City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 14
Meeting Date Description
the City Council approve converting the West Kelly Tennis Court to four pickleball courts.
March 28, 2017 City Council approved the Commission’s recommendation.
January 2, 2018
Staff presented an update to the Commission on the usage of Kelly Pickleball Courts and the noise impacts on nearby residents. The Commission requested staff return to a future meeting to further discuss the noise impacts.
June 5, 2018
Staff recommended the Parks, Recreation, and Community
Resources Advisory Commission receive, and file
information related to the noise impacts on nearby residents, which included:
A summary of the feedback received from the nearby
residents;
Effectiveness of previously installed windscreens
dampening the noise from the courts;
Types of equipment and different levels of noise
produced from each type; and
Possible noise-dampening products that could be
installed along the fences to help absorb the sound.
The Commission requested staff return to the Commission with a draft Pickleball Court Use Policy for review and approval.
August 7, 2018
Staff presented a draft Pickleball Court Use Policy to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory
Commission for review and approval that included policy items regarding preferred noise-dampening balls and
paddles for pickleball play and court etiquette. The
Commission approved the Pickleball Court Use Policy.
October 2, 2018
Staff presented possible mitigation solutions to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory
Commission, including:
Performing a sound study;
Installation of a noise-dampening product along the
fences to help absorb the sound; or
Revision of the Pickleball Court Use Policy with an
approved equipment list and limiting court use hours.
The Commission requested staff return at a future meeting with a recommendation to limit the hours of pickleball play and allocate funds for a sound study of the Kelly Pickleball Courts.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 14
Meeting Date Description
February 5, 2019
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission approved staff recommendation to temporarily reduce the hours of the Kelly Tennis and Pickleball Courts to 9:00 am through 9:00 p.m. daily to reduce noise impacts on nearby residents. The hours were previously 8:00 a.m.
through 10:00 p.m. daily.
August 6, 2019
Acoustic Group, Inc (AGI) presented a sound study to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory
Commission completed on April 11, 2019, with two
recommendations for noise-dampening solutions:
The installation of a 12-foot-high wall made of
concrete block, plexiglass, or acoustic blankets, on
the north and east sides of the existing pickleball and tennis courts; or
The installation of a 12-foot-high noise-dampening
product on all exterior fences surrounding the Kelly
Tennis and Pickleball Courts.
The Commission received and filed the sound study and
requested AGI return to the Commission with a presentation on the costs for the recommended options.
December 3, 2019
Staff recommended the Parks, Recreation, and Community
Resources Advisory Commission:
Review the revised sound study from AGI, including
costs associated with the two recommendations for
noise-dampening products; and
Maintain the current hours of operations for the Kelly Tennis and Pickleball Courts until a formal decision
has been made regarding the noise mitigation
options.
The Commission requested staff work alongside the since retired Department Use Policies Subcommittee (DUPS) to
consider a recommendation on the noise-dampening
products and limit the court use hours and return to the Commission with a formal recommendation at a future
meeting.
July 7, 2020
Staff recommended the Parks, Recreation, and Community
Resources Advisory Commission approve:
a temporary Pickleball Membership Program open to
residents, with an annual membership fee, allowing
residents to make reservations at an hourly cost; and
limiting the use hours to:
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 14
Meeting Date Description
o Sunday and Monday: closed;
o Tuesday to Thursday: 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.,
and
o Friday and Saturday: 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
The recommendation came as a result of a Safer at Home
Order for Los Angeles County due to COVID-19 the Kelly
Courts were closed on March 16, 2020. On May 13, 2020, a revised order was issued allowing for the reopening of the courts. These times were determined to provide the nearby residents, many of whom were working from home during
Los Angeles County’s Safer at Home Orders, relief in the afternoons and later evenings as well as two days free from noise emanating from pickleball play. The Commission
approved the recommendation.
June 2, 2021
Staff and DUPS recommended the Parks, Recreation, and
Community Resources Advisory Commission recommend to
City Council the approval of updated use policies and hours for the Kelly Pickleball Courts, formed with the Pickleball Stakeholders Focus Group consisting of representatives
from the local neighborhood and pickleball community. The Commission recommended City Council approval of the
updated use policies and hours with slight revisions.
July 13, 2021
The City Council approved the Parks, Recreation, and
Community Resources Advisory Commission’s
recommendation on the updated use policies with revisions to the hours.
November 2, 2021
Staff presented a report to the Parks, Recreation, and
Community Resources Advisory Commission on the
effectiveness of the adopted use policies and hours.
April 21, 2022 Staff recommended CIP 619–Kelly Court Pickleball Resurfacing to City Council.
June 14, 2022
City Council approved CIP 619–Kelly Court Pickleball
Resurfacing as part of the FY 2022–23 Adopted Budget and CIP.
April 17, 2023
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission provided input that it deemed the CIP 619–Kelly Court Pickleball Resurfacing a high-priority project.
April 20, 2023 Staff proposed a revised scope of work for CIP 619–Kelly Court Pickleball Resurfacing to City Council.
June 13, 2023 City Council approved CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements as part of the FY 2023–24 Adopted Budget and CIP.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 14
Meeting Date Description
April 18, 2024
City Council provided input on the FY 24–25 CIP including the Estimated CIP Project Schedule that detailed the
conclusion of the final design for CIP 619–Kelly Court
Improvements and advertisement of construction within FY 24–25. The CIP presentation also detailed plans to renovate Kelly Courts.
October 29, 2024 Joint Commission Parks Master Plan 2024 Study Session.
November 12, 2024 City Council Approved and Adopted the 2024 Parks Master Plan.
February 25, 2025
City Council did not approve the award of a construction contract for CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements, rejecting all bids, and directed staff to have the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission and Public
Works Commission review the project and provide feedback.
April 1, 2025
Staff presented a report to the Parks, Recreation, and
Community Resources Advisory Commission to review CIP
619 and provide feedback. Commission approved to
recommend Council to advance CIP 619.
April 9, 2025
Staff presented a report to the Public Works Commission to review CIP 619 and provide feedback. Commission
approved recommend Council to advance CIP 619.
Discussion:
CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements would include:
Restriping of the pickleball, tennis, and basketball courts to meet standards for each court’s layout and dimensions recommended by the USA Pickleball Association and American Institute of Architects (AIA) for recreational play. o The current sizes and layout of all the courts do not meet such standards. Resurfacing of all courts:
o Resurfacing the pickleball, tennis, and basketball courts is overdue. o The pickleball courts have not been resurfaced since they were converted from a tennis court in 2017. Resurfacing the outdoor pickleball courts should be considered every five years. o The tennis court has not been resurfaced since 2016. Resurfacing outdoor tennis courts should be considered every four to eight years. o The basketball court has not been resurfaced since 2018.
Resurfacing of outdoor basketball courts should be considered every five years.
Wall replacement west of the pickleball and tennis courts New interior fencing
New vinyl-coated mesh fabric for all fencing.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 14
New windscreens
Enhancements to the court lighting system for the pickleball and tennis courts to ensure compliance with current standards
New basketball posts with safety pole pads, nets, and backboards New ADA-compliant concrete walkway from the adjacent parking lot to the west side of the courts
Attachment 2 is the final design plans completed for CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements.
These improvements would allow the City to revitalize the Kelly Courts, addressing dimensional constraints within the facility that need to be resolved to alleviate safety concerns, address resurfacing needs, and advance other improvements. The improvements would bring the facility up to current standards and compliance, while also enhancing its users’ experience by providing premier recreation facilities: four pickleball courts, one tennis court, and two basketball courts.
Concerns of Not Proceeding with CIP–619:
Extended closure of two pickleball courts, further limiting access for the 271+ members of the City’s Pickleball Membership Program.
Continued safety hazards due to poor site conditions and noncompliant layouts. Escalating costs if resurfacing and repairs are deferred further. Lost investment in design and bid preparation—approximately $250,000 to date. Increased community dissatisfaction from both the pickleball community (due to limited play options) and nearby residents (if unauthorized or unregulated use continues).
Misalignment with adopted plans, including the 2024 Parks Master Plan and goals of PLAN Hermosa.
To provide notice of this meeting to the pickleball community and neighboring residents, on Wednesday, March 26, staff posted signage informing the users of the Kelly Courts that this item would be included on this agenda. Additionally, notice was provided to the former Pickleball Stakeholder Group, pickleball members, and the residents who reported the use of the pickleball courts after hours via e-mail.
General Plan Consistency:
PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, was adopted by the City Council in August 2017.
The Kelly Courts Improvement Project supports several PLAN Hermosa goals and policies that are listed below.
Parks + Open Space Element
Goal 1. First Class, well maintained, and safe recreational facilities, parks, and open spaces.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 14
Policies:
1.1 Facility upgrades. Improve and update park and open space facilities on a regular basis.
1.2: Lighting and visibility. Provide appropriate lighting and visibility within park facilities while avoiding adverse impacts to adjacent properties. 1.4 Low Maintenance Design. Promote environmentally sustainable and low maintenance design principles in the renovation, addition, or maintenance of parks and recreation facilities.
Goal 2. Abundant parks, open space, and recreational facilities to serve the community.
Policy:
1.1 Investment and maintenance. Prioritize the investment and maintenance of existing facilities prior to development and expansion of new facilities.
Goal 3. Community parks and facilities encourage social activity and interaction.
Policy:
3.2 Social and cultural events. Design and program parks and open space to accommodate unique social and cultural events to foster connectedness and interaction.
Goal 4. Direct and accessible routes and connections to parks, recreational facilities, and open space are provided.
Policies:
4.2 Enhanced access points. Increase and enhance access to parks and open space, particularly across major thoroughfares, as well as access points that promote physical activity such as pedestrian- and bike-oriented access points. 4.4 ADA accessible park access. Install ADA and universally accessible amenities and equipment so that all parks, beaches, and trail networks are accessible to all persons.
Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced.
Policy:
5.5 Landscape design. Consider public access to public views and vistas and encourage landscape design that protects or enhances those views.
Infrastructure Element
Goal 1. Infrastructure systems are functional, safe, and well maintained.
Policy:
1.8 Minimize recurring repairs. Ensure that recurring repairs to City facilities are minimized by investing in low maintenance materials and performing preventive procedures where available.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 14 of 14
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions as the project would return to City Council for consideration of contract award.
The CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements is currently budgeted in the FY 2024–25 Adopted Budget funded at the 122 Tyco Fund for $250,000, the 125 Park/Rec Facility Tax Fund for $310,000 and the 301 Capital Improvement Fund for $662,769 with a combined budget of $1,222,769.
Staff estimates the resources dedicated to the development of the design totals approximately $250,000 spent at the time of this report on CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements. Estimates include a design professional, engineering staff time, review of the design, preparation of the notice inviting bids for construction of the project, review of the bids, legal review and drafting of the construction contract with the recommended bidder for City Council review.
The recommended contract award of approximately $797,766 at the February 25, 2025 City Council meeting was within the available funding for the project identified in the FY 2024–25 budget. However, the project would need to be readvertised for construction should City Council direct staff to move forward with the project as designed. The rebidding process may yield different pricing, contingent on market conditions at the time of advertisement.
Attachments:
1. Kelly Pickleball and Tennis Courts Use Policy
2. CIP 619–Kelly Court Improvements Project Plans
Respectfully Submitted by: Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director Concur: Lisa Nichols, Community Resources Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
KELLY PICKLEBALL AND TENNIS COURTS USE POLICY
City of Hermosa Beach • Community Resources Department
710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 318-0280 [email protected]
PICKLEBALL COURTS
The Pickleball Courts are available to the public with the purpose of balancing both recreational and instructional play.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Hours of operation: Tuesday from 9:00am-9:00pm, Wednesday from 9:00am-4:00pm, Thursday from 9:00am9:00pm, Friday from 9:00am-4:00pm and Saturday from 9:00am-4:00pm. The courts are closed on Sunday and Monday.
2. Only traditional pickleball play is permitted unless otherwise approved by the Community Resources Department.
3. City-sponsored activities have priority over all reservations on all courts.
4. All classes, tournaments, instruction and organized activity of any kind must be approved by the Community Resources Department.
5. Courts 1 and 2 remain open for reservations and walk-on play. Courts 3 and 4 are closed.
6. Reservations may be made by Hermosa Beach residents only.
7. Reserved times are posted on each court and are updated on a daily basis.
8. Without a reservation, courts are available on a first-come, first-served basis and free of charge.
9. Singles and doubles play is permitted.
10. A maximum of one-hour play is allowed on heavy traffic days and when others are waiting to play.
11. Minors must always be accompanied by a parent/guardian.
12. Pickleball etiquette shall always prevail.
13. Only approved equipment outlined in the Kelly Courts Use Policy is allowed.
14. Tennis shoes must be worn while on the courts. No black sole shoes are permitted.
15. No food or glass containers allowed inside the court area.
16. No chalk or paint is to be used on the courts.
17. Pets are not permitted in the court areas at any time.
18. Report any court damage or vandalism to the Community Resources Department immediately.
19. Play at your own risk.
ETIQUETTE
• Players of all levels are welcome.
• USA Pickleball Association official rules shall govern play. • When serving, players should call the score. This lets the receiver know the player is ready to serve and helps all players keep track of the score.
• All players are required to leave the court after one hour’s worth of play, allowing the next players their turn to play.
• When leaving the court, players must be courteous to others still playing and wait until their point is over before walking around nearby courts.
• Each player should be ready and available to enter the court when it is their turn to play. • Players must not use offensive language while using the courts.
EQUIPMENT
• Only paddles with a polypropylene or composite core and a fiberglass, graphite or composite face are permitted for use. No wood or aluminum paddles may be used. • Balls made of foam are encouraged for use during casual games, drills, or practice. The use of Dura Fast pickleballs is not permitted.
RESERVATIONS
• Residents must purchase an annual Pickleball Membership in order to make reservations. • Pickleball Memberships can be purchased through the Community Resources Department, Monday-Thursday from 7:00am-6:00pm. Pickleball Membership Applications may be submitted in person or electronically by email to [email protected]. Proof of residency is required and may be provided with a photo I.D. with the current Hermosa Beach address. If the photo I.D. does not include the current Hermosa Beach address, a utility bill dated within the last 30 days will also be required. • Reservations are given on a first-come, first-serve basis and can be made at least one day prior but not more than four (4) days in advance for two (2) hours maximum per day. The online reservation system will open at 7:00am on the first accepted advance day.
• Reservations can be made by e-mail to [email protected] during office hours; Monday-Thursday from 7:00am-6:00pm or through the online reservation system 24 hours a day, seven days a week. • Payment is due at the time a reservation is made.
• Reservations can only be modified on the same day they are made and modifications can only be made during office hours; Monday-Thursday from 7:00am-6:00pm by e-mail to [email protected]. • Refunds will only be granted for inclement weather. Members are responsible for notifying the office of cancellations due to weather conditions within 24 hours of the cancelled date.
TENNIS COURT
The Tennis Court is available to the public for recreational play only.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Hours of operation: Sunday to Monday, from 9:00am-9:00pm. You can access the court from Valley Drive or by entering the basketball courts. Entry from pickleball court will be locked.
2. Only traditional tennis play is permitted unless otherwise approved by the Community Resources Department.
3. City-sponsored activities have priority over all reservations on all courts.
4. All classes, tournaments, instruction and organized activity of any kind must be approved by the Community Resources Department.
5. Courts are available on a first-come, first-served basis and free of charge.
6. Singles and doubles play is permitted.
7. Minors must always be accompanied by a parent/guardian.
8. Tennis etiquette shall always prevail.
9. Tennis shoes must be worn while on the courts. No black sole shoes are permitted.
10. No food or glass containers allowed inside the court area.
11. No chalk or paint is to be used on the courts.
12. Pets are not permitted in the court areas at any time.
13. Report any court damage or vandalism to the Community Resources Department immediately.
14. Play at your own risk.
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
Underground Service Alert
of Southern California Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
PROJECT SITE
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 N7
12/10/24 12/10/24
Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 237 of 291 “ ”
“
”
” ”
“
” Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 238 of 291 EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5 10 20 40 C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7N xx xx EB WM BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 5, NAD 83 EPOCH 2017.50 AS DERIVED FROM GEODETIC VALUES PUBLISHED BY CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER. BENCHMARK L&TAG RCE#30826 TOP/CB OF PLANTER @ LT STD 17FT S/O N'LY CB PIER AVE & 38FT W'LY/O C/L VALLEY DR ELEV = 53.994 NAVD 88 Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 239 of 291 EB xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5 10 20 40
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 7N xx xx EB WM BASIS OF BEARING THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, ZONE 5, NAD 83 EPOCH 2017.50 AS DERIVED FROM GEODETIC VALUES PUBLISHED BY CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE CENTER. BENCHMARK L&TAG RCE#30826 TOP/CB OF PLANTER @ LT STD 17FT S/O N'LY CB PIER AVE & 38FT W'LY/O C/L VALLEY DR ELEV = 53.994 NAVD 88 ICB Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 240 of 291 EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5 10 20 40
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 241 of 291 EB xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
ICB
ICB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5 10 20 40
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 242 of 291 EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5 10 20 40 C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. R BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 243 of 291 EB ICBICB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5 10 20 40 C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. R BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 244 of 291 EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
WM xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10'
5 10 20 40
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 245 of 291 EB
WMWM
WM
ICB
ICB
WM xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 10'
5 10 20 40
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 246 of 291 EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0' SCALE: 1" = 20' 10 20 40 80
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A
1 9 0 7NUnderground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 247 of 291 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 248 of 291 SECTION PROFILE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY STALL EMBLEM RAISED TRUNCATED DOME RAISED TRUNCATED DOME PATTERN WHEEL STOP ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 249 of 291 Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.
R 95% CD - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BKF ENGINEERS 4675 MACARTHUR CT. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 526-8460 www.bkf.com 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 250 of 291 EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260 P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260 P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0 Underground Service Alert
of Southern California Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig. R C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7N 0'
SCALE: 1" = 10'
5' 10' 20' 40'
CONSTRUCTION LEGEND 4 10' HIGH BLACK VINYL COATED CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '1', SHEET LC-4 5 4' HIGH BLACK VINYL COATED CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '2', SHEET LC-4
BLACK VINYL COATED CHAINLINK FENCE SINGLE SWING GATE - REFER TO DETAIL 1, SHEET LC-3 6
BLACK VINYL COATED CHAINLINK FENCE DOUBLE SWING GATE - REFER TO DETAIL 1 , SHEET LC-3 78
PICKELBALL COURT - REFER TO DETAIL 2, SHEET LC-3.
TENNIS COURT - REFER TO DETAIL 1, SHEET LC-2
BASKETBALL COURT - REFER TO DETAIL 2, SHEET LC-2
CURB WITH CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '3', SHEET LC-4 123 1 1 2 33 9 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE - POST SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED,
ALL CHAIN LINK FABRIC SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISCARDED IN A LEGAL MANNER,
AND NEW BLACK VINYL CHAINLINK FABRIC WITH A WINDSCREEN SHALL BE
INSTALLED
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID AND PRIOR TO COMMENCING INSTALLATION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST, THEY
SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
3. DEVIATIONS BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
4. COSTS INCURRED DUE TO REPAIR, RESTORATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE DESIGNATED "TO BE PROTECTED" OR "TO REMAIN" WHICH
ARE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
5. UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, ALL MATERIALS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE.
6. HARDSCAPE AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHALL BE PLACED PER GEOTECHNICAL SOILS REPORT. IF SUCH REPORT IS UNAVAILABLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL DISCUSS PLACEMENT ON SUITABLE GRADE WITH THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND STAKING ALL SEWER, WATER
AND UTILITY LINES ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE THAT MIGHT BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ANY COST INCURRED FOR REPAIR, RESTORATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF AFOREMENTIONED UTILITIES DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.
8. ABANDONED PIPES SHALL BE CAPPED OR PLUGGED IN A MANNER APPROVED BY THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
9. CONCRETE INDICATED FOR SAWCUTTING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE CUT TO A TRUE LINE WITH NEATLY SAWED EDGES. IF A SAWCUT IS WITHIN THREE FEET (3') OF AN EXISTING
EXPANSION OR CONTROL JOINT, CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED TO THAT NEAREST JOINT.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS, MANUFACTURER'S CUT OR DATA SHEETS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS. CONTRACTOR SHALL
FURNISH TO THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SUCH FURNISHED MATERIALS.
11. UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, MATERIALS TO BE PURCHASED AND FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE NEW.
12. RECOMMENDATIONS BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE FOR ALL SOIL CONDITIONS, MATERIALS, REINFORCEMENT, DIMENSIONS, AND SUBBASE.
13. ALL VINYL COATED CHAINLINK FENCE AND GATES SHALL RECEIVE A WINDSCREEN EXCEPT WHERE NOTED ON PLAN.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES 8 6 6 6 474 6
14 10 6
10 ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
11 EXISTING LIGHTS - POST WITHIN PLAYING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 6 FOOT TALL SAFETY POLE PAD - SKU: SPP 6FT ROUND - AVAILABLE FROM WILLYGOAT OR APPROVED EQUAL.
DIAMETER SHALL BE DETERMINED PER FIELD VERIFICATION. COLOR SHALL BE DETERMINED BY CITY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. REFER TO DETAIL 4, SHEET LC-4 FOR SPECIFICATION DETAIL.
12 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
13 BASKETBALL COURT LIMIT OF WORK
14 13
15 LIMIT OF WORK LINE
11 11 11
11 11 11
11 11 6
15 EXISTING GATE SHALL RECEIVE NEW CHAINLINK VINYL COATED FABRIC AND WINDSCREEN 14 14
14 12
12 9 9 9 9 9 9
ADA PARKING STALLS - REFER TO CIVIL PLANS 5 99 4 NO WINDSCREEN
NEW CONCRETE ADA
CONCRETE PATH AND
RAMP PER CIVIL PLANS
NO WINDSCREEN
NO WINDSCREEN 9
12/10/24 12/10/24
EB xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
Underground Service Alert
of Southern California Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R TENNIS COURT LAYOUT ENLARGEMENT 1 SCALE: NTS
BASKETBALL COURT ENLARGEMENT 2 SCALE: NTS
1. BASKETBALL BACKBOARD, UPRIGHT, RING & NET SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FROM COAST RECREATION, INC, 714-619-0100 OR AN APPROVED EQUAL
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SPORTMASTER OR APPROVED EQUAL COLOR COATING SYSTEM TO FILL/PATCH CRACKS, RESURFACE, AND PAINT BASKETBALL COURTS.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT COURT AS SHOWN USING 'SPORTMASTER' PAINT OR APPROVED EQUAL. COLOR OF PAINT SHALL BE FOREST GREEN AND BLUE. REFER TO PLAN FOR LOCATIONS OF EACH.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT LINES WITH 'TEXTURED' WHITE LINE PAINT.
5. PAINTS ARE AVAILABLE FROM SPORT MASTER SPORT SURFACES800-395-7325 OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COLOR SAMPLES TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
ALL WORK PERTAINING TO PAINTING SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
7. ALL EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING SHALL BE RESURFACED AND ALL CRACKS SHALL BE FILLED/PATCHED PER SPECIFICATIONS. NO PAINT SHALL BE ADDED TO EXISTING CONCRETE OUTSIDE OF BASKETBALL PLAYING SURFACE.
BASKETBALL PLAYING SURFACE SHALL RECEIVE PAINT PER PLAN.
8. EXISTING COURT PAINT AND STRIPING SHALL BE STRIPPED WITH A SANDING/GRINDING OR HYDROBLASTING METHOD.
9. DIMENSIONS AND COLOR NOTED ON EACH COURT ARE A MIRROR IMAGE OF EACH OTHER .
10. EQ. DENOTES EQUAL. CL DENOTES CENTER LINE. TYP DENOTES TYPICAL
11. COURTS ARE DRAWN TO BE HIGH SCHOOL STANDARD, IF ANY DISCREPANCIES SHOULD ARISE, FOLLOW HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL STANDARDS DIMENSIONS.
12. EXISTING BACKBOARD UPRIGHTS AND FOOTINGS SHALL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE VOID TO 95% WITH STRUCTURAL SOIL AND FINISH TO SURFACE PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C-7.2.
13. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDED LAYOUT DIMENSIONS TO CITY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
CONCRETE PAVING PAINT COLOR SHALL BE: FOREST GREEN
CONCRETE PAVING PAINT COLOR SHALL BE: BLUE
EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING- REFER TO NOTES
PROPOSED 10' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '1', SHEET LC-4
FENCE PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET LC-1.
BISON, BASKETBALL PACKAGE MODEL# PR75 OR APPROVED
EQUAL, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER SPECS, DETAIL, AND
GUILDLINES. PACKAGE INCLUDES POLE, BACKBOARD, RIM.
BASKETBALL NET SHALL BE MODEL BA 50, PREMIUM STEEL
PLAYGROUND SAFETY NET. POLE SHALL RECEIVE POLE
PADDING MODEL # BA700PP COLOR SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
CITY REPRESENTATIVE.
'TEXTURED' WHITE LINE PAINT REFER TO NOTES AND
SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES: 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 GATE PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET LC-1.
4 1
3 3
2 3 3
2 6
2 2
3 4
℄
CONCRETE PAVING PAINT COLOR SHALL BE: FOREST GREEN
CONCRETE PAVING PAINT COLOR SHALL BE: BLUE
EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING- REFER TO NOTES
PROPOSED 10' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '1', SHEET LC-4 PROPOSED CHAINLINK FENCE SINGLE GATE - REFER TO DETAIL '1', SHEET LC-3 BISON MODEL # TN10 - TENNIS SYSTEM - INCLUDES NET, POSTS, CENTER
STRAP AND ANCHOR INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER DETAILS
'TEXTURED' WHITE LINE PAINT- REFER TO TENNIS COURT PLAYING LINE
LAYOUT PLAN BELOW
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
NOTES:
1. CONCRETE COLOR SHALL BE AS NOTED.
2. TENNIS POST, NET, AND CENTER STRAP ANCHOR SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SPORTMASTER OR APPROVED EQUAL COLOR COATING SYSTEM TO FILL/PATCH CRACKS, RESURFACE, AND PAINT TENNIS COURTS.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT COURT AS SHOWN USING 'SPORTMASTER' PAINT OR APPROVED EQUAL. COLOR OF PAINT SHALL BE FOREST GREEN AND BLUE. REFER TO PLAN FOR LOCATIONS OF EACH.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT LINES WITH 'TEXTURED' WHITE LINE PAINT.
5. PAINTS ARE AVAILABLE FROM SPORT MASTER SPORT SURFACES 800-395-7325 OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COLOR SAMPLES TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK PERTAINING TO PAINTING SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
7. EXISTING COURT PAINT AND STRIPING SHALL BE STRIPPED WITH A SANDING/GRINDING OR HYDROBLASTING METHOD.
8. TENNIS COURT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR A DOUBLES AND SINGLES COURT.
9. EXISTING TENNIS COURT POST, ANCHORS AND FOOTINGS SHALL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE VOID TO 95% WITH STRUCTURAL SOIL AND FINISH TO SURFACE PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C-7.2.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDED LAYOUT DIMENSIONS TO CITY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 11 CHAINLINK FENCE AND WALL PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET LC-1. 6 8
7 8
10 12
11 13
3 2
4 4
1 12
5 5
12 PROPOSED CHAINLINK FENCE DOUBLE GATE - REFER TO DETAIL '1', SHEET LC-3 CHAINLINK FENCE PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET LC-1. 13 GATE PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET LC-1.
LIGHT POLES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. ALL LIGHT POLES WITHIN THE
BASKETBALL AREA SHALL RECEIVE A PROTECTIVE PAD PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET LC-1.
3 4
10 EXPANSION JOINT PER CIVIL PLANS
9 9
8 8
8 8
8 9
9 LIGHT POLES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. ALL LIGHT
POLES WITHIN THE BASKETBALL AREA SHALL RECEIVE A
PROTECTIVE PAD PER LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
SHEET LC-1.
10 7
7 7
7 4 4
℄
14 REFERENCE LINE ONLY- COURT PLAY AREAS
14 14
14 14
1 1
1 C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C
A C , H
1 9 0 7N
5 6
6 TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
9 TYP. TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
℄
9 ELECTRICAL CABINET TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED
12/10/24 12/10/24
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
Underground Service Alert
of Southern California Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C
A C , H
1 9 0 7N
PICKLEBALL COURT 2 SCALE: NTS
CONCRETE PAVING PAINT COLOR SHALL BE: FOREST GREEN
CONCRETE PAVING PAINT COLOR SHALL BE: BLUE
EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING- REFER TO NOTES
REFERENCE LINE ONLY- COURT PLAY AREAS
10 FT HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '1', SHEET LC-4 CHAINLINK FENCE GATE SINGLE PEDESTRIAN - REFER TO DETAIL '1', THIS SHEET BISON MODEL # PK10XL - PICKLEBALL SYSTEM - INCLUDES NET,
POSTS, CENTER STRAP AND ANCHOR
'TEXTURED' WHITE LINE PAINT
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 CHAINLINK FENCE ON CURB - REFER TO DETAIL '3', SHEET LC-4 4 FT HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE - REFER TO DETAIL '2', SHEET LC-4 NOTES:
1. CONCRETE COLOR SHALL BE AS NOTED.
2. PICKLEBALL POST, NET, AND CENTER STRAP ANCHOR SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE SPORTMASTER OR APPROVED EQUAL, COLOR COATING SYSTEM TO FILL/PATCH CRACKS, RESURFACE, AND PAINT PICKLEBALL COURTS.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT COURT AS SHOWN USING 'SPORTMASTER' PAINT OR APPROVED EQUAL. COLOR OF PAINT SHALL BE FOREST GREEN AND BLUE. REFER TO PLAN FOR LOCATIONS OF EACH.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT LINES WITH 'TEXTURED' WHITE LINE PAINT.
6. PAINTS ARE AVAILABLE FROM SPORT MASTER SPORT SURFACES 800-395-7325 OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COLOR SAMPLES TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK PERTAINING TO PAINTING SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
8. CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE/FILL CONCRETE HOLES FROM DEMOLISHED POLES AND CENTER ANCHOR AND TREAT PER SPORTMASTER SPECIFICATIONS.
9. EXISTING COURT PAINT AND STRIPING SHALL BE STRIPPED WITH A SANDING/GRINDING OR HYDROBLASTING METHOD.
10. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR DIRECTION PERTAINING TO FENCE AND GATES
11. EXISTING PICKLEBALL COURT POST, ANCHORS AND FOOTINGS SHALL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE VOID TO 95% WITH STRUCTURAL SOIL AND FINISH TO SURFACE PER DETAIL 2, SHEET C-7.2 AND SHEET C-7.2.
12. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE LAYOUT DIMENSIONS TO CITY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
13. EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL 10' HIGH FENCE SHALL RECEIVE A WINDSCREEN. 5 8
1 6
6 3
2 4
4 7
10 9
7 11 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE AND WALL
11 9
℄
MINIMUM
MINIMUM 10'-0" 6'-8" EQ. 2" CLR
18"
NOTES:
3. 2.
1. 5' 3"
18" 5' 3"
10 9
8 7
4'-0" EQ.
4 6
5 3
2 8
LEGEND:
1 POSTS: POSTS 3-1/2 IN. O.D. WITH 18 IN. DIA.
X 5 FT. FOOTINGS. HEIGHT OF POST VARIES
PER CONSTRUCTION AND STAKING PLAN.
GATE FRAMES: TOP, BOTTOM, AND SIDE
MEMBERS 2- 3/8 IN. O.D., MID RAIL 1-5/8" O.D.
MITER GATE FRAME CORNERS WELD AND
GRIND SMOOTH.
FABRIC: 6 GAUGE, 2 IN. MESH, BLACK VINYL
COATED, KNUCKLE TOP AND BOTTOM
HINGES: INDUSTRIAL BULLDOG HINGE
(180°SWING), 2 HINGES PER GATE, ONE AT
TOP AND BOTTOM FOR SINGLE PEDESTRIAN
AND 4 HINGES PER GATE, EQUALLY SPACED
FOR DOUBLE VEHICULAR.
STRETCHER BAR: 3/16 X 3/4 IN. WITH
1/8 X 1 IN. TENSION BANDS AT 12" O.C.
TIE WIRES: 11 GAUGE AT 1'-6" O.C. AT
GATE FRAME TOP, BOTTOM AND MID
RAILS
POST CAPS SHALL BE MALLEABLE
IRON OR PRESSED STEEL.
CAST ALUMINUM FORK WITH
LOCKABLE LATCH.
FINISH SURFACE OR GRADE PER
CONSTRUCTION AND LAYOUT PLANS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PURCHASE, SUPPLY, AND PROVIDE MASTERLOCK, CHAIN AND KEYS TO ENGINEER FOR EACH SET OF GATES. LOCKS SHALL BE KEYED FOR SAME KEY.
DOUBLE VEHICULAR GATES SHALL RECEIVE A 5/8" DIA. GALVANIZED DROP ROD WITH 3/4" DIA. SCH. 40 GALVANIZED STEEL SLEEVE CENTERED BETWEEN GATES. SLEEVE SHALL BE SET INTO 6" SQUARE X 12" DEEP CONCRETE FOOTING FOR ROD. 5' 3" 5' 3" 18" 2" CLR
18"
SINGLE PEDESTRIAN GATE
DOUBLE VEHICULAR GATE
TRUSS ROD: 3/8 IN DIA. THREADED AT BOTH
ENDS AND TENSIONED WITH TWO AT 1'-0"
O.C. INDUSTRIAL TRUSS TIGHTENERS
SECURED TO GATE FRAME.
11 UNDISTURBED NATIVE GRADE OR
CERTIFIED COMPACTED SUBGRADE
TO 95% COMPACTION.
1 1
2 4 3
5 6
7 9
10 11
CHAIN LINK FENCE MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CHAINLINK FENCING SECTION OF SPECIFICATIONS.
4. ALL METAL HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZED.
8 CONCRETE FOOTINGS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO SET FOR SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF GATES.
5. 5"-0" 5"-0"
REFER TO SINGLE GATE
ABOVE AND NOTES HEREON
FOR MATERIALS 10'-0" 6'-8" EQ. EQ.
8' TALL, OPEN MESH WINDSCREEN, 600 SERIES,SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE INSIDE
FACE OF CHAIN LINK FENCE FABRIC PER MANUFACTURER DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. COLOR SHALL BE OBSIDIAN BLACK. SCREEN IS AVAILIABLE FROM FENCE SCREEN AT 808-511-9795, OR AN APPROVED EQUAL.
6. CHAINLINK GATES
SINGLE AND DOUBLE
1 SCALE: NTS
℄
5 5 5
5 5
7 4' DIMENSION
DENOTES OPEN
GAP BETWEEN
COURTS, BOTH
SIDE
FACE OF CURB
REFERENCE FROM FENCE LINE ALIGN ALIGN
NO WINDSCREEN
NO WINDSCREEN
10 12/10/24 12/10/24
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
20250 SW ACACIA ST, STE 260
P H : 7 1 4 . 7 5 4 . 7 3 1 1
U. S. A. 9 2 6 6 0
Underground Service Alert
of Southern California Know what'sbelow.
Call before you dig.
R
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL NOTES
1. THE FOLLOWING NOTES APPLY TO ALL DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING NOTES.
3. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION LEGEND FOR INFORMATION RELATIVE TO COLOR, TYPE AND FINISH.
4. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, NEW FINISH SURFACE SHALL BE FLUSH WITH ADJACENT EXISTING SURFACES.
5. FINISH GRADE: 1" BELOW FINISH SURFACE ADJACENT TO TURF AND 2" BELOW ADJACENT TO NON-TURF AREAS.
6. FINAL LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS, DRAINAGE DEVICES, SITE
AMENITIES, IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT, AND PLANT MATERIAL MAY REQUIRE
ADJUSTMENT DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL MATCHING MATERIALS AND COLORS PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10 FT CHAINLINK FENCE
SCALE: NTS
4 FT CHAINLINK FENCE
SCALE: NTS 4'
1 2
RETAINING CURB WITH FENCE
SCALE: NTS
FENCE POST AND FABRIC
PER DETAIL '1', THIS SHEET
1 2
3 RETAINING CURB PER
CIVIL DRAWINGS
FENCE POST CONCRETE
FOOTING
1 2
3 4 GALVANIZED STEEL
SLEEVE WITH POR-ROK
BACKFILL
4 3
CONCRETE PAVING
EXISTING COURT
SURFACE
6 FT SAFTEY POLE PAD 4 SCALE: NTS
1. COLOR SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY A
CITY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE.
2. DIAMETER SHALL
BE DETERMINED
BY SIZE OF POLE
PER FIELD
VERIFICATION.
NOTE
1. REFER TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FENCE
LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDSCREEN.
2. PROVIDE KNUCKLE FISH AT TOP AND BOTTOM OF
CHAINLINK FENCE.
NOTE
1. REFER TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FENCE
LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDSCREEN.
2. PROVIDE KNUCKLE FISH AT TOP AND BOTTOM
OF CHAINLINK FENCE.
5' O.C MAX, SPACE EQUALLY 5' O.C MAX, SPACE EQUALLY
10' O.C MAX, SPACE EQUALLY 10' O.C MAX, SPACE EQUALLY
12/10/24 12/10/24
EB xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R C I T Y O F H E R M O S A B E A C H , C A 1 9 0 7N 0' SCALE: 1" = 10' 5' 10' 20' 40'
LIMIT OF WORK LINE
12/10/24 12/10/24
Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 256 of 291 Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 257 of 291 Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 258 of 291 Underground Service Alert of Southern California Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R 12/10/24 12/10/24 Page 259 of 291 Outlook
Support for April 22 Agenda Item 16a – Restore Our Pickleball Courts From Anna Liza Garcia <[email protected]>
Date Mon 4/21/2025 11:20 AM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Hermosa Beach City Council,
I’ve been proud to call Hermosa Beach home for the past 10 years. As someone who loves this community and plays pickleball regularly, I’m writing to strongly support Agenda Item 16a on the April 22 agenda to restore the two pickleball courts that have been out of service.
Like many residents, I’ve struggled tremendously to get court reservations due to limited availability. Pickleball has become more than just a game—it’s where neighbors connect, stay active, and build community. These two courts would make a meaningful difference.
I am often on Bard/8th near Kelly Park and mostly hear the sounds of baseball bats echoing through the neighborhood. While I understand concerns about noise, I believe this can be addressed through options like sound barriers or thoughtful design, without losing out on the many benefits pickleball brings to Hermosa.
Please consider the growing number of residents who are asking for accessible, well-maintained spaces to play. We hope you'll move this project forward.
Thank you for your time and leadership.
Best regards,
--Anna Liza
Outlook
Pickleball
From JAMIE SUARD <[email protected]>
Date Mon 4/21/2025 5:29 PM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] To whom it may concern, as an avid athlete and outdoors Hermosa Beach resident for 38 years, I live here because hermosa beach has always supported and provided environmental conditions to be an athlete, play sports and be outdoors. I am now a serious pickleball player who would like to walk to our local courts to play. Courts are scarce and wait times are long on existing courts in the entire South Bay. We need more courts. It Is the funnest , easiest, most social and welcoming sport since beach tennis here in hermosa . I can’t believe that such an active town would 1) shut down 2 courts and not have plans to reopen them and 2) limit play after 4p on the days it does and prohibits play on Sundays. Those are the times when most people can get out and play. I lived at 849 Bard street for 16 years and never minded the noise from any of the activities going on at Clark stadium/field . It was all happy activities and happy noise so it was never a problem. It was just more people living the great life hermosa affords.
I am asking for the City to put in as many courts as possible, allow drop in play on at least 1 if not 2 courts and allow play until 8p at night and both weekends days please.
Blessings for a beautiful day,
Jamie
Hermosa Beach resident, Ardmore Avenue
Jamie Suard, MA, LMFT
Marriage Family & Perinatal Psychotherapy
Healing Hurts and Hearts in Hard Times!
MFT Lic# 88846
USPTA P-1 Tennis Professional
310-503-7702
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
Item 16a 4 courts Hermosa pickle
From Kris Flagler <[email protected]>
Date Tue 4/22/2025 9:53 AM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] To whom it may concern, as an athlete and outdoors Hermosa Beach resident for 6 years I live the outdoor life and love the activities in Hermosa. That being said, Courts are scarce and wait times are long on existing courts in the entire South Bay. We need more courts please!! I am asking for the City to put in as many courts as possible, allow drop in play on at least 1 if not 2 courts and allow play until 8p at night and both weekends days please.
Thank you
Sent from Kristen Flagler
“Unlock your Potential”
Tennis Professional USPTA
(c) 310-897-9725
Email: [email protected]
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 4
Meeting Date: April 22, 2025
Staff Report No. 25-CA-010
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
REPORT TO COUNCIL REGARDING A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER SENT BY FRANK ANGEL; REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND SEND
RESPONSE LETTER
CEQA: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resource Code § 21065 and State Guidelines Section §§ 15061(b) & 15378.
(City Attorney Patrick Donegan)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
1. Acknowledge receipt of the Cease and Desist Letter, and, to reflect the City’s commitment to transparency, authorize the Mayor to execute and send a response letter (in substantially the same form attached hereto as Attachment 1) in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, but without admitting any violation of the Ralph M.
Brown Act in connection with the challenged action; or
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
Executive Summary:
The report addresses a "cease and desist" letter received from Mr. Frank Angel on March 31, 2025, alleging the City violated Brown Act section 54957.5(b)(1) by failing to make his email properly available for public inspection. Staff recommends City Council Acknowledge receipt of the Cease and Desist Letter, and, to reflect the City’s commitment to transparency, authorize the Mayor to execute and send a response letter (Attachment 1).
Background:
On March 25, 2025, less than 2 minutes before the stated 2:00 p.m. agenda deadline to submit supplemental emails, Mr. Frank Angel submitted an email to the entirety of the City Council. Pursuant to Frank Angel’s March 31, 2025 letter (Attachment 2), this correspondence was then forwarded to the City Clerk’s office at a future time.
On March 31, 2025, the City received a “cease and desist” letter pursuant to Government Code sections 54960 and 54960.2 from Frank Angel. This letter, among other things, alleges that the City violated Government Code section 54957.5 (b)(1) and requests that the City acknowledge its violation of the Brown Act and unconditionally commit to cease and desist from, and not repeat alleged past violations.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 4
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
March 25, 2025 City Council received and filed a report on the City’s STVR regulations.
Discussion:
The Brown Act provides a mechanism, under Government Code section 54960.2, for a member of the public to file an action to determine an agency’s past compliance with the Brown Act by first submitting—within nine months of an alleged Brown Act violation—a clear description of the alleged violation. Submission of such a letter is known as a “cease and desist” request, and no legal action may be filed by any person to challenge an action taken by the City Council on Brown Act grounds unless and until this letter has been properly submitted, and the agency has not timely responded with an unconditional commitment to cease and desist from the challenged conduct.
The City takes every Brown Act allegation seriously. The Brown Act dictates that the City Council determine within 30 days of receipt of a demand to cease and desist from any alleged violation whether or not it will agree to an unconditional commitment to cease and desist and not repeat the past action that is alleged to violate the Brown Act.
Here, Frank Angel is not alleging that his email was not read or considered by the City Council; instead, he is arguing that the City did not comply with Government Code section 54957.5 (b)(1) in receiving and processing his email. Government Code section 54957.5 (b)(1) provides that:
“[i]f a writing is a public record related to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the legislative body of a local agency and is distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by a person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the body less than 72 hours before that meeting the writing shall be made available for public inspection” at public office or location that the agency shall designate for this purpose or that the writing be immediately posted on the City website in a position that make it clear that the writing related to an upcoming agenda item.
Typically, this section is most applicable to supplemental reports or formal correspondence provided by City staff to the City Council. Here, we have the somewhat unique situation of Frank Angel sending an email to the City Council 3 hours and 2 minutes prior to the start of the meeting (and not availing himself to the public comment function on the City’s website) and in this instance, it was not noticed by City staff and put on the agenda.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 4
Government Code section 54960.2 allows the City, without admitting any violation of the Brown Act, to make an unconditional commitment to ceasing and desisting from the above-mentioned action. Rather than risk lengthy and costly litigation (particularly in light of Frank Angel’s existing lawsuit against the City), the City Council can view this as an opportunity to emphasize and restate its ongoing commitment to transparency, and to ensure that the City Clerk’s office is the location where future writings distributed to a majority of the City Council within 72 hours of a City Council meeting can be inspected.
The City Council agenda was already updated to reflect this. This restated commitment to transparency does not require the City to acknowledge or admit that there has been any violation of the Brown Act and cannot be construed or admitted as evidence for any alleged violation at a later time.
Environmental Review:
This discussion is not a “project” subject to CEQA” because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) In the alternative, the discussion falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which exempts activity from CEQA where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” Further this report and response letter is not a “project” as defined by Public Resource Code § 21065.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:
Governance Element
Goal 1. A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process.
Policy:
1.4 Consensus oriented. Strive to utilize a consensus-oriented decisionmaking process.
Goal 2 The community is active and engaged in decision-making processes.
Policy:
2.6 Responsive to community needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended actions.
Attachments:
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 4
1. Draft Response Letter
2. Frank Angel’s March 31, 2025 Cease and Desist Letter Respectfully Submitted by: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Concur: Myra Maravilla, City Clerk
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Reviewed By: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
IIn Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Angel Law
Attn: Frank Angel
2601 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90405
fangel@angel;aw.com
Via Email and US Mail, Return Receipt Requested
Re: Response to Your January March 31, 2025 Cease and Desist Letter Dear Frank Angel:
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach has received your cease and desist letter dated March 31, 2025, alleging that the following described past action of the legislative body (dealing with your email correspondence to the Hermosa Beach City Council regarding agenda item 17.d on the march 25, 2025 City Council meeting) violates the Ralph M. Brown Act:
To avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Hermosa Beach City Council hereby unconditionally commits that it will cease, desist from, and not repeat the challenged past action as described above.
The Hermosa Beach City Council may rescind this commitment only by a majority vote of its membership taken in open session at a regular meeting and noticed on its posted agenda as “Rescission of Brown Act Commitment.” You will be provided with written notice, sent by any means or media you provide in response to this message, to whatever address or addresses you specify, of any intention to consider rescinding this commitment at least 30 days before any such regular meeting. In the event that this commitment is rescinded, you will have the right to commence legal action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960 of the Government Code.
That notice will be delivered to you by the same means as this commitment, or may be mailed to an address that you have designated in writing.
Sincerely,
Dean Francois, Mayor
City of Hermosa Beach
2601 Ocean Park Blvd. • Suite 205 • Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-6433 • www.angellaw.com • [email protected] March 31, 2025
Suja Lowenthal
City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive, 2nd Flr.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
[email protected]
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive, 2
nd Flr.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
[email protected];
[email protected]
Cease and Desist Letter Via Facsimile Transmission & Email Dear City Manager Lowenthal and City Clerk Maravilla:
My office’s attention has been directed to omissions in Brown Act-required public postings relating to item 17.d on the city council’s agenda of its regular meeting of March 25, 2025.
Before 2:00 p.m., that day, I sent all five city council members an email specifically referencing this agenda item. I cc’d you or forwarded this email to you at that time.
As indicated by the screenshot shown below (taken from the city’s website), three public records were made available concerning item 17.d: (1) the city attorney’s informational report and (2) his supplemental PowerPoint, and (3) an email from resident Jim Holtz, referred to as supplemental email for item 17.d. My email was not made available. As came to light during the council’s discussion of item 17.d, another email the councilmembers received from an online STR platform, too, was not posted or otherwise made available to the public in connection with item 17.d.
Suja Lowenthal
City Manager
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach
March 31, 2025
These omissions are in violation of the Brown Act. Writings that are public records, i.e., records such as the missing emails, which relate to city business and are not exempt from disclosure, “at the time” when they are distributed to the members of a legislative body of a local agency “by a person in connection with a matter subject to discussion . . . at an open meeting of the body less than 72 hours before that meeting, . . . shall be made available for public inspection . . . at the time [they are] distributed to . . . the members of the body.” (Gov. Code, § 54957.5, subd. (b)(1).) Because the city council agendas do not list any office or location designated for physical inspection for the missing emails, the Brown Act required that they be “immediately” posted on the city’s website in a position and manner that makes it clear that they relate to then upcoming agenda item 17.d. (Id., subd. (b)(2).) They were not posted and are still unavailable on the city’s website.
Failure to post communications to the city council or a majority of its members by any person in connection with a matter agendized for discussion by the city council impairs both the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act’s objectives of public transparency and meaningful public participation in the public’s business. The California Constitution provides that “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).)
Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code section 54960 and 54960.2, on behalf of our client Todd Koerner and all other persons interested in compliance with the city council’s public duties under the Brown Ac, we demand:
1. That the missing emails and any other missing public record concerning item 17.d, and subject to disclosure under Government Code section 54957.5, subdivision (b), be posted forthwith;
Suja Lowenthal
City Manager
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach
March 31, 2025
2. That the city council acknowledge its violation of the Brown Act and unconditionally commit to cease and desist from, and not repeat, its past unlawful conduct in failing to disclose for public inspection the public records it must make available for public inspection pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, subdivision (b); and thus commit to fully comply with its public duties under Government Code section 54957.5, subdivision (b); and
3. That this office be given timely public notice of the future council meeting when any such unconditional commitment is agendized for discussion or adoption.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
cc: Patrick Donegan via email to [email protected]
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 6
Meeting Date: April 22, 2025
Staff Report No. 25-CA-012
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
REPORT TO COUNCIL REGARDING AN ANONYMOUS CURE AND CORRECT LETTER
CEQA: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resource Code § 21065 and State Guidelines Section §§ 15061(b) & 15378.
(City Attorney Patrick Donegan)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
1. Receive a report on the anonymous “cure and correct” letter sent to the City and direct the City Attorney to send a response letter pursuant to Government Code section 54960.1(c)(2) informing the anonymous drafter that the City Council determined that the “cure and correct” letter asserts Brown Act violations where no violations occurred and that the City Council will not cure and correct the challenged action; or
2. Provide alternative direction.
Executive Summary:
On April 9, 2025, the City received an anonymous “cure and correct” letter under Government Code 54960.1 of the Brown Act (“Anonymous Letter”) (Attachment 1). This Anonymous Letter, signed only by a “Concerned Hermosa Beach Property Owner” alleges various Brown Act violations related to the City’s March 25, 2025 meeting.
Specifically, a report on the City’s short-term vacation rental (“STVR”) regulations and the City Council’s motion to receive and file of this report (i.e., the City Council took no legislative action to change anything and the City’s STVR regulations remained unchanged).
Background:
At its March 25, 2025 meeting, City Council received a report on the City’s current STVR regulations. At the end of this item, City Council moved to receive and file the item and did not provide direction to City staff to bring back or explore any modifications to the City’s STVR ordinance. Two weeks later, the City received an anonymous “cure and correct” letter under the Brown Act alleging various Brown Act violations related to the City’s March 25, 2025 STVR item. The only information that is known about the drafter of the letter is that they are allegedly a “Concerned Hermosa Beach Property Owner” with
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 6
the email address of [email protected]. Because the City does not have a physical address, the only way to send any response letter would be by e-mail only. Further, and somewhat surprisingly, the drafter of this letter added a disclaimer to the Anonymous Letter (which references Frank Angel multiple times and asserts details about Frank Angel’s previous correspondence with the City) that states:
“I am not affiliated with or represented by Frank Angel, Angel Law, or any other law firm, and this letter is submitted independently or any pending or potential lawsuit, in the public interest.”
The Brown Act allows interested persons to “demand” the City cure or correct an action alleged to have been taken without complying with the Brown Act. This procedure allows the City to account for its actions or take corrective action, as appropriate.
Written demands must be filed within 90 days from the date the action was taken or within 30 days if the action was taken at a public meeting on a non-agenda item. The Brown Act requires that the City Council determine whether it will cure or correct the challenged action within 30 days from when it received a timely demand. (Government Code section 54960.1(b)). No lawsuit may be filed until after the City has a chance to respond to a demand to cure or correct an action.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
March 25, 2025 City Council received and filed a report on the City’s STVR regulations.
Discussion:
The City seriously considers every alleged violation of the Brown Act. The Anonymous Letter is timely (i.e., within 90 days) and is included as Attachment 1. To assist the Council in evaluating the claims and determining a course of action, this staff report first describes the legal framework dealing with “cure and correct” letters and then analyzes the allegations and legal contentions set forth in the Anonymous Letter and then suggests a course of action.
Government Code section 54960.1 posits the process and requirements for the submittal and consideration of a “cure and correct” letter under the Brown Act. In short, prior to commencing an action to declare an action by a legislative body as null and void, the legislative body must be sent a letter describing the alleged violation and given a chance to “cure or correct” an alleged violation within the stated timeframe. The cure and correct demand letter must be sent within 90 days and the legislative body then has 30 days to respond. The person who sends the cure and correct letter has 15 days from receipt of the legislative body to commence an action and if the legislative body takes no action, then this 15-day period to file an action commences after the 30-day period expires.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 6
Pertinent to the discussion before the City Council tonight is subsection (b) of section 54960.1 which posits what alleged violations of the Brown Act are subject to this cure and correct process. In other words, not all alleged Brown Act violations are subject to this process, only violations of sections 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 of the Brown Act are subject to the cure and correct procedures.
The anonymous April 9, 2025 “cure and correct” letter alleges three things violated various provisions of the Brown Act. As explained below, the alleged violations of the Brown Act did not occur or the alleged violations are not subject to the Brown Act’s cure and correct provisions.
Cure and Correct Letter Allegation #1
“Reading of Undisclosed Material Not in the Agenda Packet” The Anonymous Letter asserts that Councilmember Ray Jackson read aloud a previously undisclosed letter from Mr. Higgins to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) during the Short-term Vacation Rental (STVR) discussion. Further, the Anonymous Letter alleges this constitutes a violation of Government Code section 54954.2(a)(1) (requires all items and materials to be identified and made public before discussion)1 and section 54957.5 (requires that materials distributed to the Council also be made simultaneously available to the public).
As an initial matter, an alleged violation of Government Code section 54957.5 is not subject to the cure and correct process listed in section 54960.1. Further, the anonymous drafter of the letter makes no allegation that Mr. Higgins’ letter to HCD was distributed to all or a majority of the City Council. Thus, no facts or allegations are alleged that even constitute a violation of 54957.5.
As to the alleged violation of 54954.2(a)(1)—which is subject to the cure and correct procedures—this section requires that the City Council, at least 72 hours before a meeting post “an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency’s internet website, if the local agency has one.” This section does not require that the City post a letter from a resident to a separate State agency on an item related to City business. No allegation is submitted that the City’s agenda was somehow deficient in its description of the STVR item.
1 The descriptive parentheticals are taken verbatim from the cure and correct letter so that the City Council can see the alleged violations unedited. The City does not agree that the descriptive parentheticals found in the letter are necessarily accurate full and complete explanations of the law.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 6
Cure and Correct Letter Allegation #2
Suppression of Timely Written Public Comments
The Anonymous Letter alleges that written comments by Attorney Frank Angel (who recall, is allegedly not affiliated with the anonymous drafter) was not properly posted to the agenda packet.2 The Anonymous Letter alleges that this violates Government Code section 54954.3(a) (requires equal treatment of all viewpoints in public comments) and section 54957.5 (requires all documents submitted to the Council to be made publicly available, not selectively included or omitted).
Neither of these code sections are subject to the Brown Act’s cure and correct process under Government Code section 54960.1. Further, section 54954.3, among other things, requires that the City Council allow members of the public to directly address the legislative body via public comment. The March 25, 2025 meeting had general public comment and then a public comment on each agenda item. Thus, there was no violation.
The allegation under section 54957.5 is addressed in another agenda item and to reiterate, does not allege that materials were not provided to the City’s ultimate City decision-makers, the City Council. Only that these materials were not posted on the agenda or available for public inspection.
Cure and Correct Letter Allegation #3
Improper Denial of Zoom Participation
The Anonymous Letter alleges that at the March 25, 2025 City Council meeting, Frank Angel was improperly disallowed to participate via Zoom. The anonymous drafter states that “Mr. Angel personally confirmed that “he followed all participation instructions and was not on mute.” The Anonymous Letter alleges this violates Government Code section 54953(b)(3) (guarantees the right to participate in teleconferenced meetings) and section 54954.3(a) (protects public comment rights during open sessions).
As explained above, section 54954.3 is not a section subject to the cure and correct procedures. Further, the City Council’s March 25, 2025 meeting was absolutely consistent with the Brown Act’s public comment requirements. In fact, the City Council even went above and beyond by waiting patiently for Frank Angel to figure out the issues with his audio. The City Clerk called on him and he was given ample time to speak. As explained below (and on the agenda), the City Council is not responsible to fix or ensure that virtual commenters do not have technical issues. What is more, the Mayor even offered and
2 The third bullet point under this allegation references a written submittal by another resident on April 7, 2025 and then an acknowledgment by the City Attorney at the April 9, 2025 meeting. There was no April 9, 2025 meeting and the City is not aware of what April 7, 2025 written rebuttal this anonymous drafter is referencing.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 6
directed Frank Angel to call in on a different device and if so, the City Council would reopen public comment to allow Frank Angel to speak. This did not occur. Far from a Brown Act violation, Frank Angel’s technical difficulties and the City Council’s delay and offer to allow to call back in on a separate device highlights the City’s strong commitment to public comment. Because Frank Angel could not get his audio to work and did not call back in on a separate device as an above and beyond option offered by the City Council, the allegation that the City somehow violated the Brown Act is false.
As to the alleged violation of 54953(b)(3), this Brown Act section is subject to the cure and correct procedure. However, this section lists the requirements for when the City Council uses the formal Brown Act teleconferencing rules. The City Council did not use teleconferencing rules during its March 25, 2025 meeting. In fact, the City Council agenda was crystal clear that, “[p]ublic comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda.” Further, that zoom participation is offered as a courtesy only and that the City does not guarantee these remote options will be technically feasible and that they may be terminated for whatever reason.” This agenda language is provided on purpose so that Frank Angel and other public commenters are made aware that the only way to guarantee public comment is to show up in person. Because Frank Angel did not and chose to avail himself to the City’s courtesy Zoom feature, this is no way transforms the City’s meeting into one using the teleconferencing rules. Thus, no Brown Act violation occurred.
Based on the above, the City Council acted in compliance with the Brown Act during its March 25, 2025 item on the City’s STVR regulations and there is no need to cure and correct anything. Further, the “action” taken by the City Council was to receive and file the report. No change or formal legislative action even occurred. Thus, it is unclear what “action taken by the legislative body of a local agency” would be challenged under section 54960.1. Staff seeks City Council action to direct the City Attorney to send a written response via email to the anonymous sender of the letter informing them of the City Council’s decision not to cure and correct the challenged action for the above mentioned actions.
However, if the City Council so desires, the STVR report could be put on a future agenda, even though it is not required.
Environmental Review:
This discussion is not a “project” subject to CEQA” because it has no potential to result in either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) In the alternative, the discussion falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which exempts activity from CEQA where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.”
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 6
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:
Governance Element
Goal 1. A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process.
Policy:
1.4 Consensus oriented. Strive to utilize a consensus-oriented decisionmaking process.
Goal 2 The community is active and engaged in decision-making processes.
Policy:
2.6 Responsive to community needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended actions.
Attachment:
Anonymous April 9, 2025 Cure and Correct Letter
Respectfully Submitted by: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Concur: Myra Maravilla, City Clerk
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Reviewed By: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
April 9, 2025
TO: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
City Clerk’s Office
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
FROM: A Concerned Hermosa Beach Property Owner
SUBJECT: Brown Act “Cure and Correct” Demand Letter
– March 25, 2025 Meeting (Agenda Item 17.d)
Dear City Attorney and City Clerk,
This is a formal “Cure and Correct” demand made pursuant to California Government Code § 54960.1, regarding Brown Act violations that occurred during the Hermosa Beach City Council meeting of March 25, 2025, specifically under Agenda Item 17.d (“Report on STRs”).
The following serious violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act require prompt acknowledgment and cure:
1. Reading of Undisclosed Material Not in the Agenda Packet Councilmember Ray Jackson read aloud a previously undisclosed letter from Mr. Higgins to HCD during the Item 17.d discussion. This letter:
• Was not included in the publicly posted agenda packet. • Was used to frame the Council’s rejection of legal STVR operations. • Was given verbal exposure without providing the public equal opportunity to review or respond.
• Was read aloud after public comment had concluded, denying the public any opportunity to respond to its claims or the viewpoint it promoted.
This letter was clearly introduced by Councilmember Jackson as part of the Council's prevailing position, and no opposing viewpoint was allowed equal time or rebuttal.
This is a violation of:
• Gov. Code § 54954.2(a)(1): Requires all items and materials to be identified and made public before discussion.
• Gov. Code § 54957.5: Requires that materials distributed to the Council also be made simultaneously available to the public.
2. Suppression of Timely Written Public Comments
• The written comment submitted by Attorney Frank Angel, who currently has a pending lawsuit challenging the City’s enforcement of its STVR ordinance, was omitted from the initial agenda packet, added only after his protest, and later removed again.
• Mr. Angel’s comment challenged the City’s enforcement policy. The decision to omit, delay, and ultimately remove his viewpoint from the record raises serious concerns about whether this was done to suppress legal criticism from an active challenger.
• The written rebuttal submitted by another resident (April 7, 2025) to correct the record and document these procedural violations was acknowledged at the April 9, 2025 meeting only in passing by the City Attorney as one of “two written public comments,” but it was never read aloud, referenced, or given any response.
This is a violation of:
• Gov. Code § 54954.3(a): Requires equal treatment of all viewpoints in public comments.
• Gov. Code § 54957.5: Requires all documents submitted to the Council to be made publicly available, not selectively included or omitted.
3. Improper Denial of Zoom Participation
During the March 25, 2025 meeting, Attorney Frank Angel was called on during public comment via Zoom, but the City Council could not hear him speak due to a technical difficulty.
Mr. Angel personally confirmed to me afterward that he followed all participation instructions and was not on mute.
The mayor acknowledged the issue at the time and stated that Mr. Angel would be brought back once the technical problem was resolved.
He was never recalled, and the City offered no public explanation.
This violates:
• Gov. Code § 54953(b)(3): Guarantees the right to participate in teleconferenced meetings.
• Gov. Code § 54954.3(a): Protects public comment rights during open sessions.
Requested Cure and Correction
In accordance with Gov. Code § 54960.1(b), I respectfully demand that the Hermosa Beach City Council:
1. Acknowledge and correct the procedural violations listed above in a public meeting.
2. Re-agendize a new discussion of the City’s broader STVR policy. While Item 17.d was introduced as a narrow informational report on the possibility of allowing owner-occupied room rentals, Councilmember Jackson and others expanded the conversation into a full policy defense of the City’s overall STVR ordinance, enforcement history, and regulatory intent.
These broader arguments were not agendized, were not made available for public rebuttal, and were framed in response to omitted or unread written public comments.
As a result, the public was denied a fair opportunity to participate in this expanded discussion.
The Council must place the full STVR policy—along with all relevant viewpoints and materials—on a future agenda for proper public debate.
3. Affirm in writing that all future public comments and submissions—regardless of viewpoint—will be given equal treatment and preserved in the public record.
4. Confirm publicly that materials read aloud or introduced during meetings will not be withheld from the posted agenda packet, in compliance with the Brown Act.
If no action is taken within 30 days of this notice, I will consider the City to be in continued violation of state law and reserve the right to refer this matter to appropriate oversight agencies, including the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division or the California First Amendment Coalition.
Respectfully,
A Concerned Hermosa Beach Property Owner
Disclaimer:
• I am not affiliated with or represented by Frank Angel, Angel Law, or any other law firm, and this letter is submitted independently of any pending or potential lawsuit, in the public interest.
Outlook
Public Comment Submission for Agenda Item 16.c – April 22, 2025 City Council Meeting From HermosaBeachPropertyOwner <[email protected]> Date Mon 4/21/2025 7:21 PM
To City Clerk <[email protected]>; Myra Maravilla <[email protected]> 1 attachment (315 KB)
Comment_Letter_Item_16c_HBCC_042225.pdf;
Dear Ms. Maravilla,
Please find attached my public comment letter regarding Agenda Item 16.c scheduled for the City Council meeting on April 22, 2025.
I respectfully request that this correspondence be:
1. Entered into the official public record for Agenda Item 16.c.
2. Distributed to all members of the Hermosa Beach City Council and the City Attorney.
Recipients:
Mayor Dean Francois
Mayor Pro Tem Rob Saemann
Councilmember Mike Detoy
Councilmember Ray Jackson
Councilmember Michael D. Keegan
City Attorney Patrick T. Donegan
The attached letter includes a detailed analysis and supporting documentation relevant to Agenda Item 16.c.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for ensuring that the City Council and City Attorney receive this material in advance of the meeting.
Please confirm that this supplemental comment has been included in the official public record.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Hermosa Beach Property Owner
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Public Comment – Agenda Item 16.c | HBCC April 22, 2025 Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 16.c – Staff Report 25-CA-012 To the City Clerk, Councilmembers, and City Attorney Patrick Donegan:
This comment responds to the April 22, 2025 Staff Report 25-CA-012 regarding my April 9, 2025, Cure and Correct letter submitted pursuant to Government Code § 54960.1.
The original submission was respectful, narrow in scope, and rooted in the clear text of the Brown Act.
It offered the City a straightforward opportunity to acknowledge and correct serious procedural errors made during the March 25, 2025, meeting.
Rather than respond in kind, the City Attorney’s report chose to deliver a tone-deaf exercise in legal deflection, rhetorical mischaracterization, and condescension.
Let us begin with one of the most glaring missteps: the repeated, almost obsessive focus on anonymity, as if one’s identity were somehow a condition for statutory compliance.
The Brown Act imposes no such requirement, and the City Attorney’s choice to lead with this fact, repeat it, and editorialize it as ‘somewhat surprising’ is not legal analysis, it is tone-policing.
Equally disingenuous is the claim that the City ‘does not have a physical address’ and could therefore respond only by email, as if that somehow prevented a reply.
I submitted my Cure and Correct letter by email and included a valid return address, which the City Attorney quoted verbatim in his report.
If a response was genuinely intended, all he had to do was click Reply.
This was not a logistical barrier; it was a choice not to engage.
Worse still, the report implies that the mere act of distancing oneself from Frank Angel and his litigation is cause for suspicion, when in fact that disclaimer was included for one reason only: to prevent precisely the kind of conflation the City has now engaged in.
Mischaracterization and Cherry-Picking of Claims
Despite submitting the only Cure and Correct letter on record, the City chose to respond primarily to Mr. Angel’s Cease and Desist, while reducing my submission to little more than a procedural footnote.
The report barely addresses the actual violations raised. Let us clarify:
• My April 7, 2025 written comment was timely submitted and received, yet never read, referenced, or responded to.
It was acknowledged in passing by the City Attorney as one of ‘two comments,’ and then buried in the agenda packet without discussion.
• Mr. Angel’s comment, like mine, was timely and fully compliant with the City’s own submission procedures.
It was received before the stated deadline and should have been treated accordingly.
The City’s portrayal of the submission as a near-miss because it arrived ‘two minutes before the deadline’ is not just legally indefensible; it is procedurally absurd.
A deadline is not a discretionary threshold; it is a cut-off.
2 To suggest a submission is less valid because it was received two minutes before closing time is like a transit agency refusing to board a passenger who arrived two minutes before departure.
In addition, It was falsely labeled ‘Post Deadline’ and added to the agenda only after Mr. Angel submitted his March 31, 2025, Cease and Desist letter.
Shortly thereafter, it was quietly removed from the agenda packet altogether.
As of April 19, 2025, at 11:35 AM, the comment remains unavailable to the public.
This is an indefensible suppression of viewpoint.
By contrast, a screenshot captured on April 2, 2025, at 10:19 PM shows that the comment was included at that time, only to be removed later.
This reflects not just exclusion, but post hoc erasure. It raises serious questions as to intent. (See screenshots included at the bottom of this document.) • Mr. Angel’s Zoom participation was explicitly acknowledged by the Mayor, who stated he would be recalled after a technical glitch.
He never was. The City cannot offer a platform for public comment, recognize a speaker, and then revoke that opportunity retroactively without consequence.
That is a clear violation of §§ 54953(b)(3) and 54954.3(a), one I specifically addressed in my original Cure and Correct letter.
Councilmember Jackson’s Misuse of Undisclosed Material
The most flagrant violation, one the City Attorney artfully sidestepped, was Councilmember Jackson’s verbatim recitation of a letter authored by Mr. Higgins to the HCD, a document never included in the agenda packet and never made available to the public as required under Gov. Code § 54957.5.
From timestamp 3:41:22 to 3:48:33, Councilmember Jackson read nearly seven minutes directly from Mr. Higgins’ letter.
Midway through this recitation, he was briefly interrupted for 13 seconds by another Councilmember who questioned the origin of the letter, a procedural objection that directly underscored the very violation raised in this Cure and Correct letter.
The objection was summarily dismissed without clarification or intervention from the City Attorney, and Jackson immediately resumed reading.
Any implication that these remarks were merely Jackson’s personal commentary is both disingenuous and disproven by the video record: he was reading directly from a prepared document, word-for-word, occasionally looking up only to editorialize in support of its contents.
Had Mr. Higgins appeared in person, he would have been limited to three minutes. Instead, he was given nearly seven minutes of floor time by proxy through a Councilmember after public comment had already closed.
This was not commentary. It was a legislative maneuver designed to elevate one viewpoint while insulating it from challenge, a maneuver that violates the spirit and letter of multiple provisions of the Brown Act.
3 Mr. Higgins’ viewpoint was given a Councilmember’s voice, an extended platform, and no opportunity for rebuttal.
That is the very abuse the Brown Act was designed to prevent.
Any suggestion that this was merely ‘Councilmember Jackson’s personal commentary’ collapses under the video evidence.
He was clearly reading from someone else’s document, without attribution until the end, and the content remains unavailable for public scrutiny.
This is not protected speech. It is legislative misuse of privilege.
The violations are unmistakable:
• Gov. Code § 54954.2(a)(1): Item must be listed on the agenda for discussion.
Mr. Higgins’ letter was not.
• Gov. Code § 54957.5(a): Writings distributed or read into the record must be made publicly available when used. This one was not.
• Gov. Code § 54954.3(c): A Councilmember may not enjoy expanded speaking rights beyond those afforded to members of the public, yet Mr. Higgins was given nearly seven minutes by proxy.
Yet this conduct was entirely omitted from the staff’s response. Why was it ignored? Conclusion
This agenda item does not cure, correct, or even attempt to engage with the violations identified in my April 9 submission.
The legal arguments are misapplied, the facts misrepresented, and the tone patronizing.
The Brown Act does not recognize different rules based on credentials, titles, or affiliation, nor does it grant legislative actors greater speaking rights than the public they serve.
The City had a chance to respond with integrity.
It chose to respond with gamesmanship and condescension.
City Attorney Donegan, over the course of the past month, I have observed a pattern of selective framing and dubious legal positioning, beginning with your advice to this Council on what are, by any objective reading, flagrant violations of the Brown Act. Rather than acknowledge clear procedural errors, your office has chosen to sidestep the law’s purpose in favor of minimizing exposure, while doing nothing to correct the underlying conduct.
That same posture extends to your advice on the City’s STVR ordinance, none more troubling than your claim in the City’s March 25 meeting that, “my position is that the City's short-term vacation rental ordinance is valid and enforceable in the coastal zone as presently constructed.”
That position, offered without qualification, ignores both the plain language of the Coastal Act and two formal communications from the California Coastal Commission, including one from the Commission Chair, warning Hermosa Beach that such a policy is not enforceable without a certified Local Coastal Program and an approved Coastal Development Permit. (See Attached)
4 You further asserted that the City’s position is justified because it previously “prevailed” in litigation over its STVR ordinance.
But those cases were resolved at a preliminary stage, without a full trial or a ruling on the merits, and long before the current legal landscape took shape, making such confidence premature at best.
That line of reasoning borders on judicial negligence.
Since that 2018 enforcement action, the legal landscape has fundamentally changed. Two landmark decisions illustrate this shift. In Kracke v. Santa Barbara, the court held that a ban on STVRs in the Coastal Zone without an LCP violates the Coastal Act’s access provisions. In the more recent decision in Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, a neighboring jurisdiction, the court again found such enforcement unlawful.
Notably, the prevailing attorney in Keen was Frank Angel, the same attorney who is now representing the plaintiffs challenging Hermosa Beach’s STVR ordinance under substantially the same theory.
But setting the law aside for a moment, what precisely is the motive here? You are now on record recommending a legally fragile course of action not once, but twice, first by dismissing clear Brown Act violations as inconsequential, and then by affirming a regulatory posture that directly contravenes Coastal Commission guidance, invites costly litigation, and was plainly cautioned against as early as 2016 and 2017.
The City has now been sued on this same issue for the third time.
Is this truly sound legal advice, or just profitable for those giving it? There is a known phenomenon in which certain municipal law firms recommend aggressive enforcement policies, knowing full well they will likely result in drawn-out litigation that benefits only the firm.
I sincerely hope that is not what’s happening here.
If the City of Hermosa Beach insists on charting a course that has been flagged by both legal precedent and administrative authority as untenable, the residents are entitled to ask: Who is truly being served—those who pay the bills, or those who send them? This letter is submitted independently of any law firm, attorney, or ongoing litigation. All statements and positions are my own.
Respectfully,
A Concerned Hermosa Beach Property Owner
5/10/16 AGENDA, ITEM 5a - TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER FROM THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SUBMITTED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ON 5-9-16 AT 12:03PM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219
VOICE (415) 904- 5200
FAX ( 415) 904- 5400
TDD (415) 597-5885
ATTACHMENT C
(Sent Individually via US Mail)
December 6, 2016
TO: Coastal Planning/Community Development Directors
SUBJECT: Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone Dear Planning/Community Development Director:
Your community and others state and nationwide are grappling with the use of private residential areas for short-term overnight accommodations. This practice, commonly referred to as vacation rentals (or short-term rentals), has recently elicited significant controversy over the proper use of private residential stock within residential areas. Although vacation rentals have historically been part of our beach communities for many decades, the more recent introduction of online booking sites has resulted in a surge of vacation rental activity, and has led to an increased focus on how best to regulate these rentals.
The Commission has heard a variety of viewpoints on this topic. Some argue that private residences should remain solely for the exclusive use of those who reside there in order to foster neighborhood stability and residential character, as well as to ensure adequate housing stock in the community.
Others argue that vacation rentals should be encouraged because they often provide more affordable options for families and other coastal visitors of a wide range of economic backgrounds to enjoy the California coastline. In addition, vacation rentals allow property owners an avenue to use their residence as a source of supplemental income. There are no easy answers to the vexing issues and questions of how best to regulate short-term/vacation rentals. The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance and direction on the appropriate regulatory approach to vacation rentals in your coastal zone areas moving forward.
First, please note that vacation rental regulation in the coastal zone must occur within the context of your local coastal program (LCP) and/or be authorized pursuant to a coastal development permit (CDP). The regulation of short-term/vacation rentals represents a change in the intensity of use and of access to the shoreline, and thus constitutes development to which the Coastal Act and LCPs must apply. We do not believe that regulation outside of that LCP/CDP context (e.g., outright vacation rental bans through other local processes) is legally enforceable in the coastal zone, and we strongly encourage your community to pursue vacation rental regulation through your LCP.
The Commission has experience in this arena, and has helped several communities develop successful LCP vacation rental rules and programs (e.g., certified programs in San Luis Obispo and
Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone term Page 2 Santa Cruz Counties going back over a decade; see a summary of such LCP ordinances on our website at:
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/la/Sample_of_Commission_Actions_on_Short_Term_Rentals .pdf ). We suggest that you pay particular attention to the extent to which any such regulations are susceptible to monitoring and enforcement since these programs present some challenges in those regards. I encourage you to contact your local district Coastal Commission office for help in such efforts.
Second, the Commission has not historically supported blanket vacation rental bans under the Coastal Act, and has found such programs in the past not to be consistent with the Coastal Act. In such cases the Commission has found that vacation rental prohibitions unduly limit public recreational access opportunities inconsistent with the Coastal Act. However, in situations where a community already provides an ample supply of vacation rentals and where further proliferation of vacation rentals would impair community character or other coastal resources, restrictions may be appropriate. In any case, we strongly support developing reasonable and balanced regulations that can be tailored to address the specific issues within your community to allow for vacation rentals, while providing appropriate regulation to ensure consistency with applicable laws. We believe that appropriate rules and regulations can address issues and avoid potential problems, and that the end result can be an appropriate balancing of various viewpoints and interests. For example, the Commission has historically supported vacation rental regulations that provide for all of the following:
Limits on the total number of vacation rentals allowed within certain areas (e.g., by neighborhood, by communitywide ratio, etc.).
Limits on the types of housing that can be used as a vacation rental (e.g., disallowing vacation rentals in affordable housing contexts, etc.). Limits on maximum vacation rental occupancies.
Limits on the amount of time a residential unit can be used as a vacation rental during a given time period.
Requirements for 24-hour management and/or response, whether onsite or within a certain distance of the vacation rental.
Requirements regarding onsite parking, garbage, and noise. Signage requirements, including posting 24-hour contact information, posting requirements and restrictions within units, and incorporating operational requirements and violation consequences (e.g., forfeit of deposits, etc.) in rental agreements. Payment of transient occupancy tax (TOT).
Enforcement protocols, including requirements for responding to complaints and enforcing against violations of vacation rental requirements, including providing for revocation of vacation rental permits in certain circumstances.
These and/or other provisions may be applicable in your community. We believe that vacation rentals provide an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone, especially for larger
Short-Term/Vacation Rentals in the California Coastal Zone term Page 3 families and groups and for people of a wide range of economic backgrounds. At the same time we also recognize and understand legitimate community concerns associated with the potential adverse impacts associated with vacation rentals, including with respect to community character and noise and traffic impacts. We also recognize concerns regarding the impact of vacation rentals on local housing stock and affordability. Thus, in our view it is not an ‘all or none’ proposition. Rather, the Commission’s obligation is to work with local governments to accommodate vacation rentals in a way that respects local context. Through application of reasonable enforceable LCP regulations on such rentals, Coastal Act provisions requiring that public recreational access opportunities be maximized can be achieved while also addressing potential concerns and issues.
We look forward to working with you and your community to regulate vacation rentals through your LCP in a balanced way that allows for them in a manner that is compatible with community character, including to avoid oversaturation of vacation rentals in any one neighborhood or locale, and that provides these important overnight options for visitors to our coastal areas. These types of LCP programs have proven successful in other communities, and we would suggest that their approach can serve as a model and starting place for your community moving forward. Please contact your local district Coastal Commission office for help in such efforts.
Sincerely,
STEVE KINSEY, Chair
California Coastal Commission