Agenda packet — Rolling Hills City Council, August 24, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

www.dslrpros.com | 877-299-1075
19850 Nordhoff Place, Chatsworth, CA 91311
This document contains sensitive and proprietary information from DSLRPros.com. Use or disclosure of the information contained herein is NOT permitted without prior written consent. consumables (like propellers or batteries), or
operation outside manufacturer guidelines
• Replacements: One replacement during the coverage
term. Replacement may be new or refurbished. If
unavailable, we’ll provide a product of similar
capability.
• How to File a
Claim: Notify [email protected] within 7 days of
an incident. Ship the product using the label we
provide.
• Eligibility: Policy must be purchased before your
product ships from DSLRPROS. Coverage applies only
to the original purchaser.

V-DSLR-4T-CP-2Y
DJI Matrice 4 Series Battery
• 1x Matrice 4 Series Intelligent Battery
S-DJI-M4-BAT
$255,00 6 $160,65 $1 690,65
DJI Matrice 4 Series Propellers
• 1x DJI Matrice 4 Series Propellers Pairs
S-DJI-M4-PROP
$33,00 8 $27,72 $291,72
DJI AL1 Spotlight
• 1x DJI AL1 Spotlight
• 2x Spare Screw
• 1x Hex Key
S-DJI-AL1
$495,00 2 $103,95 $1 093,95

Page 311 of 418 ends

DJI AS1 Speaker
• 1x Speaker
• 1x Spare Adapter Bracket
• 1x Hex Key
S-DJI-AS1
$335,00 2 $70,35 $740,35
Drone Landing Pad
• Lightweight and portable
• 42-inch (3.5ft) diameter
• Folds down to 16-inches
• Easily visible from the air
• Includes carrying bag and securing stakes

S-NB-LPAD
$0,00 3 $0,00 $0,00

OPTIONAL SERVICES
(Optional items will not reflect in total unless selected) FREE Lifetime Customer Care & Technical
Support Via Phone, Email & Chat
$0,00 1 $0,00 $0,00
Enterprise Concierge Assist
Our customer care team is here to make sure that your
aftersales experience is as seamless as the original transaction.

We will assist our clients through the Enterprise Care
deductible process ( if applicable ) as well as any warranty or not warranty related issues. We're here to help facilitate your success!
*** Normally a $500 Service ***

S-ECA-EUAS
$0,00 1 $0,00 $0,00

Page 312 of 418 ends

Airdata Enterprise Managment + Live Streaming
Bundle - 1 Drone (1 Month) Free Trial
• 1x Airdata Enterprise Managment + Live Streaming
Bundle - 1 Drone (1 Month) Free Trial
V-AD-EELS-120-FREE
$0,00 1 $0,00 $0,00
AirData Enterprise + Live Streaming Bundle - 5
Drones, 5 Users, 25 Hr/Mo for 1 Year
• 1x AirData Enterprise Management + Live Streaming
Bundle - 5 Drones (1 Year)
B-AD-EELS-525
$5 740,00 1 $0,00 $5 740,00
Custom 1 Day On-site Training
DSLRPros’ UAS training has helped maximize drone program safety and efficiency for countless companies, public safety agencies, and individual pilots. With a team of expert
instructors located across the country, more than 500 students and counting have attended DSLRPros’ training programs.

V-NB-TRAIN
$0,00 1 $0,00 $0,00

SHIPPING & HANDLING
Ground Shipping

V-NB-SHIP
$0,00 1 $0,00 $0,00
*** Sales Tax applicable if shipping inside US ***
Subtotal $73 808,92
Total $73 808,92

Page 313 of 418 ends

Signatures
Again, we want to thank you for purchasing your equipment or services with DSLRPros.com. By signing below you agree to our terms and conditions and have read and understand the pricing provided. You also agree not to share the information & pricing provided in this document to anyone outside of your organization. https://www.dslrpros.com/terms-of-use ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ 02 / 04 / 2026
Signature Date
___________________________________________
Mark Chua
___________________________________________
Deputy
Name Title

Page 314 of 418 ends

Item: 12.C.

Meeting Date: 8/24/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Review the proposed Resolution to be presented at the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference's General Assembly on September 25, 2026 and provide direction to the City's voting delegate, Mayor Dieringer Background:

This year, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) received one resolution by the July 25 submission deadline. Under the Cal Cities resolution process, members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities up to 60 days before the Annual Conference and Expo.

The 2026 Resolution Packet (Attachment A) contains the proposed resolution, background information, supporting letters from cities and city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process and the next steps for the resolution.

Cal Cities encourages the City Council to consider the resolution and determine a position so the voting delegate, Mayor Dieringer, can represent the city’s position on the resolution.

The 2026 General Assembly will be held on Sept. 25 at 8:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

Discussion:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Receive and file. Provide direction to the City's Voting Delegate.

Attachments:

1. GV_GVO_260810_LCC_2026ResolutionPacket

Page 315 of 418 ends

Page 316 of 418 ends

2025-2026

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Gabe Quinto
Mayor
El Cerrito
First Vice President
Teresa Acosta
Council Member
Carlsbad
Second Vice President
David Cohen
Council Member
San Jose
Immediate Past President
Lynne B. Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 10, 2026
TO: Cal Cities Members
RE: Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the July 25 deadline.

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

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

Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The 2026 General Assembly will be held Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

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

Page 317 of 418 ends

2026
Resolution
Packet

Page 318 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Information on 2026 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

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

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

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

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

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1

Page 319 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 2

Page 320 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

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

For General Resolutions:

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

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

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

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
3

Page 321 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
2026 Resolution

1. Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. City of Banning;
ii. City of Calimesa;
iii. City of Canyon Lake;
iv. City of Moreno Valley;
v. City of Norco;
vi. City of Torrance;
vii. Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto;
viii. Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
• Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
4

Page 322 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1
Submitted by City of Murietta
5

Page 323 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet

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

CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER

HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS
Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and
WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballotbased strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and
6

Page 324 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.
7

Page 325 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Background
Information
8

Page 326 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Background Information for Resolution
Source: City of Murrieta
Background:

California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis.

At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth.

State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands.

Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution.

The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9

Page 327 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production.

As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy.
10

Page 328 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
11

Page 329 of 418 ends

Page 330 of 418 ends

Page 331 of 418 ends

July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and

25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Canyon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Arron Brown
City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
14

Page 332 of 418 ends

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Brian Mohan
City Manager
City of Moreno Valley

Page 333 of 418 ends

July 22, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Kevin Bash
City Council Member
(951) 768-8981
16

Page 334 of 418 ends

Page 335 of 418 ends

Page 336 of 418 ends

Page 337 of 418 ends

Page 338 of 418 ends

July 23, 2026
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto:

I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference.

The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges.

Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day.

While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.
21

Page 339 of 418 ends

Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
July 23, 2026

Page 2 ends

Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.

Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.

Respectfully,
Jessica Alexander
Mayor, City of Temecula
Signing in her individual capacity
and not on behalf of the City of Temecula
or the Temecula City Council.
22

Page 340 of 418 ends

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
23

Page 341 of 418 ends

League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate
Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary:

Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:

1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.

Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet its housing obligations.

2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” Background:

As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments.

Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24

Page 342 of 418 ends

local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations.

The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved.

Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions.

The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.

The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation.

Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced.

An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances.

Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required. 25

Page 343 of 418 ends

Discussion:

The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.

A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.

A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.

Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.

In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.

Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26

Page 344 of 418 ends

Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.

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

We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.

Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27

Page 345 of 418 ends

governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.

Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.

Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28

Page 346 of 418 ends

Item: 13.A.

Meeting Date: 8/24/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Consideration of authorizing the Mayor to send a Letter Supporting Legislative Efforts to Preserve Prescribed Grazing for Wildfire Prevention
Background:

The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) has signed on to a coalition letter (Attachment A) that seeks to maintain wage parity for sheep and goat herders in California in light of a regulatory rule expiration that has pushed minimum annual wages for goat herders upwards of $240,000. Without immediate action by the legislature, keeping goats in California would no longer be financially viable, leaving communities without these ravenous wildfire fuel reduction forces as part of our arsenal against wildfires.

Discussion:

Prescribed grazing is one of the most effective, environmentally sustainable, and cost-efficient tools available to reduce wildfire fuels. Communities throughout California, including neighboring cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Palos Verdes Estates, depend on sheep or goat grazing to reduce dry vegetation, manage invasive species, and protect neighborhoods, parks, critical infrastructure, and open space from the growing threat of catastrophic wildfire.

Sheep and goats each play a unique role in vegetation management. Sheep efficiently graze grasses and other fine fuels, while goats consume woody vegetation and brush that can carry fire into tree canopies. Together, they provide a comprehensive fuel reduction strategy that mechanical equipment, herbicides, or other vegetation management methods alone often cannot replicate.

For decades, California recognized that herders caring for sheep and goats should be compensated under the same minimum monthly wage structure, reflecting the unique nature of this around-theclock occupation. The Legislature passed SB 143 in 2023, including Section 20, which amended Labor Code Section 2695.4 to clarify that the same minimum monthly wage and labor protections for sheep herders should apply to goat herders and herders caring for both types of animals. However, SB 143 also included a sunset provision that terminated this parity on July 1, 2026 and directed the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026 on the employment of sheep and goat herders.

Page 347 of 418 ends

Without legislative action, employers must compensate goat herders under California's standard hourly wage and overtime requirements, dramatically increasing labor costs and placing prescribed grazing operations at serious financial risk. Many grazing operators have indicated these costs are unsustainable and could force them to reduce or eliminate their goat herds. The resulting loss of grazing capacity would significantly reduce an important wildfire prevention resource relied upon by local governments and land managers throughout California.

