cracks and spalling, Bay 30-31 ..................................................................................... 83 Figure 5-41 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 32-33....................................................................................... 84 Figure 5-42 Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 32-33.............................................................. 86 Figure 5-43 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 32-33.......................................................................................................... 87 Figure 5-44 Large cracking along the shear key B-C on Panel C, Bay 32-33 ........................................................ 87 Figure 5-45 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 32-33.................................................................................................... 88 Figure 5-46 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 35-36....................................................................................... 89 Figure 5-47 Large opening area on Panel A and B, Bay 35-36 .............................................................................. 90 Figure 5-48: Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 35-36.............................................................. 91 Figure 5-49 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 35-36.......................................................................................................... 92 Figure 5-50 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 35-36.................................................................................................... 93 Figure A-1 Sensor Layouts for typical bays............................................................................................................. 98 Figure A-2 Sensor Layout for Bay 35-36................................................................................................................. 99

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report vi List of Tables
Table 4-1: Modal Properties for Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier.......................................................................... 19 Table 4-2: Mode 1, Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier.............................................................................................. 20 Table 4-3: Mode 2, Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier.............................................................................................. 21 Table 4-4: Modal Properties for Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier.......................................................................... 22 Table 4-5: Mode 1, Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier.............................................................................................. 23 Table 4-6: Mode 2, Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier.............................................................................................. 24 Table 4-7: Modal Properties for Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier.......................................................................... 25 Table 4-8: Mode 1, Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier.............................................................................................. 26 Table 4-9: Mode 2, Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier.............................................................................................. 27 Table 4-10: Modal Properties for Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 28 Table 4-11: Mode 1, Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 29 Table 4-12: Mode 2, Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 30 Table 4-13: Modal Properties for Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 31 Table 4-14: Mode 1, Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 32 Table 4-15: Mode 2, Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 33 Table 4-16: Modal Properties for Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 34 Table 4-17: Mode 1, Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 35 Table 4-18: Mode 2, Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 36 Table 4-19: Modal Properties for Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 37 Table 4-20: Mode 1, Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 38 Table 4-21: Mode 2, Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 39 Table 4-22: Modal Properties for Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 40 Table 4-23: Mode 1, Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 41 Table 4-24: Mode 2, Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 42 Table 4-25: Modal Properties for Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 43 Table 4-26: Mode 1, Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 44 Table 4-27: Mode 2, Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 45 Table 4-28: Modal Properties for Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier........................................................................ 46 Table 4-29: Mode 1, Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 47 Table 4-30: Mode 2, Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier............................................................................................ 48 Table 5-1 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 10-11.................................................... 55 Table 5-2 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 10-11............................................... 55 Table 5-3 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 12-13.................................................... 58 Table 5-4 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 12-13............................................... 59 Table 5-5 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 13-14.................................................... 61 Table 5-6 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 13-14............................................... 62

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report vii Table 5-7 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 15-16.................................................... 64 Table 5-8 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 15-16............................................... 65 Table 5-9 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 18-19.................................................... 68 Table 5-10 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 18-19............................................. 68 Table 5-11 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 21-22.................................................. 71 Table 5-12 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 21-22............................................. 71 Table 5-13 In-plane Frequency Comparison Bay 21-22 ......................................................................................... 72 Table 5-14 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 27-28.................................................. 76 Table 5-15 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 27-28............................................. 77 Table 5-16 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 30-31.................................................. 81 Table 5-17 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 30-31............................................. 81 Table 5-18 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 32-33.................................................. 85 Table 5-19 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 32-33............................................. 85 Table 5-20 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 35-36.................................................. 91 Table 5-21 Frequency Comparison for all the tested bays...................................................................................... 93

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report viii I. Property and Confidentiality

This report is intended for the purposes described within. Use, reproduction, or adaptation by the Client for official City business, including public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act, is permitted. All other rights reserved by Sensequake.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report ix II. Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the sensing-based integrity evaluation test of the Hermosa Beach Pier using Sensequake's proprietary sensing-based structural health monitoring to evaluate its structural integrity.

The Hermosa Beach Pier is made up of 36 bays, 10 are selected to be evaluated as part of this study. The majority of the bays are constructed by four prestressed concrete panels linked by shear keys and supported by two bents, 30.5 feet in length and 20 feet wide for the span. The end bay, Bay 35-36 has 10 concrete panels linked by shear keys. The existing pier was constructed in 1965.

The following bays were selected to be tested as part of the evaluation:

Bay 10-11
Bay 12-13
Bay 13-14
Bay 15-16
Bay 18-19
Bay 21-22
Bay 27-28
Bay 30-31
Bay 32-33
Bay 35-36
These bays were prioritized based on visual inspection results, which highlighted advanced deterioration such as surface cracking, spalling, and suspected internal degradation.

The data collected was then analyzed in detail with a simplified 3D model of the Pier bays created in Sensequake’s 3D-SAMTM software. The analysis is done without detailed structural drawings and is solely based on the measured ambient vibrations.

The following is achieved using the measured data:
• Multiple 3D mode shapes and natural frequencies (dynamic properties or stiffness baselines);
• Multiple structural integrity baselines for the individual bays of the Pier; •

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report x The evaluation reveals that all tested bays exhibited varying levels of deterioration, with notable damage concentrated in specific panels and structural regions. A combination of transverse mode, vertical mode, and resonance frequency comparisons are used in combination to provide the following heat maps for each tested bay.

Figure II-1: Combined Heat Maps for bay 10-11
Figure II-2: Combined Heat Maps for bay 12-13

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report xi Figure II-3: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 13-14
Figure II-4: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 15-16
Figure II-5: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 18-19

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report xii Figure II-6: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 21-22
Figure II-7: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 27-28
Figure II-8: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 30-31

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report xiii Figure II-9: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 32-33
Figure II-10: Combined Heat Maps for Bay 35-36
In summary, the combination of dynamic testing, curvature quantification, vertical flexibility analysis, and visual inspection provides a detailed and reliable assessment of the Hermosa Beach Pier's structural condition. The findings confirm that multiple spans are experiencing progressive deterioration, with several regions requiring immediate attention or further investigation.

Future repetition of this same test can be used for long-term structural health management and support the development of targeted maintenance and retrofit strategies to extend the Pier’s service life.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report xiv III. Mandate
Sensequake’s mandate for this project is to perform an ambient vibration-based integrity evaluation of certain bays of the Hermosa Beach Pier.

Sensequake’s mandate is defined as follows:
• Review available plans for the structures and inspection reports. • Design the sensing test of the pier including the location of the sensors, data sampling frequency, test duration, and execution plans.
• Gather ambient vibration data from the pier using sensors with six channels of data (acceleration and velocities in XYZ).
• Perform a few weeks of in-depth post-processing of the vibration data gathered to:
o
o

o

o

o

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report xv o
o

o

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report xvi IV. Conditions and Restrictions
In this section, the “Client” is defined as the City of Hermosa Beach.

We draw the reader’s attention to the fact that this report does not constitute a legal opinion. The principles, procedures, and standards applied to the execution of intellectual services, including the characterization of the Hermosa Beach Pier, were carried out by recognized and compliant procedures in the art.

It is imperative to note that the methods used in the characterization and assessment of the work, although aimed at minimizing unidentified risks and problems, cannot guarantee their absence. The analysis is based on the information on the pier received by Sensequake and the sensing tests. In case of missing information, reasonable assumptions were made.

Data, information, analytical processing, comments, views, and opinions presented in this report are intended exclusively for the Client in relation to the pier. To this end, Sensequake explicitly and exclusively recognizes its professional responsibilities towards its Client and accepts no responsibility regarding the relevance and validity of the report to third parties other than its Client. After these conditions and restrictions, Sensequake states that this report must be read in its entirety since sections taken out of context can be misleading and result in deductions and/or wrong conclusions.

The modal identification algorithms of 3D-SAMTM are in accordance with state-of-the-art ambient vibration sensing technologies. Readers of the report should be aware of the limitations of this technique which can be found in existing literature (Brincker and Ventura 2015).

The evaluation of structural performance is based on the analysis of structural stiffness properties, including measured frequencies, mode shapes and damping ratios. These do not entirely guarantee that all damage or failure mechanisms will be identified. Sensequake removes itself from any direct or indirect damages that could be caused due to the limitations of this approach.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 1 1 Overview of Sensequake Technology

1.1 Sensing and Ambient Vibration Tests
Comprehensive ambient vibration sensing tests were designed and performed on select bays of the Hermosa Beach Pier so that their dynamic characteristics (natural frequencies, mode shapes, and damping ratios) could be derived.

The competence of ambient vibration testing to derive modal properties such as the natural frequencies, mode shapes and estimates of internal equivalent modal damping ratios has been demonstrated in many studies over the past decades. Sensequake’s high-resolution wireless sensors are capable of measuring the minuscule ambient accelerations and velocities of structures (Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1: The wireless Sensequake Larzé sensors used for ambient vibration testing

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 2 Unlike forced vibration tests, the forces detected in the structure during ambient vibration tests are not controlled. The structure is assumed to be excited by wind, traffic, micro-tremors, and human activities. The measurements (velocities and accelerations) are recorded for several minutes during the regular operating conditions of the structure to ensure that all the modes of interest are sufficiently excited. In the modal identification of output-only systems, the input loads are unknown, and the modal identification has to be carried out solely based on the output responses.

Although the displacements detected in both ambient and forced vibration tests are very small, vibrator-induced motions may be several orders of magnitude greater than the ambient vibrations. It has been shown, however, that forced and ambient tests lead to a consistent agreement for modal parameters in structures. Today, ambient vibration tests are the most advanced, efficient, and reliable sensing method for capturing modal properties as well as understanding the behaviour and integrity of existing structures (Trifunac 1972; Lamarche et al. 2008; Hans et al. 2005).

1.2 Sensequake’s 3D-SAMTM Technology

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 3

TM

Hermosa Beach Pier
– Sensequake-based Structural Integrity EvaluationReport4

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 5 2 Sensing Test

2.1 Sensing Test Summary
Comprehensive ambient vibration sensing tests are designed and performed on the structure to derive its main characteristics (natural frequencies, mode shapes, and damping ratios).

For the current test, 10 Sensequake Larzé wireless sensors were used to measure the horizontal and vertical vibrations in the pier. In addition to high-quality data collected by the sensors, one of the main features of the Larzé system is the automated synchronization achieved through a wireless mesh network. The sensors need to be within the reach of the radios for a few seconds for synchronization and then moved to their designated locations (Figure 2-1 (a)). The sensors maintain synchronization for more than 12 hours.

Figure 2-1: (a) Sensequake Larzé sensor; (b) Sensequake Larzé sensor and control application

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 6

The following are the specifications of the Sensequake Larzé sensors.

The sampling frequencies can be selected based on the type of structure. The sensor’s analogto-digital converters operate at much higher sampling rates and further decimate the data to achieve higher signal-to-noise ratios.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 7 3 Ambient Vibration Testing – An Overview
Modal identification of structures by evaluating their ambient vibration response through mathematical procedures has been performed since the early 1930s with major advances in Operation Modal Analysis (OMA) techniques occurring in the early 1990s. The process of OMA (Figure 3-1) involves utilizing time and frequency domain analysis techniques to isolate the response of the structure in terms of its dynamic characteristics (frequencies and mode shapes) from the measured response due to the “ambient” of excitation such as traffic, wind, etc.

Figure 3-1: Operational Modal Analysis (OMA) process
Among the available mathematical methods (Figure 3-2) to process the measured response of a structure to ambient excitation is Frequency Domain Decomposition (commonly referred to as FDD). This is comparatively faster as it involves frequency domain analysis (peak-picking method). Time domain analysis techniques such as Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition (EFDD) and Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) are more robust as they involve performing parametric analysis of the measured responses of the structure.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 8 Figure 3-2: Mathematical analysis techniques for OMA.

The overview of FDD of the measured responses of the system by generating the Power Spectral Density (PSD) matrix utilizing their Fourier transformation is shown in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3: Brief overview of Frequency Domain Decomposition; a) Power Spectral Density matrix formulation followed by its Singular Value Decomposition; b) Definition of modal behavior of structure in terms of its frequency, mode shape and damping; c) Correlation of the modal response with the Singular Value Decomposition

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 9 The frequency-domain decomposition (FDD) technique is based on the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the power spectral density (PSD) matrix shown in Figure 3-3 (a). It then correlates the expected output (the measured response of the system in terms of its normal modes and modal coordinates) Figure 3-3 (b), with the singular values and their corresponding single vectors.

Sensequake utilizes SSI to determine the dynamic characteristics of a structure which is explained in detail in this section.

One of the data files from the test of the Hermosa Beach Pier and its results are used in this section as an example to better clarify the identification process. The raw output of the reference sensor (sensor 1) in the Z-direction is plotted as a function of time (Figure 3-4). The challenge is to extract the dynamic information of the structure (i.e., its modal properties) from these kinds of recordings.

Figure 3-4: Raw output of Sensor #1, Hermosa Beach Pier

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 10 The spectrogram of the same signal is shown in Figure 3-5, representing the frequency content of the signal as a function of time. The figure shows some strong horizontal lines around certain specific values; for example, between 10.0 to 12.0 Hz. These values are therefore present throughout the entirety of the recording and are related to the natural frequencies found through the test.

Figure 3-5: Spectrogram of measured velocity of Sensor #1, Hermosa Beach Pier Figure 3-6 shows the power spectral density of the same signal, and also shows clear peaks around the same values, corresponding to the first vertical modal frequency of the structure.

Even though ambient vibrations due to loading such as wind and micro tremors are of low amplitude, the modal properties of the pier are embedded in the signals. These modal properties can be extracted using advanced mathematical algorithms. Appropriate pre-processing such as applying bandpass filters and decimation of the signals is required for extraction.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 11 Figure 3-6: Power spectral density of Sensor #1, Hermosa Beach Pier An important step in deriving the modal properties is calculating the singular values of all signals of each setup. The natural frequencies can be read on the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the matrices of spectral density Gxy defined by (Brincker and Ventura 2015):

𝐺𝑥𝑦(𝜔) =
1 2𝜋
∫ 𝑅𝑥𝑦(𝜏)𝑒
∞ −𝑖𝜔𝑡
−∞
𝑑𝜏 (1)
This is also the Fourier transform of cross-correlation matrices and is defined for measurement signals x and y by:

𝑅𝑥𝑦(𝜏) = 𝐸[𝑦(𝑡)𝑥
𝑇
(𝑡 + 𝜏)] (2)

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 12 The underlying principle is that every structure (imperceptibly) oscillates according to its eigenmodes under the loading of ambient vibrations and these oscillations appear as peaks in the cross-correlations.

The Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) algorithm is used to identify natural frequencies, damping ratios, and mode shapes. Since the range of frequencies is known, a bandpass filter is applied and the signals have been decimated to increase the signal-to-noise ratio and reduce the computation time of the algorithm. SSI algorithms, initially introduced in Van Overschee and De Moor (1996), provide the modal properties which optimally match the measurements, for a chosen number of oscillators, N.

The measured time series y1, y2, …, yn, are gathered in a vector Y and the following matrix is computed:

𝐻 = [
𝑌(1) ⋯ 𝑌(𝑞 + 1)
𝑌(2) ⋯ 𝑌(𝑞 + 2)
⋮ ⋱ ⋮
𝑌(2𝑠) ⋯ 𝑌(2𝑠 + 𝑞)
]
(3)
Where Y(k) corresponds to the kth measurement point and s and q are parameters chosen by the user. This matrix has the structure of a Hankel matrix, reducing computation costs. The principle of the method is to split the first s rows of H, denoted by H1 and assumed to be given, and use it the predict the s last rows of H2, assumed to be stochastic. Modal properties are then deduced from the fact that H2 is known from the measurements. Concretely, the observation matrix O is defined and computed using:

𝑂 = 𝐻2𝐻1
𝑇
(𝐻1𝐻1
𝑇
)
+𝐻1 (4)
Where the superscript + stands for the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse. The singular value decomposition of O is performed:

𝑂 = 𝑈𝑆𝑉
𝑇
(5)
from which the following matrix is computed:

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 13 𝐴 = 𝑈𝑁𝑆𝑁
1/2
(6)
The index N stands for the truncation order, or modal order, corresponding to the number of oscillators considered for the estimation of the dynamic properties. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of A are used to estimate the modal properties.

The actual structural properties can be identified by investigating their sensitivity to N: they are the ones, which remain stable, and independent of N. The other ones are artifacts, mostly related to measurement noise.

After calculation of system matrix Ad and found observation matrix C, the modal properties can be extracted.

The first step is to perform an eigenvalue decomposition of the system matrix Ad as follows:

𝐴̂
𝑑 = Ψ[𝜇𝑖
]Ψ−1(7)
The continuous time poles are found from the discrete-time poles µi by the following:
𝜇𝑖 = exp(𝜆𝑖) (8)
Leading to the well-known formulas:
𝜆𝑖 =
ln(𝜇𝑖
)
Δ𝑇
𝜔𝑖 = |𝜆𝑖|
𝑓𝑖 =
𝜔𝑖
2π
𝜍𝑖 =
𝑅𝑒(𝜆𝑖
)
|𝜆𝑖|
(9)
The mode shape matrix can be found from the following formula:

Φ = 𝐶Ψ (10)

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 14 4 Structural Health Monitoring

4.1 Structural Identification
Two phases of testing were completed on different bays of the Hermosa Beach Pier (Figure 4- 1). A total of 10 bays were selected between the phases in consultation with the project stakeholders. These bays were chosen due to their elevated visual deterioration, cracking, and spalling noted in inspection reports and confirmed through preliminary structural screening.

Additionally, these bays accounted for the panels that were targeted for future repairs/replacement due to their condition.

Figure 4-1: Hermosa Beach Pier (Google Maps)
The Hermosa Beach Pier has 36 Bents. The panels, bays and bents are named as illustrated in Figure 4-2 from East to West. This naming scheme is consistently followed throughout the report.

The ten bays selected for testing include Bays 10–11, 12–13, 13–14, 15–16, 18–19, 21–22, 27– 28, 30–31, 32–33, and 35–36. These bays were prioritized based on visual inspection results, which highlighted advanced deterioration such as surface cracking, spalling, and suspected internal degradation.

Ambient vibration tests were employed to identify modal properties (natural frequencies, damping ratios, mode shapes) across the selected bays. The testing layout and methodology were adapted to the specific geometry and structural configurations of the bays.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 15 Figure 4-2 Structural numbering of the Hermosa Beach Pier Nine of the tested bays (specifically Bays 10–11 through 32–33) share the same superstructure design. Each consists of four prestressed concrete panels interconnected by shear keys and supported by two bents. These spans measure approximately 30.5 feet in length and 20 feet in width. This structural configuration has been consistent across a significant portion of the Hermosa Beach Pier and provided a basis for comparative analysis of modal characteristics observed across the tests.

Bay 35–36 differs from the others in that it comprises ten panels rather than four. This variation in panel count results in a wider span, which may influence both the stiffness distribution and modal behavior. Consequently, special attention was given to Bay 35–36 during both test design and analysis. In all cases, the tests were conducted using the same methodology, ensuring consistency in baseline extraction. Sensor placement was carefully designed to capture the dynamic response of each bay, with attention to coverage across all panels and shear keys, especially in regions where visual inspections had noted signs of distress.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 16

4.2 Description of the Test
The testing of the Pier was done in two phases: the first was completed on November 17, 2024, at an average temperature of 64oF. Phase 2 was conducted over four consecutive days in midMarch, 2025, under average on-site temperature conditions of approximately 53°F. The site work was conducted by Sensequake’s local partner, JMC2.

For Bays 10–11 through 32–33, each was instrumented using ten Sensequake Larzé wireless sensors per setup using the same layout. In contrast, Bay 35–36 required a modified approach due to its expanded geometry and the presence of ten concrete panels. To accommodate this, a revised sensor configuration was implemented. The placement ensured coverage across all panels.

Figure 4-3: Testing of the Hermosa Beach Pier
To extract the baseline properties of the structure, 424 locations were selected to deploy sensors and collect ambient vibration data with 6 channels per sensor location resulting in 2544 vibration sensor channels. The test involved 10 Larzé Sensors over 53 setups.

The sensors were placed on the
pier panels with selected locations. Data was collected for 10 minutes in each setup under operational conditions.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 17 The sensor layout is designed considering the geometry, structural configuration, and current condition of the structure (see Appendix A for the detailed sensor layouts). The structure's dimensions, including Bay length, were measured during testing and verified against the original drawings. This data was also used to prepare 3D models of each pier bay (Figure 4-4). Sensor data is applied to the model, as shown by the red triaxial icons in the Figure.

Figure 4-4: 3D Model of the Hermosa Beach Pier with sensor locations The axis orientation for the 3D model is the same as the sensor axes on site. It should be noted that the 3D model is a simplified geometrical model to better visualize the mode shapes. The model is simplified and does not include detailed structural information, such as connections, dimensions, and material properties. Movement at the locations without sensors is assumed for better visualizations. However, all conclusions on structural integrity are based solely on the data measured by the sensors.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 18

4.3 Dynamic Property Results (Stiffness Baselines)
Both time and frequency domain techniques were used to derive the modal properties of the sections of the Pier. The average singular values for the spans are shown in the figures in the following sub-sections. Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), employed for frequency-domain analysis, identifies peaks representing potential structural modes. These peaks correspond to the vertical lines from the stochastic subspace identification (SSI) shown in the figures, a timedomain method. It is important to note that not all peaks represent structural modes.

The associated frequencies, periods and damping ratios are summarized in the tables in each section. Finally, the mode shapes are detailed for each identified mode of the sections. The digital copies of the animations for each mode shape have been provided for better visualization.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 19

4.3.1 Results of the Test - Bay 10-11
Figure 4-5: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-1: Modal Properties for Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 2.64 0.38 1.4
2 – 1
st Vertical 8.47 0.12 2.0

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 20 Table 4-2: Mode 1, Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 10–11
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 2.64 0.38 1.4
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 21 Table 4-3: Mode 2, Bay 10-11, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 10–11
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 8.47 0.12 2.0
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 22

4.3.2 Results of the Test - Bay 12-13
Figure 4-6: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-4: Modal Properties for Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.72 0.58 2.0
2 – 1
st Vertical 8.13 0.12 1.7

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 23 Table 4-5: Mode 1, Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 12-13
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.72 0.58 2.0
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 24 Table 4-6: Mode 2, Bay 12-13, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 12-13
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 8.13 0.12 1.7
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 25

4.3.3 Results of the Test - Bay 13-14
Figure 4-7: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-7: Modal Properties for Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.70 0.59 2.0
2 – 1
st Vertical 8.11 0.12 1.3

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 26 Table 4-8: Mode 1, Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 13-14
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.70 0.59 2.0
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 27 Table 4-9: Mode 2, Bay 13-14, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 13-14
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 8.11 0.12 1.3
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 28

4.3.4 Results of the Test - Bay 15-16
Figure 4-8: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-10: Modal Properties for Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.70 0.59 1.9
2 – 1
st Vertical 8.04 0.12 1.5

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 29 Table 4-11: Mode 1, Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 15-16
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.70 0.59 1.9
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 30 Table 4-12: Mode 2, Bay 15-16, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 15-16
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 8.04 0.12 1.5
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 31

4.3.5 Results of the Test - Bay 18-19
Figure 4-9: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-13: Modal Properties for Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.72 0.58 2.4
2 – 1
st Vertical 8.06 0.12 3.4

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 32 Table 4-14: Mode 1, Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 18-19
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.72 0.58 2.4
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 33 Table 4-15: Mode 2, Bay 18-19, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 18-19
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 8.06 0.12 3.4
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 34

4.3.6 Results of the Test - Bay 21-22
Figure 4-10: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-16: Modal Properties for Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.83 0.55 6.4
2 – 1
st Vertical 8.24 0.12 4.7

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 35 Table 4-17: Mode 1, Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 21-22
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.83 0.55 6.4
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 36 Table 4-18: Mode 2, Bay 21-22, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 21-22
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 8.24 0.12 4.7
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 37

4.3.7 Results of the Test - Bay 27-28
Figure 4-11: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-19: Modal Properties for Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.66 0.60 2.7
2 – 1
st Vertical 10.34 0.10 3.7

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 38 Table 4-20: Mode 1, Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 27-28
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.66 0.60 2.7
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 39 Table 4-21: Mode 2, Bay 27-28, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 27-28
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 10.34 0.10 3.7
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 40

4.3.8 Results of the Test - Bay 30-31
Figure 4-12: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-22: Modal Properties for Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.65 0.61 4.4
2 – 1
st Vertical 9.38 0.11 3.5

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 41 Table 4-23: Mode 1, Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 30-31
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.65 0.61 4.4
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 42 Table 4-24: Mode 2, Bay 30-31, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 30-31
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 9.38 0.11 3.5
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 43

4.3.9 Results of the Test - Bay 32-33
Figure 4-13: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-25: Modal Properties for Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.48 0.68 4.5
2 – 1
st Vertical 9.20 0.11 4.7

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 44 Table 4-26: Mode 1, Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 32-33
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.48 0.68 4.5
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 45 Table 4-27: Mode 2, Bay 32-33, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 32-33
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 9.20 0.11 4.7
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 46

4.3.10 Results of the Test - Bay 35-36
Figure 4-14: Singular value decomposition of the cross-spectral correlation, Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier Table 4-28: Modal Properties for Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 – 1
st Transverse 1.49 0.67 5.3
2 – 1
st Vertical 10.80 0.09 0.5

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 47 Table 4-29: Mode 1, Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 35-36
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 1 1.49 0.67 5.3
Mode 1 - 1
st Transverse
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 48 Table 4-30: Mode 2, Bay 35-36, Hermosa Beach Pier
Bay 35-36
Modal Parameters
Mode Natural Frequency (Hz) Natural Period (s) Damping Ratio (%) 2 10.80 0.09 0.5
Mode 2 - 1
st Vertical
Front-view Top-view
Side-view 3D-view

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 49 5 Discussions: Integrity Evaluation

Through the in-depth analysis of the ambient vibration data of the Pier, the natural frequencies, mode shapes, and damping ratios are identified.

The degradation of a structure alters the overall stiffness of the pier and thus its modal properties.

Structural degradation can be classified into two categories: symmetrical and asymmetrical degradation. Symmetrical degradation refers to a uniform reduction in the strength of the structural components, leading to a decrease in natural frequency that may preserve the symmetrical shape of the mode shape of vibration. Conversely, asymmetrical degradation can result in an alteration of the mode shape geometry, rendering it asymmetrical.

It is important to mention that even though the sensors were located on the deck level, the extracted dynamic properties are sensitive to stiffness changes coming from all structural components including the deck, panels, bents and foundations. Changes in the stiffness of each element impact the mode shapes differently. Using Sensequake’s unique database of healthy and unhealthy mode shapes, the cause of that anomaly in the mode shape can be identified.

Moreover, the distortion in the mode shapes can be quantified to determine the severity of the damage as needed

Hermosa Beach Pier
– Sensequake-based Structural Integrity EvaluationReport 50

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 51

This
approach allows for precise localization and severity classification of structural anomalies. The curvature value categories are used to assess the severity of structural anomalies based on the degree of distortion in the mode shape. They are classified as follows:
• Curvature < 1% – Slight / None: Indicates a symmetric and healthy mode shape, with no significant structural concerns.
• 1% ≤ Curvature < 3% – Minor: indicates mild irregularities, possibly early signs of localized flexibility or minor deterioration.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 52 • 3% ≤ Curvature < 6% – Moderate: Reflects noticeable asymmetry in the mode shape, often associated with moderate structural issues or degradation. • 6% ≤ Curvature < 12% – High: Denotes substantial distortion, indicating pronounced damage or localized structural weakness.
• Curvature > 12% – Severe: Represents critical structural concern, typically due to major cracks or significant loss of stiffness in a localized area.

Based on these categories, Figure 5-3 provides the color coding, which helps illustrate different levels of structural deterioration and prioritize the areas in need of monitoring, maintenance, or immediate intervention. After computing the curvature values and classifying them according to severity, each line segment was categorized and color-coded accordingly. These categorized lines formed the basis for generating the transverse mode heat map, visually illustrating areas of structural concern. This quantification method is consistently applied to all transverse modes throughout the report for each Bay evaluated.

Figure 5-3 Curvature categorization and color coding

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 53

The following subsections discuss the observations made in the Pier’s stiffness properties.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 54 Figure 5-5: Structural condition based on quantified vertical curvature change

5.1 Mode Shape Evaluation – Bay 10-11
Based on the described evaluation integrity strategy, the transverse heat map for Bay 10-11 is shown in Figure 5-6.

Figure 5-6: Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 10-11
Bay 10–11 overall shows significant inconsistency in vertical mode shapes, with the shear key C–D and surrounding nodes exhibiting the highest STDEV values in the region. Notably, the West-Mid and East-Joint nodes displayed strong deviations in magnitude (Table 5-1 and 5-2), resulting in a “High” classification. In contrast, in-panel nodes remained stable and consistent, indicating that the vertical flexibility anomalies were localized to the shear key line and external

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 55 nodes. These findings suggest potential localized degradation concentrated along the transverse shear key and joints, while the internal deck behavior remains relatively unaffected.

Table 5-1 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 10-11 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.11 0.72 1.00 0.67 0.07 0.51
SK C-D 0.40 0.91 0.88 0.68 0.38 0.65
SK B-C 0.08 0.70 0.98 0.70 0.08 0.51
SK A-B 0.08 0.67 0.98 0.70 0.09 0.5
NORTH EDGE 0.07 0.69 0.97 0.66 0.10 0.5
AVG 0.15 0.74 0.96 0.68 0.14
STDEV 12.7% 8.9% 4.2% 1.5% 11.8%
Table 5-2 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 10-11

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.40 0.93 0.88 0.38 0.64
PANEL C 0.42 0.92 0.89 0.37 0.65
PANEL B 0.41 0.92 0.88 0.39 0.65
PANEL A 0.38 0.90 0.85 0.40 0.63
AVG 0.40 0.92 0.87 0.39
STDEV 1.4% 0.9% 1.2% 1.0%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 56 After calculating the STDEV values and classifying each line accordingly, a heat map for the vertical mode is generated to visually represent the performance and consistency of vertical flexibilities. This heat map highlights areas of potential concern, where elevated STDEV values indicate irregularities in mode shape amplitudes and suggest localized structural anomalies.

The vertical heat map is generated based on the tables above for Bay 10-11 (Figure 5-7).

Figure 5-7 Vertical Heat map for Bay 10-11
Overall, Bay 10–11 exhibits moderate deterioration in the transverse direction across all panels, with no severe anomalies detected. However, the vertical heat map reveals a concentrated high deterioration zone along the shear key between Panels C and D, aligning with the horizontal axis. The anomaly is consistently reflected in the combined heat map, emphasizing a localized stiffness degradation in that region. The overall behavior suggests that while the superstructure remains generally stable, the shear key line is a critical zone requiring attention due to potential vertical flexibility irregularities (Figure 5-8).

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 57 Figure 5-8 Combined heat maps comparison for Bay 10-11

5.2 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 12-13
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 12-13 (Figure 5-9). From the heat map, Panels C and D exhibited signs of high deterioration based on the curvature distribution. The observed vertical displacement in the inspection photos aligns with the localized mode shape distortion on the western side of Panel C, further validating the findings (Figure 5-10).

Figure 5-9 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 12-13
For the vertical mode, the in-plane sensor nodes along the “Mid-East” line exhibit higher standard deviation values and were therefore classified as “Minor.” While Panels B, C, and D generally

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 58 demonstrate consistent behavior, a comparison with adjacent nodes along the “Mid-West” line revealed noticeable inconsistencies and elevated average magnitudes. To ensure a more conservative and precautionary evaluation, the entire “Mid-East” line was rated as exhibiting minor anomalies.

Figure 5-10 Vertical displacement on Bay 12-13 Panel C
Table 5-3 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 12-13 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.06 0.64 0.93 0.63 0.07 0.47
Shear Key C-D 0.10 0.64 0.95 0.65 0.08 0.48
Shear Key B-C 0.09 0.69 0.96 0.63 0.09 0.49
Shear Key A-B 0.09 0.69 0.95 0.67 0.10 0.50
NORTH EDGE 0.08 0.66 1.00 0.68 0.11 0.51
AVG 0.08 0.66 0.96 0.65 0.09
STDEV 1.2% 2.0% 2.2% 2.1% 1.4%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 59 Table 5-4 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 12-13

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.38 0.81 0.86 0.39 0.61
PANEL C 0.38 0.87 0.86 0.39 0.63
PANEL B 0.38 0.85 0.87 0.41 0.63
PANEL A 0.38 0.83 0.92 0.42 0.64
AVG 0.38 0.84 0.88 0.40
STDEV 0.3% 2.1% 2.4% 1.2%
The vertical heat map is generated based on the Tables above for Bay 12-13 (Figure 5-11).

Figure 5-11 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 12-13
Overall, Bay 12-13 exhibits moderate to high deterioration in the transverse mode, particularly in Panels C and D. In contrast, the vertical mode shows only slight to minor anomalies, indicating relatively consistent vertical flexibility. The transverse heat map highlights significant localized curvature changes along the western side of Panel C, correlating with the large visible crack observed during visual inspection. This crack is likely the primary cause of the structural anomaly

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 60 in this bay. Panels A and B display comparatively better performance, reinforcing the localized nature of the deterioration (Figure 5-12).

Figure 5-12 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 12-13

5.3 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 13-14
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 13-14 (Figure 5-13).

Figure 5-13 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 13-14

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 61 For the vertical mode, Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 show the magnitude for the vertical modes. After comparison and calculation of the standard deviation, for Bay 13-14, the vertical mode analysis reveals generally consistent behavior, with most nodes falling within the healthy STDEV range.

However, moderate inconsistencies are observed at the Mid Node along the shear key A-B and at the East Mid position within the in-panel evaluation, particularly affecting Panels B and A.

These localized irregularities suggest minor to moderate vertical flexibility issues in those areas.

Table 5-5 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 13-14 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.09 0.68 0.99 0.72 0.11 0.52
Shear Key C-D 0.11 0.69 0.99 0.74 0.11 0.52
Shear Key B-C 0.11 0.71 1.00 0.72 0.11 0.53
Shear Key A-B 0.12 0.71 0.93 0.68 0.09 0.51
NORTH EDGE 0.12 0.66 0.98 0.68 0.1 0.51
AVG 0.11 0.69 0.98 0.71 0.1
STDEV 1.4% 1.8% 2.5% 2.3% 0.5%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 62 Table 5-6 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 13-14

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.43 0.84 0.87 0.4 0.64
PANEL C 0.43 0.89 0.87 0.39 0.65
PANEL B 0.38 0.88 0.76 0.39 0.6
PANEL A 0.43 0.87 0.92 0.38 0.65
AVG 0.42 0.87 0.85 0.39
STDEV 2.0% 1.8% 5.9% 0.7%
The vertical heat map is generated based on the Tables above for Bay 13-14 (Figure 5-14).

Figure 5-14 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 13-14
Bay 13-14 exhibits overall minor to moderate deterioration (Figure 5-15). In the transverse mode, localized anomalies were observed near Panel C, while the vertical mode heat map indicates moderate inconsistencies around Panel A and B. These findings align with the inspection photo,

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 63 which revealed visible spalling and delamination on Panel B (Figure 5-16), supporting the assessment of localized structural degradation in this bay.

Figure 5-15 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 13-14
Figure 5-16 Delamination on Panel B of Bay 13-14

5.4 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 15-16
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 15-16 (Figure 5-17).

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 64 Figure 5-17 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 15-16
For the vertical mode, the analysis identified localized irregularities (Table 5-7 and 5-8), particularly at the East node in Panels B and A, where the STDEV reaches 7.4%, indicating moderate inconsistency in vertical flexibility. Additionally, slight anomalies are observed at the Mid Node. These variations suggest that while most areas in this bay performed consistently, specific zones—especially on the east side—may require closer attention.

Table 5-7 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 15-16 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.06 0.66 0.93 0.65 0.08 0.48
SK C-D 0.07 0.68 0.94 0.67 0.10 0.49
SK B-C 0.08 0.67 0.95 0.65 0.11 0.49
SK A-B 0.07 0.66 0.96 0.69 0.12 0.50
NORTH EDGE 0.09 0.67 1.00 0.70 0.13 0.52
AVG 0.08 0.67 0.95 0.67 0.11
STDEV 1.0% 0.6% 2.5% 2.3% 1.7%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 65 Table 5-8 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 15-16

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.45 0.88 0.87 0.35 0.64
PANEL C 0.44 0.92 0.87 0.34 0.64
PANEL B 0.42 0.9 0.88 0.49 0.67
PANEL A 0.47 0.89 0.92 0.49 0.69
AVG 0.44 0.9 0.88 0.42
STDEV 1.6% 1.2% 2.3% 7.4%
The vertical heat map is generated based on the Tables above for Bay 15-16 (Figure 5-18).

Figure 5-18 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 15-16
Overall, Bay 15-16 shows moderate to high deterioration in the transverse mode, with the most significant anomalies concentrated in Panels B, C, and D. The vertical mode reveals minor to

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 66 moderate irregularities, particularly on the east side of Panels A and B (Figure 5-19). Visual inspection confirms a large spalling area on Panel B (Figure 5-20) and localized surface damage on Panels C and D, which aligns with the structural anomalies indicated in the heat maps.

Figure 5-19 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 15-16
Figure 5-20 Panel B with large spalling area for Bay 15-16

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 67

5.5 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 18-19
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 18-19 (Figure 5-21).

Figure 5-21 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 18-19
For the vertical mode of Bay 18-19, analysis indicates a moderate inconsistency in mode shape amplitudes, particularly at the Mid Node and the West Mid panel zone (Table 5-7 and 5-8). The STDEV values reach 2.7% and 4.6% respectively, suggesting localized vertical flexibility irregularities. These findings point to developing anomalies that warrant monitoring, especially near the central and western areas of the span.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 68 Table 5-9 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 18-19 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.13 0.7 1 0.76 0.12 0.54
SK C-D 0.13 0.74 0.99 0.78 0.11 0.55
SK B-C 0.11 0.72 0.98 0.75 0.13 0.54
SK A-B 0.11 0.72 0.93 0.74 0.1 0.52
NORTH EDGE 0.09 0.69 0.94 0.74 0.09 0.51
AVG 0.12 0.71 0.97 0.76 0.11
STDEV 1.4% 1.6% 2.7% 1.6% 1.5%
Table 5-10 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 18-19

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.42 0.9 0.95 0.47 0.69
PANEL C 0.41 0.92 0.93 0.45 0.68
PANEL B 0.41 0.83 0.89 0.46 0.65
PANEL A 0.37 0.81 0.9 0.45 0.63
AVG 0.4 0.87 0.92 0.46
STDEV 1.9% 4.6% 2.2% 0.9%
An additional anomaly is detected through visual inspection of the side-view mode shape (Figure 5-22), where the shear key C-D exhibits unexpected transverse movement on its western side.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 69 This irregularity is also factored into the vertical mode heat map. Taking all findings into account, the comprehensive heat map for the vertical mode is presented in Figure 5-23.

Figure 5-22 Unexpected transverse movement on shear key C-D Bay 18-19 Figure 5-23 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 18-19
Bay 18-19 shows overall minor to moderate deterioration. In the transverse mode, localized anomalies are observed along the western portion of shear key C-D, where unexpected transverse movements are detected. This irregularity is confirmed through side-view mode

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 70 shape inspection and factored into the heat map. In the vertical mode, moderate inconsistencies are observed in Panels A and B, indicating localized vertical flexibility. These findings suggest developing structural concerns that merit continued observation (Figure 5-24).

