CITY COUNCIL - September 08, 2026
1. CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:30 PM
Public Comments:
2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Public Comments
Matt McCool
George Brunn v. City of Hermosa Beach — This case continues to show a pattern and practice of retaliation within the police department by LeBaron and Phillips. George Brunn alleges retaliation against him for exercising his rights as a Police Officers Association board member by pursuing discipline over an April 2021 use-of-force incident that the Los Angeles County District Attorney reportedly found objectively reasonable. He contends the City waited 719 days to propose discipline far beyond the alleged statutory and departmental deadlines and withheld witness interviews and other potentially exculpatory evidence needed for his defense. Brunn’s position was strengthened at an early stage when the court issued a temporary restraining order preventing disciplinary action and later ordered it to remain in effect pending further proceedings.
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 August 25, 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:
George Brunn v. City of Hermosa Beach
Case Number:
23TRCV02212
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 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE FOR 100 YEARS OF SERVICE Public Comments:
10.b
RECOGNIZING ENNIS JACKSON ON HIS RETIREMENT AND SERVICE TO THE CITY Public Comments:
10.c
RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HERMOSA BEACH 9/11 MEMORIAL Public Comments:
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.
TO APPROVE AGENDA AND WAIVE FULL READING
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 12.pdf
2. ecomment report 9-8-26.pdf
th
Retroactively implementing density caps or proximity buffer restrictions after short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) have already clustered is significantly harder both legally and practically.
1. Retroactive Density Caps and Proximity Restrictions
When a city introduces density caps (e.g., maximum percentage of units per block) or separation buffers (e.g., 200–500 feet between rentals) after units have already proliferated, it faces severe implementation hurdles:
Grandfathering and Vested Rights: Operators who registered legally and secured permits can claim non-conforming use protections or argue they have vested property and economic expectations.
Revoking or denying renewal to one property while allowing its neighbor to operate often sparks equal protection and procedural due process challenges.
Selection Mechanics:
If two existing STVRs sit next to each other within a newly declared buffer, the city must decide which one shuts down. Using a lottery, seniority system, or performance ranking invites administrative appeals and lawsuits from excluded owners.
Amortization Schemes:
To phase out clustered rentals without immediate takings liability, cities often must implement multi-year amortization periods. This leaves residents dealing with the existing density for several years before restrictions take full effect.
2. Common-Sense Regulations to Mitigate STVR ImpactsMunicipalities across California frequently use several operational and structural rules to curb community friction:
Primary Residency & Hosted Stay Mandates:
Requiring the owner to live on-site as their primary residence (or rent only when hosting) prevents commercial investors from buying entire neighborhoods.
Annual Rental Night Caps:
Limiting unhosted stays (e.g., maximum 60 to 90 days per calendar year) maintains primary residential use and protects long-term rental stock.
Good Neighbor & Operational Standards:
Mandatory 24/7 local emergency contacts required to respond in-person within 30 to 45 minutes of a complaint.Quiet hours (typically 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM) and strict exterior noise limits.Dedicated off-street parking minimums and maximum occupancy limits (e.g., two people per bedroom plus two).Prohibition of outdoor amplified sound or large commercial gatherings. "Three-Strikes" Permit Revocation: Strict graduated enforcement where multiple substantiated noise, parking, or trash violations result in mandatory permit suspension or permanent revocation.
Exclusion of Protected Housing: Outright bans on STVRs in Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), rent-stabilized properties, and deed-restricted affordable units.Platform Accountability: Requiring booking platforms to display valid municipal registration numbers on all listings and automatically remit transient occupancy taxes (TOT).
3. Legal Challenges: STVR Owners vs. the California Coastal CommissionDelaying regulations fundamentally changes the legal exposure, creating distinct risks with both groups:
Legal Exposure to STVR Owners:Delaying makes enforcement against owners much harder.