A sample draft letter (Attachment B) from Cal Cities is included if the Council would like to authorize the Mayor to revise and send a letter on behalf of the City.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Receive and file. Provide direction to staff and the Mayor.

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - CL_AGN_260805_CC_SB143_Sheep-GoatHerderParity_CoalitionLetter

2. Attachment B - CL_AGN_260824_CC_SB143_Sheep-GoatParity_SampleLetter

3. Attachment C - CL_AGN_260824_CC_SB143_Sheep-GoatHerderParity_RPVCoalitionLetter

Page 348 of 418 ends

Page 349 of 418 ends

August 5, 2026
The Hon. Gavin Newsom, Governor
State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Hon. Robert Rivas, Speaker
California Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Hon. Jesse Gabriel, Chair
California Assembly Budget Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 8230
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Hon. John Laird, Chair
California Senate Budget Committee
1020 N Street, Room 502
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Hon. Monique Limon,
President pro Tempore
1021 O Street, Suite 8518
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Newsom, Speaker Rivas, President pro Tempore Limon, Assembly Budget Committee Chair Gabiel, and Senate Budget Committee Chair Laird:

On behalf of the undersigned agricultural, environmental, local government, firefighting, climate, and environmental justice organizations, we write to request your support for maintaining wage parity for sheep and goat herders in California, which is necessary to maintain the wildfire risk reduction services goats provide throughout the state.

The Legislature passed SB 143 in 2023, including Section 20, which amended Labor Code Section 2695.4 to clarify that the same minimum monthly wage and labor protections for sheep herders should apply to goat herders and herders caring for both types of animals. However, SB 143 also included a sunset provision that terminated this parity on July 1, 2026 and directed the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2026 on the employment of sheep and goat herders.

The DIR report was published on March 30, 2026, and finds that “All stakeholders [ranchers, herders, and worker advocates] agreed that the same alternative minimum monthly wage should apply to sheep and goat herders because the workers and work are similar and often overlap."
We request the legislature and administration work together to maintain sheep and goat herder wage parity and worker protections by restoring the language applicable to goat herders that expired on July 1, 2026. Failure to do so will result in the sale or slaughter of tens of thousands of sheep and goats and the loss of the weed abatement and wildfire fuels reductions services they provide in California.

Page 350 of 418 ends

Additional Background
For the prior quarter century, California wage-and-hour law allowed livestock producers to pay a minimum monthly wage for herders because counting their hours as if they were working twenty four hours a day, seven days a week would have resulted in uneconomically high compensation for these employees, rendering sheep and goat production in California economically impractical. The Legislature recognized that herders work intermittently throughout the day and accordingly provided for the minimum monthly wage.

When AB 1066 (Gonzalez, 2016), legislation requiring payment of daily and weekly overtime to agricultural employees, was phasing in, DIR realized that existing regulations (Section 4(e) of Wage Order 14) included specific reference to sheep but not goats. DIR interpreted this omission to mean that goat herders were not covered by the same minimum monthly wage as sheep herders. DIR’s interpretation created an outcome where goat herders would have to be paid nearly four times the $4938 minimum monthly wage for sheep herders.

Had the Legislature not provided parity for minimum monthly wages for sheep and goat herders through SB 143 in 2023, their employers would have faced an unworkable situation. Both sheep and goats would have become unavailable for the increasingly popular practice of prescribed grazing for wildfire fuels reduction (as an alternative to pesticides and fossil-fuel powered machinery). This would have become economically impossible as no homeowners’ association, fire safe council, local park, or utility could afford to pay for grazing services at the prices high wages for goat herders would require.

Since SB 143 was passed in 2023, the legislature and administration have recognized the benefits of prescribed grazing in multiple ways. In 2024, the administration published nature-based climate solutions targets, which included prescribed grazing. Later that year, the legislature unanimously passed and the Governor signed SB 675 (Limón), which required prescribed grazing to be incorporated into the state’s wildfire resilience strategy. In 2025, the Task Force established a Prescribed Grazing Work Group, which published a brief on expanding prescribed grazing for wildfire resilience in California.

The Department of Industrial Relations delivered its required report on March 30, 2026, which found no significant abuse or mistreatment of sheep and goat herders. It also did not document any objections from herders or farmworker advocates for continuation of wage parity for sheep and goat herders. Unfortunately, the late timing of the delivery of the report left the Legislature little time to deal with the July 1, 2026 sunset on wage parity and the goat herder language expired as of that date.

We urge you to act expeditiously to ensure ongoing parity between the wages of sheep and goat herders, and the continuing availability of sheep and goats for wildfire fuels reduction, by restoring the language applicable to goat herders that expired on July 1, 2026.

Thank you,

Page 351 of 418 ends

Brian Shobe
Policy Director
California Climate and Agriculture Network
C. Bryan Little
Senior Director, Policy Advocacy
California Farm Bureau
Staci Heaton
Senior Policy Advocate
Rural County Representatives of California
Anthony Fletcher
President
Santa Clara County Firefighters
IAFF Local 1165
Phil Esnoz
President
California Woolgrowers Association
Mark Brown
Executive Director
Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority
Emily Rooney
President
Agricultural Council of California
Jamie Fanous
Policy & Organizing Director
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Baani Behniwal
Carbon Drawdown Director
The Climate Center
Dan Silver
Executive Director
Endangered Habitats League
Jordan Wells
Legislative Advocate
California State Association of Counties
Jutta C. Burger, PhD (she/her)
Executive Director
Science Program Director
California Invasive Plant Council
Johnnie Pina
Legislative Advocate
League of California Cities
Norm Groot
Executive Director
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Ryan Jacobsen
CEO
Fresno County Farm Bureau
Walt Hardesty
President
Sacramento County Farm Bureau
Christina Beckstead
Executive Director
Madera County Farm Bureau
Daniel Suenram
President
Lake County Farm Bureau
Michael Delbar
CEO
California Rangeland Trust
Em Johnson
Director of Climate Programs
Community Environmental Council
Andrea Mackenzie
General Manager
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority

Page 352 of 418 ends

Karen Sweet
Executive Director
California Rangeland Conservation
Coalition
Caitie Diemel
Executive Director
Stanislaus County Farm Bureau
Manuel Cunha Jr
President
Nisei Farmers League
Breanne Vandenberg
Executive Director
Merced County Farm Bureau
Chris Zanobini
Chief Executive Officer
California Grain & Feed Association
Shirley Rowe
President
African American Farmers of California
Paul Mason
Vice President, Policy & Incentives
Pacific Forest Trust
Torri Estrada
Executive Director and Director of Policy
Carbon Cycle Institute
Chelsea Gazillo
California Senior Policy Manager
American Farmland Trust
Christopher Danch
Executive Director
Ojai Valley Fire Safe Council
Lawrence D. Ford, Ph.D.

Principal and Senior Rangeland
Conservation Scientist
Rangeland Conservation Science
Sarah C. Aird
Policy Director
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Sakereh Maskal (she/her)
Policy and Advocacy Lead
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network
(PAN)
Rebecca Burgess
Executive Director
Fibershed
Ken Owen
Executive Director
Channel Islands Restoration
Kim Konte
Founder
Non-Toxic Neighborhoods
Andrée Soares
Owner
Star Creek Land Stewards
Alissa Cope and Carson Helton
Sage Environmental Group
Goat Grazing
Tim Arrowsmith
Owner
Blue Tent Farm dba Western Grazers
Cole Bush
Owner
Shepherdess Land and Livestock Co. &
Grazing School of the West

Page 353 of 418 ends

Richard Shortall
President
Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection District
Laetitia Benador
Policy Manager
California Certified Organic Farmers
Wendy Millet
Ranch Director
TomKat Ranch
Clayton Hodges
Owner
Paradise Grazing Company
Ryan Indart
President and CEO
Indart Group, Inc.

Sarah Keiser
CEO
Wild Oat Hollow
Beth Reynolds
Owner/operator
The Goat Girls LLC
James Burns
Marinview Community Association Board
Mill Valley, California
Natasha Hunt
Alcalde Ranch
Coalinga, California
James Kasper
Private Landowner in Marin County
Paul Abess
Shareholder
Capra Environmental Services, Corp.

Brian Allen & Daniel Allen
Owners
Green Goat Landscapers
John Campbell
Construction Project Manager
San Domenico School
Patti Wick
2017 Tubbs Fire Survivor
Santa Rosa, CA
Cc: The Hon. Karen Ross, Secretary, Department of Food and Agriculture The Hon. Stewart Knox, Secretary, Labor & Workforce Development Agency The Hon. David J. Tangipa, Vice Chair, Assembly Budget Committee The Hon. Roger Niello, Vice Chair, Senate Budget Committee

Page 354 of 418 ends

***CITY LETTERHEAD***
DATE
The Honorable [Legislator Name]
California State [Senate/Assembly]
[Address]
RE: Support Legislative Efforts to Preserve Prescribed Grazing for Wildfire Prevention Dear Senator/Assembly Member [Last Name]:

On behalf of [City Name], we respectfully request your support for legislative action to restore wage parity between goatherders and sheepherders and preserve prescribed grazing as a critical wildfire prevention tool.

Prescribed Grazing is an Important Tool for Wildfire Prevention Prescribed grazing is one of the most effective, environmentally sustainable, and costefficient tools available to reduce wildfire fuels. Communities throughout California, including ours, depend on sheep and goat grazing to reduce dry vegetation, manage invasive species, and protect neighborhoods, parks, critical infrastructure, and open space from the growing threat of catastrophic wildfire.

Importance to Our Community
[Describe any current or planned prescribed grazing projects in your community and how grazing supports local wildfire resilience, vegetation management, open space maintenance, habitat management, or fuel reduction efforts.] [Explain why maintaining affordable access to grazing services is important to your community and how the loss of grazing providers or significant increases in grazing costs would affect local wildfire preparedness, vegetation management programs, budgets, public lands, or public safety.]
[Provide examples of areas where prescribed grazing is particularly effective or where alternative vegetation management methods would be more costly, less effective, environmentally challenging, or impractical.]
Threat to Local Wildfire Resilience Efforts

Page 355 of 418 ends

For decades, California recognized that herders caring for sheep and goats should be compensated under the same minimum monthly wage structure, reflecting the unique nature of this around-the-clock occupation. While the Legislature temporarily clarified this policy in 2023, that provision expired on July 1, 2026.

Without legislative action, employers must compensate goatherders under California's standard hourly wage and overtime requirements, dramatically increasing labor costs and placing prescribed grazing operations at serious financial risk. Many grazing operators have indicated these costs are unsustainable and could force them to reduce or eliminate their goat herds. The resulting loss of grazing capacity would significantly reduce an important wildfire prevention resource relied upon by local governments and land managers throughout California.

Support Legislative Action
We respectfully urge you to support legislative efforts to restore the same wage treatment for goatherders and sheepherders. Doing so will preserve an essential wildfire mitigation tool, help keep prescribed grazing affordable for public agencies, and ensure communities can continue using one of California's most effective natural defenses against catastrophic wildfire.

With the Legislature scheduled to adjourn at the end of this month, timely action is essential.

Thank you for your continued leadership and consideration of this important request.

Sincerely,
NAME
TITLE
CITY/TOWN of ______________
cc. Your Senator & Assembly Member
Your League Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email) League of California Cities, [email protected]

Page 356 of 418 ends

City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Paul Seo, Mayor
Stephen Perestam, Mayor Pro Tem
David L. Bradley, Councilmember
Barbara Ferraro, Councilmember
George Lewis, Councilmember
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5207 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.RPVCA.GOV The Honorable Al Muratsuchi The Honorable Ben Allen
California State Assembly California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 5310 1021 O Street, Suite 7610
Sacramento, CA 94249 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support Legislative Efforts to Preserve Prescribed Grazing for Wildfire Prevention Dear Senator Allen and /Assembly Member Muratsuchi:

On behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, we respectfully request your support for legislative action to restore wage parity between goatherders and sheepherders, in order to preserve prescribed grazing as a critical wildfire prevention tool.

Prescribed Grazing is an Important Tool for Wildfire Prevention Prescribed grazing is one of the most effective, environmentally sustainable, and costefficient tools available to reduce wildfire fuels. Communities throughout California, including ours with steep canyons and challenging topography, depend on goat grazing to reduce dry vegetation, manage invasive species, and protect neighborhoods, parks, critical infrastructure, and open space from the growing threat of catastrophic wildfire.

Importance to Our Community
Maintaining affordable access to these grazing services is essential to our community’s safety. Rancho Palos Verdes is concerned about the potential spike in goat herder wages.

After July 1, 2026, the annual compensation of goat herders in California will skyrocket from $58,000 per year, plus room and board, to $240,000 annually – making this essential service cost prohibitive to cities like Rancho Palos Verdes.

Without legislative action, labor costs for goat grazing will become unsustainable and could force operators to reduce or eliminate their goat herds. The resulting loss of grazing capacity would significantly reduce an important wildfire prevention resource relied upon by local governments and land managers throughout California.

Page 357 of 418 ends

Support Legislative Action
We respectfully urge you to support legislative efforts to restore the same wage treatment for goatherders. Doing so will preserve an essential wildfire mitigation tool, help keep prescribed grazing affordable for public agencies, and ensure communities can continue using one of California's most effective natural defenses against catastrophic wildfire.

With the Legislature scheduled to adjourn at the end of this month, timely action is essential. Thank you for your continued leadership and consideration of this important request.

Sincerely,
Paul Seo
Mayor
cc. Senator Ben Allen & Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi
Jeff Kiernan, League Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email) League of California Cities, [email protected]
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager

Page 358 of 418 ends

Item: 13.B.

Meeting Date: 8/24/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and file a report regarding the City Council's direction authorizing the Mayor to express opposition to Proposed Wildfire Liability Reforms Limiting Public Agency Cost Recovery
Background:

At its August 10, 2026 meeting, the City Council received information from Mayor Dieringer regarding a forthcoming wildfire liability reform package prompted by the Senate Bill 254 Report. The proposal could limit the ability of cities, counties, and other public agencies to recover damages and costs from private electric utilities responsible for causing wildfires.

Because the matter was not listed as an item on the August 10 agenda, the City Council could not discuss or take formal action on the proposal. However, consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform and Policy, the Mayor was permitted to work with City staff to communicate the City’s position due to the time-sensitive nature of the matter and its alignment with the City’s established legislative priorities. Staff is bringing the matter back to the City Council to report on the actions taken and provide the outcome for the City Council’s review.

Discussion:

Staff is bringing this item back to the City Council to share the actions taken by Mayor Dieringer and City staff in response to the direction provided at the August 10, 2026 City Council meeting.

Mayor Dieringer contacted the offices of Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and Senator Ben Allen and left messages communicating the City’s opposition to the proposed wildfire liability reforms. Mayor Dieringer will continue to follow up with both legislative offices to reinforce the City’s concerns and obtain any additional information regarding the proposal.

The City also joined a coalition letter dated August 17, 2026, submitted by the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California (Attachment A). The letter calls upon Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to reject efforts to limit public agency recovery when private electric utilities cause wildfires.

Page 359 of 418 ends

The coalition letter identifies three primary areas of concern:
• Limiting recovery for damage to public property and infrastructure to depreciated value, which would not provide sufficient funding to rebuild public facilities and essential infrastructure. • Limiting recovery for emergency response and mutual aid costs, which could require local agencies to absorb significant expenses while awaiting uncertain federal reimbursement. • Eliminating the ability of public agencies to recover lost property tax revenues, which could reduce funding available for essential public services during community recovery.

These concerns are particularly significant for small jurisdictions such as Rolling Hills, which have limited financial and staffing resources. Restricting public agency recovery could shift costs from the responsible private utility to local taxpayers and place additional financial pressure on communities already affected by wildfire.

At the time this report was prepared, the proposed wildfire liability reform package had not been assigned a separate bill number. The City is not opposing SB 254; rather, the City is opposing the proposed reforms being developed in response to the study required by SB 254 that would limit public agency cost recovery.

Staff will continue monitoring the development of the proposal and coordinating with the City’s legislative representatives, Cal Cities, and other local government partners. No additional action is requested at this time.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

Receive and File an Update on the City’s Opposition to Proposed Wildfire Liability Reforms Limiting Public Agency Cost Recovery
Attachments:

1. Attachment A - Opposition to Forthcoming Wildfire Liability Reform Package That Would Limit Public Agency Recovery, dated August

2. Attachment B - Wildfire Liability Coalition Fact Sheet_Draft Letter

Page 360 of 418 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 361 of 418 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 362 of 418 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

August 17, 2026
The Honorable Monique Limón The Honorable Robert Rivas
Senate President pro Tempore Assembly Speaker
California State Senate California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8518 1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Opposition to Forthcoming Wildfire Liability Reform Package that Would Limit Public Agency Recovery
Dear Senate Pro Tem Limon and Assembly Speaker Rivas,
On behalf of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), and the undersigned local elected officials, cities and counties, we are calling on you to reject efforts to limit public agency recovery when private electric utilities cause wildfires, as proposed in the Governor’s wildfire liability reform package, prompted by the SB 254 Report.

This proposal will wrongly shift costs to taxpayers and force devastating consequences on public agencies and wildfire victims already struggling to rebuild their communities.

The proposal relies on the false hopes that public property, infrastructure and emergency response costs can be recovered from FEMA or insurance. Limiting public agency recovery will only shift costs to taxpayers and leave public agencies financially stranded – or even worse, bankrupt. We strongly oppose the following reforms and urge the Legislature to reject them outright from being included in any wildfire package that will advance this legislative session.

1. Limiting Public Property and Infrastructure Damages Imperils Public Agencies Tasked with Rebuilding their Communities
The proposal will have negligent private electric utilities pay just pennies on the dollar to rebuild critical infrastructure and public facilities that are destroyed. Limiting such costs to the mere depreciated value of the public facility or infrastructure will impact the rebuilding of:
• Public facilities and buildings
• Water, sewer, roads, communication, and traffic signal infrastructure • Parks, schools, libraries, and fire stations
When a private electric utility causes a wildfire, they are required to fully compensate for property damage. Public agencies cannot rebuild damaged infrastructure on recovery dollars that only cover the depreciated value of an asset. Rebuilding public facilities and infrastructure is not a luxury - it is an essential public service for homeowners, businesses, and communities to return home.

2. Limiting Recovery for Emergency Response and Mutual Aid Forces Public Agencies to Absorb Costs and Increase Financial Risk, Waiting Years For FEMA Reimbursement While Communities Struggle to Recover

Page 363 of 418 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

The proposal prevents public agencies from recovering emergency response and mutual aid costs from the very private electric utilities who cause these devastating wildfires and inappropriately suggest FEMA as the solution. Limiting emergency response cost recovery will be catastrophic for small jurisdictions and fracture our mutual aid system upon which the state and communities rely on. There is a federal obligation to pursue negligent parties per the Stafford Act. This will create ambiguity when negligent parties must meet that requirement and will jeopardize federal reimbursement. FEMA has strict rules on recoverability, and some events aren’t even eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Since FEMA is a reimbursement model, funds must be spent upfront.

Interpretations in FEMA change from Administration to Administration, creating uncertainty whether future relief will even be available for these incidents.

3. Eliminating Property Tax Losses Leaves Communities Financially Stranded Schools, cities, counties, and special districts rely on property taxes to fund basic needs in our communities. The proposal will financially strand public agencies by eliminating the ability to bring claims for lost property taxes. This has tremendous consequences for essential public services, including fire, police, social services programs, drinking water, public infrastructure, and drastically risks school closure.

There is no evidence in the SB 254 Report to suggest that public agency claims are unreasonable or unjustified. Public agency damages amounted to merely 4% of the total wildfire claims that utilities paid from 2017 to 2024. Public infrastructure, lost tax revenue, emergency response, and mutual aid are necessary and critical for local governments to function while struggling to rebuild their communities. If public agencies cannot recover costs from negligent private electric utilities, local taxpayers will pay more instead. The very survivors whose community burned will foot the bill which is NOT an equitable approach to socializing wildfire risk.

We respectfully request the Legislature to protect public infrastructure, safeguard emergency response and our mutual aid system, and protect taxpayers from this private electric utility bailout – and to reject the Governor’s proposal to limit public agency recovery when such utilities cause wildfires.

Sincerely,
Melissa Sparks-Kranz John Kennedy
Legislative Advocate Senior Policy Advocate
League of California Cities Rural County Representatives of California Jordan Wells
Legislative Advocate
California State Association of Counties

Page 364 of 418 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

And on behalf of the following cities, counties and local elected officials:

City of Arcata
City of Azusa
City of Benicia
City of Beverly Hills
City of Big Bear Lake
City of Brea
Calaveras County
Contra Costa County
City of Camarillo
City of Poway
City of Claremont
City of Colton
City of Daly City
City of Del Mar
City of Diamond Bar
Fresno County
City of Glendora
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Hemet
City of Hesperia
City of Highland
City of Jackson
Kern County
City of La Verne
City of Lomita
City of Los Alamitos
City of Manteca
Mariposa County
Mendocino County
Marin County
City of Monrovia
City of Mission Viejo
City of Napa
Napa County
Nevada County
City of Oceanside
City of Orinda
City of Palm Desert
City of Petaluma
Placer County
City of Pleasanton
City of Portola
City of Rancho Palos
Verdes
Redwood City
City of Rio Dell
City of Riverside
City of Rolling Hills
City of San Fernando
City of San Marcos
City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz County
City of Santa Rosa
City of Sierra Madre
City of Sunnyvale
Stanislaus County
Sutter County
Tehama County
City of Temecula
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Tracy
City of Vacaville
City of Visalia
City of Walnut
City of Walnut Creek
City of Weed
City of West Hollywood
City of Whittier
City of Willits
City of Yreka
Yuba County
Supervisor Anne Contrell, Napa County
Mayor Brett Taylor, City of Visalia
Mayor David Tennessen, City of Camarillo
Councilmember Debby Stegura, City of Rolling Hills Estates Councilmember Evan Branning, City of Livermore
Mayor Frank J. Navarro, City of Colton
Supervisor Gary Bradford, Yuba County
Mayor Glenn R. Sylvester, City of Daly City
Councilmember Holly Tillman, City of Clayton
Supervisor Jake Withrow, Glenn County
Vice Mayor James Mai, City of Irvine
Supervisor Jill Cox, Trinity County
Supervisor Justin Cummings, Santa Cruz County
Mayor Kevin Wilk, City of Walnut Creek
Supervisor Kim De Serpa, Santa Cruz County
Councilmember Larry Spicer, City of Monrovia
Supervisor Manu Koenig, Santa Cruz County
Supervisor Monica Martinez, Santa Cruz County
Councilmember Nathan Steele, City of Seal Beach
Councilmember Pamela Campos, City of San Jose
Mayor Stephanie Hellman, City of Fairfax
Mayor Sylvia Lemus, City of Cotati
Councilmember Xouhoa Bowen, City of San Leandro

Page 365 of 418 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

cc: The Honorable Governor Gavin Newsom
Members, California State Senate
Members, California State Assembly

Page 366 of 418 ends

How does the proposal negatively impact public agencies? The Governor’s proposed wildfire liability reforms will have devastating consequences for public agencies and wildfire victims already struggling to rebuild their communities. The proposal would:

Limit damage claims on public property or infrastructure to the depreciated value of the asset that the utility who caused the wildfire would need to pay. Utilities would not have to pay for the full replacement costs of essential water, sewers, fire stations, schools, and libraries that are damaged.

Remove emergency response and mutual aid costs as a recoverable cost from the utility.

Eliminate property tax loss revenue as a recoverable cost from the utility. Limiting public agency recovery will only shift costs to taxpayers and leave public agencies financially stranded.

The Problem
When wildfires strike a community, public agencies, firefighters, EMS, and police are on the front lines.

If cities, counties, and public agencies cannot recover costs from negligent utilities, local taxpayers and the very survivors whose community burned will foot the bill.

This is a big change from the way the system now works. When utility equipment causes a wildfire, utilities are currently held accountable through strict liability and negligence standards. They are required to fully compensate for property damage.

What you need to know: The Governor’s is proposing a last-minute, gut-and-amend package negotiated behind-closed-doors on wildfire liability reforms would limit public agency recovery from utility-caused wildfires. The proposal bails out electric utilities, undermines community rebuilding efforts, and wrongly shifts costs to wildfire victims, taxpayers, and local governments.

The Solution
The state must focus on stopping utility-caused fires and protecting the safety of our communities — not shift accountability and costs to victims, cities, and taxpayers.

The Legislature must oppose limits to public agency recovery for utility-caused wildfires. This must be removed from the wildfire liability reform proposal.

The state must strengthen community wildfire mitigation efforts through:

Increasing the frequency of fire hazard severity zone map updates in local responsibility areas (every five years) to reflect the best available science; Streamlining administrative processes and permitting fuel reduction projects; Tightening the link between wildfire mitigation efforts and fire insurance accessibility.

PROTECT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. SAFEGUARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE.

PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM THIS UTILITY BAILOUT.

Page 367 of 418 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 368 of 418 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 369 of 418 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

This proposal will wrongly shift costs to taxpayers and force devastating consequences on public agencies and wildfire victims already struggling to rebuild their communities.

Page 370 of 418 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

Interpretations in FEMA change from Administration to Administration, creating uncertainty whether future relief will even be available for these incidents.

Page 371 of 418 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

And on behalf of the following cities, counties and local elected officials:

Page 372 of 418 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

cc: The Honorable Governor Gavin Newsom
Members, California State Senate
Members, California State Assembly

Page 373 of 418 ends

Item: 13.C.

Meeting Date: 8/24/2026
To: City Council
From: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and file an update on the Los Angeles County Measure G Governance Reform Task Force
Background:

In November 2024, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure G, which amended the Los Angeles County Charter to implement several significant changes to the County’s governance structure. Among other provisions, Measure G will establish an elected County Executive beginning in 2028 and expand the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members beginning in 2032.

Measure G also established the Los Angeles County Governance Reform Task Force (GRTF) to develop recommendations and advise the Board of Supervisors regarding implementation of these reforms. The GRTF is currently considering the role, authority, responsibilities, and organizational structure of the future elected County Executive, as well as how the position will coordinate with County departments, incorporated cities, and other governmental and community stakeholders.

The creation of an elected County Executive represents a significant change in the County’s governance structure and will affect how all 88 incorporated cities interact with County leadership and departments. Although Measure G established the general authority of the new position, it did not fully define how the elected County Executive will coordinate with incorporated cities or oversee the County departments that provide services to them.

On November 26, 2024, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a directive establishing the structure and responsibilities of the GRTF (Attachment B). The directive requires robust community and stakeholder outreach and recognizes municipal governments, including cities, as a distinct stakeholder sector. It also designated one GRTF seat for a representative of the interests of municipal governments in Los Angeles County. Although the directive does not expressly require individual outreach to all 88 incorporated cities, its structure demonstrates that municipal-government participation and input were intended to be an integral part of the Measure G implementation process.

Discussion:

July 21 Joint COG Letter
On July 21, 2026, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, South Bay Cities Council of

Page 374 of 418 ends

Governments, and Gateway Cities Council of Governments submitted a joint letter (Attachment C) regarding Item No. 4 on the GRTF’s July 22, 2026 agenda, which concerned an overview of the existing Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office.

Together, the three COGs’ membership includes 71 cities, including 59 contract cities. The joint letter requested that, before submitting recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, the GRTF conduct direct and collaborative outreach with all 88 incorporated cities.

The letter also requested that cities be provided an opportunity to comment on how the elected County Executive’s relationship with contract and independent cities could be most effective and how the new position may affect the delivery of municipal services.

July 22 GRTF Discussion
During the GRTF’s July 22 meeting, members discussed the joint COG letter and whether the Task Force should proactively engage incorporated cities or whether cities and their regional representatives should independently submit comments and participate in the process.

Several GRTF members expressed support for directly engaging cities. Other members indicated that cities and COGs should take the initiative to attend meetings and submit comments using the same public-engagement process available to other stakeholders.

Following this discussion, the California Contract Cities Association issued a call to action encouraging individual cities to submit letters requesting formal engagement while the GRTF’s recommendations are still being developed. The Association also provided a template that cities could customize to describe their relationship with the County and the County services on which they rely.

The purpose of the requested letters is not to support or oppose Measure G, which has already been approved by voters. Rather, the letters would address how Measure G is implemented and request that incorporated cities be recognized and engaged as governmental and operational partners.

Preliminary concepts presented to the GRTF appear to address the elected County Executive’s relationship with the 88 incorporated cities primarily through an intergovernmental-relations function.

However, the relationship between the County and its cities extends well beyond traditional legislative or intergovernmental affairs.

Whether a city provides services directly or contracts with the County, the City-County relationship involves an interwoven system of operational, regulatory, contractual, and emergency-response responsibilities. Cities regularly coordinate with County departments regarding law enforcement, fire protection, public works, public health, elections, animal care and control, building and safety, emergency management, and other regional functions. These relationships require direct and continuing operational partnerships with County leadership and departments. (Attachment F) For this reason, the California Contract Cities Association and the three COGs are requesting that, before the GRTF submits recommendations concerning the elected County Executive to the Board of Supervisors, it establishes a formal and structured process to engage all 88 incorporated cities and obtain their input.

August 17 Special Meeting
On August 17, 2026, the three joint COG's made a presentation to the GRTF re-emphasizing their concerns and providing seven considerations to build a thoughtful, collaborative County-City relationship under an elected County Executive (Attachment D). The Claremont Graduate School –

Page 375 of 418 ends

Rose Institute of Local Government also presented their preliminary findings regarding Measure G and the San Gabriel Valley Cities. (Attachment E)
Next Steps:

Time is of the essence. According to information provided by the California Contract Cities Association, recommendations concerning the elected County Executive are anticipated to be presented to the Board of Supervisors by the end of August. Without immediate engagement, recommendations could be finalized before incorporated cities have had a meaningful opportunity to address how the new governance structure may affect municipal services and City-County operations.

August 21 Special Meetings
On August 20, 2026, City staff learned that the GRTF had scheduled two special meetings for Friday, August 21, 2026, at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration. At 12:00 p.m., the GRTF will continue its discussion of potential recommendations concerning the future elected County Executive. The Task Force will also receive research concerning legislative analyst offices in other jurisdictions to inform its consideration of the future County Legislative Analyst established by Measure G. The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format, and public comment will occur at the end of the meeting (Attachment G).

At 5:00 p.m., the GRTF will conduct an in-person community roundtable concerning Measure G and the future elected County Executive. The meeting will include a presentation, facilitated discussions, and an opportunity for public comment. Input received during the session will be provided to the GRTF and used to inform its continuing development of recommendations.

Staff was concerned that the GRTF could advance or finalize recommendations before the City Council and other incorporated cities had a meaningful opportunity to review the issues and provide comments.

City’s Request to Defer Final Action
On August 20, 2026, staff emailed the GRTF requesting that it refrain from taking final action or finalizing recommendations concerning the elected County Executive until the City of Rolling Hills and other incorporated cities have had an opportunity to provide input (Attachment H).

Staff informed the GRTF that the City Council would consider the matter at its upcoming meeting and that the City anticipated transmitting comments by Tuesday, August 25, 2026.

The email noted that the original directive establishing the GRTF requires robust community and stakeholder outreach and recognizes municipal governments, including cities, as a distinct stakeholder sector. It also explained that Rolling Hills is a small contract city that relies extensively on County departments for essential municipal services.

Staff’s email did not take a substantive position on the GRTF’s recommendations or commit the City to signing or submitting a letter. The email requested only that the GRTF preserve an opportunity for the City Council to consider the matter and provide direction before final recommendations are approved or transmitted to the Board of Supervisors.

Importance to Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills is a small, residential contract city with a staff of seven employees and no commercial tax base. The City relies extensively on Los Angeles County departments to provide or support essential municipal services, including law enforcement through the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, fire protection and emergency response, building and safety, public works and infrastructure

Page 376 of 418 ends

coordination, elections, animal care and control, public health, and regional emergency management.

The relationship between the City and County extends beyond traditional legislative or intergovernmental affairs. The City and County are operational partners that must regularly coordinate to provide services, respond to emergencies, address infrastructure needs, and protect the community.

Decisions regarding the authority, responsibilities, organizational structure, and departmental oversight of the elected County Executive could directly affect the City’s ability to:
• Coordinate with County departments;
• Obtain essential municipal services;
• Elevate and resolve operational concerns;
• Participate in regional emergency planning and response; • Understand and address changes to County service costs; and • Advocate effectively for City residents.

Direct engagement is particularly important for small contract cities that do not have the staffing or resources of larger jurisdictions with dedicated legislative and intergovernmental affairs personnel.

AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED
At this time, the City has not submitted a substantive letter or taken a formal position regarding the GRTF’s implementation recommendations. Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to work with staff to prepare and finalize a City letter. A sample letter is attached as Attachment A.

Because the GRTF is actively developing its recommendations, staff is also requesting that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the forthcoming South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) regional letter on behalf of the City, provided the final language is consistent with the City Council’s direction and the City’s legislative priorities.

This authorization will allow the City to respond promptly without requiring the final letters to return to the City Council before transmission. Staff will provide the City Council with copies of the signed letters and report the actions taken at a subsequent meeting.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Recommendation:

1. Receive an update regarding recent actions by the Los Angeles County Governance Reform Task Force concerning the implementation of Measure G and the future elected County Executive;

2. Authorize the Mayor to work with City staff to prepare, finalize, and transmit a City letter requesting the formal and direct engagement of incorporated cities in the development of Measure G implementation recommendations;

3. Authorize the Mayor to sign a forthcoming joint or regional letter on behalf of the City, provided the letter is consistent with the City Council’s direction and the City’s legislative priorities; and

4. Direct staff to report the final letters and actions taken to the City Council at a subsequent meeting.

Page 377 of 418 ends

Attachments:

1.Attachment A - CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_TemplateLetter_D

2.Attachment B - CL_AGN_260824_CC_LACo_BOS_Motion_MeasureG-Implementation_11.26.24

3.Attachment C - CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_JointCOGs_Letter

4.Attachment D - CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_JointCOGs_Presentation

5.Attachment E - CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_RoseInstitute_Presentation

6.Attachment F - CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_EssentialServicesToCitiesByCounty

7.Attachment G - CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_SpecialMeetings_Notice_08.21.26

8.Attachment H -
CL_AGN_260824_CC_MeasureG_TaskForce_CoRH_RequestToDeferFinalActionPendingCityInpu t

Page 378 of 418 ends

[City Letterhead]
[Date]
Measure G Task Force – County of Los Angeles
500 West Temple Street, Room 383
Los Angeles, California 90012
Email – [email protected]
Re: Engagement of Incorporated Cities in the Development of County Executive Officer Recommendations
Dear Chair and Members of the Measure G Task Force:

On behalf of the City of [City Name], thank you for your service regarding Measure G. The Task Force has been entrusted with developing recommendations that will shape one of the most significant changes to the governance and operational structure of Los Angeles County in decades.

Because those recommendations will define the role, authority, and responsibilities of the new County Executive Officer (CEO), we respectfully request that the Task Force formally engage Los Angeles County's 88 incorporated cities before submitting its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Given the CEO's broad operational responsibilities and the direct impact this position will have on municipal governments, meaningful input from cities will strengthen the Task Force's recommendations and help ensure the new governance structure reflects the realities of service delivery throughout Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County is unlike any other county in the nation. Its 88 incorporated cities are home to approximately 8.7 million of the County's nearly 9.8 million residents. The County and its cities work in close partnership every day to provide essential services, respond to emergencies, implement regional initiatives, and address issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. This relationship is especially significant for the County's 42 contract cities, which rely on the County to provide essential municipal services such as law enforcement and fire protection. As the County Executive Officer assumes responsibility for overseeing County departments and operations, the effectiveness of that office will depend in part on its ability to coordinate with municipal governments throughout the County.

While the Task Force has identified legislative affairs as one of the operational areas under consideration. We encourage the Task Force to recognize, however, that the relationship between Los Angeles County and its incorporated cities extends well beyond traditional legislative or intergovernmental affairs. Unlike the County's interactions with the state or federal government, the County and its cities are operational partners with shared responsibilities that require continuous coordination to serve residents effectively.

Page 379 of 418 ends

Accordingly, we encourage the Task Force to consider how its recommendations can reflect the CEO's role in fostering collaboration with incorporated cities across the full range of County operations. This includes coordination on public safety, fire protection, public works, regional planning, homelessness services, public health, emergency management, and other regional functions where County and municipal governments work together. Providing greater clarity regarding the CEO's responsibility to engage with cities on these shared operational issues would strengthen the governance framework envisioned by Measure G.

The perspectives of incorporated cities are an important part of this discussion. As the democratically elected governments representing approximately 8.7 million Los Angeles County residents, cities offer practical experience and local insight that can help inform recommendations affecting service delivery, regional coordination, and governance throughout the County.

Accordingly, we respectfully urge the Task Force to conduct a formal and structured engagement process with incorporated cities before presenting its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Direct municipal input will help ensure the Task Force's recommendations are informed by the governments that will work most closely with the new CEO and will strengthen long-term coordination between the County and its cities.

Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to strengthening governance throughout Los Angeles County. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to continued collaboration.

Sincerely,
[Mayor/City Manager/City Council]
City of [City Name]

Page 380 of 418 ends

MOTION
SOLIS ___________________________
MITCHELL ___________________________
HAHN ___________________________
BARGER ___________________________
HORVATH ___________________________
REVISED AGN. NO.

MOTION BY SUPERVISORS LINDSEY P. HORVATH NOVEMBER 26, 2024 AND HILDA L. SOLIS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNANCE REFORM: IMPLEMENTING THE VOTER

MANDATE FOR A MORE REPRESENTATIVE, ACCOUNTABLE & TRANSPARENT

LA COUNTY
Measure G’s approval by voters paves the way for historic changes to Los Angeles County’s governance structure. The comprehensive set of reforms will result in a government that is more accountable, transparent, representative, and responsive to individuals and communities in greatest need. This comes after six previous attempts to update Los Angeles County’s governance structure failed to secure Los Angeles County voter approval in 1962, 1976, 1992, 2000, and legislative support in 2015, and 2017.

Now, this once-in-a-generation change is coming to Los Angeles County through a voter mandate.

The passage of Measure G amends the Los Angeles County Charter, establishing the first elected County Executive, creating four additional Supervisorial districts, establishing an independent Ethics Commission, and requiring public departmental budget hearings. The reforms will modernize and reorganize the County's governance structure with true checks and balances - through the separation of legislative and

Page 381 of 418 ends

executive authorities - to meet the complex challenges currently facing the County and the nation.

The measure includes changes that are required immediately; therefore, bold steps must be taken today to ensure the structural overhaul meets voter-approved deadlines.

It is the County’s responsibility to deliver on the promise of greater transparency and improved service delivery to County residents. The timeline for the Charter amendment includes:
• Immediately requiring County departments and agencies to present their budgets to the Board of Supervisors in open, public meetings, prior to adoption of an annual budget.
• Immediately strengthening “revolving door” policy prohibiting former County officials from lobbying the County for a minimum of 2 years after leaving County service.
• Immediately authorizing the suspension with or without pay for elected officials criminally convicted of a crime related to a violation of official duties. • By 2026, creating an independent Ethics Commission as well as an Office of Ethics Compliance, to be led by an Ethics Compliance Officer. • By 2026, requiring all non-urgency, items of business agendized at a regular Board of Supervisors meeting be publicly posted for a minimum of 120 hours (five days) before Board action.
• In 2028, electing a County Executive and establishing the County Legislative Analyst and Director of Budget and Management positions.

Page 382 of 418 ends

• Following the 2030 Census and upon the completion of the Independent Redistricting process, elect four additional members of the Board of Supervisors in 2032.

During this process, many have expressed a desire to help shape how this monumental change moves forward. The County must be committed to a robust public engagement process beginning now. The Charter amendment states, “The Board of Supervisors shall establish a Governance Reform Task Force, with representation from the County workforce, responsible for implementation of this Charter amendment upon adoption by the voters, including robust community and stakeholder outreach.” It further states, “Implementation efforts and recommendations by the Governance Reform Task Force shall use existing County funding sources, and any implementation costs shall be offset by cost savings determined through the annual County budgeting process, with no additional costs to, or taxes imposed on taxpayers.” The Charter amendment requires the Governance Reform Task Force to convene no later than 180 days after certification of the vote (June 1, 2025). Immediate action must be taken to implement the Charter amendment, and meet the timelines imposed (see attached Overview of County Charter Amendment).

WE, THEREFORE, MOVE that the Board of Supervisors:
1) Direct the Board of Supervisors Executive Office (EO), in consultation with County Counsel, to establish the Governance Reform Task Force (GRTF) to research and analyze the current governance structure, conduct public outreach, and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (Board) on a reorganization proposal that implements the voter-approved Charter amendment to transition the County’s governance structure. The GRTF shall strive for consensus in all decisions. For the GRTF’s implementation recommendations to the Board, non-consensus recommendations shall be noted. The GRTF will be comprised of thirteen members. The composition of the GRTF will include five Board appointed members (one appointed by each Supervisor), three labor appointed members, and five at-large members to be selected by the five Board appointed members as follows: one member from the business sector, one

Page 383 of 418 ends

member representing the interests of municipal governments in Los Angeles County, one member representing the interests of County unincorporated areas, one member representing community organizations, one member with significant experience or knowledge in public sector ethics, and they must be selected as follows:
a) Application and selection process: Within 60 days, the EO, in consultation with County Counsel, must develop an online GRTF member application that follows a similar application process to the LA County Independent Redistricting Commission, which each potential GRTF member will be required to complete. Applicants for the GRTF must come from the following sectors: academia, the County workforce, labor, government (including cities), business, and community organizations, as well as an individual with significant experience or knowledge in public sector ethics. Furthermore, t The final composition of the GRTF should represent reflect the diversity of the County of Los Angeles, to the extent feasible, and permissible by law, including, but not limited to:
• Race/Ethnicity
• Gender
• LGBTQ+ Identity
• Age
• System Impacted (formally incarcerated, unhoused, foster youth, etc.) • Income Levels
• Education Levels
• Disabilities
• Renters and Homeowners
• Geographical Diversity
Criteria for selecting GRTF members must include:
i) Minimum Requirements:
(1) Adults over age 18.
(2) Must reside or work within Los Angeles County at the time of service.

Page 384 of 418 ends

(3) Willingness to work on a highly visible advisory body. (4) Ability to commit the necessary time.
(5) Possess experience that demonstrates analytical skills relevant to the performance of governmental functions and execution of governmental duties under applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. (6) Must explain their reason for seeking to be a member of the GRTF. (7) Upon selection, file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) ii) Desirable Qualifications:
(1) Skills, knowledge or lived experience that will help the GRTF fulfill its roles and responsibilities particularly around municipal or civic administration, stakeholder engagement, and project planning and implementation.
(2) Commitment to, and experience with, advancing the County’s core values of anti-racism, equity, communication, collaboration, transparency, “care first” and fiscal responsibilities. (3) Interest and experience in the County’s transition elements, e.g. municipal administration, financial and budget planning and operations, and roles and responsibilities of the expanded Board and County Executive, including roles of the County Legislative Analyst and Director of Budget and Management.
(4) Ability to leverage community connections to support community engagement efforts of the GRTF, including with marginalized and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.
(5) Local government experience/knowledge is preferred, including but not limited to cities within the County.
(6) Residents of County unincorporated areas possessing the minimum requirements.
iii) Applicants will be disqualified from GRTF membership if they, or an immediate family member, are currently:
(1) Appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing any area within the County of Los Angeles.

Page 385 of 418 ends

(2) Serving as appointed staff of, or a paid consultant for, an elected representative at the local, state, or federal level representing the County of Los Angeles.
(3) Serving as an employee of, or paid consultant for, a candidate for office at the local, state, or federal level representing the County of Los Angeles.
(4) A registered state or local lobbyist.
(5) The disqualifications above do not apply to the following:
(a) appointed staff not working directly for an elected official’s office; (b) commissioners; and
(c) employees of organizations representing local cities. b) Develop an application that presents questions to the applicants that best demonstrate their qualifications. Once the application is finalized, it must be posted on the EO website for a minimum of 30 days (application period) to provide applicants the opportunity to complete and submit their applications. c) Within 10 business days after the close of the application period, applications must be reviewed for completeness and provided to the Board, including a summary of which qualifications identified above each applicant possesses. d) Within 45 days after the close of the application period, Board action must be taken to appoint the five GRTF members to be selected by the Board (one selected by each Supervisor). Board appointed GRTF members must participate in the application process. select five GRTF members by a majority vote of the Board. Each Board member should recommend one GRTF member from the application pool.
e) Within 45 days of the closing of the application period, three additional GRTF members shall be nominated appointed by labor as follows:
i) One nominated by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; ii) One nominated by SEIU Local 721;
iii) One nominated by the Coalition of County Unions; and iv) The labor nominees must participate in the application process, to be approved by the Board within 30 days of receiving the nominations. No

Page 386 of 418 ends

other GRTF members shall be representatives of labor, including members appointed by the Board or the GRTF to ensure equitable distribution across all stakeholder sectors. Representatives of labor include individuals that are members of labor unions.
f) The remaining qualified applications must be provided to the five Board appointed nominated and approved GRTF members, for the purpose of recommending applicants to the Board to fill the five outstanding GRTF member seats as described in Directive 1 of this motion. The final GRTF members must be selected to fill gaps in the sector representation (academic, business, government (including cities), and community organizations, as well as an individual with significant experience or knowledge in public sector ethics) not yet met by the five GRTF members appointed by the Board and the nominated and approved GRTF members representing labor. Within 30 days of being appointed, the five GRTF members must submit their proposed appointments to the Board for approval.
g) Consistent with the Board’s intention for the GRTF to operate independently, a GRTF member may only be removed from the GRTF by recommendation of the GRTF to the Board. Should a member of the Board not nominate an applicant for the GRTF within the 60 days of the closing of the application period, the selected and appointed members by the remaining Board shall nominate an applicant to fill the member seat set aside for a Board office, unless otherwise directed by the Board.
2) Direct the EO, in consultation with County Counsel and other relevant departments, to do prepare the following within 60 days:
a) A Prepare a draft Governance Reform Transition Work Plan (Work Plan) for the GRTF that includes short- and long-term focus areas, and timelines, as outlined in the Charter amendment (summary attached) and provide to the Board for consideration. The GRTF shall have the ability to amend the Work Plan. The Work Plan must include, but not be limited to the following:
i) Public Budget Hearings (2025)

Page 387 of 418 ends

(1) A proposed process for departments to present their budget requests in a public Board meeting, including schedules that comply with state law, starting with the FY 2026-27 Budget (see Directive 3a). ii) Five-Day Posting Requirement for Non-Urgency Legislation (2026) (1) Provide notification to Board offices and departments of the updated filing instructions for board letters and motions reflecting the Charter amendment change which requires all non-urgency, County legislation be publicly posted for a minimum of 120 hours (five days) before Board action.
iii) Ethics Commission (2026)
(1) A proposed structure for the independent Ethics Commission utilizing County Counsel’s report on Ethics Reform in addition to a public input process that is completed in time to implement the Commission by 2026.
iv) County Executive (2028)
(1) Reorganization options that include the creation of a County Legislative Officer, a Director of Budget and Management, including staffing and budget.
(2) A staffing and budget proposal for the County Executive’s office. v) Board Expansion (2032)
(1) A staffing and budget proposal for the new nine-member Board. vi) Charter Commission (2034)
(1) Proposal and timeline to establish a Charter Review Commission to meet at least decennially (i.e., every 10 years) to review Los Angeles County’s governance and the County Charter, and make
recommendations to the Board, which the Board must place on agenda for vote no later than 90 days after transmittal. Any governance issues outside of the scope of the GRTF should be addressed by the Charter Review Commission.
b) Develop a comprehensive public engagement strategy for the GRTF, including but not limited to, rotating public meetings across Supervisorial

Page 388 of 418 ends

districts, both in person and virtual; education materials on the Charter amendment; a communications plan for the governance transition; and outreach efforts to stakeholders countywide, in consultation with all Board offices. All outreach materials should be developed according to the countywide language access policy. Develop a comprehensive public engagement strategy inclusive of community and stakeholder outreach and input required by Section 11.74 of Measure G, which includes:
i) Holding its meetings throughout the County, including in each Supervisorial District, with an option for virtual participation. ii) Substantively engage with community organizations and stakeholders from each Supervisorial District.
iii) Engaging and seeking feedback from all organizations and individuals who provided public comment (in any form) in connection with the Board meetings at which Measure G (or the original motion) was considered. iv) Making all efforts to host meetings at locations that are accessible to persons with disabilities and accessible to affordable public transportation. v) Ensuring language access to the general public, including providing professional interpretation services, translated written materials, and clear mechanisms for requesting accommodations.
vi) Providing drafts of all recommendations to the general public at least 10 days prior to each meeting.
vii) Adopting a recommendation only after a public meeting (with public comment) has been held for such recommendation, and after its final text has been public for at least 30 days.
c) Establish a website as a central point of information for the public on the County’s governance transition efforts, including educational materials for the public on the voter-approved Charter amendment and the governance transition.
d) In consultation with the Department of Human Resources, p Provide recommendations for the project management and/or staffing of the implementation of the Charter amendment, including support for the GRTF.

Page 389 of 418 ends

Consider both internal and external candidates and/or consultant support to effectuate the implementation of the adopted Charter amendment. A project management plan must be included to support the work of the GRTF, including but not limited to an executive director/project manager, outside counsel and communications and outreach personnel.
e) Propose fair compensation to be provided to GRTF members to assure that a wide range of residents can participate. The compensation must be on a per diem basis.
f) Explore the potential willingness of philanthropy to provide funding to support the County’s governance transition planning efforts.
g) Present the GRTF reorganization and implementation recommendations to the Board, which shall only utilize existing County funding sources, and cannot result in any additional costs to, or taxes imposed on taxpayers, thus funding must be found within existing resources. Any cost savings relied upon in any option must be clearly identified, including the amount and source. h) Ensure changes to the direction and oversight of municipal services for the unincorporated areas, in particular the respective roles of both the County Executive and the Supervisor representing a particular unincorporated area. Any recommended changes should include specific analysis and justification for how such changes would improve the quality and responsiveness of services and representation of the unincorporated areas.
3) Direct the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to prepare the following within 60 days, unless noted otherwise and begin to:
a) Within 30 days, develop a proposal that aligns with the implementation of the Charter amendment, subject to the Board’s approval, to amend the FY 2025- 26 budget calendar and process to include public departmental budget hearings before the Board, as an interim step for FY 2025-26, until the GRTF has recommended a process for FY 2026-27 and beyond.
b) Identify a point of contact to respond to information requests related to the implementation of the Charter amendment.

Page 390 of 418 ends

c) Identify available funding to support the GRTF in the current budget and for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27, including budget, staffing, and placement within the EO and ensure that direct services are not impacted to achieve this directive.
4) Direct County Counsel to :
a) iIdentify a lead counsel to be responsive to the requests of the GRTF; b) and to r Report back in 75 days on ordinance updates or legislative proposals that may be required or recommended to implement the Charter amendment and any other potential code updates that could be required once the public input process on the governance transition has been completed.

The report must also include recommendations regarding:
i) eEx-parte communications between the GRTF and the Board and conflict of interest policies that could be applied to the GRTF;. ii) Establishing procedures and requirements to minimize conflicts of interest and ensure the independence of the Task Force;
iii) Delegating authorities essential to the Task Force’s function; iv) Setting forth minimum fundamental standards for public notice and participation, language access, culturally responsive and proficient outreach;
v) Submission of final recommendations to the Board for approval; and vi) Compliance with any other applicable laws.
5) Direct County departments, including but not limited to, the Auditor-Controller, the Registrar-Recorder, EO and CEO to respond in a timely manner to information requests related to the implementation of the Charter amendment from the EO, the GRTF and/or their consultants.
6) Delegate authority to the EO to amend work order number EO RFS#24-01 under the CEO Master Agreement for Strategic Planning and related consulting services to support the GRTF and align the current work order deliverables to include tasks related to the voter-approved Charter Amendment to ensure the County utilizes existing resources, including full utilization of the $1 million

Page 391 of 418 ends

allocated during the fiscal year 2023-24 Supplemental Budget into a Provisional Financing Uses account for the Board Governance Model/Study. 7) Require the GRTF to respond to reasonable requests from the Board for updates on its work.
8) Within the recommendations to the Board, the GRTF may include internal Board procedures, such as: days of the week on which motions are filed, the process by which motions and pieces of legislation are considered before they are agendized at a regularly scheduled board meeting, Board agenda management, and other items pertaining to the procedural rules of the Board, in order achieve holistic and effective recommendations the Board can consider when approving the reorganizational structure and implementation measure necessary to effectuate the Charter Amendments.
# # #
LH:jo/jrl

Page 392 of 418 ends

REVISED AGN. NO.

MOTION BY SUPERVISORS LINDSEY HORVATH NOVEMBER 26, 2024 AND HILDA L.SOLIS
VOTES REQUIRED:
☒ 3-VOTES ☐ 4-VOTES ☐ 5-VOTES
CATEGORIES: (Please check ☒ those that apply)
☐ 1. Child Welfare
☐ 2. Community and Youth Empowerment
☐ 3. County and Municipal Services
☐ 4. Economic Justice
☐ 5. Economic and Workforce Development
☐ 6. Education
☐ 7. Environment and Environmental Justice
☐ 8. Fiscal
☒ 9. Governance
☐ 10. Health
☐ 11. Homelessness and Housing
☐ 12. Immigration
☐ 13. Public Safety and Diversion
☐ 14. Social Justice and Human Rights
☐ 15. Technology and Data
☐ 16. Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy
☐ 17. Legislation
☐ 18. Parks and Open Space
☐ 19. Planning/Land Use
☐ 20. Transportation
☐ 21. Veterans

Page 393 of 418 ends

☐ 22. Delegated Authority

Page 394 of 418 ends

July 21, 2026
Government Reform Task Force (GRTF)
County of Los Angeles
500 W Temple St #383
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: ITEM #4 (PRESENTATIONS, DISCUSSION, AND POTENTIAL ACTION:

OVERVIEW OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE) Dear Members of the Government Reform Task Force:

On behalf of San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG), we would like to provide comments on Item #4 (Presentations, Discussion, and Potential Action:

Overview of the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office (CEO)), which is scheduled for discussion and possible action at your meeting on July 22, 2026.

Combined, the SBCCOG, GCCOG and SGVCOG’s membership includes 71 cities, including 59 contract cities. The cities’ relationship with the County of Los Angeles plays a vital role in providing services to residents in our communities, and having an opportunity to provide robust feedback on the role of the new County CEO position is critical. We respectfully request that prior to providing any recommendations to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the GRTF engage in direct and collaborative outreach with all 88 cities in the County. This includes providing cities with the opportunity to provide input on how the CEO’s relationship with the cities, both contract and independent, could be most effective and how this new position may impact the delivery of services.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Marisa Creter Jacki Bacharach
Marisa Creter Jacki Bacharach
Executive Director Executive Director
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments South Bay Cities Council of Governments Hector De La Torre
Hector De La Torre
Executive Director
Gateway Cities Council of Governments

Page 395 of 418 ends

Coordinating
with
LA County
Cities
Government Reform Task Force Meeting | August 17, 2026

Page 396 of 418 ends

Our Purpose
& Impact
The GCCOG, SGVCOG, and SBCCOG collectively represent 72 of the County's 88 cities and approximately 5 million residents.

Our Purpose
Council of Governments (COGs) are regional planning
agencies that convene and coordinate member cities to
ensure local priorities are heard and addressed.

Six COGs serve Los Angeles County, providing a forum for cities to collaborate on shared regional priorities.

Our Impact
COGs provide a unified voice for advancing regional
interests, while preserving each city's local decisionmaking authority and staying attentive to its unique issues, concerns, and character.

Council of Governments

Page 397 of 418 ends

Seven
Considerations
To build a thoughtful, collaborative County–City relationship under an Elected County Executive.

Page 398 of 418 ends

Designing the New County–City
Relationship
Moving forward with implementation:

Cities recognize the importance of implementing Measure G in a timely manner.

The planning process should maintain momentum and avoid unnecessary delay.

To ensure a smooth transition, County–city coordination should be built into the initial governance framework. Not resolved after the basic structure has already been established.

Deliberate but not delayed

Page 399 of 418 ends

Models as Reference Points
Not Direct Analogues
Use comparisons carefully...

The County and its cities have developed decades of governmental, contractual, regulatory, and service-delivery relationships.

Governance models from other jurisdictions and academic research can offer useful lessons and potential best practices.

However, they cannot fully demonstrate how those approaches would function within Los Angeles County’s uniquely complex governance structure.

Framework tailored to LA County's unique makeup

Page 400 of 418 ends

Build a Coordination Structure Behind
Intergovernmental Affairs
County–city issues are often operational, regulatory, contractual, or emergency-related, requiring direct coordination across multiple County departments.

During a wildfire affecting incorporated cities and unincorporated communities, a city may need to work simultaneously with: County Fire, Sheriff’s Department, Public Works, Public Health, Emergency management.

The new governance framework will need to clearly define:

Who coordinates the County’s response across departments How cities access the appropriate decision-makers
How unresolved issues are elevated
When an issue crosses jurisdictions and County departments, who is responsible for coordination?

Page 401 of 418 ends

Preserve City Access to Leadership
Historically, cities have worked through their Supervisorial offices when County actions affect their communities.

Each city has had an identifiable elected County representative who can elevate local concerns.

Small and mid-sized cities may have fewer resources and less direct access to the executive decision-making process.

The new framework should ensure that every city, regardless of its size or influence, has a meaningful way to communicate, escalate concerns, and receive a response.

Page 402 of 418 ends

Establish Clear Principles for
County–City Coordination
The Task Force is not expected to solve every future County-City issue.

It should recommend a governance structure capable of effectively addressing issues as they arise.

The framework should establish clear principles and processes for communication, coordination, consultation, and escalation, including:

When County and City responsibilities overlap
Before consequential decisions affecting cities are made When County functions under the authority of the Elected County Executive materially affect cities and consultation is warranted
When issues cannot be resolved through regular channels and require escalation Creating a governance framework that can withstand any type of County-City issue

Page 403 of 418 ends

Ensure Ongoing City Engagement
Throughout Implementation
Cities should have ongoing opportunities to identify operational concerns, evaluate proposed governance structures, and provide input as implementation details evolve.

Effective engagement should be:

Direct between County and City leadership
Inclusive of cities, regardless of city size or service arrangements Meaningful opportunities for City input to inform and shape decisions, not simply communicate decisions already made.

To ensure uninterrupted County-City operations, sustained County-City engagement must continue throughout implementation

Page 404 of 418 ends

Test Proposed Governance Structures
Through Sector-Specific Meetings
Move into testing proposed structures and responsibilities with the local leaders and staff who would implement them.

Convene sector-specific working sessions focused on concrete governance proposals, defined responsibilities, and coordination processes.

Ask city leaders and relevant staff to identify:

Operational impacts and implementation challenges
Gaps or conflicts in proposed responsibilities
Needed communication, coordination, consultation, and escalation procedures Partner with COGs to hold sessions across every County subregion and include cities with different sizes, service arrangements, and relationships with County departments.

Page 405 of 418 ends

What’s Next?
We respectfully ask the Task Force to:

Address County–City coordination in the initial governance framework.

Establish clear and effective channels for communication, coordination, consultation, and escalation.

Conduct sector-specific convenings across every County subregion.

Provide cities opportunities to provide feedback before recommendations are finalized.

Maintain ongoing engagement with cities throughout implementation.

Page 406 of 418 ends

Page 407 of 418 ends

Page 408 of 418 ends

Page 409 of 418 ends

Page 410 of 418 ends

Page 411 of 418 ends

Page 412 of 418 ends

Animal Control
Animal Shelter Services
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 44 44
Direct Assessments Collections
82 Fire Suppression Services
-
Tax Share
GSA/MOU/Others
47 31
Housing and homelessness services
88 Document Transfer Tax Collection
88 Enforcement Health Ordinance
85 Library Services
49 Bridge Inspection and/or Maintenance
Storm Drain Catch Basin Insert Maintenance
Safe,
Clean Water Program
Subdivision Maps: Final
Traffic Signal Maint.
-
Shared Intersections
Underground Storage Tanks
72 46
85 41
49 77
General Law Enforcement
Traffic Law Enforcement
Detective Services
Special Occasions
42 42 42
76 ANIMAL CARE
& CONTROL

SHERIFF'S

DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC
HEALTH

EMERGENCY

RESPONSE
FIRE

DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC
WORKS
PUBLIC

LIBRARY
AUDITORCONTROLLER

ESSENTIAL LA COUNTY PROVIDED SERVICES TO CITIES
REGISTRARRECORDER/
COUNTY
CLERK

Page 413 of 418 ends

1 Karina Banales
From: Executive Office, L.A. County Board of Supervisors <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:26 PM
To: Karina Banales
Subject: Two Governance Reform Task Force special meetings on Friday, Aug. 21 at noon and 5 p.m.

Translate
Special Meeting Notices
Friday, August 21, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. & 5:00 p.m.

The Los Angeles County Governance Reform Task Force will hold two special meetings this Friday, August 21, 2026, at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, 90012. The meetings take place at different times and in different rooms. Both agendas are now posted.
12:00 p.m. Special Meeting - Board Hearing Room 374-A (hybrid, in-person and virtual)
At 12:00 p.m., the Task Force will continue its discussion of potential recommendations related to the future elected County Executive, a new position Los Angeles County voters created when they approved Measure G in November 2024. The Task Force will also receive a presentation of research on how legislative analyst offices function in other jurisdictions, which will inform the Task Force’s discussions on the future County Legislative Analyst, a new nonpartisan position Measure G established to support the Board of Supervisors on County policy issues.

As this is a special meeting, public comment will occur at the end of the meeting and, in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, is limited to

Page 414 of 418 ends

2 items on the agenda. You may comment in person or online using the joining details on the agenda.

Click here to view Agenda for 12 p.m. special meeting
5:00 p.m. Discussion and Public Engagement: Measure G and the Elected County Executive - Rooms 140 A and B (in-person only) At 5:00 p.m., the Task Force will hold a second special meeting in a community roundtable format. In 2028, for the first time, Los Angeles County voters will elect a County Executive. The session includes a short presentation on Measure G and the establishment of the elected County Executive, followed by facilitated breakout discussions designed to gather community perspectives, questions, priorities, and feedback on the new office and related governance considerations. An opportunity for public comment will also be available. Input received during the session will be provided to the Task Force and will help inform its ongoing evaluation and development of recommendations on the future elected County Executive.

Click here to view Agenda for 5 p.m. special meeting
Both meetings are open to the public. The 12:00 p.m. meeting may be attended in-person or online; joining details are on the agenda and at measureg.lacounty.gov. The 5:00 p.m. session is in-person only and will not be available online.

Questions? Contact us at [email protected] or (213) 974- 1411.

Connect with us
@LACountyBOS

Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors
500 W. Temple St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (213) 974-1411
Manage Subscriptions & Unsubscribe

Page 415 of 418 ends

3 This email was sent using Granicus Communications Cloud to [email protected] on behalf of: County of Los Angeles, California ꞏ 500 W. Temple St. ꞏ Los Angeles 90012

Page 416 of 418 ends

1 Karina Banales
From: Karina Banales
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 4:27 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Jacki Bacharach; 'Jeff Kiernan'; 'Marcel Rodarte'; Bea Dieringer Subject: Request to Defer Final Action Pending City Input Dear Chair and Members of the Governance Reform Task Force:

The City of Rolling Hills recently learned that the Governance Reform Task Force will hold two special meetings on Friday, August 21, 2026, including continued discussion of potential recommendations related to the future elected County Executive.

The City is currently preparing an item for City Council consideration regarding the importance of directly engaging incorporated cities, particularly contract cities, as the Task Force develops its recommendations. The City Council will consider this matter at its upcoming meeting on Monday, August 24, and we anticipate transmitting the City’s comments to the Task Force by Tuesday, August 25.

Consistent with the original directive establishing the GRTF, which requires community and stakeholder outreach and recognizes municipal governments, as a distinct stakeholder sector, we believe cities should have an opportunity to provide input.

Given the significant operational relationship between Los Angeles County and its incorporated cities, we respectfully request that the Task Force refrain from taking final action or finalizing recommendations concerning the elected County Executive until the City of Rolling Hills and other cities have had a meaningful opportunity to provide input.

Rolling Hills is a small contract city that relies extensively on County departments for essential municipal services. Decisions regarding the authority, responsibilities, and organizational structure of the elected County Executive could directly affect the City’s ability to coordinate with County departments, obtain services, resolve operational concerns, and advocate for its residents.

We recognize the importance of the Task Force’s work and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process. We respectfully ask that the City’s forthcoming comments be considered before any final recommendations are approved or transmitted to the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you for your consideration and for allowing incorporated cities an opportunity to provide meaningful input during this important process.

Sincerely,
Karina
Karina Bañales
City Manager

Page 417 of 418 ends

2 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message.

WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e‐mail. The recipient should check this e‐mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e‐mail.

Page 418 of 418 ends

Rolling Hills City CouncilAugust 24, 2026

Rolling Hills City Council
August 24, 2026