CITY COUNCIL - February 03, 2026
1. CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM
Public Comments:
2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Public Comments:
This Public Comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only. Public Comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.
4. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments:
4.a
MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on January 27, 2026 Public Comments:
4.b
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)
Public Comments:
Pursuant To California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case:
Rachel Muzatko v. City of Hermosa Beach et al 19-145623 Case Number:
20TRCV0048
4.c
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)
Public Comments:
Pursuant To California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case:
Everett Faulk v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, et al Case Number:
24STCP04022
4.d
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)
Public Comments:
Pursuant To California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case:
City of Hermosa Beach v. Independent Cities Risk Management Authority Case Number:
22TRCV00700
5. OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
Public Comments:
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Public Comments:
7. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
8. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Public Comments:
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
Public Comments:
10. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Public Comments:
This is the time for the City Council to discuss any changes to the order of agenda items.
Recommended Action:
To move 17. c to future meeting.
Recommended Action:
To approve the remainder of the agenda.
11. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:
11.a
K9 ARMOR X K9 ARCO PRESENTATION
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Attachment for item 11. a K-9 Armor.pdf
11.b
HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESENTS REVIEW OF 2025 PROGRAMS AND VISION FOR 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 11. b.pdf
11.c
RECOGNIZING BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 11. c.pdf
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. eComment Report 2-3-2026.pdf
Howard Lee Re Lack of Response To Email To City
Please click/tap this eComment and then click/tap the BLUE attachment that shows. That is my eComment as a PDF. Thank you.
Howard Lee Re Last Meeting Chamber Item Complaint
Please click/tap this eComment and then click/tap the BLUE attachment that shows. That is my eComment as a PDF. Thank you.
Cure & Correct Demand Letter
Dear City Council
Subject: Brown Act Cure & Correct Demand Letter
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION:
The notification on the face-page of the 1/27/26 City Council Agenda for the Chamber of Commerce Special Events agenda item (17b) was wholly inadequate & misleading in that it only mentioned the St. Patty's Day parade but did not mention the equally impactful Labor Day Fiesta event.
THE CURE SOUGHT
The cure sought is to rescind the 2026-2028 Labor Day Fiesta approval and hold a new public hearing.
LEGAL BASIS:
The Brown Act, Government Code § 54960.1 and 54952.2 et seq.
Thank you,
Tony Higgins
13. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Public Comments:
14. UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Public Comments:
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. Councilmembers may orally register a negative vote on any Consent Calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration before the vote on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item before the vote on the Consent Calendar. Items removed for separate discussion will be provided a separate public comment period.
Recommended Action:
To approve the consent calendar.
15.a
WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA Public Comments:
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
15.b
CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-014
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CHECK REGISTERS 2-3-2026 - 26-AS-014.pdf
2. Attachment 1. 1-21-26.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the check register for January 21, 2026. The Administrative Services Director certifies the accuracy of the demands.
15.c
REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2025 - 26-AS-015 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2025 - 26-AS-015.pdf
2. Attachment 1. November 2025 Revenue Report.pdf
3. Attachment 2. November 2025 Expenditure Report.pdf
4. Attachment 3. November 2025 CIP Report.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the November 2025 Financial Reports.
15.d
CITY TREASURER’S REPORT - 26-AS-013
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - DECEMBER 2025 CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - 26-AS-013.pdf
2. Attachment 1. December 2025 Treasurer's Report.pdf
(City Treasurer David Pedersen)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the December 2025 City Treasurer’s Report.
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M
Public Comments:
16.a
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT (TA 25-03) AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CODE PERTAINING TO APPEAL PERIODS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS - 25-CDD-138 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ZTA PC ACTIONS APPEALS AND REVIEW - 25-CDD-138.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance.pdf
3. Attachment 2. City Council Ordinance 25-1491 .pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 16. a.pdf
Continued from January 27, 2026
CEQA:
The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Recommended Action:
To conduct a public hearing to consider amendments to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code pertaining to appeals and transmission of Planning Commission decisions for City Council review; find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and introduce by title only and waive first reading of Ordinance No. ORD-26-1496 of the City of Hermosa Beach approving Zone Text Amendment (TA 25-03)
17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
17.a
ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING SIDE LETTERS TO THE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR THE GENERAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES’ BARGAINING UNIT AND THE PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE GROUP - 26-AS-012 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - SIDE LETTER PAE AND TEAMSTERS - 26-AS-012.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution and Side Letter – General Supervisory Employee’s Bargaining Unit (Teamsters Local 986).pdf
3. Attachment 2. Draft Resolution and Side Letter – Professional and Administrative Employee Group (PAE).pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. a.pdf
(Interim Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)
Recommended Action:
To adopt Resolution No. RES-26-7536 to adopt a Side Letter to the MOU between the City of Hermosa Beach and the General and Supervisory Employees’ Bargaining Unit (Teamsters Local 986) for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028; and adopt Resolution No. RES-26-7537 to adopt a Side Letter to the MOU between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Professional and Administrative Employee Group (PAE) for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.
17.b
UPDATE ON HOMELESSNESS EFFORTS - 26-CMO-004
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - HOMELESSNESS UPDATE - 26-CMO-004.pdf
2. Attachment 1. LA CADA - HB Cares Dashboard.pdf
3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. b.pdf
Continued from January 27, 2026
(Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the report.
17.c
ADJUSTMENT OF FEES FOR COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT AREAS - 26-CMO-005 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT FEE ADJUSTMENT - 26-CMO-005.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Outdoor Encroachment Areas - October 2025 by location type.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Fee Log.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. c.pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed comments for Item 17. c.pdf
Laura Pena
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Staff - I am writing in support of creating a new commercial encroachment category for dining and retail establishments that do not offer table service or alcohol, and to respectfully encourage the Council to set the fee for this category at $1.00 per square foot.
I appreciate that several Council Members have already acknowledged the need to reduce these fees and suggested a $2.00 rate. That recognition is meaningful. However, I believe a $1.00 per square foot rate is more appropriate given the City’s repeated goal of encouraging retail and neighborhood serving uses in our downtown commercial districts.
Council has consistently discussed the importance of attracting and retaining retail spaces downtown, yet these uses often face the greatest challenges: thinner margins, higher turnover risk, and fewer tools to offset operating costs compared to full service restaurants. A $1.00 encroachment rate would function as a targeted incentive, one that directly supports the types of businesses the City says it wants more of.
These encroachment areas are not high revenue, full service dining operations. They are informal, community oriented gathering spaces, places where neighbors connect, families linger, and downtown feels active throughout the day. In many ways, they function as small scale public spaces that enhance walkability and street life.
Several City Economic Development Strategies reference placemaking and retail as a priority, yet we have not made significant public investment in that area. These businesses are already helping to activate sidewalks and streets without requiring City capital investment. Setting the fee at $1.00 per square foot recognizes that shared public benefit and helps keep these spaces viable.
From a fiscal perspective, staff has noted that reducing the fee for these businesses would result in approximately $4,000 annually in reduced revenue, a modest amount when weighed against:
• Supporting downtown retail vitality
• Encouraging the types of uses Council has prioritized
• Advancing placemaking goals already adopted by the City • Keeping sidewalks active, welcoming, and people focused Creating this new category and setting the rate at $1.00 per square foot sends a clear signal that our City is serious about supporting retail, strengthening downtown, and aligning policy with stated economic development goals.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for continuing to refine City policy in a way that balances fiscal responsibility with long term community vitality.
Laura Pena
(Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss)
17.d
CONSIDERATION OF VENDOR SALES ON THE BEACH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - 26-CR-017 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CONSIDERATION OF VENDOR SALES ON THE BEACH - 26-CR-017.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Best Practice Research re Special Event Vendors in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Emailed Comments from January 27, 2026 City Council meeting.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. d.pdf
Howard Lee Re the Beach Deed Restriction Banning Sales
Respectfully, why is there not a copy of the Deed to Hermosa’s Beach mentioned and attached to this item? >>>
Unlike Redondo and Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach owns its Beach. There is a Deed Restriction to Hermosa’s owned beach that states that there is to be no selling on the Beach, and that the Beach is given to the city for the free use by the people, and that there are also to be no wheeled vehicles on the beach, notwithstanding safety and maintenance wheeled-vehicles are often present on the beach. Can governments just approve anything they like now? Continued from January 27, 2026
(Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
Recommended Action:
Substitute motion to include a pilot program to allow alcohol sales for the Hermosa Beach Open and LA Galaxy Watch Party Events; to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s recommendation to consider amendments to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.20 Beach and Strand Regulations, 12.20.300 Solicitation to allow for the, sale of prepared food, nonalcoholic beverages, and merchandise on the beach by vendors associated with an approved special event; and to establish a per-vendor daily fee with a discounted rate for Hermosa Beach–based businesses holding a valid City business license.
Recommended Action:
Amendment:
To approve the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s recommendation to consider amendments to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.20 Beach and Strand Regulations, 12.20.300 Solicitation to allow for the, sale of prepared food, nonalcoholic beverages, and merchandise on the beach by vendors associated with an approved special event; and to establish a per-vendor daily fee with a discounted rate for Hermosa Beach–based businesses holding a valid City business license.
17.e
REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF LAND VALUE RECAPTURE ORDINANCE, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO AMEND FEES FOR THE LAND VALUE RECAPTURE PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - LAND VALUE RECAPTURE REVIEW BY PC - 26-CDD-003.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Housing Element (HE) 2021-2029.pdf
4. Attachemnt 3. Ordinance 24-1474.pdf
5. Attachment 4. Housing and Community Development Letter Dated Aug. 1, 2024.pdf
6. Attachment 5. HE Sites Inventory List and Map.pdf
7. Attachment 6. Land Value Recapture Analysis dated October 2023.pdf
8. Attachment 7. Land Value Recapture Analysis dated December 2023.pdf
9. Attachment 8. eComment Report 1-27-2026.pdf
10. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. e.pdf
tony agains
Dear City CounciL
The LVR program is an ill-conceived & failed "carrot-and-stick" designed to meet state housing requirements (RHNA). It charges developers fees of $76 to $104 per square foot for market-rate housing built on land that gained value from rezoning.
These fees are waived if affordable housing is included.
Manhattan Beach has an approved RHNA Housing Element and they didnt need a convoluted & now failed Land Value Recapture program to avoid Builders Remedy nor did any other densely packed California coastal community.
Poorly conceived failed RHNA programs LVR will not save Hermosa from Builders Remedy, they will insure it.
But to the best of my knowledge the city staff has yet to submit an alternative to LVR and the council needs to deal with this.
Bogus RHNA allocation programs like LVR or fully allocating the entire 2.2 acres at St. Cross low and very low income housing were a hallmark of the previous city manager.
On a different track the council needs to consider developer fees that recover the true utility, sewer, and road costs associated with all higher density housing projects AND staff needs to propose options.
Moreover, Manhattan has recently transitioned from a nominal fee structure to a comprehensive Development Impact Fee (DIF)program. This initiative is designed to shift the burden of infrastructure costs—such as utility, sewer, and road improvements—from existing taxpayers to the developers of new, high-density project.
Thank You for considering.
tonyhiggins
Randy Balik
Hello City Council,
I am a 30-year Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City, and this character we all speak of can be preserved even with some thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones. Some seem to continue to be opposed to this even though such projects can add a few homes above shops, which would both strengthen local businesses, and be incremental in terms of well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it.
The Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging what many of us residents support. The LVR program is literally stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. Such developments are the antithesis of "preserving" our Hb character.
HB should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense, which does include the commercial areas, though small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program, eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects, and create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible.
Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. This balanced approach reflects how many residents feel. Thank you. adam malovani
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City. I do support thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones, projects that add a few homes above shops, strengthen local businesses, and bring incremental, well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it.
I am concerned that the Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging exactly the kind of modest mixed-use projects many residents support. Instead of producing housing, it appears to be stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods.
I believe our City should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense:
In commercial areas
Through small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to:
Remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program
Eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects
Create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible.
Thank you for listening and for considering a balanced approach that reflects how many residents feel.
Michelle Crispin
See attached
Laura Pena
Dear Mayor & City Council - After reviewing all the reports, data, and policy plan documents; I recommend an exemption for small downtown lots from our Land Value Recapture (LVR) Program. The evidence we now have from an economic, legal, and market based perspective shows that continuing to apply LVR to these parcels is no longer aligned with feasibility, and in fact has become a government imposed constraint under state housing law.
I want to highlight guidance from the City’s own consultant that is especially relevant today. In October 2023, Kosmont advised that “the City should plan on revisiting the fee based on both market response relative to the intent of the LVR program.” That guidance is difficult to ignore because the inputs underlying their analysis have shifted dramatically: construction costs are higher, financing is far more expensive, lender risk tolerance has declined, return expectations have increased, and broader economic uncertainty continues.
Most importantly, the market response has been unequivocal. Since LVR was introduced, analyzed, adopted, and implemented, the City has seen zero applications, zero inquiries, and zero interest on small lots, the very properties relied upon in the Housing Element. When a consultant advises that fees should be revisited based on market response, and that response is complete silence, the conclusion is not ambiguous. The market has rejected the program.
Under state housing law, a city may not maintain policies that render its Housing Element sites infeasible to develop. Doing so constitutes a government imposed constraint and is now among the clearest triggers for legal challenge under both HCD review and recent case law. The Redondo Beach appellate ruling reinforced this principle, making clear that cities may not rely on theoretical capacity or paper zoning where actual feasibility is blocked by local policy.
Small commercial lots in our City, typically 3,000 to 5,000 square feet with 30-foot height limits are already difficult to develop. The addition of a significant fee did not capture value; it eliminated interest altogether. Because these parcels represent a meaningful share of our Housing Element inventory, the LVR fee is now impairing our compliance.
A fee that produces zero projects, zero interest, and zero applications is not an incentive, it is a barrier. And under state law, that barrier constitutes a governmental constraint.
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend exempting small downtown lots from the Land Value Recapture fee and seriously considering removal of the program in its entirety. This approach aligns with current economic conditions, the Housing Element’s requirement to avoid government imposed constraints, and the clear market evidence from the past several years.
If there is concern that LVR has not been in effect long enough to evaluate, that view overlooks the City’s own Housing Element history. LVR was adopted in December 2021 and included from the outset of Housing Element discussions, long before the ordinance took effect in 2024. For nearly three years, property owners, architects, and lenders have been evaluating its feasibility impacts. The policy signal has been clear and the response has been consistent.
The LVR program now sits at the intersection of rapidly evolving state housing law, including changes that explicitly protect small scale infill and mixed income development. When a local ordinance appears to conflict with that framework, and when the City’s own analysis shows widespread infeasibility on small sites, the legal risk is no longer theoretical.
I encourage the Council to view reform of the LVR program not as a retreat from values, but as an act of responsible governance one that aligns local policy with state law, protects taxpayers, and reduces avoidable legal exposure while still advancing thoughtful, incremental housing in our commercial corridors.
I believe this Council wants to leave our City stronger, more resilient, and better aligned with the laws that govern us. Thoughtful reform is an opportunity to demonstrate stewardship, rebuild trust with small property owners, and direct staff to work collaboratively on incentives that genuinely support incremental, small-scale infill development. I am hopeful you will choose a path forward that reflects both our shared values and sound governance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laura Pena
Elka Worner
Staff has spent hundreds of hours developing the city’s Land Value Recapture Program, a policy designed to incentivize affordable housing.
But since the ordinance went into effect in 2024, no one has submitted an affordable housing project or paid the LVR fee. Zero applications. Smart development in our commercial areas makes sense, especially for our Housing Element. I agree with the proposal set forth by the Planning Commission and am confident you will also take into consideration the position of the local property owners. Thank you.
Cammie Herbert
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I know we are required to bring in housing. I support small scale mixed use development in our commercial zones. I’ve even thought the city could consider having residential at its city yard and encouraging the Hermosa Pavilion to convert their empty spaces to some studios.
However I do not support the Land Value Recapture program. There are no applications so It seems that the LVR is not only not creating housing, but stalling projects on small commercial lots. Which in turn seems to keep bringing us to higher density developments in residential neighborhoods.
I hope you will consider:
- removing 1-2 unit projects from the program
-eliminating fees on small mixed use projects.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jonathan Edward David
Please find aletter from Upper Pier Property Owners, who want to see the program eliminated from all downtown lots - past planning commissions recommendation of only the 1-2 unit exemption.
MC Guerry
I do not object to you taking this action, but what I really want is for you to eliminate the Land Value Recapture Fee everywhere. We need more housing units and this fee discourages new development.
Continued from January 27, 2026
CEQA:
The action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Recommended Action:
To wave master fee schedule for 1 to 4 unit and keep pricing for anything above 4 units; to find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution No. 25-7539 amending the City Master Fee Schedule to amend fees for the Land Value Recapture Program; and direct staff to explore zoning regulations that encourage development of residential units on “small lots” on the Housing Inventory List and include as a part of the City’s Zoning Code Update.
Recommended Action:
To find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution No. 25-7539 amending the City Master Fee Schedule to amend fees for the Land Value Recapture Program; and direct staff to explore zoning regulations that encourage development of residential units on “small lots” on the Housing Inventory List and include as a part of the City’s Zoning Code Update.
17.f
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT - 26-CDD-012 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT - 26-CDD-012.pdf
2. Attachment 2. Economic Development Strategy Progress Report .pdf
3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. f.pdf
th
First things First. Its been 11 years since the city did a detailed /expense study that considered all direct and indirect city related business district costs and compared that to revenue.
In 2015 a detailrd study concluded the city expenses likely exceeded revenue, and at best was breakeven.
Many people think the downtown businesses make significant money for the city but there is no evidence.
Before thr city implements any revitalization strategy it need a detailed evaluation of the bottom line to inform any economic development strategy.
Continued from January 27, 2026
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file this report; retire the 2022 Economic Development Strategy; and develop a new Economic Development Committee.
17.g
APPROVAL OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE BY THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO ASSSEMBLY BILL 418 - 26-PD-006 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE 26-PD-006.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Ordinance 22-1446.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Annual Military Equipment Report.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 17. g.pdf
(Police Chief Landon Phillips)
Recommended Action:
To review and renew Ordinance No. 22-1446, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach adopting Military Use Equipment, in accordance with Assembly Bill 481; and receive and file the Annual Military Equipment Report.
18. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comments:
This is the time for Councilmembers to schedule future agenda items and to ask questions about the status of previously approved future agenda items. No discussion, debate, or public comment will be taken. Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items. The tentative future agenda items document is provided for information only.
18.a
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 26-CMO-007
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 02-03-25 - 26-CMO-007.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Tentative Future Agenda.pdf
Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.
19. CITY MANAGER REPORT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for item 19.pdf
20. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Public Comments:
This is reserved for items that do not require City Council action. The City Council may request a future agenda item to discuss an informational item. Otherwise, discussion of informational items, including public comment, will not be taken.
21. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments: