CITY COUNCIL - August 25, 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 July 28, 2026 Public Comments:
4.b
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Anticipated Litigation
Public Comments:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) Number of potential cases: One (1)
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. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:
10.a
RECOGNIZING FORMER PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONER THOR LEGVOLD FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE CITY Public Comments:
10.b
REMEMBERING GEORGE SCHMELTZER AND STEPHANIE CRANE
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 10.b.pdf
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Public Comments:
This is the time for the City Council to:
Notify the public of any changes to the agenda;
Remove items from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration; or Rearrange the order of the agenda.
Recommended Action:
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. ecomment report 8-25-26.pdf
tonyhiggins
Please click/Tap on the Local Collector Raod speeding problems if interested Claudia Berman
Dear City Manager and City Council,
Can the public get a status update on the following positions:
1. Deputy City Clerk: Is this position still open? I don’t see the job listed @ https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/hermosabeach. Has it been staffed? Or has the position been eliminated? I thought about it as we are a bit behind in council minutes. June 23, 2026 is still not published.
2. City Attorney: What is the status of hiring a permanent city attorney? It’s been over a year since our permanent city attorney resigned. Can this matter to be placed on the regular agenda for a public discussion on the process and timeframe? Or can the status be shared tonight? Thank you,
Claudia Berman, Resident
This is the time for members of the public to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken (City Manager Reports, City Councilmember Comments, Consent Calendar items not pulled for separate discussion, and Future Agenda Items). If public comment is provided on a Public Hearing or Municipal Matter item, public comment on the same item will not be accepted when the item is heard at a later part of the meeting.
The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker from those present in City Council Chambers and via the remote participation options listed on the agenda. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council.
No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager. Members of the public will have a future opportunity to speak on items pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, Public Hearings, and Municipal Matters when those items are heard.
13. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Public Comments:
14. 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.
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
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. June 23, 2026 Regular Meeting.pdf
2. July 28, 2026 Regular Meeting.pdf
(City Clerk Martha Alvarez)
Recommended Action:
APPROVE
15.b
CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-090
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CHECK REGISTERS 8-25-2026 - 26-AS-090.pdf
2. Attachment 1. 7-15-26.pdf
3. Attachment 2. 7-22-26.pdf
4. Attachment 3. 7-29-26.pdf
5. Attachment 4. 8-6-26.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Recommended Action:
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.c
CITY TREASURER’S REPORT - 26-AS-088
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - JUNE 2026 CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - 26-AS-088.pdf
2. Attachment 1. June 2026 Treasurer's Report.pdf
(City Treasurer Dave Pedersen)
Recommended Action:
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.d
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL ARBORIST CONSULTING SERVICES WITH GREG MINK ENTERPRISES, LLC DBA MINK TREE CONSULTING - 26-PW-052 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL ARBORIST CONSULTING SERVICES - 26-PW-052.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Third Amendment to the Agreement with Mink Tree Consulting.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Professional Services Agreement with Mink Tree Consulting.pdf
4. Attachment 4. Second Amendment to the Agreement with Mink Tree Consulting.pdf
5. Attachment 3. First Amendment to the Agreement with Mink Tree Consulting.pdf CEQA:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, City Council action on this item is not subject to environmental review under CEQA because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects 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.” (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:
APPROVE
AMENDMENT
15.e
RATIFY LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SENATE BILL 799 - SOUTH BAY REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST - 26-CMO-044 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - SB 799 RATIFY LETTER OF SUPPORT - 26-CMO-044.pdf
2. 2026-07-30 SB 799 Letter of Support.pdf
(Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)
Recommended Action:
R
ATIFY LETTER OF SUPPORT
15.f
RATIFY LETTER OF SUPPORT TO ENGAGE WITH TASK FORCE FOR MEASURE G - 26-CMO-045 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - MEASURE G - 26-CMO-045.pdf
2. 2026-08-04 Measure G Letter.pdf
(Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)
Recommended Action:
RATIFY LETTER OF SUPPORT
15.g
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPONSORSHIP DONATION TO GRADES OF GREEN VERTE 2026 GALA - 26-CMO-046 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPONSORSHIP DONATION TO GRADES OF GREEN VERTE 2026 GALA - 26-CMO-046.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Grades of Green Verte Sponsorship Deck 2026.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Grades of Green Verte 2026 Flyer.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Grades of Green 2026 Nonprofit of the Year Letter.pdf (City Manager Steve Napolitano)
Recommended Action:
APPROVE
15.h
APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AS PART OF A FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR A SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM - 26-PD-010 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF MOU WITH HBCSD - 26-PD-010.pdf
2. Attachment 1 - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Hermosa Beach City School District.pdf (Police Chief Landon Phillips)
Recommended Action:
APPROVE
15.i
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AS OF AUGUST 17, 2026 - 26-PW-055 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CIP STATUS REPORT AUGUST 2026 - 26-PW-055.pdf
2. Capital Improvement Program Status as of August 17, 2026.pdf
3. Estimated CIP Project Schedule FY 26-27 - Updated August 17, 2026.pdf (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Recommended Action:
RECEIVE AND FILE
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M
Public Comments:
16.a
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REGARDING PROGRAM AND MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS - 26-CMO-042 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - PROGRAM AND MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATES FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS - 26-CMO-042.pdf
2. Attachment 1 - Proposed STR Options Map.pdf
3. Attachment 2 - Draft Ordinance.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 16.a.pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 16.a.pdf
6. POST DEADLINE SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for 16.a.pdf Jim Holtz
In my prior written comment, I promised that I would submit a plan that I believe can work for everyone. This attachment fulfills that promise.
My perspective comes from firsthand experience as both an STR neighbor and operator.
From 2005 through 2010, I lived within approximately 100 yards of 16 STRs.
I began operating my own legal STR in 2010 and continued until Hermosa Beach’s residential STR ban took effect in 2016.
During the ten year STR ban, I strictly limited my rentals to a 30-night stays.
I restarted shorter stays as the result the March 26, 2026 court ruling, Across 16 years of operating STRs and 30-day rentals, I have hosted hundreds of stays without a single complaint.
Rather than complaining that an STR is next door, my neighbors recommend my property when their friends and relatives want to stay nearby.
The attachment proposes three required guest-preparation steps before or at the beginning of every permitted STR stay:
1. Clear rules in every platform listing and rental agreement, including no parties or events, occupancy limits, and advance approval for additional guests.
2. A property-specific guest guide covering house rules, noise, parking, trash, building requirements, safety equipment, emergency procedures, and local contact information.
3. A live check-in orientation conducted by the operator or a trained representative to confirm the guests and their plans, review the rules and safety information, identify possible warning signs, and address concerns before they become neighborhood problems.
These requirements could be adopted in addition to, or as replacements for, annual night caps and hosted-only requirements.
They are intended to prevent problems before they affect neighbors or require City enforcement.
They are inexpensive, practical, and based on 16 years of problem-free operating experience.
This is one of many ideas based on my practical experience that I will be submitting to the City over the coming weeks. tonyHiggins
Dear City Council,
Staff has had months to consider the appropriate City Wide or Coastal Zone SVTR density caps and consider proximity restrictions that are legal and would prevent any neighborhood from being overrun by clusters of STVRs.
Instead we are now being told the only option now is to recommend allowing unregulated STVRs in the coastal zone or citywide and wait a year and see what happens.
I think residents should ask if the failure to recommend density caps and proximity restrictions was an intentional act to curry favor with the pro-svtr crowd or simply an indication of a staff that totally unaware or unconcerned with rolling out SVTRs regulations that couild have mitigated the impact to our residential neighborhoods.
In an ideal workd residents shouldn't have to wait a 1.5 or 2.0 years more for regulations that consider the svtr data after one year and then take another 6 months to a year to implement SVTR policies unless the goal is simply for the city to maximize TOT revenue now and the hell with resident protections How about staff prioritizing resident centric protective regulations in no more than say 30 days? . .
Kent Allen
Ex CPAB members Claudia Berman and Sheryl Main clearly haven’t gotten over their beloved CPAB being so easily dismantled. It’s their second loss with their “Thrive” organization and facebook page being exposed and quickly shut down. These ladies are 0-2 but can’t seem to get the hint.
Unfortunately for Hermosa, they now have idle time on their hands. Can we please give them some plastic badges, laminated titles, and a few pointless meetings so they can feel important again? The rest of us need a break from the noise.
David S. Koslow
Please direct your City Council to review the pending cross-appeals in Cathedral City/Richard S. Levik, Appellate Division, Riverside Superior Court, Case No. APRI2400126, to ensure that the Hermosa Beach ordinances regulating STVR's, and all fines resolutions exceeding $1,000, will conform to the Appellate Division's decision, expected by December 2026.
Nancy Schwappach
I'm confused by some of the comments, particularly those suggesting we "table" this matter for further consideration. Perhaps I'm wrong but I believe the Koerner decision provides that we CANNOT enforce the STR ban in the Coastal Zone, effective as of the date of the decision. The requested action at this meeting is simply to modify the Code to conform to the court ruling and set up a regime to at least begin to collect TOT from the STRs. The only "options" as I see it are:
1. Allow Coastal only STRs (as required under the court decision) and wait and see a year before starting work on regulations.
2. Allow Coastal only STRs (as required in the court decision) on an interim basis and immediately begin work on regulations which would be subject to California Coastal Commission review.
3. Allow STRs through the City and begin to work on regulations as indicated in 2.
In my prior comment I suggested a hybrid of 2 and 3. Legalize in Coastal Zone now (as required), immediately start work on regulations, and then legalize across the City once regulations have been approved by CCC (perhaps with more restrictions outside the Coastal Zone). This follows the Court decision so we can immediately begin collecting TOT in the Coastal Zone, starts the LONG process of obtaining CCC approval while protecting long term housing stock outside the Coastal Zone, and then ultimately unites the City on this important issue rather than becoming another "us versus them" in our small town such as the manufactured schisms between full-time and part-time residents, residential parking permit holders and others, restricted parking neighbors with monetized street parking (meters) and those who are not, etc.
I understand this third issue will be controversial but we can have that discussion later. So for now I STRONGLY support option 2 in the staff report. th
Dear City Council,
Re: Devils Advocate
Hermosa Beach is undergoing a quiet but unstoppable transformation, and it is time for our City Council to stop pretending otherwise.
Our RESIDENTIAL coastal zones neighborhoods are being systematically reprogrammed for tourism.
The Council and staff are charting a course where STVRs, boutique motels and tourism dominate our residential coastal zone neighborhoods pushing families and renters out.
Most residents outside the coastal zone dont want SVTRs in their neighborhoods and that, unchecked, will naturally lead to higher concentrations inside coastal zone.
Instead of common sense measures that cautiously introduce STVRs to our coastal zone neighborhoods (e.g. City Wide Caps and Proximity Restrictions) staff recommendation allow unrestricted STVR growth in coastal zone that will entrench unregulated STVR making the implementation of future corrections difficult if not impossible to implement.
But instead of wasting time, energy, and taxpayer money fighting a losing battle against the reprogramming of our Coastal Zone neighborhoods,, maybe the City Council needs to be honest with its constituents and embrace STVRs citywide and inform residents of this reality so families can better plan for Hermosa's tourism-driven future.
Traci Horowitz
Dear Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tem and city councilmembers,
The issue of short term vacation rentals (STVR) is a discussion that should be taken with the utmost care and concern. It has the potential to change neighborhoods, affect personal income and impact our community for decades to come.
I believe bypassing the Planning Commission was a mistake and oversight. The commission is in place to offer their expertise, experience and opinions. It also gives the community valuable time and opportunity to listen and weigh in with their thoughts. Any opportunity for the community to get involved makes your decisions better and better informed.
I personally believe two things and I think they can live in tandem with each other. I tread very lightly when it comes to decisions regarding people’s personal property rights. However, any decision regarding STVRs, impacts more than just the homeowners. When the courts decided that they would be allowed in our coastal zone, it opened the door for homeowners to come out from the darkness and rent their homes legally. This should be the standard moving forward: legal, permitted, taxed STVRs. Expanding STVRs beyond the coastal zone should not happen at this time. Let’s put the program in place, regulate it appropriately, enforce it thoughtfully before any discussion of allowing it city wide.
To that end, how STVRs are regulated is of the utmost importance. Finding out this is on the agenda for tonight hardly gives us time to truly evaluate and consider what is right and best for homeowners, neighborhoods and the community. Seeing long term tenants evicted to make room for STVRs is wrong. Seeing residential blocks potentially full of short term rentals is wrong. There should be appropriate limits and without time to assess and communicate more thoroughly with tenants, property owners, neighbors and cities who have done this successfully, I think you are doing us all a disservice. I hope Tuesday’s council meeting is the beginning of the conversation but not a decision-making night.
Lastly, I hope any council members who potentially will profit and benefit from any changes to our STVR policies will think hard about recusing themselves from any vote. There are many things that happen in Hb that benefit us all but directly profiting from council’s decisions feels like it will be difficult to remain unbiased.
Thank you for your attention,
Traci Horowitz
David Grethen
Please continue to ban STVRs in residential areas outside the coastal zone. Just because we now appear to be forced by the state and courts to accept STVRs in the coastal zone does not mean we should voluntarily accept them citywide. We need to stick to the principles that drove us to our original position on STVRs. There are a lot of residents who do not want their quality of life unnecessarily disrupted by the imposition of STVRs, and housing advocates who do not want long-term rental housing displaced by STVRs. Some might argue that things have changed since the original STVR ban as the city's financial challenges have been increasingly highlighted, but selling out non-coastal-zone residents' quality of life is not worth the potential marginal revenue increase. I also do not buy any arguments that the City should be consistent for consistency's sake, or that it is too complicated to separately enforce allowed-STVR versus not-allowed-STVR regulations. Our residents are worth whatever administrative or enforcement efforts are needed to accommodate.
David Grethen - Hermosa Beach Resident
Todd Tullis
The Staff Report does not seem to explain the impact if HBMC Chapter 3.32 is NOT immediately amended as recommended. If lack of amending means the City is unable to collect TOT from STRs, then I'd favor amending as recommended. Overall the HBMC edits seem limited to adding a definition for Short-Term Rental (though also adding "Short-Term Rental" as a type of "Hotel" ?). Attached is a ChatGPT-generated red-lined version of the proposed changes to HBMC 3.32, in case this is helpful.
Beyond collection of TOT from STRs, the City should move fast (don't wait a year) to establish additional STR regulations, with the key priority being protection of housing stock for local renters & buyers.
Sheryl Main
As a 20 year resident living in the most active STVR zone I am respectfully requesting this item be continued rather than introduced tonight. While I am not against STVRs I know the impact they can have on our community. Staff has not done due diligence, the Planning Commission was not considered and there was no community engagement process. Additionally it is IMPERATIVE that Keegan and Saemann RECUSE themselves from this process as public records show they both own STVRs in Hermosa. If we are going to talk about transparency then let's be transparent.
Thank you.
Sheryl Main
Jim Holtz
Some commentors discuss STRs as if the whole city wants them banned.
That does not reflect Hermosa's history.
One example is Cammie Herbert's written comment: “…there are quite a few cities with STVR coastal zone programs that were approved by the coastal commission less than 6 months ago WITH very stringent caps. Let’s utilize their hard work!” I attended most Planning and City Council meetings when the residential STR ban was passed in 2016.
I saved the Planning Commission videos before they were taken down and recently rewatched them as well as the HBCC meeting discussions.
In the meetings I reviewed, there was no one-sided outcry to ban STRs; public comment was roughly 50/50, even though only a small fraction of Hermosa residents operated STRs.
Former Mayor Justin Massey, who voted for the ban, later recalled that more than 70 residents spoke and were evenly split for and against it.
A few facts:
The City's February 2016 staff report before the ban identified more than 200 STVR listings, with Airbnb alone showing about 210.
The residential ban took effect that June.
At the March 25, 2025 Council meeting, Councilmember Ray Jackson, now a Coastal Commissioner, referred to “300 plus” STRs; contemporaneous AirDNA data reported 320, with only 20 legally licensed.
Despite nearly nine years of a near-complete ban, the estimated number of STRs increased by roughly 50%.
If the goal was to eliminate STR impacts through a ban, the numbers show it failed.
Why the increase?
The City itself has acknowledged that it did not have, and does not have, the staffing necessary to effectively enforce a citywide STR ban.
The City knew this from the beginning; its 2016 staff report warned that ban enforcement would be “time-intensive.” Speakers here described legitimate problems with some STRs and frustration with enforcement, while the City's own 2016 staff report expressly said “The majority of STVRs do not draw complaints” and reported four resident complaints concerning neighborhood impacts during the preceding year.
The City issued numerous citations, but the goal of enforcement was not simply to issue citations.
It was to stop the illegal rentals.
Many cases were contested, some were lost or dismissed, and the number of STRs nevertheless increased.
I believe from experience that the strict STR regulations Ms. Herbert cites act as de facto bans.
You may hear that Home Sharing Only, meaning the host remains in the home with the renters, is a reasonable compromise.
It may work well for a single backpacker from Norway, but it is a very different proposition for a family traveling with children.
Most parents are not looking for a family vacation where their children sleep one wall away from an unrelated adult they met that afternoon.
I currently operate a legal STR in Hermosa's Coastal Zone; a 120-night annual cap, Home Sharing Only, or a multifamily restriction would each force me to stop.
So, if banning STRs is not the solution, what is?
I believe in a WIN WIN WIN WIN opportunity for everyone.
A WIN for STR neighbors by eliminating bad actors.
A WIN for families who want to stay together under one roof with a kitchen, laundry and shared living space, without an unrelated host sleeping under the same roof as their children.
