CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHCITY COUNCILRegular Meeting Agenda - AddendumTuesday, March 10, 2026Closed Session at 5:00 PM and Open Session at 6:00 PMCouncil Chambers1315 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA 90254CITY COUNCILMike Detoy, Mayor Michael D. Keegan, Mayor Pro TemRay Jackson, Councilmember Dean Francois, CouncilmemberRob Saemann, CouncilmemberDavid Pedersen, City Treasurer APPOINTED OFFICIALSSteve Napolitano, City ManagerJason Baltimore, Interim City Attorney EXECUTIVE TEAMBrandon Walker, Administrative Services DirectorAnn Yang, Interim City ClerkAlison Becker, Community Development DirectorLisa Nichols, Parks and Recreation DirectorLandon Phillips, Police Chief Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 - To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at [email protected] at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach City Council meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828? pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT092 Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then #; Passcode: 472825 eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Supplemental Email: Submit a supplemental email for agenda items only to [email protected]. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Writings distributed to all, or majority of all, of the City Council after the agenda has been posted shall be available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 during regular business hours. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Cablecast App: Available on supported devices and smart TVs If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. 15.CONSENT CALENDAR Public Comments: *Removed reference to resolution 15.gAPPROVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH XANADU SYSTEM SERVICES - 26-PW-007 Attachments | Public Comments1.STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO XANADU SERVICE SYSTEMS AGREEMENT - 26-PW-007.pdf2.Attachment 1. Amendment No. 2 with Xanadu Service Systems.pdf3.Attachment 2. Agreement with Valley Maintenance Corp.pdf4.Attachment 3. Assignment Agreement with Xanadu Service Systems.pdf5.Attachment 4. Amendment No. 1 Valley Maintenance Corp.pdfCEQA: The action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5), as it consists of administrative activities that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The amendment pertains to ongoing custodial services within existing facilities. (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)Recommended Action:Staff recommends City Council: Determine that the Second Amendment to the Janitorial Services Contract with Xanadu System Services is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (b)(5) (administrative activities); Approve the second amendment to the agreement with Xanadu Service Systems for janitorial services, adding additional services for the remainder of Fiscal Year (FY) 25-26, extending the contract term through June 30, 2027, and increasing the total not-to-exceed contract amount from $651,696 to $895,313; (Attachment 1); Authorize the Director of Public Works to increase the established project contingency per year from $10,000 to $15,000 per year starting in FY 26-27; and Authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed amendment, approve minor non-substantive modifications if necessary, and execute all related documents, with the City Clerk attesting the agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney. No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO XANADU SERVICE SYSTEMS AGREEMENT - 26-PW-007.pdf2.Attachment 1. Amendment No. 2 with Xanadu Service Systems.pdf3.Attachment 2. Agreement with Valley Maintenance Corp.pdf4.Attachment 3. Assignment Agreement with Xanadu Service Systems.pdf5.Attachment 4. Amendment No. 1 Valley Maintenance Corp.pdfThis item has no public commenttony. edit if earlier oubluc comment (No Position)edit of previous public comment ------ Desr City Council, i hope you consider the attached when setting patio encroachment fees for small businesses like Micky's and the Green store that serve a vital need to local rssidents and dont get the benefit of city funded foor traffic. Tthat are not restaurants! Per my earlier text i sent you a copy of my Feb 4th Per my earlier text i sent you a copy of my Feb 4th email to Krauss & the city council that may support your arguments for reducing the fee to $1 per sq foot. Hopefully you can make it to the 3/10 ccm to lobby. t. ------ Dear City Council, Dear Doug Krauss' i was surprised that the 2/3 CCM patio encroachment staff report (URL below) seemed to be biased towards costs to the city in terms of lost revenue and NOT cost to the impacted businesses, namely Mickey's and the Green Store. So let me provide the info the staff report failed to provide the options. GREEN STORE ANNUAL COST (312 sqft): @ $2.50 sqft = $9,360 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $7,488 @ $1.50 sqft = $5,615 @ $1.00 sqft = $3,744 MICKEY's ANNUAL COST (384 sqft): @ $2.50sqft = $11,520 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $9,217 @ $1.50 sqft = $6,912 @ $1.00 sqft = $4,608 Here is the thing that bugs me. I understand why the staff report provides fiscal impact in terms of list city revenue but i dont understand why the staff report would not provide the above costs to inform the Council's decisions. And i certainly don't understand why the staff report, intentionally or not, did not provide the data above but rather provided the encroachment fee for a PARKING SPACE instead; when neither store takes up a parking space nor are their patios a candidates for parking spaces. This just obfuscated the high cost that Mickey's and the Green Store are actually paying. Hopefully the staff report can be improved before the next hearing. It seems as if the city staff is trying to the scale by omitting this data. Thank you for considering tonyhiggins 2/3 CCM STAFF REPORT https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=54055 your arguments for reducing the fee to $1 per sq foot. Hopefully you can make it to the 3/10 ccm to lobby. t. ------ Dear City Council, Dear Doug Krauss' i was surprised that the 2/3 CCM patio encroachment staff report (URL below) seemed to be biased towards costs to the city in terms of lost revenue and NOT cost to the impacted businesses, namely Mickey's and the Green Store. So let me provide the info the staff report failed to provide the options. GREEN STORE ANNUAL COST (312 sqft): @ $2.50 sqft = $9,360 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $7,488 @ $1.50 sqft = $5,615 @ $1.00 sqft = $3,744 MICKEY's ANNUAL COST (384 sqft): @ $2.50sqft = $11,520 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $9,217 @ $1.50 sqft = $6,912 @ $1.00 sqft = $4,608 Here is the thing that bugs me. I understand why the staff report provides fiscal impact but i dont understand why the staff report would not provide the above costs to inform the Council's decisions. And i certainly don't understand why the staff report, intentionally or not, did not provide the data above but rather provided the encroachment fee for a PARKING SPACE instead; when neither store takes up a parking space nor are their patios a candidates for parking spaces. This just obfuscated the high cost that Mickey's and the Green Store are actually paying. Hopefully the staff report can be improved before the next hearing. Thank you for considering tonyhiggins 2/3 CCM STAFF REPORT https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=54055 tonyhiggins (No Position)Desr City Council, i hope you consider the attached when setting patio encroachment fees bit small businesses like Micky's and the Green store that serve a vital need to local rssidents and dont get the benefit of city funded foor traffic. Tthat are not restaurants! Per my earlier text i sent you a copy of my Feb 4th Per my earlier text i sent you a copy of my Feb 4th email to Krauss & the city council that may support your arguments for reducing the fee to $1 per sq foot. Hopefully you can make it to the 3/10 ccm to lobby. t. ------ Dear City Council, Dear Doug Krauss' i was surprised that the 2/3 CCM patio encroachment staff report (URL below) seemed to be biased towards costs to the city in terms of lost revenue and NOT cost to the impacted businesses, namely Mickey's and the Green Store. So let me provide the info the staff report failed to provide the options. GREEN STORE ANNUAL COST (312 sqft): @ $2.50 sqft = $9,360 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $7,488 @ $1.50 sqft = $5,615 @ $1.00 sqft = $3,744 MICKEY's ANNUAL COST (384 sqft): @ $2.50sqft = $11,520 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $9,217 @ $1.50 sqft = $6,912 @ $1.00 sqft = $4,608 Here is the thing that bugs me. I understand why the staff report provides fiscal impact in terms of list city revenue but i dont understand why the staff report would not provide the above costs to inform the Council's decisions. And i certainly don't understand why the staff report, intentionally or not, did not provide the data above but rather provided the encroachment fee for a PARKING SPACE instead; when neither store takes up a parking space nor are their patios a candidates for parking spaces. This just obfuscated the high cost that Mickey's and the Green Store are actually paying. Hopefully the staff report can be improved before the next hearing. It seems as if the city staff is trying to the scale by omitting this data. Thank you for considering tonyhiggins 2/3 CCM STAFF REPORT https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=54055 your arguments for reducing the fee to $1 per sq foot. Hopefully you can make it to the 3/10 ccm to lobby. t. ------ Dear City Council, Dear Doug Krauss' i was surprised that the 2/3 CCM patio encroachment staff report (URL below) seemed to be biased towards costs to the city in terms of lost revenue and NOT cost to the impacted businesses, namely Mickey's and the Green Store. So let me provide the info the staff report failed to provide the options. GREEN STORE ANNUAL COST (312 sqft): @ $2.50 sqft = $9,360 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $7,488 @ $1.50 sqft = $5,615 @ $1.00 sqft = $3,744 MICKEY's ANNUAL COST (384 sqft): @ $2.50sqft = $11,520 (today) @ $2.00 sqft = $9,217 @ $1.50 sqft = $6,912 @ $1.00 sqft = $4,608 Here is the thing that bugs me. I understand why the staff report provides fiscal impact but i dont understand why the staff report would not provide the above costs to inform the Council's decisions. And i certainly don't understand why the staff report, intentionally or not, did not provide the data above but rather provided the encroachment fee for a PARKING SPACE instead; when neither store takes up a parking space nor are their patios a candidates for parking spaces. This just obfuscated the high cost that Mickey's and the Green Store are actually paying. Hopefully the staff report can be improved before the next hearing. Thank you for considering tonyhiggins 2/3 CCM STAFF REPORT https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=54055 Jake Pike (No Position)We should be open to allowing large scale event programs as we have had it the past. This route however completely isolates the homeowners in the sand section. Complete closure and encapsulating residents is not allowed in many jurisdictions and should not be allowed. Many of the streets from 14th North willl be impacted and the residents will not be able to access their homes or leave if an emergency arises **. We have kids sports that take place in the fall and we should not be prevented from accessing our homes. I would support the event once a more detailed plan as how we will be able to enter and exit our homes in the sand section. The access issue should be a non-starter and there are plenty of ways to mitigate this problem. If you reroute using the northbound lanes you can provide access to all homes with the ability to have certain streets (22nd) being a rolling closure. It does have a solution. Michelle Crispin (No Position)Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, On behalf of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau, we would like to express concern regarding the proposed Nike After Dark Tour event currently under consideration. Based on the information provided, the scale of the event and anticipated road closures would create significant access limitations for many Hermosa Beach businesses during a typically busy afternoon and evening. The Chamber has not been contacted by Nike or event organizers to discuss how local businesses might be included through activations, partnerships, or other opportunities that could help offset this disruption. If the City is considering approval of this event, we respectfully request that Nike and the event organizers engage directly with the Chamber prior to final approval to explore ways to integrate Hermosa’s business community. In particular, we encourage consideration of: a spectator and activation zone at Pier Plaza with programming that directs visitors into the downtown district; daytime activations and partnerships with local businesses; opportunities for Hermosa businesses to participate through cheer zones or vendor activations; expanded hotel room blocks across Hermosa hotels; and a post-event economic impact assessment including merchant feedback. We also note that the currently proposed date of October 17 & 18 already includes two large regional events - the Skechers Friendship Walk and AAU Volleyball League matches - which would require the City to make an exception to its policy limiting the number of major events per day. The following weekend, October 24 & 25, may provide a more balanced operational fit given the existing schedule of the IBVL Tournament and Beach Tennis Matches. Thank you for your consideration. Michelle Crispin President & CEO Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau Laura Pena (No Position)Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff - I would like to share several considerations regarding the proposed Nike After Dark Tour LA 2026. Based on the materials provided, the event is anticipated to bring approximately 12,000 runners and up to 1,000 spectators through our City on a Saturday evening in October. While the event could provide regional visibility and activity, the race starts and finishes in Redondo Beach, meaning our City would primarily serve as a pass through segment of the course. Even as a pass through city, our residents and businesses will still experience the operational impacts associated with the event, including traffic circulation changes, parking constraints, and street closures during peak afternoon and evening business hours. Because of these impacts, it is important that if the event is approved, our local businesses and residents see clear and meaningful benefits in return. There is also an important scheduling consideration. The currently proposed weekend of October 17–18 already includes the Skechers Friendship Walk and AAU Volleyball League Matches, and approval of the Nike race that same weekend would require an exception to the City’s policy limiting the number of large events on a given day. By comparison, the following weekend, October 24–25, may work better for our City, given the IBVL Tournament and Beach Tennis Matches, which are generally more beach based and may create fewer overlapping impacts on parking, traffic, and business access. Our City has hosted major events in the past, including the Teen Choice Awards, which brought national exposure but also showed the importance of integrating local businesses early in the planning process. When business participation is not built in from the outset, the economic benefits can be uneven while the disruption remains very real for residents, restaurants, retailers, and service businesses. That lesson is especially relevant here. Nike’s own 2025 After Dark Los Angeles event was clearly designed as more than just a race. Nike described it as a race weekend that included a post-race concert, “music, style and connections,” and broader activations around the event. Nike also promoted a larger training and community model that included training plans, local run club meetups, community events, and post-race recovery zones. At the same time, public reporting on the 2025 Los Angeles event showed that participants experienced long waits and logistical issues, even though many still found the race atmosphere empowering and memorable. That suggests two clear takeaways for our City: First, if Nike is going to bring a major branded event through our city, Hermosa should benefit from the same kinds of activations and community building opportunities Nike promoted elsewhere, not simply absorb closures and disruption while the main start, finish, and highest value activity centers remain in Redondo Beach. Second, the City should ensure strong local planning, communication, and follow through so our residents and businesses are not left dealing with avoidable access, circulation, or event management problems. Our City should benefit through: • A guaranteed spectator and activation zone at Pier Plaza during the race, so the city has a clear gathering place that supports local foot traffic. • Daytime activation of Pier Plaza with booths, sponsor programming, community tables, and promotional partnerships so residents and businesses benefit throughout the day, not just during the run. • Structured opportunities for Hermosa businesses to participate through cheer zones, local promotions, vendor opportunities, and marketing tie-ins. • Expanded VIP and participant hotel room blocks across Hermosa hotels, rather than limiting that benefit to only one or two rooms. • A post event economic impact assessment that includes business feedback, actual visitor spending patterns, and lessons learned for future event approvals. If approved, this event should not simply pass through our City. It should provide meaningful value to the people and businesses who will be most directly affected by it. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the City’s efforts to bring high quality events to our City, and I hope these suggestions help ensure that any event approved is structured to support both our local economy and our community experience. Laura PenaMichelle Crispin (No Position)Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff - On behalf of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, we appreciate the City’s leadership in considering accessibility reform legislation and understand that the Council is evaluating a letter of support for SB 84. Our Chamber strongly supports accessibility and the principle that businesses should provide safe and inclusive access for residents and visitors of all abilities. At the same time, many small businesses are facing increasing challenges navigating complex accessibility compliance requirements while also managing the risk of costly litigation over technical violations. For this reason, the Chamber believes SB 84 represents a constructive step forward. The bill’s notice and opportunity to cure framework provides small businesses with a defined period to correct construction-related accessibility issues after receiving written notice. This “fix-it-first” model prioritizes correcting barriers quickly while still preserving strong accessibility protections. However, we respectfully note that SB 84 does not address an emerging area of concern for many small businesses: website accessibility complaints. Small businesses are increasingly receiving legal demand letters related to website accessibility, even when those businesses rely on third party platforms or are unaware of technical deficiencies. Without addressing these digital accessibility concerns, there is a risk that litigation pressure may simply shift from physical accessibility claims to website related claims. For this reason, the Chamber respectfully encourages the City to consider supporting SB 84 while also advocating for future amendments or companion legislation that address website accessibility for small businesses, including: A notice and cure process for website accessibility issues similar to the framework proposed for construction-related claims Clear technical standards that small businesses can reasonably follow Educational and technical assistance resources to help businesses improve website accessibility proactively These recommendations are not intended to weaken accessibility protections. Rather, they are intended to ensure that reforms lead to meaningful accessibility improvements while giving small businesses a fair opportunity to identify and correct issues. We appreciate the City’s thoughtful consideration of this issue and its continued commitment to both accessibility and the sustainability of our local business community. Thank you for your consideration. Michelle Crispin President/CEO Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors BureauLaura Pena (For)Dear Mayor, City Council, and Staff - I am writing in support of creating a new commercial encroachment category for dining and retail establishments that do not offer table service or alcohol, and to respectfully encourage the Council to set the fee for this category at $1.00 per square foot. I appreciate that several Council Members have already acknowledged the need to reduce these fees and suggested a $2.00 rate. That recognition is meaningful. However, I believe a $1.00 per square foot rate is more appropriate given the City’s repeated goal of encouraging retail and neighborhood serving uses in our downtown commercial districts. Council has consistently discussed the importance of attracting and retaining retail spaces downtown, yet these uses often face the greatest challenges: thinner margins, higher turnover risk, and fewer tools to offset operating costs compared to full service restaurants. A $1.00 encroachment rate would function as a targeted incentive, one that directly supports the types of businesses the City says it wants more of. These encroachment areas are not high revenue, full service dining operations. They are informal, community oriented gathering spaces, places where neighbors connect, families linger, and downtown feels active throughout the day. In many ways, they function as small scale public spaces that enhance walkability and street life. Several City Economic Development Strategies reference placemaking and retail as a priority, yet we have not made significant public investment in that area. These businesses are already helping to activate sidewalks and streets without requiring City capital investment. Setting the fee at $1.00 per square foot recognizes that shared public benefit and helps keep these spaces viable. From a fiscal perspective, staff has noted that reducing the fee for these businesses would result in approximately $4,000 annually in reduced revenue, a modest amount when weighed against: • Supporting downtown retail vitality • Encouraging the types of uses Council has prioritized • Advancing placemaking goals already adopted by the City • Keeping sidewalks active, welcoming, and people focused Creating this new category and setting the rate at $1.00 per square foot sends a clear signal that our City is serious about supporting retail, strengthening downtown, and aligning policy with stated economic development goals. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for continuing to refine City policy in a way that balances fiscal responsibility with long term community vitality. Laura Pena