Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hermosa Beach staff: housing element implementation broadly on track but data gaps and court ruling merit vigilance
Summary
City staff told the Planning Commission the city is broadly implementing its sixth‑cycle housing element but flagged gaps in ADU accounting, delayed waterfront/coastal plan work and the potential implications of a recent Redondo Beach court ruling; the commission voted to receive and file the report.
Hermosa Beach—s Community Development Director Lisonbee Becker told the Planning Commission on Nov. 18 that the city is making steady progress implementing its sixth‑cycle housing element (2021–2029) but that some tasks are behind schedule and that improvements to data systems are needed to accurately track unit production.
Becker, presenting a mid‑cycle assessment, described five program areas — conserving existing housing, supporting new production, removing governmental constraints, providing adequate sites and promoting equal housing opportunity — and said the city has advanced many of the 13 programs in the plan. "I'm just gonna give us, you know, an A minus, a B plus," Becker said, adding that the biggest shortfalls are accounting for ADUs and JADUs and launching a city‑owned site project that had a 2025 initiation target.
The report noted Hermosa Beach—s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the cycle is 558 units; staff reported about 184 units are in the pipeline at mid‑cycle and 116 completed, but that production is concentrated outside the very‑low, low and moderate income categories. Becker described deficiencies in recordkeeping that make it difficult to allocate ADUs across affordability categories and said a part‑time housing intern has been hired to bolster capacity.
Assistant City Attorney Sarah Laughlin briefed commissioners on a recent California Court of Appeal decision, New Commune DTLA v. Redondo Beach, which held that some residential overlay sites used in Redondo Beach—s housing element did not satisfy state housing law because base (underlying) zoning allowed nonresidential uses and thus could not guarantee the required minimum residential densities and the statutory balance between residential and mixed‑use sites. "Unfortunately, Redondo Beach's housing element is decertified," Laughlin said, and she urged commissioners that Hermosa—s overlay sites and inventory be reviewed to ensure they meet state density and mix rules.
Commissioners pressed staff on the level of near‑term risk to certification and possible steps the city could take. Commissioner Hoffman said he was concerned about the empirical outcome and asked whether the city should "hit the brakes" or accelerate rezoning; Becker and Laughlin stressed that Hermosa—s housing element remains certified but that staff will monitor sites closely, pursue rezoning where necessary and be ready for guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
After public comment from residents who urged greater transparency and faster corrective action, Commissioner Hoffman moved that the commission receive and file the mid‑cycle report; the motion carried unanimously.
What happens next: Staff said it will continue annual reporting to HCD, refine ADU accounting and inventory monitoring, consider rezoning where sites are unlikely to yield housing, and return to the Planning Commission and City Council with any recommended changes. The Redondo Beach decision and HCD responses could prompt additional work on overlay site definitions and rezoning strategies.
Sources: presentation and Q&A at the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission special meeting, Nov. 18, 2025; statements by Community Development Director Lisonbee Becker and Interim Assistant City Attorney Sarah Laughlin.