I know of only one comparable hotel accommodation in the Hermosa Beach Coastal Zone with a kitchenette: the Sea Sprite beachfront bungalow, which frequently costs around $1,000 or more per night.
Hotel options for larger families are limited and can require costly suites or multiple rooms.
Most of my guests are YOUR families and YOUR friends who want to stay near YOU; most of the rest are families here for volleyball, surf and lifeguard camps.
A WIN for the City through TOT.
I strongly believe Hermosa likely forfeited $10-$15 million over the decade.
The City's latest staff report projects up to $1.025 million annually in new STR-related General Fund revenue.
I expect it to be closer to the $1.7 million Manhattan Beach reported after STRs became legal in its Coastal Zone.
A WIN for responsible hosts. In the 2016 meetings I reviewed, nearly every host who spoke said the extra income helped them stay afloat.
Airbnb, VRBO and their lawyers were not the people making the case for STRs.
These were your neighbors trying to remain in Hermosa and pay their bills.
As both a host and longtime neighbor to numerous STRs, I developed this plan from firsthand experience on both sides.
Over the years, I have hosted hundreds of STR and 30-day-or-longer stays without a single complaint.
For six years, I also lived amid a dense concentration of STRs: three in my six-unit condo, three in the triplex south, three behind me, STRs in the next two buildings, and at least seven or eight more within a block.
I will attach a plan here shortly that I believe will work for everyonw.
I believe you will find that we share many of the same goals.
Cammie Herbert
Before a decision should be brought to council….
A little more homework before this best little beautiful beach city becomes a rental wreck. Luckily there are quite a few cities with STVR coastal zone programs that were approved by the coastal commission less than 6 months ago WITH very stringent caps. Let’s utilize their hard work! Thank you for your hard work that begins now!
Vincent Busam
There are many good arguments both for and against allowing STRs in Hermosa Beach. What's most important is we pick one policy that works city-wide, and not change the regulations across arbitrary boundaries. It needs to be good enough for the whole city.
While we're here, we should allow STRs city-wide, unrestricted from July 8th 2028, through August 6 2028 (Olympics). That's too much money to pass up.
Nancy Schwappach
Please see the attached comments, also sent to City Council via email.
Claudia Berman
Dear City Council, City Attorney, City Manager:
RECUSAL REQUEST:
I am requesting that Councilmembers Keegan and Saemann recuse themselves from any discussion and vote to lift the ban on short-term vacation rentals in the Coastal Zone. Both have a financial interest in investment or rental property within the Coastal Zone as disclosed in their Form 700 filings (see combined file attached), which under Government Code section 87100 requires recusal from decisions affecting that interest.
Saemann shows several units with rental income from named renters. Keegan shows rental income but does not list renters who generate $10K+ in income; therefore, he is likely renting to people who are not long-term renters.
A vote that legalizes and regulates STVR use within the Coastal Zone has a reasonably foreseeable, material effect on the income potential and market value of Coastal Zone rental property, an effect distinguishable from its effect on Hermosa Beach residents generally, most of whom do not own income property in the zone directly governed by this ordinance.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & FURTHER STRENGTHENING OF REGULATIONS REQUEST:
For a decision that potentially reopens the entire Coastal Zone, roughly 5,400 residential units, to short-term rentals with essentially no operational limits, I find the staff report and draft ordinance to be lacking. There are many areas that could be strengthened: occupancy allowed, annual night limits, density / clustering, registration model, enforcement trigger, local contact requirement, tenant displacement, parking / guest limits, facilitator (platform) reporting, coastal commission process, and interim reporting.
I'm asking the Council to continue this item rather than introduce the ordinance tonight, and to direct staff to return with a defined community engagement process, including, at minimum:
• Referral to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation, consistent with state law; • A more complete analysis of what other coastal cities are doing with respect to quality-of-life regulations, enforcement, and coastal commission process; • Dedicated community meetings or workshops in the affected neighborhoods, not just a single Council hearing; • A published timeline and written notice to residents, comparable to what other coastal cities have done when reconsidering their own STVR rules.
We also need to understand how these changes will affect our housing element.
As always, thank you for listening,
Claudia Berman, Resident
CEQA:
Determine that the approval is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or in the alternative, that the approval is exempt under CEQA. (Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker and Senior Management Analyst Ken Bales) Recommended Action:
A) C
ONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
B) PROVIDE DIRECTION
C) INTRODUCE
ORDINANCE BY TITLE
D) DETERMINE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA
16.b
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 3.12 AND CHAPTER 3.14 OF THE HBMC RELATING TO PURCHASING INCREASING CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY, UPDATING PROCUREMENT THRESHOLDS, EMERGENCY PURCHASING AND CLARIFYING REFERENCES TO CA PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE. - 26-AS-060 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ADOPT ORDINANCE-AMENDING SECTION 3.12 and 3.14 PURCHASING - 26-AS-060.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance.pdf
3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 16.b.pdf
Laura Pena
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff -
I remember Council increasing the City Manager’s contract authority in 2023 so the history on these matters should be clarified. The public should be able to clearly see what authority existed in 2015, what changed in 2023, and what is being delegated now.