If a city allows an unregulated or loosely regulated market to expand, operators become entrenched, invest capital, and organize economically. When the city subsequently imposes harsh caps, owners are more likely to fund litigation alleging regulatory takings, improper amortization, and discriminatory enforcement.Legal Exposure to the Coastal Commission:In the Coastal Zone, any local ordinance altering the density or intensity of coastal access qualifies as "development" under the California Coastal Act and requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment.
As demonstrated in cases like Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach's own court rulings, the California Coastal Commission prioritizes lower-cost visitor accommodations and public coastal access.Delaying does not necessarily increase a challenge from the Commission—the Commission typically challenges or vetoes ordinances that create outright bans or overly restrictive caps that choke visitor access. However, delaying the submittal of a comprehensive, balanced regulatory framework to the Commission leaves the city operating in a legal vacuum where its local rules remain vulnerable to court challenges by operators until formal Coastal Commission certification is obtained.
I believe that some of the councilmen that supported delaying common sense SVTR regulation did so to lock in a more unregulated SVTR environment either for the personal gain of certain special interests or to maximize city coffers at the expense of coastal zone residents Avin Das
Short-term rentals are a cancer on communities like Hermosa Beach.
They take something that was built to be a home and turn it into a hotel room. They replace neighbors with customers.
But I also understand reality. The genie is out of the bottle. STRs are here. We aren’t going to wish them away. The question is whether Hermosa is going to regulate them aggressively enough to protect the people who actually live here. And waiting six months to do that is unacceptable.
Six months is an eternity if you’re a renter wondering whether you’re going to lose your home. Every month without meaningful regulation creates an opportunity for another long-term rental to become a short-term rental. Another landlord can look at the numbers and decide that tourists paying by the night are more profitable than a family paying by the month.
That’s why we should be operating with urgency. Housing policy determines who gets to remain part of this community.
A six-month regulatory vacuum doesn’t preserve the status quo. It creates a six-month incentive to rush properties into the STR market before stronger rules arrive.
So regulate them now. Require registration. Require licenses. Establish meaningful caps. Prevent excessive concentration. Protect existing long-term tenants. Create serious penalties for violations. Give the city the enforcement tools and staffing necessary to make the rules mean something paid for by STR taxes. Then spend six months studying how to make those regulations better. But don’t spend six months doing nothing while the market permanently changes underneath us. th
Please tap/click on the above pdf if interested in saving Valley Park's Open-Play green field.
Thank You
th
Dear City Council,
I am writing to seek clarification regarding future of the open-play on the green field at Valley Park The Hermosa Beach Recreation Department’ has proposed anew open-play green field use policy that will be coming before you in a future meeting First, related to the ongoing negotiations with AYSO,discussed during the last Recreation Commission meeting, I have a direct question:
Is AYSO requesting, or is the city considering, the utilization of Valley Park’s open-play green field for organized AYSO soccer activities moving forward? Second, the green-field policy proposed by Rec Department staff introduces a severe risk to the preservation of our community’s open-play spaces.
By establishing a flat, first-come, first-served booking system with absolutely no limitations on the number of reservations allowed, this policy strips Hermosa Beach residents of their historic priority.
It effectively places local families and casual resident use on equal footing with regional rugby clubs, softball leagues, out-of-town commercial organizations, and large sports entities from across the South Bay.
This vulnerability was made clear during the meeting exchange between Commissioner Worner and and Recreation Department Management:
Commissioner Worner:
"Do [or will] Hermosa Beach residents get priority over the commercial groups or non-resident [not-for-profit] groups when making [green field] reservations?" Brian Sousa:
So the inclusion of a resident rate would allow residents to get access to reserve the field.
Currently, the policy is not proposed to include a priority, period. So it would be first come, first serve booking." Well-funded outside organizations and commercial entities have the administrative capacity to monopolize the calendar the moment bookings open.
Left unchecked, this proposal will systematically reduce or phase out organic, unstructured open play—a core purpose of a community green space—and outsource our "crown jewel" park to high-volume athletic groups bookings.
