CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, February 03, 2026

Closed Session at 5:00 PM and Open Session at 6:00 PM

Council Chambers

1315 Valley Drive

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

CITY COUNCIL
Rob Saemann, Mayor  
Mike Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem
Ray Jackson, Councilmember 
Michael D. Keegan, Councilmember
Dean Francois, Councilmember

David Pedersen, City Treasurer

APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Steve Napolitano, City Manager
Jason Baltimore, Interim City Attorney 

EXECUTIVE TEAM
Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director
Reanna Guzman, Interim City Clerk
Alison Becker, Community Development Director
Lisa Nichols, Parks and Recreation Director
Landon 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 [phone] or at 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: [phone]; 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. 

---

1.

CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM

2.

ROLL CALL

3.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

This Public Comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only. Public Comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.

4.

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

4.a

MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on January 27, 2026

4.b

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)

Pursuant To California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case: Rachel Muzatko v. City of Hermosa Beach et al 19-145623
Case Number: 20TRCV0048

4.c

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)

Pursuant To California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case: Everett Faulk v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, et al
Case Number: 24STCP04022

4.d

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)

Pursuant To California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case: City of Hermosa Beach v. Independent Cities Risk Management Authority
Case Number: 22TRCV00700

5.

OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM

6.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

7.

ROLL CALL

8.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

9.

ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS

10.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

This is the time for the City Council to discuss any changes to the order of agenda items.

• Recommended Action:

  To move 17. c to future meeting.

• Recommended Action:

  To approve the remainder of the agenda. 

11.

PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

11.a

K9 ARMOR X K9 ARCO PRESENTATION

11.b

HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESENTS REVIEW OF 2025 PROGRAMS AND VISION FOR 2026

11.c

RECOGNIZING BLACK HISTORY MONTH

12.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Howard Lee Re Lack of Response To Email To City

Please click/tap this eComment and then click/tap the BLUE attachment that shows. That is my eComment as a PDF. Thank you.

Howard Lee Re Last Meeting Chamber Item Complaint

Please click/tap this eComment and then click/tap the BLUE attachment that shows. That is my eComment as a PDF. Thank you.

Cure & Correct Demand Letter

Dear City Council Subject: Brown Act Cure & Correct Demand Letter DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: The notification on the face-page of the 1/27/26 City Council Agenda for the Chamber of Commerce Special Events agenda item (17b) was wholly inadequate & misleading in that it only mentioned the St. Patty's Day parade but did not mention the equally impactful Labor Day Fiesta event. THE CURE SOUGHT The cure sought is to rescind the 2026-2028 Labor Day Fiesta approval and hold a new public hearing. LEGAL BASIS: The Brown Act, Government Code § 54960.1 and 54952.2 et seq. Thank you, Tony Higgins

13.

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

14.

UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES

15.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. Councilmembers may orally register a negative vote on any Consent Calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration before the vote on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item before the vote on the Consent Calendar. Items removed for separate discussion will be provided a separate public comment period.

• Recommended Action:

  To approve the consent calendar.

15.a

WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA

Recommended Action: 
Staff recommends City Council waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

15.b

CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-014

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Recommended Action:

  To receive and file the check register for January 21, 2026. The Administrative Services Director certifies the accuracy of the demands.

15.c

REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR NOVEMBER 2025 - 26-AS-015

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Recommended Action:

  To receive and file the November 2025 Financial Reports.

15.d

CITY TREASURER’S REPORT - 26-AS-013

(City Treasurer David Pedersen)

• Recommended Action:

  To receive and file the December 2025 City Treasurer’s Report.

16.

PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M

16.a

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT (TA 25-03) AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CODE PERTAINING TO APPEAL PERIODS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS - 25-CDD-138

Continued from January 27, 2026
CEQA: The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Recommended Action:

  To conduct a public hearing to consider amendments to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code pertaining to appeals and transmission of Planning Commission decisions for City Council review; find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and introduce by title only and waive first reading of Ordinance No. ORD-26-1496 of the City of Hermosa Beach approving Zone Text Amendment (TA 25-03)

17.

MUNICIPAL MATTERS

17.a

ADOPT TWO RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING SIDE LETTERS TO THE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR THE GENERAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES’ BARGAINING UNIT AND THE PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE GROUP - 26-AS-012

(Interim Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)

• Recommended Action:

  To adopt Resolution No. RES-26-7536 to adopt a Side Letter to the MOU between the City of Hermosa Beach and the General and Supervisory Employees’ Bargaining Unit (Teamsters Local 986) for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028; and adopt Resolution No. RES-26-7537 to adopt a Side Letter to the MOU between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Professional and Administrative Employee Group (PAE) for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2028.

17.b

UPDATE ON HOMELESSNESS EFFORTS - 26-CMO-004

Continued from January 27, 2026
(Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)

• Recommended Action:

  To receive and file the report.

17.c

ADJUSTMENT OF FEES FOR COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT AREAS - 26-CMO-005

Laura Pena

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

(Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss)

17.d

CONSIDERATION OF VENDOR SALES ON THE BEACH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - 26-CR-017

Howard Lee Re the Beach Deed Restriction Banning Sales

Respectfully, why is there not a copy of the Deed to Hermosa’s Beach mentioned and attached to this item? >>> Unlike Redondo and Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach owns its Beach. There is a Deed Restriction to Hermosa’s owned beach that states that there is to be no selling on the Beach, and that the Beach is given to the city for the free use by the people, and that there are also to be no wheeled vehicles on the beach, notwithstanding safety and maintenance wheeled-vehicles are often present on the beach. Can governments just approve anything they like now?

Continued from January 27, 2026
(Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)

• Recommended Action:

  Substitute motion to include a pilot program to allow alcohol sales for the Hermosa Beach Open and LA Galaxy Watch Party Events; to approve the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s recommendation to consider amendments to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.20 Beach and Strand Regulations, 12.20.300 Solicitation to allow for the, sale of prepared food, nonalcoholic beverages, and merchandise on the beach by vendors associated with an approved special event; and to establish a per-vendor daily fee with a discounted rate for Hermosa Beach–based businesses holding a valid City business license.

• Recommended Action:
  Amendment:

  To approve the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s recommendation to consider amendments to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.20 Beach and Strand Regulations, 12.20.300 Solicitation to allow for the, sale of prepared food, nonalcoholic beverages, and merchandise on the beach by vendors associated with an approved special event; and to establish a per-vendor daily fee with a discounted rate for Hermosa Beach–based businesses holding a valid City business license.

17.e

REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF LAND VALUE RECAPTURE ORDINANCE, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO AMEND FEES FOR THE LAND VALUE RECAPTURE PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

tony agains

Dear City CounciL The LVR program is an ill-conceived & failed "carrot-and-stick" designed to meet state housing requirements (RHNA). It charges developers fees of $76 to $104 per square foot for market-rate housing built on land that gained value from rezoning. These fees are waived if affordable housing is included. Manhattan Beach has an approved RHNA Housing Element and they didnt need a convoluted & now failed Land Value Recapture program to avoid Builders Remedy nor did any other densely packed California coastal community. Poorly conceived failed RHNA programs LVR will not save Hermosa from Builders Remedy, they will insure it. But to the best of my knowledge the city staff has yet to submit an alternative to LVR and the council needs to deal with this. Bogus RHNA allocation programs like LVR or fully allocating the entire 2.2 acres at St. Cross low and very low income housing were a hallmark of the previous city manager. On a different track the council needs to consider developer fees that recover the true utility, sewer, and road costs associated with all higher density housing projects AND staff needs to propose options. Moreover, Manhattan has recently transitioned from a nominal fee structure to a comprehensive Development Impact Fee (DIF)program. This initiative is designed to shift the burden of infrastructure costs—such as utility, sewer, and road improvements—from existing taxpayers to the developers of new, high-density project. Thank You for considering. tonyhiggins