I am recommending three specific changes to the ordinance.
1. Separate the State bidding threshold from the City Manager’s contract award authority.
Section 3 changes the code reference from subsection (a) to subsection (b). It technically moves authority from approximately $75,000 to the $220,000 bidding threshold.
It’s understandable why we should use the State authorized bidding procedures up to that limit, but that does not automatically mean the City Manager should independently award contracts up to the same amount.
Council should establish a City Manager award limit and keep it separate from whatever threshold Sacramento changes in the future. Otherwise, State increases could effectively expand local spending authority without another Council discussion. I’m confident this was the not the intention of this update but we elect City Council members not the City Manager.
2. Add cumulative contract value and anti-splitting protections.
The proposed $50,000 authority should mean $50,000 in total, not simply the original contract amount.
The ordinance should make clear that approval thresholds include amendments, extensions, renewals, etc for the same project or vendor. For example, a $48,000 agreement followed by a $20,000 amendment should not become a $68,000 City Manager contract that Council never sees. It is a basic safeguard and becomes even more important as purchasing authority increases.
3. Tighten the emergency purchasing reporting requirement.
I completely agree that the City Manager needs immediate authority during a real emergency. No one should be waiting for a Council meeting when public health or safety is at risk. But allowing emergency expenditures to go 60 days before being reported to Council and potentially longer if reporting is considered impracticable is too broad.
Significant emergency purchases should be reported at the next regular Council meeting whenever practicable, with the ordinance specifically requiring compliance with the faster timelines contained in State law. Transparency after an emergency should be prompt, not months later.
I also recommend a simple quarterly procurement report listing City Manager approved contracts, amendments, vendors, amounts, procurement methods and cumulative contract values. If Council gives up some advance approvals in the interest of efficiency, the public should gain better after the fact visibility.
These safeguards are particularly important right now. The City entered this budget cycle with a $3.2 million structural deficit, deferred $2 million in equipment replacement funding, and paused $1 million in reserves all while facing rising contract costs and asking voters to consider a new sales tax. When every dollar matters, increasing purchasing authority should come with stronger not weaker controls showing that contracts are competitive, cumulative costs are visible and Council knows where the money is going.
I continue to have concerns about expanding City Manager discretion over the Consent Calendar as well. Not every Consent item receives the same scrutiny, particularly when agendas are extremely long. Council Members can pull an item, the public cannot. I have asked for items to be pulled only to see them finally discussed near midnight. Technically that is public discussion, but practically it disregards the time residents put into reading reports and preparing thoughtful comments.
With this being only our second Council meeting in roughly two months, packed agendas make it even less realistic to expect every Council Member to thoroughly digest every item buried in Consent.
I agree that simple, routine, and noncontroversial matters belong on Consent, but matters involving significant fiscal commitments, policy changes, major amendments or demonstrated public interest deserve separate consideration.
I support streamlining government. But streamlining should never mean weakening oversight. The goal should be faster procurement, stronger competition, clear spending limits and better transparency. If Council is going to delegate more authority, it should strengthen the guardrails at the same time.
As always, I appreciate your consideration.
Laura Peña
(Finance Manager Henry Chao)
Recommended Action:
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE BY TITLE
17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
17.a
APPROVAL OF NEW IMPACT LEVEL III 2026 SPECIAL EVENT – AAU HERMOSA BEACH HOLIDAY CHAMPIONSHIPS - 26-PR-057 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT- APPROVAL OF IMPACT LEVEL III NEW 2026 SPECIAL EVENT AAU - 26-PR-057.pdf
2. Attachment 1. AAU Hermosa Beach Holiday Championships 2026 Event Overview .pdf
3. Attachment 2. 2026 Special Events Calendar.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.a.pdf
Todd Tullis
Regarding the volleyball courts North of Pier, there is a balance to be maintained between event use and public access. The public already forfeits July for the 3 big youth tournaments. Is November the next month to be taken over? Addition of this event means that on 7 of 9 weekend days in November, the volleyball courts NOP will be unavailable for public use. th
Dear City Council,
Dear CM Napolitano
Re: 8/25/26 AGENDA ITEM 17.a-APPROVAL OF NEW IMPACT LEVEL III 2026 SPECIAL EVENT – AAU HERMOSA BEACH HOLIDAY CHAMPIONSHIPS - 26-PR-057 I fully support this event but what i don't support is the total lack if transparency and fiscal discipline of s staff report that trumps up the $4.000 in revenue without saying a word about unrecovered indirect expenses (aka taxpayer subsidies) to date or likely future subsidies.
There is a place for these subsidies for qualifying events.
But those subsidies should be transparent and fully disclosed and approved by the council much earlier in the process.
The council has rightfully adopted a mantra of full cost recovery and Community Development & Public Works has made significant strides over the past year.
But if an event is going to generate $4,000 in revenue and cost twice that i in indirect expenses and overhead then these subsidies either need to be fully recovered or the council needs explicitly authorize them.
Thank You,
tonyhiggins.
(Lead Special Events and Filming Coordinator Kalyn Kaemerle) Recommended Action:
APPROVE
17.b
REVIEW OF HERMOSA BEACH LAWN BOWLING CLUB OPERATIONS - 26-PR-058 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - REVIEW OF HERMOSA BEACH LAWN BOWLING CLUB OPERATIONS - 26-PR-058.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Hermosa Beach Lawn Bowling Club License Agreement.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Lawn Bowling Club Deed.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.b.pdf
(Recreation Supervisor Kambria Vint)
Recommended Action:
RECEIVE
AND FILE
17.c
AWARD OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR REVENUE MEASURE INFORMATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES - 26-AS-089 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT-PSA FOR REVENUE MEASURE INFORMATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES - 26-AS-089.pdf
2. Attachment 1. TeamCivX Proposal.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Communicaitons Lab_Hermosa Beach Proposal 2026.pdf
4. Attachment 3. TCX - PSA .pdf
5. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.c.pdf
tonyhiggins
Dear City Council,
Re: Sales Tax Media Consultant Ecomment.
i am writing to offer my support for the sales tax measure providing the city under its new city manager & Council Majority Block (Saemann, Keegan & Francois) doesnt make the same mistake as the Massey-Jackson led councils did in 2022 and 2024 that used a marketing consultant to spin and mislead the public about the actual PROs & CONs of the sales tax measure.
Think back to 2024 and the way misleading sales tax promotional spin was substituted for educational material:
i am also writing regarding the Sept 24, 2024 City Council Meeting discussions on the so-called "educational" sales tax fact-sheet mailed to every Hermosa Beach household AND the so-called "educational" videos that have been played over & over on the city's local cable broadcast channels.
What is abundantly clear is both are in EVERY sense promotional in nature; except in a very obscure legal sense defined in Government Code (GC) 54964.
The essence of GC 54964 is that as long as the city does NOT say the magic-words "vote for the sales tax", the city is allowed to gaslight the public and claim ANYTHING they produce, no matter how one sided, no matter how many pertinent facts are omitted are educational materials.
That flies in the face of commin sense.
Here are just a few of key points that were not to included in the so called educational mailer.
The citywide mailer implied the sales tax would pay for certain things without saying the mailer's implied commitments were in fact non-binding.
The citywide mailer highlighted what was excluded from the sales tax without making an equally clear statement about what would be included; things like cars, boats, RVs or golf carts purchased anywhere but registered to a Hermosa address, all online purchases delivered to a Hermosa Beach address or any out-of town in-store purchases like for a washer & drier that are delivered to a Hermosa Beach address.
The mailer excluded data on the percent of the sales tax would be paid by visitors versus residents. All it said was visitors would pay their fair share.
The mailer didnt disclose that the city had NOT done a visitor/resident sales tax cost disribution analysis. The last sales tax cost distribution analysis was done prior to the 2022 ballot The mailer did not disclose average local sales tax cost per household per year even though this information was readily available. Note: The math i see is simple. $7,000,000 in local sales tax revenue per year X 55% (resident share) / ~9,000 hermosa households = ~$427 per year per household in local sales taxes. This simple fact was omitted from the mailer. You can easily extract the additional or incremental per household sales tax costs from this.
The mailer does not mention that this sales tax was rejected by Hermosa Beach residents in 2022 The mailer did not mention that the city hired a PR firm to develop a pro-sales tax campaign to spin the sales tax in a positive light at a cost of $60,000 and probably at least twice that much in unaccounted staff time.
Then there is the matter of how much money the city gets back from the state. The city claimed it only got 1% back in its 2024 sales tax promotional mailers.
Hear again some the councils 2024 swere also misleading:
Dear Councilman Detoy
i thought your sales tax answer in the leadership hermosa debate was disingenuous at best and here is why.
You said the city only gets 1% of the total 9.5% state, county and local sales tax.
Thats a pants-on-fire mischaracterization of the facts AND i know you know it because i provided you the data below..
The city gets $5 million back from the state hotel tax that is for all intents and purposes a sales tax reimbursement.
You didnt mention that.
You simply said we only get 1% back.
Then there is the nearly $2.5 million dollars in sales tax reimbursements we get back from the state and county for transportation projects but you didnt mention that either.
You just mentioned the 1%.
We actually get the following sales tax reimbursements from the state and county sales taxes but you failed to mention any of these specifics. 2023 City Annual Roads &Transportation Reimbursement:
$820,000 - Proposition A Fund Reimbursement
$418,000 - Proposition C Fund Reimbursement
$750,000 - Measure R Fund Reimbursement
$353,000 - Measure M Fund Reimbursement
Total: $11,141,000 in reimbursed sales taxes not 1% or $3.8 million as you stated.
You just hung your hat on a 1% reimbursement as if that was all city gets AND that was very misleading. im sorry but i believe your leadership hermosa sales tax debate response just didnt pass the sniff test.
Thank you for considering,
tonyhiggins
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Continued from the July 28, 2026 City Council Meeting
Recommended Action:
APPROVE
17.d
DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE & ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2026 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND VOTING DIRECTION ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION - 26-CMO-047 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - VOTING DELEGATE AND RESOLUTION CONSIDERATION FOR CAL CITIES 2026 ANNUAL CONFERENCE - 26-CMO-047.pdf
2. Attachment 1. 2026 Cal Cities Voting Delegate Information Packet.pdf
3. Attachment 2. 2026 Cal Cities Resolution Packet.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.d.pdf
(City Manager Steve Napolitano)
Recommended Action:
A) DESIGNATE VOTING DELEGATE & ALTERNATE
B) PROVIDE VOTING DIRECTION ON RESOLUTION
17.e
INFORMATIONAL ITEM REGARDING A 12 TO 18-MONTH HIRING FREEZE- 26-AS-087 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT-HIRING FREEZE - 26-AS-087.pdf
2. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.e.pdf
Ira Ellman
Initiating a hiring freeze is a poor way to cut city expenses. Yes, Hermosa Beach has a financial crisis. Yes, expenses need to be cut. However, reductions of city employee positions on a random basis based on resignations, terminations or retirement is poor strategic management. I favored a 5%-10% cut during the last budget cycle that could have been used to immediately help current and future budget shortfalls, eliminate the weakest performers (every organization has some) and plan for the reduction in an orderly fashion. When faced with the challenge to address how each department would deal with a cut during the budget cycle, Hermosa department managers told us what services would be lost rather than how they would make it work. I hope city management acts strategically, not based on random employee departures. tonyhiggins
Every councilman, especially the candidates up for reelection on Nov 3, 2026 (Saemann, Francois, Jackson) should take a clear unambiguous position on a 12-18 month hiring freeze.
Any council candidate that doesn't is probably not worthy of your vote. 2 cents,
tonyhiggins
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Information items are for discussion only. No action will be taken. A City Council majority may request an action item to return at a future meeting.
Recommended Action:
RECEIVE AND FILE
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-049
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 8-25-26 - 26-CMO-049.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 will not be taken.
20.a
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE AND AMBULANCE MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY TO JUNE 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. LACoFD and McCormick Data - January 2026.pdf
2. LACoFD and McCormick Data - February 2026.pdf
3. LACoFD and McCormick Data - March 2026.pdf
4. LACoFD and McCormick Data - April 2026.pdf
5. LACoFD and McCormick Data - May 2026.pdf
6. LACoFD and McCormick Data - June 2026.pdf
(Emergency Management Coordinator Maurice Wright)
20.b
POLICE CRIME STATISTICS FOR JUNE 2026
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Monthly Crime Report Summary - June 2026.pdf
(Police Chief Landon Phillips)
20.c
PARKING CITATION AND METERED REVENUE REPORT - JULY 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Parking Citation and Revenue Report - July 2026.pdf
(Senior Management Analyst Ken Bales)
20.d
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 7, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 7, 2026.pdf (Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
20.e
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 2026 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Planning Commission Action Minutes Special Meeting of August 4, 2026.pdf
2. Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of July 21, 2026.pdf (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
21. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments: