[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[8:28] We are live.
[8:31] Welcome, everyone. I call to order the September 8, 2026, closed session meeting the city council at 5.30pm. Roll call, please, Madam City Clerk. Councilmember Saiman. Here. Councilmember Francois. Here. Councilmember Jackson is absent. Mayor Proto-Mkegen. Here. Mayor Dittoy. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you, and we have any public comment in person or on Zoom.
[8:56] I do not have any hands raised and I do not receive any speaker cards. I will close public comment and we'll recess the closed session. Thank you.
[30:00] We
[35:29] can hear you.
[35:47] Councilmember Jackson, we can hear you. Do you want to try that again?
[36:52] I sure can. Can you see me? Okay. We don't see you. We can hear you though.
[37:06] Okay, perfect. Thank you. Oh,
[37:13] I think you're logged into two accounts. We can see the one we can see we can't.
[37:24] Oh, there we go.
[37:27] Okay, we're good. We can see you and we can hear you.
[37:32] Operator error. Call to
[42:06] order the September 8, 2026, regular meeting in the city council at 6.03 p.m.
[42:11] and will Dr. Susan Wiles or superintendent do the pledge allegiance.
[42:42] Thank you for that.
[42:43] Madam City Clerk, roll call please.
[42:45] Thank you.
[42:45] Council Member Jackson requested to join this evening City Council meeting virtually via Zoom in accordance with Senate Bill 707 under the just cost clause.
[42:54] Because he is traveling on official business as a California Coastal Commissioner to this month's meeting,
[42:59] Senate Bill 707 requires a council member to appear on camera and to disclose whether they are individuals H18 or older present in the room with him.
[43:06] Lastly, it requires it all vote to be taken by roll call.
[43:09] Can you confirm, Council Member Jackson?
[43:13] I can confirm that there is no one in the room with me.
[43:15] Thank you.
[43:16] And I'll do roll call now.
[43:17] Council Member Seaman.
[43:19] Here.
[43:20] Council Member François.
[43:21] Here.
[43:22] Council Member Jackson.
[43:24] Here.
[43:24] Mayor Pro Temkegan.
[43:26] Here.
[43:26] Mayor Dittoy.
[43:27] Here.
[43:27] We have a quorum.
[43:28] Perfect.
[43:29] I'll take us to announcements.
[43:30] Do my colleagues have any announcements?
[43:33] About coming city events.
[43:35] I have a couple of movies at the beach, reminder that her most of the beach friends of the
[43:39] park will host the annual movies at the beach this Saturday, September 12th, and next
[43:44] Saturday, September 19th, on the sound, sand south of the pier at 6 p.m. This Saturday's
[43:50] movie will be Pire to the Caribbean, the course of the Black Pearl, next Saturday's movie
[43:55] will be ten things I hate about you. That was not directed to anyone in the audience.
[44:01] Next up, we have the Hermos Beach Concert Series.
[44:04] We'll take place Sunday September 13th and Sunday September 20th on the sand south of
[44:09] the pier, and we'll feature three talent acts to provide up to three hours of entertainment
[44:13] beginning at 3 p.m.
[44:14] For more information, please visit Hermosabeeach.gov slash concert series.
[44:19] And lastly, to honor the memory of those who were lost on September 11th, 2001, we'll invite
[44:24] the community to attend her most of Beaches 9-11 Remembrance Reef Laying Ceremony this Friday,
[44:31] 9-11 at 7.30 a.m. The ceremony will be held at the 9-11 Memorial on the Green Belt up here
[44:39] Avenue. In a few minutes we'll recognize some of the people who made this year's ceremony extra special.
[44:45] Mayor, if I may? Yes. You didn't let me do my moment of glory, the closed session report.
[44:50] Oh, so yeah, so the city of mayor city council met in closed session and there are no reportable
[45:00] Questions? Thank you for that. This week keeps us in line. Madam City Clerk, what's next? Sir, first proclamation is recognizing California Water Service for 100 years of service. All right. Mr. Mayor, before I think we forgot, we omitted the almost be jump in this weekend.
[45:21] That was not on here, but if you have the facts on it, no, no, quickly look it up as well.
[45:28] The third annual almost be jump and we'll begin this weekend. I think matches on
[45:33] Friday, Saturday, and championship matches on Sunday. Actually, I think it begins on Thursday.
[45:40] North of the pier, international, 30 on team, they think are registered. I know that there's
[45:48] a team from Holland and the team from England that are coming. So the whole world, the beach world
[45:54] is coming to the cradle of Beach volleyball, her most of beach this weekend. Perfect, and things
[46:00] He's going to want to step up to be a lead sponsor, free mission for everyone to attend,
[46:05] so if we can make it down to see some world-class volleyball.
[46:08] Thank you for that Councilman for Jackson, and now we'll have Rob Thompson up to the podium
[46:13] to speak.
[46:25] Thompson here, Operations Manager at California Water Service Company, and I definitely
[46:29] wanted to take the time and recognize an amazing accomplishment that Calwater has reached
[46:33] our 100th year, and our her most
[46:36] redondo system has reached its 99.
[46:40] So we'll be 100 next year.
[46:41] But as a company, we've been around for 100.
[46:43] We are an extremely pleased to have served the community
[46:47] and our customers.
[46:49] And the cherry on top for this year,
[46:51] we'll be holding a community party
[46:53] that all of our customers, our city officials
[46:57] and representatives are all invited to.
[46:59] Part is this Saturday at the seaside Lagoon in Redondo Beach
[47:02] from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Each, if you're a cloud water customer, and you're within the service territory, would have gotten a little infographic from us as well.
[47:12] The intent of the community celebration is just that, to celebrate the community that makes us great and has gotten us to this first 100 years, and we're looking forward to the next 100.
[47:33] So I have a little resolution.
[47:35] Where is the tradition of the city for most of each to recognize and honor businesses that have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to serving our community and contributing to the quality of life for a residence and whereas Cal Water has was founded in 1926 and has served the community throughout California for 100 years, providing safe, clean, reliable water to more than 2 million people statewide and whereas Cal Water has been a trusted partner in the city of from most of each since 1927, delivering essential water services guided by their promise to provide quality service and value.
[48:03] and whereas the company has demonstrated exemplaries to
[48:06] ship conservation programs and rebates that have helped
[48:08] customers reduce their water use by 30 percent since 2000 and
[48:12] 2020 supporting both environmental sustainability and
[48:15] household affordability and whereas cow water has invested
[48:18] responsibly in infrastructure sustainability incentives and
[48:22] community well-being undertaking proactive ongoing maintenance
[48:25] and upgrade to deliver safe clean drinking water and improve
[48:28] emergency readiness and whereas through the generations of
[48:32] employees and leadership, Cal Water has maintained its commitment to enhancing the quality of life for our customers and communities, creating jobs, supporting the local economy, and engaging the community organizations, their neighborhoods, and throughout California.
[48:45] Now therefore, I am Michael Latoy, mayor of the city for most of each, on behalf of the entire City Council,
[48:50] do hereby congratulate California Water Service on the momentous occasion of its 100th anniversary and extended appreciation for 100 years, providing safe, clean and reliable water to our community.
[48:59] Thank you.
[49:26] Next, we have recognizing Ennis Jackson on his retirement and service to the city.
[49:37] Turn up Ennis, Lieutenant Gallia, and Chief Phillips to the podium, please.
[49:48] Good evening, Mayor, City Council, everyone in attendance.
[49:52] My name is Lieutenant Micolia, and I want to go over a couple of things that happened in 2003.
[49:59] In 2003, my space, Skype, LinkedIn, and Tesla were all created.
[50:10] The Tampa Bay Buccaneers won the Super Bowl.
[50:13] Arnold Schwarzenegger was the governor, George Bush was president.
[50:17] Buffy, the vampire slayer, aired its final episode.
[50:22] Trucker hats and juicy cord tour track suits were in style.
[50:25] I still think they're awesome.
[50:28] Bianca's debut album was released in the club by 50 Cent was a number one song.
[50:34] And yet the iPhone was still four years away from being invented.
[50:39] But also in 2003, the city of Hermosa Beach hired a great young talent, Mr. Anis Jackson.
[50:46] Although Anis was working for the city of Beverly Hills in 2003, the city of Hermosa Beach
[50:51] was fortunate enough to lure him away to the beach and hire him as our administrative services
[50:56] coordinator. In that role, NS has taken on a tremendous range of responsibilities.
[51:01] He reviews contested parking citations, stays current on senate bill changes that affect
[51:05] parking enforcement, conducts towed hearings, towed vehicle hearings, tracks and analyzes,
[51:11] parking data, overseas media repairs and collections, monitors are crossing guard contract,
[51:16] and handles many other duties that help keep the city's community services services division running
[51:21] efficiently. And this has been a tremendous asset to the city and quite honestly to everyone
[51:26] who works here.
[51:29] More importantly, I want to take a moment to recognize and it's not simply
[51:32] as an employee but as a dedicated colleague and friend who's given 23 years of outstanding
[51:36] service to the city for most of each. Throughout those 23 years, and this has been dependable,
[51:42] reliable, kind, incredibly easy to work with. He's always been willing to help and he has
[51:47] a way of doing it with a smile that makes even the most challenging situations a little
[51:51] a little easier. I'm also very happy to say that over the years I've had the privilege
[51:55] of calling in as a friend. He has been an integral part of our city staff and we're certainly
[52:00] going to miss him, not only for his tremendous institutional knowledge and his ability to quickly
[52:04] research and solve problems, but also for the positive spirit that he brings to the workplace
[52:10] always with a smile. On a personal note, I'm going to miss our great conversations the
[52:14] laughs and especially the banter we've had over the years. I'd like to point out that I've
[52:18] seen him eat pizza with a knife and fork, which is a bit bougie, am I right?
[52:26] NS, after 23 years of dedicated service, you've certainly earned this next chapter.
[52:30] I hope retirement brings you everything you worked so hard for.
[52:33] I hope you have plenty of time to spend with the family, enjoy some well-deserved travel,
[52:37] relax, and simply enjoy life.
[52:40] And I hear Italy has some pretty amazing food.
[52:44] I hope you take advantage of that.
[52:46] But thank you, NS, for your friendship, dedication, and your many years of service to the city for most of each.
[52:51] You will be greatly missed, but we wish you nothing but happiness, good health, and wonderful adventures, and retirement.
[52:58] And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Chief Phillips.
[53:17] Thank you.
[53:18] Just going to echo a little bit of what Lieutenant Gallia said, and a big thank you to NS and your years of service.
[53:24] And as Lieutenant Gallia mentioned, NS' service to the community extends beyond the 23 years you did with her most of each.
[53:31] But one of his roles, as was mentioned, is to review administrative reviews, so anytime anyone receives a parking citation, which nobody loves, and they go to appeal that parking citation. It goes to Mr. Jackson.
[53:45] He has always been entirely fair, objective, and as was mentioned, incredibly knowledgeable in the nuances of traffic law, parking law, and it may seem very, very simple, but it's not.
[53:58] not. And it was always Mr. Jackson who was the steady decider in that process on whether
[54:07] a citation would be dismissed or upheld. So thank you for that. And this is service
[54:13] to the community goes beyond. So for the last ten years, every time you saw the police
[54:20] department and city staff out doing a coffee with a cop, meeting with the schools, talking
[54:25] to the school district and setting up tables at some of their park outreach.
[54:30] It was in us.
[54:31] He was always there and I just want to add he was he was the guy behind the scenes who's
[54:36] who's keeping everything running.
[54:38] He never asked for any type of recognition.
[54:41] He never asked for any type of special thanks and sometimes we would try to thank him and
[54:46] give him recognition and he would always say no, that's not me.
[54:49] This is a man who just wants to do good for his community.
[54:52] he's done it for three decades or more and we are entirely grateful and we wish
[54:58] you the best in your retirement and we're all jealous of where your next
[55:01] chapter will take you so thank you very much.
[55:12] It's your time if you want to give
[55:14] a you know any words or I'm gonna do that too but we have a lot of you know this is
[55:21] where the Vanna White Show comes in and so we do have a lot of certificates and
[55:25] and everything to thank you for your service.
[55:26] Thank you.
[55:27] No.
[55:28] Okay.
[55:30] So, first up, from the Assembly Member Almerzuchi,
[55:36] this is a certificate of recognition for your 23 years of service to the community.
[55:40] And do you want to do all at once, Ann?
[55:44] All those certificates?
[55:46] From Senator Ben Allen.
[55:48] Another certificate for, they must have gone their cars to it a lot,
[55:51] and you must have given them a break.
[55:55] And you get a congressional one.
[55:56] I don't know what you did to Congressmember Liu, but okay.
[56:01] And then one of the last ones, just on behalf of the City Council,
[56:07] a service award for you to get in your 23 years of service.
[56:10] And with seeing all the cars getting towed on PCH today,
[56:12] I would probably want to retire today too.
[56:15] Three o'clock.
[56:15] I don't know who was working back there, but there's quite a few cars
[56:18] and tow trucks lined up, so.
[56:19] I believe the chief also has one more award for you as well.
[56:40] The tie.
[57:31] I need two guys doing up here.
[57:32] Get the one that I'm going to picture.
[57:35] Let's go.
[57:38] That's it I know.
[57:42] Thank you all.
[57:52] You should have flagged me quicker next time.
[57:56] Warn me.
[57:58] You're probably warning.
[57:59] Do
[58:07] you want to introduce the next one?
[58:09] Next, we have recognizing community contributions to the Hermosa beach
[58:12] 9-11 memorial. So Dave Shaw, Ben, Kalaro, C, Kalaro, C, and Darcy Plurdy to the podium.
[58:24] Yeah, we'll come to the podium.
[58:29] So as I mentioned earlier, this is the 25th anniversary, the 9-11 tragedy.
[58:33] And this year's ceremony will be extra special because the contributions made by these gentlemen.
[58:39] And before I present the certificates of recognition, I'd like to briefly recognize each of their businesses.
[58:44] So Dave Shaw, Dave Shaw Concrete and Block, it's a 50th anniversary, correct?
[58:50] So through five decades of trusted local leadership, Dave Shaw and his team have demonstrated
[58:54] the true community spirit in Hermosa Beach as designers and builders of the 9-11 Memorial
[58:59] Concrete Tower Monument that was scaled the size and holds repurposed steel from ground
[59:04] zero, the Greg Jarvis Memorial on the Strand and the city clock and time capsules based on
[59:09] pure plaza.
[59:10] With sincere gratitude, the City of Promotives can congratulate Dave Shaw Concrete and block on 50 years of outstanding service and business excellence in the South Bay.
[59:20] We'll read all these and then everything applause is due.
[59:25] And then Ben and Clark, I can never.
[59:29] Colorassie.
[59:32] Colorassie painting.
[59:34] From humble beginnings in a station wagon over 30 years of outstanding service as a leading commercial and residential.
[59:41] potential contract in the South Bay, Ben Colorassi and his team continue to demonstrate true community spirit.
[59:47] Ben is a native of Queens, New York, who lost childhood friends in the New York, oh sorry, that's Long Island, New York, who lost childhood friends in the New York City Fire Department on Analyze.
[1:00:00] So, Ben's work on rehabilitating the 9-11 memorial gazebo carries profound meaning.
[1:00:13] Darcy Flurd of Dr. and
[1:00:15] Teague. Darcy is a driving force behind Dr. Teague, a premier outdoor hardwood restoration
[1:00:21] and preservation company serving California, Arizona, and Nevada. Dr. Teague was involved in her
[1:00:26] most of each 9-11 memorial bench when it was unveiled, unveiled in 2010 with a most recent
[1:00:32] restoration of a bench, which is adorned with nearly 3,000 unique buttons representing
[1:00:37] the lives lost in 9-11. Darcy has fostered a culture centered on impeccable craftsmanship,
[1:00:43] ship, unwaiving professionalism, and ultimate customer satisfaction.
[1:00:47] So we have little certificates of recognition.
[1:00:49] to become a politician.
[1:00:58] Please review.
[1:01:19] It's great to have you here.
[1:01:20] Thank you.
[1:01:22] Hey, Beth.
[1:01:23] And I'm going to grab your hand.
[1:01:24] I'm about to see you.
[1:01:27] Thank you.
[1:01:29] You're welcome.
[1:01:29] Hey, Beth.
[1:01:30] This is the house.
[1:01:30] It's full of the.
[1:01:31] Just in the house.
[1:01:32] The city of Erdogan, I got to hear it.
[1:01:34] It's the faculty.
[1:01:35] And the faculty, do you want to see the lights?
[1:01:36] I can't see it.
[1:01:38] Yeah, I don't see the lights.
[1:01:40] Right, then.
[1:01:47] I'm seeing it.
[1:01:48] Yeah, I can't see the light.
[1:02:12] I'm going to be able to feel like I'm on a car and I can't fight it.
[1:02:43] All
[1:02:46] right, Madam City Clerk, what's next?
[1:02:49] It's the approval of the agenda and we were full reading of ordinances and resolutions.
[1:02:54] Okay, I would like to pull 15 E. Is there any other items who?
[1:03:03] I'll pull 15 D.
[1:03:04] D and E. Any other items or is there a motion to approve the balance?
[1:03:11] Motion to approve the balance.
[1:03:14] Yes, D is in the area, the E is in the area.
[1:03:16] I'll follow the second.
[1:03:17] All right.
[1:03:19] Any conversation on that?
[1:03:21] I'm going to say a quick roll call please.
[1:03:24] One second Mr. Mayor,
[1:03:28] I was trying to put them having difficulty with my Wi-Fi, the item
[1:03:34] with the city manager spending was that one that was pulled?
[1:03:39] No, that's 15 F. I'd like to pull that and we can take that to the end of the meeting.
[1:03:46] It's fine.
[1:03:47] Copy that.
[1:03:47] So 15D, 15E and 15F.
[1:03:53] Good with the balance.
[1:03:55] Yes.
[1:03:55] So amended.
[1:03:57] Yes.
[1:03:57] All right.
[1:03:58] Roll copies.
[1:04:00] Council Member Francois.
[1:04:01] Yes.
[1:04:02] Council Member Sainman.
[1:04:03] Yes.
[1:04:04] Mayor Proto-Mkegen.
[1:04:06] Aye.
[1:04:06] Council Member Jackson.
[1:04:08] Aye.
[1:04:09] Mayor Dittoy.
[1:04:10] Aye.
[1:04:10] Motion passes 5-0.
[1:04:13] Thank you.
[1:04:22] And I'll take us to public comment.
[1:04:24] This
[1:04:32] is a time for public to address the city council on any item within the council's jurisdiction including items where public comment is not otherwise taken City Manager reports council member comments consent calendar items not pulled in future agenda items.
[1:04:46] If comments are made now and a public hearing are municipal matter additional comments on that same item will not be accepted during the item.
[1:04:53] Public comments are limited at three minutes per speaker unless adjusted by the mayor or city council due to time constraints speakers
[1:04:59] We'll have another opportunity to comment on items full from the consent calendar public hearings and municipal matters when those items are heard and
[1:05:06] With that our first speaker is
[1:05:08] Sarah H
[1:05:09] The
[1:05:15] evening mayor city council residents of Hermosa Beach. I'm here with
[1:05:20] Announcements of our upcoming library events
[1:05:23] Tomorrow September 9th at 3 p.m. We will be having bubble mania
[1:05:27] Join us for a show on the Science of Bubbles with shimmering waves of soap film rainbow bubbles,
[1:05:34] big bubble, small bubbles, square bubbles, triangle bubbles, bubbles within more bubbles, and even
[1:05:41] more bubbles. Who doesn't love bubbles? Next Wednesday, September 16th, we will be having a
[1:05:48] program for Hispanic Heritage Month on Chilean Arpieras. Arpieras are tapestries that Chilean women
[1:05:55] made to protest, learn more about how Arbietra's were made about the history of Chile, and
[1:06:02] then make your own Arbietra about a topic that is important to you.
[1:06:07] For our younger crowd this Saturday, September 12th, at 10.30 a.m., we will be having
[1:06:14] music about our totals with Natalia Music, Colombian-born songwriter and performer Natalia host an
[1:06:22] Interactive Concert of her original bilingual music,
[1:06:25] especially for ages zero to five with caregiver,
[1:06:29] generously sponsored by our her most
[1:06:31] of each friends in the library.
[1:06:33] And last but not least,
[1:06:34] we will be starting a new book club for adults.
[1:06:37] We will be having a hoopla book club
[1:06:40] starting Saturday, September 19th,
[1:06:43] from two to three PM.
[1:06:45] Join us for a lively discussion
[1:06:46] of most ardently yours by Freya Samson.
[1:06:50] All copies are available to check out on the Hoopla app. Thank you.
[1:06:57] Next we have Lou, a G, followed by Carol K.
[1:07:03] Hi, my name is Lou Giovannetti, and I used to do the New Year's Eve concert pre-COVID
[1:07:12] at the Hermosa Beach Pier every year. I did that for five years.
[1:07:16] In conjunction, we used to work with the Chamber of Commerce,
[1:07:19] but I wanted to come right to the seat of power and ask you that every in
[1:07:26] inform you that every year we get between 700 and a couple of years after
[1:07:33] COVID those first two years we got over 2,000 Facebook messages say is the
[1:07:37] concert going to happen this year? And we developed what I thought was a little bit
[1:07:42] of a tradition in the South Bay, free concert for people here in the South Bay
[1:07:48] And I could tell you stories about it all night.
[1:07:52] But I'm just here to tell you that we have,
[1:07:57] we would perform from eight o'clock to about 12th 30.
[1:08:01] And it was always a very safe and family and friends event.
[1:08:09] And I was very proud of it.
[1:08:11] I have a big band with 27 A1 musicians
[1:08:15] from all around the country in some cases.
[1:08:18] And I was encouraged to come and try to get this going again.
[1:08:23] And my ask is simple.
[1:08:26] Is that there's a fee for the peer that night.
[1:08:30] I'd like to see if you guys could talk about maybe participating
[1:08:34] with me to make this show happen.
[1:08:38] How that happens.
[1:08:39] We can talk about it and not going to ask for anything for free.
[1:08:42] but I'll tell you this, I'll produce the whole thing myself.
[1:08:45] I'm not asking the city for any money.
[1:08:48] Maybe you could waive the fee at that night,
[1:08:51] but all the staging lights, everything.
[1:08:54] Maybe because, like Mr. Colorassia over here,
[1:08:58] I moved here 27 years ago from New York City,
[1:09:02] and I got some friends there that said,
[1:09:04] hey, if you can get a permit, I'll send you some fireworks.
[1:09:06] And I just thought that it would be, you know,
[1:09:10] Now my sons grew up on that pier, and I'm sorry, I get emotional, I'm an emotional guy.
[1:09:19] And they were very little.
[1:09:20] Now they've graduated from college, one's a senior, here in Redondo Beach, and my
[1:09:26] boys are like that, come on, let's do it again, do it again.
[1:09:29] And so I'm asking you to take that under advisement and be more than welcome to come and see any
[1:09:36] of you on your time to discuss it with you personally. If you'd like I know a really
[1:09:42] great Italian restaurant called Primo Italia that I happen to own and it's got a backroom
[1:09:47] and we could all go back there and of course I'm going to charge every one of you full price
[1:09:55] and yeah I just invited Mr. Jackson and his family to the restaurant. That's pretty cool that
[1:10:02] But he eats pizza with a fork because that's what not only gone pizza, it's pretty messy.
[1:10:08] You can't pick it up with your hands.
[1:10:09] So you know that Steve.
[1:10:12] Anyway, I apologize for taking your time other than to say I'd love to bring this event
[1:10:17] back.
[1:10:18] I have videos.
[1:10:20] I have a lot of information to share with you if you would like to do it.
[1:10:26] If you don't, I totally understand as well.
[1:10:28] but I have people, local businesses that are willing to get behind this and I hope that we can start the tradition again because I think it was something that the business owners and the city itself and certainly the community was very excited to be a part of every year and it's free.
[1:10:49] And I will put up all the money, the show should have cost close to $75,000 to produce it.
[1:10:54] and the time is up. Thank you. But thank you so much for the time. Appreciate it.
[1:11:02] Next we have Carol K.
[1:11:08] Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council members. I am Carol Cluth. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Hermosa Beach City School Board and administration to ask that you not adopt agenda item 26 AS095 and to continue the reading of this ordinance until the city has had a chance to study its potential impact on our schools.
[1:11:31] as a school district we found out about this item on Friday afternoon of
[1:11:35] along weekend with the general public. So we're here tonight to ask that the
[1:11:39] city pause partner with the district in the adoption of regulations that will
[1:11:44] meet coastal commission approval to minimize harm to this community and to our
[1:11:49] district. Rushing this can hurt our students, our families and our community. Public
[1:11:54] schools as you may or may not know are funded by enrollment for a small district like
[1:11:59] like Hermosa Beach, dips impact our staffing, our class sizes, and the programs we can offer.
[1:12:06] It affects whether we can fund our teachers, whether we can fund our counselors, librarians,
[1:12:12] intervention programs, enrichment programs, the arts, athletics, and all sorts of opportunities
[1:12:18] we provide.
[1:12:20] Let me share an estimate.
[1:12:22] Converting 4% of current long-term rental housing into short-term rentals could eliminate
[1:12:28] funding our district receives by half a million dollars annually. A larger
[1:12:33] district might be able to absorb that. Her most of each school district cannot.
[1:12:39] Her most of schools are one of the primary reasons families choose to make this community home.
[1:12:45] It happened for me, happened probably for many of you. Every residential home converted from long-term
[1:12:51] housing to a short-term vacation rental is one fewer home available to a family who might live here
[1:12:57] and enroll their students and their children in our schools.
[1:13:01] This is not merely theoretical.
[1:13:03] Communities across the country have raised the connection
[1:13:05] between short-term rentals, housing availability,
[1:13:09] and declining school enrollment.
[1:13:11] School leaders and communities like Anaheim and San Diego
[1:13:14] have specifically identified, expensive,
[1:13:17] and unavailable housing as limiting their enrollment
[1:13:20] in their schools.
[1:13:21] Vacation rentals and second homes contributing
[1:13:23] to the shortage of their year-round residents.
[1:13:25] citizens. However, several coastal cities have successfully worked with coastal commission
[1:13:31] to place caps, licensing requirements, and other restrictions on short-term rentals
[1:13:36] that help. A revolving door of visitors cannot replace families who are here, raise their
[1:13:42] children here, volunteer in local organizations, coach their kids, coach other kids, send their
[1:13:55] As importantly, strong schools like Hermose Beach City School District sustain this community.
[1:14:01] So therefore I ask the council continue the reading of this ordinance and look into the impact of the proposal on housing availability.
[1:14:08] Family demographics in Hermose Beach School enrollment and Hermose Beach School District's fiscal health with this decision.
[1:14:16] And please bring the school district to the table moving forward because we can help with this.
[1:14:20] The financial benefit of short-term rentals to the city must be weighed against the cost to our schools
[1:14:26] Please don't trade long-term health of our schools and our community for short-term occupancy. Thank you
[1:14:36] Next we have our virtual speakers Barbara your three minutes will start when you begin speaking
[1:14:45] I'm sorry Barbara lower to hand know what your three minutes will start when you begin speaking already
[1:14:55] can you all hear me?
[1:14:58] Yes, okay
[1:15:00] Good evening, Councilmembers. My name is Noah Starris-Sykes, and I'm the lead organizer at Better Neighbors L.A., a housing coalition focused on regulating short-term rentals to preserve long-term housing for Southern California residents. And I'm also here for item 15E. So I'm here to urge the Council to stand by the short-term rental regulations that her most of each pass to protect its housing and neighborhoods and take its regulations to the Coastal Commission. So the recent court case that invalidated or most of each's regulations only did so on the basis of these regulations were not brought before the Coastal Commission.
[1:15:30] commission and therefore could not be enforced, and the case made no comment on the actual
[1:15:34] substance of the ordinance itself only the procedure.
[1:15:37] So rather than passing a new ordinance that weakens short-term rental protections, we suggest
[1:15:42] that the council should bring its ordinance to the coastal commission for approval.
[1:15:46] This would not only ensure that the original intent of the council is maintained, but also
[1:15:49] avoid rewarding corporate speculators who are breaking the law by operating non-compliant
[1:15:54] short-term rentals.
[1:15:54] The coastal zone is roughly 43% of our most of each's land area, maintaining a strong
[1:16:01] short-term rental ordinance in this zone is crucial to protecting housing and neighborhoods.
[1:16:05] While option two of the previous staff recommendation is the best of a series of bad options, accepting
[1:16:09] this will create an incentive for corporate spectators to displace renters and also formalize
[1:16:16] the process for legalizing short-term rentals that were non-compliant with the initial
[1:16:19] ordinance.
[1:16:19] So, instead, we urge you all to not settle for a bad compromise and protect the council's
[1:16:25] right to protect housing in our most of each.
[1:16:28] You all can even choose to strengthen the ordinance to allow for only hosted short-term
[1:16:32] rentals, balancing coastal access needs, and the ability of coastal residents to stay
[1:16:36] in their homes.
[1:16:37] alleviating the housing crisis, especially in coastal communities, cannot be done only by
[1:16:41] building new housing.
[1:16:42] We will have to make better use of the units that we already have.
[1:16:45] strong short-term rental regulation will be key to that effort by preserving housing units for actual residents, not criminal regulators.
[1:16:53] And we therefore encourage our most of these to not pave and instead strengthen your regulations by taking them to the Coastal Commission,
[1:16:59] getting them approved, and then strongly enforcing them to protect residents in the community at large.
[1:17:04] Thank you very much.
[1:17:08] Next we have Frank, you three minutes, we'll start when you begin speaking.
[1:17:25] Good evening Council members, Frank Angel, here can you hear me?
[1:17:29] Yes.
[1:17:31] So, I'm just following up very briefly on the comment letter.
[1:17:36] We submitted a very brief, basically one page comment letter noting that the text of
[1:17:44] section 5.84.020 has proposed and submitted for your adoption, which is part of the license
[1:17:54] and operational requirements. As currently drafted does not reflect the city council's intent
[1:18:01] and decision of August 25, which was to at least for the time being exempt STRs in the
[1:18:12] residential districts of the coastal zone from the ban. As it reads now, it states, and I read
[1:18:20] section 5, the proposed section 5.84.20, it reads, it shall be unlawful for any person
[1:18:28] to offer advertised or make available for rent or to rent by way of a rental agreement
[1:18:34] lease license or other means whether oral or written for compensation or consideration or
[1:18:40] short term rental for a period of 30 consecutive days or less.
[1:18:45] Now, that, as it reads, does not differentiate between the inland area and the Hermosabeech
[1:18:55] coastal zone, and in that sense, introduces an ambiguity because your intent and decision
[1:19:01] in other provisions of the proposed ordinances is very clear, which is to limit the total
[1:19:07] prohibition STRs in the residential districts to the inland areas.
[1:19:13] And so we suggest that this be tweaked and that at the end of the sentence, there be a comma and that you then add the words as intended, except within the coastal zone.
[1:19:29] Disappointment or a change to that effect is necessary to avoid confusion and misleading the reader of this municipal code section.
[1:19:39] Thank you very much.
[1:19:45] Next, we have Barbara, your three minutes will start when you begin speaking.
[1:20:07] You hear me now.
[1:20:08] We can.
[1:20:09] Okay.
[1:20:10] First, I'd like to thank the mayor for pulling 15E.
[1:20:15] I wanted to raise some concerns again about Council Member Keegan and Seaman.
[1:20:22] I'm asking them to recuse themselves both own rental property in the coastal zone
[1:20:28] and both rent to residents right now, and there is no reason why they wouldn't be able
[1:20:37] to change their mind unless maybe they were to offer to sign a contract stating that
[1:20:44] they wouldn't use their rental properties as short-term rentals for expiry to time.
[1:20:50] But I do think unless they're willing to do that, that they need to recuse themselves,
[1:20:55] Nobody should be making money on their vote, or possibly making money on their vote.
[1:21:00] And I am asking the city attorney, the interim city attorney to again rule on this so that people that are watching can hear what it is, his advice is because it just feels really wrong.
[1:21:15] Councilmember Keegan has two units that he's listed on sunny California's website.
[1:21:20] He's obviously been working with this gentleman, so it wouldn't be difficult to change a long-term rental to a short-term.
[1:21:29] Also, no matter what he promises about the future, it's just poor judgment to think that you can make money, possibly make money on your vote.
[1:21:39] I'm also very concerned about councilmember Francois. Since his vote, he now has one of his signs up in sunny California's window,
[1:21:48] not saying that he did that on purpose, but again, it just looks really bad.
[1:21:56] We have to trust in your votes. The ability for you to change the feel of our
[1:22:02] town with vote is right in front of you tonight. There's no way that there
[1:22:09] should be any reason for us to have a doubt that your reasons are pure. I'd
[1:22:16] I also like to remind you that the time that you are looking at watching this program,
[1:22:25] the six months that you've chosen, are the slowest months that we have.
[1:22:29] We have a number of large events, which would be the July volleyball month.
[1:22:35] It would be the International Surf Festival, the marathon, and you're going to use the quietest
[1:22:42] time to judge something that is going to have the most impact except for the oil
[1:22:49] vote. This could be a real change of our community and you have a
[1:22:54] responsibility to get as much information as possible. So go ahead and look at
[1:22:59] six months but you have to look at the year also. You want us to come together,
[1:23:05] you want us to have faith, but with what it is I'm looking at, I just don't
[1:23:12] And I would question whether or not three of you should be voting on this at least to again council member
[1:23:19] Seaman has made says that he has never had a S.T.R.
[1:23:25] Well then put it in writing but none of you being successful businessman would do this on a handshake.
[1:23:32] Robert, thank you very much.
[1:23:34] Thank you.
[1:23:38] I did not receive any other speaker cards and I do not have any other hands raised.
[1:23:42] one last call for public comment.
[1:23:48] Seeing none I'll close public comment and bring it back to the
[1:23:50] diaspora council member comments. Any colleagues have any comments? Mr. Mayor we're asking for comment on public
[1:23:59] comment correct because we're going to be listening to 15 e later acts. Well then I like to make a comment if you
[1:24:16] for 15 years, 14 years, pardon me.
[1:24:22] And then then 14 years,
[1:24:24] I have stated over and over and over again,
[1:24:27] especially on planning commission,
[1:24:29] when this issue came up to begin with many years ago,
[1:24:34] I helped write the law that we're talking about,
[1:24:37] changing now.
[1:24:39] And I have always stated that I am,
[1:24:41] again, short-term rentals in the residential zone.
[1:24:44] That's why the Planning Commission came up with this excluded zone that's down by the
[1:24:50] water right near between Second Street and Period Avenue roughly, where there's a lot
[1:24:54] of little bungles there, and they were perfect for short term rentals.
[1:24:57] And so we decided then on the Planning Commission many years ago to limit short term rentals
[1:25:03] to that area, because we didn't want it to mix in with the rest of the residential zone.
[1:25:07] I was very much opposed to have doing that.
[1:25:10] I have always been opposed to that.
[1:25:13] I think if several months ago I made mention of learning how to play a beer pong at two in
[1:25:17] the morning in my own bedroom because I couldn't sleep because the neighbors were so allowed
[1:25:21] at a short-term rental.
[1:25:24] I think it's quite clear that I don't care for short-term rentals and do not want them
[1:25:28] in the residential zone.
[1:25:30] I'm not going to sign a contract, that's absurd.
[1:25:33] Every person in this room and every person in this city that owns a home or any piece of
[1:25:39] property that could be a rental. Any residential piece of property in the zone is a potential
[1:25:45] landlord for short-term rentals. Much the same as I am in anyone else's. I think it's
[1:25:51] enough that you should understand that I have stated this over and over again. I have
[1:25:56] a record. You can look it up. I suppose and find out if I've ever done a short-term rental
[1:26:00] and you will find none. So I am not going to recuse myself and I am not going to sign any
[1:26:05] contract. I think my word should stand for what I believe in as far as short-term rental
[1:26:10] is concerned. Barbara, I appreciate your comments and your point of view while we don't
[1:26:17] agree on things sometimes. I'm always welcome to listen to what you have to say, but on this
[1:26:23] particular instance, I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you. So some of you had mentioned
[1:26:29] this evening, some of the speakers here, Carol, for instance, about the school board.
[1:26:35] If there is information that shows that long-term families or children have been ousted
[1:26:42] from their homes for the benefit of short-term rentals, well, that's what the six months
[1:26:48] is for, so we can gather that information.
[1:26:51] And if there is such information, I would urge you to go through your records, find that
[1:26:56] information and say, well, in the past, this is the number of cases and so on, and show
[1:27:01] us some evidence of that.
[1:27:02] And if it's there, that's why we want to spend six months to look for data that supports
[1:27:09] reasonable, intelligent rules about short-term rentals.
[1:27:12] If we need them, I will be the first one to say, okay, now we got some good stuff here.
[1:27:18] This information makes sense to me.
[1:27:20] There are X number of this is happening.
[1:27:22] There are so many complaints.
[1:27:23] There's X number of people who are running short-term rentals and they're not paying their tax and so on we can get that information together
[1:27:30] Sometimes folks say well, why didn't you jump right into it and do it immediately and some folks say why six months why are we waiting six months?
[1:27:38] We should do it right now and now it seems like one commenter said well, you should wait a year because the real information will come in the summertime
[1:27:46] time. You know, I suggested six months because I thought that was enough time for us to gather some
[1:27:53] data that would prove, one way or another, what her most of beach is like. Not insinitas, not this
[1:27:59] city of that city, even not even Manhattan Beach, which is a very close example. So I appreciate all
[1:28:07] of your comments. I don't disagree with you. I mean, I do disagree with you, but I don't think that
[1:28:12] But it's ridiculous to not even consider what you're saying.
[1:28:16] That's what the six months is for.
[1:28:17] Let's get the data.
[1:28:19] And if there's school data or noise data, whatever it is, let's get it in the next six
[1:28:24] months and then we'll work on this together and come up with some logical intelligent answers.
[1:28:29] Thank you.
[1:28:30] So I'll look to the city attorney real quick.
[1:28:32] I know 15 years old.
[1:28:34] I don't want to delve too far into this topic in this section of the agenda.
[1:28:39] So, I mean, are you going to speak on public comment, or I'm going to speak health?
[1:28:45] I've got a comment on that.
[1:28:47] I'm sorry.
[1:28:47] So, I mean, how much should we say for 15e versus diving into this right now?
[1:28:53] Well, since these items, the discussion was raised during public comment, I think it's appropriate
[1:28:59] to respond now to the specific things and it doesn't prohibit them from talking later, but
[1:29:06] I think it is appropriate for the public to address it now.
[1:29:12] Do you want to speak?
[1:29:15] Yeah.
[1:29:16] We can go first.
[1:29:18] Yeah, I just want to make a brief comment.
[1:29:19] There was a speaker that
[1:29:23] attempting to disparage homeowners and businesses
[1:29:28] because they put signs up supporting candidates for office expressing their freedom of speech.
[1:29:36] This kind of talk really should be discouraged.
[1:29:41] This type of bullying and pressure because someone is expressing their freedom of speech.
[1:29:47] It's just, it's deplorable.
[1:29:49] And we should really step above ourselves and trying to talk about things like that.
[1:29:56] the individual business at hand. Actually, I'm
[1:30:00] I believe he came down and testified that he's not even dealing with short-term rentals, because it's too much of a pain to even manage. So, I just wanted to make that comment that we really should step ourselves above this kind of bullying, talking, cornering people because they put a sign up for a certain kind. Let's get above this and move on to the goodness for what's good for our city. Thank you.
[1:30:24] Mayor Brutam. I just wanted to clarify the conflict of interest. The city attorney has stated that there is no comment.
[1:30:31] conflict of interest for people who own homes or rental properties in the coastal zone.
[1:30:36] And I might add, if you were really going to take the conflict of interest seriously,
[1:30:40] and wanted to go down to any potential, even nuance of a conflict, the only ones who could
[1:30:46] vote on this issue would be Michael Ditoire, my next to me, and Dean Francois, because everyone
[1:30:51] else is in the coastal zone and we're all eligible to run our homes.
[1:30:55] So stop getting on that soapbox.
[1:30:57] we don't have a quorum if we want to go the line of conflict of interest, so it's just,
[1:31:04] it's a moat point, it doesn't need to keep being blabored, I'm not voting illegally,
[1:31:08] I don't do short-term rentals, and I will mention that the manager that I use testified,
[1:31:14] and even as of yesterday I spoke to him, he has 100 rentals in the city that are furnished rentals,
[1:31:22] 100 and he's been available for him for six months now to turn those into vacation rentals
[1:31:28] and not one of his customers and clients has asked to do that.
[1:31:33] So everyone who thinks that the floodgates have opened, why didn't a hundred people who
[1:31:36] are already ready to open and have teapots and, you know, the toiletries and trash bags
[1:31:45] and are all set up to open up vacation rentals have an opened one, not one out of a hundred.
[1:31:50] And that's real data and when I listen to data and I said the summer's gone, the information
[1:31:56] and the data we already have is all is in the system for the last four years.
[1:32:01] We have four years of data from Deckard that tells us who rented, how much they made and
[1:32:06] where these properties are located.
[1:32:08] So we already have data and so we know how many places have been on the market, how often
[1:32:13] they've rented or approximately how often they've rented and we can tell if more are coming
[1:32:18] into the market or less.
[1:32:19] So we actually have a lot of data already and the data hasn't shown that we're swinging towards going
[1:32:25] Crazy with rentals. It's a chicken little problem. Everyone says the sky is falling as far as the schools go
[1:32:31] I mean the school population right now is lower
[1:32:36] You should be focused instead of worrying about you know a couple rentals turning over focus on all the parents
[1:32:41] That are sending the kids to private schools and even board members just you know people are sending the kids to private schools on our board and
[1:32:49] And why don't we bring those children back and focus on them?
[1:32:53] I mean, do you really think that 50 rentals turn over that the schools are going to empty
[1:32:58] out?
[1:32:59] I mean, seriously, it's not going to be a huge amount, most of these properties, if you
[1:33:04] look at the rental market and you look online even, there's small units, one bedroom, studios,
[1:33:10] efficiencies, families aren't moving into the one efficiency or one bedroom.
[1:33:15] It's ridiculous that the schools want us to stop the program, and also both proposals.
[1:33:20] I want to mention to the school board members, if we halt the program, we're losing $4,000 a day in income.
[1:33:27] I mean, it will take a year to get an application done with the Coastal Commission, at least.
[1:33:33] And Sunita's took two years, and so we're going to forgo the income that's already coming in that's legal to do.
[1:33:39] it seems ill-conceived. We should do what we're doing. We're going to implement the taxes, collect them, see where it goes, and if it's going poorly, we can start the hearings and develop committees and work on regulations that we think are effective, then we'll have to go through our process, then we'll have to go to the Coast Commission.
[1:33:59] Coast Commission will make its own changes that we will not be able to affect.
[1:34:04] And so then they'll decide and this will go back and forth for a while. It won't be solved in one meeting.
[1:34:08] So this is going to be an ongoing problem.
[1:34:11] It's not going to go away in six months either.
[1:34:13] So we'll be dealing with this.
[1:34:15] Hopefully there won't be many problems.
[1:34:17] Hopefully there won't be that many conversions.
[1:34:19] And hopefully it will go smoothly like it did Manhattan Beach.
[1:34:22] I keep saying Manhattan Beach, you can go open up and the investors that the one speaker talked about buying properties.
[1:34:29] Why haven't they bought speculators and hedge funds?
[1:34:32] Why aren't they buying up Manhattan Beach real estate and why aren't the schools and
[1:34:36] and had a beach concerned about the vacation rental program that's available today and
[1:34:40] has been for four years.
[1:34:43] They don't, the school board over there isn't running down the city council meetings and
[1:34:45] saying you're emptying out our schools.
[1:34:48] Why aren't they doing that?
[1:34:50] Is it a different place on earth?
[1:34:53] Well, that's all I got to say on this.
[1:34:57] Mayor, it's probably appropriate for me to say something on the legal side of things.
[1:35:02] I did review the Form 700 to another relevant information concerning the potential conflict
[1:35:10] sprays, regarding this item. Based on the information presently available, I have not been
[1:35:16] able to identify disqualifying financial conflict under the Political Reform Act requiring either
[1:35:21] Mayor Pro Tem Keegan or Councilman Seaman to recuse. Where the Political Reform Act establishes
[1:35:27] is it's qualifying conflict, recusal is mandatory,
[1:35:31] where no disqualifying conflict exists.
[1:35:34] The individual council member may never
[1:35:36] will ask choose to recuse voluntarily.
[1:35:39] Accordingly, both members may participate in this item,
[1:35:42] and any voluntary recrues remains within their individual
[1:35:44] discretion.
[1:35:46] I would like to close by.
[1:35:47] I would not recommend discussing the underlying
[1:35:49] privilege attorney client communications
[1:35:51] or legal analysis further in open session.
[1:35:56] Thank you.
[1:35:57] I think this is one of my least favorite parts about having this in agenda is you know one one side
[1:36:01] We get a plea about the first amendment and people get up and speak and then we'll be littering from them from the dice
[1:36:06] So I will ask my colleagues that we listen to every public commenter and not talk them down and not again
[1:36:13] If we want to speak about being cordial and having a nice
[1:36:18] Conversation don't attack the public commenters because they're getting up and speaking
[1:36:27] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I was going to table it to the discussion, but since we went there,
[1:36:32] then I guess I will go there. First of all, Mayor Pro Tem brought up Manhattan Beach,
[1:36:38] which I find interesting because I've yet to see a single report from Manhattan Beach.
[1:36:43] All we have is a comment that they have no problems in Manhattan Beach,
[1:36:48] as Manhattan Beach produced a report with regard to the impact over the last four years of STRs.
[1:36:54] have they flushed out any of the issues with regard to their school district.
[1:36:58] I can tell you, based on recent conversations with council members in Manhattan Beach,
[1:37:05] after six plus years of battling against the high-roads project on 401 Rose Crants, that
[1:37:13] because of Manhattan Beach's current policy, there is a discussion taking place at the
[1:37:19] owner of that property that was supposed to be affordable and all units available for
[1:37:24] rentals, you know, helping to solve the housing crisis that he is looking to potentially
[1:37:28] convert the 79 apartments to short-term rentals.
[1:37:33] So unless I have a report from Manhattan Beach, the word that, hey, there are no problems.
[1:37:40] I think it means nothing.
[1:37:41] That's not the way that we should base our policy just on a blanket statement from a city
[1:37:46] staff room. I mean, we keep comparing men's handbeats to her most of each. How many properties
[1:37:53] does men's handbeats have in the coastal zone? How many of those are rented? How many do we
[1:37:57] have? What's their density? Their density is nothing compared to ours. We are dense. Their parking
[1:38:02] issues are considerably different than ours. So the only, the only comp is they're a small
[1:38:09] beach city in LA County. And speaking of LA County, you know, there was a discussion, I think
[1:38:15] Council members, same in talked about reports.
[1:38:19] It's not the school boards role to provide information
[1:38:23] to council, it's staff.
[1:38:26] LA County did a study a few years ago
[1:38:29] on short-term rentals and the impact
[1:38:30] on the housing inventory.
[1:38:32] That should have been part of the staff report.
[1:38:34] Other communities have done studies
[1:38:37] on the impact of short-term rentals.
[1:38:40] Those should have been part of the staff report.
[1:38:41] We have nothing.
[1:38:42] All we have is a staff report that says, let's go, let's open these up anywhere, and let's
[1:38:49] destroy our community character, similar to what we saw with Measure O.
[1:38:55] And with regard to the
[1:38:59] community, certainly, the community certainly has a right to question
[1:39:07] the potential conflict of interest, because there are two council members who, quite frankly,
[1:39:12] We spearheaded this and were the major proponents of this that are also rental property owners.
[1:39:18] So there's nothing that says the day after this thing goes into effect that they can't
[1:39:23] then convert those into short-term rentals unless there's some safeguards.
[1:39:28] So I have more, I will table the rest of it for when we get to the item, but I just want
[1:39:34] to address those issues because my colleagues brought those up.
[1:39:38] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:39:40] All right.
[1:39:40] All right, they'll take us to updates on City Council activities.
[1:39:46] Anyone have any updates?
[1:39:50] Seeing none, I'll take us to consent calendar.
[1:39:55] We have DE and F poll, is there a motion to approve the balance?
[1:40:02] So move.
[1:40:03] Second, is there a second?
[1:40:05] Second.
[1:40:06] All right, any conversation?
[1:40:09] Madam City Clerk.
[1:40:11] Mayor Dittoy?
[1:40:12] Aye.
[1:40:13] Council Member Francois?
[1:40:13] Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Mayor Pearl Tim Keegan. Hi, councilmember Seaman. Yes, councilmember Jackson.
[1:40:22] Councilmember Jackson.
[1:40:26] Motion passes 5-0. He did
[1:40:28] mention about that. Thank you. 5-0.
[1:40:32] I know that F was stillated to go at the end of the meeting. Do you want to hear 15-D earlier in
[1:40:40] the meeting? You pulled D, right? It doesn't have to be done earlier. At the pleasure of the council.
[1:40:48] And then E, which I know the public hearing I continued, so where
[1:40:57] would you like to hear
[1:40:57] these in the order of the agenda?
[1:41:02] Mr. Mayor.
[1:41:03] Sir.
[1:41:04] Majority of people here, I think, are here for D, E, excuse me, and maybe we should do
[1:41:11] DE and F now in that order and then move on to the rest of the agenda.
[1:41:18] Okay.
[1:41:18] Yeah, I'm seeing sure there are 20 people here waiting for some other item 17 whatever then what makes sense but that's the order we have.
[1:41:30] Is there any different feeling to hear E now and push D and F litter or just go to the line? Go ahead.
[1:41:38] All right.
[1:41:41] I'll take us to 15 D. We're doing D. He said D. Yeah, yeah.
[1:41:49] Okay. So 15 D. Well, I guess, yes, yes. 15 D. The
[1:41:57] staff ready for that.
[1:42:09] For the record, Alison Becker, community development director. Happy to answer any
[1:42:14] questions you might have about this item. I pulled this item just because I
[1:42:18] wanted the residents to understand that this is our first SB 9 project in the
[1:42:24] city. Stay wide. There's been about five to 700 of these from what I can
[1:42:30] and detect through the internet and through different sources.
[1:42:34] So I don't know, it's at 100% accurate, but it's in that realm.
[1:42:37] This was an item passed by the state legislature about three years ago, and it's no an effect
[1:42:44] and it's been terribly lackluster.
[1:42:48] It was designed to increase the housing stock in the state and so far in three years, they've
[1:42:54] got less than 1,000 new units.
[1:42:56] So the one we're doing in this neighborhood I just wanted to explain to the city is that it would have been a single family home
[1:43:03] And it would have two parking spaces in front of it if it was redeveloped and now it's going to have no parking spaces on the street
[1:43:11] So we took away two street spots
[1:43:14] We're going to get two homes on 20-foot wide 25-foot wide lots that are
[1:43:19] Substandard is in length of 80 feet and so the state has helped us zone this project to
[1:43:25] a point where we're losing parking spaces in a city that they're in a premium and on that street in particular
[1:43:31] they're premium also there's very little street parking. So I just wanted to point it out that this was done by the state
[1:43:37] and it's zoning by state initiative instead of local zoning and it's probably not the best way to zone properties
[1:43:43] through state agencies. So I just wanted to point that out let my colleagues understand that there's our first project may not be our last
[1:43:50] We might see more of them, but we'll lose street spaces on blocks like this, so I just wanted to point that out.
[1:43:57] That's all.
[1:43:58] Would you like to respond to the question?
[1:44:01] I appreciate the clarification.
[1:44:04] I do believe it is the first one.
[1:44:06] It is a lack-gluster program.
[1:44:08] We don't have anything currently in the queue.
[1:44:12] But yes, there are effects to state top-down regulation for landages.
[1:44:19] And curiously, this SB9 was voted by our State Senator voted for this, but our State Assemblyman,
[1:44:30] Mayor Tucci voted against this item, so he did not approve it.
[1:44:35] So I want to give Kudos to Elmer Tucci for standing up for local cities and local zoning.
[1:44:42] Any other questions for staff?
[1:44:45] Seeing none, I'll open up for public comment.
[1:44:47] We
[1:44:51] did not receive any speaker cards and I have no hands raised.
[1:44:55] All right. We'll close public comment. Bring it back to the floor for a
[1:45:00] motion or deliberation. I'll make a motion to approve the staff receiving file.
[1:45:09] Let me make sure that's the it's not a receiving file. It's excuse me adopt the resolution to approve final parcel map and exempt from sequel guidelines for the staff report. Perfect. Is there a second? I'll second that with a comment. Yes, sir. This is something that's been looming over us for a long time and there is now finally one
[1:45:34] in our city we had another builders remedy in our city that we think the Lord
[1:45:41] that it didn't go through the way it was and it sort of dodged a boat on that one
[1:45:45] and I think that we need to do everything we can to try and regain local
[1:45:50] control in our city. I'll just say that and then I'll second the motion. Thank you.
[1:45:56] All right. We have motion second. Madam City clerk. Councilmember Jackson.
[1:46:04] Aye. Mayor Proughtson Keegan. Aye. Councilmember Seaman. Aye. Councilmember François. Yes.
[1:46:11] Mayor Dittoy. Aye. Motion passes. 5-0. Thank you. 15-E, Director Walker.
[1:46:22] I don't want to speak for my colleagues, but do we need a presentation on this? There's straight to questions.
[1:46:35] I think a brief presentation would be appropriate, so the public's aware of what we're doing tonight.
[1:46:42] Thank you.
[1:46:43] So, Mayor, Council, good evening.
[1:46:45] I'm just a recap of what was discussed and voted on the last Council meeting.
[1:46:50] And the item in front of you now is the second reading of an ordinance that was approved by Council by 3-2-4,
[1:46:56] So essentially accepting an option which directed staff to make no additional updates to the short-term vacation rental program.
[1:47:06] As is, collect data for six months and subsequent to that staff would return to council for the deliberation and community input on a program moving forward via a coastal application to the coastal commission for final review.
[1:47:23] you. So that's that's where we stand today. Obviously, there's going to be a lot of discussions
[1:47:28] tonight. Staff is here. Legal is here to answer any questions. You are the community
[1:47:32] may have.
[1:47:34] Perfect. I'm sorry. Good. I have a question, staff.
[1:47:42] Will any rule requirement
[1:47:45] agreement or allowance between the city and any SDR landlord result in any kind of a vested
[1:47:52] the right to that landlord.
[1:47:55] I'm not aware of any legally vested right.
[1:47:57] We have a several continued treat STR and TOT as separate clutch
[1:48:02] efforts.
[1:48:03] I don't know if the city attorney wants to chime in to give.
[1:48:05] Yeah, that isn't getting on that.
[1:48:07] I appreciate that.
[1:48:07] Thank you, but that isn't exactly my question.
[1:48:09] Perhaps it'd be better for the city attorney.
[1:48:12] My question is this, assuming that someone in the zone
[1:48:16] during this trial period that we have,
[1:48:20] Rents a place out with short-term rental and there is something that they are doing that we allow them to do because it's a short-term rental.
[1:48:32] Then when this comes around and we make a rule against it, he cannot come back to us and say, well, you can't cap the number of units because now I can't rent, because I used to rent.
[1:48:42] that, no I can't rent, there is no vested right that any short-term rental owner landlord
[1:48:49] would have because of participating in this program is what I'm trying to say.
[1:48:55] So just because they pay registration and pay their DOT payment, there is no vested
[1:49:05] it right to go forward in the operation under the SDR regulations.
[1:49:11] The council can adopt, going forward, adopt the gap, lottery, other eligibility requirements
[1:49:17] and they would have to hear those, they don't have a vested right to be exempted from that.
[1:49:22] Thank you.
[1:49:22] That's all I wanted to know.
[1:49:25] Thank you.
[1:49:28] Thanks, Professor Francois.
[1:49:29] Thank you.
[1:49:33] So, tonight before us is a ministerial action to approve what we adopted at the public hearing
[1:49:39] last month.
[1:49:40] I assume public notice was given, that was the time for people to contribute, we even
[1:49:46] had a member of the school board come before us that evening.
[1:49:50] But if we wanted to propose a cap or a limit tomorrow, let's say, what would we have
[1:50:01] to produce first in terms of analysis hearings, findings, what process would be involved
[1:50:08] before it would actually happen.
[1:50:14] From the staff level, we earned the assumption that a coastal application has to be submitted with any restrictions.
[1:50:21] That was an interpretation from the current case was that we were being done essentially putting restrictions in the coastal zone.
[1:50:30] So it would be forbidden for that until we move forward with an approved coastal plan.
[1:50:33] So from the staff level, Mr. Baltimore can chime in as that.
[1:50:37] but we're in the assumption that any regulations in the Colson zone for SCRs first needs Colson approval before we enact anything at the City of Bubble.
[1:50:44] And just chime in, Council Member, from staff's perspective, of course, we take direction from Council, if you want us to hold certain hearings.
[1:50:53] We certainly, depending on what the direction of Council was at the last meeting, if we had direction to begin holding hearings.
[1:51:01] I had spoken to the mayor about this.
[1:51:04] We could have held one later this month and the following month to have as much input
[1:51:10] as possible.
[1:51:12] There was a suggestion that a joint meeting with the Planning Commission could have been
[1:51:15] possible.
[1:51:16] There are lots of different options that we could pursue to do this depending on what Council
[1:51:21] wanted.
[1:51:21] You want multiple hearings, of course, we'll have multiple hearings.
[1:51:25] We always intend to bring back more information to inform those hearings as well.
[1:51:32] So, we would need to come up with data, we wouldn't have a lot of data, we would just
[1:51:36] have a few hearings and produce something and go to coastal.
[1:51:41] What we have passed here is a six month interim so that we can begin registering them, collect
[1:51:50] data.
[1:51:52] And within those six months, we certainly could perhaps, at the fourth month, have a planning
[1:51:58] commission hearing, and see what data we have, and we could essentially have something
[1:52:05] together in a fast track, let's say, in six months, according to what we've passed today,
[1:52:11] to go forward with some type of data and inclusion to build a record for what we need for our coastal
[1:52:18] development permit. Is that fair to say?
[1:52:21] We could do that out of council desires, I guess.
[1:52:23] Right. But I mean, with what we've passed tonight, that could be done. We don't have to wait
[1:52:28] wait for six months before a planning commission begins a hearing on it.
[1:52:32] We could add planning commission hearings ahead of time because basically what we've passed
[1:52:36] here is it comes in front of us in six months.
[1:52:40] Council desires.
[1:52:41] I'll do that.
[1:52:42] Okay.
[1:52:44] Thank you.
[1:52:45] That's all I have.
[1:52:45] Thank you.
[1:52:46] Thank you.
[1:52:47] Only questions are more for my colleagues.
[1:52:49] We keep hearing about data.
[1:52:50] And so I just want to, it wasn't very clear in the staff report what data we want to look
[1:52:53] at.
[1:52:54] So I want to task and challenge all my colleagues what what data are you looking for in six months?
[1:53:01] I'll answer that if you like sure
[1:53:04] To me, it seems that
[1:53:06] Almost everything that's been mentioned in the last few weeks about
[1:53:10] What we should be doing rules that we should be creating do we need a cap on the number of them?
[1:53:16] Oh, how will we know that?
[1:53:18] Unless we have some data about how many units we actually have are there too many of them?
[1:53:23] is there 100 of them, 1,000 of them?
[1:53:24] Where is there only 50 or 15?
[1:53:27] So that's one thing that we need to know.
[1:53:29] How many people have signed up for short-term rentals?
[1:53:34] Are they paying their TOT tax?
[1:53:37] How many complaints are there about noise ordinance?
[1:53:41] And while we're on that subject, I think the most important thing
[1:53:43] we can do about the noise ordinance
[1:53:45] is enforce the law we have, probably
[1:53:47] in a little bit more forcefully
[1:53:50] than we have been in the past.
[1:53:54] So how many noise complaints out there?
[1:53:56] How many units are there?
[1:53:57] What are they renting for?
[1:53:59] What's the kind of income are they producing?
[1:54:01] Are they paying their TOT tax?
[1:54:03] How much TOT tax is there so far?
[1:54:08] How many are there?
[1:54:09] How close together are they?
[1:54:11] Do we need a cap?
[1:54:12] Do we need to separate them?
[1:54:15] And how would we separate them?
[1:54:17] What would be the first we have to have a need for that?
[1:54:19] But we have to know if we really even need to be discussing that.
[1:54:23] So having a hearing or meetings with the Planning Commission, that's all fine and
[1:54:28] dandy, but since until we have some information to work on, until we have something to talk
[1:54:35] about what kind of rules we should have, or what rules we should have, it doesn't make
[1:54:40] sense to me to begin having those hearings yet.
[1:54:45] We could do them, it's fine, but that's not the point.
[1:54:48] the point is to have six months to collect that data.
[1:54:51] And now, one new aspect of that data would be what's going on with the school board.
[1:54:56] It would be my idea that the school board should provide that information.
[1:54:59] If there is such information about how many families are actually leaving,
[1:55:03] how many children are actually leaving their school district because of short-term rentals,
[1:55:08] or because of their lease loss, we have no way of knowing that.
[1:55:12] The school board would have that information, I think, or the PTA or somebody would have that.
[1:55:16] but we don't have that.
[1:55:18] We need to get that.
[1:55:20] So perhaps the school board should give us
[1:55:22] the names and addresses of every child who they say
[1:55:24] has lost their, we've lost them in our schools
[1:55:27] because of short-term rentals,
[1:55:29] and then we can compare those addresses
[1:55:31] to the short-term rentals to find out if that's really the case.
[1:55:35] I don't think that's really practical either.
[1:55:37] So when I say school board says that this is happening,
[1:55:41] then I would like that data to be included
[1:55:43] in what we're talking about here.
[1:55:45] So that's what I think as far as data is concerned.
[1:55:48] There's probably other things too, too many to mention.
[1:55:52] But before we go off making new rules, we have to find out what the problems are to have
[1:55:56] a rule to fix the problem.
[1:55:58] And if there's no problem, I don't think we need a rule.
[1:56:01] So let's get some data first.
[1:56:04] I appreciate that.
[1:56:06] Mayor?
[1:56:07] Sir?
[1:56:08] I mean, the data collection, the first thing I assume, Brandon, you're going to first identify
[1:56:12] And so this is correct. You're going to identify what our current inventory of people who were doing it. Let's say illegally that wasn't illegal.
[1:56:19] Do we have that database? Yes. Do we know what places are full-time STRs right now? Do we have a number on that?
[1:56:27] We have scraping data that gives us a pretty good estimate of the last four years by address, which ones have been posting.
[1:56:33] It's at 100% lockstep effort, but it gives us a good gauge of how many are out there and how many have been over the last four years.
[1:56:39] And approximately how many are would you say full-time?
[1:56:43] It varies by season any time is so they're not full time that no, yeah, we'd at the parcel data
[1:56:48] We would we would find some of them are any full-time
[1:56:51] We need to find a full-time
[1:56:53] three hundred nights a year
[1:56:55] I'd have to look at the data about the top map. You haven't run it by by
[1:56:58] I believe yeah the staff report had in it there were 65 bookings on average per month so there's 65
[1:57:07] five bookings per month, so approximately 65 units would be,
[1:57:11] or 50 units would be permanent, let's assume,
[1:57:14] maybe last, because some are part time.
[1:57:16] So maybe no one would have went to school
[1:57:18] because of these are part time.
[1:57:20] These are part time, right?
[1:57:21] 65 number, though, is not demonstrative
[1:57:26] of full time versus part time.
[1:57:29] I think we have a gauge of about 225 on average
[1:57:34] that are advertising, but we're getting 65 bookings a month.
[1:57:38] We would have to look closer at the data
[1:57:40] to determine how many were repeat customers.
[1:57:43] We do know that there are some addresses
[1:57:45] that went more than others.
[1:57:48] Okay, so we right now are maybe less than 50 units done.
[1:57:53] I don't want to say for sure right now.
[1:57:55] Okay, well I guess we'll use even the highest number 68.
[1:57:58] So 68, and what month was that taken from last month?
[1:58:03] It might have been an average of the last four months, I believe I have to verify that.
[1:58:07] So that contained this past summer?
[1:58:10] Can't say for certain, I'll have to check on that.
[1:58:12] Okay.
[1:58:12] Well, that would be great to have.
[1:58:13] I think that obviously it's not going to be much different if that was four months because
[1:58:17] I would get the spring also.
[1:58:19] So I mean, the data we want to collect is to kind of figure out what our baseline is, mayor.
[1:58:23] Figure out how much it's going up, you know, each month and get a gauge of people's interest.
[1:58:29] just like I mentioned, one operator who manages 100 units
[1:58:34] hasn't seen one potential property leaves.
[1:58:38] So I'd like to see if that number grows over the next three
[1:58:42] months or even if it goes down because of the weather.
[1:58:45] I mean, it makes sense to me that they'll be even less
[1:58:49] by the end of the year.
[1:58:50] And so if we come back in six months in March and there's only
[1:58:54] 50 or 45, I think we won't be looking
[1:58:58] and at a tsunami of conversions.
[1:59:02] So I think it's good to collect some information
[1:59:04] on where the trends are going
[1:59:06] and if it's even gonna be a problem.
[1:59:09] So I think that's a pertinent thing to do at this stage
[1:59:13] because they've had five months to ramp it up
[1:59:16] and it's not happening yet.
[1:59:17] So maybe it won't ever happen.
[1:59:22] Any other data that we're looking at?
[1:59:25] No, I think that, you know, that's the data that we need to make our limits in caps
[1:59:32] enforceable in order to get them approved by coastal, if that's what we need to do,
[1:59:37] if we try to just pick it without those numbers and have it shot back, everything gets delayed
[1:59:42] more.
[1:59:43] So, and especially those 65 and 1 through 50 a month, we get them registered.
[1:59:48] We get them online, we figure out are these homes with families that go away for a week and they rent it out then, I mean, we can have that day.
[2:00:00] Data in that characteristic, what type of households they are, and then we can better predict what kind of restrictions we really need, whether they are caps, whether they are limitations on a certain number, or even some near closer to the schools. All of those things are something we need to have to make them enforceable, and it appears to be pragmatic to get that information and get it to us first. Thank you.
[2:00:29] Thank you. I think the data that I really want would come from having conversations with
[2:00:35] the community because none of you guys mentioned listening to our neighbors and listening
[2:00:40] to the people who live in town. And again, that comes from public hearings and noticing
[2:00:45] them and again having more seats at the table and more touches on this. So we can get into
[2:00:51] the conversation after public comment. But again, I think the most important data is also
[2:00:55] to the residents.
[2:00:58] Ray or behind me, so I can't really see you.
[2:01:01] I've got a few questions, Mr. Mayor.
[2:01:03] Thank you.
[2:01:05] I want to start with this never ending comparison
[2:01:08] to Manhattan Beach.
[2:01:10] Do we have any data
[2:01:12] with regard to what Manhattan Beach has done
[2:01:14] over the last four years besides anecdotal?
[2:01:17] That's all we've heard.
[2:01:20] Just revenue received.
[2:01:22] I, as part of this effort, I will be reaching out to
[2:01:26] All we have is their last three years of TOT revenue received, but nothing formal regarding
[2:01:32] number of complaints.
[2:01:34] Okay.
[2:01:35] Well, there's more to S-T-V-Rs to just complaints and unbothered by the fact that you relied
[2:01:41] on Manhattan Beach heavily with regard to your staff report and the recommendation, but
[2:01:47] you have nothing from Manhattan Beach to talk about the good, the bad, the ugly.
[2:01:50] were you aware that the high rose project that was a bonus density project they're
[2:01:58] looking to convert there's 79 units into STBRs this is something a staff is
[2:02:02] aware of
[2:02:05] staff is aware that that was a point discussion when the project was
[2:02:09] approved and there should be a covenant that's part that runs with the land that
[2:02:13] prevents that. So there should be is there one are you aware of that and do we have
[2:02:17] that, because that's I had a discussion the other day with it was approved as part of
[2:02:23] the approval. Okay, well, I would like to see that because the the mayor right now
[2:02:31] had a discussion that they are looking to convert those 79 units into STVRs. So I'd like
[2:02:37] to see that as opposed to just hearing it. So I really appreciate a real report with regard
[2:02:43] to Manhattan Beach as opposed to just I heard this or I spoke to somebody because we can't
[2:02:47] conducting policy based on what we hear or what we think. We need actual facts from the ground.
[2:02:54] Do we know how many properties they have in their coastal zone and how that compares to ours?
[2:02:58] Have we done that comparison?
[2:03:01] No council member. Okay, do we know anything about how many multifamily
[2:03:07] homes do they have in their coastal zone compared to ours?
[2:03:13] No. And do we know anything about how
[2:03:16] How many registered STVRs versus unregistered?
[2:03:20] Now we heard, you just said a few minutes ago Mr. City Manager, we have between 225 and
[2:03:25] 300, which you can find on any given day of STVRs in her most of beach, and we know that
[2:03:33] the vast majority of them, I think probably 90 plus percent, are not properly registered.
[2:03:37] So has Manhattan Beach done a study on those that are licensed and permitted, as opposed
[2:03:43] to those that are not?
[2:03:44] a study. I'm not aware of a study. They do report anything. Do you have anything
[2:03:50] from Manhattan Beach to rely on them as a comparison city? They have a number
[2:03:56] that is that are registered that report TOT to them last time. That's it.
[2:04:01] Nothing else. Correct. Okay. I want to talk SQL real quick because the city is
[2:04:10] relying on the sequo exemption for the short-term rental ordinance. I'm just
[2:04:17] trying to figure out how can this city conclude there's no possible, no
[2:04:21] possible, environmental impact for allowing short-term rentals throughout
[2:04:25] residential neighborhoods. Did we study potential impacts on traffic, noise, trash,
[2:04:31] water, safety, services, schools, the intensity of residential use? Did any of
[2:04:39] that happen?
[2:04:43] What did we find for the sequel?
[2:04:52] I mean, from what I've read, we've simply stated that
[2:04:54] the sequel, this ordinance is exempt from sequel.
[2:04:57] But we've seen no evidence, no legal analysis supporting
[2:05:01] the conclusion that expanding short-term rentals throughout
[2:05:04] residential neighborhoods will have no, no significant direct
[2:05:08] indirect procurement of environmental impact.
[2:05:12] And I don't know how a conversion of an apartment building into
[2:05:16] a hotel would not trigger an environmental review. So I'm curious as to how the city can
[2:05:22] explain the widespread conversion of residential units and the transient accommodations, how
[2:05:29] that would not raise sequel concerns.
[2:05:33] What I do know is that when this staff report was submitted to my office for review, this was
[2:05:41] sent over to our CEQA folks to take a look at and they came back with they didn't have
[2:05:48] any concerns based upon the information that was submitted to them. I would have to double
[2:05:53] track to find out more detail on that specific thing since there's a specific group that
[2:05:59] handles that. I think it's pretty important because the staff report was emphatic that there
[2:06:08] There is no, and I repeat, no possible environmental impact by allowing short-term rentals throughout
[2:06:15] residential neighborhoods.
[2:06:16] That means there's no impact on traffic, noise, trash, water, sewer use, schools, safety
[2:06:22] services, intensity of residential units.
[2:06:25] I don't know how putting potentially hundreds of businesses that are transient occupancy businesses,
[2:06:31] is, how does that not have any possible environmental impact?
[2:06:38] So we've got that blanket statement that just basically says, hey, trust us, but I think
[2:06:43] that opens up the city to liability and we can't afford to take that risk.
[2:06:52] If Mr. State attorney, if I were to take an apartment complex and convert it to a legal
[2:06:56] hotel right now, is there a sequel, a sequel review that's done?
[2:07:02] So typically in those type of actions there is some sort of secret analysis that's done.
[2:07:08] So with level review that is, I'm not a secret expert, that's why I farm it out to secret
[2:07:15] experts to opine and look at that.
[2:07:18] So I can't give you a definitive answer on that because I'm not a secret expert.
[2:07:24] Okay.
[2:07:24] I think, you know, before we move further on anything, the city must explain why the white
[2:07:32] with conversion of residential units into transient accommodations would not raise
[2:07:37] similar SQL concerns. It just doesn't make sense in my mind. I'll move on from SQL.
[2:07:52] Have we, I've yet to receive any comments from residents that they are all for this unlimited
[2:08:03] at STVR ban being lifted, excuse me, imposed that we will now permit these unlimited STVRs.
[2:08:11] As staff received any residents that have said, hey, I'm all for this.
[2:08:16] You can put two, three, four units around me.
[2:08:18] I'm okay with that.
[2:08:20] I'm good with the change of my community character.
[2:08:25] We have received emails from property owners who are in favor of this.
[2:08:32] I think the majority of those from what I've read are those that are second and third home
[2:08:39] owners and property managers.
[2:08:42] I've yet to receive a single comment and maybe it's just me my inbox didn't receive those
[2:08:48] where a resident said, hey, I'm more than happy to have a couple less TBRs surrounding
[2:08:55] me, unlimited.
[2:08:57] and
[2:09:05] just to set the record straight, the Coastal Commission has 120 days from the date of receipt of a completed application which to take action.
[2:09:16] So, and based on my discussions with the Coastal Commission, if we had a completed application,
[2:09:24] And let's not forget, we submitted a CDP months ago, and after hiring our consultant,
[2:09:30] we submitted a CDP, and we pulled that without any explanation or notice.
[2:09:35] And so, if we've done what we should have done months ago, we could have had an approved
[2:09:41] CDP.
[2:09:45] And that's all my questions for now, Mr. Mayor.
[2:09:47] Thank you.
[2:09:48] Thank you.
[2:09:49] Any other questions pop up?
[2:09:51] Well, staff, the CDC application, was that reflect the loss of the court case, that application,
[2:10:02] were that have contained that application we were going to submit, did that take reflect
[2:10:07] that we lost the case and we had to be open to full rental,
[2:10:18] or that assume that we were
[2:10:19] not going to lose the case.
[2:10:20] Again, Alison Becker for the record, community development director, the city was pursuing
[2:10:27] a coastal development permit for its then existing short-term rental program.
[2:10:35] And once the court case came down, that option was no longer available, which is why you're
[2:10:43] in discussions now on this alternate.
[2:10:45] And so that was the one with the commercial corridors where we had seven rentals, is that correct?
[2:10:49] So we were going to submit a plan for seven rentals.
[2:10:52] I'd have to ask councilman's rejects.
[2:10:55] And I mean, do you think that could have got approved
[2:10:56] with seven rentals in the city of her most of beach?
[2:10:59] Well, let's make sure the facts are clear.
[2:11:01] Mr. Mayor, through the mayor.
[2:11:03] I could, sir.
[2:11:04] Yes, sir.
[2:11:05] Just to make sure the facts are clear.
[2:11:08] It was after the court case where we unanimously agreed
[2:11:12] that we would pursue a CDP through the Coastal Commission
[2:11:16] and a TOT recovery program.
[2:11:18] full stop. It was after the results of the court case. We didn't put that in and then
[2:11:24] said, oh, let's see what happens with the court case. No, it was after the court case
[2:11:27] where we unanimously said, let's put in a CDP application which we never saw it was never
[2:11:33] reviewed and then it was surprisingly withdrawn without any counsel direction or advisement.
[2:11:39] So I'll just say from the staff perspective, we were working on submitting a full application
[2:11:52] in the fall of last year and we submitted it in early spring before the court decision.
[2:12:03] and we received a direction from council to proceed with the CDP, I discovered that
[2:12:13] the city had a pending CDP application that had been deemed incomplete for our existing
[2:12:21] program and we proceeded to build out that application so that it could be deemed complete.
[2:12:28] And that was before the court decision.
[2:12:32] Thank you.
[2:12:34] But we hired a consultant to help us with this application.
[2:12:38] So the consultant worked for me.
[2:12:41] He is a senior planner level individual, as an on call person receiving direction from
[2:12:51] your community development director.
[2:12:56] Correct.
[2:12:56] And that was again after the corner case that was before that was before I hired him in the fall to help staff prepare the application.
[2:13:10] Okay, well that's not consistent with what I was told by the city manager.
[2:13:13] So I will double check my records and I'll look for that information from the city manager.
[2:13:19] Sorry for the confusion.
[2:13:24] Mr. Mayor.
[2:13:27] Thank you.
[2:13:27] Now that Alison is here, I thought maybe you could shed some light on.
[2:13:32] Council Member Jackson is concerned about sequel.
[2:13:37] Unfortunately, we can't really weaponize sequel or use it when it comes to housing.
[2:13:42] As I understand, we'd like to, we'd say, hey, these are significant environmental incase.
[2:13:47] But in fact, negative decks are very common, and could you shed some light on the concern
[2:13:55] that Councilmember Jackson had about CEQA and why we can't use CEQA to better control
[2:14:03] our situation when it comes to housing and all that?
[2:14:08] I'm actually not, I don't think I'm going to be able to shed a lot of additional light.
[2:14:13] I would say that every time that a policy project is brought before council, you're looking
[2:14:21] very specifically at what the policy project is.
[2:14:25] In this case, it is a registration program that is within the administrative code.
[2:14:32] It is not a land use policy.
[2:14:37] and therefore the strategy that was taken for a sequel exemption was considered appropriate by the city attorney.
[2:14:48] Okay, thank you.
[2:14:52] Seeing no other questions, we'll open up for a moment.
[2:14:54] I've got a couple of Mr. Mr. Mayor because that's not what the city attorney said.
[2:15:00] We're going to ask about CEQA. And I take exception to the weaponization of CEQA. CEQA has a valid and legitimate purpose. And when you say, when we're converting residential homes into visitor serving businesses, these are businesses, this is a business license, people are applying for it. And we're talking about potentially hundreds of them and just say that there is no possible environmental impact. I don't think what would stand simple scrutiny.
[2:15:28] and so I look forward to reading that legal review and I think that we can certainly
[2:15:33] can't move forward without that.
[2:15:41] You good, Rick? Yeah, I'm good, thank you.
[2:15:44] Okay, thank you. We'll open up for public comment, Madam City Clerk.
[2:15:50] We did not
[2:15:50] receive any speaker cards. I do have one virtual speaker. Tony Higgins, your three
[2:15:55] minutes will start when you begin speaking.
[2:16:05] I think that the you guys really have to
[2:16:09] take a hard look and I hate to say Councilman Jackson's concern about Sequa and
[2:16:24] I don't think
[2:16:25] you can proceed with this based on the sketchy reply we got from the city sketchy maybe the
[2:16:37] wrong word and the information we got from the city attorney on Sikha compliance and
[2:16:51] I think any reasonable person would say that Councilman Jackson's concerns about the
[2:17:04] impact the policy as a whole.
[2:17:13] You just can't proceed until you have answers to
[2:17:17] his concerns about Sichua. So that's all I got to say.
[2:17:25] Thank you. Next we have
[2:17:28] Ann Gotha for your three minutes will start when he begins speaking.
[2:17:34] Hello
[2:17:35] So yes, you know, I had notes endorsing Claudia Berman's well thought out comments posted
[2:17:46] before the meeting as well as acknowledging the logic of many of Tony Higgins published
[2:17:52] comments.
[2:17:54] However, I want to scrap that just to say I want to address this continuing argument that we
[2:18:00] need data before creating policy and regulations.
[2:18:04] I can't think of another situation where policies are created after a program is fully underway.
[2:18:13] It's just totally illogical.
[2:18:16] So for example, it is the plan to decide a potential cap just based on the number of applicants.
[2:18:24] So if there's 600 applicants, is that going to be our cap?
[2:18:28] I mean, generally, you would make guidelines in advance.
[2:18:35] What is it that we want?
[2:18:37] Not what happens and then see if we like it or not
[2:18:40] and what needs to be changed and can be clawbacked,
[2:18:43] license visits, et cetera.
[2:18:45] So I appreciate, first of all, Mike,
[2:18:50] thank you for bringing up the fact that input
[2:18:53] from the community is something important.
[2:18:56] and also Councilman Jackson for reiterating that at least clarifying that this comparison
[2:19:07] to Manhattan Beach is really being made without a lot of information.
[2:19:12] So I don't see how I was in favor of option two last month, but I honestly I don't see
[2:19:21] how we can really move forward with the ordinance as it was voted on last
[2:19:26] month. I think there's just too many unanswered questions. So thank you for
[2:19:31] your time.
[2:19:35] Next speaker is Maggie B.
[2:19:42] Good evening honorable gentleman Mr. Mayor.
[2:19:45] Housing and quality of life are interconnected which means we need a planned
[2:19:49] approach that emphasizes common sense decision-making and a shared vision for
[2:19:53] the city. We can match our revenue opportunities while protecting Hermosa's
[2:19:58] character in quality of life.
[2:20:00] In June, when the city created a portal to collect taxes
[2:20:04] and registration this council issued a statement,
[2:20:07] our goal is to listen to the community,
[2:20:09] understand what fits our culture and craft a policy
[2:20:12] that reflects the hermosa beach we want to preserve.
[2:20:15] If that's the goal, this council needs to get curious
[2:20:18] about the impacts of decisions it makes on residents behalf.
[2:20:22] We have no baseline data to evaluate changes
[2:20:24] from this policy in six months,
[2:20:26] nor do we have a vision for what this city should look like.
[2:20:30] What violations have been reported inside it since June?
[2:20:33] How many companies have registered under the new rules?
[2:20:36] Is there going to be a process to punish bad actors?
[2:20:39] And most importantly, how many students, neighbors, and residents are we willing to lose?
[2:20:46] Council, some council members have stated that data is available.
[2:20:49] And if that is the case, why wasn't it put in report?
[2:20:52] And if you were curious, you would have reached out to community stakeholders like the school
[2:20:56] district and you would have learned that we are already investigating over a
[2:20:59] dozen STR fraud cases. The Hermos Beach School District is an award-winning
[2:21:05] district recognized by the state for its best practices. It has the highest
[2:21:09] rate of enrollment in my lifetime and that's because of shared engagement with
[2:21:14] the community. We work towards a shared vision for our district. What we do know
[2:21:19] right now is that converting permanent housing into unregulated short-term
[2:21:23] rentals, shrinks our rental supply for long-term residents, it inflates rental prices for
[2:21:29] folks looking to rent here and destabilizes our school enrollment and our teacher pipeline.
[2:21:34] I support a common sense frameworks that will cap STRs in the coastal zone, enforce
[2:21:38] strict registration, collect fair taxes, and encourage strict code enforcement.
[2:21:44] Council members keep citing and hand beach as a model, we've heard it enough from different
[2:21:49] Monday night, but let's look at how we're different. Her
[2:21:53] most is ordinance effects almost 50% of our housing stock while
[2:21:56] our Hatton beaches is at 27%. Her most is policy already
[2:22:00] endorses a reduction of 4% of long-term residents while
[2:22:04] Manhattan beaches at 2.5%. In the same period of time that
[2:22:07] Manhattan Beach has put this policy in, they've lost 600
[2:22:10] students. The goal here is simple. We can take fiscal
[2:22:14] responsibility with a proactive local control to protect our
[2:22:18] our coastal character, our neighborhood, and multigenerational access by creating a vision.
[2:22:24] Thank you.
[2:22:27] Next speaker is Jim H.
[2:22:36] Council, first I want to address the multiple comments made here and on the most of each
[2:22:43] residence form about Francois Keegan and Seaman being accused.
[2:22:50] I know Robert raised he was here. He says he does not do 30-day rentals. He did use to and it was called
[2:23:00] sunny vacation rentals. And now that he had stopped because of the ban 10 years ago, he now
[2:23:07] changed the name to sunny furnished rentals. No short term. He doesn't want to do it anymore. It's
[2:23:13] too much work for him. And it's not for everybody. Like he said last week. As far as
[2:23:20] as Seaman, I I feel bad about the beer pond situation. This be lucky it was a
[2:23:27] four-night stay or a short stay. If you lived in my unit when I bought it on the
[2:23:33] strand for six years, I had that noise every night plus my long-term neighbors
[2:23:39] blocking my cars. One time I came out and so on with having sex with the
[2:23:43] This girlfriend on my car, and these were longer neighbors.
[2:23:46] My point is, is not the short-term mental causing the problem, it's the people causing
[2:23:52] the problem.
[2:23:52] Those people can be anyone.
[2:23:54] So you regulate the noise, nuisance, and trash, and parking, and everything like that.
[2:24:00] Not the way that the house is run.
[2:24:05] As far as Mr. Jackson, I just found out you're my neighbor.
[2:24:09] It's a two-minute walk for my place of yours.
[2:24:11] and I hope my unit for 16 years hasn't bothered you.
[2:24:15] I know it hasn't because my neighbors love me
[2:24:18] and my short-term renters.
[2:24:20] I can have them by statements.
[2:24:22] They even recommend their friends and family.
[2:24:25] Hey, stay close, stay at Jim's place.
[2:24:28] So, you know, because I don't cause any problems,
[2:24:30] I don't make any noise, I all have my number
[2:24:32] and Mr. Seaman, if you call me up in the middle of the night
[2:24:35] saying, hey, your renters making too much noise,
[2:24:38] I would stop that immediately.
[2:24:40] And that's what we should ask for all of the short-term rental operators.
[2:24:45] As far as the lady from the school board and Mr. Jackson who is afraid of having short-term rentals take over the city.
[2:24:53] We have a great suggestion in the proposal.
[2:24:57] Two-year auditorium if someone kicks out a new fault tenant.
[2:25:02] Well, let's add it for new purchases, too.
[2:25:05] This way, people don't come in by short-term rentals.
[2:25:09] That that should handle it. You know plus, you know, you would have seen this in Manhattan Beach
[2:25:14] Yes, I know my hand to beach is different than how most of each but 10 years ago
[2:25:18] And it's the same and I think you can concur with me that people were saying hey, my hand to beach has a band
[2:25:23] So most of should have a band too now that my hand to beach is working without any regulation
[2:25:30] They say oh my hand to beach is different and everything's different
[2:25:33] You know, it's like you kind of make the argument where you have the destination
[2:25:38] and then you make your argument to support it.
[2:25:41] And the, you know, and the person that said
[2:25:44] that the, you know, the short eventals caused no problem
[2:25:47] was no anecdotal statement from a staff member.
[2:25:50] That came from the police chief,
[2:25:52] from the police chief right here,
[2:25:55] well, in the Manhattan Beach version
[2:25:57] of their council meeting, and I can send that to you.
[2:26:00] So that has a lot of weight.
[2:26:02] So yeah, that might not be surveys or data,
[2:26:05] but we do have that from the police chief.
[2:26:08] Jim, your time is up.
[2:26:09] Okay, thank you.
[2:26:10] There's no call.
[2:26:10] So I don't know.
[2:26:11] Oh, sorry.
[2:26:12] I have it on our screen.
[2:26:14] Yeah, it's not.
[2:26:14] Put a clock here.
[2:26:19] I did not receive any other speaker cards
[2:26:21] and I do not have any other hands raised.
[2:26:25] One last call for public comment.
[2:26:30] I do have one more hand raised.
[2:26:31] Laura Pena, your three minutes will start
[2:26:33] when you begin speaking.
[2:26:37] Hi, yes, Laura Pena.
[2:26:40] Before I tell you what I think,
[2:26:41] I want to tell you what I know. Our city has actually been studying short-term for a very
[2:26:47] long time. The city adopted its short-term model pilot program in 2019 and it limited primarily
[2:26:54] to legal, non-conforming residential units in our commercial area, not our residential. Then they
[2:27:00] extended it and extended it again and then again. So apparently, when a government says we're doing
[2:27:06] a pilot program, that means the plane gets to circle the airport for seven years. And after
[2:27:11] After all that, what do we have?
[2:27:13] We have fewer than a dozen permitted short-term rents.
[2:27:17] The city's own March 2026, 186-page package to the Coulsel Commission reported just ten
[2:27:24] permitted units all in the Coulsel Zone.
[2:27:27] So let's be clear, that pilot couldn't possibly tell us much about what happens when short-term
[2:27:32] rentals are suddenly allowed throughout the Coulsel Zone.
[2:27:36] And then the corner decision happened.
[2:27:37] The court changed the landscape, and now the city says it will take the next six months
[2:27:42] to collect real word data.
[2:27:44] That's a fact.
[2:27:45] But here's what I think.
[2:27:47] If we're going to spend six months learning, let's actually learn something.
[2:27:51] Because six months of collecting spreadsheets isn't community engagement.
[2:27:56] Let's publish a dashboard, registration, block locations, verified violations, not just
[2:28:02] complaints.
[2:28:02] concentration by area, enforcement costs, TOT, then hold a community workshop early.
[2:28:09] Not another meeting where everybody gets three minutes at a microphone after sitting
[2:28:13] here until 11 o'clock at night.
[2:28:15] Ask our residents, our renters, our property owners, our schools, business, and
[2:28:19] short-term operators to come.
[2:28:21] What are you actually seeing?
[2:28:23] Then bring everyone back after the data set coming in, show us what was said, show us
[2:28:28] the numbers, show us the possible tools for minimum stays, concentration, occupancy
[2:28:33] rules, stronger enforcement, housing protections, we have had years to prepare for this conversation.
[2:28:40] We just spent years running pilots that produced 10 permits.
[2:28:44] So perhaps this time, rather than creating another pilot to study the previous pilot, we could
[2:28:49] use these six months differently.
[2:28:52] We could listen, we could measure, we could engage, and then decide.
[2:28:56] Because the question shouldn't be whether you're on team option one or team option two the questions to be when council
[2:29:02] Finally adopts a permanent short terminal policy. Can you show this community in plain English?
[2:29:08] What problem each will solve?
[2:29:10] What evidence supports it and how the people who live here help shape that because that's not delaying a decision
[2:29:17] That's finally doing the homework before turning in the assignment. Thank you. Thank you
[2:29:24] Anyone else?
[2:29:27] I do not have any other hands raised.
[2:29:29] Seeing none, we'll close public comment.
[2:29:31] I'll cut to the city attorney.
[2:29:32] I think I was supposed to do this a little bit earlier.
[2:29:33] Yeah, and there's a couple items.
[2:29:36] The first, I want to get back to the sequa, which Councilman Jackson asked about construction
[2:29:43] and all that.
[2:29:44] It doesn't apply in this particular situation.
[2:29:48] The sequa concerns, as you raise, the ordinance by itself does not authorize short term
[2:29:54] rentals in the coastal zone.
[2:29:55] the corner judgment already established the present legal status.
[2:30:00] Just for short term rentals in that area. Until the city, you know, until the city adopts additional regulations, or obtains the coastal commissions approval. The ordinance, which is before us today, principally confirms the municipal code to the existing legal status that was determined by the corner decision establishing TOT tax registration, all that kind of stuff. So, the ordinance does not approve or authorize development of construction,
[2:30:29] and permit or physical alteration of property, that's the distinction of why my office was
[2:30:36] comfortable in saying the CEQA doesn't apply in the situation because it's implementing
[2:30:42] and adhering the code to what the corner decision came, determined.
[2:30:47] If it wasn't the corner decision, corner decision that we were relying on, yeah, then you have
[2:30:52] an argument that CEQA and they would have been findings and all that, which is typically
[2:30:55] done in those kind of things, but that's not the situation before us.
[2:30:58] So, I hope that clarifies a little bit on the secret portion of what you raised.
[2:31:06] There's another item that I want to discuss, and that was one in the public comment, and
[2:31:14] it was a written comment that was submitted.
[2:31:16] Before Council takes action, there was a clerical admission and exhibit B of the ordinance.
[2:31:22] Section 5.84.020 contains the general prohibition intended to apply outside the coastal zone, but the sentence expressly exempting short-term rentals located within the coastal zone was inadvertently admitted from the exhibit B included in the first reading.
[2:31:40] The August 25, 2026 staff report, the ordinance recitals and findings, section 5.84.030, and the legal review drafts preceding introduction of all reflect council's intended framework of permitting short term rentals within the coastal zone while prohibiting them outside the coastal zone.
[2:32:02] Accordingly, I recommend restoring the admitted sentence, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term rentals located within the coastal zone.
[2:32:14] Under Government Code Section 36934, corrections of topographical or clerical errors are not considered alterations requiring another reading.
[2:32:24] Any
[2:32:31] questions on those two things?
[2:32:34] Yes, Mr. Mayor.
[2:32:35] Go ahead, Councillor M�jaxon.
[2:32:37] Thank you. I'd like to push back a little bit, Mr. City Attorney.
[2:32:40] The corner case ruled that we, the city did not go through the proper process.
[2:32:49] It was a process issue.
[2:32:52] That's what they pushed back on, said we did not go through the Coastal Commission to seek
[2:32:58] and unauthorized approved CDP, and therefore we cannot enforce our ordinance, full stop.
[2:33:05] The city then said, okay, we are going to have unlimited, unhosted STBRs in the coastal
[2:33:13] zone.
[2:33:14] That's not what the court said.
[2:33:16] So I don't know how you can say that SQL doesn't apply, because the standard is no possible
[2:33:22] environmental impact from allowing short-term rentals throughout the residential neighborhood.
[2:33:27] And I can go through my laundry list of issues again, but I don't see how any lawyer could say and if we are sued
[2:33:34] I hope that you're going to do this pro bono and I want to see that lethal opinion that you're going to say
[2:33:39] There's no possible environmental impact from allowing short-term rentals to residential neighborhoods
[2:33:44] I'm not that's not I'm not saying that that's not what I'm saying what I'm saying is that legal standard
[2:33:50] that's Mr. City if I could. The staff report says that there's no possible
[2:33:55] environmental impact. That's what the staff report says. That's the
[2:34:00] sequel standard that the city is relying on. That's what's in the staff report
[2:34:05] unless I misread it.
[2:34:09] I am not I'm not disputing I'm not to make a
[2:34:13] categorical statement that sequel doesn't it does not apply you're correct that is
[2:34:17] is not, you can't say that.
[2:34:18] Okay, well, but the staff report says,
[2:34:21] sequel doesn't apply and that there's no possible
[2:34:23] environmental impact.
[2:34:25] So it either there is none that the staff report says
[2:34:30] or there is a possible environmental impact.
[2:34:32] And if there is, because I think it's pretty clear
[2:34:34] that there is a possible environmental impact
[2:34:37] based on all the things I outlined before,
[2:34:40] then we have to conduct a sequel analysis.
[2:34:45] And I want to see, you know, again, I don't think,
[2:34:48] I don't know how we can rely on just the statement when we haven't seen the evidence and the legal analysis supporting the conclusion that there's no significant direct or indirect or cumulative environmental effects.
[2:35:02] I believe that it says no significant impact and the ordinance, when I said before, what we're relying on, the ordinance itself does not because it's trying to get the code in compliance with the corner decision.
[2:35:17] the corner condition only the corner can court case only talked about
[2:35:21] process Mr. City of Dining what I'm going to correct then the process that the
[2:35:26] city is doing is trying to make it in compliance with the corner decision so
[2:35:30] that's all the ordinance is doing is not it's not it's not the court didn't say
[2:35:34] hey city for most of each you have to permit unregulated un unlimited no
[2:35:43] community character guardrails in place. The court didn't say that.
[2:35:51] That is correct.
[2:35:52] I'm not saying that, but if you want to, and I'll go to staff, I'm afraid from the staff report.
[2:35:58] Ray, can you let Jason answer? Go. Go ahead. Hang on. This is important,
[2:36:03] because I'm, and, and please, I don't mean to belabor this, but this is important.
[2:36:09] Staff recommends that the City Council find that adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt
[2:36:13] from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15, 0, 6, 1, B, 3, common sense exception,
[2:36:22] excuse me, exemption because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
[2:36:27] that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.
[2:36:30] And I don't know how you can make that statement based on all the things that we've heard this evening.
[2:36:38] I put in hundreds of potential businesses in the residential zone will have no impact.
[2:36:50] That's what the staff report says.
[2:37:01] Mr. Mayor, what's going on?
[2:37:01] I'm looking at the ordinance and the staff report says we've seen with certainty
[2:37:05] that the ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment.
[2:37:10] That's what the ordinance section 6 says.
[2:37:13] That's what I'm looking at.
[2:37:15] Okay, so you said with all the things that we listed tonight about schools and trash and
[2:37:20] parking and traffic and the turnover around a hundred businesses, hundreds of businesses,
[2:37:27] there's no significant, is that what you're saying?
[2:37:29] I believe, if you look at section 6 of the ordinance, it says, the ordinance primarily,
[2:37:36] we organize and update existing municipal regulations, formalizes the post judgment status
[2:37:41] of SDRs within the coastal zone, establishes administrative registration reporting requirements,
[2:37:46] and does not authorize any specific development project.
[2:37:50] That is the rationale that's listed under the ordinance for why they found that the ordinance is exempt
[2:37:55] under the Common Sense Exemption.
[2:37:59] Okay.
[2:37:59] That does not say anything about there's no possibility, you know, no possibility, whatever.
[2:38:07] The thing that you're implementing is the ordinance.
[2:38:11] If you look at section six.
[2:38:12] I like, I want to see the legal analysis of how this Common Sense exception,
[2:38:18] this exemption applies to this, when we are considerably changing the community character.
[2:38:26] And so I think we, you owe it, Mr. City Manager, Mr. City Attorney, you owe the community that, legal analysis, because you're banking on that.
[2:38:38] Well, what we're banking on is the findings that we have under Section 6 of the ordinance, that's the rationale.
[2:38:44] now. If you want a more detailed, we can flush that out. I mean, sure, we can do that,
[2:38:50] but the rationale is listed on the ordinance. That's what you're, that's what you're implementing
[2:38:54] tonight is the ordinance and the language and the sequeration of your legal analysis, based
[2:38:59] on your firm's legal analysis, saying that there's, there's certainty that there's no possibility
[2:39:05] the ordinance will have a significant, I don't think it says, well, staff report is
[2:39:14] staff report wrong?
[2:39:19] Is that not true then? I'm just trying to figure out where we are.
[2:39:22] The staff report, if I'm letting me find out where it says here, it says significant.
[2:39:29] And that have significant effect on the environment. Okay, so that's not no possibility.
[2:39:37] It says. Okay, so you're you're you're missing words here, you know, no possibility ever.
[2:39:43] No, I'm not going to make a category that you can, I can't make a categorical statement like that, no possibility.
[2:39:48] No, but what I can say is based upon the analysis that was done and the people that looked on it, they felt comfortable saying that there's no significant.
[2:39:58] That's what the statute says, no significant impact on the environment.
[2:40:04] That's not never, no, I'm not saying that there was a category, you can't do that.
[2:40:10] We cannot say category eight never ever ever. No. We're talking about is it is it a chance that this is going to have a significant impact the ordinance itself. So once again, based upon the corner decision, the ordinance itself does it have a secret impact in the
[2:40:28] The corner decision, Mr. City Attorney, was about the process.
[2:40:33] You keep going to the ordinance.
[2:40:34] That's a whole reason why we're doing the ordinance in the first place.
[2:40:38] I understand that, but you're saying they're based on everything you've heard and
[2:40:43] understand about this ordinance, that there is no possibility of significant impact.
[2:40:50] I'm well, there is no possibility for significant impact.
[2:40:57] Is that what you're asking?
[2:40:58] That's what your staff report says.
[2:41:01] What's not my staff report, Mr. Mayor, can we move on?
[2:41:05] You know, we're not.
[2:41:07] These issues should have been brought up during the public hearing to spring this on the city
[2:41:12] attorney.
[2:41:12] Our community development director came down specifically stated upon my question that it
[2:41:18] doesn't, if it, that it deals with, it only deals with land use, this doesn't deal with land
[2:41:22] use.
[2:41:23] That is not it.
[2:41:24] It's over and done.
[2:41:25] The council member can vote against this if he believes something different, he can vote against it.
[2:41:31] There is inconsistency to the staff and if we believe that it's not significant, that supports the staff report that we covered fully in our public hearing, this is now a second hearing, a second reading.
[2:41:43] I understand, there is inconsistency in the staff report.
[2:41:48] I mean, so dwell on this for 15 minutes, getting nowhere?
[2:41:53] You know, come on, can you draw the director clearly?
[2:41:57] Clearly was clear about this.
[2:41:58] Couldn't be clearer.
[2:42:00] It's not land use.
[2:42:01] Vipertem.
[2:42:02] You know, the use of Sequa in short terminals
[2:42:06] was decided in April in the Sastra case against San Ana
[2:42:10] where they had banned short terminals in Frank Angel,
[2:42:14] represented Sastra and he kicked San Ana in his ass
[2:42:17] and basically the ban was withheld and now if you look at that case the case
[2:42:22] says that any changes you make to short term rentals will require an
[2:42:27] environmental impact report and that's a precedent set in case that case
[2:42:30] SASTRA so if you want to talk about CEQA if we make restrictions and we meet with
[2:42:36] the Planning Commission and residents in the Community and the School Board
[2:42:39] after we get that done we'll probably have to do an environmental impact
[2:42:43] report after that prior to going to the Coastal Commission.
[2:42:47] So any changes we make to this plan will probably, that case says we're supposed to file
[2:42:52] an environmental impact report.
[2:42:54] So if you want to get into a CEQA discussion, we're in one already because we have to do
[2:42:58] a CEQA for making any revisions to our short-term rental program.
[2:43:04] I suggest you research the saster case where Frank Angel and Representative, we're familiar
[2:43:08] with Frank.
[2:43:09] We could probably call him and save some money and hire him instead.
[2:43:12] Any
[2:43:16] other comments?
[2:43:19] No, I think it would be irresponsible for us to base such a significant
[2:43:27] community character changing ordinance without any evidence.
[2:43:32] Excuse me. I've got another comment, but I don't have any more questions.
[2:43:36] I'd like to make a motion to approve staff recommendation on this item.
[2:43:43] There's a motion, is there a second?
[2:43:46] A motion is to adopt, yes, motion to adopt, to adopt the ordinance.
[2:43:51] I'll second it.
[2:43:52] We have a motion in a second, any conversation on the motion?
[2:43:56] Yes, I've got a couple more comments here, if you don't mind, Mr. Mayor.
[2:44:00] We'll go to Councilmember Frenchwell first.
[2:44:03] Thank you.
[2:44:06] You know, I don't support short-term rentals in our neighborhoods, I never have.
[2:44:11] of, and this was a decision of adopting this ordinance, we were forced to do it.
[2:44:18] We had to do it.
[2:44:20] We came up with a compromise, a six-month compromise instead of waiting a year.
[2:44:26] That's fast-track.
[2:44:29] It's not going to be done any quicker than that if we try to implement it today.
[2:44:33] In six months, we'll have data, we'll have data, we'll have reasoning to support caps,
[2:44:38] to support the other things which then will become enforceable.
[2:44:45] I think it's naive to think that we have a cost commission that thinks it can be done quicker,
[2:44:51] but the history shows nothing's quick.
[2:44:54] We've got a lot of reviews, we've got the planning commission that can meet, they can meet before our six month deadline.
[2:45:00] Because in six months it can come to us. And that's fast. That's good. We've got enforceable ways to do it. We can collect the data, and we can move ahead what's good for our community as a whole. Right now we have 65 active listings in any month. We don't have any data. We can, when we start registering properties, we can figure out more. What do we have? We do have whole homes versus primary. We can propose caps that will survive coastal
[2:45:29] I mean, the whole reason we're in this jam is because the Coastal Commission has
[2:45:34] forced us to allow short-term rentals in our neighborhoods.
[2:45:38] That's why we have it.
[2:45:39] So we're playing catch-up, and we have to do this because, you know, Coastal Commission
[2:45:44] has come down on us with this.
[2:45:47] So, you know, the spins really easy.
[2:45:50] Writing rules that survive the court is something that we should take seriously,
[2:45:56] Firstly, something we're doing, I support it.
[2:46:00] We chose the responsible path, maintaining an ordinance, collect the data, come back with the
[2:46:06] force of the limits, so I support adopting this ordinance, as we pass it at the last meeting.
[2:46:13] Thank you.
[2:46:15] Thank you.
[2:46:15] Mr. Injection?
[2:46:19] Yeah, I'm just going to push back slightly.
[2:46:24] You can't say you're against short-term rentals and then pass the policy and that permits
[2:46:32] unlimited, unguarded, unfettered STL.
[2:46:35] You can't do that.
[2:46:36] You either are or you aren't.
[2:46:38] You can't struggle the line.
[2:46:40] And you keep saying we had to do this.
[2:46:43] We did not have to do this.
[2:46:45] That's not what we had to do.
[2:46:47] We have the time.
[2:46:48] And if you don't believe the application process,
[2:46:51] let me suggest you check out the Coastal Commission
[2:46:55] report from last year that shows their application
[2:46:58] processing time that was provided
[2:46:59] to the community development director as well.
[2:47:01] So you can say, keep saying it takes all of a year or whatnot.
[2:47:05] If we had done what we should have done months ago,
[2:47:07] we could have had an application approved by now.
[2:47:10] So the court didn't say we have to do this.
[2:47:12] You keep saying that, you're a force.
[2:47:14] We did not have to do this.
[2:47:15] You know, we don't need another study to know that STVRs take homes out of the long-term
[2:47:21] housing inventory.
[2:47:22] You don't need a study for that.
[2:47:23] We don't need a study that says, turning residential properties into transient commercial
[2:47:27] lodging affects neighborhoods, renters, schools, parking and community character.
[2:47:32] You don't need a study for that.
[2:47:33] And we certainly don't need a study to recognize it backward looking policy when we see it.
[2:47:39] I mean, this is ridiculous.
[2:47:40] At a time when communities across California are struggling to preserve housing and to keep residents in their neighborhoods,
[2:47:48] we're going to expand STPRs without any reasonable safeguards that moves us in exactly the wrong direction.
[2:47:55] We jam this thing through for the benefit of property managers, investors, second and third homeowners,
[2:48:00] many of whom don't even live here.
[2:48:02] Neighbors, families, hotels, and our long-term residents were left out of the conversation and given zero protections.
[2:48:09] a limited short-term rentals in every neighborhood,
[2:48:13] that's not fear-mongering, it's fact.
[2:48:16] And for those who don't think this is having an impact now,
[2:48:20] I mentioned Manhattan Beach, and I think that should be a part
[2:48:23] of your future report, Mr. City Manager,
[2:48:25] I received a couple of notices.
[2:48:28] My wife and I were trying to buy a house for a while
[2:48:30] and kept encountering people in businesses buying these properties
[2:48:33] to use their bean bees, which priced people
[2:48:36] out of the already extremely limited inventory and essentially turning the neighborhood into
[2:48:40] a bunch of poorly run hotels.
[2:48:43] I just saw your post about short-term rentals.
[2:48:45] I ran the next door too.
[2:48:47] My landlord recently scheduled what they called an inspection, instead of human walk through
[2:48:51] the property, discussing buying it and turning it into a short-term rental.
[2:48:55] When they saw me one said, oh, we probably shouldn't talk about this.
[2:48:58] It all makes perfect sense, as if paying thousands of dollars a month for less than four-rented
[2:49:03] square feet isn't enough.
[2:49:05] So, the impact is real, you don't need studies to tell you what you already know.
[2:49:12] And we can be collecting TOT right now, we've got the wheels in motion to do just that,
[2:49:18] and to push this thing, push this ridiculous ordinance forward is backward looking policy-making
[2:49:29] as we had to speak of that mention a few minutes ago.
[2:49:32] Well, excuse me, a quick question from staff.
[2:49:37] If we don't pass the ordinance to change the ordinance, we can't collect the TOT, is that correct?
[2:49:42] Yes, sir.
[2:49:44] Yep.
[2:49:47] We need to change the ordinance to collect the TOT tax.
[2:49:53] Councillor O'Reilly, probably, again, the least risk would be if it were to pass the parts
[2:50:00] changing the ordinance, the parts that take away the prohibition, the parts that say that
[2:50:06] are now allowed and that's not a comment either way on whether to begin discussion of further rules
[2:50:13] or regulations. But the part about withdrawing the prohibition and speaking to allowing them
[2:50:22] lowers the risk of the city in enforcing TOT. So we needed to, as an enforcement mechanism,
[2:50:27] to collect the current money and possibly the the arrears, is that correct? That would be most
[2:50:33] to help for you. So the arrears are $4 million roughly.
[2:50:38] That's one of the estimates yes.
[2:50:40] And we're losing $4,000 a day if we don't take action tonight.
[2:50:44] I do not have that calculation.
[2:50:46] Well, it's $1 million divided by $365.
[2:50:48] So that's the kind I want to law school to avoid math.
[2:50:53] Well, I guess we need to take action sooner or not later.
[2:50:56] We're short of revenue. We have a budget deficit we need to move this thing forward.
[2:51:01] So, next is a call to question.
[2:51:05] I'm just clarifying that your motion takes into Jason's comments about the clerical
[2:51:11] error as well.
[2:51:12] That's correct.
[2:51:13] I'm not sure.
[2:51:13] I'm in that motion to include Jason's comment about the clerical error.
[2:51:18] Okay.
[2:51:18] Give a second to that.
[2:51:20] Thank you.
[2:51:21] Second originally.
[2:51:22] All right.
[2:51:22] Yes, he did.
[2:51:23] Or you go with the clerical error being?
[2:51:25] Yes.
[2:51:26] Okay.
[2:51:27] As amended.
[2:51:28] Yes.
[2:51:29] Okay.
[2:51:33] I would like to go last, actually, so please look at it.
[2:51:36] Okay, I'd like to.
[2:51:38] All this will not be supporting tonight.
[2:51:40] I was on team, let's get to work right away.
[2:51:44] And so at the end of the meeting, I will be putting a agenda item forward, which I hear that we should have plenty of support for.
[2:51:49] I'll get into planning commission to meet on it as soon as possible about basic neighborhood protection guidelines.
[2:51:57] a lot of the items that the staff brought for in the last meeting, and again what other coastal communities are doing up and down the state right now.
[2:52:05] So,
[2:52:08] that's my question.
[2:52:09] Thank you.
[2:52:12] You want to go last on?
[2:52:14] Go ahead, please then.
[2:52:15] Okay, you said you want to go last, okay.
[2:52:16] I just want to counteract what the councilman continues to describe as unlimited short-term rails.
[2:52:27] We did not pass unlimited short-term rails.
[2:52:32] This does not pass unlimited short-term rentals.
[2:52:36] This is court required in-term.
[2:52:41] It's court required.
[2:52:42] We have to do it by law.
[2:52:44] If we don't do it, we'll have unregulated, unenforceable mayhem out there.
[2:52:52] So, you know, that's what we passed.
[2:52:55] We have a six-month path to permanent rules.
[2:53:00] I don't know.
[2:53:00] What could be more straightforward than that?
[2:53:02] that's what we have. We can have hearings before that six month deadline and six months it can be back right here in front of this City Council to go ahead and
[2:53:12] Submit our coastal development permit to the coastal commission. I don't know what could be ever faster than that.
[2:53:19] Thank you
[2:53:23] Well, so this evening
[2:53:27] First as I stated earlier, I've been quite clear about short-term rentals. I do not
[2:53:32] want them in our neighborhoods, but as it has been stated over and over and over again,
[2:53:38] we lost a court case.
[2:53:40] Now we can either just do anything, and then we will have unregulated short-term rentals
[2:53:47] in our neighborhoods in the coastal zone without any guardrails as Councilmember Jackson has
[2:53:52] said over and over again.
[2:53:54] But by changing this ordinance, we can use the guard rails that we have in place now.
[2:54:03] We have a set noise ordinance, we have complaint ordinance, we have, you have to register, you
[2:54:08] have to get a business license, you have to have a phone number, emergency phone number
[2:54:11] on the premises.
[2:54:13] So if there is any sort of a problem, including noise, that you can call and make a complaint
[2:54:18] or file some sort of complaint against the short-term rental.
[2:54:25] We have also in rules in place about, if you have,
[2:54:28] if you get too many complaints that you can lose your ability
[2:54:31] to rent short-term and so on and so forth.
[2:54:33] Those are all in place already.
[2:54:36] Already we have those things.
[2:54:37] And so it's not unenforceable, it's not wild,
[2:54:42] it's not the Wild West, it's not going to take over our neighborhoods
[2:54:45] and deplete our housing stock.
[2:54:46] Good Lord, to plead our housing stock, we're one of the most densest cities in Southern
[2:54:51] California.
[2:54:52] There is no shortage of housing stock in our most abeach.
[2:54:56] Some of them are rents and some of them are owned by people who live in them.
[2:54:59] Some of them are second homes that people want to rent on an occasion for vacation place
[2:55:05] and make a extra money.
[2:55:06] Maybe you're an elderly person who makes ends meet by renting out your beautiful home
[2:55:11] that you've lived in for 50 years.
[2:55:14] So, short term rentals are not always the batch of party.
[2:55:19] That's the part of it that I object to.
[2:55:24] So, since our last meeting,
[2:55:28] it has been said in regards to short term rentals that
[2:55:31] the city has been left wide open, anybody can do anything they want.
[2:55:35] We have no guardrails.
[2:55:37] We can expect mass evictions.
[2:55:39] We can expect long-term families being evicted from this by SCRs.
[2:55:43] school enrollment dropping because of STRs, our residential housing stock will be depleted
[2:55:48] because of STRs.
[2:55:52] If you're a sitting council member or a candidate and you have actual data to support these things,
[2:55:57] you should share the data with council so that we can all look at it and come to a logical
[2:56:03] decision together.
[2:56:06] That's what leadership looks like.
[2:56:08] Using phrases like profits over people, that isn't leadership.
[2:56:13] That's actually politics over people.
[2:56:16] I don't think it's right to make a campaign issue out of this.
[2:56:19] This is so important to our city.
[2:56:21] And those of us that sit up here, the five of us, have the weight of making a decision
[2:56:26] about protecting our homes and our neighborhoods from short-term rentals.
[2:56:31] I think the policy that we adopt is the best idea we can do.
[2:56:36] This is the right thing for us to do.
[2:56:38] I'm not doing it for money, I'm not doing it because I do short terminals, I'm not doing it for any of those reasons.
[2:56:44] I'm doing it because I care about the city and about the neighborhood that I've lived in for 50 years in the coastal zone.
[2:56:50] So I have, I'm invested in this myself, and I think that this is the right thing for us to do.
[2:56:56] So if there is data to validate these claims, bring it to staff, bring it to city council, so that we can collect it with all the other data that we have.
[2:57:07] And then together we can work on this and come up with the right idea in six months.
[2:57:12] Now as to community engagement, I'm all for it.
[2:57:15] I love community engagement.
[2:57:16] I've encouraged many, many groups to form a committee.
[2:57:21] Do it yourself if the city won't provide some sort of a subcommittee for you to work on.
[2:57:27] Get together and make your own committee and have some meetings and do it together.
[2:57:31] I encourage that.
[2:57:33] I encourage public participation in all of our decisions.
[2:57:38] So from now until the next six months, there's plenty of time to start doing that.
[2:57:43] Let's get that information together.
[2:57:45] If you have information, bring it to us, please.
[2:57:48] Gather it together.
[2:57:49] If you don't have it, get it, and bring it to us.
[2:57:52] Participate because at the end of the six months, we will begin public participation.
[2:57:57] We will have commission meetings.
[2:57:59] We'll have, we'll take it to the public works, or the, excuse me.
[2:58:01] The Planning Commission will have meetings here and we will engage everyone, we'll have
[2:58:06] an opportunity to speak.
[2:58:08] Once we have some data, I think it's something that I can't believe people skip over this.
[2:58:15] All of these new regulations that people are suggesting that we must, we have to have this
[2:58:19] and we have to have it right away, we can't do it, we can't do it without coastal approval.
[2:58:25] And coastal commission, in spite of what coastal commissioner Jackson says, well Jackson
[2:58:31] It says 180 days.
[2:58:32] Well, let me see now.
[2:58:35] 180 days is six months.
[2:58:37] So, let's get started on it.
[2:58:40] And in six months, when we have data,
[2:58:42] we can go to the Coastal Commission.
[2:58:44] And then we'll see if we can get a Coastal approval
[2:58:46] in another 180 days.
[2:58:49] Let's make that happen.
[2:58:50] It's not going to happen until we have data.
[2:58:52] I think the Coastal Commission,
[2:58:53] it's my understanding that the Coastal Commission
[2:58:56] looks at each individual case separately.
[2:58:58] So, we can't really point to Manhattan Beach.
[2:59:02] We can't really point to insinues or any other place.
[2:59:05] Bomb Springs or Las Vegas or New Orleans, all of those other places have nothing to
[2:59:09] do with her most of Beach.
[2:59:11] The Coastal Commission will look at our rules that we want to imply, and then they will
[2:59:17] look at our data for our reasons for having them.
[2:59:20] They may accept those rules if we have data that is pertinent to her most of Beach, not
[2:59:25] a comparison to Manhattan.
[2:59:28] So, we need that data, let's take six months to get it, and let's begin a community engagement
[2:59:36] at the end of that six months when we have something that we can work with.
[2:59:40] Let's work together.
[2:59:41] So, candidate, councilman, whatever it is, let's bring the data forward.
[2:59:46] If you have something like that, please bring it to us, and I think that's what leadership
[2:59:49] looks like.
[2:59:50] Thank you.
[2:59:55] Madam Chief Clerk,
[2:59:57] Mr. Mayor, I have a question.
[3:00:00] A couple of comments and then a couple of motions, please. Good.
[3:00:06] And Mr. City Attorney, I think it's important that you state clearly that we do not have to do this. You know, mayor pro council member Samen and council member Francois saying we have to pass this ordinance. And this ordinance, in effect, is providing unlimited short
[3:00:29] term rental opportunities. So you can't say I'm against short term rentals and then say but I agree
[3:00:35] with this. And the reality of the coastal commission is that cities, you're right. One
[3:00:42] size is not fit all. Cities can impose reasonable restrictions based on that city's needs. There's
[3:00:51] nothing that says I need six months of that. I need 12 months of data. It's based on our needs. We know
[3:00:57] that we don't need 4% of our housing inventory to be potential STVRs based on
[3:01:04] the size of our city we know we are pretty darn dense we have other
[3:01:07] challenges so to keep saying that oh where I'm not for STVRs but I got to do
[3:01:13] this because because the court said it's simply not true and there are no
[3:01:18] guardrails you can say that there are but there are not and I gave I provided
[3:01:21] actual evidence from folks who said you know they're probably gonna be kicked out
[3:01:25] Again, look at what's happening down in Manhattan Beach, but I'd like to possibly amend
[3:01:33] some amendments to this ordinance.
[3:01:38] First I would move that no city council member, their spouse or immediate family member,
[3:01:43] or any business entity owned or controlled by looking on behalf of any such person, be
[3:01:49] eligible to apply for or receive an S.D.R. permit while the Council member is in office and for five years after leaving on office.
[3:02:02] Mr. Mayor, that's out of order. We don't have that on our agenda tonight. It's either here to pass this ordinance or not. This is a second reading.
[3:02:09] I mean, I don't think it's like a word. I can certainly call it a city attorney to this ordinance.
[3:02:14] I'm looking at the city attorney to see if I mean, clearly that is criteria in any ordinance the city could pass.
[3:02:22] But I'm looking at the City Attorney for guidance on this one.
[3:02:29] So I believe I'm on my point of order.
[3:02:32] He does have a point of order, so you need to do address the point of order under Robert
[3:02:35] Rules.
[3:02:36] And I will say that I want to hear from the City Attorney.
[3:02:40] Are you going to overrule my point of order?
[3:02:42] Okay, I'm going to watch your justification or overruling the point of order.
[3:02:45] Because what Councilmember Jackson said is very clearly anything could be in an order.
[3:02:49] So it's not on our agenda tonight.
[3:02:52] It very clearly is any sort of guideline could be in an ordinance that we call on our agenda tonight.
[3:02:58] It's a second reading of what we adopted.
[3:03:01] We're in the order to be out of order.
[3:03:04] So I'm back for a second reading.
[3:03:06] So let's ask the city attorney on that point of order.
[3:03:12] So as the presiding official, he can make a determination that I heard you and, you know, I, I don't agree with it.
[3:03:21] or whatever, determine what to make.
[3:03:23] That's his, as the mayor, that's what his thing is.
[3:03:25] Oh, I know the mayor has the right to make that,
[3:03:27] but I'm asking the city attorney,
[3:03:29] whether I have a legitimate point of order.
[3:03:32] I actually had a port of order,
[3:03:33] Councilmember Francois, but again,
[3:03:35] we're crafting ordinances right now.
[3:03:36] What Councilmember Jackson brought up
[3:03:38] was his proposal to amend the reading.
[3:03:41] And if it's substantial enough,
[3:03:42] the city attorney would advise us to come back
[3:03:44] for a second reading.
[3:03:45] If there's a course.
[3:03:47] Is on the agenda is to second reading
[3:03:50] to either adopt it or not adopt it. Now, if you want to not adopt it and go back to
[3:03:55] presenting a new agenda item, you're free to do that. But we'd have to not adopt
[3:04:00] this tonight. What's on the agenda back to the work of the second reading.
[3:04:04] Yes, see if there's substantial changes, you could come back for a second reading.
[3:04:08] You could, yes, but you would not adopt it. You would not adopt it?
[3:04:11] Correct. Correct. You could adopt it with amendments. We would not adopt it tonight.
[3:04:15] Tonight. The correct. You would not adopt it. That's why it's out of order.
[3:04:17] So his his is a motion to amend the ordinance and if it's substantial enough it comes back for a second read. No, that's not that's not of order.
[3:04:27] That's what we've done.
[3:04:27] It's not a time since we've all been on the dice.
[3:04:31] Is this a substitute motion? Can it be repeat please?
[3:04:35] Ordnance. I don't know what's on the table.
[3:04:37] I that was my question though whether this is a substitute motion.
[3:04:41] I viewed as a substitute motion friendly amendments because that would then have to do.
[3:04:43] He powers it as an amendment, so he needs to restate the motion because there is no motion on the floor.
[3:04:49] There's the previous motion.
[3:04:51] I move is a motion.
[3:04:53] I move that no sitting council member, there's fouls, an immediate family member,
[3:04:59] any business entity owned or controlled by or booking on behalf of any such person,
[3:05:04] be eligible to apply for or receive an STR permit while the council member is in office
[3:05:10] and for five years after leaving office.
[3:05:14] question of our attorney. That's a ban on short-term rentals. So just something to think about.
[3:05:22] For those that are advocating and voting on short-term rentals.
[3:05:25] I'm just talking about the law. You might learn it. Let's get from here from the attorney.
[3:05:29] I asked a question. I'm waiting for the answer.
[3:05:31] Okay. Could you respect your question again? So I make sure that the question is that he's proposing a ban on short-term rentals.
[3:05:37] Do you think that's good advisement that we should put a ban on short-term rentals?
[3:05:41] Well, I was going to, I need to respond to everyone I think, but my answer would be no based upon the corner decision.
[3:05:50] Councilor Jackson, I think you asked the question.
[3:05:53] You'd like to hear from me to respond to some of the questions that they had mentioned about the city was forced to do this.
[3:06:02] The corner judgment created this present situation by determining the city could not enforce
[3:06:07] is existing short-term rental prohibition within the coastal zone because that restriction
[3:06:11] had not received the required coastal commission approval.
[3:06:16] As a result, short-term rentals may presently operate within the coastal zone regardless
[3:06:21] of whether council adopts the ordinance tonight or not.
[3:06:25] So to answer your question directly, the city is not legally required by the judgment to adopt
[3:06:30] this particular ordinance.
[3:06:31] However, without this ordinance, the code, that's the municipal code, would continue to contain provisions that do not accurately affect the post-corner legal landscape, and the city would not have the new registration, business license, safety, law of that stuff, reporting framework proposed for a coastal zone short-term rentals.
[3:06:51] So,
[3:06:54] I hope that answers your question, you're correct.
[3:06:56] The city was not forced to do that, but if you don't do it, we're not in compliance with it.
[3:07:01] We haven't done it for the last six months, so there's no urgency to do it.
[3:07:06] Correct.
[3:07:07] You're asking my legal opinion, you're asking my legal opinion, the city was not, I'm concurring
[3:07:12] with you, the city was not forced to do this, but if you don't do it, you're not going to
[3:07:18] I'd be able to do some of the things that you want to do in this post-corner.
[3:07:23] We can still collect TOT.
[3:07:27] That question was asked and answered, and it's no, we can't.
[3:07:31] Mr. Mayor, I guess I'll try to help Councilman.
[3:07:34] But wait, I want to close up again.
[3:07:36] Are we able to effectively collect back a TOT and current TOT if we do not change our ordinance?
[3:07:46] We would likely be at a higher risk of a lawsuit, so we're going to get an litigation again as if we don't do this right.
[3:07:52] is that the answer? Yes. Okay, so let's follow our good legal advice and not amateur legal advice.
[3:08:00] Well, okay, then first of all, I still have a motion on the floor, but since we're talking about
[3:08:05] what in this ordinance requires those to pay back TOT?
[3:08:13] Now we had, you know, we were told that we can
[3:08:16] collect back TOT well before this ordinance discussion came up.
[3:08:26] Excuse me, I'll clarify that we heard in
[3:08:27] close session from our attorney. So once again, so you're now delving in the
[3:08:35] stuff that's talked in close session. And so it's inappropriate for open session
[3:08:40] today. We discussed this in close session. And so now we're
[3:08:44] retreating on it. The discussion was publicly discussed that we can collect
[3:08:48] TOT. We issued letters to two people that O TOT. So how is that not public?
[3:08:56] committee.
[3:08:56] I make a motion that we can reveal closed session.
[3:08:58] Going down this row, we will pin up.
[3:09:02] And I'm happy to see that.
[3:09:04] Discussion is Опencloshing.
[3:09:06] Descending.
[3:09:06] Discussion is up.
[3:09:06] Prop扫 down.
[3:09:06] Make a motion to open close session discussions short term
[3:09:10] rental and collections.
[3:09:12] Was that a need for second?
[3:09:17] Second.
[3:09:18] That's a brown act violation to be talking about closed session
[3:09:23] and openats that we should.
[3:09:24] What was violated?
[3:09:25] What did I violate
[3:09:26] most of the city may.
[3:09:27] I'm not saying that if you write in anything yet, but for us to continue with the discussion, we put ourself at risk and doing that.
[3:09:35] We've issued letters to people that said, hey, you've rented over the last four years, you owe back TOT. How's that an issue?
[3:09:43] That comment's not an issue, but you're putting us in a position where you may go down a road, you don't want to go down.
[3:09:52] Councilmember Jackson that's all I said if we issue the letter that said you
[3:09:58] always back TOT and obviously means that the city believes that number one
[3:10:03] back TOT is owed and that number two we have a mechanism to collect that
[3:10:10] otherwise we wouldn't go for the letter. The letters have not been issued yet.
[3:10:14] We have a motion to be able to disclose any conversations we had in close
[3:10:20] session regarding this topic, is that correct?
[3:10:23] I'm going to try on that motion.
[3:10:25] Okay.
[3:10:27] Mr. Mayor, could we, I think that Councilmember Jackson has every right to make a substitute
[3:10:32] motion.
[3:10:33] My only objection was he couldn't make an amendment to passing this ordinance.
[3:10:37] So if he wants to try and make some substitute motion, he can do that.
[3:10:42] But, you know, that's where his avenue is.
[3:10:45] Okay, Ray, can you please state your original substitute motion?
[3:10:48] And I've got a couple as well.
[3:10:51] So your
[3:10:55] first one.
[3:10:56] Put them all together if he wants.
[3:10:59] No, I like to make them individually
[3:11:00] so they're not all combingable.
[3:11:04] Can you receive?
[3:11:04] I move that no sitting council member,
[3:11:07] there's FALSE, an immediate family member
[3:11:09] or any business entity owned or controlled by,
[3:11:12] or booking on behalf of any such person,
[3:11:14] be eligible to apply for or receive an S.C.R. Perman
[3:11:18] while the council member is in office and for five years after leaving office.
[3:11:24] Should be easy, everyone says they're not going to do it, they've never done it, and they're not going to ever do it, so it should be pretty easy.
[3:11:30] I'll second that councilman Jackson.
[3:11:36] Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.
[3:11:38] This substitute motion includes not adopting this ordinance tonight.
[3:11:46] That's what this is for us.
[3:11:47] So, I'm in favor of adopting this ordinance tonight.
[3:11:52] I'm going to vote against this substitute motion and any other substitute motions,
[3:11:57] because those substitute motions mean that this ordinance does not get adopted tonight.
[3:12:03] Thank you.
[3:12:05] Mr. Mayor.
[3:12:07] Can we call the question please on this substitute motion?
[3:12:09] Sure.
[3:12:10] Mr. Clerk.
[3:12:11] Council Member Seaman.
[3:12:13] No.
[3:12:13] Council Member Jackson.
[3:12:15] Aye.
[3:12:16] Mayor Dittoy. Councilmember Francois. No. Mayor Proto-Mkegen. No. Motion fails,
[3:12:23] three or two. Go on to the next one. No, there's a motion on the floor. That goes back
[3:12:29] to the original. Mr. Mayor, I have a series of others I'd like to present, please, and I can do
[3:12:35] them in sequential order. I can do them one by one, whatever you prefer. The floor is yours.
[3:12:40] Maybe you could just to consolidate them all together. I mean, I move that I move that no this is not field of busing
[3:12:49] This is what you call policymaking. You should try to figure it out. I move that no SDR permit the issued or renewed unless the
[3:12:56] Operator has a valid business license is registered to collect and remit transit occupancy tax and has paid all taxes, penalties and other amounts
[3:13:05] legally owed to the city. So, this would cover those folks that won a registered but haven't paid their last four years at TOT.
[3:13:14] If you're going to get a license, you need to pay your four years of TOT that you are operating.
[3:13:21] This is a mechanism that would permit that. You want the rest or should I wait for this one to be voted on and move on?
[3:13:27] Just one clarification. Is there anything in the current ordinance that says just that or?
[3:13:33] There is not from my reading from my reading. There is not and also I recommend each motion that he brings. It's a substitute motion that you vote on that
[3:13:42] You know yet a yay or nay however it goes. Yeah, not consolidating. They need to be clarified that we're not adopting this ordinance
[3:13:49] Well, once again if you if you materially modify what is in the ordinance you are not
[3:13:55] that adopting this ordinance tonight.
[3:13:57] And we cannot adopt one of these substitute motions without changing the ordinance.
[3:14:02] It depends on what the other substitute motions are and we haven't heard that.
[3:14:05] So, well, this particular one, I don't believe that there's past taxes in it.
[3:14:12] Well, let me care if the city manager.
[3:14:15] No, and we haven't, we specifically left out issuance of formal paper permits or individual
[3:14:24] permits for the reason that anything like that has the possibility of being denied and
[3:14:30] that would run a foul of the coroner decision.
[3:14:34] I'm sorry, we say what at the end?
[3:14:36] Coroner decision.
[3:14:37] So the answer is no, it's not in there because it's problematic and we were to adopt any
[3:14:43] kind of rule that prohibits someone from offering a short-term rental right now without coastal
[3:14:49] commission approval that would run a foul of the coroner decision.
[3:14:52] So this substitute motion we could vote on separately the next meeting we wanted to wouldn't have anything to do.
[3:15:00] Do it with passing this one now. Correct. Okay. Well, we'd have to go into all our future restrictions that we're considering. Pass this one first, and then that can be discussed separately. It would be a separate thing. Anything that's new, not in the ordinance, that's, that's a separate, okay, something else. And you'd have to re-agentize that and do that at a later time. All right. So, as, as,
[3:15:25] as stated now, you want to include this in this ordinance,
[3:15:29] answer you want this to be a separate item. I would like a mechanism in place that before
[3:15:36] we issue a permit to anybody, we go back and ensure that that person does not have any
[3:15:43] back TOT that has not been remitted to the city. So this in essence helps us with what
[3:15:49] we're trying to do through the letter piece saying, okay, we'll give you a permit but make
[3:15:53] sure you pay your back TOT. That's legally owed to the city.
[3:15:59] And is that your substitute motion?
[3:16:01] That is my motion.
[3:16:06] Is there a second?
[3:16:11] Fails for a lack of second.
[3:16:13] Okay, so we're going to allow people that owe back TOT to get a license.
[3:16:18] No, not necessarily.
[3:16:19] No, it is. There's no mechanism to stop that.
[3:16:23] At our next meeting, we'll bring it up and talk about it again.
[3:16:26] The items that aren't, there can be a future agenda item.
[3:16:30] Future agenda item.
[3:16:31] Future agenda item.
[3:16:35] That's it.
[3:16:35] Future agenda item.
[3:16:38] Okay.
[3:16:41] I move that every STR on the known inspection.
[3:16:45] Are we calling the question on that one moving on?
[3:16:48] What do we do?
[3:16:48] No.
[3:16:49] Oh, not a second.
[3:16:51] Thank you.
[3:16:52] Are we doing anything with regard to uniform safety and enforcement?
[3:16:56] So I want to make sure that it's clear that every STR undergo an inspection before receiving
[3:17:01] its initial permit and comply with all applicable building fire safety accessibility parking
[3:17:07] and nuisance requirements.
[3:17:09] Staff should clearly establish who does what, what the standards are, what accessibility
[3:17:15] requirements apply, all violations will be corrected and enforced and reinspection fees
[3:17:21] when corrections require more than two inspections.
[3:17:24] Because right now I have no idea what we're doing to inspect these businesses that are going to be allowed in our neighborhoods.
[3:17:30] That would be another future agenda item because it's not in this order.
[3:17:34] Okay.
[3:17:35] No, but it could be attached to that if we don't pass this ordinance tonight, it could be part of an ordinance.
[3:17:41] Right, that's the overarching thing.
[3:17:43] If all the new things, if they're not in the ordinance and you choose not to adopt this ordinance,
[3:17:47] we can come back with this ordinance with all the framework and everything that you put,
[3:17:51] that you would counsel would like to have a-
[3:17:52] But meanwhile, if we pass this ordinance tonight,
[3:17:54] we can get applications starting tomorrow.
[3:17:57] But you can-
[3:17:59] Whatever is in the ordinance currently, yes,
[3:18:01] if you pass it, then everything, it's implemented.
[3:18:04] Right, so you can't put the two-faced back in the two.
[3:18:07] Sorry.
[3:18:08] My next motion then is,
[3:18:12] I move that the city use Pacifica's annual fee
[3:18:15] of $1,700 plus inspection costs,
[3:18:20] California Coastal City Benchmark and direct staff to conduct the required fee study.
[3:18:25] For most of each's final fee should recover the city's reasonable cost for permitting,
[3:18:30] inspections, administration, enforcement, and compliance monitoring.
[3:18:34] Because right now I think our business fee is some phenomenal amount that doesn't come close
[3:18:39] to capturing how much staff time is going to be involved in doing this.
[3:18:47] No, that I will say is not in agenda as for tonight is the fee of this.
[3:18:53] No, it's not. That's another future agenda.
[3:18:58] This is the reason I made the point of order so we could move on with this.
[3:19:01] We could just call the question on the motion in front of us and be done with it.
[3:19:05] Yeah, I have the floor.
[3:19:06] We could call the question on it right now and vote three or two to call the question.
[3:19:11] This is, yeah, we're going to jam this.
[3:19:12] In fact, I'm going to make a motion to call the question because this filibustering is just out of hand.
[3:19:17] It's not filibustering, it's a legitimate motion.
[3:19:19] Second, Council Member.
[3:19:20] The motion in the second to call the question, any comments on this question?
[3:19:28] Madam City Clerk.
[3:19:30] Mayor Pro Temkegan.
[3:19:32] Aye.
[3:19:32] Council Member Francois.
[3:19:33] Yes.
[3:19:34] Mayor Dittoy.
[3:19:35] No.
[3:19:36] Council Member Jackson.
[3:19:38] No.
[3:19:38] Council Member Seaman.
[3:19:39] Aye.
[3:19:40] Aye.
[3:19:40] Motion passes three to two.
[3:19:42] All right, back to the original motion.
[3:19:45] Madam City Clerk.
[3:19:46] Mayor Dittoy.
[3:19:47] No.
[3:19:48] Council Member Seaman.
[3:19:50] Yes.
[3:19:51] Council Member Jackson.
[3:19:53] This is what motion now?
[3:19:56] To adopt the ordinance.
[3:19:58] No.
[3:19:58] I think we should clarify what it is exactly,
[3:20:01] because it's not only the ordinance,
[3:20:02] but it's as amended.
[3:20:04] I think that really needs to be clear.
[3:20:07] Yes, we'll see.
[3:20:07] that was done when it was originally made half hour ago.
[3:20:12] I just want to make sure it's clear.
[3:20:14] Okay, so as we've been going, it was done properly
[3:20:16] and we made it as amended by your changes.
[3:20:19] So, city clerk, are we clear on that?
[3:20:22] Yes, we are, thank you.
[3:20:23] Go ahead then.
[3:20:25] We had Mayor Dittoyneau, council member Samine, yes.
[3:20:28] Council member Jackson, no.
[3:20:29] Mayor Pro Temkegan.
[3:20:31] Yes.
[3:20:31] Council member Francois.
[3:20:33] Yes.
[3:20:33] Motion passes, three to two.
[3:20:35] Okay, 15 F.
[3:20:57] Do you have any questions, Councilor Jackson? I believe you pulled this one.
[3:21:03] No, I'm just not sure I'm comfortable raising the limits. So I need to hear why we should,
[3:21:09] because I'm not convinced based on recent spending, that was within the threshold that we weren't
[3:21:18] aware of specifically the survey cost and the coastal CDP
[3:21:25] consultant that were hired.
[3:21:30] So nothing on?
[3:21:34] Certainly Council Member Jackson, I don't, I don't
[3:21:36] might answer to question as to how staff came in with the $50,000.
[3:21:44] I would say just modernization or increasing density
[3:21:48] city managers authority. So in the prior council meaning the it was mentioned that the city
[3:21:57] managers authority is currently right now $30,000 and it was less updating June 2015. A lot
[3:22:03] happened over that decade and prices have increased now and 2026 compared to 2015. I mean, just
[3:22:10] recently in July, Kelly Bluebook released an article in July that stated that average new
[3:22:16] car price is $50,000 in America. And when we look back to the last time a city ordinance was
[3:22:21] updating June 2015, the average new vehicle price was $33,000, which was in line at the
[3:22:27] $480,000 city manager threshold. And we also picked, what I did was, I did pull, let me
[3:22:36] just, I did also pull the sample energy utility costs. And if we look at a $30,000, June
[3:22:45] in 2015 price, and if we applied the federal US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI index,
[3:22:52] that would be roughly about $55,000 as of July, 2026.
[3:22:57] And if we, if the city were to have a new CIP project, having building new construction
[3:23:05] material, if we applied purchasing price index, that $30,000 from June 2015, if we were to
[3:23:14] apply it now to July, that'll be roughly about 52,000.
[3:23:17] So that proposed $50,000 city managers purchasing authority
[3:23:20] is in line with the price increase.
[3:23:25] And the other comment or the other comparison
[3:23:29] that we did was we compared her most of each
[3:23:31] versus other neighboring cities.
[3:23:33] And her most of each compared to our neighboring cities,
[3:23:36] we currently have the lowest purchasing authority.
[3:23:39] The second lowest is Redondo Beach at 35,000.
[3:23:42] And we're trying to bring it in line with El Sigundo,
[3:23:45] because if I were to go from low to highest,
[3:23:49] our most of beach would be the lowest up for $1,000.
[3:23:51] Redondo Beach would be the second lowest up for $3,000.
[3:23:54] El Sigundo is $50,000.
[3:23:56] Manhattan Beach is $75,000, and Torrance is $250,000.
[3:24:00] So El Sigundo has a population size about $17,000.
[3:24:05] Our most of beach has a population size about $19,000,
[3:24:08] and we're basically trying to kind of have it in line
[3:24:11] I'm with in the middle of Elsie go though.
[3:24:14] Now, Redana Beach, their purchasing authority is 35,000,
[3:24:19] but they haven't updated their limit since 2015
[3:24:23] for over a decade, so I speculate that if they were to
[3:24:31] look at and review the purchasing ordinance
[3:24:33] that they would bring it up and in line
[3:24:36] to at least probably 50,000 like us.
[3:24:38] So that was why staff had made that recommendation
[3:24:41] to up the policy to 50,000, and this is something that I know that departments have wanted, and
[3:24:49] well, if council approves this, this will be available for the city manager, no matter
[3:24:55] who's sitting in the city manager's seat.
[3:24:59] Thank you for that.
[3:25:00] Any other questions?
[3:25:02] Madam Speaker Clerk, public comment, please.
[3:25:06] I did not receive any speakers, and I do not have any hands raised online.
[3:25:09] one that's called for public comment close public comment bring it back to the
[3:25:15] desk their motion or any of the discussion yeah
[3:25:23] I've got a just quick
[3:25:24] discussion now I will not be supporting this fifty thousand dollar we are not
[3:25:29] else again now we're not men and beach we're done a beach is three times our size
[3:25:34] and they're spending one is thirty five thousand dollars I think that is consistent
[3:25:38] with our size and makes the most sense and I don't think we're talking about $50,000
[3:25:48] in vehicle purchasing. I don't think any vehicle should be purchased without council
[3:25:52] consideration. So I will not be supporting this.
[3:25:55] Okay.
[3:25:59] I'll move staff's recommendation. I'll second that.
[3:26:01] Yes.
[3:26:02] Any other conversation?
[3:26:05] Madame C. Clerk.
[3:26:06] Councilmember Jackson.
[3:26:08] No.
[3:26:09] Councilmember Francois.
[3:26:10] Yes.
[3:26:11] Councilmember Seaman.
[3:26:13] Yes.
[3:26:14] Mayor Prontan Keegan.
[3:26:15] Yes.
[3:26:16] Mayor Dittoy.
[3:26:17] Motion passes for the one.
[3:26:19] Thank you.
[3:26:20] Now, bringing us to 16A, which was continued.
[3:26:25] That we will open it up for public comment.
[3:26:27] Item was continued to September 22, 2026.
[3:26:30] is a consideration to ordinance amending her most of each
[3:26:33] municipal code chapter 1.10 to modernize administrative
[3:26:37] citation procedures.
[3:26:43] Could you please open it for public comment?
[3:26:45] I do not have any hands raised online and I did not receive any
[3:26:48] speaker cards. All right, we will close public comment.
[3:26:54] Director, do you have any comments?
[3:26:56] May I request additional time to the first meeting in October.
[3:27:02] that would be the 13th so we will continue this item to October 13th 2026 thank
[3:27:13] you very much we need a motion for that motion motion to move to what's the
[3:27:21] date over 13th I will second that when I was to declare broke off please council
[3:27:26] Council Member Seaman.
[3:27:28] Aye.
[3:27:28] Mayor DeToy.
[3:27:29] Aye.
[3:27:30] Council Member François.
[3:27:31] Yes.
[3:27:32] Council Member Jackson.
[3:27:34] Aye.
[3:27:35] Mayor Pro Temkegan.
[3:27:36] Aye.
[3:27:36] Motion passes 5-0.
[3:27:38] Perfect.
[3:27:38] And we'll have you come back up, Alison, for a 17-A water professional service agreement for
[3:27:45] uncle, environmental consulting services.
[3:27:48] Thank you, rapid fire, two-minute presentation, four slides.
[3:27:54] First slide, please. Second slide, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, staff
[3:28:03] is requesting the approval of three on-call professional services agreements for environmental
[3:28:10] planning and technical studies. These services are essential for the city's compliance
[3:28:15] with CEQA for both private development applications and city initiated planning efforts such as the
[3:28:22] general plan or housing element updates, because this work requires specialized expertise.
[3:28:30] We maintain a bench of pre-qualified consultants.
[3:28:33] This allows us to issue task orders quickly, streamline project delivery and avoid starting
[3:28:39] new procurement processes for every project.
[3:28:43] Most environmental work for private development will be funded through applicant deposits,
[3:28:48] environmental work for city initiated projects will be funded through the
[3:28:54] city's existing budget process. Next slide please. The city issued a request
[3:29:00] for qualifications. We received 21 submittals and so it took us a bit of time to
[3:29:09] get through the mall after our evaluation and shortlist interviews staff
[3:29:15] I recommend three firms, Aspen Environmental Group,
[3:29:21] Michael Baker International and Ring Consultants,
[3:29:25] all three demonstrated strong experience, technical capacity,
[3:29:29] and they have all had successful prior experience
[3:29:33] working with the city.
[3:29:34] Next slide, please.
[3:29:36] We are recommending that each firm receive an on-call agreement
[3:29:39] with a not-too-exceed amount of $500,000
[3:29:43] dollars for a three-year term ending June 2029 with the option for two one-year
[3:29:50] extensions. Again, these are not guaranteed amounts. We're not requesting
[3:29:56] Budget Authority tonight were requesting contract authority.
[3:30:00] Task orders would be issued only if needed. This structure maintains flexibility ensures timely processing and of development applications and gives the city consistent access to high quality environmental expertise. Again, I recommend approval of these agreements. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. My question is what percentage of
[3:30:30] of these professional service agreements
[3:30:34] do you think will be paid for from developers
[3:30:36] or proceed projects?
[3:30:39] So for planning, we anticipate obviously
[3:30:43] within this time frame work on the housing element update
[3:30:49] which would likely have an environmental review.
[3:30:53] If we, for example, proceed with regulations associated
[3:30:58] related with land use and short-term vacation rentals that will be a city-sponsored effort that will require budget.
[3:31:07] The vast majority of bread-and-butter cases will be applicant-funded.
[3:31:15] Perfect. Any other questions for staff?
[3:31:17] Nope.
[3:31:20] All right. Seeing none, we'll open up for public comment.
[3:31:23] Thank you for the report.
[3:31:25] I do not have any hands raised online, and we do not receive speaker cards.
[3:31:36] I'd like to make a recommendation to award a three-year contract to Aspen, Michael Baker, and Reichen, professional environmental planning services, and authorize city manager or his designate to extend the contract for up to additional two years.
[3:31:52] Second.
[3:31:52] and then the dollar amounts and the original time frames are all the same as
[3:31:59] Woodson's staff are packed. Good with that? Yes. All right. Any conversations on the
[3:32:05] motion? Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, we'll call vote please.
[3:32:10] Council Member Francois? Yes. Mayor Dittoy? Aye.
[3:32:14] Council Member Jackson? Aye. I look forward to that see-go review of our S-T-V-R
[3:32:20] Mayor Pro Temkegan.
[3:32:22] Hi.
[3:32:22] Council Member Seaman.
[3:32:24] Hi.
[3:32:24] Motion passes, 5-0.
[3:32:26] Thank you.
[3:32:27] All right.
[3:32:28] Cambria.
[3:32:29] One year review of the clerk building.
[3:32:39] Good evening.
[3:32:41] I'm not going to be as quick as Allison was.
[3:32:43] Sorry.
[3:32:45] All right.
[3:32:46] Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council.
[3:32:49] Tonight I'm presenting the one year review of the clerk building following its reopening in August of 2025.
[3:32:54] In March of 2025, Council approved the revised Clark Building Use Policy and Reservation
[3:33:00] Rates to accompany the renovated facility.
[3:33:03] Council also directed staff to return one year after the reopening with the review of
[3:33:07] the building's usage, feedback from facility users and neighboring residents and the effectiveness
[3:33:11] of policies and rates.
[3:33:14] The purpose of tonight's presentation is to provide that first year snapshot and to discuss
[3:33:18] any changes based on what we've experienced over the past year.
[3:33:21] Next slide.
[3:33:24] Looking at the first year as a whole, the Clark Building has 61 rentals and generated $29,732
[3:33:30] in revenue. The building has experienced steady growth in rental since reopening and
[3:33:34] the use has been fairly diverse. When we look at the month to month activity, there's
[3:33:38] some variation. We started with three rentals in August of 2025. Activity increased throughout
[3:33:45] the fall and winter reaching seven rentals in April of 2026. And eight rental days in May,
[3:33:50] which represented the highest percentage of days used during the first year.
[3:33:55] So while the building is not being rented every day, the data shows
[3:33:58] consistent activity and importantly a broad range of community uses
[3:34:02] rather than a reliance on one particular rental type.
[3:34:06] Another important piece of this snapshot is that staff has received no reported
[3:34:10] neighborhood complaints regarding the use or operation of the facility
[3:34:14] during this first year. That is particularly relevant because
[3:34:17] Council had specifically asked staff to return with feedback regarding the operation of
[3:34:21] the building including hours in amplified sound.
[3:34:24] Next slide.
[3:34:28] When we look at who is actually using the Clark Building, non-profit community organizations
[3:34:32] make up the largest portion of the rentals.
[3:34:34] These include recurring meetings and events throughout the year including local philanthropic
[3:34:39] organizations, community groups, and religious organizations.
[3:34:43] The facility is also supporter of a number of civic and public uses, including city events,
[3:34:48] voting centers, blood drives, public meetings, and other public events. Private rentals have
[3:34:53] included birthdays, baby showers, weddings, retirement celebrations, celebrations of life
[3:34:58] and cultural events. One of the things I think is worth highlighting is the flexibility
[3:35:03] of the building. During this first year, the facility has been able to accommodate everything
[3:35:07] from non-profit meetings to events for public services and private celebrations. For example,
[3:35:13] The month of May included garden club plant sale, a friends of a library event, the L.A.
[3:35:18] rugby club banquet and the LA County Voting Center.
[3:35:22] So the building is functioning as intended as a flexible community facility.
[3:35:26] Next slide.
[3:35:29] The Parks and Recreation Department began an initiative in early 2026 to survey community
[3:35:34] members and users for all of the recreation services and facilities we offer.
[3:35:38] We distribute post rental surveys to facility users, and to date we have received four completed surveys for the clerk building.
[3:35:46] All respondents rated their overall rental as far exceeds expectations.
[3:35:50] While four responses is a relatively small sample size, the feedback we have received has been very consistent.
[3:35:56] Users highlight the quality and versatility of the facility, amenities, parking, and healthfulness of the on-site staff.
[3:36:02] One renter noted their comforts attendees enjoyed the space, and that the kitchen was particularly
[3:36:07] helpful.
[3:36:08] Another described the rental process as seamless, and said their guests had positive things
[3:36:12] to say about the building and location.
[3:36:14] We also received positive feedback about the allocation of the four parking spaces in front
[3:36:18] of the building as part of the rental package.
[3:36:22] So, from a customer service standpoint, the feedback indicates that both the facility itself
[3:36:26] and the city's rental process are meeting or exceeding expectations.
[3:36:31] Equally important for cancers of use, staff has not received any feedback or complaints
[3:36:35] from neighboring residents regarding the use or operation of the crock building.
[3:36:39] That includes no reported concerns related to events, operations, hours, or amplified
[3:36:43] sound during the first year.
[3:36:46] Based on that information, staff does not see a need to make any changes to the current operating
[3:36:50] policy at this time.
[3:36:53] Next slide.
[3:36:54] From
[3:36:57] a fiscal standpoint, the Clark Building generated $29,732.40 in collected revenue from
[3:37:04] August 2025 through August 2026. 23,403 of that amount was collected through indirect costs,
[3:37:11] while 6,329 was associated with direct costs. Indirect costs include the application fee, hourly rates,
[3:37:18] projector, and screen use, and able-fights and permits. The direct costs include hourly staffing
[3:37:24] as well as set up and tear down services.
[3:37:27] This revenue is intended to account for the city's resources associated with providing
[3:37:30] the facility, including staff time and city equipment.
[3:37:34] It does not include the $500 refundable damage deposit that each rent or pays at the time
[3:37:39] of booking.
[3:37:40] Looking ahead, there's also $24,639.50 in anticipated revenue from reservations currently booked
[3:37:47] after September 1st of 2026.
[3:37:50] That consists of 29,945 in direct costs and 3694 direct costs.
[3:37:58] We are entering the second year with a significant amount of revenue already associated with
[3:38:02] future reservations, which is another indication that demand for the facility is continuing.
[3:38:07] Next slide.
[3:38:10] When we look at the upcoming reservations from September 2026 through May of 2027, we're
[3:38:16] continuing to see the same general pattern we experienced during the first year.
[3:38:19] 29 rentals representing 46 rental days with nonprofit organizations continuing to be the largest book user group.
[3:38:26] But again, the range of uses brought October is our busiest month currently, with eight rentals representing 18 rental days.
[3:38:33] This is encouraging because it demonstrates that the demand is continuing beyond the initial reopening period,
[3:38:39] and we're seeing both reoccurring organizations and new or one-time uses utilizing the facility.
[3:38:46] Next slide,
[3:38:50] staff has been actively promoting the Clark Building through a number of channels.
[3:38:54] Current efforts include social media, digital marketing, promotional flyers with QR codes
[3:38:59] at various city facilities, facility tours for interested renters, and a banner in front
[3:39:04] of the Clark Building, as well as the Clark Building's listing on our Recreation Software
[3:39:08] Rec U.S. with a streamlined digital application process.
[3:39:13] Moving forward, staff plans to continue those efforts while adding some other targeted strategies.
[3:39:18] opportunities. One opportunity is to host open houses during periods where there's
[3:39:23] already significant activity in the area, such as during little league season or on
[3:39:26] farmer's market days, allowing people who may be familiar with the building but not necessarily
[3:39:31] aware that it's available for rent to see the space. We also plan to expand our digital
[3:39:36] marketing, including the use of the city's digital monument sign once it is constructed,
[3:39:42] out reaching to local organizations and incorporating the clerk building more broadly
[3:39:47] into Parkland Recreation Marketing Initiatives.
[3:39:50] Next slide.
[3:39:52] In conclusion, staff believes the first year
[3:39:55] of the Clark Building's operation has been successful.
[3:39:57] Staff recommends continuing the current approach
[3:39:59] and focusing our efforts on marketing and outreach
[3:40:01] to increase awareness and utilization.
[3:40:04] Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
[3:40:08] Thank you.
[3:40:09] Any questions from the panelists?
[3:40:13] Yes.
[3:40:14] Hello.
[3:40:14] Hi, Rob.
[3:40:15] Thank you for your report.
[3:40:17] I was curious.
[3:40:18] As I look through the report, I didn't see anything
[3:40:21] about the rates that we were getting or the annual income that the building was producing
[3:40:29] so many years ago when the last time it was open, I don't remember how long ago it was,
[3:40:34] at least eight years I think. Do we have any of that information and you probably don't have it with you tonight,
[3:40:40] but is there such information that we can compare this to?
[3:40:43] The information does exist, so I'm happy to gather that for you.
[3:40:46] Okay, I appreciate that. So maybe at some future date you can report that to us.
[3:40:50] I think it's wonderful that the building is open, and it's working, and people seem to love it, and people are coming back, and using it, and all of that.
[3:40:58] And mostly nonprofits are using it, which I think is a big plus for our community.
[3:41:07] But I would like to kind of get an idea of how are we doing versus how we used to do.
[3:41:13] So, if we could get that information to be great, thank you.
[3:41:19] Any other questions?
[3:41:20] It's open for public comment.
[3:41:27] We do not receive any speaker cards and I do not have any hands raised.
[3:41:32] One last call for public comment.
[3:41:35] Close public comment and bring it back.
[3:41:37] Mayor can I speak to this?
[3:41:38] Yes.
[3:41:41] Some other frustrations I'd like to talk about maybe we can make some changes to the rate
[3:41:47] schedule.
[3:41:48] I don't see it being rented by residents very much.
[3:41:51] it's mostly rented by non-profits and residents aren't really renting it the way I would like and
[3:41:59] I was wondering if any of the council might entertain changing the rates for the residents to
[3:42:05] match that of her most sub based non-profit rate for a year and lower all the rates towards
[3:42:13] that rate and also I'd like to eliminate the sound permit from all categories because any event
[3:42:20] that goes there that needs to have a microphone as to pay $214 for a permit in a city facility.
[3:42:27] And I don't think we make them pay that in any other building in the city.
[3:42:30] And it seems to make no sense that we've charged them $214 to put a little boom back in or some kind of speaker system.
[3:42:39] I've never heard of complaint in the year it's been open about sound.
[3:42:43] And I think it's an overreach and unnecessary and I don't think we should have that.
[3:42:49] that, and hopefully next year we'll show in a year we can see an uptick in residents
[3:42:54] running it for birthday parties, anniversaries, baby showers, you know, some more resident-oriented
[3:43:00] things, not just non-profit work.
[3:43:02] And if it's really busy and competitive, we can make adjustments as we see fit.
[3:43:10] Mr. City Attorney, is that are we able to, with the title of this agenda, to make those
[3:43:17] changes?
[3:43:17] I
[3:43:26] think we can. I think it's broad enough to do that.
[3:43:29] Okay. So I'll make that emotion.
[3:43:33] We restate it one more time.
[3:43:36] Motion is to change the resident um rates, that column,
[3:43:41] and basically add that to the verbiage of the first column,
[3:43:44] which is the hermosa redondo Manhattan nonprofit rates,
[3:43:48] and just move resident into that column and eliminate
[3:43:52] the sound permits, all categories, that's my motion.
[3:43:57] Mr. Mayor, I would second that motion, but with a friendly amendment, residents to nonprofit
[3:44:06] rates, I think that's a great idea.
[3:44:08] The sound system, perhaps we could just lower it from $200 and something to maybe $100 or $150.
[3:44:16] The sound system there is rather elaborate and it's not just a boom box and a microphone.
[3:44:23] So so so so so amended $100. Okay. Thank you. And I will second that question and clarification on this. If we
[3:44:34] The ampisa amplified sound permit. That's for an outside
[3:44:38] Music person coming in
[3:44:40] Or is that already we're paying the AV tech to be there?
[3:44:45] The amplified sound permit is the police department permit that the police permit issues for a live band or a DJ
[3:44:52] So that they're not going to be using the sound system there.
[3:44:56] So the sounds of some there is just built into the AV.
[3:45:00] So, if they're using the built-in sound system in the building, they're just paying the hourly AV tech to run the system. Of course, they're not paying the additional fee. The
[3:45:07] amplified sound permit goes directly to the police department. It's part of their master fee schedule. It's what you would do to get an amplified sound permit for any location in the city. And that is, if they have a live band or a DJ.
[3:45:19] So, it's not the system in the building. It is not the system in the building. Do they get to use a billing system for free? I mean, not for free, but it's part of the bill.
[3:45:26] Yes, if they are choosing to use the building system, they're paying just a higher staff rate for a staff member that's certified to run the system, but that there's no other associated costs with that.
[3:45:36] So the to what was a $250? Yes, and that's a master fee schedule thing.
[3:45:42] So they have to go to the police department go file it as a payment about.
[3:45:45] I'd like to eliminate it, but I didn't want to seem onerous.
[3:45:49] Well, then I would want to withdraw my.
[3:45:50] Okay, so a minute one, it's zero, so we're getting ready to go.
[3:45:54] If I may, after further consideration, this is a receive and file action and so if we're
[3:46:01] going to amend something, that's kind of an action and so I think based upon the pickle
[3:46:06] ball, it might be best that we come back, instead of doing a cure and correct, we come back.
[3:46:13] So, because it is agendas receive in file, I think it's problematic if we change.
[3:46:20] I'll amend my motion to receive in file.
[3:46:23] Second.
[3:46:25] I do have a question for staff for a future agenda item.
[3:46:31] Do you need a monitor if you already have a staff member there doing AV?
[3:46:36] It's one or the other.
[3:46:37] Oh, it is one or the other.
[3:46:38] Okay.
[3:46:39] Perfect.
[3:46:40] All right.
[3:46:41] There's a motion a second on the floor.
[3:46:42] I have a question.
[3:46:44] Just a quick question before we go to my friends one and then, Ray.
[3:46:47] Thank you.
[3:46:49] Is there any way what we can do to increase the survey results that we have from the?
[3:46:56] We send them out to everyone, but generally people don't fill out surveys.
[3:47:03] It's very short, it's five questions, maybe six questions.
[3:47:07] We send them out to all of our renters, theater, Clark building, rooms, everybody.
[3:47:11] We don't get a ton of return on it. So did they receive an email where they could click on a link and answer the questions?
[3:47:17] Yep. Did they get something in the mail or just an email? Just an email?
[3:47:20] Did you ask for confirmation back? I'm just wondering if there's. No, we just send the email.
[3:47:25] Thank you for ending with our building. We could just try to be a little bit more aggressive on trying to get better responses, because I think
[3:47:32] what could be more important than getting responses from the people that used the building to figure out where we're going
[3:47:38] when we review this, and then of course if we come up with future agenda items it can
[3:47:45] be included in that area as well.
[3:47:48] So thank you.
[3:47:48] Yes, so noted.
[3:47:49] Sure.
[3:47:50] Councillor Jackson.
[3:47:54] Just to make sure I'm clear if that can be, we're not breaking even right now, are we?
[3:48:00] Is this caused neutral or are we losing money?
[3:48:06] I can't answer that.
[3:48:08] I don't know what the utilities cost for this space.
[3:48:11] Okay, all right. And maybe just for next time we get this briefing, I'm just curious
[3:48:17] as to whether we're recouping his cause neutral or is just a another handout that the
[3:48:25] city is providing noted. Thank you.
[3:48:31] Just a quick question based on that question.
[3:48:37] We own
[3:48:42] We hear about how much money we bring in with the building I would assume that's basically profit.
[3:48:49] Absolutely, and I know that the facility is tied in to the Clark Stadium as a whole if you remember from the long bull in conversation we can't really separate it out those utilities.
[3:48:57] So it would definitely be a public works estimation, but I can get those numbers.
[3:49:00] Okay, and now are we getting 100% money back on staff time and so on?
[3:49:07] Yes.
[3:49:07] Okay, all right now, thank you.
[3:49:10] Ray, are you still there?
[3:49:12] Yes, sir.
[3:49:12] Okay, we lost.
[3:49:13] There you are.
[3:49:15] Perfect.
[3:49:16] All right.
[3:49:16] We have a motion to receive and file.
[3:49:18] It's been seconded.
[3:49:21] Madam City clerk.
[3:49:22] Mayor Pro Temkegan.
[3:49:23] Hi.
[3:49:24] Council Member Semen.
[3:49:25] Hi.
[3:49:26] Mayor Dittoy.
[3:49:27] Hi.
[3:49:27] Council Member Jackson.
[3:49:29] Hi.
[3:49:30] Council Member Francois.
[3:49:31] Yes.
[3:49:32] Motion passes 5-0.
[3:49:34] Perfect.
[3:49:36] Director Nichols.
[3:49:37] Good
[3:49:44] evening, Mayor Prattem, and City Council.
[3:49:47] This item is consideration of updates to the tennis membership and reservation rights.
[3:49:53] Next slide.
[3:50:01] So the Parks and Recreation Department oversees seven city-owned tennis courts.
[3:50:06] Six courts are located at the community center and support resident reservations, drop-in-play,
[3:50:11] city contract classes and camps and private instruction.
[3:50:14] The other tennis court is located at the Kelly complex and that is designated for drop-in play only it is not available for reservation
[3:50:22] So the fee modifications that we had before you tonight are only pertaining to the community center tennis courts
[3:50:29] The current tennis membership and reservation fees have remained unchanged since 2020
[3:50:36] Therefore staff performed best practice research on local cities and recommended to the commission at its July 7th meeting
[3:50:42] increases to the annual membership and hourly reservation fees for residents which the commission supported.
[3:50:49] Next slide.
[3:50:55] So in our best practice research in the staff report as attachment one resident
[3:50:59] reservation fees generally range from 10 to 13 dollars per hour in surrounding cities. All of the
[3:51:06] structure of the annual membership requirements vary by agency. So the fee updates that we are
[3:51:12] recommended tonight is to increase our annual resident membership fee from $19 to $25 and
[3:51:19] the hourly resident reservation rate from the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. from $9 to $12.
[3:51:26] And from 7 to 10 p.m. which is considered the lighted hours from 11 to 14 dollars.
[3:51:34] And informing these fee increase recommendations, not only do we consider the best practice
[3:51:38] research will be also considered the recent city council action increasing the pickleball fees.
[3:51:44] When the city established the pickleball program in 2020, those fees for pickleball were set
[3:51:50] to mirror the community center's tennis program, so except for the lighted hourly reservation rate,
[3:51:56] which does not apply to the pickleball courts considering their hours of operations.
[3:52:00] The fee increases presented tonight are in line with the pickleball program.
[3:52:06] Next slide.
[3:52:10] So to conclude my presentation options for City Council tonight are to approve
[3:52:14] the fee updates, which is option one on the slide before you with anticipated revenue
[3:52:20] shown as well on that slide or maintain the current fees, which also you can see the revenue
[3:52:25] collected right now with the current fees in option two. And this concludes my presentation
[3:52:32] and I'm available for any questions.
[3:52:36] Thank you, questions for staff.
[3:52:41] Thank you very much for the brief presentation.
[3:52:47] We continue to offer tennis to those that don't have reservations for free if they're available, is that correct?
[3:52:58] Yes.
[3:52:58] Okay, just want to make sure we've continued to support that, that the one availability the public has to use the tennis courts
[3:53:07] for free is to come down if they're available that jump on the courts that use them
[3:53:12] until someone shows up with a reservation.
[3:53:14] Yes, and courts five and six are available for drop-and-play at all times because we do not reserve those courts.
[3:53:20] They're free of reservation at all times.
[3:53:21] Oh, beautiful.
[3:53:22] Only four of the six courts are available for reservation.
[3:53:25] Thank you.
[3:53:27] And it says in the staff report, but the tennis program generates more revenue than what is displayed here
[3:53:33] because of the camps and private instruments.
[3:53:36] Yes, this only pertains to the resident reservation revenue.
[3:53:40] Perfect.
[3:53:42] Any other questions for staff?
[3:53:43] Nope.
[3:53:44] Is there a non-resident?
[3:53:47] There is not at this time and there is not for the pickleball program either.
[3:53:52] When we had the pickleball discussion, we did talk City Council and staff.
[3:53:56] We had a discussion about the non-resident fees and at that time, we discussed considering
[3:54:02] I'm going to bring non-resident reservations when we brought back the 90-day report for the Pickleball program.
[3:54:09] So we didn't recommend any changes to the tennis since these two mere one another.
[3:54:14] So there is no membership for non-resident.
[3:54:17] There is not.
[3:54:18] Okay.
[3:54:19] For non-residents, it's just drop-in.
[3:54:21] Got it, thank you.
[3:54:23] And I guess the question is, is there enough demand in the reservations that you would want to put reservations on five and six and keep the Clark court open for drop-in?
[3:54:33] We haven't seen a need for that just yet.
[3:54:36] Perfect.
[3:54:39] Seeing any other questions?
[3:54:40] I'm in a commotion to a public comment.
[3:54:42] Oh, I forgot.
[3:54:44] Nobody here.
[3:54:46] I did not receive any speaker cards.
[3:54:47] Oh, I was talking tennis.
[3:54:53] I dare you, Michael.
[3:54:55] Council, good evening.
[3:54:59] Mayor, I hope you don't think I was crazy enough to come down here just for this.
[3:55:02] actually meant to come here for the SGRs, but I arrived a little bit late for public comment.
[3:55:06] However, perfect opportunity when I came up here advocating for increase in pickleball fees.
[3:55:11] I made a promise to my neighbor that I was not just picking on pickleball.
[3:55:15] I was here, principled consistency of cost recovery for all of our city services.
[3:55:20] So I will speak tonight in favor of increasing fees on tennis as well.
[3:55:24] Thank you.
[3:55:33] No one else on mine.
[3:55:34] All right, we'll close public comment and I'll turn over to Mayor Patelman.
[3:55:37] And let's make a motion to approve the Parks and Rec Commission recommendation to increase
[3:55:41] the annual tennis membership to $25 and a reservation rate to $12 between $8 and $7 and $14
[3:55:49] between 7 and 10 PM.
[3:55:52] That is my motion.
[3:55:54] Second.
[3:55:55] We have a motion and a second in the conversation on the motion.
[3:55:59] Just thank you to the Parks and Rec Commission for their work on this.
[3:56:02] Thank you, staff.
[3:56:04] I'm C. Clerk.
[3:56:04] Mr. Clerk.
[3:56:05] Councillor Member Jackson.
[3:56:06] Aye.
[3:56:07] Councillor Member Francois.
[3:56:08] Yes.
[3:56:09] Mayor Dittoy.
[3:56:10] Aye.
[3:56:10] Councillor Marcement.
[3:56:12] Aye.
[3:56:12] Mayor Pratt and Keegan.
[3:56:13] Aye.
[3:56:14] Motion passes, 5-0.
[3:56:16] All right.
[3:56:16] I think we've made history.
[3:56:17] That's the third time we mentioned pickleball tonight.
[3:56:23] Okay.
[3:56:23] Parking.
[3:56:24] This is all the record.
[3:56:25] That's good.
[3:56:25] Welcome back.
[3:56:27] All right.
[3:56:28] Hello again.
[3:56:30] This item is consideration of updates to the Park Reservation Program Feast.
[3:56:35] Next slide.
[3:56:39] The Parks and Recreation Department oversees resident park reservations for neighborhood
[3:56:43] gatherings and small group gatherings under 25 at six parks per the Hermosso Beach Municipal
[3:56:49] Code.
[3:56:50] These parks are listed in the code.
[3:56:52] So it's Valley Park by Centennial Park, Greenwood Park, South Park, Clark Field, and Edith
[3:56:57] Rotaway Park.
[3:56:58] However, we've only had requests for Valley Park and South Park historically, and I just
[3:57:07] is attached to the staff report,
[3:57:09] only speaks to Valley Park and South Park.
[3:57:11] We have since updated that policy
[3:57:13] to make it clear that the other parks are also available
[3:57:16] for reservation, so I just wanted to make note of that.
[3:57:20] Park reservations include the reservation of tables,
[3:57:23] the total tables really available for reservation vary by park
[3:57:28] because each park has a different amount of tables available.
[3:57:31] Valley Park bounce houses are permitted in the amphitheater area
[3:57:34] and the fire pay is available for use and an additional fee for each of those amenities.
[3:57:40] We are not recommending any fee changes to the bounce house permit fee or the fire reservation fee,
[3:57:46] only for the general park reservation fee.
[3:57:48] The current park reservation fee is adjusted annually based on the CPI.
[3:57:53] However, no other fee adjustments have been recommended in at least 20 years.
[3:57:58] And I know that because I have been with the city for 20 years, we have not changed these fees.
[3:58:01] and per the, her most of each municipal code, reservation fees should be accounting for
[3:58:09] all of the direct costs associated with this program.
[3:58:12] Therefore staff performed best practice research on local cities.
[3:58:16] We calculated the direct cost to administer this program from the department and we are
[3:58:22] recommended to the commission at its August 4th meeting to options for increases to the
[3:58:27] the city's park reservation fees for residents
[3:58:30] and an update to the policy to allow
[3:58:32] for non-resident reservations,
[3:58:33] which I'll touch on why more later in the presentation.
[3:58:37] The commission supported a $100 fee plus the $29
[3:58:41] application fee and allowing for non-resident reservations
[3:58:45] with a $200 fee so that double the cost
[3:58:47] of the resident cost for non-resident,
[3:58:50] including as well the $29 application fee.
[3:58:54] Next slide.
[3:58:55] Okay,
[3:59:02] so as further detailed and table one of the staff report, direct cost total approximately $147 to monitor the Park Reservation Program through the Parks and Recreation Department.
[3:59:14] It includes the staff time associated with the reservation processing, securing the reservation site, materials, the day of the reservation check-in, and any post event checks and follow-up, including the survey that our recreation supervisor Cambria had mentioned we do for the Clark Building.
[3:59:31] These tasks are split between different members of the team, so it's some of our part-time
[3:59:37] staff team members and members of our full-time staff team.
[3:59:40] That's why I'll see different rates in that table for each element of the program.
[3:59:46] The option recommended by the commission does not necessarily support cost recovery of these
[3:59:51] direct costs.
[3:59:52] As a total for a park reservation, which the commission is recommending would be $129.
[3:59:58] dollars.
[4:00:00] As noted on the previous slide, an alternate option was presented to the commission that would provide for cost recovery. But that is again not what the commission had recommended. And I believe I put it on, yeah, it's in red on the slide before you. So we had an alternate option, which was $121 plus $29 application fee that would provide for full cost recovery. Local cities, park reservation fees are mixed between hourly and fraught rate fee structures, but ultimately range from $80 to $100.
[4:00:29] $160 for four-hour reservation, so our recommendation, either option one or option two that we have presented to the commission falls within this range.
[4:00:39] It makes an average market rate across the cities that we surveyed of $120.
[4:00:46] Next slide.
[4:00:50] So in also reviewing the local city's park reservation policies, it is clear to us that Hermosa is the only city that does not allow for non-resident reservations of their parks.
[4:01:00] That is why we are recommending that the Park Reservation Policy be modified to allow for
[4:01:07] non-resident reservations which commission supported at a rate doubled from the resident reservations.
[4:01:12] Based on the inquiries from non-residents and a review of the resident reservations throughout the year
[4:01:18] which are totaled up in Table 2 of your staff report.
[4:01:22] We see no impact on access for residents with this change.
[4:01:25] We have availability throughout the year for to accommodate non-residents
[4:01:29] based on the amount of inquiries we get from non-residents and commission
[4:01:34] against support of this recommendation. And additionally during site checks at
[4:01:39] CVU and Fort Lossafund parks, we have had park goers requesting the ability to
[4:01:46] obtain park reservations at these locations. These locations both have
[4:01:51] restrooms now. They have picnic tables. They're suitable to accommodate a park
[4:01:54] reservation and the commission supported its task recommendation to include
[4:01:58] through these parts in the program, next slide.
[4:02:03] So because these details, many of these details are listed in the Hermos Beach Municipal
[4:02:08] Code, if Council does approve the commission's recommended fee because it does not account
[4:02:13] for full cost recovery of direct cost, there would need to be a Hermos Beach Municipal Code
[4:02:18] update to change that because it does speak to the fact that we need to recover all direct
[4:02:23] that cost and then the inclusion of non-resident reservations would also need to results in a modification to the code as well because it always speaks to allowing it for residents and then the addition of CVU and for lots of fun parks would also result in a code amendment.
[4:02:42] And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.
[4:02:46] Thank you. Any questions for staff?
[4:02:53] I've reserved the park a few times, and it's wonderful.
[4:02:57] Madam City Clerk, public comment, quick question.
[4:02:59] Just a quick question, and thanks to our Parks and Ricks Commission and staff for putting this together.
[4:03:06] The idea of having a larger amount for non-residents is to kind of subsidize it.
[4:03:14] So we've kept the cost less than what it really recovers for residents, is that correct?
[4:03:20] That is true, and it's the doubling of the resident cost for non-residents.
[4:03:25] We saw that to be what Manhattan Beach and El Segundo had done as well.
[4:03:29] Okay, very good, thank you.
[4:03:32] All right, so in other questions, could you open up for public comment please?
[4:03:37] Yes, I do not have any hands raised online and we do not receive any speaker cards for this item.
[4:03:45] no one in chambers. All right, we'll close public comment. Bring it back for
[4:03:51] deliberation or emotion.
[4:03:57] I'll make an emotion to accept staff and commission
[4:04:00] recommendation. Perfect. I'll second.
[4:04:06] I know that you mentioned the ordinances are
[4:04:08] going to get changed. We'll obviously come back to us or is that? Yes, we'll have to
[4:04:13] come back for a first and second reading of the changes to the municipal code.
[4:04:16] Okay, perfect. All right, there's a motion in a second. No other conversation on this
[4:04:24] Madam City clerk mayor DeToy. Aye mayor Pratton Keegan. Aye. Councilmember Jackson. Aye. Councilmember Seaman. Aye
[4:04:32] Councilmember Francois. Yes, motion passes 5 0. I
[4:04:41] will take us to feature agenda items
[4:04:44] Yeah, every time I'd like to move forward the fee schedule change for the Clark building rentals to come back to us at a future meeting to make some changes.
[4:04:59] I will support that and I will support that all right, three persons support changes to the fee schedule of the Clark building as discussed earlier in the meeting.
[4:05:12] We'll look at all fees in, right?
[4:05:14] That's the same report, just we can talk about it.
[4:05:17] So I don't think we need to redo a report, I don't think.
[4:05:21] Yeah.
[4:05:21] And your honor that was Mayor Proton, Keegan, Mayor Detoy,
[4:05:27] and who was the third?
[4:05:29] Francois.
[4:05:29] Francois, okay.
[4:05:30] No.
[4:05:31] That's why I was wondering, right?
[4:05:33] So I heard, sorry, I missed red that.
[4:05:36] That's why I wanted to clarify.
[4:05:37] Thank you.
[4:05:41] Any others from you, Mr. Mayor?
[4:05:46] I am seeking a support to bring a discussion up on the Clean Power Alliance.
[4:05:52] I'm hoping for two additional council members.
[4:05:55] The idea of this discussion would be to adjust all residents to the lowest tier for their
[4:06:01] power.
[4:06:02] this decision to go to the most expensive level should be made by the residents themselves
[4:06:09] rather than have to opt down to a lower level. They should start at the lower level.
[4:06:14] I think this would save our citizens thousands of dollars and I think it's a worthy discussion
[4:06:19] something we need to look at as long overdue.
[4:06:23] I'll second that.
[4:06:29] I know what it was adopted before I was on the council.
[4:06:32] So I did advocate for something lower than the highest tier.
[4:06:36] But would it make sense to keep it as an info item first until we consider all the ramifications of the contract we have and have a report first that would make it a little quicker or are we okay with going hand with an action item?
[4:06:52] It's as directed by Council.
[4:06:55] I don't think, yeah, I don't, it's up to you whether you think information or
[4:06:59] now.
[4:06:59] Sure.
[4:07:00] Yeah, go ahead.
[4:07:02] If it's an action item report comes back much fuller.
[4:07:11] It's a much more complete report, something that we would have enough information
[4:07:16] to make a decision and a change based on.
[4:07:18] If it's just a discussion item, it's a fairly light report.
[4:07:22] Right, it's just there when it's a discussion and it comes back quicker.
[4:07:27] And then we could, if we want to go ahead and do it, but that's fine.
[4:07:30] If we want to make that an action item, I'm okay with that.
[4:07:33] So there's three.
[4:07:34] Okay.
[4:07:35] There's three.
[4:07:35] Thank you.
[4:07:37] Okay.
[4:07:39] I would seek support for having the planning commission start on the basic program.
[4:07:48] guidelines on short-term vacation rentals.
[4:07:54] Second.
[4:07:58] You want to get a little more specific on what you're proposing?
[4:08:02] No.
[4:08:03] Just that they start having the conversation on what is a permanent STR program
[4:08:09] look like in her most of each.
[4:08:12] Do we need that as an action item or is the planning commission going to be
[4:08:16] considering that anyway, or do we have to wait six months out?
[4:08:21] The direction that we proved was six months for data collection
[4:08:25] and then zero conversation.
[4:08:28] Directional council.
[4:08:33] Can you repeat that,
[4:08:34] I just got it in here at that clearly.
[4:08:36] Is the planning commission would start a conversation
[4:08:39] on what a permanent STR program
[4:08:41] and our most of each would look like?
[4:08:46] So this would come back to the city council
[4:08:48] first for discussion.
[4:08:50] To the planning commission.
[4:08:52] How much staff time would go into something like that?
[4:08:57] I mean, it's hard to say.
[4:08:59] I mean, it would be folded into the other things
[4:09:03] they're working on.
[4:09:06] Well, typically, you know, a couple of dozen condo projects
[4:09:10] and one thing or another, but then...
[4:09:13] I'm sorry that the director's not here.
[4:09:16] I'm going to lose to say exactly what it would be.
[4:09:20] But again, council directs it.
[4:09:22] It will become part of the workflow.
[4:09:25] Okay.
[4:09:26] Well, we're not supposed to deliberate on it.
[4:09:27] So we have...
[4:09:28] We have two people.
[4:09:31] Okay.
[4:09:31] So, if it becomes an action, it doesn't come back to us.
[4:09:37] That's a referral to the Planning Commission, is that what that is?
[4:09:39] Eventually what they discuss would come back to us first.
[4:09:43] No, it's an action item, it would be the direction, there would be nothing to come back and vote
[4:09:48] on again, you're already providing direction, that something would go to the Planning Commission
[4:09:52] to be.
[4:09:52] So, this is not going to come back to the City Council to provide direction on where
[4:09:57] to go to the planning commission.
[4:09:59] No, it was a direct referral to the planning commission.
[4:10:02] Council needs to direct one way or the other.
[4:10:04] One way or the other.
[4:10:05] And unless there's three, then it goes directly to planning commission.
[4:10:09] As council desires, if they, if council wants to, if there's a, if there's a,
[4:10:13] council wants to re-agendize this to provide guidance to the planning commission,
[4:10:18] they can do that.
[4:10:19] Well, I, I will make it an action, I don't know if it comes back to this city council
[4:10:23] Council for us to provide some guidance on where we're going with this issue but not
[4:10:29] a direct referral to the planning commission at this point.
[4:10:32] I will gladly change it to that then.
[4:10:34] What's that?
[4:10:34] I will change it to that then.
[4:10:36] Okay.
[4:10:37] So this will be a future agenda item coming back to this council on where we're going next
[4:10:42] on this.
[4:10:43] Very good with that.
[4:10:44] Okay.
[4:10:46] I have an item now.
[4:10:49] Well, you're muted.
[4:10:52] We can't hear you.
[4:10:57] I have no idea what we're going to talk about
[4:11:00] and why it wouldn't start with the planning commission.
[4:11:06] So why is it coming to us?
[4:11:07] I don't understand that.
[4:11:13] Then you can withdraw your support if you want or not.
[4:11:22] Okay, I'm fine.
[4:11:23] I have no idea what this discussion is about
[4:11:27] so I'm not supporting it, so it makes no sense to me.
[4:11:31] but that's just me.
[4:11:33] I don't see a point of having an info item
[4:11:35] on a potential short-term.
[4:11:38] No, I think it should be a discussion,
[4:11:40] community discussion, led by the planning commission.
[4:11:43] Full stop.
[4:11:43] It's gonna come up to us eventually,
[4:11:45] so for it to come to us and then go back down,
[4:11:48] makes no sense.
[4:11:54] Well, that's okay, we can do something later in the future,
[4:11:57] I guess.
[4:11:59] Okay, I have a good.
[4:12:01] Good.
[4:12:06] So years ago, when we renewed the Chamber of Commerce contract, I tried to seek support
[4:12:12] for funders to come up with a New Year's Eve celebration, and we got people to go out
[4:12:19] to funders and go out to the band, and sure enough, a representative from Lou Gevenetti appeared
[4:12:26] here this evening, stating that they're willing to cover the full cost of the event. So I'm asking
[4:12:32] for a future agenda item to consider waiving the city's fees for that event if we obtain confirmation
[4:12:42] and they apply for the event and cover the full cost of the event. And we could keep it open
[4:12:50] and ended whether we end up being the sponsor, whether they do, or they work with the Chamber of Commerce
[4:12:55] or other businesses, but something to that event, something that affect as a future agenda item,
[4:13:00] so we could possibly get moving on a New Year's Eve celebration, this New Year's Eve.
[4:13:08] I'll second that. I'll second that.
[4:13:14] I'll also lend support to that.
[4:13:16] Okay. Thank you.
[4:13:24] Everybody loves a party.
[4:13:29] That's sure if it should be the Chamber of Commerce or not, but let's talk about it.
[4:13:36] Any other future agenda items? I actually have another question on a future agenda item.
[4:13:41] Mr. Mayor, you submitted an answer to a question that a Council member proposed
[4:13:47] about whether they could switch their vote or pull a future agenda item and change it
[4:13:55] to an info-only. Could you explain a little bit more what the question and answer
[4:13:59] was to that?
[4:14:03] As I understand, if something is on our agenda as a future agenda as an action item,
[4:14:10] And a council member that voted for it decided they wanted info only.
[4:14:16] They could, we could now tonight request that that be reconsidered as an info only item.
[4:14:22] Is that how I understand it?
[4:14:25] No, councilor.
[4:14:27] We haven't made a determination on that yet.
[4:14:30] We're going to, that's not, we didn't have advice on that.
[4:14:35] Well, if we, if we have an action item listed as a future agenda item and it's there and
[4:14:41] And a council member wants to make it an info-only, and you get three votes to make
[4:14:45] it info-only, that should do it right there.
[4:14:47] You only have two supporting the items.
[4:14:49] So, you should get the same meeting.
[4:14:52] No, no, right now, it's, we're under the agenda for future genitives.
[4:14:55] Right, since I've got it.
[4:14:56] The issue is whether it was a reconsideration or it needs to be...
[4:15:00] brought back is another future agenda item. Well, right now it's on board, right now something's on board for an action item. It's on board for an action item. It will come back to us as an action item. If we can certainly vote to change that from an action item to an info only by the vote of three people on this council tonight, because that's a future agenda item. As I understand it, that's how we. But that was on a future agenda item from another meeting.
[4:15:28] I mean, you're talking reconsideration.
[4:15:31] It's on our list, the future agenda items.
[4:15:33] It's on our list right now.
[4:15:34] Something is there as a future agenda item.
[4:15:36] That was brought up in a previous meeting.
[4:15:39] Yeah, it was brought up in a previous meeting.
[4:15:41] It's on our list.
[4:15:42] So if a council member wants to change it to an info-only item,
[4:15:48] they should be able to pull up that item right now.
[4:15:51] It's on our list.
[4:15:52] And if they have three votes, that makes it,
[4:15:55] That'll change it to an info on the item.
[4:15:58] I thought it's pretty clear to me how that can work.
[4:16:01] Otherwise, we'll have future genitals on here forever
[4:16:04] that won't move.
[4:16:06] We can move any of these future genitals
[4:16:08] to an info on the item or to knock it off completely.
[4:16:11] Or more votes.
[4:16:12] So I defer those to the agenda, I think.
[4:16:15] I'm not exactly sure that's totally accurate
[4:16:17] and so I need to look into that.
[4:16:20] Could the opposite be true?
[4:16:21] If it's currently an info item and someone has thought
[4:16:24] a couple of months later, and then said, oh, I want to add my support to changing
[4:16:28] that to an action item who is not already on there.
[4:16:33] Yes, three votes that can be done.
[4:16:37] Just like if there's an item, and someone says, I don't think it should be, I think it
[4:16:41] should be taken off completely, with four votes of the council, it can be taken off.
[4:16:45] Because there's, you only have one person supporting it.
[4:16:48] I mean, Councillor, I understand.
[4:16:49] I just, I don't know, you know, we're talking about having an action item to remove
[4:16:55] information on them or changing back or we went through this before and I
[4:16:59] thought it was quite clear we would remember with one time we decided let's
[4:17:03] knock off this list and see if we can knock off I remember that discussion
[4:17:06] well I would say this yeah if it's on the it's on the future agenda item that's
[4:17:10] listed right before you right now so yeah if you get three members to change it
[4:17:15] sure because it is because it has been it has been agendized and it is listed as
[4:17:20] is a future agenda item. So, sure, if you can three members do it, then sure.
[4:17:25] Tenant future agenda items. Yeah, tenant future agenda items. Yeah. Okay.
[4:17:29] If there's a tenant future agenda item, is there a agenda item?
[4:17:31] I buy that. It's been the public has notice. I buy that.
[4:17:35] Do we have a motion at
[4:17:39] the bottom?
[4:17:40] Move.
[4:17:59] Okay. Is that possible?
[4:18:02] It, because it is listed, it's been agendized, it is listed as a future agenda item.
[4:18:08] If you guys want to change and make change it from action item to info item as long as you have the records of votes, you can do that because it has been agendas.
[4:18:22] I would like to bring up a future tentative future agenda item that's on the list.
[4:18:28] It's called direct planning commission to consider a moratorium on new ground for office and service entry uses in commercial zones to reserve retail and restaurant uses.
[4:18:40] I would like to withdraw my vote on that.
[4:18:44] I did not hear that that was going to the planning commission.
[4:18:46] I apologize, but I just didn't hear those words.
[4:18:49] I would like to.
[4:18:50] All right.
[4:18:51] Once again, but we had a, you can't.
[4:18:53] One council member cannot unilality withdraw and vote.
[4:18:56] All right.
[4:18:57] Let's bring this up and vote on it.
[4:18:59] If I get three votes to take this off the list, then.
[4:19:03] And we can do that.
[4:19:03] I move that we take this off the list and cancel it completely or at the very least make
[4:19:13] it a discussion item for a City Council, not the Planning Commission.
[4:19:19] That's my motion.
[4:19:22] I'll second your motion if it takes it off completely.
[4:19:25] I'm okay with that, because I was against it, so I've heard that.
[4:19:30] All right, so if you want to make a motion to take it off.
[4:19:33] All right, I move that we take it off the list.
[4:19:34] Okay, that's my motion. Yeah, this moratorium thing has no basis for anything. So
[4:19:42] I don't know where we're going with that, but I will second your motion to remove it. Thank you, and then we have a third.
[4:19:48] Okay, do we need to vote on that or is that enough?
[4:19:52] This three. That's three. It's not. That's fun. There you go. All right. Thank you.
[4:19:58] I've got a question because I was the maker of
[4:20:01] I was the one who sought support. It was twofold. Number one, looking for support for the planning commission to begin discussions and try to determine what changes would be required to go from to convert from office to condo office to apartment and then part of that was the inclusion that part of that consideration would be no ground floor office.
[4:20:31] Which is consistent with what we've been trying to do for years and what some of our neighboring cities have done so
[4:20:36] You know, I'm not sure where this sudden. I don't want to do the round for office came from but it was part of a
[4:20:42] Joint discussion. So I'm just trying to flush it out so I understand what it is. We're doing it not to right
[4:20:47] Well, what we're doing is it's off the list completely and no longer exists
[4:20:52] So if he wants to be if we're city attorney does that mean that the discussion on
[4:20:57] on office conversions is off because it was a
[4:21:01] fuel support component. I guess I don't understand
[4:21:06] are we taking away half of what we voted on as a majority?
[4:21:15] So whatever's listed
[4:21:19] there the motion was to take that item off
[4:21:24] in its entirety that's I believe that's the motion that you had
[4:21:27] that, right? That's correct. Council is always able to do that. It's been agendized and
[4:21:33] that's there. And so if there's portions of that that were written incorrectly, that's
[4:21:40] something different. But as it's what, as it appears, that's what's been agendized and
[4:21:45] that was the motion. And then now it's been removed. And then Ray, just for your clarification,
[4:21:50] the office to housing conversion, which is directing planning commission to examine it, is slated
[4:21:56] for November 10th, 26th meeting, which again, I think just based on the direction what you gave
[4:22:02] and how this is written, that shouldn't even be on our agenda, it should go directly to planning.
[4:22:08] Correct. And so that, just, it's on page five.
[4:22:12] I'm supposed to go to planning too. I'm not looking at the future agenda. So is that not going to,
[4:22:19] is that not going to planning questions? Is that what they vote now is today?
[4:22:28] That's not what the motion was. The motion was the one item that she voted on. That additional item is not affected.
[4:22:38] Now, if there is something was written incorrectly, I mean we can look at that and that's one that falls in the clerical.
[4:22:44] So, you know, we can check that, but as this particular item is written that's presented
[4:22:51] before you on the future gen item, you have the authority to, as you have the votes,
[4:22:56] you can change it.
[4:22:58] I mean, that's what the whole, okay.
[4:23:00] And all fairness, Mr. Mayor, if you and Councilmember Jackson want to place it on an info
[4:23:04] only item, you could propose that again if you still have two votes for that.
[4:23:10] So just want to be.
[4:23:11] That's one of those two conversations.
[4:23:13] One of them is you, me, and Ray supported the Office
[4:23:17] to Housing Planning Commission Examiner,
[4:23:20] which is under November 10th.
[4:23:22] So you're referring to another item here.
[4:23:26] I hear direct planning commission to examine Office
[4:23:29] to Housing Convergence and look at developing a comprehensive
[4:23:31] plan to identify zoning and municipal code changes
[4:23:34] necessary to allow and encourage these.
[4:23:36] Yeah, I'm off of that, I supported that
[4:23:38] and that's coming back November 10th, sure.
[4:23:41] Absolutely.
[4:23:43] So that should go to planning commission, not us and on November 10th.
[4:23:47] Yeah.
[4:23:50] Correct.
[4:23:51] Correct.
[4:23:52] I don't know why that's there.
[4:23:54] I'll talk with Alison.
[4:23:55] But we should have been doing it anyway.
[4:23:57] I think it was brought up and I thought we were doing it anyway.
[4:24:00] And I just supported it because I thought we were looking into this.
[4:24:03] No, the direction was to go to planning commission.
[4:24:07] So I, yeah, and it says that, so let's say completely, we'll clarify that, but that should be going to point out.
[4:24:14] Yeah, that could be a clear call item which we can amend, check directly and amend.
[4:24:19] I don't think we have the support to change that one at this moment anyway, so.
[4:24:23] Well, no, but if it's, this is something else.
[4:24:26] This is something else.
[4:24:27] Yeah, it doesn't make sense that it's on this.
[4:24:32] We'll correct that.
[4:24:33] Okay.
[4:24:34] Thank you.
[4:24:38] They didn't. Did that help councilmember Jackson?
[4:24:41] Sure. Thank you.
[4:24:45] Seeing no other feature agenda.
[4:24:47] So we're going to have them more time come back as a discussion.
[4:24:51] Not an action item, but a.
[4:24:53] Info. Make that motion.
[4:24:54] Well, we. That motion needs to be made.
[4:24:56] Support that. Right.
[4:25:00] What's that?
[4:25:00] I will support that.
[4:25:02] Okay. Thank you.
[4:25:04] All right. Seeing no other feature agenda items.
[4:25:06] Move to the city management report.
[4:25:08] nothing tonight thank you perfect info items they're attached no action
[4:25:13] discussion I'll take us to adjournment are we gonna have a discussion on I again
[4:25:20] I may be some future on moving the city manager report there wasn't support to
[4:25:27] do that the last meeting
[4:25:30] and and I believe and I believe the what you guys opted for
[4:25:35] was at the beginning of each meeting if you'd like the issue that's important
[4:25:38] to the public, you can move it up to the front on a case-by-case basis.
[4:25:42] That's all there is.
[4:25:43] I mean, we got lights out on who knows the avenue that nobody in the city knows about.
[4:25:47] How is that not an issue?
[4:25:49] We've got, you know, I can go down the list of items that we are not briefing.
[4:25:53] I mean, I got guys telling me lights have been offered two weeks.
[4:25:56] The city's known about it, but I didn't know about it.
[4:25:58] The community doesn't know about it.
[4:26:00] We haven't even talked about it tonight.
[4:26:02] I mean, there's more to the city manager report than trash is going to be moved one day
[4:26:06] because of Labor Day, and there's a long list of important issues.
[4:26:11] That is on the pickable court.
[4:26:13] I mean, I can go on and on, you know, because we want to continue operating this way,
[4:26:19] then that's fine, the majority is spoken, that's fine.
[4:26:24] But then you can't talk about transparency.
[4:26:26] All right, this meeting is adjourned at 940.
[4:26:29] Thank you.
[4:26:30] 8th, the next regular city council meeting will be Tuesday, September 22nd,
[4:26:35] at 5pm for closed session and 6pm for open session.
[4:26:38] Thank you.