Randy Balik

Hello City Council, I am a 30-year Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City, and this character we all speak of can be preserved even with some thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones. Some seem to continue to be opposed to this even though such projects can add a few homes above shops, which would both strengthen local businesses, and be incremental in terms of well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it. The Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging what many of us residents support. The LVR program is literally stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. Such developments are the antithesis of "preserving" our Hb character. HB should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense, which does include the commercial areas, though small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program, eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects, and create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible. Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. This balanced approach reflects how many residents feel. Thank you.

adam malovani

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am a Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City. I do support thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones, projects that add a few homes above shops, strengthen local businesses, and bring incremental, well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it. I am concerned that the Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging exactly the kind of modest mixed-use projects many residents support. Instead of producing housing, it appears to be stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. I believe our City should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense: In commercial areas Through small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to: Remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program Eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects Create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. Thank you for listening and for considering a balanced approach that reflects how many residents feel.

Michelle Crispin

See attached

Laura Pena

Dear Mayor & City Council - After reviewing all the reports, data, and policy plan documents; I recommend an exemption for small downtown lots from our Land Value Recapture (LVR) Program. The evidence we now have from an economic, legal, and market based perspective shows that continuing to apply LVR to these parcels is no longer aligned with feasibility, and in fact has become a government imposed constraint under state housing law. I want to highlight guidance from the City’s own consultant that is especially relevant today. In October 2023, Kosmont advised that “the City should plan on revisiting the fee based on both market response relative to the intent of the LVR program.” That guidance is difficult to ignore because the inputs underlying their analysis have shifted dramatically: construction costs are higher, financing is far more expensive, lender risk tolerance has declined, return expectations have increased, and broader economic uncertainty continues. Most importantly, the market response has been unequivocal. Since LVR was introduced, analyzed, adopted, and implemented, the City has seen zero applications, zero inquiries, and zero interest on small lots, the very properties relied upon in the Housing Element. When a consultant advises that fees should be revisited based on market response, and that response is complete silence, the conclusion is not ambiguous. The market has rejected the program. Under state housing law, a city may not maintain policies that render its Housing Element sites infeasible to develop. Doing so constitutes a government imposed constraint and is now among the clearest triggers for legal challenge under both HCD review and recent case law. The Redondo Beach appellate ruling reinforced this principle, making clear that cities may not rely on theoretical capacity or paper zoning where actual feasibility is blocked by local policy. Small commercial lots in our City, typically 3,000 to 5,000 square feet with 30-foot height limits are already difficult to develop. The addition of a significant fee did not capture value; it eliminated interest altogether. Because these parcels represent a meaningful share of our Housing Element inventory, the LVR fee is now impairing our compliance. A fee that produces zero projects, zero interest, and zero applications is not an incentive, it is a barrier. And under state law, that barrier constitutes a governmental constraint. For these reasons, I respectfully recommend exempting small downtown lots from the Land Value Recapture fee and seriously considering removal of the program in its entirety. This approach aligns with current economic conditions, the Housing Element’s requirement to avoid government imposed constraints, and the clear market evidence from the past several years. If there is concern that LVR has not been in effect long enough to evaluate, that view overlooks the City’s own Housing Element history. LVR was adopted in December 2021 and included from the outset of Housing Element discussions, long before the ordinance took effect in 2024. For nearly three years, property owners, architects, and lenders have been evaluating its feasibility impacts. The policy signal has been clear and the response has been consistent. The LVR program now sits at the intersection of rapidly evolving state housing law, including changes that explicitly protect small scale infill and mixed income development. When a local ordinance appears to conflict with that framework, and when the City’s own analysis shows widespread infeasibility on small sites, the legal risk is no longer theoretical. I encourage the Council to view reform of the LVR program not as a retreat from values, but as an act of responsible governance one that aligns local policy with state law, protects taxpayers, and reduces avoidable legal exposure while still advancing thoughtful, incremental housing in our commercial corridors. I believe this Council wants to leave our City stronger, more resilient, and better aligned with the laws that govern us. Thoughtful reform is an opportunity to demonstrate stewardship, rebuild trust with small property owners, and direct staff to work collaboratively on incentives that genuinely support incremental, small-scale infill development. I am hopeful you will choose a path forward that reflects both our shared values and sound governance. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Pena

Elka Worner

Staff has spent hundreds of hours developing the city’s Land Value Recapture Program, a policy designed to incentivize affordable housing. But since the ordinance went into effect in 2024, no one has submitted an affordable housing project or paid the LVR fee. Zero applications. Smart development in our commercial areas makes sense, especially for our Housing Element. I agree with the proposal set forth by the Planning Commission and am confident you will also take into consideration the position of the local property owners. Thank you.

Cammie Herbert

Mayor and Councilmembers, I know we are required to bring in housing. I support small scale mixed use development in our commercial zones. I’ve even thought the city could consider having residential at its city yard and encouraging the Hermosa Pavilion to convert their empty spaces to some studios. However I do not support the Land Value Recapture program. There are no applications so It seems that the LVR is not only not creating housing, but stalling projects on small commercial lots. Which in turn seems to keep bringing us to higher density developments in residential neighborhoods. I hope you will consider: - removing 1-2 unit projects from the program -eliminating fees on small mixed use projects. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jonathan Edward David

Please find aletter from Upper Pier Property Owners, who want to see the program eliminated from all downtown lots - past planning commissions recommendation of only the 1-2 unit exemption.

MC Guerry

I do not object to you taking this action, but what I really want is for you to eliminate the Land Value Recapture Fee everywhere. We need more housing units and this fee discourages new development.

Continued from January 27, 2026
CEQA: The action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Recommended Action:

  To wave master fee schedule for 1 to 4 unit and keep pricing for anything above 4 units; to find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution No. 25-7539 amending the City Master Fee Schedule to amend fees for the Land Value Recapture Program; and direct staff to explore zoning regulations that encourage development of residential units on “small lots” on the Housing Inventory List and include as a part of the City’s Zoning Code Update.

• Recommended Action:

  To find that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines; adopt Resolution No. 25-7539 amending the City Master Fee Schedule to amend fees for the Land Value Recapture Program; and direct staff to explore zoning regulations that encourage development of residential units on “small lots” on the Housing Inventory List and include as a part of the City’s Zoning Code Update.

   

17.f

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT - 26-CDD-012

th

First things First. Its been 11 years since the city did a detailed /expense study that considered all direct and indirect city related business district costs and compared that to revenue. In 2015 a detailrd study concluded the city expenses likely exceeded revenue, and at best was breakeven. Many people think the downtown businesses make significant money for the city but there is no evidence. Before thr city implements any revitalization strategy it need a detailed evaluation of the bottom line to inform any economic development strategy.

Continued from January 27, 2026
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Recommended Action:

  To receive and file this report; retire the 2022 Economic Development Strategy; and develop a new Economic Development Committee.

   

   

17.g

APPROVAL OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE BY THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO ASSSEMBLY BILL 418 - 26-PD-006

(Police Chief Landon Phillips)

• Recommended Action:

  To review and renew Ordinance No. 22-1446, an ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach adopting Military Use Equipment, in accordance with Assembly Bill 481; and receive and file the Annual Military Equipment Report.

18.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

This is the time for Councilmembers to schedule future agenda items and to ask questions about the status of previously approved future agenda items. No discussion, debate, or public comment will be taken. Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items. The tentative future agenda items document is provided for information only. 

18.a

TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 26-CMO-007

Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.

19.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

20.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

This is reserved for items that do not require City Council action. The City Council may request a future agenda item to discuss an informational item. Otherwise, discussion of informational items, including public comment, will not be taken.

21.

ADJOURNMENT