Figure 5-24 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 18-19

5.6 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 21-22
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 21-22 (Figure 5-25).

Figure 5-25 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 21-22

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 71 For Bay 21-22, the vertical mode analysis reveals minor to moderate deterioration. Although the STDEV values remained within acceptable limits, several nodes (particularly along the West Midline) exhibit high mode shape magnitudes, indicating elevated vertical flexibility. (Table 5-11 and 5-12) Additionally, the North Edge shows slight inconsistency, which contributes to localized concerns. These findings suggest early signs of vertical irregularities that warrant continued observation.

Table 5-11 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 21-22 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.1 0.76 1.00 0.7 0.09 0.53
SK C-D 0.11 0.77 0.99 0.69 0.09 0.53
SK B-C 0.11 0.78 1.00 0.7 0.09 0.54
SK A-B 0.11 0.78 0.96 0.7 0.08 0.53
NORTH EDGE 0.12 0.73 1.00 0.69 0.08 0.52
AVG 0.11 0.76 0.99 0.69 0.08
STDEV 0.5% 2.1% 1.4% 0.5% 0.8%
Table 5-12 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 21-22

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.47 0.92 0.87 0.37 0.65
PANEL C 0.46 0.96 0.86 0.39 0.67
PANEL B 0.45 0.92 0.89 0.42 0.67
PANEL A 0.44 0.92 0.91 0.4 0.67
AVG 0.45 0.93 0.88 0.39
STDEV 1.0% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 72 In addition to the vertical flexibility findings, Table 5-13 shows that Panels C and D in Bay 21-22 exhibit noticeably lower average vertical frequencies (8.19 Hz) compared to Panels A and B (8.42 Hz). This reduction in frequency suggests a localized loss of stiffness in the southern portion of the bay, further reinforcing the observation of moderate deterioration in Panels C and D.

Table 5-13 In-plane Frequency Comparison Bay 21-22
Bay 21-22 Avg Frequency (Hz)
Panel A 8.42
Panel B 8.42
Panel C 8.19
Panel D 8.19
The excessive longitudinal flexibility observed in Bay 21-22 may also be attributed to deterioration in the bay structure beneath the deck. As illustrated in the comparison diagram (Figure 5-26), a healthy structure shows minimal lateral movement at the ends of the bent, whereas a deteriorated bent exhibits significant outward flexibility. This excessive flexibility is a strong indicator of weakened below-deck components, such as piles or pile-caps, which could contribute to the reduced frequency and observed irregularities in the mode shape behavior.

Figure 5-26 Unexpected Longitudinal Flexibility on the bents

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 73 Figure 5-27 highlights the excessive longitudinal flexibility observed on the shore-side bent of Bay 21-22. The noticeable outward displacement as seen in the front view, suggests deterioration in the below-deck structural components. This deformation pattern is consistent with weakened or compromised below-deck elements near the shore-side, further supporting the earlier findings of reduced frequency and vertical flexibility in Panels C and D.

Figure 5-27: Bent 21 Unexpected Longitudinal Flexibility (Front view) The vertical heat map is generated based on the Tables above for Bay 21-22. Panels C and D are rated as showing minor deterioration due to their lower average vertical frequencies compared to Panels A and B, indicating localized stiffness reduction. Additionally, excessive longitudinal flexibility is observed in Bent 21, particularly on the shore side, as shown in the mode shape deformation. This suggests deterioration in the below-deck components supporting Bent

21. These combined findings are reflected in the final vertical mode heat map shown in Figure 5-28.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 74 Figure 5-28 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 21-22
Figure 5-29 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 21-22
Bay 21-22 exhibits moderate to high deterioration, with pronounced anomalies in both transverse and vertical modes. In the transverse heat map, significant localized curvature changes are observed in Panels A and B, particularly near Bent 21. Vertical mode analysis also reveals reduced frequency in Panels C and D, along with excessive longitudinal flexibility in Bent 21, pointing to potential deterioration in its below-deck components. Visual inspection confirms heavy cracking and spalling on Panel B (Figure 5-30), further supporting the structural concerns identified through the analysis.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 75 Figure 5-30 Panel B large cracking and spalling area Bay 21-22

5.7 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 27-28
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 27-28 (Figure 5-31).

Figure 5-31 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 27-28

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 76 For Bay 27-28, the vertical mode analysis reveals moderate inconsistencies across several key locations. The West-Mid and Middle Node rows exhibit elevated STDEV values of 4.6%, indicating irregular mode shape behavior. The West Mid panel zone also reaches a STDEV of

7.9%, approaching the threshold for high inconsistency. These findings suggest uneven vertical flexibility, particularly concentrated in the western and central sections, pointing to developing structural irregularities in this bay.

Table 5-14 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 27-28 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.11 0.71 1.00 0.56 0.10 0.50
SK C-D 0.12 0.72 0.98 0.69 0.11 0.53
SK B-C 0.11 0.68 1.00 0.69 0.11 0.52
SK A-B 0.10 0.66 0.91 0.65 0.09 0.48
NORTH EDGE 0.06 0.59 0.89 0.61 0.07 0.45
AVG 0.10 0.67 0.96 0.64 0.09
STDEV 1.9% 4.6% 4.6% 5.0% 1.6%
As is shown in Tables 5-14 and 5-15, Panels A and B exhibit unexpected behavior, with vertical flexibility levels deviating from adjacent panels, highlighted by elevated STDEV values and visible deformation in the mode shape side and front views. Additionally, the east side of Panel D displays localized inconsistency in vertical response. These findings are used to prepare the final heat map, identifying moderate to high deterioration concentrated in the upper and eastern portions of the bay. From the side view, Panels A and B display significant inconsistency in vertical flexibility, along with the East-Mid node on the southern edge of Panel D. These irregularities are further supported by the front view, which reveals that the in-plane nodes at both the West-Mid and East-Mid positions exhibit noticeable inconsistency (Figure 5-32).

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 77 Table 5-15 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 27-28

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.38 0.91 0.91 0.31 0.63
PANEL C 0.4 0.97 0.91 0.38 0.67
PANEL B 0.42 0.81 0.82 0.38 0.61
PANEL A 0.33 0.76 0.82 0.36 0.57
AVG 0.38 0.86 0.87 0.36
STDEV 3.5% 7.9% 4.6% 2.9%
Figure 5-32 Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 27-28 Overall, based on all identified anomalies, the vertical mode heat map for Bay 27-28 was generated (Figure 5-33). The shear key between Panels A and B is marked in red due to a significant deviation in consistency at that location, indicating a concentrated change in structural

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 78 stiffness. This area represents a critical zone of concern where vertical flexibility irregularities are most pronounced.

Figure 5-33 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 27-28
Bay 27-28 exhibits moderate to high deterioration overall. The transverse heat map reveals an unexpected inconsistency at Shear Key A-B, indicating a potential localized stiffness change. In the vertical mode, Panels A and B demonstrate significant flexibility deviations, with additional localized irregularities observed on the east side of Panel D (Figure 5-34). Visual inspection confirms these findings, with large cracks identified on Panel A and surface deterioration on Panels B and D (Figure 5-35). These combined observations suggest a need for further structural attention in the upper sections of this bay.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 79 Figure 5-34 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 27-28
Figure 5-35 Large cracks have been observed on Panel A Bay 27-28

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 80

5.8 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 30-31
Based on the localized curvature change, the heat map for the transverse mode is generated for Bay 30-31 (Figure 5-36).

Figure 5-36 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 30-31
Bay 30-31 exhibits significant deterioration in the transverse mode at 1.69 Hz. The heat map reveals severe localized anomalies, especially concentrated in Panels C and D. Panel B also shows high curvature deviations, indicating notable structural irregularities. The distribution of red and dark red zones highlights substantial stiffness loss and distortion, suggesting this bay has one of the highest levels of transverse degradation among the evaluated spans.

For the vertical mode, analysis indicates localized inconsistencies, particularly at the Mid Node and East-Mid zones. The Mid Node shows a STDEV of 2.5%, and the East-Mid panel zone reached 2.7%, both falling in the “Minor” anomaly range (Table 5-14 and 5-15). These results suggest mild deviations in vertical flexibility, especially around the southern and central sections.

Although not severe, the presence of these irregularities supports the overall assessment of structural degradation observed in the transverse mode.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 81 Table 5-16 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 30-31 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH
EDGE 0.15 0.77 0.98 0.75 0.1 0.55
SK C-D 0.14 0.75 1.00 0.73 0.09 0.54
SK B-C 0.11 0.76 0.98 0.68 0.09 0.53
SK A-B 0.12 0.76 0.93 0.65 0.06 0.50
NORTH
EDGE 0.11 0.73 0.96 0.65 0.07 0.50
AVG 0.12 0.75 0.97 0.69 0.08
STDEV 1.5% 1.2% 2.5% 4.0% 1.7%
Table 5-17 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 30-31

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.47 0.94 0.93 0.47 0.7
PANEL C 0.47 0.94 0.9 0.42 0.68
PANEL B 0.41 0.9 0.93 0.43 0.67
PANEL A 0.44 0.91 0.98 0.46 0.7
AVG 0.45 0.92 0.94 0.44
STDEV 2.3% 1.7% 2.7% 1.9%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 82 The shear key between Panels A and B exhibits vertical inconsistencies, as is shown in the vertical mode shape in Figure 5-37, not aligned with other shear keys, indicating localized stiffness variation. Additionally, in-panel nodes on the east side of Panels A and B show unexpected behavior, as confirmed through both side and front view observations (Figure 5-37).

These irregularities contribute to the moderate anomaly ratings and highlight the need for closer monitoring of vertical performance in the northern portion of the bay.

Figure 5-37 Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 30-31 Figure 5-38 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 30-31

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 83 Overall, Bay 30-31 exhibits high to severe deterioration in the transverse mode, particularly concentrated in Panel C, which shows the most critical structural response. The vertical mode indicates minor to moderate deterioration, with irregularities noted in Panels A and B, especially on the east side (Figures 5-38 and 5-39). Visual inspection confirms structural distress in Panel C (Figure 5-40), where large cracks and spalling were observed on the soffit, reinforcing the heat map findings and underscoring the need for intervention in this bay.

Figure 5-39 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 30-31
Figure 5-40 Panel C large cracks and spalling, Bay 30-31

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 84

5.9 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 32-33
Bay 32-33 exhibits widespread and severe deterioration in the transverse mode at 1.48 Hz. The heat map highlights a concentration of anomalies throughout the western half of the bay, particularly in Panels B, C, and D, where severe curvature deviations are observed. Panel B shows asymmetric deformation at multiple locations, and Panel C displays the most critical anomaly, extending fully across its width. These findings suggest substantial loss of stiffness and structural integrity, indicating that Bay 32-33 is among the most deteriorated sections assessed in the superstructure (Figure 5-41).

Figure 5-41 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 32-33
For the vertical mode, analysis reveals severe inconsistency, particularly in the West Mid and Mid Node rows, and shear key B-C, where STDEV values reach 9.6% and 11.0%, respectively — well into the “High” and “Severe” ranges. These values indicate a substantial variation in vertical flexibility along those lines. Additionally, moderate irregularities are observed along the East-Mid line (Table 5-16). Panel-wise, flexibility appears more consistent, though slightly elevated variation is noted at the West Mid in-panel nodes (Table 5-17). These findings confirm significant degradation in vertical performance, supporting the severe deterioration observed in the transverse mode.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 85 Table 5-18 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 32-33 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH
EDGE 0.10 0.58 0.73 0.52 0.05 0.40
SK C-D 0.09 0.55 0.72 0.52 0.06 0.39
SK B-C 0.12 0.76 1.00 0.71 0.09 0.54
SK A-B 0.12 0.74 0.71 0.53 0.07 0.43
NORTH
EDGE 0.08 0.54 0.76 0.54 0.07 0.40
AVG 0.10 0.63 0.78 0.56 0.07
STDEV 1.5% 9.6% 11.0% 7.1% 1.4%
Table 5-19 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the in-plane nodes Bay 32-33

IN-PANEL WEST WEST
MID
EAST

MID EAST AVG
PANEL D 0.32 0.67 0.71 0.31 0.5
PANEL C 0.32 0.69 0.69 0.3 0.5
PANEL B 0.32 0.63 0.67 0.28 0.48
PANEL A 0.3 0.63 0.7 0.27 0.47
AVG 0.31 0.65 0.69 0.29
STDEV 1.0% 2.3% 1.7% 1.6%

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 86 The side view indicates that the shear key between Panels B and C exhibits significant vertical flexibility, leading to the entire line being categorized as “High.” In the front view, Bent 32 shows unexpected longitudinal flexibility, similar to the behavior observed in Bay 21-22. This suggests that the below-deck components of Bent 32 may have deteriorated, contributing to the excessive movement and structural inconsistency in this area (Figure 5-42).

Figure 5-42 Side view and Front View of 1st Vertical Mode of Bay 32-33 Figure 5-43 presents the final heat map for vertical mode in Bay 32-33, incorporating all observed anomalies. The shear key between Panels B and C is rated as “High” due to pronounced flexibility, as confirmed from the side view. Additionally, the entire eastern edge and midspan along Panel B show severe inconsistency. The front view further highlights unexpected longitudinal flexibility at Bent 32, suggesting deterioration of its below-deck components. These combined factors result in the widespread red zones across Panel B and its edges, signalling a critical need for structural attention in this bay.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 87 Figure 5-43 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 32-33
Figure 5-44 shows severe cracking in Panel C near the shear key B-C. The width and propagation of the cracks confirm the structural distress identified in the vertical mode analysis.

This damage aligns with the high flexibility detected at the B-C shear key, further validating the heat map results and highlighting the need for immediate attention in this critical area.

Figure 5-44 Large cracking along the shear key B-C on Panel C, Bay 32-33 Bay 32-33 exhibits high to severe deterioration in the transverse mode and moderate to high deterioration in the vertical mode. Shear keys B-C and C-D show unexpected flexibility and

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 88 asymmetry (Figure 5-45), aligning with the severe deformation patterns seen in both mode shape heat maps. Notably, large cracks are visually identified in Panels A and C, particularly near the B-C shear key, as shown in the inspection photo. These findings confirm significant structural damage and highlight this bay as one of the most critically affected sections.

Figure 5-45 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 32-33

5.10 Mode Shape Evaluation - Bay 35-36
The superstructure heat map for the transverse mode provides a broader context for structural performance across the deck. Notable deformation is concentrated in the western region near the opening, where Panel B and the adjacent node area are marked in red, indicating severe lateral flexibility. Additional areas of high and moderate concern appear around Panel D and its eastern edge. This widespread pattern of irregularity, especially near key support locations and the central opening, reinforces previous findings and suggests significant lateral instability in the superstructure (Figure 5-46).

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 89 Figure 5-46 Transverse Heat Map generation Bay 35-36
Figure 5-47 highlights a critical area of deterioration observed at the west part of Panel A and B in Bay 35-36. The photo shows extensive spalling and exposed, corroded reinforcement, indicating severe degradation of the concrete cover. The mapped location on the floor plan corresponds with one of the severe anomalies identified in the transverse mode heat map, further validating the structural concerns in this region of the superstructure.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 90 Figure 5-47 Large opening area on Panel A and B, Bay 35-36 For the vertical mode, the standard deviation (STDEV) values indicate that the nodes along the longitudinal direction—especially those between Panels D and C, A1 and A2, and A2 and A3— exhibit moderate inconsistencies in vertical flexibility, with STDEV ranging from 3.6% to 4.3% (Table 5-20). This suggests localized anomalies in these regions. While the mid nodes show consistent behavior, the surrounding edges and joints highlight variability. From the side view of the mode shape, the northern part of the east joint shows higher flexibilities compared with the west joint (Figure 5-48).

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 91 Table 5-20 Node Vertical Magnitude Comparison for the edge nodes Bay 35-36 WEST
JOINT
WEST
MID
MID
NODE
EAST
MID
EAST

JOINT AVG
SOUTH EDGE 0.17 0.85 1.00 0.68 0.17 0.57
D3-D2 0.16 0.81 1.00 0.65 0.18 0.56
D2-D1 0.18 0.83 0.97 0.66 0.16 0.56
D1-D 0.16 0.82 0.95 0.69 0.18 0.56
D-C 0.02 0.79 0.98 0.68 0.17 0.53
C-B 0.15 0.81 0.95 0.65 0.19 0.55
B-A 0.11 0.81 0.95 0.67 0.20 0.55
A-A1 0.11 0.83 0.98 0.68 0.22 0.56
A1-A2 0.10 0.91 0.97 0.71 0.25 0.59
A2-A3 0.11 0.76 0.96 0.77 0.26 0.57
NORTH EDGE 0.13 0.75 0.99 0.76 0.26 0.58
AVG 0.13 0.81 0.97 0.69 0.20
STDEV 4.3% 4.2% 1.8% 3.9% 3.6%
Figure 5-48: Side view and Front View of 1
st Vertical Mode of Bay 35-36

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 92 Overall, the vertical heat map is generated (Figure 5-49) based on the identified inconsistencies in vertical flexibility, notably at Shear Keys A2–A1 and C–D, which both displayed behavior that deviated from adjacent shear keys. Additionally, the northern side of Bay 35-36 shows moderate vertical anomalies, suggesting localized stiffness variation. These findings align with the previously quantified STDEV results and observed below-deck deterioration near the northwest corner of the structure.

Figure 5-49 Vertical Heat Map for Bay 35-36
Overall, the transverse heat map indicates Moderate to High deterioration, particularly on the western edge near Panels A3 and D1 (Figure 5-50). The vertical mode results show mostly Minor to Moderate deterioration, with localized issues observed around Shear Keys A2–A1 and C–D.

Notably, the opening between Panels A and B exhibits visible corrosion and spalling, as seen in the inspection photo, suggesting that this localized damage may contribute to further structural degradation in the area.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 93 Figure 5-50 Combined Heat Maps for Bay 35-36

5.11 Frequency Comparison and Discussion
The frequency comparison across the evaluated bays reveals patterns in structural stiffness and potential deterioration (Table 5-21). In the 1st vertical mode, the most impactful mode for the structure, frequencies show variation depending on bay locations and structural integrity, providing insight into the relative stiffness of each zone. These frequencies were grouped among three groups: the three-pile bay configurations (blue), the four-pile bay configurations (green), and the uniquely shaped Bay 35-36 (orange).

Table 5-21 Frequency Comparison for all the tested bays Frequency (Hz) 10-11 12-13 13-14 15-16 18-19 21-22 27-28 30-31 32-33 35-36 1 st Vertical Mode 8.42 8.13 8.11 8.04 8.06 8.24 10.34 9.38 9.20 10.80

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 94 Among the three-pile bay configurations, Bay 15–16 exhibits the lowest vertical mode frequency at 8.04 Hz, indicating reduced global stiffness in this region. This observation aligns with mode shape analyses, which reveal high to severe deterioration, especially in the transverse direction.

Such a frequency drop suggests possible structural weakening in both the superstructure and substructure components.

Among the four-pile bays, Bay 21–22 exhibits the lowest frequency of 8.24 Hz, approximately 20% lower than other bays such as 27–28, which recorded frequencies of 10.34 Hz. The drop in resonance frequency in Bay 21–22 corresponds to the excessive longitudinal flexibility observed in the mode shape, pointing toward possible stiffness loss in the Bent 21 support system or deterioration in below-deck components. This correlation reinforces the reliability of using modal frequency data as an indicator of structural condition.

Bays 30–31 and 32–33, also four-pile bays, show relatively low frequencies at 9.38 Hz and 9.20 Hz, respectively. These values, while not as low as bay 21–22, still fall beneath typical healthy thresholds for similar structural configurations. These results are consistent with observed damage in the corresponding heat maps, where both bays present widespread deterioration, particularly in transverse directions. The combined interpretation of frequency values and mode shape anomalies suggests that these bays are experiencing compromised structural performance and warrant closer inspection or mitigation planning.

Overall, the frequency comparison demonstrates strong alignment with visual and modal evaluation findings, offering a valuable diagnostic tool to identify zones with reduced stiffness and potential structural issues.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 95 6 Conclusion
This report presented the results of the baseline test of targeted bays of the Hermosa Beach Pier using Sensequake's proprietary sensing-based structural health monitoring to evaluate its integrity and detect and locate major damage if any.

The Hermosa Beach Pier has overall 36 bays, 10 of which were selected for evaluation. The majority of the bays are constructed by four prestressed concrete panels linked by shear keys and supported by two bents, 30.5 feet in length and 20 feet wide for the span. The end bay, Bay 35-36 has 10 concrete panels linked by shear keys. The existing pier was constructed in 1965.

Sensequake’s unique baseline identification of the Pier was performed to identify its as-is baseline parameters.

The following was achieved using the measured data:
• Multiple 3D mode shapes and natural frequencies (dynamic properties or stiffness baselines);
• Multiple structural integrity baselines for the individual bays of the Pier;

The evaluation revealed that all tested bays exhibited varying levels of deterioration, with notable damage concentrated in specific panels and structural regions. Bays 15–16, 21–22, 30–31, and 32–33 showed moderate to high deterioration in both transverse and vertical modes. In particular, Panels B, C, and D across multiple bays were frequently identified as zones of concern, often associated with visible cracks, spalling, or delamination. Severe anomalies were most prominent in Bay 32–33, where both mode shape distortion and frequency drop confirmed critical loss of stiffness and structural degradation.

Vertical mode evaluations revealed widespread localized flexibility, particularly along shear keys and midspan nodes, with elevated standard deviation (STDEV) values often exceeding 3%, and in some cases reaching levels classified as “High” or “Severe.” The presence of excessive

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 96 longitudinal flexibility in Bents 21 and 32 suggested possible substructure deterioration, likely in the form of weakened piles or below-deck components.

Transverse mode shape assessments consistently highlighted curvature changes at shear key connections, with many spans showing clear asymmetries and deformation patterns. These findings were validated by observed damage, such as large cracks near shear key B–C in Bay 32–33 and widespread soffit deterioration in Panels C and D of Bay 30–31. In Bay 35–36, the unique ten-panel configuration displayed asymmetrical flexibility, particularly in the opening area, where exposed reinforcement and spalling were documented.

Frequency comparison across the spans further supported the heat map results. Lower natural frequencies correlated well with regions of reduced stiffness and higher deterioration. Notably, Bay 21–22 and Bay 15–16 had the lowest recorded vertical mode frequencies (8.04 Hz), indicating significant structural flexibility relative to other spans such as Bay 27–28 and Bay 35– 36, which maintained higher frequencies over 10 Hz.

In summary, the combination of dynamic testing, curvature quantification, vertical flexibility analysis, and visual inspection has provided a detailed and reliable assessment of the Hermosa Beach Pier's structural condition. The findings confirm that multiple spans are experiencing progressive deterioration, with several regions requiring immediate attention or further investigation.

Future repetition of this same test can be used for long-term structural health management and support the development of targeted maintenance and retrofit strategies to extend the Pier’s service life.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 97 7 References
Brincker, R. and Ventura, C., 2015. Introduction to operational modal analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Hans, S., Boutin, C., Ibraim, E., Roussillon, P., 2005. In Situ Experiments and Seismic Analysis of Existing Buildings. Part I: Experimental Investigations. The Journal of the International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 1513-1529.

Lamarche, C.P., Paultre, P., Proulx, J., Mousseau, S., 2007. Assessment of the Frequency Domain Decomposition Technique by Forced Vibration Tests of a Full-Scale Structure. The Journal of the International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 487-494.

Trifunac, M.D., 1972. Comparisons between Ambient and Forced Vibration Experiments. The Journal of the International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 133-150.

Kelly, A. J., Sauer, E. K., Barbour, S. L., Christiansen, E. A., & Widger, R. A. (1995). Deformation of the Hermosa Beach Pier by an active landslide in clay shale. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32(4), 701-724.

Hermosa Beach Pier – Sensequake-based Structural Integrity Evaluation Report 98 Appendix A – Sensor Layout

Hermosa Beach Pier
– Sensequake-based Structural Integrity EvaluationReport 99

2016 - Kelly Gibson / South Bay Legend
2016 - Charles “Chip” Post / Pioneer
2016 - Ted Robinson / Champion
2016 - John Leininger / Cultural Legend
2015 - Mike Benavidez
2015 - Chris Barela
2014 - John “Merc” Mcfarlane
2013 - Mike Doyle
2011 - Tom Rice
2010 - Tiger Makin
2009 - Donald Craig
2008 - John “Peff” Eick
2007 - Alf Laws
2007 - Donald Takayama
2007 - Pioneers:

Bev Morgan, Toby Erlinger, Patrick O’ Connor,
Rosemary Reimers-Rice
2006 - Pioneers:

Wally Bennett, “Tulie” Clark, Douglas Craig
John Dominis, Mark Kauffman, Joseph P. Kerwin,
Art Rogers, Olin “Olie” L. Scrivens Jr.
2005 - Mary Setterholm
2005—Darryl Dickie
2004 - The Meistrell Brothers:

Bill and Bob
2004 - Sonny Vardeman
2003 - Phil Becker
2003 - Greg Noll
2003 - Dewy Weber
2003 - Dale Velzy
2003 - Hap Jacobs
2003– Surfers Walk of Fame Program Bio
2018 - Kip Jerger / South Bay Legend
2018 - Candace “Candy” Woodward / Female Legend
2018 - Scott Daley / Champion
2017 - Jim Graham / Pioneer
2017 - Mary Lou McGinnis-Drummy / Female Legend
2017 - Chris Frohoff / Champion
2015 - Dennis Jarvis
2015 - Derek Levy
2014 - Pioneers:

Becher Anderson, Bob Bergstrom, Stu Linder, Richard
“Mo” Meine, Warren Miller, Fenton “Fent Scholes
2014 - Sparky Hudson
2012 - Mary Levy
2012 - Steve Wilkings
2011 - Richard Mobley
2009 - Robert Hogan
2008 - Henry Ford
2007 - Mike Stevenson
2007 - John “Whitney” Guild
2006 - John Baker
2006 - Mike “Bones” Bright
2005 - Chris Bredesen
2005 - George Freeth
2004 - John Joseph
2004 - Linda Benson
2003 - Edie Talbot
2003 - Dru Harrison
2003 - Rick Stoner
2003 - Bing Copeland
2003 - Mike Purpus
2003 - Pioneers:

Doc Ball, Hop Swarts, Leroy Grannis, Jim Bailey,
Bill Edgar, Ed Edgar, Bob Bacon, Ward Baker,
Mary Kerwin Riehl, Fred Kerin, John Kerwin,
Ted Kerwin, Jim Kerwin, Al Holland, Paul Mathies,
Cliff Tucker
City Council Plaque
2019 - Ron Garner / Pioneer
2019 - Pat Ryan / South Bay Legend
2019 - The Beach Boys / Cultural Legend
SURFER’S WALK OF FAME PLAQUE LAYOUT
W
S N
E

Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaque Replacement Options
1 Option 1: Railing Mounted Plaque – Sample Location

Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaque Replacement Options
2 Option 1: Railing Mounted Plaque – Sample 6”x5”Plate Layout

CONCEPT SKETCH PROVIDED BY PHIL ROBERTS
Option 2A: Schumacher Plaza - Lighted Wall
• Build a lighted wall for the plaques surrounding
the Tim Kelly Statue from the cement base.
(approximately 58’ long – rough estimate)
• Height TBD but below average eye level.
• Plaques would only include the name of the
inductee, the category, and the year.
3 Surfer’s Walk of Fame Replacement Options Page 555 of 1126 • Place plaques surrounding the Tim Kelly statue base
into the ground.
• Plaques could surround the statue like a circle or be placed only in the front as a half circle.
• Plaques would only include the name of the
inductee, the category, and the year.

Option 2B: Schumacher Plaza – Ground Mounted
4 Surfer’s Walk of Fame Replacement Options Page 556 of 1126 CIP 623 MUNICIPAL PIER

STRUCTURAL INSPECTION AND

EVALUATION, REPAIR, AND REQUEST

FOR DIRECTION REGARDING

POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT
MARCH 24, 2026

Background
Overview
 Comprehensive structural assessment complete
 Cost – benefits analysis to guide decision making
 Current design effort
 Recommendations

Background
 Pier Constructed in 1965
 Various repairs and
renovations since – last major
repair CIP 629 in 2023-2024
($3.1M) per 2017 inspection
 New inspection (CIP
623) initiated September 2024.

Background
2024 Inspections
 Above and below water, ambient vibration

Background
 May 13, 2025 CIP Study
Session (preliminary
update)
 $6.7M in repairs needed
over next 5 years.
– Only $3.7M available for FY
25-26.
– Another $3M needed in 3
to 5 years
Corrosion spall in pile cap

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings
 Completed January 2026
 Detailed inspection observations, structural significance, repair and maintenance recommendations, and cost estimates for repairs.  Construction repair programming to establish budgets and timelines to maintain and repair the Pier for the next 45 years through the end of the Pier’s serviceable lifespan.

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings
 The Pier is currently in poor to serious condition.
 Load rating remains reduced to 5-ton versus 10-ton design.  Reinspection and repairs will be required at least every 5 years.

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings
Corrosion spall and delamination in soffit or panel
Fracture with spall in soffit of panel

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings
Internal fracture, delamination, and vertical
deflection in panel
Fracture in panel

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings

1. Near-Term – High Priority (required repairs by 2026)  Replace 4 concrete deck panels.
 Strengthening 14 deck panels.
 Crack injection & spall repair ~35% of deck panel soffits.  Estimated Construction Cost: $3.25M (2025 dollars); design and permitting is well underway as part of CIP 623.

Sample High Priority Repair/Replacement

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings

2. Near-Term – Medium Priority (required repairs in 3-5 years)
 Concrete Pile Cap crack injection & spall
repair ~80% of pile caps.
 Concrete Deck Panels crack injection & spall
repair to ~45% of deck panel soffits and 90% of
deck panel tops.
 Estimated Construction Cost: $3.22M in 2025
dollars (or $3.92M in 2030 dollars).

Pile cap corrosion spall

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings

3. Mid-Term (required repairs in 6 - 10 years)
 Concrete pile spall repairs & fiberglass jacket
repairs to approximately 6 piles.
 Concrete pile caps spall repairs anticipated
to be identified in future inspection efforts.
 Estimated Construction Cost: $4.38M in 2025
dollars (or $6.49M in 2035 dollars). Pile corrosion spall

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Findings

4. Long-Term (required repair beyond 10 years)
 Additional repairs to pile repairs, pile cap repairs, and deck panels anticipated as deterioration continues to accelerate.
 The existing Pier facility is more than 60 years old and nearing the end of its service life.
 Concrete structures in marine environment typically require concrete corrosion repairs on 5-year cycles after they reach 50-years of age.  The volume and cost of these repairs accelerate until the end of the facility’s useful life.

Discussion
2026 Cost – Benefit Analysis
 Assist in identifying most cost-efficient timing
for potential replacement with a new
structure.
 Analysis compares significant capital outlay
cost of a new facility with projected
escalating cost of repairs as the Pier nears
the end of its service life.
 Benefit of a new facility includes very low to
no maintenance costs for the first ~15 to 20
years.

Corrosion spall

Discussion
2026 Cost – Benefit Analysis

Discussion
2026 Cost – Benefit Analysis
 Cumulative projected cost of more than $210M over the next 44 years to maintain the existing structure.
 Cost for a new replacement Pier is anticipated to be about $44.5M (in 2025 dollars)
 Replacement would be a lengthy process: 6 to 8 years
before construction could begin.

Discussion
2026 Cost – Benefit Analysis
$80,000,000
$130,000,000
$180,000,000
$230,000,000
$280,000,000
$330,000,000
$380,000,000
$430,000,000
Cost in Dollars
Pier Replacement Year
$107.8M
Total Pier Costs (2025 - 2070) Based on Year the Pier is Replaced $103.9M

Discussion
2026 Cost – Benefit Analysis
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
Cost in Dollars
Year
Cumulative Pier Costs (2025 - 2070)
Replace Pier in 2032 Repair Existing Pier through 2070

Discussion
2026 Structural Assessment Recommendations
 Cease further repairs to existing Pier after the 2027 project is complete.
 Replacement in 2032 would save the City $107M by 2070.  Planning and environmental review would need to begin by end of 2026 to start construction in 2032.
 Continued inspection and repair would be required if not replaced in 2032.
 Replacement costs begin to rise substantially after 2036.

Discussion
Current Project – CIP 623
 High priority improvements must be completed within 1 to 2 years.
 Final Design: 75% complete – approaching final
 Permitting:
 Water Board and US Army Corps of Engineers – complete  Coastal Commission – pending
 Schedule: Target start of construction October 2026
 Funding: $3.7M in FY 25-26 CIP – grant funding unavailable

Discussion
Current Project – CIP 623
Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaques
 60 plaques honoring surfing legends inducted
from 2003 - 2019
 Program on hold since 2020.
 Original installation damaged concrete panel
 Project will remove and fill with concrete.

Discussion
Current Project – CIP 623
 Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaques
 Recommendation to replace with railing mounted system.

Sample plate layout
Stainless steel
Sample mounting
locations Page 579 of 1126
Discussion
Key Considerations

1. Completion of the current round of High Priority Repairs to the Pier as part of CIP 623.

Project must be completed within 1 to 2 years to avoid further weight restrictions, potential closure(s).

2. Replacement of Surfer’s Walk of Fame plaques as part of CIP 623.

CIP 623 can replace plaques with low-cost option to allow program to continue. Other options would advance as a separate effort.

Discussion
Key Considerations

3. Consideration of replacement versus continued repair  Continue repairing the existing Pier will require funding increasingly costly repairs while deterioration accelerates.  Council direction on timing if/when to start planning and Environmental process (lengthy 6-8 years before start of construction.)
 Optimal time to replace is 2032 saving the City over $100M (required decision by end of 2026).
 Deferring decision to replace in 2036 will require
funding $4M in FY 27-28 for repairs in 2030.

Recommendation

1. Determine that the high priority structural repairs and, removal, and replacement of the Surfer’s Walk of Fame Plaques Project (Project) as part of CIP 623 is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities);

2. Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption within 5 business days;

3. Direct staff to complete the high priority repairs to the Municipal Pier (“Pier”) as part of CIP Project 623;

4. Direct staff to replace the Surfer’s Walk of Fame plaques with the railing-mounted option as part of CIP 623; and

5. Provide staff with direction on whether to begin the planning and environmental review process for a proposed replacement project.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 13
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-AS-023
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2025-26
(Finance Manager Henry Chao)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Approve the revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, budget transfers and fund balances as shown herein and in the attached Projected Change in Financial Position (Attachment 1) and the Midyear Budget Amendment (Attachment 2);

2. Approve the following transactions from the General Fund:
a) Appropriate $548,007 of assigned fund balance from the Midyear Budget Review 2025-26 to cover the $548,007 unassigned fund balance shortfall; b) Transfer $317,833 of unspent funds from 2024-25 actuals to the Insurance Fund to bring the up to the funding goal of $3.0 million; c) Assign the estimated remaining $2,239,276 of unspent funds from 2024-25 actuals to the assigned fund balance category;

3. Receive and file the City Council Travel Summary (Attachment 3); and

4. Provide direction to staff on whether to continue or discontinue the City’s participation in the Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109 agreement currently funded by Fund 145 Proposition A funds, given increasing subsidy requests, ongoing structural cost pressures, and insufficient ridership data to evaluate Hermosa Beach-specific benefits.

Executive Summary:

This report is to present the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025–26 Midyear Budget Review. With an estimated General Fund revenue increase of $552,347, an overall increase of expenditures of $1,835,257, and adjustments to the General Fund’s fund balance reserves, a budget shortfall of $548,007 is projected by the end of the current 2026 Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2026.

Amount
FY 23 Prop A Fund Exchange $ 48,211
FY 25 Midyear to FY 26 Budget $ 169,305
Compensated Absences $ 143,839
One-Time Assigned Funds to FY 26 Budget $ 361,355 A
Amended Estimated Revenue $ 55,560,894

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 13
Midyear Requested Adjustments $ 552,347
Total Estimated Revenue $ 56,113,241 B
Amended Operating Appropriations $ 53,399,340
Transfers Out $ 1,788,006
Midyear Requested Adjustments $ 1,835,257
Total Estimated Operating Appropriations $ 57,022,603 C Projected FY 2026 Ending Shortfall 6/30/2026 $ (548,007) D=A+B+C FY 26 Budget to FY 26 Midyear $ 235,594
FY 25 Year End Stabilization Contingency $ 312,413
One-Time Midyear Assigned Funds to Budget $ 548,007 E
Projected FY 26 Ending Balance after
Appropriating One-Time Midyear Assigned Funds $ - D + E Staff recommends using one-time assigned balances of $235,594 from the FY 26 Budget to FY 26 Midyear from budget savings from the eliminated Deputy City Manager position.

For the remainder of the $312,413 shortfall, Staff is recommending using the assigned FY 2025 Year End Stabilization Contingency from the Proposition A / General Fund Exchange Assignment Agreement with the City of West Hollywood.

Staff also recommends transferring $317,833 of unspent 2024-25 funds to bring the Insurance Fund beginning FY 2026 fund balance to its funding goal of $3.0 million and assign the estimated remaining unspent $2,239,276 to the assigned fund balance category for the upcoming FY 2026-27 City Budget.

Background:

The City has conducted an annual Midyear Budget Review since fiscal year 1981–82. It is customary to conduct a thorough analysis of all estimated revenues and appropriations at the end of the first six (6) months of the fiscal year. All revisions would be recorded as of January 31, 2025 so that midyear revisions for revenue and appropriations would reflect in the 2025–26 Budget worksheets used for preparation of the 2026–27 Budget.

The City Council Conference/Travel Summary was requested by City Council in 2014–15 and continues to be provided as an information item (Attachment 3).

On June 10, 2025, Council approved the assignment agreement with the City of West Hollywood to exchange expiring Proposition A Local Return Funds for $560,000 of General Fund dollars that otherwise would be returned to the County. The $560,000 of

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 13
General Fund money from the exchange along with $100,000 of identified FY 25 budget savings for a total of $660,000 was set aside for future City expenditures and use.

On June 24, 2025, Council approved and adopted the Fiscal Year 2025–26 budget. The Deputy City Manager position was eliminated in the budget and recommended that the salary and benefits of the position totaling $235,594 be set aside for Midyear review.

General Fund Revenues:

Amended
Budget to
Date
Requested
Budget
Amendment
Revised
Budget
%
Change
Property Taxes $ 26,750,921 $ (158,305) $ 26,592,616 -0.6% Sales Taxes $ 3,686,000 $ (46,000) $ 3,640,000 -1.3%
Utility User's Tax $ 2,502,252 $ 10,792 $ 2,513,044 0.4% Transient Occupancy
Tax $ 5,190,000 $ - $ 5,190,000 0.0%
Other Taxes $ 2,822,559 $ (4,074) $ 2,818,485 -0.1%
Licenses and Permits $ 1,145,946 $ (87,355) $ 1,058,591 -7.6% Fines and Forfeitures $ 2,001,500 $ - $ 2,001,500 0.0%
Use of Money &
Property $ 1,700,765 $ (50,284) $ 1,650,481 -2.9%
Intergovernmental /
State $ 153,414 $ - $ 153,414 0.0%
Current Service
Charges $ 9,691,637 $ 757,573 $ 10,449,210 7.8%
Other Revenue $ 68,200 $ 130,000 $ 198,200 190.6%
Total Revenue $ 55,713,194 $ 552,347 $ 56,265,541 1.0%
Transfers-in $ 361,054 $ 175,112 $ 536,166 48.5%
It is requested that the City’s General Fund estimated revenue budget be increased by $552,347. The following is a brief description of the changes recommended.

Property Taxes
The estimate for overall property tax revenue decreased by 0.6 percent. The midyear estimates for the secured portion of the property tax or “real property”, which is land and personal property located upon that property of the same owner is 1.89 percent lower than the original estimate. The new estimate of Current Year Secured is $21,383,348.

The slight decrease is due to a projected higher delinquency payment rate and successful valuation appeals in the prior fiscal year.

Sales Taxes

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 13
The recommended $46,000 decrease in Sales Taxes reflects the most recent estimates received from HdL Companies, the City’s sales tax consultant. Increases are projected for State & County Pools and Restaurants & Hotels, which is the largest industry group for sales tax in Hermosa Beach. This is offset by decreases primarily due to lower projected Food & Drugs and Auto Sales tax estimates.

Utility User Tax (UUT)
UUT is projected to slightly increase 0.4 percent from the original budget, attributable to the costs of electricity. The City will continue to monitor Wired Telecom and Cable TV UUT revenue as residents “cut the cord” in favor of more cost-effective wireless telecom services and continue switching from Cable TV to streaming for their video services.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
TOT receipts for the first half (through November) are consistent with the original budget, therefore no change is recommended.

Other Taxes
The small decrease of $4,074 is projected based on historical analysis of the Prop 172 Sales & Use Tax. Proposition 172 is a voter-approved 0.5% statewide sales tax dedicated to funding local public safety services, including police, fire, and criminal justice operations.

Licenses & Permits
This category decreased by 7.6 percent, primarily due to decreases in electric and plumbing permits due to current market conditions. This is offset by a projected increase in building permits based on actual building permit revenues from the first half of the fiscal year.

Fines and Forfeitures
This category was increased by $450,000 earlier in September 2025 for anticipated increases in parking violation penalty revenue from the updated parking violation bail schedule. Revenue is consistent with the amended budget, therefore no change is recommended.

Use of Money & Property
This net decrease of $50,284 is primarily due to a decrease of $45,500 in Community Center Rentals. Community Center Rentals are lower than expected from the closure of Kelly Courts resulting in less pickleball reservations and adjusting anticipated revenue from the Clark Building due to the delay in reopening.

Intergovernmental/State
Estimated reimbursement claims are consistent with the original budget, therefore no change is recommended.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 13
Current Service Charges
This category is projected to increase 7.8 percent from the original budget. The largest increase is from the updated meter rates adopted earlier in October 2025. Staff is anticipating an approximate $635,000 increase in parking meter revenue this fiscal year.

This is followed by a projected increase of $240,000 in plan-check fees based on activity from the first half of the year.

Increases are offset by a $50,000 decrease in Other Recreation Programs due to lower than anticipated PARK After School Program enrollment. This is followed by a decrease of approximately $48,000 in Police Towing fees due to decreased activity from the first half of the year. Current Service Revenue comprises multiple fee-for-service streams that fluctuate based on customer demand and activity levels.

Other Revenue
The recommended $130,000 increase is due to recognizing a one-time $100,000 reimbursement for City Administration costs from the 2025 Bond Issuance for the Greenwich Village North Undergrounding Utilities Assessment District.

General Fund Expenditures:

Amended
Budget
Requested Budget
Amendment
Revised
Budget
%
Change Labor Non-Labor Approp.

Legislative $ 1,855,578 $ 37,577 $ 200,000 $ 2,093,155 12.8% Mgmt. Sup. $ 6,046,606 $ 151,853 $ 74,275 $ 6,272,734 3.7% Prospect. Exp. $ 98,580 $ - $ 101,420 $ 200,000 102.9%
Police $ 21,915,685 $ 913,178 $ 12,485 $ 22,841,648 4.2% Fire $ 8,130,532 $ - $ - $ 8,130,532 0.0%
Public Works $ 10,294,183 $ 162,822 $ 12,014 $10,469,019 1.7% Com. Dev. $ 2,962,770 $ (163,110) $ 157,000 $ 2,956,660 -0.2% Parks & Rec. $ 2,551,857 $ 175,743 $ - $ 2,727,600 6.9% Total
Expenditures $ 53,855,791 $1,278,063 $ 557,194 $ 55,691,048 3.4% PEG Funds $ 9,130 $ - $ - $ 9,130 0.0%
Transfers-out $ 1,918,535 $ - $ 317,833 $ 2,236,368 16.6% Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ 550,000 $ 550,000 - %
Staff recommends increasing the City’s operating General Fund expenditures by $1,835,257. The $1.3 million increase in personnel costs is due to projected labor

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 13
increases in salaries and benefits from the recently negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with the City Employee Bargaining Units earlier this fiscal year.

The remainder of the approximate $557,000 increase is primarily due to recommended increases in contract services.

Each City Department reviewed their budgets in detail and identified where savings could be realized but also requested increases as the decreases made to balance the budget were not all sustainable.

Legislative
Staff recommends increasing the City Attorney budget by $200,000 from $480,000 to $680,000 due to activity from the first half of the year.

Management Support
Staff recommends increasing the Revenue Services contract services budget by $60,000 for 3rd party collection fees due to an increase in parking citations. This cost is mainly offset by increased collection efforts with the City’s new citation vendor.

After identifying savings by releasing both the training budget for the eliminated Deputy City Manager position and the 3rd Party Facilitator for City Manager Evaluation, staff is recommending increasing the City Manager budget by a net $9,275 to fund a Parking and a Downtown Lot A study.

The Finance Administration Division labor is increased $5,050 for a staff promotion from Senior Account Clerk to Administrative Assistant. The promotion is to provide overlap and assume duties from the current Administrative Assistant that is retiring in July 2026.

Management Support – Prospective Expenditures
Staff recommends replenishing the prospective expenditures for $98,580 to cover unanticipated expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year. This was originally adopted to be budgeted for $200,000 but was primarily used this Fiscal Year to cover department needs including the Council approved CSG Consultant amendment, the City Manager Executive Recruitment, Recreation Management software implementation expenses, and the Xanadu Janitorial Service contract.

Public Safety – Police
The $925,663 increase in the Police budget is primarily due to a projected approximately $913,000 increase in labor costs from the recently negotiated and approved MOUs.

Staff is also recommending an adjustment for $6,000 to the Office Operating Supplies budget for computer chairs after ergonomic tests and an increase of $6,485 to Contract Services for shooting range budget expenditures. The range budget expenditures will be

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 13
offset by an equal $6,485 reimbursement for firearms the Police Department are selling back to a manufacturer.

Public Safety – Fire
Contracted Fire Services are consistent with the original budget, therefore no change is recommended.

Public Works
Staff is recommending adjustments of $4,014 to the Downtown Enhancement Division and $8,000 of anticipated repair and maintenance supplies for the Public Works Yard division.

Community Development
The labor decrease of $163,110 is primarily due to adjusting the pension allocations from former Community Development department staff to the current department staff.

This offsets a recommended increase of $157,000 to the Community Development Contract Services budget. The increase is due to $50,000 for contracted plan review services and a contracted permit technician of $60,000 to support ongoing Accela activation and meet state mandated reporting requirements.

Staff also recommends an increase of $37,000 for the City match for the South Bay Regional Housing Trust Joint Powers Agreement that was approved by Council earlier on March 10, 2026 and $10,000 to the training budget for ongoing required departmental training.

Parks/Recreation (Community Resources)
Staff has no changes with the operating appropriations budget at Midyear.

Public, Educational, and Governmental Access (PEG) Funds Staff has no change to the PEG funds budget and will revisit as part of the upcoming FY 2026-27 Budget Cycle.

Transfers In / Transfers Out
Staff is recommending a transfer in of $175,112 from completed legacy assessment redemption funds to the General Fund assigned fund balance category for prior City administrative costs. Staff is also recommending a transfer out of $317,833 from unspent 2024-25 funds to bring the Insurance Fund beginning FY 2026 fund balance to its funding goal of $3.0 million.

Capital Outlay from Donations
Staff is requesting an appropriation of $550,000 from the restricted fund balance category of donations for two General Fund Capital Improvement Projects (CIP).

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 13
CIP 111 – Sheldon Donation
The $500,000 of Chuck and Missy Sheldon donation is requested to be budgeted for a monument signage.

CIP 112 – Chamber of Commerce Donation
The $50,000 of the Chamber of Commerce Marquee Donation is requested to be budgeted for a marquee sign.

Available Funds
After the recommended budget revisions, a shortfall of $548,007 is reflected in the General Fund.

Staff recommends addressing the shortfall by appropriating the balance of $235,594 from Fiscal Year 2026 Adopted Budget savings due to the elimination of the Deputy City Manager position.

For the remainder of the $312,413 shortfall, Staff is recommending appropriating the assigned FY 2025 Year End Stabilization Contingency from the Proposition A / General Fund Exchange Assignment Agreement with the City of West Hollywood.

Other Funds:

Adjustments to both estimated revenues and appropriations are proposed for the City’s other funds (excluding the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund, which will be addressed in the following section). Revenue adjustments to other funds are due to an increase in interest revenue from City deposits held longer in pooled investments until usage. Appropriation adjustments are due to updated salary and benefit cost allocations at other funds where budgeted.

The major adjustments are explained below.
115 State Gas Tax Fund
Staff is releasing $60,200 of CIP 105 Annual Street Improvements back to the Gas Tax Fund as the project is completed.
116 TDA 3 (Transportation Development Act) Fund
Staff is releasing $18,000 of CIP 193 Pedestrian Crossing Safety Improvements back to the TDA fund since the project was completed in the prior fiscal year. 122 Tyco Fund
Staff is releasing approximately $191,300 of CIP 105 Annual Street Improvements and $3,000 of CIP 502 Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail back to the Tyco Fund as both projects are completed.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 13
145 Proposition A Fund
Staff is releasing a net total of $782,000 back to the Proposition A Fund as the $800,000 Fund Exchange with the City of West Hollywood occurred in the last month of the prior 2025 fiscal year. This is offset by budgeting an additional $18,000 for the Valley Park Day Camp excursions.

Beach Cities Transit Line 109 (145 Proposition A Fund)
The City of Hermosa Beach has participated in the Beach Cities Transit (BCT) Line 109 agreement since 2006, with minimal subsidy requirements until FY 2025–26, when BCT requested $17,183 due to rising operating costs. For FY 2026–27, BCT is requesting $19,761, reflecting the City’s 10.89% cost share.

Operating costs are expected to continue increasing due to structural cost pressures and flat ridership, which is likely to result in higher future subsidy requests from all partner agencies. In FY 2025–26, staff amended the agreement to require enhanced ridership reporting. However, farebox data received to date is approximately 70% incomplete and insufficient for meaningful analysis of Hermosa Beach usage. 147 Measure R Fund
Staff is releasing $18,354 of CIP 105 Annual Street Improvements back to the Measure R Fund as the project is completed.
150 Grants Fund
The estimated revenue is updated to increase $510,000 for the Grants Fund. The increase is to recognize $460,000 in reimbursements for Municipal Pier Repair CIP 629 and CIP 660 that was completed two years prior in Fiscal Year 2024. The remainder $50,000 is due to recognition of reimbursement revenue from CalRecycle for CIP 105 Annual Street improvements in the prior fiscal year.
160 Sewer Fund
Staff is updating the CIP 421 Annual Sewer Improvements Phase II budget from $3,865,610 to $1,765,884 to recognize activity completed in the prior fiscal year 2025. 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund & 191 Tidelands Undersea Cable Fund The installation of the 4th easement cable has been delayed to next fiscal year.

Staff is releasing $96,202 and $95,000 of CIP 695 Parking Lot A Improvements in the RTI Undersea and RTI Tideland funds respectively.
705 Insurance Fund
Staff has updated the estimated revenue by approximately $108,000 for insurance reimbursements received this year.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 13
Staff is also reclassing $100,000 of available budget within the Insurance Fund from General Liability Claims to cover year end projected Workers Compensation Claims.

Although the projected ending fund balance for the Insurance Fund is approximately $2.85 million with the estimated revenue increase and the $317,833 transfer in from unspent 2024-25 funds, staff is anticipating actual General Liability Claims expenditure to be less than budgeted. Staff recommends no changes due to the uncertainty of insurance claims for the remainder of the fiscal year and will revisit as part of the upcoming FY 2026- 27 Budget Cycle.
715 Equipment Replacement Fund
Staff is requesting an additional $181,000 of appropriations offset by approximately $21,000 in updated salary and benefit cost allocations.

For Information Technology, this includes $21,535 for Cycle 8 of the Los Angeles Regional Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LARIAC). LARIAC will provide digital aerial imagery used by the City for project planning, plan review and other critical processes. Staff is also requesting an additional $2,550 to upgrade the Community Center Conference room to hold virtual meetings.

The Police Department is requesting $35,000 to equip all Police Vehicles and Community Service Officer (CSO) Vehicles with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). Other Police Department equipment requests include $3,400 to equip all CSO vehicles with medical kits, $6,000 for 40mm less lethal mounts in Police Department vehicles and $5,900 to equip Axon Kits for 2 Chevy Tahoe’s.

Staff is also requesting an additional $106,600 to purchase 2 Ford Explorers and related outfitting costs for Police Administration staff. The two Ford Explorers will replace two 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid S vehicles to be auctioned.

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
The originally adopted CIP budget for FY 2025-26 was $33,944,125, consisting of 36 projects that are either directly charged to their funding source or to the 301 Capital Improvement Project Fund.

The total net change to the Capital Improvement Fund is an increase of $1,438,840 to bring the projected ending CIP Fund balance to $1,664,275. This is primarily due to the actual costs of completed CIP projects being lower than budgeted and releasing $1,274,184 of project budget back to the CIP Fund. Staff is also updating the CIP Fund estimated revenue by $164,656 to recognize additional interest revenue received this fiscal year.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 13
The release of completed project budgets frees up funding for necessary City projects anticipated in the upcoming next fiscal year budget cycle.

In this midyear budget review, the budgets for the following CIP projects are recommended to be released back to the CIP fund as the projects are nearing completion or completed.
109 Utility Box Wrappings
Staff recommends releasing $7,200 back to the CIP fund. 502 Greenbelt Pedestrian Trail
Staff recommends releasing $25,702 back to the CIP fund. 603 South Park Slope, Irrigation and Landscape Improvements Staff recommends releasing $1,080,630 back to the CIP fund to amend carryforward and release remaining budget. The project was completed earlier this fiscal year. 604 City Wide ADA Improvements
Staff recommends releasing $288,692 back to the CIP fund. 605 City Facilities Condition and Needs Assessment
Staff recommends releasing $346,530 back to the CIP fund. 617 Civic Center Charging Stations
Staff recommends releasing $49,130 back to the CIP fund. 633 Base 3 Electrical Improvements
Staff recommends releasing $200,000 back to the CIP fund. 689 Clark Building Renovations
Staff recommends releasing $200,000 back to the CIP fund.

In this mid-year budget review, appropriations are recommended from the CIP fund for the following projects.
615 New Corporate Yard Facilities
Staff recommends appropriating the remaining $889,278 set aside as a CIP Fund reserve balance for the City Yard Construction to cover anticipated expenditures for the remainder of the Fiscal Year.
619 Kelly Court Improvements
Staff recommends appropriating an additional $51,403 to the CIP project to maintain proper construction inspection coverage and compliance with labor regulations.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 13
Fiscal Impact:

With a $548,007 projected structural General Fund shortfall after midyear adjustments, staff is recommending using one-time savings of $235,594 from the eliminated Deputy City Manager position and $312,413 of FY 25 Stabilization Contingency from the Proposition A fund exchange to balance the FY 26 budget.

The City has used one-time savings and measures to manage structural City budget deficits to create a balanced budget.

The Fiscal Year 2025–2026 budget was balanced in part by using $361,355 in one-time funds from the City’s General Fund. These funds came from several sources, including the FY 2023 Prop A exchange, savings identified during the previous year’s midyear review, and funds set aside for employee leave obligations.

In this Midyear update, the City is projected to increase expected General Fund revenues by $552,347. At the same time, planned spending is projected to rise by $1,835,257 to address operational needs. These adjustments were carefully made to help the City manage ongoing financial challenges while continuing to provide essential services to the community, even as costs rise and economic conditions remain uncertain.

Overall, a total of $909,362 in one-time funds was used to balance the FY 2026 budget.

On June 24, 2025 during the budget adoption, the below five-year forecast was presented;

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 13
Given ongoing fiscal uncertainty, staff projects structural deficits in the upcoming fiscal years, driven by expenditures outpacing anticipated revenues. Contributing factors include rising costs associated with departmental contract service negotiations, as well as pending service agreements with the Los Angeles County Fire Department for fire protection, beach operations, and lifeguard services.

Additional fiscal pressures include the need to replenish the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund to support critical infrastructure projects that maintain community safety and service levels. The City must also address unanticipated expense increases, which may include rising contract service costs, infrastructure and maintenance needs, legal liabilities, personnel and benefit cost increases, and fluctuations in fuel, utility, and other operational expenses.

In light of these economic uncertainties, staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed General Fund transactions and appropriate the estimated remaining balance of $2,239,276 in unspent FY 2024–25 funds to support the development of the FY 2026–27 budget.

Attachments:

1. Projected Change in Financial Position

2. Midyear Budget Amendment

3. City Council Travel Summary
Respectfully Submitted by: Henry Chao, Finance Manager
Concur: Charlotte Newkirk, Senior Finance Analyst
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager

City of Hermosa Beach
Projected Change in Financial Position
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Fund # Fund
Beginning
Fund Balance
07/01/2025
Fund Balance
Reclass
Estimated
Revenues
Midyear
Request
Operating
Appropriations
Transfers In /
(Transfers Out)
Capital
Appropriations
Midyear
Request
Projected
Fund Balance
06/30/2026
General Fund
001 Unassigned $ - $ 909,362 $55,560,894 $ 552,347 $ 53,399,340 $ (1,788,006) $ - $ 1,835,257 $ - 001 Assigned - FY23 Prop A Fund Exchange $ 430,683 $ (48,211) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 382,472 001 Assigned - FY25 Midyear to FY26 Budget $ 169,305 $ (169,305) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 001 Assigned - FY25 Year End Stabilization Contingency $ 660,000 $ (312,413) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 347,587 001 Assigned - FY26 Budget to FY26 Midyear $ 235,594 $ (235,594) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 001 Assigned - FY25 Reappropriations to FY26 $ 242,336 $ - $ - $ - $ 242,336 $ - $ - $ - $ - 001 Assigned - FY25 Actuals to FY 26 Insurance Fund $ 317,833 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (317,833) $ - $ - $ - 001 Assigned - FY25 Year End Actuals to FY 27 $ 2,239,276 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,239,276 001 Assigned - Reserve for FEMA Claims $ 926,345 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 926,345 001 Assigned - City Administrative Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 175,112 $ - $ - $ 175,112 001 Assigned - Contingencies $ 10,560,684 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 86,686 $ - $ - $ 10,647,370 001 Assigned - Retirement Trust $ 829,060 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 829,060 001 Assigned - Compensated Absences $ 294,170 $ (143,839) $ - $ - $ - $ 143,839 $ - $ - $ 294,170 001 Committed - In Lieu Fee/Parking Facility $ 404,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 404,600 001 Nonspendable $ 1,102,048 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,102,048 001 Restricted - CASp Fees $ 6,279 $ - $ 7,800 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14,079 001 Restricted - General Plan $ 362,273 $ - $ 94,000 $ - $ 214,115 $ - $ - $ - $ 242,158 001 Restricted - Chamber Marquee Donation $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ - 001 Restricted - Sheldon Donation * $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - 001 Restricted - Nuisance Abatement Restrooms $ 10,075 $ - $ 10,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,575 001 Restricted - PEG Funds $ 225,599 $ - $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,130 $ - $ 256,469 001 Restricted - Section 115 Pension Trust $ 1,021,575 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,021,575 Total General Fund $ 20,587,735 $ - $55,713,194 $ 552,347 $ 53,855,791 $ (1,700,202) $ 9,130 $ 2,385,257 $ 18,902,896 Special Revenue Funds
105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund $ 25,083 $ - $ 868,414 $ - $ 870,971 $ - $ - $ 25,804 $ (3,278) 115 State Gas Tax Fund $ 342,582 $ - $ 1,123,501 $ - $ 150,000 $ (350,000) $ 866,094 $ (52,247) $ 152,236 116 TDA 3 (Transportation Development Act) Fund $ - $ - $ 15,257 $ - $ - $ - $ 33,257 $ (18,000) $ - 117 AB 939 Fund $ 161,168 $ - $ 68,773 $ 630 $ 45,273 $ - $ - $ - $ 185,298 121 Prop A Open Space Fund $ (141,086) $ - $ 18,000 $ 47,616 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (75,470) 122 Tyco Fund $ 1,927,219 $ - $ 313,702 $ 6,890 $ - $ - $ 2,327,445 $ (194,336) $ 114,702 125 Parks / Recreation Facility Tax Fund $ 338,688 $ - $ 119,193 $ - $ - $ - $ 399,193 $ (9,597) $ 68,285 135 Bayview Drive District Admin Expense Fund $ 7,008 $ - $ 194 $ (194) $ 1,900 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,108 138 Loma District Admin Expense Fund $ - $ - $ 1 $ (1) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 139 Beach Drive District Assessment Admin Fund $ 1,503 $ - $ 106 $ (106) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,503 140 CDBG Grant Fund $ 3,192 $ - $ 184,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 184,000 $ - $ 3,192 145 Proposition A Fund $ 105,343 $ - $ 511,919 $ - $ 955,942 $ - $ - $ (785,865) $ 447,185 146 Proposition C Fund $ 787,857 $ - $ 424,152 $ 11,409 $ 372,502 $ - $ 745,465 $ (2,924) $ 108,375 147 Measure R Fund $ 376,902 $ - $ 314,157 $ 907 $ 1,687 $ - $ 683,684 $ (16,326) $ 22,921 148 Measure M Fund $ 17,746 $ - $ 355,705 $ - $ - $ - $ 398,705 $ - $ (25,254) 149 Measure W Fund $ 683,494 $ - $ 158,305 $ 26,550 $ 23,449 $ - $ 367,632 $ (1,963) $ 479,231 150 Grants Fund $ (622,909) $ - $ 2,526,131 $ 510,000 $ 1,206,728 $ - $ 1,041,795 $ - $ 164,699 152 AQMD Fund $ 136,679 $ - $ 25,575 $ 3,369 $ - $ 15,000 $ - $ 150,623 153 Supple. Law Enforce. Services (SLESF) Fund $ 508,582 $ - $ 161,191 $ 6,262 $ 126,133 $ - $ - $ - $ 549,902 157 FEMA / CAL OES Fund $ (651,475) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (651,475) 160 Sewer Fund $ 2,972,990 $ - $ 1,316,714 $ 31,527 $ 15,000 $ - $ 4,876,613 $(2,155,002) $ 1,584,620 161 Storm Drain Fund $ 2,592,166 $ - $ 50,052 $ 62,115 $ 905,870 $ 700,000 $ 1,197,245 $ (41,073) $ 1,342,291 170 Asset Seizure Fund $ 513,286 $ - $ 141,088 $ 14,166 $ 111,177 $ - $ - $ - $ 557,363 180 Fire Protection Fund $ 12,208 $ - $ 4,265 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,473 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund $ 1,087,259 $ - $ 276,186 $ - $ 84,993 $ - $ 1,221,656 $ (101,776) $ 158,572

City of Hermosa Beach
Projected Change in Financial Position
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Fund # Fund
Beginning
Fund Balance
07/01/2025
Fund Balance
Reclass
Estimated
Revenues
Midyear
Request
Operating
Appropriations
Transfers In /
(Transfers Out)
Capital
Appropriations
Midyear
Request
Projected
Fund Balance
06/30/2026
191 RTI Tidelands Undersea Cable Fund $ 373,122 $ - $ 12,600 $ - $ - $ 367,007 $ (95,000) $ 113,715 Total Special Revenue Funds $ 11,558,607 $ - $ 8,989,181 $ 721,140 $ 4,871,625 $ 350,000 $ 14,724,791 $(3,448,305) $ 5,470,817 Debt Service Funds
201 Lease Revenue Bond Fund $ 40,857 $ - $ - $ - $ 728,200 $ 728,200 $ - $ - $ 40,857 Total Debt Service Funds $ 40,857 $ - $ - $ - $ 728,200 $ 728,200 $ - $ - $ 40,857 Capital Projects Funds
301 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Fund $ 10,422,300 $ 841,393 $ 285,909 $ 164,656 $ 336,195 $ - $ 11,877,250 $(2,163,462) $ 1,664,275 301 CIP Fund - Reserved for City Yard Construction $ 1,889,278 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 889,278 $ - 301 CIP Fund - Reserved for Capital Facilities $ 841,393 $ (841,393) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Improvement Project Fund $ 13,152,971 $ - $ 285,909 $ 164,656 $ 336,195 $ - $ 12,877,250 $(1,274,184) $ 1,664,275 313 Greenwich Village Utility Undergrounding $ 58,572 $ - $ 4,031,600 $ - $ 4,031,600 $ - $ - $ - $ 58,572 Total Capital Projects Funds $ 13,211,543 $ - $ 4,317,509 $ 164,656 $ 4,367,795 $ - $ 12,877,250 $(1,274,184) $ 1,722,847 Agency Funds
609 Bayview Drive District Redemption Fund $ 9,507 $ 17,590 $ 1,842 $ (1,842) $ - $ (27,097) $ - $ - $ - 610 Lower Pier District Redemption Fund $ 3,550 $ - $ 96 $ (96) $ - $ (3,550) $ - $ - $ - 611 Beach Drive Redemption Fund $ 2,294 $ - $ 385 $ (385) $ - $ (2,294) $ - $ - $ - 612 Beach Drive Reserve Fund $ 5,214 $ - $ 141 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,355 617 Myrtle Avenue Assessment Fund $ 52,131 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (52,131) $ - $ - $ - 618 Loma Drive Assessment Fund $ 90,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (90,040) $ - $ - $ - 619 Bayview Drive District Reserve Fund $ 17,590 $ (17,590) $ 463 $ (463) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 623 Greenwich Underground Reserve Fund $ - $ 58,405 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,405 624 Greenwich Underground Redemption Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Agency Funds $ 180,326 $ 58,405 $ 2,927 $ (2,786) $ - $ (175,112) $ - $ - $ 63,760 Internal Service Funds
705 Insurance Fund $ 2,682,117 $ - $ 4,338,529 $ 107,754 $ 4,668,545 $ 317,833 $ - $ (70,178) $ 2,847,866 715 Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF) $ 7,275,043 $ - $ 1,760,436 $ - $ 3,363,266 $ - $ 630,133 $ 159,575 $ 4,882,505 715 ERF - Investment in Fixed Assets $ 2,789,447 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,789,447 715 ERF - Designated Building Maintenance Funds $ 553,394 $ - $ 102,557 $ - $ - $ - $ 122,000 $ - $ 533,951 715 ERF - Records Technology Fee $ 812,430 $ - $ 90,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 902,430 715 ERF - Assigned Reserve - Accounting ERP $ 333,645 $ - $ - $ - $ 333,645 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Equipment Replacement Fund $ 11,430,314 $ - $ 1,952,993 $ - $ 3,696,911 $ - $ 752,133 $ 159,575 $ 9,108,333 Total Internal Service Funds $ 14,112,431 $ - $ 6,291,522 $ 107,754 $ 8,365,456 $ 317,833 $ 752,133 $ 89,397 $ 11,956,199 Total $ 59,691,499 $ 58,405 $75,314,333 $1,543,111 $ 72,188,867 $ (479,281) $ 28,363,304 $(2,247,835) $ 38,157,376 * Donation accepted on 12/9/2025.

City of Hermosa Beach
Midyear Budget Amendment
For Fiscal Year 2025-26
Fund # Fund Name
Account
Code Function Account Name
Amended
Budget
Midyear
Request
Revised
Budget Type
001 General Fund 001-3101 Property Tax Current Year Secured 21,794,716 $ (411,368) $ 21,383,348 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3102 Property Tax Current Year Unsecured 683,333 $ (5,247) $ 678,086 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3103 Property Tax Prior Year Collections - $ 214,000 $ 214,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3108 Sales Tax Sales Tax 3,686,000 $ (46,000) $ 3,640,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3109 Other Taxes 1/2 Cent Sales Tx Ext 292,616 $ (4,074) $ 288,542 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3120 UUT Utility User Tax 2,502,252 $ 10,792 $ 2,513,044 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3122 Property Tax Property tax In-lieu of Veh Lic Fees 3,972,872 $ 44,310 $ 4,017,182 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3204 Licenses & Permits Building Permits 650,000 $ 40,000 $ 690,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3205 Licenses & Permits Electric Permits 199,500 $ (59,500) $ 140,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3206 Licenses & Permits Plumbing Permits 147,000 $ (67,000) $ 80,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3236 Licenses & Permits Drone Permit Fee 2,330 $ (855) $ 1,475 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3404 Use of Money & Property Community Center Leases 34,184 $ (4,784) $ 29,400 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3405 Use of Money & Property Community Center Rentals 379,500 $ (45,500) $ 334,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3813 Current Service Charges Plan Check Fees 320,000 $ 240,000 $ 560,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3817 Current Service Charges Address Change Request Fee 6,575 $ (2,075) $ 4,500 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3818 Current Service Charges Police Services 420 $ 19,020 $ 19,440 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3821 Current Service Charges Daily Permit Lot A/Parking Structure 11,000 $ 4,800 $ 15,800 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3841 Current Service Charges Police Towing 164,948 $ (47,948) $ 117,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3845 Current Service Charges Lot A Revenue 800,000 $ 488,376 $ 1,288,376 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3865 Current Service Charges Lot B Revenue 193,100 $ 147,000 $ 340,100 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3867 Current Service Charges Precise Development Plans 44,157 $ (27,221) $ 16,936 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3894 Current Service Charges Other Recreation Programs 193,799 $ (50,000) $ 143,799 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3903 Other Revenue Contributions Non Govt - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3914 Other Revenue Planning EIR Admin Reimbursement 10,000 $ 30,000 $ 40,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6810 Current Service Charges Deed Restriction/Covenant Review 20,800 $ (13,720) $ 7,080 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6811 Current Service Charges Landscape Plan Review 5,370 $ (2,685) $ 2,685 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6821 Current Service Charges Solar Plan Check/Inspection 5,040 $ 14,960 $ 20,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6825 Current Service Charges Clean Bay Restaurant - NPDES Inspection - $ 15,483 $ 15,483 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6828 Current Service Charges Public Improvement Plan Check 51,000 $ 9,000 $ 60,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6849 Current Service Charges Traffic Plan Review - $ 2,250 $ 2,250 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6881 Current Service Charges Public Tree Removal Permit 500 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6883 Current Service Charges Short-term Vacation Rental Permit 33,518 $ (20,358) $ 13,160 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-6890 Current Service Charges Outdoor Dining Encroachments 604,000 $ (19,809) $ 584,191 $ Revenue 001 General Fund 001-3955 Transfers In - Assigned Assigned - City Administrative Costs - $ 172,112 $ 172,112 $ Transfer In 001 General Fund 001-1101-4102 Legislative Regular Salaries 53,958 $ 2,777 $ 56,735 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1101-4111 Legislative Accrual Cash In 3,368 $ (1,230) $ 2,138 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1101-4112 Legislative Part Time/Temporary 50,880 $ - $ 50,880 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1101-4180 Legislative Retirement 55,852 $ 5,050 $ 60,902 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1101-4188 Legislative Employee Benefits 63,571 $ 3,108 $ 66,679 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1101-4189 Legislative Medicare Benefits 1,520 $ 76 $ 1,596 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1121-4102 Legislative Regular Salaries 386,709 $ 461 $ 387,170 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1121-4111 Legislative Accrual Cash In 8,978 $ 13,669 $ 22,647 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1121-4112 Legislative Part Time Temporary - $ 9,733 $ 9,733 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1121-4180 Legislative Retirement 32,890 $ 9,874 $ 42,764 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1121-4188 Legislative Employee Benefits 80,366 $ (7,917) $ 72,449 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1121-4189 Legislative Medicare Benefits 5,732 $ 334 $ 6,066 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1131-4201 Legislative Contract Serv/Private 480,000 $ 200,000 $ 680,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1141-4112 Legislative Part Time/Temporary 6,360 $ - $ 6,360 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1141-4180 Legislative Retirement 501 $ 23 $ 524 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1141-4188 Legislative Employee Benefits 20,791 $ 1,619 $ 22,410 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1141-4189 Legislative Medicare Benefits 92 $ - $ 92 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1101-4201 Management Support Contract Serv/Private 33,000 $ (30,000) $ 3,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4102 Management Support Regular Salaries 1,143,285 $ 1,142 $ 1,144,427 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4106 Management Support Regular Overtime 2,209 $ (2,209) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4111 Management Support Accrual Cash In 48,100 $ (26,568) $ 21,532 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4112 Management Support Part Time/Temporary - $ 14,880 $ 14,880 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4180 Management Support Retirement 148,448 $ 15,421 $ 163,869 $ Expenditure

001 General Fund 001-1201-4188 Management Support Employee Benefits 121,837 $ 9,222 $ 131,059 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4189 Management Support Medicare Benefits 16,854 $ 321 $ 17,175 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4201 Management Support Contract Serv/Private 661,468 $ 43,200 $ 704,668 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4315 Management Support Membership 4,250 $ (1,125) $ 3,125 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1201-4317 Management Support Conference/Training 31,030 $ (2,800) $ 28,230 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4102 Management Support Regular Salaries 703,396 $ 55,435 $ 753,781 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4106 Management Support Regular Overtime 4,000 $ (2,000) $ 2,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4111 Management Support Accrual Cash In 58,825 $ (41,987) $ 16,838 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4112 Management Support Part Time/Temporary 109,000 $ - $ 109,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4180 Management Support Retirement 134,625 $ 13,080 $ 147,705 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4188 Management Support Employee Benefits 90,489 $ 4,585 $ 95,074 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1202-4189 Management Support Medicare Benefits 12,087 $ 410 $ 12,497 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4102 Management Support Regular Salaries 244,187 $ 22,316 $ 266,503 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4106 Management Support Regular Overtime - $ 161 $ 161 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4111 Management Support Accrual Cash In 7,948 $ 1,661 $ 9,609 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4112 Management Support Part Time Temporary 18,655 $ - $ 18,655 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4180 Management Support Retirement 20,768 $ (3,238) $ 17,530 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4188 Management Support Employee Benefits 225,659 $ 54,769 $ 280,428 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4189 Management Support Medicare Benefits 3,548 $ 185 $ 3,733 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4191 Management Support Instant Bonuses 2,000 $ 6,871 $ 8,871 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4192 Management Support Signing Bonus 230,000 $ - $ 230,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1203-4194 Management Support Referral Bonus 12,000 $ (12,000) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4102 Management Support Regular Salaries 526,461 $ 25,445 $ 551,906 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4106 Management Support Regular Overtime 500 $ - $ 500 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4111 Management Support Accrual Cash In 15,880 $ (5,537) $ 10,343 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4180 Management Support Retirement 59,509 $ 2,666 $ 62,175 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4185 Management Support Alternative Retirement System 2 $ (2) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4188 Management Support Employee Benefits 121,937 $ 16,122 $ 138,059 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4189 Management Support Medicare Benefits 7,661 $ 702 $ 8,363 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4201 Management Support Contract Serv/Private 125,337 $ 60,000 $ 185,337 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4304 Management Support Telephone 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 5,200 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1204-4317 Management Support Conference/Training 2,800 $ 2,400 $ 5,200 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1214-4322 Prospective Expenditures Unclassified 98,580 $ 101,420 $ 200,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4102 Public Safety - Police Regular Salaries 6,486,698 $ 870,018 $ 7,356,716 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4105 Public Safety - Police Special Duty Pay 95,007 $ 20,083 $ 115,090 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4106 Public Safety - Police Regular Overtime 1,142,180 $ (18,541) $ 1,123,639 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4111 Public Safety - Police Accrual Cash In 680,553 $ (347) $ 680,206 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4112 Public Safety - Police Part Time Temporary - $ 4,654 $ 4,654 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4117 Public Safety - Police Shift Differential 3,000 $ 9,813 $ 12,813 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4118 Public Safety - Police Training Officer 54,000 $ (3,937) $ 50,063 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4180 Public Safety - Police Retirement 4,322,834 $ 17,080 $ 4,339,914 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4184 Public Safety - Police IRC 415(B) Retirement 4,000 $ (1,483) $ 2,517 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4185 Public Safety - Police Alternative Retirement System 178 $ (178) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4187 Public Safety - Police Uniform Allowance 41,323 $ 1,972 $ 43,295 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4188 Public Safety - Police Employee Benefits 964,508 $ 2,464 $ 966,972 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4189 Public Safety - Police Medicare Benefits 97,050 $ 40,529 $ 137,579 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4201 Public Safety - Police Contract Serv/Private 368,210 $ 6,485 $ 374,695 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2101-4305 Public Safety - Police Office Oper Supplies 67,000 $ 6,000 $ 73,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4102 Public Safety - Police Regular Salaries 1,120,224 $ 40,026 $ 1,160,250 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4106 Public Safety - Police Regular Overtime 92,801 $ (39,776) $ 53,025 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4111 Public Safety - Police Accrual Cash In 64,395 $ (36,300) $ 28,095 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4112 Public Safety - Police Part Time Temporary 85,487 $ (5,773) $ 79,714 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4117 Public Safety - Police Shift Differential 5,000 $ (1,424) $ 3,576 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4118 Public Safety - Police Field Training Officer 2,000 $ 288 $ 2,288 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4180 Public Safety - Police Retirement 491,309 $ 17,632 $ 508,941 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4187 Public Safety - Police Uniform Allowance 5,280 $ 982 $ 6,262 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4188 Public Safety - Police Employee Benefits 297,889 $ (7,235) $ 290,654 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3302-4189 Public Safety - Police Medicare Benefits 16,331 $ 2,631 $ 18,962 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-2203-4180 Public Safety - Fire Retirement 1,239,952 $ - $ 1,239,952 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3101-4180 Public Works Retirement - $ - $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3104-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 493,576 $ 32,877 $ 526,453 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3104-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 20,421 $ 25,293 $ 45,714 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3104-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In 44,291 $ (18,918) $ 25,373 $ Expenditure

001 General Fund 001-3104-4180 Public Works Retirement 234,730 $ 12,922 $ 247,652 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3104-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 1,478 $ 366 $ 1,844 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3104-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 119,934 $ 4,116 $ 124,050 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3104-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 6,058 $ 1,096 $ 7,154 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 54,746 $ 895 $ 55,641 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 851 $ 38 $ 889 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In 1,058 $ 3,602 $ 4,660 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4180 Public Works Retirement 14,244 $ 1,433 $ 15,677 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 82 $ 20 $ 102 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 8,973 $ 403 $ 9,376 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 775 $ 85 $ 860 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-3301-4201 Public Works Contract Serv/Private 335,986 $ 4,014 $ 340,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 913,565 $ 6,482 $ 920,047 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 3,798 $ (714) $ 3,084 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In 23,253 $ 27,539 $ 50,792 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4112 Public Works Part Time/Temporary 99,840 $ (12,768) $ 87,072 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 119,824 $ (27,132) $ 92,692 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4185 Public Works Alternative Retirement System 330 $ (330) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 48 $ 10 $ 58 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 139,417 $ (8,054) $ 131,363 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 13,766 $ 1,284 $ 15,050 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4202-4305 Public Works Office Oper Supplies 22,000 $ 8,000 $ 30,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 471,097 $ 14,386 $ 485,483 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 71,183 $ 17,747 $ 88,930 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In - $ 18,483 $ 18,483 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4112 Public Works Part Time Temporary - $ 27,909 $ 27,909 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4180 Public Works Retirement 56,106 $ 80,034 $ 136,140 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4185 Public Works Alternative Retirement System - $ - $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 1,800 $ 393 $ 2,193 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 100,345 $ (7,510) $ 92,835 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 6,900 $ 2,187 $ 9,087 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4204-4190 Public Works Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) - $ - $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 392,377 $ 25,705 $ 418,082 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 3,447 $ 21,864 $ 25,311 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In 47,414 $ (31,528) $ 15,886 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4180 Public Works Retirement 119,884 $ (58,153) $ 61,731 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 1,152 $ 285 $ 1,437 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 76,187 $ (551) $ 75,636 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-6101-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 5,750 $ 1,026 $ 6,776 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4102 Community Development Regular Salaries 598,818 $ 23,194 $ 622,012 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4106 Community Development Regular Overtime 5,000 $ (5,000) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4111 Community Development Accrual Cash In 29,087 $ (29,087) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4112 Community Development Part Time/Temporary 20,041 $ (760) $ 19,281 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4180 Community Development Retirement 169,327 $ (81,726) $ 87,601 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4187 Community Development Uniform Allowance 870 $ (570) $ 300 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4188 Community Development Employee Benefits 83,900 $ 14,872 $ 98,772 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4101-4189 Community Development Medicare Benefits 8,700 $ 639 $ 9,339 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4102 Community Development Regular Salaries 771,735 $ 37,555 $ 809,290 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4106 Community Development Regular Overtime 5,536 $ (5,536) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4111 Community Development Accrual Cash In 42,892 $ (31,155) $ 11,737 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4112 Community Development Part Time/Temporary 18,655 $ (18,655) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4180 Community Development Retirement 214,086 $ (83,258) $ 130,828 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4185 Community Development Alternative Retirement System 1,800 $ (1,800) $ - $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4187 Community Development Uniform Allowance 1,220 $ (419) $ 801 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4188 Community Development Employee Benefits 127,734 $ 17,687 $ 145,421 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4189 Community Development Medicare Benefits 11,207 $ 909 $ 12,116 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4201 Community Development Contract Serv/Private 237,709 $ 147,000 $ 384,709 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4201-4317 Community Development Conference/Training 13,400 $ 10,000 $ 23,400 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4601-4102 Parks/Recreation Regular Salaries 725,937 $ 7,952 $ 733,889 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4601-4111 Parks/Recreation Accrual Cash In 31,178 $ (20,269) $ 10,909 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4601-4112 Parks/Recreation Part Time/Temporary 333,000 $ 3,433 $ 336,433 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4601-4120 Parks/Recreation Additional Duties Pay - $ 400 $ 400 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4601-4180 Parks/Recreation Retirement 246,746 $ 155,015 $ 401,761 $ Expenditure

001 General Fund 001-4601-4188 Parks/Recreation Employee Benefits 109,184 $ 23,067 $ 132,251 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-4601-4189 Parks/Recreation Medicare Benefits 10,935 $ 6,145 $ 17,080 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-8111-4201 CIP 111 Sheldon Donation Contract Serv/Private - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-8112-4201 CIP 112 Chamber Donation Contract Serv/Private - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ Expenditure 001 General Fund 001-1299-4399 Management Support Transfers Out - $ 317,833 $ 317,833 $ Transfers Out 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 93,339 $ 2,495 $ 95,834 $ Expenditure 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 4,143 $ 10,314 $ 14,457 $ Expenditure 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In - $ 4,317 $ 4,317 $ Expenditure 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4180 Public Works Retirement 25,296 $ 7,705 $ 33,001 $ Expenditure 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 312 $ 70 $ 382 $ Expenditure 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 17,847 $ 630 $ 18,477 $ Expenditure 105 Lighting & Landscaping Fund 105-2601-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 1,386 $ 273 $ 1,659 $ Expenditure 115 Gas Tax Fund 115-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 37,009 $ 6,148 $ 43,157 $ Expenditure 115 Gas Tax Fund 115-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 3,030 $ 679 $ 3,709 $ Expenditure 115 Gas Tax Fund 115-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 5,067 $ 1,012 $ 6,079 $ Expenditure 115 Gas Tax Fund 115-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 517 $ 114 $ 631 $ Expenditure 115 Gas Tax Fund 115-8105-4201 CIP 105 Annual Street Improvements Contract Serv/Private 148,165 $ (60,200) $ 87,965 $ Expenditure 116 TDA 3 Fund 116-8193-4201 CIP 193 Ped. Safety Improvements Contract Serv/Private 18,000 $ (18,000) $ - $ Expenditure 117 AB939 Fund 117-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 4,587 $ 630 $ 5,217 $ Revenue 122 Tyco Fund 122-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 7,430 $ 47,616 $ 55,046 $ Revenue 122 Tyco Fund 122-8105-4201 CIP 105 Annual Street Improvements Contract Serv/Private 230,762 $ (191,336) $ 39,426 $ Expenditure 122 Tyco Fund 122-8502-4201 CIP 502 Green Belt Ped Trail Contract Serv/Private 3,000 $ (3,000) $ - $ Expenditure 125 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund 125-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 1,415 $ 6,890 $ 8,305 $ Revenue 125 Parks / Rec Facility Tax Fund 125-8603-4201 CIP 603 South Park Improvements Contract Serv/Private 19,193 $ (9,597) $ 9,596 $ Expenditure 135 Bayview Drive District Admin Expense Fund 135-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 189 $ (189) $ - $ Revenue 135 Bayview Drive District Admin Expense Fund 135-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 5 $ (5) $ - $ Revenue 138 Loma District Admin Expense Fund 138-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 1 $ (1) $ - $ Revenue 139 Beach Drive District Assessment Admin Fund 139-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 103 $ (103) $ - $ Revenue 139 Beach Drive District Assessment Admin Fund 139-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 3 $ (3) $ - $ Revenue 145 Proposition A Fund 145-3405-4251 Management Support Contract Serv/Gov't 800,000 $ (800,000) $ - $ Expenditure 145 Proposition A Fund 145-3408-4102 Community Development Regular Salaries 3,865 $ (3,865) $ - $ Expenditure 145 Proposition A Fund 145-3409-4201 Parks/Recreation Contract Serv/Private 28,000 $ 18,000 $ 46,000 $ Expenditure 146 Prop A Fund 146-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 13,590 $ 11,409 $ 24,999 $ Revenue 146 Proposition C Fund 146-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 27,957 $ (2,865) $ 25,092 $ Expenditure 146 Proposition C Fund 146-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 2,230 $ 412 $ 2,642 $ Expenditure 146 Proposition C Fund 146-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 3,409 $ (449) $ 2,960 $ Expenditure 146 Proposition C Fund 146-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 394 $ (22) $ 372 $ Expenditure 147 Measure R Fund 147-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 6,380 $ 907 $ 7,287 $ Revenue 147 Measure R Fund 147-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 1,367 $ 1,480 $ 2,847 $ Expenditure 147 Measure R Fund 147-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 116 $ 313 $ 429 $ Expenditure 147 Measure R Fund 147-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 184 $ 214 $ 398 $ Expenditure 147 Measure R Fund 147-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 20 $ 21 $ 41 $ Expenditure 147 Measure R Fund 147-8105-4201 CIP 105 Annual Street Improvements Contract Serv/Private 113,684 $ (18,354) $ 95,330 $ Expenditure 149 Measure W Fund 149-3132 Other Taxes Measure W Local Returns 150,000 $ 5,879 $ 155,879 $ Revenue 149 Measure W Fund 149-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 7,783 $ 20,671 $ 28,454 $ Revenue 149 Measure W Fund 149-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 19,358 $ (1,948) $ 17,410 $ Expenditure 149 Measure W Fund 149-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 1,498 $ 192 $ 1,690 $ Expenditure 149 Measure W Fund 149-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 2,329 $ (201) $ 2,128 $ Expenditure 149 Measure W Fund 149-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 264 $ (6) $ 258 $ Expenditure 150 Grants Fund 150-3594 Intergovernmental / State CalRecycle Grant - $ 460,000 $ 460,000 $ Revenue 150 Grants Fund 150-3596 Intergovernmental / State CalRecycle Rubber Grant - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ Revenue 152 AQMD Fund 152-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 500 $ 3,369 $ 3,869 $ Revenue 153 Supp Law Enf Serv Fund 153-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 10,831 $ 6,262 $ 17,093 $ Revenue 160 Sewer Fund 160-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 39,985 $ 31,527 $ 71,512 $ Revenue 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 225,216 $ (16,925) $ 208,291 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 380 $ 2,995 $ 3,375 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In 11,705 $ (1,137) $ 10,568 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4180 Public Works Retirement 68,428 $ (32,617) $ 35,811 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 192 $ 46 $ 238 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 31,246 $ 693 $ 31,939 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-3102-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 3,108 $ 231 $ 3,339 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 106,044 $ (8,154) $ 97,890 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 8,750 $ 1,273 $ 10,023 $ Expenditure

160 Sewer Fund 160-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 13,466 $ (1,591) $ 11,875 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 1,539 $ (90) $ 1,449 $ Expenditure 160 Sewer Fund 160-8421-4201 CIP 421 Annual Sewer Improvements Contract Serv/Private 3,865,610 $ (2,099,726) $ 1,765,884 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drains Fund 161-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 23,215 $ 62,115 $ 85,330 $ Revenue 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 258,299 $ (31,364) $ 226,935 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime - $ 3,374 $ 3,374 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In - $ 6,720 $ 6,720 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4180 Public Works Retirement 41,734 $ (3,633) $ 38,101 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 192 $ 46 $ 238 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 35,001 $ (843) $ 34,158 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-3109-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 3,578 $ (71) $ 3,507 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 116,645 $ (13,334) $ 103,311 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 9,717 $ 1,274 $ 10,991 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 15,033 $ (3,085) $ 11,948 $ Expenditure 161 Storm Drain Fund 161-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 1,693 $ (157) $ 1,536 $ Expenditure 170 Asset Seizure/Foft Fund 170-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 10,659 $ 14,166 $ 24,825 $ Revenue 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund 190-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 69,904 $ (5,963) $ 63,941 $ Expenditure 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund 190-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 5,572 $ 1,177 $ 6,749 $ Expenditure 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund 190-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 8,538 $ (756) $ 7,782 $ Expenditure 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund 190-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 979 $ (32) $ 947 $ Expenditure 190 RTI Undersea Cable Fund 190-8695-4201 CIP 695 Parking Lot A Improvements Contract Serv/Private 112,368 $ (96,202) $ 16,166 $ Expenditure 191 RTI Tidelands Undersea 191-8695-4201 CIP 695 Parking Lot A Improvements Contract Serv/Private 95,000 $ (95,000) $ - $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 172,495 $ 164,656 $ 337,151 $ Revenue 301 CIP Fund 301-4202-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 276,352 $ (20,150) $ 256,202 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-4202-4180 Public Works Retirement 22,148 $ 5,301 $ 27,449 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-4202-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 33,825 $ (2,042) $ 31,783 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-4202-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 3,870 $ (90) $ 3,780 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8109-4201 CIP 109 Utility Box Wrappings Contract Serv/Private 26,516 $ (7,200) $ 19,316 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8502-4201 CIP 502 Green Belt Ped Trail Contract Serv/Private 38,995 $ (25,702) $ 13,293 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8603-4201 CIP 603 South Park Contract Serv/Private 1,275,214 $ (1,080,630) $ 194,584 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8604-4201 CIP 604 City Wide ADA Improvements Contract Serv/Private 300,952 $ (288,692) $ 12,260 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8605-4201 CIP 605 City Facilities Contract Serv/Private 346,530 $ (346,530) $ - $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8615-4201 CIP 615 New Corporate Yard Facility Contract Serv/Private 1,000,000 $ 889,278 $ 1,889,278 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8617-4201 CIP 617 Civic Center Charging Stations Contract Serv/Private 49,130 $ (49,130) $ - $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8619-4201 CIP 619 Kelly Courts Improvements Contract Serv/Private 601,681 $ 51,403 $ 653,084 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8633-4201 CIP 633 Base 3 Electrical Improvements Contract Serv/Private 300,000 $ (200,000) $ 100,000 $ Expenditure 301 CIP Fund 301-8689-4201 CIP 689 Clark Building Renovations Contract Serv/Private 414,607 $ (200,000) $ 214,607 $ Expenditure 609 Bayview Drive District Redemption Fund 609-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 1,798 $ (1,798) $ - $ Revenue 609 Bayview Drive District Redemption Fund 609-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 44 $ (44) $ - $ Revenue 609 Bayview Drive District Redemption Fund 609-1299-4399 Management Support Transfers Out - $ 27,097 $ 27,097 $ Transfers Out 610 Lower Pier District Redemption Fund 610-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 94 $ (94) $ - $ Revenue 610 Lower Pier District Redemption Fund 610-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 2 $ (2) $ - $ Revenue 610 Lower Pier District Redemption Fund 623-1299-4399 Management Support Transfers Out - $ 3,550 $ 3,550 $ Transfers Out 611 Beach Drive Redemption Fund 611-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 376 $ (376) $ - $ Revenue 611 Beach Drive Redemption Fund 611-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 9 $ (9) $ - $ Revenue 611 Beach Drive Redemption Fund 623-1299-4399 Management Support Transfers Out - $ 2,294 $ 2,294 $ Transfers Out 612 Beach Drive Reserve Fund 612-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 138 $ - $ 138 $ Revenue 612 Beach Drive Reserve Fund 612-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 3 $ - $ 3 $ Revenue 612 Beach Drive Reserve Fund 612-3475 Use of Money & Property Investment Premium - $ - $ - $ Revenue 617 Myrtle Avenue Assessment Fund 623-1299-4399 Management Support Transfers Out - $ 52,131 $ 52,131 $ Transfers Out 618 Loma Drive Assessment Fund 623-1299-4399 Management Support Transfers Out - $ 90,040 $ 90,040 $ Transfers Out 619 Bayview Dr Reserve Fund 619-3401 Use of Money & Property Interest Income 452 $ (452) $ - $ Revenue 619 Bayview Dr Reserve Fund 619-3450 Use of Money & Property Investment Discount 11 $ (11) $ - $ Revenue 705 Insurance Fund 705-3904 Other Revenue Refunds / Reimbursements - $ 107,754 $ 107,754 $ Revenue 705 Insurance Fund 705-3955 Transfers In Assigned - FY25 Actuals to FY 26 Ins. Fund - $ 317,833 $ 317,833 $ Transfer In 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4102 Management Support Regular Salaries 70,230 $ (15,213) $ 55,017 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4106 Management Support Regular Overtime 127 $ (127) $ - $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4111 Management Support Accrual Cash In 4,153 $ (1,168) $ 2,985 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4180 Management Support Retirement 5,973 $ (2,411) $ 3,562 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4188 Management Support Employee Benefits 6,726 $ (3,481) $ 3,245 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4189 Management Support Medicare Benefits 1,021 $ (150) $ 871 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4201 Management Support Contract Serv/Private 1,542,274 $ (200,000) $ 1,342,274 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1209-4324 Management Support Claims/Settlements 1,000,000 $ (100,000) $ 900,000 $ Expenditure

705 Insurance Fund 705-1210-4201 Management Support Contract Serv/Private 221,302 $ 200,000 $ 421,302 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1215-4186 Management Support Unemployment Claims 28,000 $ (28,000) $ - $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4102 Management Support Regular Salaries 70,230 $ (15,213) $ 55,017 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4106 Management Support Regular Overtime 127 $ (127) $ - $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4111 Management Support Accrual Cash In 1,844 $ 1,141 $ 2,985 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4180 Management Support Retirement 5,973 $ (1,798) $ 4,175 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4188 Management Support Employee Benefits 6,726 $ (3,481) $ 3,245 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4189 Management Support Medicare Benefits 1,021 $ (150) $ 871 $ Expenditure 705 Insurance Fund 705-1217-4324 Management Support Claims/Settlements 600,000 $ 100,000 $ 700,000 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-1206-5401 Management Support Equip 70,000 $ 21,535 $ 91,535 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-2101-4201 Public Safety - Police Contract Serv/Private 173,181 $ 17,506 $ 190,687 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-2101-5403 Public Safety - Police Vehicles 522,225 $ 53,300 $ 575,525 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-3302-4201 Public Safety - Police Contract Serv/Private - $ 32,806 $ 32,806 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-3302-5403 Public Safety - Police Vehicles 72,567 $ 53,300 $ 125,867 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4102 Public Works Regular Salaries 193,737 $ (16,962) $ 176,775 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4106 Public Works Regular Overtime 4,552 $ (1,427) $ 3,125 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4111 Public Works Accrual Cash In 4,070 $ (2,226) $ 1,844 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4180 Public Works Retirement 113,088 $ (1,314) $ 111,774 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4187 Public Works Uniform Allowance 504 $ (474) $ 30 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4188 Public Works Employee Benefits 37,790 $ 1,174 $ 38,964 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4206-4189 Public Works Medicare Benefits 2,831 $ (193) $ 2,638 $ Expenditure 715 Equipment Replacement 715-4601-5401 Parks/Recreation Equip - $ 2,550 $ 2,550 $ Expenditure

FY 2025-2026 CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE/TRAINING BUDGET SUMMARY

CONFERENCE/TRAINING DETOY KEEGAN JACKSON FRANCOIS SAEMANN TOTAL INDEPENDENT CITIES ASSOCIATION SUMMER SEMINAR $2,106.10 (7/11/25 - 7/13/25)
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE $1,305.98 $725.00 (10/8/25 - 10/10/25)
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DIVISION DINNER AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE $75.00 $75.00 (10/8/25)
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TCPW POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING $1,243.42 (1/21/25 - 1/23/25)
CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE TOUR $2,387.64 (1/5/26 - 1/7/26)
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES JANUARY MEMBERSHIP MEETING $50.00 (1/8/26)
INDEPENDENT CITIES ASSOCIATION WINTER SEMINAR $1,828.70 (2/19/26 - 2/22/26)

SOUTHERN CA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL CONFERENCE AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY (5/7/26 - 5/8/26)

CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MUNICIPAL SEMINAR (5/14/26 - 5/17/26)

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS ANNUAL MEETING
(6/4/26 - 6/7/26)
$0.00 $0.00 $4,216.34 $2,674.40 $2,906.10 $9,796.84
BUDGET: $28,000.00
BALANCE REMAINING: $18,203.16

FY 26 MIDYEAR BUDGET
REVIEW
MARCH 24, 2026

Midyear Budget Adjustments
+$552K
Revenue Increase
Driven by parking meters,
plan checks, and an onetime $100K reimbursement
+$1.835M
Operating Appropriations
Driven mainly by $1.28M
labor growth from recently
negotiated MOUs
-$548K
Projected Shortfall
Projected by June 30, 2026
after midyear adjustments
$548K
One-Time Funds Used
Additional one-time funds
at midyear to balance the
current FY 26 budget
$236K of $548K
One-Time Deputy City
Manager savings
$312K of $548K
One-Time FY 25 Stabilization
Contingency
Main Takeaway
• The City intends to end the FY 2026 without a deficit, but only drawing from one-time resources.
• Management should treat one-time resources are a temporary solution as a bridge, not a permanent fix, heading into the upcoming FY 2026–27 budget cycle.

FY 26 Budget with Midyear Adjustments
Amount
One-Time Funds at Budget Adoption $361K
Amended Estimated Revenue $55.561M
Midyear Revenue Adjustments $552K
Total Estimated Revenue and One-Time Funds $56.474M
Amended Operating Appropriations $53.399M
Transfers Out $1.788M
Midyear Operating Appropriation Increases $1.835M
Total Estimated Operating Appropriations $57.022M
Projected FY 2026 Ending Shortfall at 6/30/2026 -$548K
Additional One-time Funds at Midyear +$548K
Projected FY 2026 Ending Balance after One-Time Funds $ 0 $909K.

Total one-time assigned
funds used to balance FY
2026.

The balance depends on
one-time “fixes” / nonrecurring resources rather
than recurring operating
growth.

Midyear Revenue Breakdown
What is driving the increase?
• Updated parking meter rates adopted in
October 2025 are expected to add about
$635k this year to current service charges.
• Plan-check fees is projected to increase
$240k based on 1st ½ of the year.
• An one-time $100K reimbursement for City
Administrative costs from the Greenwich
Undergrounding Bond Issuance.
$(158,305)
$(87,355)
$(50,284)
$(46,000)
$(4,074)
$10,792
$130,000
$757,573
$(400,000) $(200,000) $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 Property Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Use of Money & Property
Sales Taxes
Other Taxes
Utility Users Tax
Other Revenue
Current Service Charges
Midyear Revenue Amendments
What is softening results?
• Property tax projected lower due to
successful valuation appeals and higher
expected delinquency payment rate.
• Decreases in electrical and plumbing
permits (offset by building permits) from 1st ½
of the year.

Midyear Revenue Chart
Amended Budget to
Date
Requested
Budget
Amendment
Revised
Budget
%
Change
Property Taxes $ 26,750,921 $ (158,305) $ 26,592,616 -0.6% Sales Taxes $ 3,686,400 $ (46,000) $ 3,640,000 -1.3%
Utility User's Tax $ 2,502,252 $ 10,792 $ 2,513,044 0.4% Transient Occupancy Tax $ 5,190,000 $ - $ 5,190,000 0.0% Other Taxes $ 2,822,559 $ (4,074) $ 2,818,485 -0.1%
Licenses and Permits $ 1,145,946 $ (87,355) $ 1,058,591 -7.6% Fines and Forfeitures $ 2,001,500 $ - $ 2,001,700 0.0%
Use of Money & Property $ 1,700,765 $ (50,284) $ 1,650,481 -2.9% Intergovernmental / State $ 153,414 $ - $ 153,414 0.0%
Current Service Charges $ 9,691,637 $ 757,573 $ 10,449,210 7.8% Other Revenue $ 68,200 $ 130,000 $ 198,200 190.6%
Total Revenue $ 55,713,194 $ 552,347 $ 56,265,541 1.0%
Transfers-in $ 361,054 $ 175,112 Page 609 of 1126 $ 536,166 48.5% Midyear Expenditure Breakdown
$557K
Non-Labor Increase
Mostly contract
services
$1.278M
Labor Increase
Salary and benefit
increases from MOU’s
$237,577
$226,078
$101,420
$925,663
$174,836
$(6,110)
$175,743
$(200,000) $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 Legislative
Management Support
Prospective Expenditures
Police
Public Works
Community Development
Parks & Recreation
Midyear Expenditure Amendments
Labor Non-Labor Page 610 of 1126
Midyear Expenditure Breakdown
•Police $926K increase is due to the new
MOU’s which account 98.6% of the increase.
•Legislative $200k increase for City Attorney
budget based on 1st half of FY26 activity.
•Community Development labor decreased
but offset by contractual service needs.

Other Fund Highlights
• 705 Insurance Fund: Transfer $317,833 to bring beginning FY 2026 balance up to the $3.0M funding goal.
• 715 Equipment Replace. Fund: Additional
$181,000 for technology and police equipment
purchases.

Includes $106,600 to purchase 2 Ford Explorers
for Police Admin staff.

CIP Adjustments& Highlights
+$1.439M
Net Change to CIP Fund
Projected ending CIP balance: $1.664M
+$1.274M
Completed projects released back to CIP Fund.

Primarily from lower than actual costs
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Highlights
• Major releases include CIP 603 South Park Landscape Improvements, CIP 604 ADA Improvements, CIP 605 City Facilities Assessment, and CIP 689 Clark Building renovations. • New appropriations highlighted are CIP 615 New Corporate Yard Facilities using set aside reserve balance of ~$889K and CIP 619 Kelly Court Improvements for ~$51K . • Chuck and Diane (Missy) Sheldon $500K donation for CIP 111 Monument Signage and Chambers September 2014 $50K donation for CIP 112 Marquee Sign to be budgeted. • Release needed to free up funds for necessary CIP projects next budget cycle.

FY26 to FY31 Forecast (Adopted Budget)

Balanced Using One-Time Funds
• City practice is using one-time savings and
measures to manage structural City budget
deficits.
• If the one-time $100K Greenwich Admin
reimbursement is excluded, the projected FY
26 shortfall without one-time funds would rise
to over $1 million.
• Not sustainable for the City as expenditures
outpacing revenues.

Future Upcoming FY 27 Uncertainty
• CalPERS Pension UAL increasing by ~$600K
next FY 27 budget cycle.
• MOU costs will put pressure to base budget.
• RCC increasing by nearly ~$100K next FY 27
budget cycle.
• Fire (Dec 27) and LA County (Mar 27)
Agreements forward risk.
• City Vendor Service Contracts Up for
Negotiations.

Future Upcoming 27 Uncertainty
• General Fund ~$410K annual subsidy of Lighting /
Landscaping Fund
• CIP Fund absorbs $300 - $350K of General Fund
Public Works labor as past and current practice.
• Insurance Fund $3.0M funding goal
• CIP projects – Critical Infrastructure Needs
• Cuts to upcoming FY 27 budget are needed to
maintain core priority City services.

Midyear Recommendation
1 Approve revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, budget transfers, and fund balances.
2 Appropriate $548,007 of assigned fund balance to cover the projected unassigned fund balance shortfall.
3 Transfer $317,833 of unspent 2024–25 actuals to the Insurance Fund. 4 Receive and file the City Council Travel Summary.
5 Provide direction on whether to continue or discontinue participation in Beach Cities Transit Line 109.
2a
2b
2c Assign estimated remaining $2.239M of unspent funds to assigned fund balance. 3 4

Beach Cities Transit 109
• City participated in BCT Line 109 since 2006
with minimal subsidy requirements.
• BCT Line 109 subsidy currently budgeted for
$17,200 using Prop A funds.
• Expected to increase to $19,800 for upcoming
FY 27 budget.
• Insufficient usage data provided to City.

FY 26 MIDYEAR BUDGET
REVIEW
MARCH 24, 2026

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 15
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-PR-015
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council KELLY COURTS – PICKLEBALL COURTS POLICY REVISIONS
(Senior Recreation Supervisor Brian Sousa)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Approve modifications to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy, including revisions to the permissible play equipment and designating courts 1 and 2 for reservation and open walk-on play, with Courts 3 and 4 open for walk-on play only; and

2. Approve one of the following options to modify the courts’ hours of operation:
 Option 1 (Attachment 2):
o Monday: Closed
o Tuesday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
o Wednesday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
o Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
o Friday–Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Option 2 (Attachment 3):
o 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily; or
 Option 3 (Attachment 1):
o The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s (Commission) recommendation to maintain the facility hours as currently designated:
 Sunday and Monday: Closed
 Tuesday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 Wednesday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and
o request for staff to report back to the Commission within 120 days following the reopening of the courts with a report on complaints, community feedback, and court usage.

Executive Summary:

The Kelly Pickleball Courts have high local demand and limited hours. Following the completion of Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 619–Kelly Court Improvements, the two formerly closed pickleball courts will reopen, providing a total of four courts at the Kelly Courts, located within the Clark Complex.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 15
At the February 10, 2026 Commission meeting, staff presented modifications to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy, including revisions to permissible play equipment and the designation of Courts 1 and 2 for reservation and open walk-on play, with Courts 3 and 4 reserved for walk-on play only. Prior to the closure of the courts for Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 619–Kelly Court Improvements, the two available courts were open for both reservation and walk-on play. Staff also presented two options to modify the courts’ hours of operation, as further detailed in the staff report.

The Commission approved the recommended policy updates regarding permissible play equipment but recommended maintaining the current hours of operation and requested that staff report back within 120 days following reopening with information on complaints, community feedback, and court usage.

Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy updates and determine whether to maintain current hours or adopt one of the proposed expanded hours options.

Background:

Pickleball is a racquet sport that combines elements of tennis, badminton, and ping pong and has experienced continuous growth in popularity over the last decade, with increasing local demand among Hermosa Beach residents.

In March 2017, following extensive community engagement, City Council approved the Commission’s recommendation to convert one of the two Kelly Tennis Courts at the Clark Complex into four dedicated pickleball courts. The Kelly Pickleball Courts opened to the public in May 2017.

In 2020, two courts were closed due to safety issues stemming from site constraints and deferred maintenance. In response, staff developed CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements, which was approved in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022–23 budget as a resurfacing and reconfiguration project. The project scope later expanded in FY 2023–24 to include lighting upgrades, ADA-compliant pathways, and modernization of all court types at the facility. The project will allow for the reopening of the two closed courts through reconfiguration.

Pickleball Stakeholders Focus Group and Outcomes
Following the opening of the Kelly Pickleball Courts, community concerns emerged regarding noise from the sport. Staff and the former Department Use Policies Subcommittee (DUPS) of the Commission conducted extensive research and made several recommendations to the Commission on various noise mitigation solutions with no resolve for over three years. Therefore, staff and DUPS formed a Pickleball Stakeholders Focus Group consisting of representatives from the local neighborhood and

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 15
pickleball community. The purpose of the stakeholder group was to discuss viable solutions that would limit noise impacts to the nearby residents while providing pickleball community access during preferred times.

At its June 2, 2021 meeting, staff and DUPS recommended the Commission recommend City Council approval of updates to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy and court hours of operation formed with the Pickleball Stakeholders Focus Group. The intention of the recommended updates was to provide the pickleball community with access to the pickleball courts during specified times, and relief to the nearby residents two days a week, and several evenings. The Commission recommended City Council approve the updated use policy and court hours with slight revisions.

At its July 13, 2021 meeting, City Council approved the Commission’s recommendation on the updated use policy but revised the court hours, allowing for more court hours than initially recommended by the Commission. The approved hours, which remain current to this day are:
 Sunday and Monday: Closed
 Tuesday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

This provided for a total of 45 hours of court access for reservations or walk on play.

Attachment 1 is the current Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy.

At its November 2, 2021, staff presented a follow-up report to the Commission on the effectiveness of the adopted Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy and court hours of operation. Staff reported that the feedback represented a small sample size, with three members of the pickleball community expressing dissatisfaction with the limited hours of operation, one nearby resident expressing gratitude for the hours of operation, and one nearby resident reporting that the courts were being used outside of the hours of operation. The Commission received and filed the report. Since that report, staff received additional feedback from members of the pickleball community expressing dissatisfaction with the limited hours of operation, limited availability of open play, and ongoing temporarily closure of two pickleball courts. Additionally, prior to all courts being closed due to CIP 619–Kelly Courts Improvements, members of the pickleball community expressed how difficult it was to secure play time at the two available courts. The two open courts were available for reservation by residents who obtained a pickleball membership at an annual rate, and reserved hours incurred an hourly use fee for a maximum of two hours per day per resident. Without a reservation, the courts were available on an open walk-on play basis, free of charge. However, the courts were reserved 98% of the time, and obtaining a reservation was very competitive due to the high demand.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 15
Since the adoption of the current Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy and court hours of operation, staff has not directly received any additional feedback or concerns regarding noise impacts to date. However, it should be noted that during Commission and City Council review of CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements in 2025, and during the Commission’s review of staff’s recommended revisions to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy and court hours of operation at its February 10, 2026 meeting, one nearby resident, through public comment, expressed concern about potential noise impacts associated with the reopening of the two closed pickleball courts and a potential increase in hours of operation.

Parks Master Plan
At its November 12, 2024, meeting, City Council approved and adopted the 2024 Parks Master Plan, a long-term planning document that guides the development, maintenance, and programming of the City’s parks and recreational facilities. The plan underwent a robust community engagement process, including participation by a Parks Master Plan Subcommittee consisting of four Commissioners, two from the Commission and two from the Public Works Commission. The Parks Master Plan highlighted the growing demand for pickleball and the desire for additional facilities, while also acknowledging concerns about noise and the need to balance schedules for open play, reservations, and programming.

Commission Review of Staff Recommended Modifications to the Kelly Court Use Policy and Hours of Operation
At the February 10, 2026 Commission meeting, staff recommended Commission consider a recommendation to City Council to approve modifications to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy. The proposed modifications included revisions to permissible play equipment and the designation of Courts 1 and 2 for reservation and open walk-on play, with Courts 3 and 4 reserved for walk-on play only. Staff also requested the Commission consider one of the following options to modify the courts’ hours of operation:
 Option 1:
o Monday: Closed
o Tuesday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
o Wednesday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
o Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
o Friday–Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Option 2:
o 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily.

The recommended policy updates regarding permissible play equipment reflect the fact that the existing policy was adopted prior to recent advancements in paddle technology and evolving standards related to noise, safety, and court surface protection. The proposed updates modernize the policy language, clarify permissible equipment, and

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 15
provide staff with appropriate enforcement authority while maintaining the original intent of the policy.

Commission approved staff’s recommended Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy modifications with the exception of the recommended options to modify the courts’ hours of operation. Instead, the Commission recommended that City Council consider approval of maintaining the facility hours as currently designated, which are:
 Sunday and Monday: Closed
 Tuesday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
 Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
 Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Commission also requested, if the recommendation was approved by City Council to maintain the current facility hours, staff report back to the Commission within 120 days following reopening with a report on complaints, community feedback, and court usage.

Past Commission and Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

December 2, 2014
Staff presented to the Commission three resident requests to convert the two Kelly Tennis Courts into dual-use courts allowing for tennis and pickleball play. The commission requested staff advance consideration of the request
through a public hearing at a future meeting.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

February 3, 2015
The Commission, through a public hearing, requested staff research alternate locations for dual-use tennis and
pickleball courts and return to the Commission through a public hearing to present its findings.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

August 2, 2016
Staff presented to the Commission two new resident
requests to convert only one Kelly Tennis Court into a
dual-use tennis and pickleball court. The Commission
requested staff return with the request through a public hearing at a future meeting.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

November 1, 2016
Through a public hearing, staff presented its findings to the Commission on an alternate location that may be
considered for dual-use tennis and pickleball courts, the Edith Rodaway Park outdoor basketball court. However,
the alternate location was not supported by the pickleball community due to the basketball court’s surfacing and
concern about the distance between the court’s poles and the play area needed for pickleball. The Commission
recommended City Council approve converting one of the

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 15
Meeting Date Description
Kelly Tennis Courts into a dual-use tennis and pickleball court.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

January 3, 2017
Through a public hearing, staff presented the Commission a revised request from the residents who had recently
requested converting one Kelly Tennis Court into a dualuse tennis and pickleball court. The revised request was to convert one of the Kelly Tennis Courts for pickleball play only, allowing four pickleball courts. The Commission
requested staff research and provide a recommendation
on which location would be most ideal to convert a tennis court into four pickleball courts, the Kelly Tennis Courts or Community Center Tennis Courts.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

February 7, 2017
Staff presented its findings to the Commission on which location would be most ideal to convert a tennis court into four pickleball courts, the Kelly Tennis Courts or
Community Center Tennis Courts. Staff determined the
Community Center Tennis Courts had a higher usage rate
and that distance from the nearest residence at the Kelly Tennis Courts was further, and likely any noise impacts would be greater at the Community Center Tennis Courts if one of the tennis courts were converted to a pickleball court. The Commission requested staff return with a public hearing for the Commission to consider a recommendation to City Council to convert the West Kelly Tennis Court to four pickleball courts.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

March 7, 2017
Through a public hearing, the Commission recommended
City Council approve converting the West Kelly Tennis
Court to four pickleball courts.

City Council:

March 28, 2017
City Council approved the Commission’s recommendation.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

January 2, 2018
Staff presented an update to the Commission on the
usage of Kelly Pickleball Courts and the noise impacts on nearby residents. The Commission requested staff return to a future meeting to further discuss the noise impacts.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

June 5, 2018
Staff recommended the Commission receive and file
information related to the noise impacts on nearby
residents, which included:
 A summary of the feedback received from the
nearby residents;
 Effectiveness of previously installed windscreens
dampening the noise from the courts;

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 15
Meeting Date Description
 Types of equipment and different levels of noise
produced from each type; and
 Possible noise-dampening products that could be
installed along the fences to help absorb the sound.

The Commission requested staff return to the Commission with a draft Kelly Pickleball Court Use Policy for review and approval.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

August 7, 2018
Staff presented a draft Kelly Pickleball Court Use Policy to the Commission for review and approval that included
policy items regarding preferred noise-dampening balls
and paddles for pickleball play and court etiquette. The Commission approved the Pickleball Court Use Policy.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

October 2, 2018
Staff presented possible mitigation solutions to the
Commission, including:
 Performing a sound study;
 Installation of a noise-dampening product along the
fences to help absorb the sound; or
 Revision of the Kelly Pickleball Court Use Policy with an approved equipment list and limiting court use
hours.

The Commission requested staff return at a future meeting with a recommendation to limit the hours of pickleball play and allocate funds for a sound study of the Kelly Pickleball Courts.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

February 5, 2019
The Commission approved staff’s recommendation to
temporarily reduce the hours of the Kelly Tennis and
Pickleball Courts to 9:00 am through 9:00 p.m. daily to reduce noise impacts on nearby residents. The hours were previously 8:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m. daily.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

August 6, 2019
Acoustic Group, Inc (AGI) presented a sound study to the Commission completed on April 11, 2019 with two
recommends for noise-dampening solutions:
 The installation of a 12-foot high wall made of concrete block, plexiglass, or acoustical blankets, on the north and east sides of the existing pickleball and tennis
courts; or
 The installation of a 12-foot high noise-dampening
product on all exterior fences surrounding the Kelly
Tennis and Pickleball Courts.

City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 15
Meeting Date Description
The Commission received and filed the sound study and
requested AGI return to the Commission with a
presentation on the costs for the recommended options.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

December 3, 2019
Staff recommended the Commission:
 Review the revised sound study from AGI, including
costs associated with the two recommendations for
noise-dampening products; and
 Maintain the current hours of operations for the
Kelly Tennis and Pickleball Courts until a formal
decision has been made regarding the noise
mitigation options.

The Commission requested staff work alongside the since retired Department Use Policies Subcommittee to consider a recommendation on the noise-dampening products and
limiting the court use hours and return to the Commission with a formal recommendation at a future meeting.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

July 7, 2020
Staff recommended the Commission approve:
 a temporary Pickleball Membership Program open to
residents, with an annual membership fee, allowing
residents to make reservations at an hourly cost; and
 limiting the use hours to :
o Sunday and Monday: closed;
o Tuesday to Thursday: 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m., and
o Friday and Saturday: 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.

The recommendation came as a result of a Safer at Home
Order for Los Angeles County due to COVID-19 the Kelly
Courts were closed on March 16, 2020. On May 13, 2020,
a revised order was issued allowing for the reopening of the courts. These times were determined to provide the
nearby residents, many of whom were working from home
during Los Angeles County’s Safer at Home Orders, relief in the afternoons and later evenings as well as two days free from noise emanating from pickleball play. The
Commission approved the recommendation.

Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission:

June 2, 2021
Staff and DUPS recommended the Commission
recommend to City Council the approval of revisions to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy and hours of operation, formed with the Pickleball Stakeholders Focus Group. The Commission recommended City Council approval of the
updated use policies and hours with slight revisions.