Could you please explain how a policy that actively diminishes open open-play, permits unlimited bookings, and exposes our limited open-play space to regional monopolization serves the public interest of Hermosa Beach residents? Why would staff even propose this?
Thank you for your time and your direct response to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Tony Higgins
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.
To approve the consent calendar.
15.a
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. August 25, 2026.pdf
(City Clerk Martha Alvarez)
APPROVE
15.b
CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-093
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CHECK REGISTERS 9-8-2026 - 26-AS-093.pdf
2. Attachment 1. 8-12-26.pdf
3. Attachment 2. 8-19-26.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.c
APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SAGECREST PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, FOR ON-CALL STAFF AUGMENTATION SERVICES - 26-CDD-079 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SAGECREST PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL - 26-CDD-079.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Proposed First Amendment with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Professional Services Agreement with Sagecrest Planning and Environmental.pdf (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
A) APPROVE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
B) AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST
15.d
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FINAL PARCEL MAP - 26-CDD-026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT- FINAL MAP 2040 HILLCREST DR - 26-CDD-026.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Final Map No. 84534.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Urban Lot Split Director's Findings.pdf
5. Attachment 4. Los Angeles County Engineer Review.pdf CEQA:
Ministerially Exempt
SUBJECT:
FINAL MAP NO. 84534 (Urban Lot Split 24-03)
LOCATION:
2040 Hillcrest Dr
APPLICANT:
Ahmed Alkazaweeny and Moustapha Abidali
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
A) ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
B) MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA
15.e
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROGRAM AND MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATES - 26-AS-095 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT-ADOPT ORDINANCE-AMENDING STR - 26-AS-095.pdf
2. Attachment 1 - Draft Ordinance.pdf
3. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 15.e.pdf
4. POST DEADLINE SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment For Item 15.e.pdf David Grethen
I don't think a prospective STVR property owner outside the coastal zone would decide to convert to an STVR because they want STVRs to be distributed citywide. They would do it because they can. David Grethen - Resident Scott Hayes
I request that Item 15e be removed from the Consent Calendar and be reconsidered by Council.
While I am opposed to Short Term Rentals, I realize, based on the recent court decision, that we can no longer ban them in Hermosa Beach. I agree that we should immediately begin the process of requiring registration, business license, TOT tax, etc. on STRs. Where I disagree with Council’s decision is that I believe that we should start talking about the regulations that are needed on STRs immediately and not 6 months from now when we have “additional data”.
We do not need additional data to determine what the cap on the number of STRs should be. We do not need additional data to determine what the maximum density of STRs should be. We do not need additional data to know that we want to restrict property owners from evicting tenants to convert units to short term rentals. We should go through all of these issues now so we can submit to the Coastal Commission as soon as possible.
I believe that Council should direct staff to start the community input process immediately. There should be a study session and this issue should be brought before the Planning Commission. The study session could happen as early as later this month and the issue could then be discussed at the October Planning Commission meeting. While this schedule may be aggressive, it would put our proposal in front of the Coastal Commission months before the proposed 6 month wait. Staff can collect data in parallel to this process but the process should start as soon as possible.
Additionally, I think that any STR permits issued to property owner between now and when we get approval from the Coastal Commission should be framed as a temporary, revocable privilege rather than a vested land-use right. Just because they are issued a permit now does not guarantee that they will qualify for a permit once the final plan is approved by the Coastal Commission. The only properties that could be promised permits once the final plan is approved are the ones that had permitted STRs under the previous ordinance.
Please do not wait on this issue. We all realize that it will be the Wild West in the STR market for a period of time but we should do everything in our power to keep that period to a minimum and get our final plan submitted to the Coastal Commission as soon as possible.
Scott Hayes
Hermosa Beach Resident
Claudia Berman
I'm 100% against moving forward with this ordinance as written. Regardless of whether this is adopted or not, I have attached data collection recommendations that are needed for any STR program. tonyhiggins
Dear City Council,
i hope you consider the implications of Mr. Holtz's ecomment below and ask yourself if STVRs that have operated illegally and without permits should be grandfathered in and not subject to future density caps or proximity restrictions designed to protect the quality of life in coastal zone residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Holtz's seeming expectation of density and proximity carvouts for STVRs owners who ignored the existing regulations is exactly why statt needs to get to work immediately on density caps and proximity safeguards and not wait 6 months.
Rewarding SVTR owners who knowingly broke the rules will only entrench the deliterious impacts.
And given the fiscal crisis we are facing where does the city stand on collecting past STVR TOT taxes? That seems to have fallen off the radar.
Jim Holtz
I completely agree with Mr. Higgins assessment that caps on the total number of STRs and neighborhood density limits raise a difficult question: which existing STRs would be allowed to continue operating? But that issue already exists.
AirDNA estimates reported during the ban indicate that Hermosa’s STR market did not disappear after 2016.
Some owners, including me, stopped short-term renting during the ban and have since restarted. We are already dealing with established operators, not an entirely new market.
How would Hermosa Beach impose a cap on the total number of STRs or a neighborhood density limit? How would it choose the winners and losers?
By my estimate, even a 100-foot separation requirement could exclude at least nine neighboring STRs if my unit were selected and the requirement applied to existing operators without an exemption.
Based on my observations, all nine continued short-term renting while the ban was on the books.
If those operators were excluded by a density limit or a home-sharing-only requirement, what makes us confident they would stop? If a night cap made compliant operation financially unworkable, how would the City prevent operators from returning to operating outside the system? The City Staff had said numerous times that it doesn't not have the code enforcement staff to handle such regulations.
These are questions the City already faces. They will not suddenly arise because the Council chose to collect information for six months.
Based on what I have observed in Manhattan Beach since its Coastal Zone STR ban was ruled unenforceable more than four years ago, I have not seen evidence of the enormous rush to buy homes for STRs that Councilmember Jackson’s warnings suggest.
Manhattan Beach has allowed coastal STRs to operate under business licensing, tax requirements, but no additional STR specific regulations.
Its experience provides a nearby comparison against which to evaluate predictions about what might happen here.
I would also expect Hermosa’s uncertain regulatory future for STRs to discourage at least some purchases made specifically for STR income.
Buyers cannot confidently assume that today’s operating conditions will remain unchanged.
The Council has already scheduled a six-month review, and the question of additional restrictions remains unresolved.
Even one of Councilmember Jackson’s hypothetical SpaceX tech bros would have to consider that risk.
Buying an expensive Hermosa Beach home in the Coastal Zone specifically to convert it into an STR could become a very poor investment if subsequent restrictions made that rental business financially unworkable.
Mr. Higgins is right to ask how future rules would treat existing operators.
His concern reinforces the need to examine the rentals and neighborhood conditions that already exist, along with the practical consequences of any proposed restrictions.
Was the purpose of the previous ban to make STRs cease to exist? If so, it did not achieve that result. The market continued.
I believe that the regulations we should examine, not listed with the Staff Recommendations last month, should be designed have STR guests behave and eliminate STR host bad actors.
We should learn from that experience.
A regulation’s success should be measured by whether it achieves its intended purpose, whether operators comply with it, and whether the City can enforce it.
The Council’s six-month review gives us an opportunity to develop regulations that address actual neighborhood impacts and hold irresponsible operators accountable.
I have practical proposals for doing that.
Jim Holtz
tonyhiggins
Dear Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council:
There is an uncomfortable reality that needs to be confronted before the City moves any further down the road of expanding Short-Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs):
If the City wants to generate approximately $2 million annually from STVRs while imposing a 2% density cap, it cannot accomplish that goal by concentrating STVRs primarily in the Coastal Zone. It would require about 5% of coastal zone living units be converted to SVTR Doing so would effectively indenture the City’s coastal residents and families to bear the brunt of City’s STVR revenue strategy.
That is neither equitable nor necessary.
The City Should Not Make Coastal Residents Alone Bear the STVR Burden Hermosa Beach is a small city. The Coastal Zone is an especially concentrated residential environment where homes, families, streets, parking, and neighborhood activity already coexist with the enormous visitor pressures generated by the beach, Pier, restaurants, hotels and other visitor-serving businesses. In addition, Special Event impacts routinely spill over into Coastal Zone residential neighborhoods If the City establishes a reasonable 2% citywide STVR density ceiling but then restricts STVRs primarily to the Coastal Zone, its mathematically impossible without allowinf SVTR throughout the city Coastal residents absorb the noise, parking impacts, trash, turnover, loss of neighborhood stability and potential housing displacement—while inland residents are largely insulated from those impacts.
And yet the entire city receives the revenue.
If STVR revenue is truly a citywide fiscal objective, then the impacts associated with generating that revenue should not be concentrated on one portion of the city.
The fair solution is straightforward:
If the City wants the revenue, it should distribute both the opportunity and the responsibility citywide, subject to reasonable density and operational controls.
Opening STVR eligibility citywide—while maintaining a strict 2% density cap—would allow the City to reach its revenue objective without forcing the Coastal Zone to absorb a disproportionate concentration of vacation rentals.
That is not an argument for unlimited STVRs.
It is an argument for fairness.
Second point, 800-Pound Gorilla in the STVR Room
There is an even more important issue that the City should address now rather than later:
Once STVRs become concentrated in particular neighborhoods, retroactively imposing density caps or proximity restrictions becomes substantially more difficult—both practically and legally.
This is the 800-pound gorilla in the room.
Suppose the City allows STVRs to proliferate and several rentals become clustered on the same block.
Then, years later, the City decides that STVRs should be separated by 200, 300 or 500 feet.
What happens?
Two existing, legally operating STVRs may suddenly be located inside the newly prohibited separation distance.
Which one gets to stay?
If the City chooses the first property to register, the second owner will understandably object.
If the City chooses the property with the longest operating history, another owner will object.
If the City conducts a lottery, an owner who loses may challenge the process.
If the City uses enforcement history, the methodology becomes another potential source of dispute.
And if the City simply refuses to renew an otherwise legally operating STVR, the affected owner may raise claims involving vested interests, nonconforming uses, due process, equal protection or regulatory takings.
The City could attempt to solve the problem through amortization—allowing existing STVRs to continue operating for several years before being phased out.
But that creates another obvious problem:
Residents continue living with the very concentration the new regulation was supposed to eliminate.
In other words, waiting until STVRs are clustered before establishing meaningful density and separation rules is potentially the worst of both worlds.
The City either has to tolerate the concentration for years, or face a far more complicated regulatory and legal process to undo it.
Prevention Is Far Easier Than Retroactive Correction
This is precisely why the City should immediately begin establish its rules before the market becomes entrenched. It should not wait 6 months, a year or possibly longer to begin working on common sense SVTR rules including:
Density limits.
Proximity limits.
Primary-residence requirements.
Night limits.
Parking standards.
Occupancy limits.
Noise restrictions.
Enforcement mechanisms.
Protected-housing exclusions.
Platform accountability.
These rules are dramatically easier to establish prospectively than to impose after property owners have made investments and built businesses around an established regulatory regime.
Thank You for Considering
tonyhiggins
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker and Senior Management Analyst Ken Bales)
SECOND READING AND
ADOPT ORDINANCE
NO. 26-1502
15.f
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PURCHASING CHAPTER 3.12 AND 3.14 OF THE HBMC INCREASING CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY, UPDATING PROCUREMENT THRESHOLDS, EMERGENCY PURCHASING AND CLARIFYING REFERENCES TO CA PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE; AND EXEMPT FROM CEQA - 26-AS-094 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3.12 AND 3.14 PURCHASING POLICES AND PROCEDURES- 26-AS-094.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance No. 26-1503.pdf
(Finance Manager Henry Chao)
SECOND READING AND
ADOPT
O
RDINANCE
NO. 26-1503
15.g
UPCOMING VACANCY—REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WEST VECTOR AND VECTOR-BORNE DISEASE CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD - 26-CCO-018 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - LA COUNTY WEST VECTOR AND VECTOR-BORNE DISEASE CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD - 26-CCO-018.pdf (City Clerk Martha Alvarez)
A) D
ECLARE VACANCY
B) D
IRECT
THE CITY CLERK TO CONDUCT PUBLIC OUTREACH
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M
Public Comments:
16.a
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1.10 TO MODERNIZE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION PROCEDURES Public Comments:
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
A) RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
B) CONTINUE THE ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
17.a
AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES - 26-CDD-081 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ON CALL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES - 26-CDD-081.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Request For Qualification No. 26-003.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Aspen Environmental Group Statement of Qualifications.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Michale Baker Intl. Statement of Qualifications.pdf
5. Attachment 4. Rincon Statement of Qualifications.pdf
6. Attachment 5. Aspen Environmental Group PSA.pdf
7. Attachment 6. Michael Baker International PSA Revised.pdf
8. Attachment 7. Rincon Consultants PSA Revised.pdf
9. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.a.pdf
th
The city seems to be focusing on increasing the size of its bureaucracy and not prioritizing developing meaningful long term AI plans to reduce the size of city services, the cost and optimize service delivery.
Staff augmentation" explicitly means bringing in external personnel to perform regular operational functions or project tasks that would otherwise require hiring in-house city employees The city needs to focus on new ways of doing things and not always defaulting to tired old staff augmentation solutions that do little more than icreease the size and cost of the bureaucracy.
Thank you,
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
APPROVE
17.b
ONE YEAR REVIEW OF THE CLARK BUILDING USAGE - 26-PR-052 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ONE YEAR REVIEW OF CLARK BUILDING USAGE - 26-PR-052.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Clark Building Use Policy.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Clark Building Reservation Rates.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.b.pdf
th
I hope its clear to everyone that even when excluding the initial multi-million dollar capital improvement project (CIP) costs from the math, The Clark Building will not become a significant revenue source for the City’s General Fund going forward.
The net operating surplus left over after covering direct and indirect staff time is far too small to serve as an impactful revenue-generator for the city.
It remains a cost-neutral community asset, not an enterprise profit center. (Recreation Supervisor Kambria Vint)
RECEIVE AND FILE
17.c
CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE TO TENNIS MEMBERSHIP AND RESERVATION FEES - 26-PR-051 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CONSIDERATION OF UPDATES TO TENNIS MEMBERSHIP AND RESERVATION FEES - 26-PR-051.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Local Cities Tennis Reservation and Membership Fees.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Communty Center Tennis Courts Use Policy.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.c.pdf
(Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
APPROVE
AN INCREASE OR MAINTAIN TENNIS MEMBERSHIP AND RESERVATION FEES
17.d
CONSIDERATION OF PARK RESERVATION FEE UPDATES - 26-PR-064 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CONSIDERATION OF PARK RESERVATION POLICY AND FEE UPDATES - 26-PR-064(1).pdf
2. Attachment 1 - Comparable Cities Table (1).pdf
3. Attachment 2 - Park Reservations Policy (1).pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.d.pdf
CEQA:
Determine that the fee changes are not a project under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and that the policy amendments are exempt from CEQA under Sections 15301 and 15061(b)(3), with none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 applicable. (Parks and Recreation Manager Brian Sousa)
A
PPROVE
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-050
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 9-8-26 - 26-CMO-050.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
Public Comments:
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
PARKING CITATION AND METERED REVENUE REPORT - AUGUST 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Parking Citation and Revenue Report - August 2026.pdf (Senior Management Analyst Ken Bales)
20.b
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2026 (1).pdf (Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
21. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments: