CITY COUNCIL - May 26, 2026
1. OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
Public Comments:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Public Comments:
3. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
Public Comments:
5. 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:
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to approve the agenda.
6. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:
6.a
RECOGNIZING HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFIED GREEN BUSINESSES
Public Comments:
6.b
PRESENTATION ON COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Survey Result for Item 6.b.pdf
2. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 6.b.pdf
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 7.pdf
2. ecomment report 5-26-2026.pdf
8. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Public Comments:
9. UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Public Comments:
This is the time for members of the City Council to report on their attendance at ad hoc subcommittees or standing committee meetings, conferences, or other official activities as City representatives.
10. 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:
A motion was made by Councilmember Jackson, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to approve the Consent Calendar Agenda Item Nos. 10.a-10.h, with the exception of Agenda Item No. 10.g, being removed for individual consideration.
10.a
WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA Public Comments:
Recommended Action:
To 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.
10.b
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. May 12, 2026 Regular Meeting .pdf
(City Clerk Martha Alvarez)
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the minutes from the May 12, 2026, Regular Meeting.
10.c
CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-058
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CHECK REGISTERS 5-26-2026 - 26-AS-058.pdf
2. Attachment 1. 5-7-26.pdf
3. Attachment 2. 5-13-26.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
To receive and file the check registers for May 7, 2026, through May 13, 2026. The Administrative Services Director certifies the accuracy of the demands.
10.d
CASH BALANCE REPORT - 26-AS-057
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - MARCH 2026 CASH BALANCE REPORT - 26-AS-057.pdf
2. Attachment 1. March 2026 Cash Balance Report.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
Motion to receive and file the March 2026 Cash Balance Report.
10.e
REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR MARCH 2026 - 26-AS-059 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR MARCH 2026 - 26-AS-059.pdf
2. Attachment 1. March 2026 Revenue Report.pdf
3. Attachment 2. March 2026 Expenditure Report.pdf
4. Attachment 3. March 2026 CIP Report by Project.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
Motion to receive and file the March 2026 Financial Reports.
10.f
CITY TREASURER’S REPORT - 26-AS-056
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APRIL 2026 CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - 26-AS-056.pdf
2. Attachment 1. April 2026 Treasurer's Report.pdf
(City Treasurer Dave Pedersen)
Recommended Action:
Motion to receive and file the April 2026 City Treasurer’s Report.
10.h
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE COMPLETION OF CIP 619 KELLY COURTS IMPROVEMENTS TO GR PAVING SOLUTIONS - 26-PW-026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE COMPLETION OF CIP 619 KELLY COURTS - 26-PW-026.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Construction Contract.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Draft Resolution.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Construction Cost Proposal.pdf
5. Attachment 4. CIP 619 - Kelly Court Improvement Project Plans.pdf CEQA
:
The Project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and section 15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction). The proposed work is an alteration of existing public structures or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing use. Further the proposed work consists of reconstruction of existing court structures where the new courts will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. No exceptions to the CEQA exemption apply .
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:
Motion to:
Award a construction contract for the completion of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 619–Kelly Courts Improvements to GR Paving Solutions in the amount of $106,650.00; Authorize the Director of Public Works to establish a contract contingency in the amount of $26,663 and to approve contract change orders up to the amount of the approved project contingency; Adopt the attached resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach Approving the Construction of CIP 619 Kelly Courts Improvements Project Pursuant to Government Code Section 830.6 and Establishing a Project Payment Account”; Authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract ,
approve minor modifications as necessary, and execute all related documents, with the City Clerk to attesting the agreements, subject to approval by the City Attorney; and Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion following final completion of the project.
10.g
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AS OF MAY 14, 2026 - 26-PW-035 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CIP STATUS REPORT MAY 2026 - 26-PW-035.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Capital Improvement Program Status Report as of May 14, 2026.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Estimated CIP Project Schedule FY 2025-2026 – Updated May 14, 2026.pdf (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to approve the Capital Improvement Program State Report of May 14, 2026.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M
Public Comments:
11.a
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT (TA24-01) TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (HBMC) PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE - 26-CDD-045 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ZTA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES - 26-CDD-045(1).pdf
2. Attachment 1. City Council Ordinance (with Exhibits A-R)(1).pdf
3. Attachment 2. Zoning Code Assessment(1).pdf
4. Attachment 3. Redlined and Annotated Draft Ordinance Exhibits .pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 11.a.pdf
6. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 11.a.pdf
Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce
Dear City Council and Mayor,
On behalf of Hermosa Beach’s business community, the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce appreciates the City’s work to modernize the Administrative Procedures section of the Zoning Code.
We support the overall goal of creating a more timely, predictable, and measurable review process for business and development applications. Clearer procedures, stronger administrative review pathways, and more consistent decision making are important steps toward supporting local businesses, property reinvestment, tenant improvements, and long term economic vitality.
As the City considers adoption, we respectfully recommend three targeted refinements to better protect businesses and encourage investment.
1. Section 17.03.100(A) — Minor Modifications
As proposed, the Director would not be able to approve minor revisions for late-night establishments or outdoor uses, even when the change does not intensify the use or expand approved floor area.
We recommend removing this blanket exclusion. Outdoor dining, retail displays, patios, and active frontages are important to our commercial vitality. Businesses should be able to make modest, non-intensifying changes administratively. A more balanced approach would allow Director approval when the change remains consistent with the original approval and conditions.
Remove Section 17.03.110(C)(3) from Revocation of Permits.
As proposed, this provision would allow a permit to be revoked if the approved use or activity has been suspended or dormant for more than 12 consecutive months, as demonstrated by any form of evidence or documentation. I respectfully recommend removing this provision. A valid permit should not be vulnerable to revocation simply because a use has been inactive for 12 months. Vacancies and delays are often caused by factors outside the control of the property owner or operator, including tenant turnover, financing, insurance, construction delays, Coastal Commission review, plan check, lease negotiations, utility upgrades, market conditions, or broader economic uncertainty.
This language could unintentionally penalize property owners who are actively trying to lease, improve, finance, permit, or reactivate a space. It may also reduce the value of existing entitlements, discourage tenant improvements, complicate financing, and make investors more hesitant to take on vacant or underutilized commercial properties.
The City already has authority to revoke or modify permits when conditions are violated, laws are violated, approvals were obtained by fraud, the use creates a nuisance, or the permit is being exercised contrary to its terms. Those provisions appropriately focus on actual harm, noncompliance, or misuse not inactivity alone.
3. Section 17.72.030 — Parking Plan Review Authority
As written, all Parking Plans would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. We recommend creating a tiered process.
Routine Parking Plans for small downtown lots, changes of use in existing buildings, shared parking, restriping, managed parking, or modest parking adjustments should be eligible for Director level review when objective criteria are met.
Planning Commission review should be reserved for major parking reductions, large new development, removal of public parking, or unresolved policy issues.
Parking is one of the biggest barriers to reinvestment in older commercial buildings. If every parking solution requires a public hearing, the process may discourage tenant improvements, adaptive reuse, storefront activation, and business expansion. A tiered approach would still protect parking availability while making it easier for businesses to improve and activate commercial spaces.
Recommended Council Direction
The Chamber respectfully requests that City Council support the Administrative Procedures update with direction to staff to:
1 Allow Director level minor modifications for late-night establishments and outdoor uses when the change does not intensify the use or create new impacts; 2 Remove this language altogether - no revocation of permits based on dormancy; 3 Create a tiered Parking Plan process with Director review for routine small-scale parking requests and Planning Commission review for major or policy level requests; 4 Track outcomes such as review timelines, administrative approvals, Planning Commission hearings avoided, tenant improvements, business openings, and commercial vacancy trends.
Our business community supports thoughtful regulation and public accountability. But the process should also be practical, proportional, and predictable. These refinements would help the City protect neighborhoods while supporting business investment, commercial vitality, and long term fiscal health.
Thank you. Hermosa chamber of Commerce and Business Advocacy Commitee.
Laura Pena
Dear City Council,
Thank you for creating meaningful opportunities for public feedback during the Zoning Code Update Administrative process. For those of us following these updates closely, these forums have been valuable because they allowed the public focused feedback before items reach Council. I recommend the City provide more communication about these open forums so they can engage a wider audience.
The few items I would like to address lead to a broader question for Council: How does the City define success for the Administrative Procedures updates? In my view, the update is successful if compliant projects move faster, staff spends less time on avoidable process, businesses can open and improve their spaces more predictably, mixed-use housing moves from application to completion, and the City grows recurring revenue without relying only on new taxes and fees.
How the City defines and publicly reports that success will matter. If residents, businesses, applicants, and investors can see that our City is improving review timelines, reducing bottlenecks, and providing more predictable service, it will increase trust and signal better quality services.
I respectfully recommend the following refinements:
1. Strengthen the Purpose section.
The Purpose section supports orderly growth and economic development, but it does not yet connect the Administrative Procedures to measurable service outcomes. I recommend adding language stating that the zoning procedures are intended to promote timely, predictable, consolidated, and measurable review of housing, business, and development applications.
This matters because zoning administration affects economic development, housing production, business openings, commercial reinvestment, and fiscal sustainability.
2. Define “compatible” in Section 17.04.040 — Definitions.
I support using compatibility as an approval finding. However, because the term appears throughout the entitlement chapters, it should be clearly defined in the definitions section.
Compatibility should mean the ability of a use or project to coexist with surrounding uses based on identifiable physical and operational factors such as scale, setbacks, access, parking, noise, lighting, odor, hours of operation, and other measurable impacts. It should not mean that a project must be identical to its surroundings, universally popular, or free from controversy.
3. Allow Director level minor modifications for late-night establishments and outdoor uses when the change does not intensify the use or expand floor area. Outdoor dining, patios, retail display, and active frontages are important to our commercial vitality. A blanket exclusion could make it harder for businesses to make practical improvements, accessibility upgrades, safety changes, or layout adjustments even when no new impacts are created.
4. Remove Section 17.03.110(C)(3) from Revocation of Permits.
As proposed, this provision would allow a permit to be revoked if the approved use or activity has been suspended or dormant for more than 12 consecutive months. I respectfully recommend removing this provision. A valid permit should not be vulnerable to revocation simply because a use has been inactive for 12 months. Vacancies and delays are often caused by factors outside the control of the property owner or operator, including tenant turnover, financing, insurance, construction delays, Coastal Commission review, plan check, lease negotiations, utility upgrades, market conditions, or broader economic uncertainty.
This language could unintentionally penalize property owners who are actively trying to lease, improve, finance, permit, or reactivate a space. It may also reduce the value of existing entitlements, discourage tenant improvements, complicate financing, and make investors more hesitant to take on vacant or underutilized commercial properties.
5. Create a tiered Parking Plan process.
Routine parking plans for small commercial spaces, changes of use, shared parking, restriping, managed parking, or modest parking adjustments should be reviewed administratively when objective criteria are met. Larger or policy level parking requests should remain with the Planning Commission.
These refinements would make the code more business supportive while still protecting residents and public accountability.
I appreciate the work staff has done to improve the Administrative Procedures. I encourage Council to support the update, while asking staff to define success clearly, measure outcomes publicly, and make these refinements so these procedures become a stronger economic and public service process.
As always, I appreciate your consideration.
Laura Pena
Nancy Schwappach
Please see attached pdf
Jon David
PDF attache
Stacy Straus, Srour & Associates
To Hermosa Beach City Council,
I am in support of the proposed changes to Administrative Procedures being presented to you. As a regular representative of applications for residential and commercial development in the City of Hermosa Beach, it is encouraging to see the proposed changes, as they create clarity, allow transparency, they will save time for an applicant, and mostly they allow for predictability, which applicants need as they consider investing in this City.
I attended a session with Planning Manager Oropeza where I was able to ask questions about the proposed changes, give comments and get and give clarification. Ms. Oropeza had a command of the Muni Code, was able to address my comments and questions, made changes in the draft proposal regarding the detailed implementation questions and she took into account my concerns.
I hope we have your support in making the changes to the City procedure that will give applicants the direction, clarity and transparency they need when considering development in Hermosa Beach. I am available for questions or discussion as well. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Stacy Straus
CEQA:
Determine the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to amend Section 17.03.100 to change the word "excluding" to "including" with respect to late night establishments and outdoor uses.
Recommended Action:
Councilmember Francois made a substitute motion to remove the phrase "excluding late night establishments and outdoor uses" completely from Section 17.03.100, motion failed for lack of a second.
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Jackson, to introduce by title only an Ordinance of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California, repealing, replacing, renaming, and amending portions of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code relating to administrative procedures, zoning review authorities, and related land use entitlement procedures as part of the comprehensive zoning code update; and determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
11.b
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION AMENDING SECTION 3.12 PURCHASING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Public Comments:
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Continued from the meeting of April 28, 2026
Recommended Action:
Motion to continue the Public Hearing to a future City Council Meeting.
12. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
12.a
FY 2026-2027 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS - 26-AS-061
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT-FY 2026-2027 BUDGET DISCUSSION-REVENUE OPTIONS - 26-AS-061.pdf
2. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.a.pdf
3. Public Comments (Received After Deadline).pdf
Todd Tullis
I encourage the Council to work "big to small" - by this I mean to start with the highest dollar items first - when directing action or making decisions on the available revenue options. Specifically regarding TOT/Short Term Rentals I hope Council can ensure there are lawful and resident-friendly operational limits and that the city can collect its share of taxes from these stays that are likely to increase in frequency. (Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Jackson, to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget presentations.
12.b
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL EVENT POLICY GUIDE AND FEE UPDATES - 26-PR-027 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SPECIAL EVENT POLICY GUIDE AND FEE UPDATES - 26-PR-027.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Current Special Events Policy Guide.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Proposed Special Event Policy Guide.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.b.pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Attachment for Item 12.b.pdf
Laura Pena
Dear City Council -
I appreciate the effort to improve clarity and administrative efficiency in the Special Event Policy Guide. I believe this item should be viewed as more than a permit guide update. It is also an economic and fiscal policy decision.
The City’s fee study shows that Community Resources recovers only 47.3% of its costs overall, and that Special Event Permit activity recovers only about 14.8% of cost. In dollar terms, that is roughly $60,000 in special event revenue against $405,896 in cost, and $1.368 million in Community Resources revenue against $2.895 million in cost. That level of under-recovery is harder to justify in the current fiscal environment.
Cost Recovery
The staff report says the proposed fees are intended to support improved cost recovery. But some of the proposed fees appear much closer to symbolic charges than true cost recovery.
For example, the proposed policy sets:
• Long Term Agreement (LTA) application fees at $485 commercial and $291 nonprofit • Reserved Parking Staging at $207
• Event Modification at $114
• Public Hearing at $38 plus publication costs
But the fee study shows materially higher documented costs:
• LTA cost: $8,784
• Reserved Parking Staging cost: $542
• Event Modification cost: $527
• Public Hearing cost: $176
The LTA example is especially important. Even at the fee study’s 35% recovery benchmark, the multi-year agreement fee would be $1,902 for commercial events and $1,141 for nonprofits. Instead, the proposed fees are $485 and $291. The proposed commercial LTA fee appears to recover only about 5.5% of the City’s documented cost, not 35%.
I understand from Commissioner feedback that when this item was before the Commission on April 16th, the fee study results were not yet public and the estimating methodology was not shared.
I also think there is an important local business equity issue here. I am concerned about the difference between the subsidies being effectively provided to sponsors and participants within large special events versus the fee burden placed on our small businesses trying to do modest activations. For example, the fee study shows a co-sponsor fee of $356 per sponsor within the special event program, while the Temporary Minor Special Event fee in the City’s permit structure is $1,900, with a $335 date change fee. That creates the impression that a local business trying to do small activations may be paying far more than a sponsor participating within a larger event ecosystem.
LTA Framework
I am concerned about the proposed LTA framework. It is too thin. The draft reduces eligibility to only one threshold, that an event has been held in our City for at least three consecutive years, and limits obligations to a post-event presentation focused on attendance, community impacts, and successes and challenges. Longevity alone should not be enough to justify recurring priority access to public space and City resources. LTAs should also demonstrate measurable economic value, operational reliability, and a clear public return.
The City has the most leverage at the front end of these negotiations. If staff enters into LTA negotiations without specific deliverables such as local business activation, measurable economic reporting, cost recovery expectations, and compliance standards, we may not be setting these agreements up as true win-win arrangements.
Peak Season Limits Citywide
What problem are we actually trying to solve? If the answer is administrative ease, I do not believe that alone is a sufficient reason to impose citywide limits if that could unintentionally constrain smaller events that may better serve different parts of the City or support local businesses in a more targeted way.
Hybrid Pricing Model
I would also encourage consideration of a simpler hybrid pricing model rather than relying too heavily on symbolic fee levels. A framework with a minimum base fee, actual cost billing for City services, and a revenue share above a threshold may better protect the City while still allowing event producers to benefit when events perform well.
I support a stronger special events program. But if we want events to contribute to revenue generation, the policy must do more than organize the process. It must be tied to measurable public value.
I appreciate your consideration.
Laura Pena
tonyhiggins
Please click/tap on pdf above
Todd Tullis
When these policy & fee changes were reviewed by the Commission (April 16 2026), the RCS fee study showing that special event costs exceeded revenues by ~$350k had yet to be made public. During the Commission meeting we were assured by Staff that these changes would result in the city covering its costs, though no specifics of estimating methodology were shared. Given the magnitude of the subsidy being provided is now known, I hope that Staff can "show their work" around cost estimation for Special Events so that the public and Council have confidence that these new fee amounts will recover city costs. (Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Mayor Detoy, to approve all policy and fee update options outlined under the "Options for Council Consideration" section of the staff report, pages 10 through 11.
Recommended Action:
Friendly amendment by Councilmember Francois, to direct staff to provide clarification and documentation of the processes underlying the determination of the proposed fee amount. The friendly amendment was not accepted by the maker of the motion.
12.c
ENDORSEMENT OF ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC’S (DBA ATHENS SERVICES) REQUEST FOR AN ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENT TO THE MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES - 26-CMO-033 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ATHENS ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENT - 26-CMO-033.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Rate Adjustment Request Letters from Athens.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Proposed Rates.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Resolution.pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.c.pdf
(Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Councilmember Jackson, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to endorse the proposed annual rate adjustment and adopt the accompanying resolution approving the maximum rates for solid waste services pursuant to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Services Agreement with Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (DBA Athens Services), effective July 1, 2026.
12.d
AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MOFFAT & NICHOL FOR PREPARATION OF A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLAN. - 26-CMO-032 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLAN - 26-CMO-032.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Request for Proposals.pdf
3. Attachment 2 - Proposal and Draft Professional Services Agreement.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.d.pdf
Tracy H
AGAINST
Sea Level Rise (SLR) adaptation planning requires strong justification—particularly when recent scientific updates question the extremes of both high- and low-end projections that often drive such plans. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/2627/2026/
Hermosa Beach is confronting significant fiscal strain, with City Council budget sessions projecting a **$3.2 million structural general-fund deficit** for FY 2027 and a cumulative five-year shortfall approaching $19.3 million. One-time measures (pandemic aid, vacancy savings, deferred spending) have been exhausted, prompting discussions of departmental cuts, fee increases, and other difficult choices to protect core services. In this context, a nearly $474,000 three-year commitment (through April 30, 2029) for sea level rise adaptation planning requires strong justification—particularly when recent scientific updates question the extremes of both high- and low-end projections that often drive such plans.
### Questionable Scientific Foundation: Implausible High-End and Inconsistent Low-End Projections The **European Geosciences Union** (EGU) *Geoscientific Model Development* (2026) paper on the ScenarioMIP-CMIP7 framework highlights important limitations in prior scenarios used for climate planning. Specifically:
- **High-end projections**: CMIP6 high-emission scenarios like **SSP5-8.5** (and its predecessor RCP8.5) "have become implausible" due to trends in renewable energy costs, policy developments, and recent emissions data. The new CMIP7 scenarios narrow the high end, with forcings expected below previous extreme levels. - **Low-end projections**: "At the low end, many CMIP6 emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020–2030 period." This indicates that aggressive low-emission pathways assumed in earlier modeling often do not align with real-world developments in the current decade.
These findings underscore that extreme scenarios—both very high and very low—at the tails of previous projections lack strong plausibility or consistency with observed data. Many coastal adaptation plans, including those influencing California communities, have leaned on upper-bound sea level rise estimates tied to high-emission pathways to justify expansive (and costly) measures. Relying on such assumptions now risks over-preparing for low-likelihood outcomes while underweighting more central, plausible trajectories. The paper stresses designing scenarios within a "wide and plausible range," prioritizing internal consistency and realism over legacy extremes.
For Hermosa Beach, this calls for **prudent recalibration**: Focus on robust, no-regrets strategies (e.g., enhanced beach management, drainage improvements) based on updated, moderate projections rather than committing substantial funds to plans potentially anchored in outdated high-end assumptions. ### Moffatt & Nichol: Suboptimal Fit Amid Fiscal Constraints Moffatt & Nichol brings strong expertise in large-scale port, harbor, and regional transportation infrastructure projects. However, this orientation is less ideal for a compact, primarily residential beach community like Hermosa, where adaptation needs center on localized issues such as wave run-up, groundwater intrusion, minor flooding, and recreational beach preservation. Their portfolio skews toward major engineering endeavors that could produce recommendations disproportionate to the city's scale and budget realities.
With structural deficits projected and core services under pressure, outsourcing to a firm geared toward bigger-ticket solutions increases the chance of over-scoped outcomes. Hermosa has conducted prior climate-related assessments; layering on another comprehensive plan at this price point duplicates effort when resources are needed elsewhere. ### Recommendations
- **Re-scope or pause** the contract to incorporate the latest CMIP7-aligned science and limit scope to essential, cost-effective updates. - Prioritize monitoring of actual local sea level and erosion trends over speculative long-term modeling. - Explore lower-cost alternatives: academic collaborations, state resources, or targeted engineering studies focused on proven resilience measures. - Align any planning with fiscal discipline—defer non-urgent expenditures until the structural budget gap is addressed sustainably.
Awarding this contract now would commit significant funds (and staff time) amid documented deficits for planning that should be grounded in the most current, plausible science. The EGU/GMD analysis provides clear rationale for caution on both high- and low-end extremes, reinforcing the need for evidence-based restraint in Hermosa Beach's current fiscal climate. Council should prioritize core services and flexible, adaptive management over this expenditure.
Source Assistance: AI
Richard G
I am opposed to this contract award. this topic has been well addressed in the 'Local Hazard Mitigation Plan' of 2017. At most, Staff can be directed to update that excellent report. Besides, an earthquake that destroys our infrastructure is our more likely doom scenario. (Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilember Jackson, to award a contract to Moffat & Nichol for preparation of a vulnerability assessment and sea level rise adaptation plan.
12.e
AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PROJECT ANALYSIS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY YARD PROJECT - 26-PW-025 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CITY YARD CEQA - 26-PW-025.pdf
2. Attachment 1. RFP 26-003 City Yard Project Environmental Assessment Services.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Roux Associates, Inc. Proposal.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Proposed Professional Services Agreement with Roux Associates Inc.pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.e.pdf
Ira Ellman
In January of this year, the City Council made the decision to spend $565K for “Owner’s Representative Services” over four years related to the City Yard. This was a poor decision without determining how Hermosa Beach would pay the required estimated $20mm remediation and construction costs. In that January meeting, the City Manager said that raising meter and citation rates would create a new revenue stream and “not our intention to program those in the next budget, but to have those set aside to extent possible to fund this.” I don’t believe that is the case, as these incremental revenue streams, along with creative accounting, are what is being used to balance the 2026-2027 Budget. Now, staff are proposing spending an additional $574K on City Yard “CEQA and environmental services”. With the current difficult financial situation the city faces, it continues to be increasingly obvious that no additional funds should be invested in the City Yard until funding the project is resolved. (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to award a Professional Services Agreement for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project analysis and other environmental services for the City Yard Project at a not-to-exceed amount of $498,800, authorize the City Manager to establish a project contingency of $75,000, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
12.f
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ENGINEER’S REPORT AND SETTING JUNE 23, 2026 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ANNUAL LEVY OF ASSESMENTS WITHIN THE HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT DURING FY 2026–2027 - 26-PW-032 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO APPROVE ENG. REPORT, SET HEARING FOR LIGHTING DIST. FY27 - 26-PW-032.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution 26-XXXX Approving the Engineer’s Report.pdf
3. Errata - Attachment 4 (Engineer's Report).pdf
4. Attachment 2. Draft Resolution 26-XXXX Declaring the City’s intention.pdf
5. Errata - Attachment No. 2 (Declaring the CIty's Intention).pdf
6. Attachment 3. Resolution 26-7541 Ordering the Director of Public Works to Prepare a Report.pdf
7. Attachment 4. Engineer's Report.pdf
8. Attachment 5. Draft Notice of Public Hearing.pdf
9. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.f.pdf
CEQA:
Determine that adopting resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15378, 15061(b)(3), 15301(h), and 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Public Works Director Joe Sanclemente)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to adopt Resolution No. RES-26-7550, approving the Engineer’s Report for the Hermosa Beach landscaping and street lighting district 2026-2027; and adopting Resolution No. RES-26-7551, declaring its intention to order certain improvements and to levy and collect assessments within the Hermosa Beach landscaping and street lighting district 2026-2027 for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2027; and setting a public hearing for June 23, 2026, in relation thereto.
12.g
LETTER OF OPPOSITION FOR ASSEMBLY BILL 1383: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT BENEFITS - 26-CMO-035 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - AB 1383 - 26-CMO-035.pdf
2. AB1383 Letter of Opposition.pdf
3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 12.g.pdf
(Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)
Recommended Action:
A motion was made by Councilmember Francois, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to direct staff to submit a letter of opposition to Assembly Bill 1383.
13. 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.
13.a
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 26-CMO-034
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 5-26-26 - 26-CMO-034.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Tentative Future Agenda.pdf
Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.
14. CITY MANAGER REPORT
Public Comments:
15. 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 will not be taken.
15.a
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. March 18, 2026.pdf
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
15.b
POLICE CRIME STATISTICS FOR APRIL 2026
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Monthly Crime Report Summary - April 2026.pdf
(Police Chief Landon Philips)
16. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments: