POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE & COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL
38 Sworn Police Officers
(Includes Command Staff)
14 Professional Staff
(Includes PSOs and Administrative Staff)
15 Community Services Staff
(Includes 2 Supervisors and 1 Professional Staff)
PATROL SERVICES
• Calls for Service
• Crime Reports
• Field Investigations
• 9-1-1 Front Line Emergency Response
INVESTIGATIONS & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
• Jail Management
• Records Administration
• Property and Evidence
• Investigations
o Follow up on crime reports, Field Investigations,
Operations, Federal Partnerships
o Victim Outreach / Advocacy
o Case filings with District Attorney/City Prosecutor
COMMUNITY SERVICES
• Meter Enforcement
• Parking Management
• Towing Services
• Animal Control
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
•Total Budget: $21.8M
•10% Reduction Goal: $2.1M
Police Department
and Community
Services combined
•Total Budget: $6.3M
•10% Reduction Goal: $630,000
Police Department
and Community
Services combined
without salaries
and benefits
SCENARIO 1
10% REDUCTION WITHOUT SALARIES AND BENEFITS
• Reduce costs to Conferences/Training, Contract
Services, Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF)
and Overtime:
o $261,000 (Conf / Training / Contract Services)
o $200,000 (ERF reduction)
o $169,000 (OT reduction)
o Total = $630,000 (Meets the 10% reduction goal)
SCENARIO 1
10% REDUCTION WITHOUT SALARIES AND BENEFITS
• Impact to Department / Services
Only mandated training will be accommodated
Career development / specialty training suspended
Equipment service life will be extended,
maintenance and repair costs will rise
Reduction in overtime
• Fewer specialized enforcement details
SCENARIO 2
10% REDUCTION TO OVERALL BUDGET
• Reduce costs to Conference/Training,
Contract Services, Equipment
Replacement Fund (Scenario 1); and
• Freeze 5 Police Officer (PO) positions
• Freeze 1 Community Service Officer (CSO)
position
IMPACT TO SERVICES
Minimum Staffing for Patrol and Community Services
Elimination of Traffic Unit and Crime Impact Team
Reduction in Mental Health (MET)/Homeless Service (HERO) Reduction in Special Event Staffing
Reduction in Mutual Aid Assistance
Retention of Current Employees
Lack of Career Enhancement
Employee Fatigue
Slower Response Time
Reduced Community Outreach and Engagement Page 688 of 990 PATROL SERVICES – CURRENT STAFFING
23 Patrol Officers | 7-Day Coverage (Day/Night Shift)
Minimum: 1 Watch Commander + 2 Patrol Cars per shift
21,386 6,430 11,799
Calls for Service
Calendar Year 2025
Traffic Stops
Calendar Year 2025
Weekend Calls (Fri – Sun)
55% of all calls
PATROL SERVICES – CURRENT STAFFING
Traffic Unit/ Crime Impact Team (CIT)and Special
Assignments (OT) provide additional service
capacity beyond core patrol
Combined Service Impact | Traffic/ CIT handle/ SA: 4,046 of 21,584 calls (19%) 2,038 19% 174
Traffic/ CIT/ Special Units
Traffic Stops
(31.6% of all stops)
Service Capacity if units
eliminated
Accident Investigations
PATROL SERVICES – 10% REDUCTION
21,386 4,046 MET 19%
Calls for Service
Calendar Year 2025
Calls Lost Minimum Staffing Service Capacity
Reduction
4,046 TOTAL LOST CALLS
Core Patrol 17,348 calls 81.1% Retained
Traffic/ CIT/ Special
Assignments (OT)
3,933 calls 18.4% reduction Lost – CIT disbanded,
no special detail
overtime authorized
Traffic Unit Stops/
Accident Investigatons
1,184 18.4% reduction in
traffic stops
Lost – unit disbanded,
no replacement
PATROL SERVICES – 10% REDUCTION
Response time benchmarks, service level targets, and
traffic enforcement capacity will decline, and reduction of overtime will remove ability to respond to demand spikes. 11,799 2,081 2-3 +21.4%
Total Weekend Calls
(Fri – Sun)
Weekend calls lost Officer per weekend shift
(no OT)
Per officer load increase
(weekend)
FINDINGS FOR COUNCIL
Staffing minimums – Maintained Service Capacity – 18.6% Reduction Traffic Enforcement – 2,038 Stops
Lost
No buffer for major incident,
enhanced enforcement, or special
events. No flexibility.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
2025 – 12 CSO's
o 50,140 Parking citations
o 57 Administrative citations
o 486 vehicles impounded
• Calls for Service
o 2,586 Parking
o 1,678 Animal Control
o 1,375 Other
• Hosted and participated in 15 community events
REVENUE & EFFICIENCY
Goal: Public safety and compliance
• Enforcement is a mechanism to gain
compliance
• Full cost recovery for Officers/CSO's assigned
to special events
• Parking ALPR's - Improved efficiency to parking
management
PUBLIC WORKS
Core Services
Streets & Traffic
Maintenance & repair,
traffic signals, street lighting,
street signs & markings,
roadway safety, Caltrans.
Sewer System
Hydro flushing, pump
station maintenance, CCTV
inspection, monitoring and
inspections, repair.
Storm Drain
Stormwater compliance,
catch basin cleaning,
beach outfall
maintenance.
Parks, Medians, & Trees
Landscape and tree
maintenance (22 parks
and parkettes, the beach,
2000+ city owned trees),
courts, playing fields, the
Pier.
Facilities
Buildings, parking lots,
janitorial, HVAC, fire alarm,
elevator, pest control,
data and electrical, ADA.
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
Planning, design,
construction,
administration.
Fleet & Equipment
Management
Maintenance, repair,
purchase, outfitting, electric
charging, CNG. Page 696 of 990
Core Services
After Hours Services (i.e.,
overtime)
• 24/7 on-call services;
• Emergency response
(storms, natural disaster
response, flooding,
sewer back up, etc.)
• After-hours construction
oversight.
Land Development
• Plan check services
• Encroachment permits
(residential, retail,
dining, street vending,
banner permits, etc.),
• Tree removal and
installation.
Utility Coordination &
Permitting
Water, telecom, wireless
services, etc. Permitting,
construction oversight,
undergrounding.
Public Works Commission
Meetings every other
month, tree removal public
hearings, other matters
referred to Commission.
Special Assessment
Districts
Annual Lighting and
Landscape and Sewer
Levy.
Waste Management &
Street Cleaning
Trash collection, sweeping,
steam cleaning.
Above & Beyond Work
• Responsiveness to Resident requests – (over 4,000 GoHermosa/work order requests annually)
• Public counter service aligned with business hours
• CIP completion – tripled completion rate since FY 23-24 • Beautification projects
• Enhancements to facilities & parks through supplemental projects and CIP
• Special projects (e.g. Hermosa Beach Little Leage MOU at Clark Field) • New special event support
• Accessible beach mat program
• Electric charging stations
• Memorial bench program Page 698 of 990
Key Challenges
• Deferred maintenance – projects reaching
critical state (e.g., City Yard, Pier, etc.)
• CIP Structurally underfunded
• PW workload is full
• Staffing levels
• New requests, special projects, and events
• Expiring maintenance contracts & rising costs
• Unplanned work, emergencies, storms
10% Reduction + Impacts
• Reduce engineering technical and contract
services support - reduced CIP delivery, program
delivery, review of traffic engineering requests, and
regulatory compliance.
• Reduce maintenance contract services (e.g.
landscape, trees, janitorial, beach) – reduced
service levels in high traffic visitor areas.
• Reduced supplemental and maintenance budget
requests – fewer facilities improvements and
beautification projects, increased long-term
infrastructure deterioration.
10% Reduction + Impacts
• Deferred fleet replacement – potential
increase in maintenance needs and vehicles
out of service.
• Reduced landscape budget – fewer new
plantings and trees.
• Reduced overtime – fewer special projects
and event support, delayed repair.
• Reduced training/conferences – staff retention
and professional development.
Revenue & Efficiency
Revenue:
• Updated Fees to capture cost recovery.
• Electric charging stations – replace equipment to allow collection of fees or remove (staff releasing RFP summer 2026). • Increase street lighting and landscape district assessment fee – requires citywide ballot in compliance with Proposition 218.
Efficiency:
• Continued focus on deferred maintenance verses new /
enhancement projects to reduce long term operating costs. • Reduce power consumption (LED streetlight conversion, window upgrades at Community Center, potential free solar panel installation through Clean Power Alliance).
• Online permitting – enhance efficiency.
PARKS & RECREATION
Core Services
• In-house Recreation Programs & Community Events
o Youth, Adult, and Senior Programming, Excursions, Signature Events • Contract Programs & Community Partnerships
o Classes, Camps, Leagues and Agreements
• Facility & Open Space Management
o Parks, Beach, Fields, Courts, and Community Buildings o Special Events Permit Program
o Film/Still Photo Permit Program (includes private property)
What Must Be Maintained
• Required oversight of public space use
o parks, beach, facilities – programs, events, contracts, agreements • Core community services
o serve residents of all ages for high quality of life
Staffing Overview
• 8 Full-Time Staff
o At this level 20 years ago
Expanded services and facility oversight since then
• Approx. 25 part-time staff
o Program coverage and after-hours operations
Above & Beyond Work
• Work beyond core services
o Policy development and strategic initiatives, program evaluations o Community issue response & problem solving
o Program & revenue optimization
o Partnership development & negotiations
o Special projects & Council directed work
o Cost recovery – Public Works and Police Department services o Parking Revenue Generation
10% Reduction
o Operational Efficiencies (software transition)
o Part-time Staffing Adjustments (reassignment & scheduling) o Targeted Reductions (materials, advertising, training)
Key Challenges
• Revenue and Cost recovery gaps
o Uncollected Special Event Revenue ($209,500)
o PARK After School Program Deficit
Action:
• Special Event Policy Guide and Fee Updates (Council review May 26) • Park After School Program Fee Update (Commission review June 2)
Revenue & Efficiency
• Adult Sports Leagues (New): +$27,880
• Special Event Permits:
o +$82,000 (Nike +$65,500 | LA Galaxy +$16,500)
• Rentals:
o Community Center Rooms: +$12,500
o Community Center Gymnasium Rentals: +$25,000
o Pickleball Memberships: +$2,500
o Pickleball Reservations: +$46,000
Revenue & Efficiency Continued..
• New Recreation Software Implementation
o Improved user access & reduced administrative burden
Future Revenue Opportunities
• Special Event Fee Updates (Council – May 26)
• Pickleball Fee Adjustments (Council – May 12)
• PARK After School Program & Valley Park Day Camp Fee Updates (Commission – June 2) • Tennis Fee Adjustments (TBD)
• Field and Park Reservation Fee Adjustments (TBD)
• Outdoor Fitness Permit Program Review (TBD)
• Expand Park Reservation Areas (TBD)
Proposed FY 2026-27 Budget
• Proposed Expenses
o $2,441,278
o $101,240 – Concert Series
• Proposed Revenues
o $1,879,885
o Cost Recovery/Revenue for other Departments: $120,000 o Total: $1,999,885
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Department Overview
Planning: Entitlement processing, plan check, administrative permits, General Plan implementation, new policy development
Building: Plan check, permitting, inspections, residential building reports Code Enforcement: investigations, inspections, citations Core Services: 13 FTE across 3 divisions: public counter; staff to the Planning Commission; comprehensive development services; inspections and enforcement.
Core Services by-the-numbers
• Entitlement Cases Processed – 35
• Administrative Permits and Zoning Letters – 46
• Plan Checks – 197, 98% completed within 10-14 days
• Permits Issued – 1,435
• Building Inspections completed –2,726
• Code Enforcement complaints received – 796, with 230
open cases and 566 cases closed
• Documents prepared for digital access – 4,380
• Customers assisted at the counter – 2,322
Data from internal sources 4/25-4/26
Dept Budget + 10% Reduction
Current Budget in Round Numbers -10% Proposed ‘27
Salaries/Benefits $ 2,000,000 $ 20,000 $ 1,980,000
Contract Services $ 750,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000
Overhead + Materials, Supplies $ 250,000 $ 30,000 $ 220,000 TOTAL $ 3,000,000 $ 2,700,000
10% Reduction $ 300,000
Key Challenges
Budget cuts will impact service delivery
• Loss of PT funding will eliminate the staff position
supporting Housing Element Implementation.
• Loss of contract services funding will constrain
ability to fill staffing gaps, increase processing times and reduce counter hours.
• Loss of training and conference funding reduces
staff development and engagement with
professional organizations.
Service Delivery
Budget impact service delivery
Legal Mandates
• Prioritze Plan
Checks for
Residential
Development
• Priorize
Entitlement
Processing
Reduced
Customer Service
• Reduced
Counter Hours
• Extended Plan
Check Time
Lines (NonResidential and
Residential
Remodel)
Reduced Staff
Capacity
• Ordinance
Updates
• Policy Work
• Special Projects
Revenue & Efficiency
• Adopting the update to the Master Fee
Schedule will improve cost recovery rates for
many Department Activities
• Technology improvements will enable citation
processing and collections
• Continued investment in Accela will create a
cascade of efficiency improvements in the
permitting process.
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
City Manager Core Services
Strategic Oversight
• Implementation of City
Council Vision
• Communications &
Community Engagement
• LA County Negotiations
• Grants Management
• Legislative Affairs
• Economic Development
• Homelessness
• Special Projects
Technology & Performance
Management
• Information Technology
• Mapping & GIS Services
• Parking Technology
• Performance Management
• System Modernization
• Accessibility
Staffing Overview
5 Total Staff Members
o 5.0 FTE
o 0.5 Part-time
Structural Reorganization:
o Environmental Programs Manager -> Public Works
o Emergency Management Coordinator -> Administrative Services o Management Analyst -> Community Development (50/50 share)
Above & Beyond Work + 10% Reduction
• Work beyond core services include:
o Homelessness
o New Revenue Development & Implementation
o Citywide Project Management & Coordination
• What would be reduced or eliminated under a 10% cut:
o PIO Contract Services (Not Recommended)
o Communications & Community Engagement (Not Recommended) o Intern (Not Recommended)
Key Challenges
• “Domino Effect”
o Communication delays
o Grant management losses
o Special projects requested by City Council delays
o Delays in inter-department support services
o Reduction in time dedicated to revenue generation
proposals
Revenue & Efficiency
• Revenue Generation Ideas
o Think Tank for Revenue Generation
• Efficiency Improvements
o Parking Technology Improvements
o Administrative Citations Digitization
o Performance Management Dashboards Citywide
CITY CLERK
Department Overview
• Core Services: Agenda management,
legislative support, records management,
public transparency, elections administration,
public records requests, and legal noticing
• Department Support: City Council meeting
administration, Brown Act compliance, official
City records management, and public
counter/customer service support
10% Reduction Scenario
• Leave the Senior Office Assistant position
unfilled
• Shift agenda preparation, records
management, public records requests,
meeting coordination, legal noticing,
document processing, and customer service
responsibilities to remaining staff
Service Delivery Impacts
• Slower response to public records requests
• Reduced support for City Council meetings
and legislative processes
• Potential impacts to transparency and
reporting timelines
• Operational Response: Continue utilizing
technology and digital records management
tools to improve efficiency and maintain
service levels where possible
Key Challenges
• Increasing public records and transparency
demands
• Maintaining legislative compliance and reporting
timelines
• Limited staffing capacity for meeting coordination
and records management
• Balancing growing administrative demands with
operational efficiency
• Maintaining service levels during increased Council
and community activity
Revenue & Efficiency
• Continued expansion of digital records
management and agenda processing
• Improved electronic document workflows and
records accessibility
• Streamlined agenda preparation and public
records request tracking
• Technology improvements to support
operational efficiency and transparency
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Department Overview
Finance: Budgeting, accounting, payroll, and audits
Human Resources / Risk Management: Recruitment, benefits, employee relations, and risk management
Revenue Services: Cashiering, business licenses, parking permits, and customer service Core Services: Financial management and compliance; citywide operational support; revenue collection and public services; long-term planning and process improvements
10% Reduction Scenario
Service Delivery Impacts
Slower recruitment and hiring timelines
Reduced financial oversight and long-term planning capacity Delayed customer service response times
Increased compliance and operational risk
Operational Response: Utilize technology and process improvements to streamline operations and maintain service levels where possible
Key Challenges
• Rising personnel, benefit, and operational costs
• Increasing regulatory and compliance demands
• Difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified finance and accounting professionals
• Limited staffing capacity to support growing citywide needs • Maintaining service levels while addressing long-term fiscal pressures
Revenue & Efficiency
New ERP implementation will modernize citywide financial, payroll, procurement, and reporting processes
Improved automation and data integration will increase
efficiency and coordination across departments
Existing technology investments are already creating efficiencies that support staff reorganization and long-term cost savings Expanded digital services and streamlined workflows improve customer service and operational flexibility
Revenue Strategy Considerations
• Expanded Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT)
• Short-term rental
compliance
• Potential TOT rate
adjustments
• Local sales tax measure
• Expanded parking metering
• Dynamic parking pricing
• City-owned asset
optimization
• Assessment district
modernization
• Stormwater fee evaluation
Strategic Options for City Council
1. Maintain current FY27 balanced budget approach
2. Build additional contingency reserves
3. Phase in future fiscal adjustments
4. Pursue new revenue enhancements, with additional detail and analysis to be presented by staff on May 26, 2026
5. Develop a multi-year fiscal sustainability plan
FY 27 BUDGET
DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS
MAY 12, 2026
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 10
Meeting Date: May 12, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-PR-018
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
DOG PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY
(Senior Recreation Supervisor Brian Sousa)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council review and consider the feasibility of designating a location within Hermosa Beach for an off-leash dog park and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s recommendation to further explore potential locations at Valley Park (East) and within a portion of the Greenbelt, and to consider the potential for a future ballot measure to amend Ordinance No. 89-1001.
Executive Summary:
At its March 11, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an off-leash dog park in Hermosa Beach in response to a proposal from the community organization Bark for a Park. Staff conducted best-practice research, reviewed comparable facilities in neighboring cities, and evaluated multiple potential locations citywide. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Commission) recommended advancing consideration of Valley Park (East) and a portion of the Greenbelt as preferred locations, while also suggesting exploration of a future ballot measure to amend Ordinance No. 89-1001 if the Greenbelt is pursued.
Background:
A feasibility study is a pre-project assessment to better determine the viability, practicality, and potential of a proposed idea or project. Typically conducted before significant investment, the report considers technical, financial, legal, and operational factors that could be used in identifying a prospective location for a dog park in Hermosa Beach. In the City’s most recent Parks Master Plan, adopted in November 2024, one of the goals outlined to advance was to explore current recreational spaces and the feasibility to provide dog-friendly amenities, while considering the associated increases in operations and maintenance costs and neighborhood impacts.
At the March 11, 2025, City Council meeting, during public comment, the community organization Bark for a Park requested that the City consider designating a dog park in Hermosa Beach. City Council then recommended a future agenda item directing staff to develop a feasibility study report regarding an off-leash dog park in Hermosa Beach in
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 10
collaboration with Bark for a Park. City Council also directed staff to present the report to the Commission prior to City Council review.
At the July 1, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, Bark for a Park provided a presentation (Attachment 1) outlining its case for an off-leash dog park in Hermosa Beach, including potential benefits, possible locations, design elements, and estimated costs and funding ideas. Vice-Chairperson Horowitz, with support from Commissioners Moroney and Worner, requested that staff return with a future agenda item to consider the formation of a subcommittee to evaluate the off-leash dog park proposal.
At the September 2, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff recommended the Commission consider the creation of a Community Dog Park Subcommittee (subcommittee). The Commission serves in an advisory role for the City Council in matters pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Department. Subcommittees are created to assist staff in the completion of Department projects. The Commission unanimously approved the creation of the subcommittee, appointing Chair Ellman and Commissioner Worner.
At the March 03, 2026, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed staff’s findings and provided feedback. The Commission recommended that City Council advance consideration of a dog park feasibility study, including the evaluation of potential locations for an off-leash dog area within Hermosa Beach, with the Commission’s preference to further explore a location in Valley Park (East) and within a portion of the Greenbelt. Additionally, the Commission recommended that the City explore the potential for placing a measure on a future November ballot to consider amending Ordinance No. 89-1001 to allow limited construction of new facilities and off-leash dogs within a designated section of the Greenbelt.
Past Commission and Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
City Council:
March 11, 2025
City Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility report regarding the off-leash dog park proposal submitted by the community organization, Bark for a Park, and to provide such report to the Commission prior to City Council review.
Parks and Recreation
Advisory
Commission:
July 1, 2025
Vice Chairperson Horowitz, with support from
Commissioners Moroney and Worner, requested staff
return with a future agenda item to consider the formation of a subcommittee to consider the feasibility of an off-leash dog park.
Parks and Recreation
Advisory
Commission:
September 2, 2025
Commission approved the creation of the Community Dog
Park subcommittee consisting of Chair Ellman and
Commissioner Worner.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 10
Meeting Date Description
Parks and Recreation
Advisory
Commission:
March 03, 2026
Commission recommended advancing the review of the
feasibility for an off-leash dog park to City Council with the Commission’s preference to further explore a location in Valley Park (East) and the portion of Greenbelt and the City explore the possibility of placing a public ballot measure to consider amending Ordinance No. 89-1001.
Discussion:
The Parks and Recreation Department is to serve as the steward of parks, open spaces, and natural resource lands designated for public use and enjoyment, while promoting the preservation and interpretation of historical and cultural resources, the natural environment, and community assets.
The subcommittee was tasked with working with staff and collaborating with Bark for a Park to develop a preliminary feasibility report with consideration of:
Best-practice research, including collecting information and data from comparable cities with existing dog parks, such as hours of operation, cost estimates for design, construction, equipment, and ongoing maintenance, funding sources, community feedback, and review of policies and procedures; Evaluation of site visits for potential locations (Table 1) within Hermosa Beach; and On-site visits of comparable cities’ dog park facilities (Table 2).
Table 1: Potential Off-Leash Dog Park Locations
Name of Park Location Approximate
Square Ft.
Distance to
Nearby
Residences
(From Center)
Valley Park East area 12,000 230-265 ft.
Valley Park South-East area 10,800 80-90 ft.
Bi-Centennial Park Open Green Space 9,900 60-80 ft.
Edith Rodaway Park Open Green Space 9,600 98-185 ft.
Beach Herondo Street – 1
st Street 143,000 70-330 ft.
Greenbelt Pier Avenue – 11th Street 13,800 208-336 ft.
The evaluation of potential off-leash dog park locations (Attachment 2) considered various elements that would factor into the designation decision-making, including proximity, impacts to current park use, park features, existing infrastructure, and the landscape. It was determined that one of the proposed locations, Noble Park, does not qualify as it is designated under the OS-2 zoning ordinance, which is reserved for open space and recreational uses that do not allow new structures or facilities that could disrupt the natural or passive character of the area.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 10
Maps showcasing the distance to nearby residences from the potential off-leash dog park locations are included as Attachment 3. More information regarding the potential offleash dog park locations in Hermosa Beach and the onsite walkthrough criteria notes are included as Attachment 4.
Table 2: Comparable Cities’ Dog Park Facilities
City Park Proximity
to Hermosa
Beach
(City Hall)
Approximate
Size
Distance to
nearby
residences
Manhattan Beach Polliwog Park
Dog Run
2.5 miles 5,900 sq ft 406-1,030 ft.
Redondo Beach Redondo Beach
Dog Park
1.7 miles 130,680 sq ft 236-1,027 ft.
El Segundo El Segundo
Dog Park
5.5 miles 66,400 sq ft 67-103 ft.
The evaluation of comparable Cities’ dog park facilities included the same elements as the Hermosa Beach review, including proximity, impacts to current park use, park features, existing infrastructure, and the landscape. Key takeaways from the comparable sites include:
El Segundo and Redondo Beach were in close proximity to residential areas. Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach are incorporated into multi-use parks with sports fields and other amenities.
El Segundo and Redondo Beach have dirt surfaces (previously grass) with no additional lighting at the facility, large holes exposed in the ground, leftover personal play equipment on-site, and minimal upkeeping which is dependent on residents or volunteer support to maintain.
Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach had limited shade and noticeable odors from dog waste.
All three sites lacked nearby restrooms or ADA-accessible paths into the facility, but ample parking was available.
Attachments 4 and 5 also include additional information on comparable cities’ unleashed dog parks and the onsite walkthrough criteria notes.
Furthermore, Bark for a Park provided additional examples of comparable dog park locations in cities that the subcommittee was unable to visit due to time constraints and distance. Attachment 6 details four Los Angeles sites: Olive Hills, West Hollywood Dog Park, Glen Alla Park, and Bluff Creek, including details on each site’s surface materials, layout designs, aesthetic features and amenities, and signage.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 10
Subcommittee Evaluation
Following the completion of best-practice research, evaluation, and site visits of potential locations within Hermosa Beach, and on-site visits to comparable cities’ off-leash dog park facilities, the subcommittee developed the following list of potential sites proposed by Bark for the Park where an off-leash dog park could be determined based on feasibility, layout, and the amenities criteria.
Location 1 – Valley Park East:
Benefits include:
Natural shading
Nearby pathways, open green space
Nearby restrooms, parking lot, and street parking spaces Existing irrigation, lighting, and drainage infrastructure Would occupy a passive section of the open green space Notable challenges include:
Uneven surface, steeper grade slopes,
Environmental impacts surfacing deterioration (exposed larger surfaced tree roots, nearby garden)
Potential impacts to nearby residential area and noise complaints Conflicts with city programming areas and close proximity to the playground ADA concerns
o In a preliminary review conducted by Public Works and the ADA consultant, if a dog park is to be installed at Valley Park, the City is required to create an accessible path from ADA parking spaces that are dedicated to the park and from the public sidewalk to the dog park, bathroom, and water fountain, requiring reconstruction of the concrete path we have at the park. o California Building Code requires sidewalks and outdoor paths to be 48" minimum in width.
Location 2 - Greenbelt:
Benefits include:
Central location in Hermosa Beach and near the civic center Minimal impact on homes/residences
Flat surface, natural environment, and shading
Nearby public restrooms and public parking lot/spaces More easily supports ADA requirements (further evaluation would be required) Potential to incorporate two sections, for small and big dog separation High foot traffic for residents with dogs, which could potentially support local businesses on upper Pier Avenue
Notable challenges include:
No lighting (hours would need to be assigned dusk to dawn) No direct route per se
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 10
Potential environmental impacts and surfacing deterioration New piping installation and infrastructure updates for potable water OS-1 Zone*, which is designated for open space and passive recreational uses, typically limiting construction of new structures or facilities that could disrupt the natural or passive character of the area.
*On June 7, 1988, City voters approved local ballot measure Proposition D, authorizing the City to set aside funds to purchase the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way for conversion to open space and recreational use. On November 7, 1989, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 89-1001, which renamed the purchased property as the Greenbelt, preserved it for parkland and open space purposes, and mandated that all dogs be on a leash within the Greenbelt. Section 6 of the Ordinance states that no provision may be amended without a vote of the people. As a result, any amendment to allow an off-leash dog park in the Greenbelt would require a public electoral vote (ballot measure) and a majority Yes vote for approval. Any ordinance revision would only apply to a small section of the Greenbelt, designated specifically for a dog park, and it would not be recommended to amend the ordinance in its entirety.
Location 3 – Edith Rodaway Friendship Park:
Benefits include:
Flat surface with some natural shading
Open green space with limited conflicting park amenities Nearby, street parking spaces, although limited
Existing potable water, irrigation, waste station, and fencing infrastructure Current destination for local residents with dogs
Notable challenges include:
Compacted residential area and potential noise complaints No direct route per se, restrooms, or lighting (hours would be dusk to dawn) Would occupy a large section of the open green space
Potential impact on the annual Pumpkins in the Park special event and other city programming
Would likely require ADA improvements to the park
Location 4 – Bi-Centennial Park:
Benefits include:
Flat surface with natural shading
Direct routes, options for accessibility improvements, and open green space with no conflicting park amenities
Existing potable water, irrigation, lighting, drainage, waste stations, and fencing infrastructure
Current destination for local residents with dogs
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 10
Notable challenges include:
Dense residential area, shared fencing to houses, and potential noise complaints No restrooms
Would likely require ADA improvements to the park
Very limited street parking available
Would occupy a large section of the open green space
Location 5 – The Beach:
Benefits include:
Relatively flat, less utilized open space in the area Option for limited use hours and open access zones (no fencing required) Nearby restrooms
Minimal impactful to nearby residences
Notable challenges include:
Approval required from the California Coastal Commission Minimal impactful to nearby residences except Herondo St. condominium Limited parking available
Accessibility challenges: not ADA-compliant, and no potable water, irrigation, lighting, drainage, or fencing infrastructure onsite
Environmental study required to assess potential impacts and dog waste Sanitation, health, and maintenance concerns due to the sand surface On January 21, 2026, staff, a member of the subcommittee, and Bark for a Park met onsite at Valley Park and the Greenbelt with a Principal Designer from Gaudet Design Group Inc. for an informal discussion of the prospective locations. Below is a summary from the meeting:
Valley Park (East): The designer expressed concerns with the slope of the surface and ADA access for the area. Accessible pathways (walkways) must have a maximum running slope (path of travel) of 1:20 (5 percent) and a cross slope not exceeding 1:48 (2 percent). Any path with a slope steeper than 5 percent is considered a ramp. This could require significant grading, including flattening and surface removal of the hillside (entrance) and ADA updates to all pathways in Valley Park leading into the area. These observations are preliminary, and a comprehensive ADA evaluation would be required to make a final determination. Greenbelt (section): The designer expressed confidence that this area would be feasible for a dog park or dog run and identified it as the preferred location among the two sites considered.
Bark for a Park Requests and Financial Support
On February 11, 2026, Bark for a Park submitted its requests for preferred locations in Hermosa Beach for an off-leash dog park, which included the section of the Greenbelt as
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 10
its primary choice and Bi-Centennial Park as a secondary option if a ballot measure for the Greenbelt does not receive public approval.
On April 2nd, 2026, Bark for a Park informed staff (Attachment 7) that they would like to remove the Greenbelt option as their preferred location citing concerns for Council and resident support, as well as financial costs associated with processing a CitizenSponsored Initiative.
Furthermore, on April 2, 2026, Bark for the Park inquired with staff regarding the feasibility of a location at South Park, northeast behind the restroom facility. This space was beautified in recent years through Proposition 68 funding, including a required 20-year agreement. The City also received funding reimbursements through West Basin Municipal Water District through it turf removal program. Any potential changes to that area would have to be submitted to the State for any potential consideration if they would allow modifications and if so, if it would likely require a return of grant funds.
Bark for a Park has verbally agreed to assume financial responsibility for all predevelopment costs, including (but not limited to) architectural design, construction, supplies and equipment, required permits, and inspections, to be further determined if a specific location is selected. Bark for a Park has requested that, upon completion of construction, the City assume full responsibility for the dog park and ongoing maintenance. Estimated elements of ongoing maintenance could include but is not limited to:
Opening and closing the facility daily
Daily and weekly cleaning
Removing personal belongings
Emptying waste stations and resupplying waste bag stations Replacing or cleaning signage displaying rules and regulations Filling surfacing issues and repairing fencing, seating, or other amenities Irrigation and maintenance of surfaces, vegetation, and substrates Options for Council Consideration:
City Council consideration of the following options:
1. Provide direction to staff to proceed with the preparation of a comprehensive feasibility report for a specific location, including one of the locations recommended by the Commission, Valley Park (East) or a portion of the Greenbelt, or another location identified in this report.
2. Provide direction to staff to evaluate multiple locations, including one or both of the Commission-recommended locations and/or alternative locations proposed by the Bark for the Park, and return with a comprehensive feasibility analysis comparing each site.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 10
3. Provide direction to staff to evaluate an alternative location not identified in this report, as determined by City Council, and return with a comprehensive feasibility report.
4. Determine that no location is feasible at this time and direct staff to discontinue further evaluation of an off-leash dog park within Hermosa Beach.
Next Steps:
Should City Council direct staff to proceed with further evaluation, a comprehensive feasibility report would be required and presented at a future City Council meeting. Staff from the Parks and Recreation Department and members of the Public Works Department met onsite at Valley Park and the Greenbelt on January 21, 2026, for an assessment of the prospective locations to discuss matters related to maintenance and operational needs, and determined a comprehensive study would be needed. Such report would include, but not be limited to, Public Works Department oversight regarding maintenance and operational needs; applicable permitting requirements at the local and county levels; engagement of a design consultant for site planning and infrastructure; community outreach, including a survey of residents in proximity to the proposed location(s); and preparation of a full-scope capital and ongoing operations budget analysis. .Additionally, the City would likely need to engage a qualified design consultant to prepare conceptual site plans, evaluate site constraints (including grading, drainage, and ADA accessibility), and develop cost estimates, as such technical analysis and design work is beyond the scope of in-house staff resources and would be necessary to ensure accurate feasibility determinations and project implementation requirements.
If City Council decides no location is feasible in Hermosa Beach, staff would retire the subcommittee at a future Commission meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
Implementing an off-leash dog park in Hermosa Beach would have both initial capital costs and ongoing operational and maintenance costs including staff time.
Costs would vary depending on the selected location, size, and amenities included.
Attachments:
1. Bark for a Park Presentation
2. Proposed Off-Leash Dog Park Locations in Hermosa Beach
3. Proximity of Nearby Residences to Proposed Locations
4. Dog Park Onsite Visits Checklist
5. Comparable Cities’ Dog Park Facilities Visited
6. Other Comparable Cities’ Dog Park Facilities Not Visited
7. Bark for a Park Recommendation Letter
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 10
Respectfully Submitted by: Brian Sousa, Senior Recreation Supervisor Concur: Lisa Nichols, Parks and Recreation Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Henry Chao, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Jason Baltimore, Interim City Attorney
Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager
1 Dog Park Proposal for Hermosa Beach
March 2025
All information in this report is non-proprietary.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
2 Proposal for Establishing a Dog Park in Hermosa Beach We are a passionate group of dog owners advocating for a dog park in Hermosa Beach.
With over 3,000 dogs in the city—twice the number of local students and six times the youth that play in HB Little League each year —our community clearly values its four-legged companions. i Yet, Hermosa Beach lacks a designated space where dogs can play and run off-leash. Right now, residents must drive to neighboring dog parks in Redondo Beach or Manhattan Beach to exercise their dogs or let their dogs off-leash when no one is looking.
As the number of homes with dogs continues to grow, so does the need for pet-friendly facilities. This demand is reflected in the city's recently adopted Parks Master Plan, where a dog park was identified as a top priority by residents. Additionally, a dog park aligns with the city’s long-term vision of a healthy and vibrant community outlined in Plan Hermosa.
Public support for a dog park is growing. Our advocacy group, Bark for a Park, launched a survey in January 2025 to gauge interest in a dog park within our city. We have collected over 820 signatures and the numbers continue to grow.
This report highlights the benefits of a dedicated dog park, explores potential locations, provides an estimate of costs and potential funding strategies.
What is a Dog Park?
A dog park is a public or private park for dogs to play off-leash in a controlled environment to exercise and socialize under the supervision of their owners. Throughout this report, we will refer to this request as a dog park.
There is no standard designation between a dog park and a dog run, or even a dog area.
While experts say a dog park should ideally be one to five acres, in many urban areas like Chicago, New York, or San Francisco, dog parks are as small as 5,000 square feet. ii
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
3 Benefits of a Dog Park
A dog park within walking distance of most homes in the city supports the 2017 Plan Hermosa by providing a unique space that supports a low-carbon, healthy, and active community. iii In a city where most residents have no yard or a small yard, a dog park can provide an outdoor recreational space for pets. A dog park is also one of the key priorities identified in the recently adopted Parks Master Plan.
• Community Benefits: A dog park will serve as a central hub for social interaction among residents, creating stronger community ties and fostering friendships.
Additionally, it encourages outdoor activities, promoting healthier lifestyles for both residents and their pets.
• Pet-Specific Benefits: The park will provide a safe, fenced environment where dogs can play off-leash without endangering themselves or others. Socialization opportunities with other dogs and humans will help improve canine behavior and reduce anxiety or aggression.
• Environmental and Citywide Benefits: A dog park will reduce pet waste in other public spaces. It will also cut down on the number of citations issued for off-leash violations. Finally, dog parks can increase property values in a city. According to the National Association of Realtors dog parks are a desirable amenity for buyers who have pets, especially in urban areas with small yards.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
4 Proposed Locations
Based on a review of Hermosa’s parks and continual input from constituents, we have identified nine potential locations for a dog park that are all between 3,400 and 11,600 square feet.
Of these, we believe 3 have the highest potential based on size, parking, impact on nearby neighbors and other factors.
Any locations (except the beach) would have (1) double-door entry systems for secure access, (2) six-foot high fencing, (3) a dog water source, (4) waste receptacles, (5) buffer zones (hedges or trees) to minimize noise and disruptions to neighbors, (6) dog-friendly substrates, (7) eco-friendly landscaping and drainage systems, (8) ADA Accessibility and (9) clear signage that establishes rules, norms for community behavior, release of liability and directions to report issues / suggestions. See Appendix 1.0 – Dog Park Features & Appendix 2.0 – Possible Dog Park Rules & Signage for more detail.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
5 VALLEY PARK SOUTHEAST
City owned portion of Valley Park along the southeast corner by the Kiwanis & Rotary Clubs. 10,000 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Good Parking
Relatively under-utilized part of the park
? Impacts 5-6 homes
VALLEY PARK EAST
City owned portion of Valley Park along the east side just south of the restrooms and below Valley drive. 11,600 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Good Parking & Shade
Relatively under utilized
Impacts no homes
Already utilized by many dog owners
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
6 VALLEY PARK WEST
City owned portion of Valley Park along the Northwest corner of Gould and Morningside. 11,200 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Good Parking & Shade
Relatively under utilized
? Impacts 5 homes
? School children walk by
NOBLE PARK EAST
City owned portion of Noble Park along the eastern edge. 8,000 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Undulating landscape is fun for dogs
Existing benches / shade
Relatively under utilized
? Parking tight on weekends / summer
? Impacts 2 homes & La Playita
? Small drainage issue
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
7 COMMUNITY CENTER EAST LAWN
Portion of east lawn of city owned Community Center. Around 7,000 square feet depending on configuration.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many
Relatively under utilized
Would bring foot traffic to upper pier
No neighbors impacted
Good parking
? Impacts Kiwanis Christmas tree sale
WATER TOWER – 16TH & PROSPECT
Unused portion of land owned by California Water Service that city officials have received indications could be used as a park. Portion on west side is around 3,400 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for East side residents
Shaded
? Parking tight
? Small
? Impacts many homes
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
8 EDITH RODAWAY PARK SOUTH
South portion of City owned Edith Rodaway Park that has fencing on three sides. Would preserve access to grassy area from basketball courts. About 6,500 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for East side residents
Already has a dog water station
? Parking tight
? Impacts 8-9 homes
BI-CENTENNIAL PARK
Portion of city owned Bi-Centennial Park that would still allow access from neighbors on 3rd street to the south. Around 6,400 square feet depending on configuration.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for residents living south
Lots of shade
Relatively under utilized
No neighbors to the east and west
? Parking tight
? Impacts 4 homes on the south & 4-5
across the street.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
9 BEACH DOG PARK
One of the locations that comes up over and over is the idea of putting a dog park somewhere on the beach in Hermosa. Reactions to this are strong – either for or against with those against mentioning the issues of:
1. Possible health issues of dogs on the beach (e.g. Dog waste).
2. Negative interactions between dogs and patrons of the beach.
Several locations in Southern California have worked around these issues – Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. We are actively talking with these cities to understand how they have set up their parks and managed these issues and worked with the Coastal Commission.
In discussions with Long Beach, they utilize beach clean-up vehicles several times a week, have had no health complaints and no increase in water toxicity beyond what all beaches have after heavy rains. They have reported no negative interactions between dogs or between dogs and humans and are so satisfied with their beach that they are working to add a second location The Coastal Commission has been supportive. The City of Del Mar has similar success (Details of discussions available upon request.) Some ideas that have been suggested for a beach dog park in Hermosa are:
1. Locating a dog beach in the southernmost part of Hermosa with clear markers on where / when dogs are allowed.
2. Only allowing dogs in the off-season.
3. Limiting hours (e.g. 6-8am Tu-Th).
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
10 Estimated Building Costs
For a 10,000 square foot Dog Park, construction costs would be $72,000 to $235,000 depending on fencing, substrate, and amenities (See Appendix 3.0 - Estimated Costs to Build a Dog Park for more details).
Depending on year 1 funding, the city could begin with a more basic design (e.g. grass substrate) and augment over time (e.g. add anti-microbial artificial turf and additional amenities).
Funding Sources
We believe funding sources for building a quality dog park range from initial Year 1 funding of $160,000-220,000.
YEAR 1 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
SOURCE DETAILS ESTIMATE
City Sources • Unclear what city might have within its budget. $50k Licenses • Redirect revenue from annual dog licenses to creation and maintenance of dog park.
• Have dog licensing requirements for park entry
• Increase yearly fees by $5-10/year.
iv
~ $5k/yr if
increase
license fee &
register 250
new dogs
Public
Contributions /
Partner with
Community
Organization
• Many dog parks are funded (at least partially) by
local neighborhood groups.
• A group could be created, under the Friends of
the Parks (for tax purposes) to help fundraise.
• Individuals could sponsor benches, signage,
water fountains, leash holders, trees, shade
awnings, bulletin boards.
• Group could raise funds through raffles / events.
$90k-$150k
Founding
Corporate
Sponsorships
• Would need same exemption as Little League to
city rule of allowing corporate advertising on city
property.
• Create Founding Sponsorships. In exchange for
signage opportunities, having events at the park
and being promoted through social media, local
businesses and pet related businesses (e.g.
groomers, vets, pet products, trainers, walkers).v
• Possible grants
$15k
($500 – 30
businesses)
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
11 Park Maintenance & Programming
In a UC Davis Veterinary School study on dog parks in urban areasvi the quality of maintenance was one of the biggest factors correlating to ranking of off-leash dog park success.
Elements of maintenance include:
- Emptying waste cans & Re-supplying waste pick up bags - Opening and closing the park
- Replacing/fixing signs displaying rules
- Filling holes dug by dogs & repairing fencing
- Irrigation and maintenance of vegetation and substrate Work is needed to estimate these costs (we have reached out to Public Works in Hermosa and are currently reaching out to Manhattan Beach Public Works).
Some additional logistics ideas have been to close the park:
• ½ day a week for deep cleaning / minor maintenance.
• 1-2 weeks each year for larger maintenance / enhancements.
In addition, programming could be done (either by the city or in tandem with a volunteer “Friends of the Dog Park” group) to educate local dog owners (e.g. vaccination clinics, dog training sessions, fun events). These could also have fundraising potential.
Funding for yearly maintenance of the park and ongoing enhancements could include:
ONGOING FUNDING SOURCES FOR MAINTENANCE & ENHANCEMENTS
SOURCE DETAILS ESTIMATE
HB Budget $5k
Licenses • Redirect revenue from annual dog licenses to creation and maintenance of dog park.
• Have dog licensing requirements for park entry
• Increase yearly fees by $5-10/year to generate revenue (same as year 1 funding)
~ $5k/yr if
increase
license fee &
register 250
new dogs
Yearly raffle • Raffle for maintenance / enhancements funds. $10-$20k/yr Yearly
Corporate
Sponsorships
• Yearly corporate sponsors donate in exchange for
promotion of their businesses.
• Dedicated social media for the park could promote
deals from sponsors.
• Periodic events in the parks (e.g. mobile groomer, teeth cleaner, vaccination clinic, trainers).
• Host dog charities for owners to donate used pet items. $5k
($250 – 20
businesses)
TOTAL $25-$35 k
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
12 Addressing Concerns
Several concerns have been brought up with regards to a dog park. Below are some ideas for mitigating these worries.
Area Strategies
NOISE Create barriers between the park and neighbors that include special fence coverings such as Acoustifence vii which reduces sound by 85% and landscaping to dull sound and create a nice aesthetic.
Post signs asking owners to remove their dog from the park if they are excessively barking.
SAFETY Study on dog parks by UC Davis Veterinary Behavioral Medicine Center for Animalsviii found that injuries to people and dogs in legal off-leash areas are rare. Signage indicating that dogs that are aggressive to other dogs, young dogs (less than 4 months) and suggestions for fearful dogs have been proven to be effective in deterring interactions.
Additionally, all park users should have their dogs under voice control and children should be closely supervised by a responsible adult.
As with any public space that dogs frequent (e.g. the Strand) the best way to keep a dog safe is to ensure they are up to date with all vaccinations.
Programming (supported by a community group) that educates patrons on dog behavior and offering periodic vaccination events can also benefit the community.
SANITATION Fecal counts have been identified as the third most profiled concern of community officials and park managers regarding dog parks according to the UC Davis report. A correlation was found between the number of signs in the park reminding users to pickup after their dogs and a lower fecal count.
Signs seem to be more important than the number of trash cans provided the cans are not overflowing (See Appendix 2.0 - Possible Dog Park Rules & Signage for signage examples).
Peer pressure and “self-policing” have been identified by park managers as factors that improve compliance.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
13 Bark for a Park Advocacy Group
In submitting this report, we acknowledge past efforts in Hermosa to create a dog park.
This effort, Bark for a Park, was born out of lot in Hermosa that dog owners were allowed free access during COVID for off-leash recreation. The joy of the dogs and the community created there evolved into a once a week off-leash dog park on a walk street in 2022. Yet the desire by participants was and is to not just have a place to meet once a week for an hour but to have a quality off-leash area in Hermosa where all dogs and owners in Hermosa can meet and strengthen the community. This is the genesis of this Bark for a Park effort.
Since the Bark for a Park launch (see www.hermosabeachdogpark.com) we have found and connected to other lovely groups and individuals in Hermosa who also want a special community place where dogs can connect.
One of the group, Carla Buck, has:
• Attended Hermosa Beach Parks Master Plan study sessions. • Spoken at City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings to advocate for a dog park.
• Conducted ongoing research on building and maintaining dog parks including:
o Reviewing dog park proposals & fundraising mechanisms, studies on noise, safety, liability, safety and signage.
o Attending seminars and reading manuals on building dog parks. o Visiting dog parks across Southern California
o Soliciting quotes from fencing and artificial turf companies to provide realistic estimates for our proposal.
As of 3/10/25, we have over 820 signatures in support of a dog park, many of which are offering to actively and passionately work to make a quality off-leash dog park in Hermosa a reality.
Conclusion
The establishment of a dog park in Hermosa Beach will benefit residents, enhance the city’s amenities, and contribute to the overall well-being of dogs and their owners. This project aligns with Plan Hermosa, the Parks Master Plan, and the city’s commitment to creating recreational spaces all to enjoy. As dog owners, we are committed to fostering a vibrant, inclusive, and pet friendly community.
We urge the council to consider our proposal and look forward to discussing it further. We sincerely hope that the council will move quickly to make this a reality.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
14 Respectfully submitted.
Sources
i Estimated 40% of U.S. households have at least 1 dog according to a 2024 study by The Zebra (Zebra, Pet Ownership Statistics, 2024). Hermosa Beach has 8,922 households according to U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau, 2023) so at least 3,000 dogs assuming 40% have 1 dog. There were 1,325 students K-8 in Hermosa Schools for the 2023-24 year (Statistics, 2023). In 2024, there were an estimated 18,300 residents of Hermosa Beach. (Review, n.d.)
ii There is no standard designation between a dog park or a dog run or even a dog area and even though “experts” say a dog park ideally is 1-5 acres, in many urban areas such as Chicago (Chicago, 2020), NYC (refers to most parks even large ones as dog runs) or San Francisco (Parks S. F., n.d.), dog parks can be as small as 5000 square feet.
iii PLAN Hermosa Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. (2017). chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublishe ddocument/9872/637001018228830000
iv As of 2024 yearly license for a pet in Hermosa costs $29 for a neutered dog and $109 for a nonneutered one. Many owners either do not know they need one or don’t get one because of lack of perceived value to them. Making a license a requirement to enter the dog park and having periodic sign-up events could increase the percentage of owners who get a license – creating additional revenue. Cost of license could increase by $5-10/year and be directly allocated to cost of maintaining and enhancing the park.
v Sponsorship Examples – Madison Parks Foundation (Foundation, n.d.), City of LA Parks & Recreation (Parks C. o., n.d.), Redondo Beach Dog Park (Park, n.d.), Lansing Michigan (District, n.d.), City of Plainwell Michigan (City of Plainwell, n.d.)
vi UC Davis dog park study - chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://thestantonfoundation.org/assets/canine/DogPark-Resources/UC-Davis-Study-Dog-Park-Maintenance.pdf vii Acoutifence is an example of a product used to reduce noise generated by dog parks. https://acoustiblok.com/portfolio-items/animal-noise/
viii UC Davis dog park study - chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://thestantonfoundation.org/assets/canine/DogPark-Resources/UC-Davis-Study-Dog-Park-Maintenance.pdf
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
1 Dog Park Proposal for Hermosa Beach
APPENDIX – MARCH 2025
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
2 Appendix 1.0 - Dog Park Features
Size – Although
“experts” say the
best dog areas are
1+ acres, in urban
environments (e.g.
Chicago, NYC, SF)
many dog parks are
much smaller and still provide most of
same advantages to their bigger cousins.
Barrier - 6’ high
fence so dogs can’t
wiggle through or
jump over (chain
link if close to the
water; steel if
farther away from
the beach).
Double-gate system
to prevent dogs from
escaping when other
dogs and people enter
or leave the space.
At least one dog water
source.
Waste removal supplies
and equipment, such as
baggies, shovels or
scoopers and covered
trash containers.
There is no hard & fast
rule for number of waste
receptacles in a dog park, but there should
be at least one at the entrance and 1-2
more depending on the size of the park.
The key is creating a dog park culture where
all respect the space and clean up after
their dog (by the way – most people obey
rules when someone is watching.)
Good signage
that outlines
rules &
liabilities (see
Appendix 3.0 for
list of potential
rules). In
California, cities are not liable for incidents
unless there was an out of the ordinary
hazard in the park (something that applies
to all of our parks.) Signs should indicate
“use at your own risk” and refer to 3342
California Civil Code that states the owner
of any dog is liable for damages suffered by
any person who is bitten by the dog while in
a public place.
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
3 Safe Substrate (i.e.. Surface)
Consider surfaces that are easy to maintain and not harmful to dogs. Gold standard is anti-microbial artificial turf.
Turf
• Dogs love it
• Must be watered,
mowed, weeded and
periodically replaced
• Worn patches should be
repaired timely
• Feces may be hard to
detect
Anti-microbial artificial turf
• Dogs love it
• Most expensive option
• Must periodically be
washed and deepcleaned (2-4/month)
• Good for ~5-8 years
depending on wear
Bark / Wood Chips
• Relatively cheap option
• Easily maintained
• Not aesthetically
pleasing to some
• Feces can be stuck on
chips
• Non ADA- compliant
• Periodic replenishment
• Should pick product so
that dogs do not get
splinters
Decomposed Granite (DG)
• Relatively easy to
maintain
• Can be dirty and hot for
dogs
• Feces easily detected
and removed
• Must be repaired when
dogs dig holes
• Good drainage if deep
enough and graded well
Sand
• No worry about holes
• Adequate drainage
• Feces easily detected
and removed.
• Could be too hot for dogs
during warm weather
• Maintaining and keeping
clean may require
special equipment
Dirt
• Higher complaints of
safety
• Participants complain
dogs must be washed
each visit.
• Muddy after rain
• Little maintenance
Good drainage to help prevent muddy
conditions.
Wheelchair and ADA accessible
Convenient hours that respect neighbors -
Typically dawn to dusk – e.g. 6-7am-7pm.
Could have 1 morning/day a week closed for
maintenance (e.g. Redondo Beach Dog Park
does this) and 1 week a year for
enhancements / major maintenance.
Hermosa Specific – Walkable and if people
drive it is easy to park. Minimal impact to
neighbors OR park impacts minimal
neighbors.
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
4 Sturdy, pet-friendly
seating .
Shaded areas, such as from trees,
umbrellas or open gazebos.
Protection of
Plants – To
preserve the
health of trees and
shrubbery, some
parks put barriers
around them.
Small/Large dog areas – This is preferred
but not required depending on the space.
Some cites only have one area but having a
small dog area gives smaller dogs a space
to not be intimidated.
Announcement Board. Could use the park
to educate and inform residents about
vaccinations and upcoming clinics, dog
licenses, upcoming events & services.
Noise reduction strategies – Eco-friendly
shrubbery and/or Sound reduction fence
covering can reduce sound by as much as
85%
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
5 Appendix 2.0 - Possible Dog Park Rules & Signage
Below is a set of rules compiled from 30-40 different parks. There are too many below to list but should give a sense of the types of rules laid out by different communities.
WELCOME TO YOUR DOG PARK!
This area is dedicated to fun and exercise activities with your dog. Dogs may run off-leash, under voice control, within the confines of the fenced area.
Be responsible & Enjoy the Dog Park!
HOURS OF
OPERATION
7am to 8pm – DAILY (change during summer?)
• Some parks closed a morning or day a week for maintenance and 1 week a year for larger enhancements.
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR CLEAN-UP
• Dog waste must be cleaned up by their owners IMMEDIATELY [See clever signs]
OTHER
BEHAVIOR
• Keep your dog on a leash until you enter the park area. • Handlers must be within the dog park and supervising their dog with leash readily available.
• 3 dog maximum per visitor [NOTE: UC Davis study indicated that too many dogs per person resulted in more un-picked up feces]. • Please keep your dog from jumping on other dogs or people • Aggressive dogs must be removed immediately (Do not allow your dogs to be aggressive towards people or other dogs) • Dogs should be under voice control
• Do not allow dogs to dig holes. If they do, fill holes immediately • Keep your dog away from gates when other dogs are entering • The dog park gate must be closed at all times.
LIABILITY NOTE: Cities limit liability for dog parks by posting signs that communicate to owners that they use the park at their own risk.
California Civil Code 3342 says that the owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place. The only liability for a city is if there is out-of-theordinary hazard left unrepaired in the park which applies not just to a dog park but to any park within the city.
• Use park at your own risk. (Park is not responsible for injury or damage; enjoy at your own risk)
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
6 • Owners are legally responsible for behavior of their dog(s) at all times
SAFETY • All dogs must have current vaccinations / wearing a collar with ID tags
• No Dogs under 4 months.
• All dogs above a certain age (e.g. 2 years) must be spayed / neutered.
RESTRICTION
OF USE
• Some parks are only open to residents of that city OR they must buy a usage pass.
HANDLER /
VISITOR AGE
• Dog handlers must be at least 16 years of age.
• Children under 13 must be accompanied by an adult and supervised at all times.
PROHIBITED • Human & dog food/treats
• Glass containers
• Dogs in heat
• Sick dogs
• Aggressive dogs
• Puppies (under 4 months)
• Strollers, bikes, skateboards, and similar items
• Pets other than dogs
WHO TO CALL • In an emergency, Please call 911.
• Report incidents, problems or violations to xx at xxx-xxx-xxxx • Violation of rules may be cited by xxx of the HB Municipal Code • Suggestions?
• Refer to Social Media for the Park.
Failure to comply with Dog Park Rules may result in you and your dog(s) being asked to leave the facility.
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
7 Some parks use humor / graphics to inform and create norms of behavior.
IDEA: We could engage local artists to create signs / images for us.
OR – Set the tone of the park
• “Be the person your dog thinks you are”
• “Friendly dogs only” / “Well behaved dogs are welcome” OR Educate
2025 Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal - Appendix
8 Appendix 3.0 - Estimated Costs to Build a Dog Park
Based on a 10,000 square foot dog park (the largest of identified locations) we estimate a dog park could be built between ~$72,000 to $235,000.
• Based on funding, some of these items (e.g. artificial turf, agility equipment) could be phased in overtime.
• Does not include maintenance costs.
Item
cost
TOTAL COST $ 72,002 $ 131,222 $ 233,102
Approximate SF - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
6 ft Fence / Double Gates
[Material & Install] (1)
$ 30,200 Chain
Link
$ 33,500 Steel $ 33,500 Steel
Surface [Material & Install] (2) $ 10,000 No
change
$ 50,000 Engineered
Wood Chips
$ 125,000 Antimicrobial
Artificial Turf
Accessories (1)
Benches $ 350 $ 350 1 $ 700 2 $ 1,050 3
Water Fountain $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 1 $ 7,500
Waste bin(s) $ 600 $ 600 1 $ 1,200 2 $ 1,800 3
Waste bag dispenser(s) $ 550 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,100 2 $ 1,650 3 Signage 1,000$ $ 1,000 1 $ 2,000 2 $ 2,000 2
Bulletin Board 1,000$ $ - - $ - - $ 1,000 1
Leash hooks $ 500 $ - - $ 500 1 $ 500 1
Agility equipment (3) $ - $ 3,000 $ 6,000
Initial Waste Bags $ 84 $ 252 3 $ 252 3 $ 252 3
Plaques $ 200 $ 1,000 5 $ 1,600 8 $ 2,000 10
Engineering / Install
- Plan Design (3) $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000
- Installation (plumbing,
equipment) (3)
$ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Contingency (20%) $ 12,000 $ 21,870 $ 38,850
(1) Detail on quotes available upon request
(2) Design of park surface may include multiple surfaces (e.g. packed DG on some portion, grass of turf on another) (3) Estimate. Not backed up by a quote
Basic Mid High
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
4 Proposed Locations
Based on a review of Hermosa’s parks and continual input from constituents, we have identified nine potential locations for a dog park that are all between 3,400 and 11,600 square feet.
Of these, we believe 3 have the highest potential based on size, parking, impact on nearby neighbors and other factors.
Any locations (except the beach) would have (1) double-door entry systems for secure access, (2) six-foot high fencing, (3) a dog water source, (4) waste receptacles, (5) buffer zones (hedges or trees) to minimize noise and disruptions to neighbors, (6) dog-friendly substrates, (7) eco-friendly landscaping and drainage systems, (8) ADA Accessibility and (9) clear signage that establishes rules, norms for community behavior, release of liability and directions to report issues / suggestions. See Appendix 1.0 – Dog Park Features & Appendix 2.0 – Possible Dog Park Rules & Signage for more detail.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
5 VALLEY PARK SOUTHEAST
City owned portion of Valley Park along the southeast corner by the Kiwanis & Rotary Clubs. 10,000 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Good Parking
Relatively under-utilized part of the park
? Impacts 5-6 homes
VALLEY PARK EAST
City owned portion of Valley Park along the east side just south of the restrooms and below Valley drive. 11,600 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Good Parking & Shade
Relatively under utilized
Impacts no homes
Already utilized by many dog owners
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
6 VALLEY PARK WEST
City owned portion of Valley Park along the Northwest corner of Gould and Morningside. 11,200 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Good Parking & Shade
Relatively under utilized
? Impacts 5 homes
? School children walk by
NOBLE PARK EAST
City owned portion of Noble Park along the eastern edge. 8,000 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many residents
Undulating landscape is fun for dogs
Existing benches / shade
Relatively under utilized
? Parking tight on weekends / summer
? Impacts 2 homes & La Playita
? Small drainage issue
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
7 COMMUNITY CENTER EAST LAWN
Portion of east lawn of city owned Community Center. Around 7,000 square feet depending on configuration.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for many
Relatively under utilized
Would bring foot traffic to upper pier
No neighbors impacted
Good parking
? Impacts Kiwanis Christmas tree sale
WATER TOWER – 16TH & PROSPECT
Unused portion of land owned by California Water Service that city officials have received indications could be used as a park. Portion on west side is around 3,400 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for East side residents
Shaded
? Parking tight
? Small
? Impacts many homes
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
8 EDITH RODAWAY PARK SOUTH
South portion of City owned Edith Rodaway Park that has fencing on three sides. Would preserve access to grassy area from basketball courts. About 6,500 square feet.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for East side residents
Already has a dog water station
? Parking tight
? Impacts 8-9 homes
BI-CENTENNIAL PARK
Portion of city owned Bi-Centennial Park that would still allow access from neighbors on 3rd street to the south. Around 6,400 square feet depending on configuration.
HIGHLIGHTS
Walkable for residents living south
Lots of shade
Relatively under utilized
No neighbors to the east and west
? Parking tight
? Impacts 4 homes on the south & 4-5
across the street.
HERMOSA BEACH DOG PARK PROPOSAL
9 BEACH DOG PARK
One of the locations that comes up over and over is the idea of putting a dog park somewhere on the beach in Hermosa. Reactions to this are strong – either for or against with those against mentioning the issues of:
1. Possible health issues of dogs on the beach (e.g. Dog waste).
2. Negative interactions between dogs and patrons of the beach.
Several locations in Southern California have worked around these issues – Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Del Mar and San Diego. We are actively talking with these cities to understand how they have set up their parks and managed these issues and worked with the Coastal Commission.
In discussions with Long Beach, they utilize beach clean-up vehicles several times a week, have had no health complaints and no increase in water toxicity beyond what all beaches have after heavy rains. They have reported no negative interactions between dogs or between dogs and humans and are so satisfied with their beach that they are working to add a second location The Coastal Commission has been supportive. The City of Del Mar has similar success (Details of discussions available upon request.) Some ideas that have been suggested for a beach dog park in Hermosa are:
1. Locating a dog beach in the southernmost part of Hermosa with clear markers on where / when dogs are allowed.
2. Only allowing dogs in the off-season. 3. Limiting hours (e.g. 6-8am Tu-Th).
Valley Park (East):
Valley Park (Southeast):
Greenbelt: (Section)
Edith Rodaway Friendship Park:
Bi-Centennial Park:
The Beach (Herondo St. – 1st Street)
PROJECT TITLE Bark for a Park Project COMMITTEE / TASKFORCE Parks and Recreation Subcommittee - Ellman & Worner PROJECT STAFF LIASONS Brian Sousa & Nick Shattuck DEPARTMENT Community Resources &
Public Works
TASK DESCRIPTION VALLEY PARK - EAST VALLEY PARK - SOUTHEAST EDITH RODAWAY BEACH - HERONDO BI-CENTENNIAL PARK *GREENBELT NOTES ADDITIONAL NOTES Adequate available space: •Large
Dog Area: ≈ 3 acres or more •Small Dog
Area: ≈ 0.75 acres or more
Large Area- NO Small
Area- Yes
Large Area- NO
Small Area- NO
Large Area- NO
Small Area- Yes
Large Area- Yes Small
Area- Yes
Large Area- NO Small
Area- Yes
Large Area- NO
Small Area- Yes
(ideally 0.5–1 acre minimum for off-leash)
(Note: These are “ideal” standards; many cities
implement smaller parks due to site constraints.)
Layout: (Slope, Flat, Mix-use, etc)
Slope with some flat
uneven ground/hill Slight slope, mostly flat Flat Flat Flat Slight slope, mostly flat Valley East- lots of tree roots
Beach- Seasonal impacts with storms/tides
Proximity to residential area(s): (≥ 150 ft) Yes- Gould Ave No- 25th Street No- Prospect and Gentry No- Herondo
apartment/condos ,
Strand homes
No- 4th and 3rd &
Ardmore Yes
Would require resident survery BiCentennial/Edith- noise concerns Greenbelt cleared from residents
Proximity to commercial area(s): (≥ 80 ft) None
None
*Kiwanis + Rotary within None None No- Auto body shop No- Storage center Proximity to Playground: Impacted Areas
Picnic Area #2 ,
Playground, VPSDC play
field, Shakespeare BTS Cleared None None None None Civic Center, Community Center, Library Proximity to Programming area: VPSDC Play field
VPSDC field, outdoor
fitness permit + contract
class field,
Events, fitness permit +
contract class field, Junior Lifeguard program None Fitness stations Edith- nearby play area/basketball courts
Beach- does have nearby volleyball courts
Is it far enough from playgrounds, picnic areas,
sports fields and sensitive habitats?
Water Source(s) available
nearby restrooms
plumbing, irrigation
nearby drinking fountain
and sinks, irrigation
nearby drinking fountain,
irrigation None
No drinking station, but
irrigation onsite
No drinking station, but
irrigation onsite
Current Surface: (grass, dirt, DG, sand, etc.) Grass Grass Grass Sand Grass Grass VP - Mud/Dirt/runoff concerns Any natural shading available Yes, Trees Yes, Trees Yes limited, Trees None Yes, Trees Yes, Trees Available parking Yes, two lots and street Yes, lot and street Limited, free public
parking spaces nearby
Nearby Redondo lot,
parking spaces
Limited, few free public
parking spaces nearby Yes, lot and street
Current Accessibility: (paths, ada, etc)
Nearby DG path and
cement path
Nearby handicap
parking and cement
path None
None - ADA mobi mat
would be needed
No pathways in the park,
but neaby sidwalks Yes, ADA DG path
(Note: The off-leash area must be ADA accessible
to all users.)
Conflicts With Other Park Uses
Open space (picnics),
natural habitat impacts,
nearby activity zone,
events
Open green space,
activity zone for
programming
Open green space,
activity zone for
programming, events
LA County Beaches &
Harbors + Lifeguards
None, But Open green
space
Yes, natural habitat
impacts. *Greenbelt OS-1
Restricted Open Space
Beach- fencing concerns (Coastal
Commission), cleaning/maintenance, M.C.
updates required for dogs on the beach
•The dog park should not be placed in highactivity zones of a park •The dog park should not displace: oOrganized sports/recreation,
oOr key passive open space resources,
Restroom facilities nearby: Yes Yes None Within distance- 2nd St. None None, but Within distanceCC, City Hall
Lighting available Limited, 2 Light Post 3 small light posts None None 2 light posts Street Lighting Drainage patterns
run-off slope zone, 1 visible
drain none observed none observed
Sand absorbs & nearby
Storm Drain 1 visible drain none observed
to avoid water accumulation. Potential for
installing drainage improvements if needed.
PROJECT TITLE Bark for a Park Project COMMITTEE / TASKFORCE Parks and Recreation Subcommittee - Ellman & Worner PROJECT STAFF LIASONS Brian Sousa & Nick Shattuck DEPARTMENT Community Resources &
Public Works
TASK DESCRIPTION EL SEGUNDO MANHATTAN BEACH REDONDO BEACH PLAYA VISTA SANTA MONICA NOTES ADDITIONAL NOTES Adequate available space: •Large
Dog Area: ≈ 3 acres or more •Small Dog
Area: ≈ 0.75 acres or more
Large Area- Yes Small
Area- Yes
Large Area- NO
Small Area- Yes
Large Area- Yes Small
Area- Yes
El Seg- Who locks up daily?
4 feet fencing = small dogs, 6
feet fencing = large dogs
MB- never locks/closes, fencing 4-5 ft.
El Seg- message boards, poop scoopers, trash
cans, benches, fencing
Layout: (Slope, Flat, Mix-use, etc) Flat with slopes Flat Flat El Seg- large holes in surface (digging),
MB- benches, bag stations, chairs/seating, wood
fencing to protect trees (urine/damage)
Proximity to residential area(s): (≥ 150 ft) No- residence across street Yes No- residence across
street El Segundo- Airport noise works as a barrier
Proximity to commercial area(s): (≥ 80 ft) None Yes None Airport nearby Proximity to Playground: Impacted Areas None
nearby, Less than 100
feet None
Proximity to Programming area: None
Playground, baseball
fields, swimming pool,
track, green space
Baseball fields, open
green space MB- dog leash coat racks,
Water Source(s) available
Drinking fountains,
recycled water irigation
Drinking fountains, hose
connection for watering
drinking fountain, water
spikets hose connection
Current Surface: (grass, dirt, DG, sand, etc.) Dirt (previously grass) Mulch/wood chips Dirt (previously grass) El Seg- 1x weekly landscaping maintenance
MB- wood chips spraying out onto pathway,
replacing every Q.
MB- Daily maintenance contractor
(raking/watering for dust). RB+MB
Residents/volunteers upkeep
Any natural shading available Yes, Trees limited, one tree limited, couple trees in
large open space El Seg- lots of trees and tree roots
Available parking Street parking Yes, street and lot Yes, street and lot Current Accessibility: (paths, ada, etc) None None None Conflicts With Other Park Uses None None None El Seg- left over balls/play toys, El Seg- large electrical power lines above Restroom facilities nearby: None Portable restrooms None Lighting available None yes, light posts None
Drainage patterns None none observed None RB: strong odor/urine smell
PROJECT TITLE Bark for a Park Project COMMITTEE / TASKFORCE Parks and Recreation Subcommittee - Ellman & Worner PROJECT STAFF LIASONS Brian Sousa & Nick Shattuck DEPARTMENT Community Resources &
Public Works
TASK DESCRIPTION EL SEGUNDO MANHATTAN BEACH REDONDO BEACH PLAYA VISTA SANTA MONICA NOTES ADDITIONAL NOTES cost estimate for design
cost estimate for construction $850,000 $18,200 $45,000 El Segundo- city allocated $850,000 for the
construction of Acacia Park, which includes
the dedicated dog park area.
cost estimate for equipment (ex. fencing,
benches, waste & water stations, scoopers) 50,000 60,000 MB rennovation 2025 + RB rennovation 2020 $324,000 MB consultant proposal cost estimates for ongoing
maintenance/cleaning $0 $84,000 +/-
allocated funding amount via city budget
(annually) 17,412
funding sources via grants (annually)
allocated funding via donations/sponsors
(annually) HOA Funded
Maintenance schedule (# of days/week for
upkeeping and cleaning) 1x per week landscaping
Daily raking, 1x per week
cleaning
Responsible entity for routine
maintenance/cleaning
Contractor - landscaping
Residents - upkeeping Contractor
Contractor - landscaping
Residents - upkeeping
Organizations/Departments involved in
maintaining the facility
Public Works, Contractor,
Residents Contractor, Public Works,
Friends of the Parks, Public
Works, Residents
Comparable Cities
Manhattan Beach – Polliwog Park Dog Run
Comparable Cities
Redondo Beach Dog Park
Comparable Cities
El Segundo Dog Park
1. EXAMPLES OF OTHER DOG PARKS BEYOND SOUTH BAY
(Not meant to compare parks pros and cons as much as provide input and ideas towards design of a Hermosa park)
a)Olive Hills (Anaheim)
b)West Hollywood Dog Park
c) Glen Alla Park (MDR)
d)Bluff Creek (Playa Vista)
2. CITY MAINTENANCE FUNDING IDEA
1 Dog Park Reseach
A) Anaheim – Olive Hills Dog Park
2 BACKGROUND
• 1.2 acres (52,000sf) within bigger park
• Opened August 2016. Separated small and large dog use areas with agility equipment, benches, and native plant materials
• No neighbors
• Dawn to Dusk
• 6 ft high black
metal fencing
3 WHY INTERESTING?
• Mixed surfaces –
(1) Decomposed
Granite (DG) in
heavy traffic areas
(mulch might be
better? – this was
during rain
storms)
(2) Artificial turf
covers small
“mounds” or hills
in the park
Anaheim – Olive Hills Dog Park
4 WHY INTERESTING?
• Baskets along fences hold tennis balls
(from nearby tennis courts)
• “Rolling fence” might be a good
feature between small / big
dog areas
Anaheim – Olive Hills Dog Park
5 WHY INTERESTING?
Anaheim – Olive Hills Dog Park
• Natural rocks
scattered in park
give dogs place to
jump / sit
• No “borders”
around trees and
they appear healthy
despite heavy park
use
6 • WeHo currently has 2 dog parks (is building a 3rd). One has artificial turf, the other woodchips.
• West Hollywood Dog Park (4,485sf + 7,065sf) opened 2018.
B) WeHo – West Hollywood Dog Park
Small
Dogs
Big
Dogs
7 WeHo – West Hollywood Dog Park
WHY INTERESTING?
• Surface is all turf with
undulating hills (used K-9
brand turf).
• 4’ black chain link fence
(only 6’ at the entrance).
• Aesthetically pleasing
shrubbery grows on fence
on some sides of park for
privacy. Seems to weather
ongoing dog pee well.
8 WeHo – West Hollywood Dog Park
WHY INTERESTING?
• Seating built around some
trees
• Other trees surrounded by
tree wells
9 WeHo – West Hollywood Dog Park
WHY INTERESTING?
• Colorful signage on weatherproof vinyl board that is changed periodically (pops out and easy to read)
• Signage says city has “no liability….”
• Signage says “park is “primarily a self-enforcing community” and suggests people to “encourage” others to follow the rules
10 WeHo – West Hollywood Dog Park
WHY INTERESTING?
• In April 2025, WeHo launched a “ScoopIt”
campaign
• Campaign included public service
announcements (PSAs) in digital transit
shelters, pedestrian kiosks, and information
displays at City parks and facilities.
• PSAs reinforced the message that picking up
only takes a few seconds and that it is part of
responsibilities as a pet guardian. Detailed
messaging highlighted the health and
environmental benefits of picking up pet waste
and leashing dogs, while also reinforcing the
relevant laws.
11 RECENTLY AUTHORIZED “WEST HOLLYWOOD DOG PARKS TURF
REPAIR PROJECT”
• City prefers turf over woodchips because “it can be cleaned, unlike woodchips, which tend to hold bacteria.”
• Currently replacing artificial turf in WeHo park after 8 years (“Typically, the life expectancy for artificial turf at dog parks is between 7-15 years depending on daily use traffic and maintenance activities. Dog parks with a smaller square footage require more frequent repairs because they experience higher impact and overall usage”).
• City’s maintenance procedures at their dog parks include twice daily, weekly mid-day, weekly night, and monthly cleaning activities. They contract out to a janitorial firm for this.
• Project will use the company ForeverLawn, Inc. to replace turf with newer product that has improved durability, improve grading, create better drainage based on debris and hair removal.
• Total cost not to exceed $275,000.
WeHo – West Hollywood Dog Park
12 Analysis of Dog Park Surfaces in 2024 from WeHo
Parks & Rec Staff
13 • .35 acres (15,246sf).
• Large and Timid Dog Area.
• Approved 2018 at cost of Cost $830,000. 3 community meetings were held during design phase to get input.
C) Marina del Rey – Glen Alla Dog Park
14 Glen Alla Dog Park – Timid Dog Schematic
15 Glen Alla –
Large Dog
Schematic
16 WHY INTERESTING?
• Surface is artificial turf
with barriers filled with
native plants.
• Water area for dogs is on
a concrete pad for easier
cleanup.
Marina del Rey – Glen Alla Dog Park
17 WHY INTERESTING?
• Artificial turf has been applied
over tree roots.
• Artificial turf has been applied
up to trunks of other trees.
Marina del Rey – Glen Alla Dog Park
18 • 17,746sf dog park built in 2017 that is funded and managed by the HOA of Playa Vista.
D) Playa Vista – Bluff Creek Park
• Small and Big
dog area.
• Dawn to dusk.
19 WHY INTERESTING?
• Mixed surfaces with combination of artificial turf, DG and concrete (also has a water feature).
Playa Vista – Bluff Creek Park
• Aesthetically
pleasing shrubbery
grows on fence on
street side of the
park for privacy.
Seems to weather
ongoing dog pee
well.
20 Marina del Rey - Glen Alla Dog Park
WHY INTERESTING?
• Artificial turf mounds create
small hills in the park that dogs
run up and down.
• No structures around trees to
protect them but most have tree
wells packed with DG.
21 WHY INTERESTING?
• Humorous signage
encourages poop clean up
• Small dog area says
“Geriatric dogs permitted at
owner’s risk”
Playa Vista – Bluff Creek Park
SUMMARY
22 • Assuming a location can be agreed to for an off-leash dog park in the City, some of these elements might be incorporated into our park design.
• If more detail is desired for any of these parks, Bark for a Park (BFAP) can work to acquire that information using our contacts at each park. • BFAP has been in discussion with a dog park designer who has agreed to look at our top locations, brainstorm what could be done with each space to help in the finalization of a location.
2. IDEA – How City could raise $ for maintenance
23 CURRENTLY
• The City sold 1,404 licenses in 2023 and 1,368 in 2024. • Significant number of dogs NOT licensed (we estimate at least 3,000 dogs). Many owners have told us they don’t see the value. • License fee for altered dog in 2026 is $29.75.
SUGGESTION
• Increase license fee by $5 a dog (raises $6,840 based on 1,368). • Bark for a Park works with city on campaign to increase license numbers including having license checks at the park.
• If could increase dog numbers by 400 brings in additional $13,900. • Raises at least $20,740 which could go to dog park maintenance.
Fee Increase $5 $10
Dog Increase 400 500
Total Raised $ 20,740 $ 33,555
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
24 West Hollywood Dog Park Hours
• 6am-12am 7 days a week
Tree Seating Example
• From DogPPL in Santa Monica
1 BARK FOR A PARK (BFAP) OFF-LEASH DOG PARK LOCATION
PREFERENCES
Sent to the Parks & Recreation Dog Park Subcommittee on April 2, 2026
1. BARK FOR A PARK’S GOAL
Bark for a Park (BFAP) is a nonprofit in Hermosa Beach dedicated to the creation of off-leash areas for dogs in the city that will:
• Be a positive asset to the city as a whole.
• Bring our city together.
• Be an asset to the dogs in our community.
We have been privileged to work with the Hermosa Beach Parks & Recreation sub-committee over the past few months as they evaluate possible locations in the city.
2. OUR POSITION ON FUNDING THE PARK
We respect whatever recommendation the Dog Park Subcommittee suggests but if the Hermosa Beach City Council (Council) follows our suggested location strategy, we would offer to lead and 100% fund (with the City’s oversight) the comprehensive design (including estimate for capital costs and estimate for maintenance costs). If the design is approved by Council, we would offer to lead and fund 100% of the build of the park in a partnership with the City. These activities would be directed using a contract or MOU arrangement.
We realize the City has limited discretionary funds to direct to building a new park. Yet there is such large public support that we already have over $70,000 in donations and pledges as of February 11, 2026. We have also recently received a matching grant for up to $250,000 for any donation of $100 or above. Having this matching grant fits in to our desire that this park be built by the community where every contribution matters – and now the community’s support has double the impact. This matching grant is contingent on the City partnering with us on our preferred dog park location which is outlined below.
We also strongly support being a compassionate partner to all dogs in the community and would like to partner with the Lovejoy Foundation, a nonprofit, no-kill animal welfare organization that already works with the City on programming, education and engagement at the new dog park. [See Appendix 1 – Vision for Lovejoy Foundation Partnership].
Part of the dog park design process would estimate incremental costs to the City for park maintenance. After construction, we propose the City would handle ongoing park maintenance. We also think there are ways the City could raise additional funds that could offset increased maintenance costs and we would be glad to partner with the City to help develop and execute
2 these ideas such as increasing the number of licensed dogs. [see Appendix 2 – Ideas for Increasing City Funds].
We are so excited at the possibility of working with the City to make an off-leash dog park a reality and to add an amazing asset to the city that will endure for years to come.
3. OUR TOP RECOMMENDATION – VALLEY PARK EAST
We believe the ideal location for an off-leash dog park in the City is in Valley Park East which is just east of the bathrooms and south of the native garden.
3.1 PROS
This location:
• Can support up to a 12,000 square foot park with
a small and big dog area and shade.
• Minimal to no neighbor impact - more than 200 ft
from the nearest neighbor (across the busy
streets of Gould and Valley).
• Is located in a park that is already used heavily by
dogs and is in a relatively underutilized area.
• Park would be relatively unnoticed within the
park and could be designed to fit into current,
natural surroundings.
• Great parking and access.
• No tree removal required (although root pruning
would be needed that would not harm existing trees).
• Is more than 70 feet from the playground (Most cities and landscape architects aim for minimum separation: 50–100 feet and barriers in the dog park could add more privacy). • Has an ADA bathroom nearby and access to potable water.
3.2 CONS
This location:
• Would require ADA improvements to ensure there is a path of travel from Valley Park entrance (probably Kiwanis area) to the dog park entrance and would require grading within the dog park boundary to minimize slope.
• Might affect where current summer activities happen but good design choices could disrupt any impacts.
3 3.3 VALLEY PARK EAST SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
We are hoping the Council will approve Valley Park East to move forward to a Comprehensive Design phase under the lead and funding of Bark for a Park with City oversight.
We think an off-leash dog park in this area would be an ideal location as it is relatively underutilized, has minimal to no neighbor impact, is large enough to have both a large and small dog area and would result in a wonderful new park asset to the City that could be enjoyed by dogs and residents. ==============================================================
4. BACKUP LOCATION(S) WE DO NOT SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
Below are other locations we considered and why we think they are not ideal:
GREENBELT SOUTH OF PIER – A good area for an off-leash dog park could have been the area on the Greenbelt south of Pier Avenue on the east side (stopping before the houses just north of 11th). It is flat, would serve all as it is central to the City, has limited to no neighbor impact.
But - it would require a public vote in the November 2026 election, not to put a dog park there, but to alter the zoning in that space so that fencing and off-leash dogs could be allowed.
While we love this location, Bark for a Park doesn’t support this location because the efforts and costs required to secure the necessary votes are significant, we have been getting mixed support and there is significant uncertainty of the ability of the measure to pass.
BEACH – We love the beach location and are hopeful the City pursue this in the future. But at this time, several senior City officials have indicated a dog beach has gotten significant pushback from the Coastal Commission, Heal the Bay and the LA Lifeguards. Still, we are hopeful that once a fenced off-leash area is implemented we can continue the pursuit of this option. Ideally this would be in a section of the beach (e.g. near 1st Street) with off-peak time hours (e.g. 6-8am and 6-8pm – maybe only in off-season). The goal would be to not unnecessarily burden parking in the area from out of town visitors yet still retain the freedom for locals to enjoy.
BI-CENTENNIAL & EDITH RODAWAY. Although both of these areas are already used considerably for on and off-leash dog use, we cannot support these locations at this time because of considerable neighbor impact and their already expressed pushback.
4 SOUTH PARK NORTH OF BATHROOMS. This location does not have neighbors nearby but is very small (~5,000 sf total) and there was a recent Proposition 68 project that was just completed to add drought tolerant landscape to the area. We are uncertain as to whether this location could be repurposed at this time.
VALLEY PARK – OFF LEASH – While not ideal, many municipalities have non-fenced off-leash dog areas in parks (e.g. San Francisco has 14 of them). Valley Park has the possibility of having off-leash hours (e.g. 6-8am and 6-8pm) for dogs off-leash with minimal impact. We would hold our support of this idea until all potential dog park areas in the City that could have fencing are eliminated. ==================================================
5. SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATION
Our hope is that the City Council votes to move forward with a Comprehensive Plan for a dog park in the Valley Park East area.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
The Bark for a Park Board
Carla Buck, Jack Levy, Mary Ann Benson, Nayiri Dermenjian, Wendy Finster, Tara Gerow, Katie Killam, Emilio Pack, Sam Sampson, Steve Yeager
www.barkforapark.org
[email protected]
5 APPENDIX 1 – VISION FOR THE LOVEJOY FOUNDATION PARTNERSHIP The Lovejoy Foundation is a nonprofit, no-kill animal welfare organization that already works with the City on dog rescues and is familiar to many in the city through volunteer and donation efforts.
We would like to partner with Lovejoy to create a vibrant community hub in Hermosa Beach that benefits both local residents and shelter animals. This could include:
• Promoting responsible pet ownership through education and community outreach. • Using the dog park for dog exercise, adoption and education programming. • Enhancing compassion and support in Hermosa Beach for animal welfare.
We have been meeting with Lovejoy and they are an enthusiastic supporter of working with BFAP and the City to benefit the lives of both residents and the dogs in our community.
We hope to work with the City to make this a reality.
6 APPENDIX 2 – INCREASING CITY FUNDS
We believe there is additional monies to be made by the City through:
• Increasing the cost of dog licenses.
• Using an education campaign and periodic spot checks at the park to increase the number of dogs who have licenses in the city.
CURRENTLY
• They city of Hermosa Beach sold 1,404 licenses in 2023 and 1,368 in 2024. • Significant number of dogs NOT licensed (we estimate at least 3,000 dogs are in the city so perhaps less than half are licensed?). Many owners have told us they don’t see the value of a license.
• License fee for an altered dog in 2026 is $29.75.
SUGGESTION
• Increase license fee by $5 a dog (raises $6,840 per year based on 1,368 dogs). • Bark for a Park works with the City on campaign to increase license numbers through campaign that emphasizes the value of license and having periodic license checks at the park.
• If the dog numbers increase by 400 it would bring an additional $13,900 per year.
These two changes would raise at least $20,740 which could go to dog park maintenance.
In addition to dog license fees, the City could also pursue, perhaps with help from Bark for a Park, sponsorships in the dog park to raise additional monies to offset the cost of maintenance.
FEASIBILITY REPORT ON
DESIGNATION OF A
LOCATION WITHIN HERMOSA
BEACH FOR A DOG PARK
May 12, 2026 Meeting
SUMMARY
At its March 11, 2025 meeting, City Council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of an off-leash dog park proposal submitted by the community organization, Bark for a Park.
Staff presented the feasibility report to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Commission) prior to City Council review. The Commission recommended advancing consideration of Valley Park (East) and a portion of the Greenbelt as preferred locations, while also suggesting exploration of a future ballot measure to amend Ordinance No. 89-1001 if the Greenbelt is pursued
BACKGROUND
• A feasibility study is a pre-project assessment to better determine the viability, practicality, and potential of a proposed idea or project, conducted before significant investment.
• Parks Master Plan, adopted in November 2024, one of the goals outlined to advance was explore current recreational spaces and the feasibility to provide dog-friendly amenities.
• At City Council’s March 11, 2025 meeting, during public comment, the community organization Bark for a Park requested that the City consider designating a dog park in Hermosa Beach.
BACKGROUND
• At the Commission’s July 1, 2025 meeting, Bark for a Park provided a presentation (Attachment 1) outlining its case for an off-leash dog park in Hermosa Beach, including potential benefits, possible locations, design elements, and estimated costs and funding ideas. Vice-Chairperson Horowitz, with support from Commissioners Moroney and Worner, requested that staff return with a future agenda item to consider the formation of a subcommittee to evaluate the off-leash dog park proposal. • At the Commission’s September 2, 2025 meeting, staff recommended the Commission consider the creation of a Community Dog Park Subcommittee.
The Commission approved the creation of the subcommittee, appointing Chair Ellman and Commissioner Worner.
BACKGROUND
• At the March 03, 2026 Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed staff’s findings and provided feedback. The Commission recommended that City Council advance consideration of a dog park feasibility study, including the evaluation of potential locations for an off-leash dog area within Hermosa Beach, with the Commission’s preference to further explore a location in Valley Park (East) and within a portion of the Greenbelt- recommended that the City explore the potential for placing a measure on a future November ballot to consider amending Ordinance No. 89-1001 to allow limited construction of new facilities and off-leash dogs within a designated section of the Greenbelt.
DISCUSSION
As illustrated in the proposal, basic amenities for an off-leash dog park location (except for consideration of the beach) at minimum requires:
• (1) double-door entry system for secure access
• (2) minimum 4-to-6 ft. high fencing
• (3) potable water source
• (4) waste management
• (5) shading
• (6) dog-friendly surfacing substrates
• (7) eco-friendly landscaping and drainage systems
• (8) accessibility + ADA, and
• (9) clear signage that establishes rules, procedures, release of liability and directions to report issues / suggestions.
DISCUSSION
The subcommittee was tasked with working with staff, plus collaborating with Bark for a Park to develop a feasibility report with consideration of:
• Best-practice research, including collecting information and data from comparable cities with existing dog parks, such as hours of operation, cost estimates for design, construction, equipment, and ongoing maintenance, funding sources, community feedback, and review of policies and procedures;
• Evaluation and site visits of potential locations (Table 1) within Hermosa Beach (Attachment 2-3); and
• On-site visits of comparable cities’ dog park facilities (Table 2).
DISCUSSION
Table 1: Potential Off-Leash Dog Park Locations
Table 2: Comparable cities’ Dog Park facilities
DISCUSSION
The onsite review (Attachment 4) of potential off-leash dog park locations in Hermosa Beach and off-site comparable cities considered various elements including, basic amenities required, proximity, impacts to current park use, park features, existing infrastructure, and the landscape.
Key takeaways from the comparable sites include:
El Segundo and Redondo Beach were in close proximity to residential areas. Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach dog parks are incorporated into multi-use parks with sports fields and other amenities.
El Segundo and Redondo Beach have dirt surfaces (previously grass) with no additional lighting at the facility, large holes exposed in the ground, leftover personal play equipment on-site, and minimal upkeeping dependent on residents or volunteers. Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach had limited shade and R.B. had noticeable odors from dog waste.
El Segundo and Redondo Beach rely on public support/volunteers for upkeeping. All three sites lacked nearby restrooms or ADA-accessible paths into the facility, but ample parking was available.
DISCUSSION
Following the completion of best-practice research, evaluation and on-site visits, the subcommittee developed a list of locations for City Council to consider of potential sites where an off-leash dog park could be incorporated based on feasibility, layout, and amenities criteria. Valley Park – East (North-East)
Greenbelt (portion)
Edith Rodaway Friendship Park
Bi-Centennial Park
The Beach (portion)
DISCUSSION
Location – Valley Park East (North-East)
DISCUSSION
Location – Valley Park East (North-East)
Potential Benefits include:
• Natural shading
• Nearby pathways, open green space, restrooms, parking lot, and street parking spaces
• Nearby pathways and open green space
• Existing irrigation, lighting, and drainage infrastructure • Would occupy a passive section of the open green space Notable Potential Challenges include:
• Uneven surface, steep grade slopes, ADA concerns
• Environmental impacts & deterioration (exposed tree roots, garden) • Potential impacts to nearby residential area and noise complaints • Conflicts with city programming areas and close proximity to the playground
• ADA concerns Page 832 of 990
DISCUSSION
Location - Greenbelt
DISCUSSION
Location - Greenbelt
Potential Benefits include:
• Central location in Hermosa Beach & near the civic center • Minimal impact on homes/residences
• Flatter surface, natural environment, and shading
• Nearby public restrooms and public parking lot
• More easily supports ADA requirements (further evaluation required) • Potential to incorporate two sections, for small and big dog separation • High foot traffic for residents with dogs, supports local businesses.
Notable Potential Challenges include:
• No lighting (hours- dusk to dawn), New piping installation for potable water • No direct route per se
• OS-1 Zone*, which is designated for open space and passive recreational uses, typically limiting construction of new structures or facilities that could disrupt the natural or passive character of the area Page 834 of 990
DISCUSSION
Location – Greenbelt
On June 7, 1988, City voters approved local ballot measure Proposition D, authorizing the City to set aside funds to purchase the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way for conversion to open space and recreational use.
November 7, 1989, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 89-1001, which renamed the purchased property as the Greenbelt, preserved it for parkland and open space purposes, and mandated that all dogs be on a leash within the Greenbelt. Section 6 of the Ordinance states that no provision may be amended without a vote of the people. As a result, any amendment to allow an off-leash dog park in the Greenbelt would require a public electoral vote (ballot measure) and a majority Yes vote for approval. Any ordinance revision would only apply to a specific section of the Greenbelt, designated specifically for a dog park, and it would not be recommended to amend the ordinance in its entirety.
DISCUSSION
Location - Greenbelt
DISCUSSION
Location – Edith Rodaway Friendship Park
DISCUSSION
Location – Edith Rodaway Friendship Park
Potential Benefits include:
• Flat surface with some natural shading
• Open green space with limited conflicting park amenities • Nearby, though limited, street parking spaces
• Existing potable water, irrigation, drainage, and fencing infrastructure • Popular location for residents with dogs
Notable Potential Challenges include:
• Compacted residential area and potential noise complaints • No direct route, restrooms, or lighting (hours would be dusk to dawn) • Would occupy a large section of the open green space
• Potential impact on the annual Pumpkins in the Park special event and other city programming
• Would likely require ADA improvements to the park
DISCUSSION
Location – Bi-Centennial Park
DISCUSSION
Location – Bi-Centennial Park
Potential Benefits include:
• Flat surface with natural shading
• Direct routes, options for accessibility improvements, and open green space with no conflicting park amenities
• Existing potable water, irrigation, lighting, drainage, waste stations, and fencing infrastructure
• Current destination for local residents with dogs
Notable Potential Challenges include:
• Dense residential area, shared fencing to houses, and potential noise complaints
• No restrooms, not currently ADA
• Very limited street parking available
• Would occupy a large section of the open green space
DISCUSSION
Location – The Beach (Herondo St. – 1st St.)
DISCUSSION
Location – The Beach (Herondo St. – 1st St.)
Potential Benefits include:
• Relatively flat, less utilized open space in the area (beach) • Option for limited use hours and open access zones (no fencing required) • Nearby restrooms
• Minimal impactful to nearby residences
Notable Potential Challenges include:
• Approval likely required from the California Coastal Commission • Limited parking available + Herondo St. Condo impacts to residents • Accessibility challenges: not ADA-compliant, and no potable water, irrigation, lighting, drainage, or fencing infrastructure onsite • Environmental study required to assess potential impacts • Sanitation, health, and maintenance concerns due to the sand surface
• LA County Lifeguard & Visitor impacts on the beach Page 842 of 990
DISCUSSION
Location – Valley Park East (North-East)
On January 21, 2026, staff, a member of the subcommittee, and Bark for a Park met onsite at Valley Park and the Greenbelt with a Principal Designer from Gaudet Design Group Inc. for an informal discussion of the prospective locations. To summarize:
• Valley Park (East): Concerns with the slope of the surface and ADA access for the area.
Accessible pathways (walkways) must have a maximum running slope (path of travel) of 1:20 (5 percent) and a cross slope not exceeding 1:48 (2 percent). Any path with a slope steeper than 5 percent is considered a ramp. This could require significant grading, including flattening and surface removal of the hillside (entrance) and ADA updates to all pathways in Valley Park leading into the area.
• Greenbelt (section): The designer expressed confidence that this area would be feasible for a dog park or dog run and identified it as more ideal among the two sites considered.
Bark for a Park Recommendation
On February 11, 2026, Bark for a Park board submitted its requests for preferred locations in Hermosa Beach for an off-leash dog park, which included the section of the Greenbelt as its primary choice and BiCentennial Park as a secondary option if a ballot measure for the Greenbelt does not receive public approval.
On April 2nd, 2026, Bark for a Park informed staff (Attachment 7) to remove the Greenbelt option as their preferred location citing concerns for Council and resident support, as well as financial costs associated with processing a Citizen-Sponsored Initiative. However, they would proceed if City Council elects to pursue the Greenbelt option with a City-Initiative Measure.
Bark for a Park Recommendation
Bark for a Park requests for its preferred location in Hermosa Beach, is the Valley Park – East location for City Council to consider.
Bark for a Park has verbally agreed to assume financial responsibility for all pre-development costs, including (but not limited to):
• Architectural design,
• Construction
• Supplies and equipment
• Required permits, and inspections, to be further determined if a specific location is selected.
Bark for a Park Recommendation
Bark for a Park has requested that, upon completion of construction, the City assume full responsibility for the dog park facility and ongoing maintenance.
Estimated ongoing maintenance could include but is not limited to:
• Opening and closing the facility daily
• Daily and weekly cleaning
• Removing personal belongings
• Emptying waste stations and resupplying waste bag stations • Replacing or cleaning signage displaying rules and regulations • Filling surfacing issues and repairs to fencing, seating, or other amenities • Irrigation and maintenance of surfaces, vegetation, and substrates
Options for Council Consideration:
1. Provide direction to staff to proceed with the preparation of a comprehensive feasibility report for a specific location, including one of the locations recommended by the Commission, Valley Park (East) or a portion of the Greenbelt, or another location identified in this report.
2. Provide direction to staff to evaluate multiple locations, including one or both of the Commission-recommended locations and/or alternative locations proposed by the Bark for the Park, and return with a comprehensive feasibility analysis comparing each site.
3. Provide direction to staff to evaluate an alternative location not identified in this report, as determined by City Council, and return with a comprehensive feasibility report.
4. Determine that no location is feasible at this time and direct staff to discontinue further evaluation of an off-leash dog park within Hermosa Beach.
Next Steps
Should City Council direct staff to proceed with further evaluation, a comprehensive feasibility report would be required and presented at a future City Council meeting as a Public Hearing item for public participation and formal approval. The comprehensive report would require the Public Works Department oversight and include:
Creation of an MOU
a design consultant, plans, estimated capital costs, such as site preparation and grading, fencing and gates, surface material, lighting, shade structures, water access, waste stations, and signage.
ongoing maintenance costs, including waste removal, irrigation and turf care, equipment repairs, cleaning, staffing/oversight, and general upkeep. community outreach, including a survey of residents in proximity to the proposed location(s); and
required permitting
Next Steps
Ongoing maintenance requirements for the dog park are anticipated to be notable, requiring regular attention and daily service to maintain a consistent high standard based on observations from comparable facilities. This would require dedicated staff resources, with a desire for organized community volunteer efforts as well, and ongoing operational funding to support a safe, clean, and functional environment for public use.
Staff would recommended consideration of an agreement for Bark for a Park to support with ongoing facility upkeeping, and funding assistance for annual repair and maintenance costs.
!!"#$%
!
" #$
"
%"
&'
%(#(
)
$
*+,
$
%
- ./012/345607 859:;8<9=4>/1?@ABB/
H/5IA04./4:?2/096/B1 JKLMKNOMPQRSROTOMUPVUQQMWXUPY
#
$
!
"
"
#
$%&'(&)*+'
Redactions were made pursuant to
Government Code §§ 7928.300 and
7922.000.
!
"
# $
"
"
%
'
!
"
#
$
%
&
"
' (
)*+ %
,
-
!
!
-
.
,
/
0
1
%
234567899:;<=843 Page 868 of 990
!
"
!
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
"
*
"
+
$
$
'
, -
$
./0*
&&
1 2&
!
"
*
Page 878 of 990
! !
!
"
#
$
!
%
"!
&
'# (
)
"
Redactions were made pursuant to
Government Code §§ 7928.300 and
7922.000.
Melinda Green
Hermosa Beach
@gmail.com
Hermosa Beach City Council
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Hermosa Beach Dog Park Proposal
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to oppose placement of a dog park at Valley Park. I am an active community member, live on Gould Avenue, and will be directly impacted by the nuisance of a dog park and loss of valuable community space.
A Dog Park will Negatively Impact Families
The proposed location of Valley Park East will eliminate space that is currently utilized by my family for many purposes. During the summer, my daughter attends Valley Park Day Camp which utilizes that area for lawn games. Valley Park is one of the few affordable camp options in the area that offers full day coverage. My older son and his friends ride their mountain bikes in that area of the park frequently. My children participate in Scouting and that space is used for activities during campfires. All these activities will be eliminated or impacted by noise, smell of dog waste, and the inherent risk of unknown adults in close proximity with children.
Hermosa Beach is facing a declining number of young families, which has created issues in reduced enrollment to local schools. A move by the Council to remove park space and place strangers with dogs next to a playground and school makes the City a less welcoming environment for families.
A Dog Park Creates Safety Issues at Hermosa Vista School My understanding is that there has been no engagement with either the School Board or School District regarding placing a dog park in public space adjoining Vista School and parallel to a designated safe route to school. Many children at Vista are dropped off along Valley Drive and walk through the park unsupervised to ease traffic congestion. This proposal has those students walking directly next to a dog park. Many students also play in the playground after school which will be denigrated by noise and smell from the dog park.
The proposed hours of the dog park are 7am to 8pm which occur during school hours. Staff acknowledged in the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee on March 6, 2026, that is
not possible to limit park usage to Hermosa Beach residents, meaning there will be people from outside the community who enter Valley Park and are in proximity and sharing bathrooms with students from Hermosa Vista School and other children at the playground.
There is no funding for a city staff member to monitor the safety issues caused by a dog park in Valley Park. A dog park will also exacerbate the parking shortage and traffic congestion in this area, which is already strained considerably by school drop offs and pickups.
A Dog Park will Drain City Resources
The report notes that an off-leash dog park will have initial capital costs and ongoing operation and maintenance costs including staff time. At the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee on March 6, 2026, it was noted that Manhattan Beach spends $84,000 per year on maintenance alone. That does not include staff time to monitor a dog park, respond to emergencies and complaints, the large initial cost of building of the dog park, and costs to upgrade the park. Bark for the Park suggests the city can redirect money from dog licenses and raise dog license fees to support a dog park. This ignores what money from dog licenses is currently funding and that it is insufficient to support a dog park. Bark for the Park also requests an exemption to allow corporate advertising on the dog park.
Such signage is inappropriate in Valley Park. Bark for the Park estimates a cost of $72,000- $235,000 for the initial build of the dog park and attaches a generic “Appendix 3.0” which cites to no reliable sources supporting this estimate. I know this Council is well-informed on building costs to understand this amount is a gross underestimate.
The City is facing the burden of funding significant capital projects – most notably the pier infrastructure – there is no room in the budget for a unnecessary expense requested by a small minority of residents who cannot be inconvenienced by traveling one mile to the neighboring dog parks.
A Dog Park Creates Safety Issues1
Along with the funding issues, Bark for the Park suggests limiting the park to vaccinated dogs, spayed and neutered dogs, dogs above 4 months old, that are wearing a collar with ID tags. The only way to enforce this is with draining our limited staff resources. 1 The Bark for the Park Presentation cites frequently to a UC Davis Veterinary School study on dog parks in urban areas. The citation provided for this report is inoperable and it is not attached as an appendix. I could not find this study with a google search. I emailed the email address listed on Bark for the Park website to request a valid citation and they did not respond to me. Nor has anyone from Bark for the Park reached out to seek input from neighbors who will be directly impacted by the proposed dog park.
In my experience, dog parks are full of poorly behaved dogs and negligent owners. Our dog trainer recommended against bringing our dog to a dog park. I have visited both the Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach dog parks and determined they are not safe spaces for myself or my dog. There are many options to exercise dogs, the best exercise for a dog and owner is to walk a dog, there are dog parks in neighboring cities (including a dog park one mile from Valley Park), and there are doggy day cares which allow dogs to play off leash for a nominal fee that covers ensuring the dogs are supervised and vaccinated.
A Dog Park will Ruin the Character of Valley Park
At the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee on March 6, 2026, a representative of Bark for the Park spoke and admitted that a dog park in Valley Park is a non-preferred location because it would “ruin the character of Valley Park.” Additionally, that the designer had concerns with Valley Park not being appropriate for a dog park. Despite these admissions, Bark for the Park is now advocating for a dog park in Valley Park with corporate sponsor signage as their top recommendation.
Valley Park is the largest park in Hermosa Beach. It is beautiful, naturally sloped with trees and a garden. A dog park will create an eyesore that ruins the natural beauty of Valley Park with noise from barking dogs and the smell of dog waste. Hermosa Beach is a densely populated city with very little green space that should not be removed from broader public usage.
A Dog Park at Valley Park Inconveniences Neighbors and Impacts Property Values A dog park in Valley Park is a significant inconvenience to neighbors. It will put up unsightly fencing, bring additional foot and car traffic, and create noise and smell issues. A dog park will decrease property values to homeowners in the area.
Hermosa Beach does Not Need a Dog Park
In a perfect world, Hermosa Beach would have plenty of outdoor space and funding for a dog park. But that is not the case. Resources – financial and environmental – are scarce.
There are plenty of options for dogs to exercise and few spaces that have as much use to the community as Valley Park. Bark for the Park does not answer the simple question of “why is this needed?” There are plenty of options for dogs to play on and off leash within a few miles of Valley Park.
I ask that the Council be realistic about the City’s needs and decide that a feasible location has not been identified for a dog park. If the City chooses to approve proceed with a comprehensive feasibility study, I ask for a location that is not in Valley Park.
Sincerely, Melinda Green
!"
#$%
&'
(
& )
**
(
+
& '
& ,
/
234567899:;<=843
!
"
#
$
%
&
"
' (
)*+ %
,
-
!
!
-
.
,
/
%
$
%
Page 891 of 990
() *+"$,% ()- ./0112
!
!
"
#
$
%
&
Page 898 of 990
!
"
"
#
"$
%
"
&
!
&
Page 899 of 990
!
"
#
!
!
"
#
$
%
$
!
&
'
(
)
$
$
*
SUPPLEMENTAL testimony from Howard Lee
to the 05-13-2026, 6-PM HB City Council
Meeting’s Municipal Matters Item 17.b
SUPPLEMENTAL eComment testimony to the Tuesday, May-13-2026, 6-PM Hermosa Beach City Council Meeting for Municipal Matters Item-17.b To: Hermosa Beach City Council, City Manager, BB&K Contract City Attorney, City Clerk, and others:
From: Howard Lee, Hermosa Beach Resident
Re: Dog Park Consideration HBCC meeting of 05-13-2026
Posted to these eComments and advance-copied to HB city officials May 13, 2026 Full agenda direct link..
https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=c39fa65e-ce61-4fd9-948e7546132658f5&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English Go to the full agenda using the above link, drill down to Municipal Matters Item 17.b to view the following item’s staff report, attachments and eComments. (eScribe’s incredibly user-unfriendly design unfortunately does not provide a useable single direct hyper-link to Item 17.b, with its Staff Report, attachments, and all eComments within)
Municipal Matters Item 17.b DOG PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY - 26-PR-018 (Senior Recreation Supervisor Brian Sousa)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council review and consider the feasibility of designating a location within Hermosa Beach for an off-leash dog park and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s recommendation to further explore potential locations at Valley Park (East) and within a portion of the Greenbelt, and to consider the potential for a future ballot measure to amend Ordinance No. 89-1001.
Honorable Council and others:
With all due respect the dog park issue is completely out of control. The residents interested in this matter should have long-ago used their energy to create a people’s initiative and placed the matter on the ballot. They easily could have qualified it by now.
That they didn’t may indicate they may not want all of the people of the city to have a say in this matter. That would be more than unfortunate if true.
The idea that these interested residents today may also indicate they will cover all city costs of such dog park is commendable, however, virtually impossible to cast into law.
SUPPLEMENTAL testimony from Howard Lee
to the 05-13-2026, 6-PM HB City Council
Meeting’s Municipal Matters Item 17.b
Thus how such payment process will actually work well and into the future and then what is the real legality of having a lay council (here today, gone tomorrow) awarding a specific area of public lands of the city for the de facto financed control of a specific group of individuals, having a specific interest, is more than questionable and nebulous at best.
The proper way for this to work is for the council to therefore create a ballot measure specifying the parameters and location of a so-called dog park, specifications, hours, and true costs, etc. The city will need to cover the costs of the dog park as with any park, although obviously people are always welcome to make donations to the City, donations toward the specific dog park, as with budget items, however with no special entitlements or encumbrances necessarily being awarded them.
Notwithstanding the complete fiscal crisis the city is evidently now in and very much aware, there evidently have been perhaps no donations made for all the staff and commission time already expended to date for this dog park issue, yet there is apparently many folk in town with and without dogs who are not necessarily aware of, or interested in a dog park, which may or may not be located anywhere near their residence.
The fact that so many in city may have dogs also is not a reflection of a specific need for a dog park. People who located to Hermosa Beach no doubt did so without respect to the presence or lack of presence of a dog park.
The logic used through this entire dog park issue has been defective, and somewhat highly-biased to say the least.
A dog park for this 1.4 square mile city, and especially in part of the city’s most important community park (other than the beach itself) makes very little sense. The city has limits and cannot be all things. Btw, sooner or later, HB will merge with Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach out of fiscal necessity and benefit to all concerned. Hopefully the other group filibustering for a swimming pool de facto complex should first push for the city merger as clearly desirable as it may be that their swimming pool complex currently has little chance of being anywhere close to viable. Ask former C.M. Suja regarding the Taj Mahal City Hall concept, or for that matter can you say City Yard? Hello!!!!!!!!
Those aware of the El Segundo dog park on inside Imperial Highway (divided for both small dogs and large dogs) should be well aware of the constant comings and goings of vehicles from other cities to there, and the negative effects for the residents of so many transients coming and going with their dogs, as if Valley Park the city’s main community park doesn’t already have parking issues.
SUPPLEMENTAL testimony from Howard Lee
to the 05-13-2026, 6-PM HB City Council
Meeting’s Municipal Matters Item 17.b
The fair way to handle this matter is to place a well-specified measure on the ballot (requires a noticed Public Hearing to approve the measure perhaps) for the community as a whole to see the specifications, parameters, etc., etc. and to decide after full debate during the election period, of all particulars and actual costs known by all. For a lay-city-council to railroad this dog park through on its own, would be a mistake. Also, for a lay council of 5, three of whom are likely running for re-election, or others seeking election to the council very soon, to presume this is an issue to support or aid in their election may well be very foolish to assume. I.e. Dog park folly. Best to stay very neutral if running for city council in the November election, i.e. pulling papers in August, 90 days from now.
It would best be for the Council again, to place a very carefully worded measure on the ballot and allow the voters to decide this matter. For some fifty years I’ve personally noted many such feel-good issues come before council where it seemed as if the entire city, let alone the entire planet, supported same. Often, how wrong that may have been the case. It’s called “Packing the Chambers” week after week with proponents of an idea. The best decisions result when all know really what is actually going on. In this particular matter, believe it or not, all may not really know what is going on.
Most respectfully.
Redactions were made pursuant to Government
Code §§ 7928.300 and 7922.000.
Redactions were made pursuant to
Government Code §§ 7928.300 and
7922.000.
Redactions were made pursuant to
Government Code §§ 7928.300 and
7922.000.
!"
#
$%&'()&!*+$',-
.
"/
-)+
'"0++
+
)/
+12
"'1
+(,'3'+41'
$(,)
15 $
+((!#'6&
+(
++'
,7
89:(%;01 !
<=2
>
'('+4(!
?@
"" )ABCDEF DGGDAHBHDE(!(%
@
!@!"
,(!
"(
.,'"%
1!4@
8
((%'",!$
('!+=
2@*
$%
"
1 )%!
'+IJIK
L(
,'L
('
!L"
3'+4=0"
+
+4'+
/
!(%
/
$
4'3
L!
)MN)!L
(%
/
+1,!+4O('
.
!L (%'"$! *+'()/2$%!"
(%'"@
!@
()"@
$'L'$
,,).
$
*"
!L(%
P*'
(+
(*
!L(%
+
'4%.!
%!!1
+1(%
@
!?' '()(!
@
$
L*,@
8=-) %!
,!+
$!+(
'.*(
"+
,)QIJ/JJJ
++*
,,)'+@
!@
()(
?
"92%
3 @
'1!3
QKJJR'+7
!@
()(
?
"(!(%
$'()"'+$
2 !3
1'+</
+1 (%
4
!*@!L%!
!>+
""*
!*+1'+4(%
@
8$!+(
'.*(
$,!"
(!QIJJ/JJJ
$%)
=S
1
@,)'+3
"(
1'+(%'"$! *+'()/.!(% L'+
+$'
,,)
+1@
"!+
,,)=
-)$!+$
+"
4 1'+4(%
@
!@!"
11!4@
8
"'4+'L'$
+(T K=UHCVWBGCDGVCBXHYGZWB[-)@
!@
(),'+
"%
"
L
+$
>'(%(%
@
!@!"
11!4@
8"'(
=\3
++!>/1!4"L
P*
+(,)1'4*+1
(%
L
+$
= 01
"'4+
(
11!4@
8'+(%'",!$
('!+>!*,11
('$
,,)>!
"
+(%'"'""*
/$
('+4
,
'"8!L1!4"
+(
'+4 ))
1= I=]ZYH^XAZ_VBXZE`aV^^bVHEF[2$
L!
)MNO)
O!,1L
(%
(%!
=c%
+!'"
L
!
%'4%O
$('3'()1!4
/$! .'+
1>'(%,
4 1!4"
*++'+4+
(%
@
!@
(),'+
/
'"
""
'!*"$!+$
+"L!
.!(%%'""
L
()
+1%'"
.','()(!
"($! L!
(
.,)= N=dZCeHEFZE`ZWWVAAHAAfVA[c%
,
$8"
1 P*
(
@
8'+4L!
$!+"(
*$('!+3
%'$,
"
+1L*(*
3'"'(!
"=2+$
"
1(
LL'$
+1 $!+4
"('!+>!*,1+
4 ('3
,)' @
$((%
+
'4%.!
%!!1
+1'+(
!1*$
"
L
()'""*
"!+"(
("+!(1
"'4+
1L!
%'4%O3!,*
$('3'()= :=gDEHEFZE`ZGGCDGCHZBVEVAA[2P*
"('!+>%
(%
'('"
3 +@
'""'.,
(!"'(*
(
1!4@
81'
$(,).
%'+1@
'3
(
%!
"/>%
"'1
+(">!*,1.
"*.5
$(
1(!$!+('+*!*"+!'"
/!1!
/
+1
$('3'()
L
(L
! (%
'
,'3'+4"@
$
"=c%
"(
('"3
)+
!>/
11'('!+
,3'"'(!
"
).,!$81
'3
>
)"!
1*$
"@
$
L!
4 +$)3
%'$,
=hL"!
(%'+4%
@@
+"(! )L
(%
/iKK>!*,1+!(.
.,
(!4
((%
= jklmnoplqoprsosrmprqqtuqvw
x
yx
zx
{|{x
{
}
~mlupsqopluqsqv
z
x}
{
x
}
=
nromqqv|
z
}
{
{
x
x
M=rsmtsrmpv
x
{
{
x
x
}
x
S%',
2"*@@!
((%
'1
!L$! *+'()
+'('
"
+1
"@!+"'.,
@
(
$
('!+/(%'"@
('$*,
,!$
('!+'"'+
@@
!@
'
(
+1>!*,1$
*"
,!+4O(
/*+
3!'1
.,
%
(!"*
!*+1'+4
"'1
+("=
2
"@
$(L*,,)*
4 (%
&!*+$',(!
!3
#'6&
+(
++'
,7
89:(%;01 !
<L
! $!+"'1
('!+
+1@*
"*
,(
+
('3
,!$
('!+"(%
(1!+!( .*
1 +%!
!>+
">%!"
@
!@
('
"1'
$(,).!
1 (%
"'(
= c%
+8)!*L!
)!*
('
/$!+"'1
('!+/
+1$! '(
+((!@
"
3'+4(%
P*
,'()!L,'L
'+!*
$! *+'()=2>!*,1.
%
@@)(!"@
8L*
(%
'L +
1 1= Page 910 of 990
!
!
"
#
!
$%&
'
(
)
*
*
(
+
'
, -
.
3456
789:
;<=99
><?@
798
?A=954 Page 913 of 990
!
!
"
#
$ %&
*%
Paul Repetti
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 7
Meeting Date: May 12, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-PR-025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE TO PICKLEBALL MEMBERSHIP AND
RESERVATION FEES
(Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council consider one of the following fee options pertaining to the Kelly Pickleball Courts;
1. Maintain the current annual membership rate of $19 and hourly reservation rate of $9 per hour for residents;
2. Approve staff’s recommended annual membership rate of $25 and hourly reservation rate of $12 per hour for residents; or
3. Approve City Council’s suggested rates, provided at its March 24, 2026 meeting, of an annual membership rate of $25 and an hourly reservation rate of $15 per hour for residents.
Executive Summary:
At its April 14, 2026 meeting, City Council directed staff to conduct a fee study to develop recommendations on the annual membership and hourly reservation rates for the Kelly Pickleball Courts. Staff conducted a review of local cities’ fees related to pickleball memberships and reservations and recommends that City Council consider the fee options presented in the staff report.
Background:
At its March 24, 2026, meeting, City Council approved modifications to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy (Attachment 1), including updated hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily, revisions to permissible play equipment, and designation of Courts 1 through 4 for both reservation and walk-on play on all days, except Fridays, when all courts are designated for walk-on play only. Additionally, City Council directed staff to return within 90 days of the reopening of the courts with a report on any complaints or community feedback received and court usage.
During the discussion, City Council expressed support for modifying pickleball membership fees to $25 annually and court reservation fees to $15 per hour for residents and provided direction to staff regarding those potential changes. However, following the March 24, 2026, City Council meeting, the City received timely written demands to cure
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 7
and correct pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1 from several members of the public. Therefore, at its April 14, 2026, City Council meeting, City Council rescinded its March 24, 2026, action related to pickleball fee increases and directed staff to conduct a fee study and return with fee recommendations prior to the reopening of the Kelly Pickleball Courts.
Past Commission and Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
Parks and
Recreation
Advisory
Commission:
February 10, 2026
The Commission approved staff’s recommended Kelly
Pickleball Courts Use Policy modifications with the exception of modifications to the courts’ hours of operation. The Commission recommended City Council approve maintaining the current hours of operations and requested staff report back to the Commission within 120 days following reopening with a report on complaints, community feedback, and court usage.
City Council:
March 24, 2026
City Council approved modifications to the Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy, including revisions to permissible play equipment, designation of all courts as available for reservation except on Fridays, which would be reserved for walk-on play only, and establishment of daily hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and directed staff to return within 90 days of the reopening of the Kely Pickleball Courts with a report on complaints, community feedback, and court usage. Council also expressed support for modifying pickleball membership fees to $25 annually and court reservation fees to $15 per hour for residents.
City Council:
April 14, 2026
City Council cured and corrected its prior direction to staff regarding pickleball membership and reservation fees and directed staff to conduct a fee study and return with fee recommendations prior to the reopening of the Kelly Pickleball Courts.
Discussion:
Staff conducted a review of local cities’ fees related to pickleball memberships and reservations, which is included in Table 1. Also included in Table 1 are the current fees for Hermosa Beach.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 7
Table 1: Local Cities Pickleball Reservation and Membership Fees City, Facility,
and Total
Dedicated
Courts
Hourly
Reservation
Annual
Membership
Other
Hermosa
Beach –
Kelly Pickleball
Courts
4 courts
Residents: $9 $19 -
Manhattan
Beach –
Manhattan
Heights Park
3 courts
Residents: $12
Non-residents: $16
- Drop-in Play Passes
(designated hours:
Monday-Friday
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.)
Residents:
$220 annually
$20 per month
$40 per two months
$60 per three months
Senior Residents:
$160 annually
$15 per month
$30 per two months
$45 per three months
Non-residents:
$280 annually
$25 per month
$50 per two months
$75 per three months
Redondo
Beach –
Alta Vista Park
4 Courts
Residents/Non-residents
Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday:
12:00-6:00 p.m.: $10
6:00-9:00 p.m.: $12
Tuesday and Thursday:
8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: $12
12:00-5:00 p.m.: $10
Saturday and Sunday:
8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.: $12
5:00-8:00 p.m.: $10
$25 Drop-in Play
Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday
8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: $5
Tuesday and Thursday
5:00 - 9:00 p.m.: $5
Torrance –
Dee Hardison
Sports Center
2 Indoor Courts
Courts are first-come,
first-served
- Drop-in Play
Monday and Wednesday
10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.: $5
per day
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 7
City, Facility,
and Total
Dedicated
Courts
Hourly
Reservation
Annual
Membership
Other
El Segundo –
Recreation
Park
4 Courts
Residents: $10
Non-residents: $20
Rec ID - required to
reserve at the resident
rate for all City facility
rentals
Youth (ages 3 - 17)
$10.00
Adults (age 18 - 61)
$15.00
Senior (62 and over)
$5.00
Lomita –
Lomita Park
Courts are first-come,
first-served
- -
In summary, a review of local cities indicates that pickleball pricing and access models are generally consistent, with some variation in structure. Hourly reservation fees for residents typically range from approximately $10 to $12 per hour, while non-resident rates are higher. Some agencies, including Redondo Beach, implement time-of-day pricing.
Based on this review, staff recommends increasing the current resident reservation fee from $9 per hour to $12 per hour.
Staff does not recommend allowing non-residents to obtain a membership or make reservations. The current policy only allows residents to obtain a membership to make reservations, and staff would recommend maintaining this approach. Prior to the courts being closed for renovation, the courts were reserved approximately 98% of the time, and obtaining a reservation was highly competitive due to strong demand. While this occurred when only two courts were available and hours were more limited, demand is anticipated to remain high upon reopening. For this same reason, staff does not recommend implementing a time-of-day pricing at the Kelly Pickleball Courts at this time.
If City Council is interested in exploring allowing non-residents to obtain a membership to make reservations or time-of-day pricing in the future, staff recommends revisiting this option following completion of the court usage report to be presented after 90 days postreopening, which will provide more accurate data on court usage under the expanded court capacity and hours.
Additionally, based on the review of local cities, membership models are not consistently applied across all. However, staff recommends maintaining the annual membership requirement for residents to be able to access the reservation system. It provides a mechanism to manage access to a high-demand facility while further supporting cost recovery for tasks associated with managing reservations. Such tasks include but are not limited to ensuring reservation compliance; daily posting of reservation signage;
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 7
conducting routine site checks throughout the day; checking in with reservation holders; and modifying or canceling reservations in accordance with established policies and member requests. Staff would recommend the annual membership rate be increased to $25, in line with the cost of the annual membership for Redondo Beach.
Some cities also provide a drop-in play model; however, staff would not recommend implementing such a model in Hermosa Beach, as the Parks and Recreation Department does not have dedicated onsite staff to monitor court usage. While staff perform routine checks, they are also responsible for overseeing multiple indoor and outdoor recreational facilities citywide, and a drop-in system without consistent onsite supervision could create operational and enforcement challenges.
For informational purposes, staff is including the following supplemental information to the fee study. While this level of detail is not typically included in a recreation fee study, where the study focuses on market comparisons and consideration of staff time required to provide the service, staff has provided the information below to offer additional context and to support a broader understanding of the historical and operational considerations associated with the Kelly Pickleball Courts.
Prior Litigation Costs
The City was previously involved in litigation arising from an incident whereby a patron sustained injuries when playing pickleball on April 10, 2019 at the Kelly Pickleball Courts.
The matter was resolved through a Settlement and Release Agreement (settlement) for $3M executed on October 26, 2021, which was funded through the City’s insurance provider, Independent Cities Risk Management Authority, subject to applicable deductibles and cost-sharing provisions, and certain site safety improvements. The settlement expressly provided that the resolution of the matter did not constitute an admission of liability by the City. Because litigation and insurance-related costs are managed through the City’s risk pool and are not allocated at the facility or program level, this information is provided for general context only and is not incorporated into the fee analysis.
Capital Costs (Project Costs)
As the Kelly Courts Renovation Project is not yet complete, total project costs are still being finalized. The City Council awarded a contract for $825,999, plus a $244,942 contingency, which is available for use if needed. Staff has completed all scope items with the current contractor but is in the process of retaining a completion contractor to finish the remaining resurfacing work for the tennis and pickleball courts. At this time, those negotiations are still underway, but staff anticipates that the remaining work can be completed within the approved budget for the CIP. The pickleball courts make up roughly 25% of the total area of the Kelly Courts facility; therefore, it is reasonable to estimate that the cost for pickleball court renovation is approximately 25% of the overall project cost, approximately $206,000 to $268,000, pending final negotiations.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 7
Maintenance
Estimated annual maintenance and utility costs associated with the pickleball courts are approximately $8,900 annually.
Administrative Overhead
The anticipated annual direct labor cost for the Parks and Recreation Department to oversee the Pickleball Membership Program and associated reservation system is approximately $11,000. With the addition of a 10–15% administrative overhead to account for indirect City support services, the total estimated annual cost is approximately $12,100 to $12,650.
Options for Council Consideration:
Staff recommends City Council consider one of the following options:
1. Maintain the current annual membership rate of $19 and hourly reservation rate of $9 per hour for residents;
2. Approve staff’s recommended annual membership rate of $25 and hourly reservation rate of $12 per hour for residents; or
3. Approve City Council’s suggested rates, provided at its March 24, 2026 meeting, of an annual membership rate of $25 and an hourly reservation rate of $15 per hour for residents.
Based on the option approved by City Council, staff would prepare the necessary code amendments and update the City’s Master Fee Schedule to reflect the adopted fees and return to City Council for review and consideration through a public hearing.
Fiscal Impact:
Depending on the option selected by City Council pertaining to the Kelly Pickleball Court annual membership and reservation rates for residents, anticipated revenue to the General Fund would be as follows:
Option Membership Reservation Total Revenue
Option 1:
$19 annual / $9 hourly reservation $7500 $46,000 $53,500 Option 2:
$25 annual / $12 hourly reservation $9,900 $61,300 $71,200 Option 3:
$25 annual / $15 hourly reservation $9,900 $76,700 $86,600 Attachments:
1. Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 7
Respectfully Submitted by: Lisa Nichols, Parks and Recreation Director Noted for Fiscal Impact: Henry Chao, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Brandon Walker, Administrative Services Director Legal Review: Jason Baltimore, Interim City Attorney
Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager
KELLY PICKLEBALL COURTS USE POLICY
City of Hermosa Beach • Parks and Recreation Department 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 318-0280 [email protected]
Office Hours: Monday–Thursday, 7:00 am–6:00 pm
PICKLEBALL COURTS
The Pickleball Courts are available to the public with a balance of recreational and instructional play.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Hours of Operation: 9:00 am–7:00 pm daily.
2. Only traditional pickleball play is permitted unless otherwise approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.
3. Singles and doubles play is permitted.
4. A maximum of one-hour play is allowed when others are waiting to play.
5. City-sponsored activities have priority over all reservations and drop-in play on all courts.
6. All classes, tournaments, instruction, and organized activities require prior permit approval by the Parks and Recreation Department.
7. Courts 1–4 are available for reservation and walk-on play except on Fridays, when all courts are designated for walk-on play only and are not available for reservations.
8. Reservations may be made by Hermosa Beach residents only.
9. Reserved times are posted on each court and are updated on a daily basis.
10. Pickleball etiquette and sportsmanship shall always be present.
11. Only approved equipment outlined in the Kelly Courts Use Policy is allowed.
12. Animals are not permitted in the court areas at any time.
13. Users of the pickleball courts are expected to maintain the integrity and cleanliness of the courts at all times. The following items and actions are strictly prohibited:
o Food and beverages in glass containers
o Chalk, paint, or other markings on the court surface
o Any acts of defacing, damaging, or altering the court or signage in any way
14. Report any court damage or vandalism through the City’s GoHermosa! App immediately.
15. The City reserves the right to close the courts at any time due to inclement weather, maintenance needs, or unsafe conditions.
16. Play at your own risk.
17. Violation of these rules and regulations may result in suspension of court privileges and/or other enforcement actions as determined by the Community Resources Department.
EQUIPMENT
1. Only paddles specifically designed for pickleball are permitted. Paddles must have a polypropylene or composite core and a fiberglass, graphite, or composite face. Wood, aluminum, metal, stringed, modified, or homemade paddles are prohibited.
2. Pickleball balls that create excessive noise, pose safety concerns, or risk damage to the court surface are prohibited. Dura Fast pickleballs are not permitted.
3. Use of foam pickleballs is encouraged for casual play, drills, or instructional purposes, as approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.
4. Court Protection: The Parks and Recreation Department reserves the authority to determine whether equipment complies with this policy.
RESERVATIONS
1. Hermosa Beach residents must hold a valid annual Pickleball Membership to reserve a court.
2. Pickleball Memberships may be purchased through the Parks and Recreation Department during office hours.
Membership applications may be submitted in person or electronically by email to [email protected]. Proof of residency is required and may be provided by a government-issued photo identification showing a current Hermosa Beach address. If the photo identification does not reflect a current Hermosa Beach address, a utility bill dated within the past 30 days must also be submitted.
3. Reservations are issued on a first-come, first-served basis and may be made no sooner than one day and no more than seven days in advance, for a maximum of two hours per member, per day by email to [email protected] or through the online reservation system. The online reservation system opens at 7:00 am on the earliest eligible advance reservation day.
4. All reservation fees are due at the time the reservation is made.
5. Reservations may only be modified on the same calendar day they are made and must be modified during office hours by email to [email protected].
6. Refunds will only be issued due to inclement weather or City-initiated court closures. Members are responsible for notifying the Parks and Recreation Department within 24 hours of the cancelled reservation date to be eligible for a refund.
7. The City reserves the right to cancel or modify reservations due to maintenance needs, unsafe conditions, or City-sponsored activities.
CONSIDERATION OF
INCREASE TO PICKLEBALL
MEMBERSHIP AND
RESERVATION FEES
Background
• Comparable Agencies Reviewed
o Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo,
Torrance, and Lomita
• Resident Reservations typically $10-$12/hour
CURRENT HERMOSA BEACH
FEES AND TRENDS
$9/hour resident reservations
$19 annual membership
High Demand
Reserved 98% of available time prior to court renovation project
OPTIONS FOR
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• Option 1 - $19 annual & $9 hourly
o Anticipated revenue: $53,500
• Option 2 (Staff Recommendation) - $25 annual &
$12 hourly
o Anticipated revenue: $71,200
• Option 3 - $25 annual & $15 hourly
o Anticipated revenue: $86,600
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: May 12, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CMO-029
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LOS ANGELES COASTAL AREA SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY (City Manager Steve Napolitano)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council:
1. Provide direction on whether the City of Hermosa Beach should participate in the National Park Service (NPS) Los Angeles Coastal Area Special Resource Study; and
2. Provide direction on whether to provide comments to National Park Services Resource Study.
Executive Summary:
The National Park Service (NPS), under direction from Congress (Public Law 117-328, Section 634), enacted in December 2022, has initiated a Special Resource Study (SRS) evaluating portions of the Los Angeles County coastline. This includes areas from Will Rogers State Beach to Torrance Beach for potential inclusion in the National Park System.
The NPS is asking for the City’s approval to be included in the SRS.
Background:
The City of Hermosa Beach lies within the study area. The study will assess whether coastal resources meet federal criteria for national park designation and evaluate potential management alternatives.
A Special Resource Study is a formal evaluation conducted by the NPS to determine whether an area is eligible for designation as a unit of the National Park System. The NPS anticipates completing this study by early 2027.
The study evaluates the following four criterias:
National Significance
Suitability
Feasibility
Need for Direct NPS Management
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 3
If the study finds qualifying resources, recommendations are submitted to Congress. Any designation would require Congressional action or presidential proclamation.
The coastal zone under consideration generally extends from the mean high tide line inland approximately 200 yards.
California Coastal Commission Potential Impacts:
The Coastal Commission’s authority comes from the California Coastal Act of 1976. The Coastal Act governs Coastal development permits, public access, environmental protection, and local coastal program (LCP) oversight. Nothing in the NPS Special Resource Study overrides or replaces that authority. If and when the national park designation is recommended and approved, the Coastal Commission would retain permitting authority in the coastal zone.
If the National Park Service becomes involved, projects may require dual coordination between NPS and the Coastal Commission. It may add complexity to permitting coastal access improvements. However, being part of the NPS may provide more access to federal funding opportunities for coastal improvements.
Discussion:
An initial public comment period was open from February 5 through April 6, 2026. The public comment period was extended to May 23, 2026. Additional engagement opportunities are expected as the study progresses.
The NPS is currently seeking input from local agencies, stakeholders, and the public. City Council direction is requested regarding whether Hermosa Beach should participate in this process. Additionally, the City of Hermosa Beach may consider not to be included in this study. If the Council chooses not to participate, the City may forgo any future designation as a national park.
Participation in the study provides the City an opportunity to:
Ensure local priorities and concerns are represented
Clarify the City’s role in any future management scenarios Advocate for preservation, access, and local control considerations Options for Council Consideration:
Option 1: Approve the City’s participation in the NPS study and direct staff to:
Submit formal comments on behalf of the City
Coordinate with regional agencies
Monitor study progress
Return to Council with updates
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 3
Option 2: No Participation
Take no action at this time.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Any future impacts are unknown at this time.
Attachments:
1. National Park Service Letter Request
2. Los Angeles Coastal Area Special Resource Study Newsletter Respectfully Submitted by: Leo Zalyan, Management Analyst Concur: Lisa Nichols, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
DENVER SERVICE CENTER
1 Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 50
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, Colorado 80225-0287
May 4, 2026
Steve Napolitano
City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Napolitano,
I am contacting you because it is our understanding that the City is the owner of Hermosa City Beach. If you have received this letter in error, please disregard this notice. In that case and if possible, the favor of your assistance in providing any information about the correct recipient and contact information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
I am interested in learning about your property because the National Park Service (NPS) is currently conducting a special resource study of sites associated with the Los Angeles coastal area. As background, the study is being prepared as directed by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (Public Law 117-328). The law directs the study to place special focus on the following areas:
• The coastline and adjacent areas to the Santa Monica Bay from Will Rogers State Beach to Torrance Beach.
• The area in and around Ballona Creek.
• The area in and around the Baldwin Hills.
• The area in and around the San Pedro section of the City of Los Angeles, excluding the Port of Los Angeles north of Crescent Avenue.
A special resource study evaluates resources (such as historic sites) using congressionally established criteria for national significance, suitability, feasibility, and need for direct NPS management. Based on this evaluation, the National Park Service will analyze whether any of the above study sites meet the criteria to be eligible for inclusion in the National Park System as a national park unit, either in part or as a whole. At the conclusion of the study, the Secretary of the Interior will submit the study findings to Congress for its consideration. The study itself does not result in a national park designation or any other special designation, but the study can be used by Congress to inform further action, such as designating one or more of the study sites as a
new national park unit. Only Congress or the President of the United States has the authority to designate a new unit of the National Park System.
The special resource study process involves gathering and evaluating information about each site, conducting historical research, and seeking public input on the potential of the study sites becoming a national park unit, individually or collectively. You can find updates about the study on the project webpage, https://parkplanning.nps.gov/LosAngelesCoastal. If you approve of your property being included in the study analysis, the study team would gather information about the property and collect information to support an analysis of the property's national significance, suitability, feasibility, and potential need for direct NPS management.
Including your feedback is important for this analysis so that any information about your property reflects your information and feedback accurately. To this end, we would appreciate your answers to the following questions:
1. Who or what organization owns and/or manages your property?
2. How is the site currently being used? Do any events happen there, and if so, what type of events? Is the site open to the community or to the public in any way?
3. Do you want to work with the National Park Service on this study’s analysis of historical significance and feasibility as a potential national park unit of some form, if a park that interprets the history of the Los Angeles coastal area is considered by Congress in the future? Do you want your property to be included in this study?
4. Would you support the creation of a national park unit that involves your property in some way, whether through historical interpretation or public visitation, possibly by forming a partnership with the National Park Service?
5. Do you have any concerns about interpreting the history of the Los Angeles coastal area at your property? If so, what are your concerns?
6. Do you have any concerns about maintaining the physical appearance and condition of your property now or in the future, particularly the features that contribute to its historical significance?
7. If the opportunity to donate or sell your property at a fair market value to the U.S.
Government were to arise at some point in the future, would you be interested in this possibility? Please note that the federal government would only consider property acquisition through willing sellers for donations or purchases.
8. Is there anything you would like us to know about your property? Finally, please know that it is entirely your decision on whether your property is included in the special resource study. If you choose not to participate, we will not include your property in the study’s analysis. I would like to follow up with you with a phone call to seek your feedback on whether the property can be included, and to answer any questions you may have. If possible, please contact me at 720-415-1290 or at [email protected].
Many thanks for your time and attention to this matter. I hope to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Sarah Bodo, Project Manager
National Park Service
Denver Service Center Planning Division
SARAH BODO
Digitally signed by SARAH
BODO
Date: 2026.05.04 16:37:16
-07'00'
CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY’S
PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LOS ANGELES COASTAL AREA
SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY
City of Hermosa Beach
May 12, 2026
Background
▪ Per Public Law 117-328, enacted in December 2022, initiated a Special Resource Study evaluating portions of the Los Angeles County coastline. ▪ Study areas include from Will Rogers State Beach to Torrance Beach for potential inclusion in the National Park System (NPS).
▪ The study will assess whether coastal resources meet federal criteria for national park designation and evaluate potential management alternatives.
▪ The coastal zone under consideration generally extends from the mean high tide line inland approximately 200 yards.
NPS Study Steps
▪ The NPS anticipates completing this study by early 2027. ▪ If the study finds qualifying resources, recommendations are submitted to Congress.
▪ Any designation would require Congressional action or presidential proclamation.
Coastal Commission Potential Impacts
▪ The Coastal Commission’s authority comes from the California Coastal Act of 1976.
▪ The Act governs Coastal development permits, public access, environmental protection, and local coastal program (LCP) oversight. ▪ If and when the national park designation is recommended and approved, the Coastal Commission would retain permitting authority in the coastal zone.
▪ If the National Park Service becomes involved, projects may require dual coordination between NPS and the Coastal Commission.
Discussion
▪ National Park Servies is seeking input from agencies, stakeholders and the public.
Staff is seeking direction:
1. Consideration of City's Participation in the NPS Study by submission of comments and responses to NPS Questions; or
2. Decline to participate in the NPS Study.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY’S
PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LOS ANGELES COASTAL AREA
SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY
City of Hermosa Beach
May 12, 2026
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: May 12, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-PD-008
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO DISCUSS IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
ALCOHOL-SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS
Information items are for discussion only. No action will be taken. A City Council majority may request an action item to return at a future meeting. (Police Chief Landon Phillips)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council receive and file an informational report discussing identification requirements for alcohol-serving establishments, and provide direction, if so desired.
Executive Summary:
At the September 9, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council requested an information report on electronic identification scanners. This report provides an overview of electronic identification scanners, shared feedback from The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and outlines future practices.
Background:
At the September 9, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council requested to discuss the possibility of implementing identification requirements for alcoholic beverage establishment, and if feasible, include input from ABC, and include available technology to combat fake identification.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
September 9, 2025
Councilmember Jackson, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, requested staff to provide an information report on identification scanners.
Discussion:
Identification (ID) scanners are devices or software applications that read and process information from identification documents, such as driver licenses and ID cards. Their main functions include data capture, age verification, fraud detection, and audit trail creation. ID scanners perform these functions through image capture, data extraction, authentication, and data processing and storage. For alcoholic beverage establishments, ID scanners help verify age and detect fraudulent driver licenses.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 3
Feedback from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control The Hermosa Beach Police Department coordinated with ABC to understand the best methods for detecting fraudulent IDs. ABC advised that the best method to detect fraudulent IDs is having a trained employee checking each ID by hand and by sight. They pointed out that most ID checks are completed too quickly, in under ten (10) seconds, which is not enough time to verify if an ID is authentic. ABC advised that proper ID checks should take longer and include touching the ID, confirming the birth and expiration date, and matching the photo to the physical appearance of the individual. ABC was unable to endorse or recommend a specific type of ID scanner, noting that scanners may allow fraudulent IDs to pass and should not be relied upon as the sole method of detection.
While some scanners retain a digital picture of the scanned ID, which proves useful during investigations, it doesn’t prevent the ID from being accepted at the point of sale. For an alcoholic beverage establishment, ABC recommends requiring the installation of camera(s) that are focused on areas where ID verification is conducted. Video footage captured by these cameras has been useful in previous cases involving the purchase of alcohol with fraudulent IDs.
Actions for Council Consideration:
While ID scanning technology continues to advance, so have fraudulent IDs. Advanced fraudulent IDs can bypass even modern ID scanners. Although ID scanners alone will not eliminate the problem, it can help detect them when combined with a thorough manual and visual verification. The City of Hermosa Beach cannot require existing alcoholic beverage establishments to install ID scanners but can be considered to be a requirement as a condition of approval for new alcoholic beverage establishments requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or when an amendment to an existing CUP is requested.
For alcoholic beverage establishments requiring a CUP, the City currently imposes standard conditions of approval like mandatory Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) training for staff. Moving forward, a condition of approval requiring the installation of an ID scanner, to the satisfaction of the Hermosa Beach Police Department, may be imposed on new alcoholic beverage establishments, as well as a requirement for video surveillance of the ID verification area.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this information report.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence
Respectfully Submitted by: Johnny Case, Assistant Planner Concur: Eric Cahalan, Police Captain
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Concur: Alison Becker, Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 3
Concur: Landon Phillips, Police Chief
Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager
Redactions have been made pursuant to Government Code §§ 7923.600–7923.625, 7928.300, and 7929.210.
INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO
DISCUSS IDENTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR ALCOHOLSERVING ESTABLISHMENTS
May 12, 2026
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• September 9, 2025, City Council meeting
• City Council requested an information report on
electronic identification scanners.
BACKGROUND
• City Council requested to discuss the possibility
of implementing identification requirements for
alcoholic beverage establishment, and if
feasible, include input from ABC, and include
available technology to combat fake
identification.
DISCUSSION
• ID scanners can read and process information
from identification documents such as driver
licenses and ID cards
o Data capture
o Age verification
o Fraud detection
o Audit trail
• May help detect fraudulent ID cards
Recommendation from ABC
• Best method to detect fraudulent IDs is with a
thorough check by hand and sight
• Most checks are done in under 10 seconds which
is not enough time
o Confirm birth date, expiration date, matching photo,
physical appearance
Recommendation from ABC
• Fraudulent IDs have improved and may not be
detected by scanners
o Not reliable
• Installation of cameras at the point of sale
• Video will assist with follow up investigations
DISCUSSION
• City cannot require existing establishments to use
ID scanners
• Can be considered as a requirement for new or
amended CUP
• Require additional conditions of approval for any
new or amended CUP
o ABC LEAD training
o ID scanners
o Video requirements
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Receive and file this informational report, and
provide direction, if so desired
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: May 12, 2026
Staff Report No. 26-CMO-024
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR ASSEMBLY BILL 1942: ELECTRIC BICYCLES:
REGISTRATION AND SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES
Information items are for discussion only. No action will be taken. A City Council majority may request an action item to return at a future meeting. (Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends City Council discuss providing a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1942.
Executive Summary:
The City of Hermosa Beach regularly expresses its support or opposition regarding legislative matters that would have an impact on the City. As requested by the City Council at its March 10, 2026, City Council meeting, staff presents the following item for consideration to provide a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1942 Electric bicycles:
registration and special license plates.
Background:
Assembly Bill 1942 (AB 1942) was introduced February 13, 2026, by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, and proposes mandatory Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) registration and license plates for Class II and Class III electric bicycles (e-bikes). The bill aims to improve safety and accountability, mandates rear plates, proof of ownership and creates an Electric Bicycle Registration Fund that will fund the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the new mandatory registration and licensing program for Class II and Class III e-bikes.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
March 10, 2026
Councilmember Rob Saemann requested, and Councilmember
Keegan supported a future agenda item to provide a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1942.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 3
Analysis:
Unlike vehicles and motorcycles, e-bikes are not currently required to display license plates, making it difficult to identify riders involved in dangerous behavior or violations of traffic laws.
Under the proposed bill, AB 1942 would require the following:
Class II and Class III electric bicycles to be registered with the DMV; Class II and Class III electric bicycles to have a clearly displayed license plate issued by the DMV;
Riders to possess proof of ownership matching the serial number of the electric bicycle;
The DMV to establish and develop a registration process for electric bicycles; and Creation of the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund
AB 1942 would also require the DMV to adopt regulations to implement these requirements and would make a person operating a Class II or Class III e-bike in violation of these requirements guilty of an infraction punishable by specified fines. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Furthermore, the bill would create the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund in the State Treasury, require all moneys received by the department pursuant to these provisions to be deposited in the fund, and require all moneys in the fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the department for the administration of these provisions. The bill would also appropriate an unspecified sum of moneys from the General Fund to the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund as a loan for purposes of administering these provisions.
As of April 28, 2026, the League of California Cities (League) authored a letter of support if the current bill is amended. The following amendments have been proposed by the League:
1. Apply the Program to All E-Bike Classifications (Class I, II, and III) Limiting the program to only Class II and Class III devices create enforcement ambiguity and undermines the goal of a clear, consistent regulatory framework.
From a city enforcement perspective, distinctions between classifications are not always readily apparent in real time. A comprehensive approach that includes all three classes will improve compliance, reduce confusion, and support equitable application of the law.
2. Establish a Clear and Reasonable Cap on Registration Fees While the bill appropriately limits fees to “reasonable regulatory costs,” additional clarity is needed to ensure affordability and prevent cost barriers—particularly for lower income residents who rely on e-bikes as an accessible transportation option.
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 3
A defined, reasonable fee cap will help balance program sustainability with equity considerations and maintain access to this important mobility option.
3. Require Readily Identifiable Visual Markers by Classification For the program to be effective, law enforcement must be able to quickly and reliably identify the classification of an e-bike from a distance. The League recommends requiring unique visual identifiers, such as color-coded license plates, decals, or other standardized markers for each classification. This will enhance field-level enforcement, improve compliance, and reduce reliance on time-intensive verification methods.
This bill is currently in the first House under Fiscal review.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Respectfully Submitted by: Sara Russo, Senior Management Analyst Approved: Steve Napolitano, City Manager
ASSEMBLY BILL 1942
Background
• Introduced February 13, 2026
• Proposes mandatory Department of Motor Vehicle
(DMV) registration and license plates for Class II and
Class III electric bicycles
• The bill aims to improve safety and accountability,
mandates rear plates, proof of ownership and creates
an Electric Bicycle Registration Fund
ANALYSIS
Proposed Current Bill:
• Class II and Class III electric bicycles to be
registered with the DMV;
• Class II and Class III electric bicycles to have a
clearly displayed license plate issued by the
DMV;
• Riders to possess proof of ownership matching
the serial number of the electric bicycle;
• The DMV to establish and develop a registration
process for electric bicycles; and
• Creation of the Electric Bicycle Registration Fund
ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
League of California Cities Proposes Bill Amendments:
• Apply the program to all E-Bike classifications (Class I, II, and III)
• Establish a clear and reasonable cap on registration
fees
• Require readily identifiable visual markers by
classification
RECOMMENDATION
Options:
• Receive and file the report; or
• Direct staff to write a letter of support as the bill currently stands; or
• Direct staff to write a letter of support using the
amendments proposed by the League
City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1
Meeting Date: May 12, 2025
Staff Report No. 26-CMO-030
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.
The tentative future agenda provides a preliminary preview of topics planned for discussion at upcoming City Council meetings over a specified period, typically the next three months. The items listed in this document are "tentatively" scheduled, meaning they are subject to change and should not be considered final until the official agenda for each meeting is posted. This document is a work in progress and offers a glimpse into the City's priorities and planned discussions, allowing stakeholders to anticipate and prepare for potential topics of interest.
Key Features of a Tentative Future Agenda Document:
1. Tentative Schedule: Each agenda item is assigned a tentative date, indicating when it is expected to be discussed. These dates are provisional and may be adjusted based on various factors.
2. Work in Progress: The document is continuously updated as new items emerge, priorities shift, or additional information becomes available. This flexibility ensures City Council can address the most pressing issues in a timely manner.
3. Transparency and Communication: By publishing a tentative future agenda, the City aims to maintain transparency with residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. It helps the community stay informed about potential topics of discussion and provides an opportunity for public engagement and preparation.
4. Fluid Scheduling: The scheduling of agenda items is fluid until the official agenda for a specific City Council meeting is posted. Changes can occur due to various reasons, such as new developments, additional preparatory work required, or changes in workload or priority.
Attachment:
Tentative Future Agenda Items
CITY COUNCIL TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA
Revised: May 7, 2026 at 10:40 A.M.
MAY 26, 2026 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
MAY 26, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
PRESENTATIONS
RECOGNIZING HERMOSA BEACH 2025 CERTIFIED GREEN BUSINESSES
PRESENTATION ON COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
Cash Balance Report for March 2026 Administrative Services Director
Ongoing
Revenue Report, Expenditure Report, and CIP Report by Project for March 2026
Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report for April 2026 City Treasurer Ongoing Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Rotary Club of Hermosa Beach Farmer’s Market Agreement 2026 – 2028
Parks and Recreation Director Staff Request
Apr. 27, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Code Update - Administrative Procedures Community Development Director
Staff Request
Jul. 23, 2025
Consider increasing the City's contract threshold limits, including the City Manager's signing authority and the guidelines for consent calendar approval.
(supported by: Detoy, Keegan, and Francois)
(Continued from April 28, 2026)
Administrative Services
Director
Council
Direction
Mar. 10, 2026
Adoption of Kelly Pickleball Court Reservation and Membership Fee and modification of the Master Fee Schedule
Parks and Recreation Director Council
Direction
May 12, 2025
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget - Department Presentations (Continued from May 12, 2026 if needed)
Administrative Services
Director
Annual
Endorsement of Arakelian Enterprises, Inc (DBA Athens Services) Request for an Annual Rate Adjustment to the Maximum Rate for Solid Waste Services
Environmental Programs
Manager
Staff Request
Mar. 16, 2026
Award of contract for preparing a vulnerability assessment and sea level rise adaptation plan (between $600K - $700K)
Environmental Programs
Manager
Staff Request
Mar. 9, 2026
Consideration of Special Event Policy Guide and Fee Updates Parks and Recreation Director Staff Request Apr. 21, 2026
Award of Professional Services Agreement for California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA) Project Analysis and other Environmental Services for the Public Works City Yard Public Works Director Staff Request
Feb. 25, 2026
Adoption of resolutions regarding the Engineer’s Report and setting June 23, 2026, for the public hearing for the Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District FY 2026–2027 Public Works Director Annual
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Los Angeles County Fire and Ambulance Monthly Report for January, February, and March 2026
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
2 Action minutes of the Public Works Commission Meeting of March 18, 2026
Public Works Director Ongoing
Police Crime Statistics for April 2026 Police Chief Ongoing Action minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 21, 2026 and May 5, 2026
Community Development
Director
Ongoing
THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERIVEWS
THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2026 @ 7:00 PM
STUDY SESSION: FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
3 JUNE 9, 2026 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
JUNE 9, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE AS PRIDE MONTH IN HERMOSA BEACH
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
Approval of Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Senate Bill 1) Project List for the City of Hermosa Beach for Fiscal Year 2026-27
Public Works Director Annual
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Adoption of Fiscal Year 2026–27 Budget Administrative Services Director
Annual
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Two Appointments to Public Works Commission and One
Appointment to Civil Service Board
City Clerk Annual
Consideration of Resolutions Calling and Giving Notice
Pertaining to the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election to be Conducted by the Los Angeles County Registrar -
Recorder/County Clerk
City Clerk Election Years
(No later than
June)
Award of contracts for on-call broker/dealer services Administrative Services Director/City Treasurer
Staff Request
Apr. 20, 2026
Award of Construction Contract for CIP 107 - Citywide Slurry Seal Project (~$380K)
Public Works Director Staff Request
Apr. 28, 2026
Award of Professional Service Agreements for On-Call
Environmental Monitoring and Testing Services (Two contracts at $200K each)
Public Works Director Staff Request
Feb. 25, 2026
Award of Construction Contract for CIP 504 - Playground Equipment Replacement Project (~$220K)
Public Works Director Staff Request
Apr. 30, 2026
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Action minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting of May 5, 2026
Parks and Recreation Director Ongoing
Parking Citation and Revenue Report – May 2026 Senior Management Analyst Ongoing
4 JUNE 23, 2026 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
JUNE 23, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
Cash Balance Report for April 2026 Administrative Services Director
Ongoing
Revenue Report, Expenditure Report, and CIP Report by Project for April 2026
Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report for May 2026 City Treasurer Ongoing Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Consideration of a Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Hermosa Beach
City Clerk Biennial
Second Reading - Zoning Code Update - Administrative
Procedures
Community Development
Director
Council
Direction
May 26, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Annual Staffing Vacancies Report – Assembly Bill 2561 (AB 2561) Human Resources Manager Annual Public Hearing to Review Delinquent Solid Waste Collection (Refuse) Charges for Consideration of Placing Said Charges on the Property Tax Rolls as a Special Assessment Affecting Only Those Properties with Refuse Bills Delinquent as of March 31, 2026 Environmental Programs
Manager
Annual
Adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and levying
assessments for the Hermosa Beach Landscaping and Street Lighting District for Fiscal Year 2026–2027.
Public Works Director Annual
Public Hearing on the Annual Levy of Sewer Charges on the Property Tax Roll
Public Works Director Annual
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
HCD Annual Progress Report on Housing Community Development Director
Staff Request
Feb. 11, 2026
Surfers Walk of Fame Relocation Review Parks and Recreation Director Council Direction
Mar. 24, 2026
Informational Item to Explore a Pilot Program for an
Entertainment Zone for Special Events
(supported by: Jackson and Saemann)
Parks and Recreation Director Council
Direction
Apr. 14, 2026
Adopt a Policy Regarding Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During City Council Meetings to Comply with SB 707 (Senate Bill 707)
City Clerk Staff Request
May 4, 2026
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Los Angeles County Fire and Ambulance Monthly Report for April 2026
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
Police Crime Statistics for May 2026 Police Chief Ongoing Action minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 19, 2026
Community Development
Director
Ongoing
5 NO MEETING - JULY 14, 2026
(DARK FOR SUMMER VACATION SEASON)
JULY 28, 2026 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL
DATE CLOSED SESSION
JULY 28, 2026 @ 6:00 PM
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing
Check Registers Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
Cash Balance Report for May 2026 Administrative Services Director
Ongoing
Revenue Report, Expenditure Report, and CIP Report by Project for May 2026
Administrative Services
Director
Ongoing
City Treasurer’s Report for June 2026 City Treasurer Ongoing Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL
Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Los Angeles County Fire and Ambulance Monthly Report for May 2026
Emergency Management
Coordinator
Ongoing
Police Crime Statistics for June 2026 Police Chief Ongoing Action minutes of the Public Works Commission Meeting of May 20, 2026
Public Works Director Ongoing
Action minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting of June 2, 2026
Parks and Recreation Director Ongoing
Action minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 16, 2026
Community Development
Director
Ongoing
NO MEETING – AUGUST 11, 2026
(DARK FOR SUMMER VACATION SEASON)
6 PENDING NEW ITEMS
STATUS /
TENTATIVE MEETING DATE
(Updated 12/29/25)
Landscape and Street Lighting District Assessment Adjustment (mail-in election authorization)
Initiated by: Council Direction Jul. 9, 2019
Public Works
Director
Pending staff availability.
If council agrees to
advance the adjustment,
it will need to go to a
citywide ballot in
compliance with
Proposition 218.
Emergency Services Municipal Code Chapter 2.56 Update Emergency Management
Coordinator
Waiting for State to review
proposed language
changes
Consideration of licensing agreement/fees for use of City logo Initiated by: Council Direction Jun. 9, 2020
City Attorney/City
Clerk
The City will develop a
licensing agreement for
commercial uses of the
City logo as part of a
comprehensive
Administrative
Memorandum (AM) on
City Branding and Logo
Use by City Staff. City staff
will begin drafting the AM
after finalizing the City’s
style guide and filing its
“Intent to Use” trademark
application for the City
logo with the USPTO. As
part of developing a
Licensing Agreement for
the Commercial Use of
the City Logo, staff will
establish a process for
reviewing and handling
these requests. This
process will likely include
the negotiation of
royalties and as well as
the preparation of a staff
report to obtain Council
approval to enter into the
agreement. Only after the
City receives the issuance
of a Notice of Allowance
from the USPTO can it
begin approving
applications for
commercial uses of the
logo.
Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory
Commission Volleyball Court Use Subcommittee was formed to review all aspects of the beach volleyball courts located in the residential area
Initiated: 2021
Parks and
Recreation Director To be completed in the
first quarter of 2026.
PLAN Hermosa 5-year check-in on milestones
(Supported by Massey, Campbell, Armato, Jackson)
Initiated by: Council Direction October 26, 2021
Community
Development
Director/Environmen
tal Program
Manager
The next update to City
Council will be in 2026
7 Consideration of rules that would govern operation of off-sale alcohol establishments in downtown and consideration of queuing for on-sale alcohol establishments. (supported by Massey, Saemann and Detoy)
Initiated by: Council Direction June 13, 2023
Community
Development/Polic
e Chief/Deputy City
Manager
Ordinance to be
established to address
items.
Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey and review of provisions in California Assembly Bill 43 that are anticipated to become effective on or about June 30, 2024.
Initiated by: Unanimous Council Direction July 25, 2023 Public Works
Director
Pending staffing
availability and
completion of other
previously requested
future agenda
items. Targeting Summer
2026.
Request Public Works Commission to review fines and other consequences involved with illegal tree removal and return to Council as an action item for discussion and deliberation. (supported by Saemann, Francois, Detoy)
Initiated by: Council Direction August 13, 2024
Public Works
Director
Pending staffing
availability and
completion of other
previously requested
future agenda items.
Explore Best Practices for Undergrounding. (supported by:
Detoy, Saemann, and Jackson)
Initiated by: Council Direction November 12, 2024
Public Works
Director
Pending staffing
availability and
completion of other
previously requested
future agenda items. Staff
will also need to request
funding in the future
budget cycle to support
bringing in appropriate
consulting expertise on
this item.
Refer the public pool discussion to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission for review prior to City Council.
(supported by Saemann, Detoy, and Jackson)
Initiated by: Council Direction June 24, 2025
Parks and
Recreation Director Pending Commission
Review
Hermosa Beach Lawn Bowling Club Operations
(supported by Jackson, Detoy, and Keegan)
Initiated by: Council Direction June 24, 2025
Parks and
Recreation Director Under Legal Review
Consideration of Adding Another Accessible Beach Mat,
Modifications to Existing Layout, and Potential for Outside Funding for a Permanent Installation (supported by: Francois, Saemann and Jackson)
Initiated by: Council Direction August 26, 2025
Public Works
Director Item will return to Council
after review by the Public
Works Commission
Agendize discussion on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and Robert’s Rules of Order at the next City Council Retreat
(supported by: Detoy and Jackson)
Initiated by: Council Direction September 9, 2025
City Manager The next City Council
Retreat will be scheduled
once a permanent City
Manager is appointed
Informational Item for Public Works Commission to study maximizing and expanding the street parking inventory through the analysis of the City's red curb standard to include studying golfcart parking spaces for reduced streets and studying the Driveway Parking Permit Program.
(supported by: Jackson and Saemann)
Initiated by: Council Direction September 9, 2025
Public Works
Director Pending staffing
availability and
completion of other
previously requested
future agenda items.
Informational Item to review the feasibility of collecting Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for short-term vacation rentals that are out of compliance, and of collecting unpaid fines from illegal short-term vacation rentals.
(supported by: Jackson and Saemann)
Initiated by: Council Direction September 9, 2025
Administrative
Services Director Staff will come back to
Council in the next few
months for an update.
8 Informational Item to Consider Including Dispatch Services as Part of Bid for Fire Services
(supported by: Keegan and Saemann)
Initiated by: Council Direction April 28, 2026
City Manager
Consideration of rescinding current CDP application for Short Term Rentals and have Staff bring back potential regulations that would expand STR opportunities throughout City and compare those to successful programs in other cities, including all rules and penalties that those cities employ, for potential revenue to City (supported by: Keegan, Saemann, and
Francois)
Initiated by: Council Direction August 28, 2026
Community
Development
Director
CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2026
(Regular Meeting Times: Closed Sessions at 5:00 PM and Open Sessions at 6:00 PM)
(Revised 5-7-26)
JANUARY 13, 2026
JANUARY 27, 2026
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
(ELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE)
MARCH 10, 2026
MARCH 24, 2026
APRIL 14, 2026
APRIL 28, 2026
FY 2026–2027 BUDGET STUDY SESSION
MAY 12, 2026
MAY 26, 2026
THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2026
FY 2026–2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
STUDY SESSION
JUNE 9, 2026
(ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2026–2027 BUDGET)
JUNE 23, 2026
NO MEETING JULY 14, 2026
(DARK)
JULY 28, 2026
January 5–7, 2026:
CCCA Legislative Tour in Sacramento, CA
May 14–17, 2026 (Tentative Dates):
CCCA Annual Municipal Seminar
July 9–12, 2026: ICA Summer Seminar
June 4–7, 2026:
U.S. Conference of Mayors Annual Meeting in Long
Beach, CA
January 15, 2026: State of the City Address
January 21–23, 2026 (Sacramento):
League of California Cities New Mayors & Council
Members Academy
May 7–8, 2026:
SCAG Regional Conference and General Assembly
in Palm Desert, CA
February 9-13, 2026: HBCSD Ski Week
February 20-22, 2026:
ICA Winter Seminar in Santa Barbara, CA
January 28–30, 2026:
U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting in D.C.
February 20-22, 2026:
ICA Winter Seminar in Santa Barbara, CA
June 12, 2026: HBCSD Summer Break Begins
Summer Vacation Season
Passover begins at sunset on April 1, 2026 and
ends at nightfall on April 9, 2026
(No work permitted)
April 6–10, 2026: HBCSD Spring Break
CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2026
(Regular Meeting Times: Closed Sessions at 5:00 PM and Open Sessions at 6:00 PM)
(Revised 5-7-26)
NO MEETING AUGUST 11, 2026
(DARK)
AUGUST 25, 2026
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
OCTOBER 13, 2026
OCTOBER 27, 2026
NOVEMBER 10, 2026
NO MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 2026
(DARK)
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2026
CERTIFICATON OF NOVEMBER 2026 ELECTION,
INSTALLATION OF NEW OFFICERS, AND
ELECTION OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
DECEMBER 8, 2026
NO MEETING DECEMBER 22, 2026
(DARK)
Rosh Hashanah begins at sunset on September 11,
2026 and ends at nightfall on September 13, 2026
(No work permitted)
Yom Kippur begins at sunset on September 20,
2026 and ends at nightfall on September 21, 2026
(No work permitted)
September 4–6, 2026 (Tentative Dates):
CCCA Annual Fall Educational Summit
Summer Vacation Season
Winter Holiday Season
Chanukah begins sunset of December 4, 2026 and
ends nightfall of December 12, 2026 (work
permitted, except Shabbat – Friday evening to
Saturday evening)
September 23–25, 2026:
League of California Cities Annual Conference at
Anaheim Convention Center
Thanksgiving Week
November 11, 2026: Veteran’s Day Holiday
November 3, 2026: General Election
(Three City Council Seats)
CITY MANAGER UPDATE
May 12, 2026
Update for May 12, 2026
• Memorial Day Holiday – Monday, May 25
➢ City Hall and Community Center Offices closed.
➢ Police, Public Works, and Fire personnel will remain available.
Police non-emergency line is 310-524-2750.
➢ Street sweeping and PCH parking enforcement suspended.
All other parking regulations remain in effect.
➢ No construction work permitted.
➢ Trash collection will be delayed by one day.
Power BI Desktop
Total Parking Meter Revenue
$0.0M
$0.2M
$0.4M
$0.6M
January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2
2025 2026
$360,901 $342,457
$421,150 $411,743
$474,356
$576,958
$657,873 $623,067
$462,681
$404,907 $425,249
$315,836
$549,972 $515,630
$683,758
$616,813
$0.29M $0.28M $0.33M $0.33M $0.38M
$0.46M $0.50M $0.45M
$0.33M $0.29M $0.31M
$0.22M
$0.39M $0.35M
$0.45M
$0.37M
$0.08M
$0.12M
$0.14M
$0.11M
$0.09M $0.10M
$0.09M
$0.13M $0.14M
$0.20M
$0.18M
IPS Coin Revenue IPS Credit Card Revenue ParkMobile Revenue Flowbird CC Revenue Flowbird Coin Revenue Citywide Percentage of Coin Revenue
4%
6%
8%
Jan 2025 Mar 2025 May 2025 Jul 2025 Sep 2025 Nov 2025 Jan 2026 Mar 2026
6.84%
4.04%
3.97% 6.71%
5.29%
5.51%
6.21% 4.17% 4.03% 4.25%
5.71% 6.19% 6.52%
4.54%
5.62%
6.62%
Parking Revenue Breakdown by Payment Method Month
All
Year
Multiple select…
Citywide Percentage of Revenue by Vendor
0%
50%
100%
January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April 2025 2026
81% 81% 79% 80% 81% 79% 75% 72% 70% 73% 72% 69% 72% 68% 66% 61% 22% 24% 22% 23% 27% 24% 28% 30% 30%
IPS Coin Revenue IPS Credit Card Revenue ParkMobile Revenue Flowbird CC Revenue Flowbird Coin Revenue
Power BI Desktop P 2026 2026 arking Citation Issuance Summary Total Citations Issued
0K
5K
January February March April May June July August September October November December 2026
4,328 3,958
4,379
3,747
5,254 5,401
4,843
4,275
3,446
4,064
3,294 3,202
3735 3362
4004
3589
Previous Year Citations Current Year Citiations
Violation Description
0K 2K
EXPIRED METER
EXPIRED METER SPACE
POSTED NO PARKING
DISPLAY OF PLATES *SEE BACKSIDE
EXP METER YL POST
TIME LIMIT 1 HOUR
NO PKG WED 8AM-11AM
NO PKG MON 8AM-11AM
NO PKG TUES 8AM-11AM
DISPLAY OF TABS *SEE BACKSIDE
NO PARKING ZONE
PKG SPACE MARKINGS
RED CURB
WHEELS TURNED/HILL
NO PKG THU 8AM-11AM
NO PKG TUES 8AM-10AM
2923
2017
1948
1504
829
624
501
420
322
314
313
298
276
252
238
199
Citation Issuance Location
0K 1K 2K 3K
HERMOSA AVE
PIER AVE
LOT A
LOT C (STRUCTURE C)
MANHATTAN AVE
11TH ST
MONTEREY BLVD
LOT B
VALLEY DR
10TH ST
14TH ST
6TH ST
LONGFELLOW AVE
8TH ST
LOT D
2ND ST
3409
1396
1374
875
794
554
497
419
402
398
204
192
161
160
155
154
Total Citations Issued
14,690
Total Citations Issued -
Trendline
3K
4K
Previous Year
Comparison
0K 14,690 50K
Power BI Desktop
4/1/2026
4/30/2026
Parking Citation Locations
Citations Issued
3,589
Total Citations Issued
0K
2K
4K
April
2026
3,589
Citation Violation Description
0 500
DISPLAY OF PLATES *SEE BACKSIDE
EXPIRED METER SPACE
POSTED NO PARKING
EXPIRED METER
TIME LIMIT 1 HOUR
EXP METER YL POST
NO PKG WED 8AM-11AM
DISPLAY OF TABS *SEE BACKSIDE
NO PKG MON 8AM-11AM
NO PKG THU 8AM-11AM
NO PKG TUES 8AM-11AM
PKG SPACE MARKINGS
NO PKG WED 8AM-10AM
RED CURB
NO PARKING ZONE
NO PKG MON 8AM -10AM
NO PKG TUES 8AM-10AM
WHEELS TURNED/HILL
680
540
480
419
162
146
137
104
101
73 62
61 59
53 50
49 46
45 Violation Description
All
Violation Code
All
Citation Violation Description
© 2026 TPage 988 of 990 omTom, © 2026 Microsoft Corporation Power BI Desktop
Year
2026 2026
Parking Citation Fine Revenue
Total Citation Fine Amounts
$0K
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
January February March April
2026
$202,513
$208,270
$184,652
$220,925
$196,204
Total Citations Issued
14,690
Total Fine Amount
$810,051
Total Citations Issued
0K
2K
4K
Jan 2026 Feb 2026 Mar 2026 Apr 2026
3669 3301 3942 3516
66 61 62 73
Citation Warning
Total Citations Issued by Weekday
0K 2K
1 Monday
2 Tuesday
3 Wednesday
4 Thursday
5 Friday
6 Saturday
7 Sunday
2461
2237
2171
1864
1826
2020
2111
Violation Description
All
Violation Code
All
Power BI Desktop Pa 1/1/2026 4/30/2026 rking Permit Issuance fffff
Total Permits Issued
0K
1K
2K
January February March April
2026
98 2582
2291
700
Total Citations Issued by Permit Type
0K 2K
Vehicle Sticker 2026 2026
Guest Permit 2026 2026
Employee Permit Q2 April-June 2026
Employee Permit Q1 January-March 2026
Vehicle Sticker 2026
Guest Permit 2026
2818
2590
141
99 14
9 Monthly Permits Issued by Type
0K
1K
2K
January February March April
2026
98 2,582
2,291
700
1228 1059
303
1337
1186
295
Employee Permit Q1 Janu…
Employee Permit Q2 April-…
Guest Permit 2026
Guest Permit 2026 2026
Vehicle Sticker 2026
Vehicle Sticker 2026 2026
Total Permits Issued
5,671
Revenue Collected
$334,612
Breakdown of Permit Issuance Type
99 (1.75%)
2590 (45.67%)
14 (0.25%)
2818 (49.69%)
Employee Permit Q1 Janu…
Employee Permit Q2 April-…
Guest Permit 2026
Guest Permit 2026 2026
Vehicle Sticker 2026
Vehicle Sticker 2026 2026