Minutes — Hermosa Beach City Council, May 12, 2026

CITY COUNCIL - May 12, 2026

1. CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM
Public Comments:

Mayor Detoy called the Closed Session meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:

City Clerk Martha Alvarez led roll call.

Present:

Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, and Councilmember Saemann

Absent:

Councilmember Francois
Councilmember Francois arrived at 5:05 p.m.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. SUPPLEMENTAL Attachment HBCC 5PM for Post Agenda Submission.pdf Alyssa Greene
Against dog park in Valley Park. For green belt dog park.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:

Jim Holtz (In-Person)
Councilmember Francois arrived at the City Council meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

City Clerk Martha Alvarez led roll call.

Present:

Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann

4. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments:

The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:05 p.m.

4.a
MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on April 14, 2026 Public Comments:

4.b

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (EXISTING LITIGATION)
Public Comments:

California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Name of Case:

Koerner v. City of Hermosa Beach
Case Number:
25STCP00891
Name of Case:

Everett Faulk v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission, et al Case Number:
24STCP04022

4.c

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT / EMPLOYMENT / EVALUATION / DISCIPLINE / DISMISSAL / RELEASE Public Comments:

California Government Code section 54957
Title:

Direction regarding personnel matters including application of memoranda of understanding, and personnel rules related to displacement and reemployment rights.

4.d

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Public Comments:

California Government Code section 54957.6
City Negotiator:

Tyler Cashman, Interim Human Resources Manager
Organizations:

Professional and Administrative Employee Group and Teamsters, Professional and Medical Employees’ Union, Local 986

5. OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
Public Comments:

Mayor Detoy called the Open Session to order at 6:04 p.m.

6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Public Comments:

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C
ounty of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACoFD), Assistant Fire Chief, Brian Kane.

7. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:

City Clerk Martha Alvarez led roll call.

Present:

Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann

8. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Public Comments:

Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding Koerner v. City of Hermosa Beach
, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25STCP00891. The Council voted 4-1 to direct the City Attorney not to file an appeal.

9. ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
Public Comments:

Mayor Detoy announced the following upcoming events: the Community-Wide Garage Sale on May 16th from 7:00 AM to noon; Fiesta Hermosa returning Memorial Day weekend, May 23–25, 2026, marking its 50th year as Southern California's largest beachside arts and crafts festival; and Little League playoffs at Clarkfield. The Mayor invited residents to register for the no-fee garage sale permit on the City website and directed the public to fiestahermosa.net for Fiesta information.

10. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Public Comments:

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

Moved by:

Councilmember Saemann
Seconded by:

Councilmember Francois
Motion by Councilember Saemann, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to approve the order of the agenda.

Ayes (5)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Motion Carried

11. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:

11.a

RECOGNIZING MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH
Public Comments:

Mayor Detoy on behalf of the City Council presented a proclamation declaring May as Mental Health Awareness Month to Beach Cities Health District (BCHD), Volunteer Engagement Coordinator, Alejandra Sierra.

Volunteer Engagement Coordinator Sierra spoke on Mental Health Awareness.

BCHD Alcove Beach Cities Representatives Chloe and Trevor announced the grand opening of their permanent facility on May 16, 2026, supporting mental health and wellbeing for community members ages 12-25.

11.b
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ST. PATRICK’S DAY PARADE POST-EVENT REVIEW Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 11.b.pdf
Chamber of Commerce President, Michelle Crispin provided the PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council questions.

City Council thanked President Crispin on the report and the Chamber of Commerce efforts on the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

12. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. 5-12-2026 ecomment report .pdf

2. SUPPLEMENTAL Attachment HBCC 6PM for Post Agenda Submission.pdf tonyhiggins
Please click/tap on link above
Ellen Robbins
I am very much in favor of a dog park and supportive of the Valley Park East location. There is more than ample space and parking at that location, and a designated dog park area prevents people from letting their dogs run around there off leash which is prevalent. A dog park would be a tremendous asset to our community and would permit residents to connect and bond.

Monica Kumar
Dear Council member,
I am writing to respectfully ask that you vote no on placing a dog park at Valley Park.

Valley Park is one of the few remaining open green spaces in our neighborhood that is truly centered around children and families. Every day, kids from Valley and Vista come there to play sports, run freely, meet friends after school, and spend time outdoors instead of on electronics. It is constantly used by families, youth sports, and children learning to be active and social in a safe community environment.

We already have many places in Hermosa and neighboring beach cities for dogs to walk and exercise, including the Greenbelt and other outdoor areas. What we do not have enough of are open grassy spaces dedicated to kids and families.

I am also concerned about the impact a dog park would have on the condition of the park itself. Nearby dog-heavy areas in surrounding beach cities often develop strong odors, worn dirt patches, and brown grass from concentrated dog use. Valley Park is currently a beautiful, open, green field that serves as a gathering place for families and the broader community. Losing that clean, usable green space would be a real loss for neighborhood children.

Please help preserve Valley Park as a place for kids, families, sports, and open community recreation.

Thank you for your consideration and service to our community.

I would support a green belt dog park as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability of people to continue to walk/ jog without interruption and having to go on to the road.

Sincerely,
Monica Kumar, MD DTMH
Mom of hermosa beach students
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:

Sarah Harper - Library Programs (In-Person)
County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACoFD), Assistant Fire Chief, Brian Kane - Continued Fire Services for the City of Hermosa Beach (In-Person) Jim Holtz - Short Term Rentals (In-Person)
Michelle Hampton- Excessive Speeding (In-Person)
Harris Goodison - Dog Park (In-Person)
Tony Higgins - Agenda Item No. 15.e (Performance Metrics, Accountability, St. Patrick's Day Parade (Virtual) Falk Underwood - Dog Park (Virtual)
Kristin Moreno - Reduced Speed Limits (Virtual)
Dave H. - Hermosa Beach Police Department Budget (Virtual) Jim Stevens Dog Park (In-Person)
Ana Haynee - Dog Park (In-Person)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

13. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Public Comments:

No formal comments were made.

14. UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Public Comments:

Councilmember Ray Jackson reported on the inaugural meeting of the South Bay Housing Trust, formed through the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (COG), comprising 11 cities, and focused on homeless and low-income housing. He further reported that the COG has endorsed a program to replace the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. Councilmember Jackson also noted that the Hermosa Valley School girls flag football team, which he co-coaches, concluded its season with a 5–2 record.

Mayor Mike Detoy reported on his attendance at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) General Assembly, highlighting presentations on REAP grant-funded infrastructure investment and the election of Mayor Light as the new Regional Chair.

15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:

Mayor Detoy requested to move Agenda Item No. 15.d - Amendments to the Hermosa Beach Rotary Club and Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club Agreements to be considered after Municipal Matters.

Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to approve the Consent Calendar Agenda Item Nos. 15.a - 15.f, with the exception of Agenda Item No. 15.d, being removed to be considered after Municipal Matters.

Ayes (5)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Motion Carried

15.a

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

Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

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

Motion Carried

15.b

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. April 28, 2026, Regular Adjourned Meeting.pdf

2. April 28, 2026 Regular Meeting.pdf
(City Clerk Martha Alvarez)
Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
To approve the minutes from the April 28, 2026, Regular Meeting and the April 28, 2026, Regular Adjourned Meeting.

Motion Carried

15.c
CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-055
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-055.pdf

2. Attachment 1. 4-22-26.pdf

3. Attachment 2. 4-23-26.pdf

4. Attachment 3. 4-29-26.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
Staff recommends City Council receive and file the check registers for April 22, 2026 through April 29, 2026. The Administrative Services Director certifies the accuracy of the demands.

Motion Carried

15.e
REQUEST TO APPROVE JOB SPECIFICATION REVISIONS, JOB SPECIFICATION ADDITIONS, BARGAINING GROUPS AND SALARY RANGES - 26-AS-052 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFICATION REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, BARGAINING GROUPS AND SALARY RANGES.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Senior Account Clerk 2026_Redlined.pdf

3. Attachment 2. Human Resources Manager 2026_Redlined.pdf

4. Attachment 3. Human Resources Analyst 2026_Redlined.pdf

5. Attachment 4. Community Resources Director 2026_Redlined.pdf

6. Attachment 5. Sr Receation Supervisor 2026_Redlined.pdf

7. Attachment 6. Recreation Specialist 2026_Redlined.pdf

8. Attachment 7. Account Specialist 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

9. Attachment 8. Lead Account Specialist 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

10. Attachment 9. Senior Accountant 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

11. Attachment 10. Revenue Services Manager 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

12. Attachment 11. Human Resources Technician 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

13. Attachment 12. Senior Human Resources Analyst 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

14. Attachment 13. Recreation Supervisor 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

15. Attachment 14. Parks and Recreation Manager 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

16. Attachment 15. Senior Crime and Intelligence Analyst 2026 - Proposed Specification.pdf

17. Attachment 16. Salary Schedule FY 25-26.pdf
tonyhiggins
Dear City Council,
Dear CM Napolitano
For what its worth i fully support Laura Pena's comments in her public comment that follows mine.

In particular I fully support Ms. Pena's comment that:

I [Laura Pena] appreciate the effort to create clearer organizational structure and career pathways within the Park and Recreation Department. I believe this is also an important opportunity to modernize how the City connects staffing, operational accountability, and measurable public outcomes.... ....However, I do believe there is value in modest language that connects leadership positions to broader operational expectations such as: participation trends, facility utilization, customer satisfaction, operational efficiency, fiscal stewardship, and service delivery outcomes.

Laura Pena:

END
The problem is the City Manager has made little if any progress in establishing measurable performance objectives for himself or his directors despite acknowledging the inadequacy of the current performance standards almost a 9 months ago.

If the city council and staff want to earn the trust of the public as they navigate our fiscal challenges going forward the city simply must do more to address the performance standards shortcomings Ms. Pena alluded too above.

Your constituents simply must be given the tools they need to evaluate the performance of the City Manager and Directors IF your constituents will be asked to support your plans for navigating the current fiscal our fiscal crisis.

No Accountability No Trust
Thank You for Considering,
tonyhiggins
Laura Pena
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff -
I appreciate the effort to create clearer organizational structure and career pathways within the Park and Recreation Department. I believe this is also an important opportunity to modernize how the City connects staffing, operational accountability, and measurable public outcomes.

One thing I noticed while reviewing the redlined versions is that some of the previous language related to a “High Performance Organization” and “performance excellence” within the former Community Resources Director classification appears proposed for removal as part of the transition to Parks and Recreation Director.

While I understand the desire to streamline and simplify classifications, I would encourage the Council to reconsider retaining that accountability language as a statement of operational responsibility and public stewardship.

I want to be clear that I am not advocating for overly bureaucratic job descriptions. However, I do believe there is value in modest language that connects leadership positions to broader operational expectations such as: participation trends, facility utilization, customer satisfaction, operational efficiency, fiscal stewardship, and service delivery outcomes.

In particular, I believe the proposed Parks and Recreation Director position is the appropriate place to establish that framework because it ultimately oversees: long-range planning, departmental strategy, budgeting, fee recommendations, facilities, staffing, grants, contracts, and community programming.

As the department head, I would encourage the Council to consider language that more clearly connects the Director position to:
• monitoring participation and utilization trends,
• evaluating program performance and cost recovery,
• improving operational responsiveness,
• and supporting transparent, data-informed reporting to City leadership and the public.

I believe those additions would strengthen the classification without making it overly rigid or administratively burdensome.

I also think the Senior Recreation Supervisor classification provides a good example of balance because it already references achieving “performance and cost recovery objectives.” That acknowledges accountability without becoming overly prescriptive.

Why does this matter? Because the recent budget discussion makes clear that our City is facing approximately a $3.2 million projected structural deficit, while Parks and Recreation operations appear to operate with roughly $1.5 million in annual subsidy support. My concern is whether the City can clearly measure, communicate, and continuously improve the value residents receive from those investments.

Right now, the City appears to have limited operational visibility into:
• which programs are thriving,
• which facilities are underutilized,
• which services generate the greatest community benefit, • and where operational improvements may exist.

As the City modernizes classifications and expands its organizational structure, I believe it should also modernize how operational performance is measured and communicated.

My recommendation is a balanced approach: maintain the organizational modernization effort, but pair those investments with modest accountability language, operational dashboards, and measurable service indicators.

Over time, that foundation could support simple reporting on:
• participation,
• facility utilization,
• customer satisfaction,
• operational responsiveness,
• program performance,
• and cost recovery trends.

That would not only help future Councils make better data-driven policy and budget decisions, but also help build public trust by showing residents how these investments support community outcomes and quality of life.

Ultimately, modernization is not just about changing titles or adding management layers. True modernization means aligning staffing, operations, fiscal stewardship, transparency, and public value in a measurable and sustainable way.

And in a time of growing fiscal pressure, the cities that will be most successful are not simply the ones that cut services or raise fees, they are the ones that can clearly demonstrate performance, build public confidence, and show residents that every dollar invested is producing meaningful community value.

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration.

Laura Pena
(Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)
Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
Staff recommends City Council:

Approve the revisions for the following job specifications: Senior Account Clerk ( Attachment 1
), Human Resources Manager (
Attachment 2
), Human Resources Analyst (
Attachment 3
), Community Resources Director (
Attachment 4
), Senior Recreation Supervisor (
Attachment 5
), and Recreation Specialist (
Attachment 6
);
Approve the establishment of the following new job specifications: Account Specialist ( Attachment 7
), Lead Account Specialist (
Attachment 8
), Senior Accountant (
Attachment 9
), Revenue Services Manager (
Attachment 10
), Human Resources Technician (
Attachment 11
), Senior Human Resources Analyst (
Attachment 12
), Recreation Supervisor (
Attachment 13
), Parks and Recreation Manager (
Attachment 14
), and Senior Crime and Intelligence Analyst (
Attachment 15
);
Approve the establishment of the five-step salary ranges ( Attachment 16
) for Account Specialist, Lead Account Specialist, Senior Accountant, Revenue Services Manager, Human Resources Technician, Senior Human Resources Analyst, Recreation Supervisor, Parks and Recreation Manager, and Senior Crime and Intelligence Analyst; Approve the establishment of Account Specialist and Lead Account Specialist in the General and Supervisory Employees’ Bargaining Unit Teamsters Local 986; Approve the establishment of Senior Accountant, Revenue Services Manager, Recreation Supervisor, Parks and Recreation Manager, and Senior Crime and Intelligence Analyst in the Professional and Administrative Employees’ Group; and Approve the establishment of Human Resources Technician and Senior Human Resources Analyst in the Unrepresented Employee Group.

Motion Carried

15.f
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW CATEGORY AND FEE FOR COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT AREAS - 26-CMO-027 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - RESOLUTION FOR NEW ENCROACHMENT FEE - 26-CMO-027.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Map of Encroachment Areas.pdf

3. Attachment 2. Resolution 23-7379.pdf

4. Attachment 3. Fee Log.pdf

5. Attachment 4. Draft Resolution.pdf
(Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss)
Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
Motion to adopt Resolution No. RES-26-7547 establishing a new category and fee for certain commercial encroachment areas in commercial zones; and amend the Master Fee schedule to reflect the new fee.

Motion Carried

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

16.a
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FROM A FEE STUDY UPDATE - 26-AS-053 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FROM A FEE STUDY UPDATE - 26-AS-053.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Master Fee Update - Resolution (Baltimore revised version of May 6, 2026).pdf

3. Attachment 2. PROPOSED FEE CHANGES.pdf

4. Attachment 3. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FEE STUDY.pdf

5. Attachment 4. CURRENT MASTER FEE AND CHARGES SCHEDULE.pdf

6. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 16.a.pdf

7. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 16.a.pdf

8. Post Deadline Emailed Comment for Item 16. a.pdf

9. SUPPLEMENTAL Handout for Item 16. a.pdf
Dave Davis
Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express concern about several proposed fee increases and the impact they may have on Hermosa Beach small businesses.

I am concerned about the proposed increase to the Temporary Minor Special Event permit fee (S-018). Businesses and City staff spent years simplifying this process so operators could host smaller events more efficiently. These events generate revenue, attract visitors, and help create the energy and community atmosphere that benefits Hermosa Beach. Tripling this fee could discourage the very activity the City should support.

The proposed increase to the Commercial CUP Change fee (S-001) is also concerning. Businesses making operational improvements already face significant costs beyond City fees, including ABC licensing, Coastal Commission permits, and other approval expenses. Together, these costs can become prohibitive for small businesses trying to stay viable.

Local businesses are already facing rising costs for labor, insurance, utilities, rent, and regulatory compliance. Additional City fee increases make it harder for independent businesses to adapt, invest, and remain competitive.

Yet despite these challenges, local businesses continue investing in the community by creating gathering places, supporting events, employing residents, and contributing to Hermosa Beach’s identity. If Hermosa Beach wants to preserve its independent business community, the City should make it easier — not more expensive — for small businesses to evolve and survive.

I understand the City faces difficult budget decisions, but increasing fees on local businesses cannot be the only solution. I respectfully urge the Council to support Staff’s Option 4 and reevaluate these increases after conducting an efficiency study.

As a longtime Hermosa Beach business owner, I ask the Council to carefully consider how these increases will affect the small businesses that help make Hermosa Beach unique.

Sincerely,
Dave Davis
Hermosa Brewing Company
The Deck
Michelle Crispin
Please see the attached letter from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau for Council’s consideration regarding the User Fee Study and proposed fee increases.

Laura Pena
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff -
I understand the City’s need to update outdated fees. The staff report makes clear that costs have increased due to higher personnel and benefit costs, overhead, interdepartmental coordination, regulatory requirements, and consultant support. Considering the City spent $100k in 2023 for an "internal audit that would implement best management practices in order for the City to provide a high value of services to its residents in a cost-efficient manner," I have yet to see a report updating the public on those results.

With that said, until clear streamlining and efficiencies have been implemented, I believe Option 4: Defer Certain Fee Increases with Future Recalibration remains the most balanced approach. It allows the City to improve revenue in the near term while preserving flexibility to adjust fees once the City completes its process review and identifies efficiencies. I've highlighted feedback on the fee study in the attached file to assist with that endeavor.

I respectfully ask Council to add S-004 Precise Development Plan: Commercial/Mixed Use and Residential to the list of deferred fees. If S-003 CUP/PDP Condo is being reconsidered because the process may be streamlined, then S-004 PDP should be reviewed as well. Small commercial and mixed-use projects are exactly the types of investments our City should encourage to support long term property tax growth, commercial vitality, and recurring revenue.

That same recalibration logic should also apply to selected Public Works fees. The staff report acknowledges that Council could direct staff to return with potential code, zoning, or process amendments that may reduce review requirements or alter permit procedures. If Public Works fees are also based on current processes, then Council should review whether those processes can be streamlined before locking in full cost recovery.

Public Works fees can directly affect business openings, construction staging, tenant improvements, public improvement plan checks, and commercial reinvestment. These are not just administrative fees; they influence whether it is easy or difficult to invest in our City.

I respectfully recommend that Council:

1. Adopt Option 4 as the balanced path forward;

2. Add S-004 Precise Development Plan: Commercial/Mixed Use and Residential to the deferred fee list;

3. Apply the same recalibration approach to selected Public Works fees that are business facing, duplicative, code dependent, or likely to change after process review;

4. Direct staff to return with Public Works fee recommendations showing current review steps, overlapping reviews, and opportunities for streamlining;

5. Create tiered fees based on project complexity and public impact;

6. Consolidate overlapping Planning and Public Works reviews where possible, especially for A-frame signs and right-of-way encroachments;

7. Require 6- and 12-month reporting on application volume, turnaround times, review cycles, revenue, and customer experience.

This is not about opposing cost recovery. It is about making sure cost recovery is based on an efficient, transparent, and coordinated process.

Our fiscal future depends not only on higher fees, but on making it easier, faster, and more predictable for residents, businesses, and property owners to invest in the City.

The City should not ask people to pay more for the system we are trying to fix. It should first build the streamlined system the public can trust.

As always, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration.

Laura Pena
Jon David
I support option 4 which aligns fees with process reform.

The staff report correctly identifies the key issue: the City should not lock in fees for processes it is actively working to reform. Option 4 properly defers development-related fees until after the May 26 Administrative Procedures hearing and the upcoming commercial zoning updates.

Setting fees now would force the City to recover the full cost of the current inefficient system rather than the streamlined process we intend to create. As Councilman Saeman stated at the April 28 hearing, the goal is “a quicker, cheaper approval process.” Option 4 is the only approach that honors this goal.

Add S-004 to Option 4
I request an amendment to include S-004 (Precise Development Plan for commercial/mixed-use and residential) in Option 4’s deferral list. Currently only S-003 (PDP for Condos) is on the list. Staff’s own rationale supports this:
1) Consistency: The report already defers S-001, S-003B, and S-034 because they are tied to the upcoming commercial zoning updates. S-004 belongs in the same category. 2) Procedural Similarity: S-004 and S-003 (already in Option 4) are functional equivalent. Both follow the same Planning Commission pathway and require comparable staff time. 3) There is No Procedural Conflict: The hearing remains open and there has not been a formal fee adoption resolution. Council retains complete legislative jurisdiction over all fees in the study.

Why Option 4 Is Superior to Option 1
Choose Option 4 over Option 1 for two important reasons:
1) Option 1 bases fees on today’s inefficient processes, the very system the City has already committed to overhaul. This asks applicants to subsidize the City’s procedural inefficiencies. 2) Option 1 promises future reductions once efficiencies are found. In practice, once new revenue is built into the General Fund, it becomes part of next year's projections, we have accepted inefficiencies and those reductions rarely happen on schedule. Option 4 sets the right fee the first time, after the new process is defined It encourages us to get to “a quicker, cheaper approval process”.

Recommendation: Adopt Option 4 with the addition of S-004.

Kathleen Knoll
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the proposed fee increases included in the current fee study, particularly the increases that directly impact small businesses trying to operate, improve, and stay relevant in this community.

One example is S-018, the Temporary Minor Special Event permit, which appears to be tripling in price. We spent nearly two years working to simplify the process for a minor special event permit to allow businesses to be creative in generating new revenue streams. Hosting minor special events helps bring people into town, and create the kind of activity that benefits Hermosa Beach as a whole.

Another major concern is S-001, Commercial CUP Change, which appears to be doubling in price. Uncorked just went through this process, and even at the current fee level, it was very costly. In addition to city fees we also had to pay for permits through the ABC. And In the coastal zone, Coastal Commission requires permits as well. In some cases, businesses may also be purchasing or modifying liquor licenses. When all of these costs are added together, it becomes cost-prohibitive for small businesses to make the very changes needed to survive, grow, and keep up with rising rent, payroll, insurance, utilities, and operating costs.

Year after year, for the past 15 years, I have stood before Council asking for support, understanding, and fairness. As business owners, we are constantly navigating requirements from the ABC, EDD, FTB, IRS, CDTFA, Health Dept, City Code Enforcement, City Planning, and many other agencies. It can be overwhelming, expensive, and discouraging.

We try to be charitable. We try to be an asset to the community. We try to create gathering places, bring people together, support local events, and contribute to the character of Hermosa Beach. I do want to acknowledge that the City has made meaningful progress in streamlining some processes, and we really appreciate that. But these proposed fee increases feel like a step backward.

If we want Hermosa Beach to remain a town filled with unique, mom-and-pop businesses — not just chains or businesses with deep pockets — then we need to support small businesses and make it easier, not more expensive, for them to adapt and succeed.

We are simply asking the City to recognize the reality of what it takes to operate. Many of the people making these decisions have never had to run a business, make payroll, manage rising costs, or deal with the daily pressure of keeping doors open.

I know you have the challenging task of balancing your budget but it can’t continue to be in the backs of the businesses. We need city processes to be more efficient. Please choose staffs OPTION 4 to reevaluate these fee increases after an efficiency study.

As your customer, your constituent, and a long-standing business owner in this community, I am asking you to help us — not hurt us. Please look carefully at these proposed increases and consider the impact they will have on the small businesses that help make Hermosa Beach special.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kathy Knoll and Jeff Bonafede
Uncorked Wine Shops
The Deck Hermosa beach.
(Continued from
the
April 28, 2026
, City Council Meeting
)
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker provided the PowerPoint presentation.

City Manager Steve Napolitano, Administrative Services Director Walker, and Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore responded to City Council questions.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:

Tony Higgins (Virtual)
Kent Allen (Virtual
Kathy Knoll (In-Person)
Michelle Crispin (In-Person)
Laura Pena (In-Person)
Eric Horne (In-Person)
Jon David (In-Person)
John Burry (Virtual)
Kristin Moreno (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

Administrative Services Director Walker responded to City Council questions.

A motion was made by Councilmember Jackson, to only defer the list of 19 items previously agreed upon at the last meeting, considering the deferred items in a comprehensive study session where all relevant parties could discuss them in detail. The motion failed for lack of a second.

A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to add Item S-004A (PDP for Commercial) to the deferred list as the only modification to the original 19 items pulled for further review and postpone the discussion until June 5, 2026.

A substitute motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Mayor Detoy, to intended to defer the item S-004 was proposed.

Moved by:

Mayor Detoy
Seconded by:

Councilmember Jackson
A substitute motion was made by Mayor Detoy, seconded by Councilmember Jackson, to continue the public hearing to June 9, 2026, to apply to the original 19 previously pulled fees plus the addition of fee S-004.

Ayes (4)
Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Noes (1)
Councilmember Francois
Motion Carried

17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:

17.b
DOG PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY - 26-PR-018
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - DOG PARK FEASIBILITY REPORT ON DESIGNATION OF A LOCATION WITHIN HERMOSA BEACH - 26-PR-018.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Bark for a Park Presentation.pdf

3. Attachment 2. Proposed Off-Leash Dog Park Locations in Hermosa Beach (2).pdf

4. Attachment 3. Proximity of Nearby Residences to Proposed Locations.pdf

5. Attachment 4. Dog Park Onsite Visits Checklist.pdf

6. Attachment 5. Comparable Cities’ Dog Park Facilities Visited.pdf

7. Attachment 6. Other Comparable Cities Dog Park Facilities Not Visited.pdf

8. Attachment 7. Bark for a Park Recommendation Letter.pdf

9. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.b.pdf

10. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comments for Item 17.b.pdf

11. Post Deadline comments for Item 17.b.pdf
Stewart Byrne
This park should be for children and families. I am a dog owner and oppose the location of this park. Instead, please consider the greenbelt.

Thank you
Alexandra Byrne
I recently learned about the proposal to convert a portion of Valley Park into a dog park. While I understand this is a well-intentioned effort to create more amenities for dog owners, I strongly oppose this location.

As both a mother of two young children and a dog owner, I deeply value Valley Park for what it currently offers…a clean, quiet, safe, and family-friendly space where children can run freely and families can gather. We use the park frequently, and in a dense community with limited open green space, preserving areas for unstructured play is important. Converting part of the park into a dog park would reduce that already limited space for children and families.

I’m also concerned about the proposed dog park’s proximity to the playground. Not all children are comfortable around dogs, and families should be able to enjoy the playground without worrying about off-leash animals nearby. Public spaces like Valley Park should feel welcoming and safe for everyone, including those who may be fearful of dogs.

Additionally, parking at Valley Park is already limited and often difficult. A dog park would likely increase traffic and make parking even more challenging for local families who regularly use the park.

Valley Park is a special community space because of the atmosphere it currently provides. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this proposal and explore alternative locations that would better accommodate a dog park without compromising one of the few open spaces families rely on.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,
Alex Byrne
Lisa Greenstone
I am in favor of a community dog park in Hermosa and this proposed part of Valley park seems like a well thought out, central location away from residents.

In our dense neighborhood filled with countless townhomes that lack yards, our town brings a welcome feel to our dogs yet does not provide a designated place for them (and their friendly owners) to run, play, and gather.

Complaints about barking dogs in tight spaced residences (that don’t have opportunity to run off leash and expend their energy) could diminish dramatically.

As a member of the Wellness Council for HBCSD and BCHD, the benefits for a dog park for our community extend far beyond a place for our pups to play. The social component for young and old, intergenerational opportunities that seem rare in today’s world, and the gathering of like-minded responsible dog owners, provides social and emotional wellness that has far reaching benefits in both longevity and overall health and well being.

To me, we have the space to allow for it, and plenty of residents that will use it responsibly. I see only an upside to continuing to move forward with the project.

Thank you,
Lisa Greenstone
Len Hirsh
I am strongly opposed to the idea of an off-leash dog park at Valley Park East, as described in the “Bark for a Park” proposal. This is a really terrible idea.

My kids are in the park every day, and not just at the little playground. They’re 10 and 12 now, and the space being considered is exactly where they play with their friends. Valley Park is an important shared space for our community. It is used daily by residents for recreation, relaxation, and family activities. Many neighbors rely on this park as one of the few accessible green spaces in a residential area, and it plays a meaningful role in the quality of life for those who live nearby.

The dog people can go elsewhere like Dominguez Park or Live Oak Park. All the dog people I know in Hermosa Beach don’t even want this to happen. And frankly, we don’t need more traffic here. It’s bad enough with the traffic that comes from two adjacent 4-way stop signs, from Artesia/Gould being a pass-through street with beach access, and from people dropping off and picking up kids at both Vista and Valley school. We don’t need to add 100 Karens now paying less attention to their dogs and having those dogs bit people, kids or other dogs. It’s bad enough as is.

While the proposal suggests that the area is “relatively unused” with minimal neighborhood impact, many residents experience this space quite differently. The park is actively used by families, children, and community members, and any plan to fence off a significant portion for exclusive dog use would reduce access for the broader public.

Valley Park East is not the right location for a dog park in Hermosa Beach. Converting part of a neighborhood park into a fenced, off-leash area may introduce concerns related to noise, safety, and compatibility with the surrounding residential environment.

It is also worth noting that neighboring cities like Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have successfully located dog parks in underutilized or less impactful areas—such as at the top of the hill in Polliwog Park, or in smaller, less-used spaces like Live Oak Park behind the baseball field, and under transmission lines at 190th in Redondo. These examples demonstrate that dog parks can be thoughtfully sited in ways that minimize impact on heavily used community spaces.

We respectfully encourage the City Council to explore alternative locations that are more centrally located and better suited for this type of use which may serve the entire community more equitably while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of community input.

Justin Hackman
I work within walking distance of valley park. My wife and I regularly take our children to the park to enjoy the many amenities. the park’s facilities are currently being utilized to the maximum and cannot sustain any decrease in programming capacity to accommodate dogs who are already able to use the existing spaces. Additionally, the noise disruption and noxious odors caused by the massive influx of dogs to a dedicated area will significantly affect the experience of using the park by making it both a loud and unclean feeling area. Animal feces also can harbor disease and increasing the amount of animal deification in the area only increases risk for the most immunodeficient and vulnerable users of the park (children and elderly). The park is actually perfect today and If any changes are required, it should be additional program for children and the core human users already enjoying the space.

Mardi Watts
May 12, 2026
Hermosa Beach City Council
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to urge the Council to approve a dog park at Valley Park East. A project that has already been unanimously supported by the HB Parks & Recreation Committee after months of evaluation, and one that will cost the city nothing.

Hermosa Beach has an estimated 3,000+ dogs and not a single off-leash space. That's a real gap for a lot of residents. A dog park would give our pets somewhere to run and socialize, and give our community a place to connect. The kind of everyday gathering spot that makes a neighborhood feel like home.

Research consistently shows dog parks also boost surrounding property values, so the benefits extend well beyond dog owners.

Valley Park East is the right spot. It's an underutilized area with no neighbor impact, it's walkable, and parking is already available. It's a natural fit.

Most importantly, this will be 100% donor-funded. Construction, and ongoing maintenance. No burden on the city budget, we just need a yes.

Manhattan Beach has three dog parks. I'd love for Hermosa Beach to have its first.

Thank you for your time and for everything you do for our community.

Warm regards,
Mardi Watts
Hermosa Beach Resident
Jennifer Rocci
This has been well analyzed and evaluated. Hermosa does not have a dog park and this has been determined to be the best location due to it being a shaded, relatively unused portion of a large park. A dog park is a great amenity to any neighborhood, and restrictions will be enforced to ensure safety, cleanliness and overall disruption.

Dave Andrews
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council Members,
I am writing as a Hermosa Beach resident, neighbor, and dog owner to express my strong support for creating a dog park in Hermosa Beach, specifically at the proposed Valley Park East location.

Hermosa Beach is a unique community. We are a small beach city where people know their neighbors, spend time outdoors, walk everywhere, and value community connection. We are also one of the most densely populated cities in California, with limited private yard space for families and their dogs.

Dogs are already woven into the culture of Hermosa Beach. Walk down Pier Avenue toward the beach, and you will notice water bowls sitting outside local businesses everywhere. Dogs are clearly part of our community.

I have met countless dog owners whose daily routines revolve around neighborhood interactions — morning walks, conversations with neighbors, coffee shop stops, and visits to the fire station, where many dogs know a treat container awaits them. These routines are not just about pets. They are about connection and community.

Years ago, when my previous dog passed away, I realized something unexpected had disappeared too: the small community I saw every day on our walks. The familiar faces and conversations suddenly stopped overnight. It reminded me how much these interactions contribute to the feeling of belonging in Hermosa Beach.

I would strongly encourage members of the City Council to visit Live Oak Park at some point early in the morning. Talk to the dog owners there. Talk to the neighbors walking by. Ask people why they come back every day.

What you will likely hear is that these spaces are about much more than dogs.

People meet neighbors they otherwise never would have known. Seniors have social interaction. Families gather. New residents feel welcomed. In many ways, these spaces become social anchors for a neighborhood — much like the community garden at South Park.

When I first brought my puppy to Live Oak, the regulars had organized a “one-year-old puppy party” complete with treats and party hats. It was simple, local, friendly, and community-driven — exactly the kind of small-town beach city spirit that makes Hermosa Beach special.

Hermosa Beach has proudly embraced the Blue Zones Project through the Beach Cities Health District, promoting walkability, outdoor activity, social connection, and community well-being. A thoughtfully designed dog park aligns naturally with those same values.

At the same time, Hermosa Beach’s current approach to dogs is largely focused on regulation, fees, and enforcement. The City requires annual dog licensing, charges substantial licensing fees and penalties, and increased off-leash fines to $250 per violation.

I fully support the importance of animal control services, licensing, rabies compliance, and responsible enforcement. These are important public safety functions. However, Hermosa Beach currently offers no designated off-leash recreational space anywhere in the city for responsible dog owners.

Dog owners already contribute significantly through licensing, permit, and enforcement fees. Yet unlike many other recreational amenities supported through general community funding, dog owners are effectively asked to fund regulation without receiving meaningful recreational infrastructure in return.

A thoughtfully designed dog park would not only serve dog owners but also strengthen the broader community by creating another safe outdoor gathering space that encourages physical activity, social connection, and neighborhood interaction.

The proposed Valley Park East location appears to be a thoughtful and balanced solution that uses a relatively underutilized portion of the park while minimizing neighborhood impacts.

I understand concerns regarding noise, cleanliness, and environmental impact. Those concerns deserve thoughtful planning and responsible management. But many nearby communities have successfully addressed these issues while creating safe, valuable public spaces for residents and their pets.

More than 1,400 residents have already expressed support for a dog park, with many supporting the Valley Park location. That level of support reflects a real community need.

I respectfully encourage the City Council to continue moving this project forward and support the creation of a safe, well-designed dog park for Hermosa Beach residents and their dogs.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Dave Andrews
Adrian
I feel a different location would be more appropriate
Jenny Lee
We play at this section of valley park with our granddaughter and do not want to see it lost to a dog park. Please consider putting the park on the greenbelt.

AUBREY BROWN
We NEED this dog park!! Doggies need to be free and play also. There's plenty of room to share at Valley Park and will provide more community interaction.

Leyna Nguyen
I grew up playing at this park, and I want my children to have the opportunity to as well. We can have both a dog park and a community park for kids of all ages to roam freely.

Eric & Beth Tonne
Dog Park Locations - OPPOSE Valley Park East & SUPPORT Greenbelt Dear Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council,
I am writing to express concern about the proposed off-leash dog park at Valley Park East. Valley Park is an very important shared space for our community. As residents living very close to Valley park, this dog park will have a significant negative impact on the following:

Open space at Valley Park including green space for trees and grass Natural Wildlife Space in Hermosa Beach including owls, hawks, coyotes, skunks, raccoons, possums, squirrels, & butterfly migration.

TRAFFIC at the Gould, Valley & Ardmore stops signs which are already heavily congested PARKING - always filled at Valley park. spills into congested neighboring streets that have limited parking for residents NOISE / Barking - we can hear Vista school & Valley park (happy noise) all day from our home. Endless Barking is not happy noise & will be disruptive to residents & Vista School Public safety - dog waste increases flies & fleas in areas very close to playgrounds & Vista School - potentially, spreading diseases SAFETY - dog fights & dogs off leash near playground with small children and Vista School creates increase of dog bite risk As Hermosa City Council is evaluates dog park then please explore alternative locations that minimize the impact on Valley Park, residential neighborhoods plus Vista & Valley schools.

We support the Greenbelt location which seems the best for the community public use & minimal residential impact.

Thank you for considering all sides on this important decisions! Best Regards,
Eric & Beth Tonne
650 Porter Lane
Hermosa Beach Resident
Tim Walling
I live in hermosa beach and oppose putting a dog park in valley park and think the council should consider putting it along the green belt.

Bobby Sillman
I oppose putting a dog park in valley park and think the council should consider putting it along the green belt. mc guerry
I am against a dog park. The city's financial situation is dire. The city need to focus on generating revenue instead.

If the city does go ahead with a dog park, the best location would be the beach. It would bring people into the city from all over, people who would spend money inside the city, providing necessary revenue.

Tristin Kranenburg
My family and I frequent Valley Park often and I oppose putting a dog park there. I think the council should consider putting it along the green belt instead.

Daniel Gutierrez
I am not in favor for a dog park located at Valley Park because families and children gather and use this area as often.

Harris Goodison
I support a dog park in Hermosa but strongly oppose turning any part of Valley Park into a dog park and think council should consider the greenbelt option.

I live with my family (a 4 year old dog and 2 year old daughter) on 28th street just east of Mornignside. We live under 500 feet from Valley Park. I am in the park at least twice a day. My daughter spends several hours in the park each day.

Valley Park is a truly beautiful park. It is the shared backyard of our community. The area proposed to be a dog park is also the place where the youngest children in our community play safely. This is where they can be out of the way of soccer & lacrosse practice, and have no risk of running out into the street. This is where music class and mommy&me happens. This is where we they host Shakespeare in the park. This is where families and friends gather for cookouts and holiday celebrations. This is where people celebrate their children’s first few birthday parties.

All of that said - I would love to take my dog to a dog park in Hermosa but not at the cost of losing the area where our children play and our community hosts events. I believe we should have a dog park AND valley park.

Jackie Goodison
I support a dog park in Hermosa but strongly oppose turning any part of Valley Park into a dog park and think council should consider the greenbelt option.

Addy Sawers
I’m a nanny in Hermosa and we spend at least 4 hours at the park everyday. There’s music class proposed location for the dog park is inconvenient as there’s usually activities for kids in that area. The green belt location is a better location.

Randy Balik
At the outset, I'm neither for or against a dog park in Hermosa Beach. I am of the opinion that Hermosa Beach, as small, compact, and densely populated as it is, cannot have 'everything' that residents want, and there are a lot of valid arguments against having a dog park at all. But I also understand why so many people want one.

HOWEVER, I've seen proposals for one at Valley Park, and I am VERY against that. For one, dog parks can be noisy, and for those whose homes butt up against the park, I think it is quite unfair and selfish to add something that can be this intrusive to the backyards of those who moved their without having that amenity as part of their equation. So I am speaking for them even though this does not affect me personally. Moreover, and perhaps even more importantly, it appears as though the cost to prepare a dog park in Valley Park is unnecessary when there are other locations.

Personally, I feel that a wider spot along the greenbelt near Pier Ave that can be fenced in inexpensively makes a lot more sense. That's a noisier part of Hb and so additional noise won't be as intrusive. While parking for that may be more difficult, there are tradeoffs to all new things that residents want, and I believe that this is the tradeoff that should be considered.

So....dog park? Perhaps. Dog park in Valley Park...absolutely not. Dog park along the green belt near Pier...worth considering.

Jeanne Nicastro
I live in Hermosa Beach and strongly oppose placing a dog park in Valley Park. Valley Park is one of the few open green spaces where young children can safely run, play soccer, gather with friends, and build community. It is heavily used by local families every single day and serves as an important space for kids in our neighborhood.

While I support creating a dog park in Hermosa Beach, I believe the proposed Greenbelt location is a much better solution that allows both families and dog owners to benefit without taking away valuable recreational space for children.

Please preserve Valley Park as a family-centered park and consider the Greenbelt alternative instead.

Candice Richardson
I fully support the creation of a dog park in hermosa beach; it is very overdue and much needed! A public dog park would be a valuable addition to the community by providing a safe, open space for residents and their pets to exercise, socialize, and enjoy the outdoors. It would help promote a healthier and more active lifestyle for both dogs and owners while creating opportunities for neighbors to connect and build stronger community relationships.

Arianna
Please bring the dog park to Hermosa Beach! It’ll bring the community together over something we all have so much in common: loving our dogs! The other surrounding beach cities have one…so should we! Eileen M Reardon
Valley Park was proposed by Bark for a Park because it doesn’t want to waste $40K+ of their donor money on a Ballot Measure which is required for the Greenbelt section. They are intentionally circumvent regulations.

Bark for a Park wants to take public space deemed ‘underutilized’ (by whom?), that coincidentally doesn’t require a ballot measure, to create a special use area that will impact the community, the city budget and our taxes without majority approval by the 14K registered voters in Hermosa Beach.

That’s not advocacy, that’s how special interest groups operate.

A dog park in Valley Park will ruin the park open space design with fencing while destroying the meditative area near the community garden.

While a dog park sounds like is a great idea for Hermosa Beach, the location, reallocation of existing public space, associated costs for maintenance and numerous other factors (parking, traffic, smell, etc…) should be presented for a vote to all registered Hermosa Beach residents regardless of the selected area since everyone will be affected by a dog park.

Howard Lee
Click/Tap this message and then click/tap on this eComment's PDF attachment as necessary to view my testimony on this item. Thank You Cara Looney
As a 20+ year resident of Hermosa Beach, I support a dog park in Hermosa Beach - and specifically Bark for a Park's vision. The specified area within Valley Park is very well-suited for a dog park and would add even more character to the area.

Travis Green
I am against allowing a dog park in Valley Park as Hermosa Beach is relatively small and has limited park space. It does not make any sense to partition away mixed use space for a dog park in Hermosa when less than two miles away Redondo Beach has a wonderful 3 acre (130,680 square feet) dog park already. This is unnecessary and wasteful. kristen keenan
Let's have YAPPY Hour in Hermosa!!!
Amber Stoneman
As a Hermosa Beach resident, I strongly support the proposed dog park at Valley Park. Our community currently has no designated space for residents to legally enjoy off-leash activities with their dogs, despite the large number of dog owners who live here and use our parks daily.

The Strand is a great place to walk dogs, but it can become extremely congested with pedestrians, cyclists, kids, and dogs — especially on weekends and busy summer days. Having a dedicated dog park would provide a safer and more appropriate place for dogs to exercise while also helping reduce congestion in other shared public spaces.

I also believe the impact to nearby residents would be minimal considering the existing activity and noise already surrounding the area, including the schools, Valley and Ardmore traffic, youth sports at the park, and ongoing construction throughout the neighborhood. Valley Park is already an active community space, and a thoughtfully designed dog park would fit naturally within it.

Most importantly, this project would allow Hermosa residents to stay and enjoy our own local parks instead of having to leave the city to visit dog parks in Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, or El Segundo. This is an opportunity to add an amenity that serves a large portion of our community while still preserving the overwhelming majority of the park for everyone to enjoy.

I encourage the City Council to support this project and continue collaborating with residents throughout the design process.

Jacob L
Bark for a Park is filled with amazing individuals and involved Hermosa Beach community members, that have planned and figured out the best way to get Hermosa Beach a dog park. From my understanding, they are raising funds to cover most, if not all the costs, associated with the dog park. This is an easy yes, let's get a dog park Hermosa Beach! :) Judith Clark
Strongly support an off leash dog area. Not only does it build a sense of community, it gives a safe space for a pet owners to exercise their dogs and possibly less likely to find Dogs off leash creating hazards.

Alisa Mitchell
While I am in favor of building a dog Park in Hermosa Beach, I am against the proposed location of Valley Park. That space is highly utilized by residents for birthday parties, scout meetings, and sports. Parking is already tough around Valley Park and this would make it worse. Additionally, students from the adjacent Vista school play in that space after school and an increased amount of dogs puts their safety at risk. Anywhere but Valley Park! Adam Stoneman
Mayor Detoy and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for moving forward with a dog park in Hermosa Beach and specifically to voice my support for the Valley Park location.

Hermosa Beach has long lacked a designated off leash dog area despite clear and growing demand from residents. A well planned dog park would provide a safe, responsible space for dogs and their owners, reduce informal off leash activity in other public areas, and strengthen the sense of community that defines this city.

Among the options being considered, Valley Park stands out as the most practical and appropriate location. It is already a recreational space, centrally located, and well suited to accommodate a thoughtfully designed dog park with minimal disruption to surrounding residential areas. With proper planning, it can be enhanced in a way that complements existing uses rather than competing with them.

I also want to acknowledge the work of Bark for a Park and the residents who have spent significant time organizing, engaging the community, and helping bring forward a balanced proposal. Their effort reflects a genuine community need rather than a niche interest.

I understand that any change to public space deserves careful consideration. At the same time, Hermosa Beach has an opportunity here to deliver a long requested amenity in a way that is responsible, intentional, and beneficial for the broader community.

For those reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to support moving forward with the Valley Park location as the preferred site for the dog park.

Sincerely,
Adam Stoneman
Hermosa Beach Resident
Dan Rimmon
Dear Council,
I am against taking away any part of Valley park to be used as a dog park. I prefer it to be on the Greenbelt.

I live across the street from the park. I am a dog owner but don’t think this is a good idea. It is a great place for kids, adults and local fauna. I feel that a dog park would take away the ambiance that it currently has. I think it is a peaceful place that a dog park would degrade. I fear that it would be much noisier. Already people don’t follow the current rules. They let their dogs off leash constantly and don’t pick up after their dogs. I think that it would be worse with a dog park. It would make it much more crowded and bring in people from many other areas resulting in tougher parking, more trash, traffic and unpicked up dog poo. It would add costs to the city for additional maintenance and police work. Plus we would loose the nice feeling that Valley park offers now. I think it would adversely affect the residents of Hermosa Beach and specifically those living close to the Park. Please consider your residents.

I thank you for your time and consideration,
Dan Rimmon
455 Gould Ave.

Angie Rimmon
As a resident living directly across the street from Valley Park on Gould Ave., I am writing to express concern about the proposed off-leash dog park at Valley Park. Bark for a Park's "vision" states that they are looking for a space that has "minimal/no impact" on neighbors. This proposal is contradictory to such vision.

Valley Park is an important shared space for our community. I can literally see the children's playground from my window and see how the children and families enjoy the park on a daily basis. To take away a MINIMUM of 10,000 square feet of grassy park space from the community (as the proposal states) and to fence off the beloved large tree which is used by many families to picnic or use as shaded space would be a loss.

I am also concerned about safety. Valley Park has so many children that run around and enjoy the playground and space. Many children also walk through the park to go to Vista School. To have this dog park so close to the children's playground, restrooms, and walking path to school is only inviting injury. Curiosity is something that all kids have and you will not be able to prevent little fingers from wanting to pet dogs through the fence or coming close to the gates as the dogs go in/out. There are already multiple off leash dog parks in the South Bay area. As such, I do not believe this proposed dog park at Valley Park is necessary or even desirable for our community. I believe a dog park on the greenbelt is a better and safer alternative. Thank you. tonyhiggins
Dear City Council.

I live right next to valley park and i strongly support the dog psrk at the Valley Park east location. Its twice as far from homes as the Green Belt option, its bigger than the greenbelt option, it doesnt require the expense and hassle of a vote to change the land grant and the parking is no worse than the Greenbelt option. its a common sense compromise solution. The Parks masterplan identified this as a high priority want and the organizers have done an excellent job providing funding and plans. It will help with the dogs off leash problem at the park. People are going to let their dogs off leash if they are not a threat to anyone. its better they do it inside a dog park.

Jim Butler
Because this would be the only large dog park between Redondo and El Segundo, it would become a regional draw, exacerbating the congestion and parking issues that already exist in the Valley Park neighborhood Jen Lamping
As a long-time resident of Hermosa Beach, I strongly support the creation of an off-leash dog park in our city. It’s frustrating that Hermosa Beach is the only South Bay beach city without a dedicated dog park, especially considering how many residents own dogs and view them as part of their families.

We have numerous shared park spaces throughout the city, and it seems entirely reasonable that a portion of one park could be designated for off-leash dog use - particularly since our beaches are not an option. Residents currently have no safe or legal place within Hermosa to allow their dogs to exercise and socialize off leash.

A thoughtfully planned dog park would improve quality of life for many residents, create a stronger sense of community, and provide a designated space that helps keep other public areas more orderly and respectful for everyone.

I strongly encourage the City Council to seriously prioritize this issue and work toward a solution that better reflects the needs of the community.

Susan S. Brown
As longtime residents and dog lovers, we appreciate the importance of spaces for pet owners. However, we do not believe our small neighborhood park is the right location for a dog park. We live within blocks of Valley park.

Our park space is already heavily utilized and limited, serving families, children’s activities, sports, picnics, community events, and everyday gathering space for residents and visitors. Adding a dog park would further reduce the open, flexible areas that make the park enjoyable for everyone. It's bad enough that we have to compete with the kids on ebikes who jump the hills in the park and on our walkways.

We are also concerned about the noise, odors, and potential safety issues that can come with concentrated off-leash dog areas, particularly in such close proximity to homes, the beach, and existing recreational spaces. One of the strengths of our neighborhood is its peaceful and welcoming atmosphere, and we believe this proposal could significantly change that character.

In addition, our community already offers many excellent walking paths and outdoor areas that accommodate dog owners without dedicating valuable park space to a fenced dog park. We respectfully encourage the city to consider alternative locations better suited for this type of facility.

JB Anderson
I believe an off-leash dog park will benefit the entire community as owners will have a place to take their dogs off leash to get their energy out and socialize. This will reduce owners taking their dogs off leash in unsanctioned areas of our community. It will also mean more tired dogs that will behave better and bark less Brad Sidrick
Valley Park East is the best location for a Dog Park.

Matt Tuens
I am 100% FOR an off-leash dog park in Hermosa Beach. I would like to fully support the Valley Park East location for approval.

Thank you!
- Matt Tuens
Allyson Schwartz
I strongly support the development of a dog park in Hermosa Beach. Our community has many dog owners who would greatly benefit from having a safe, designated space for dogs to exercise, socialize, and play off leash.

Kate Hirsh
Dear Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed off-leash dog park at Valley Park East, as outlined in the “Bark for a Park” proposal. The City Council should consider locating a dog park on the greenbelt closer to the downtown civic/ commercial area.

I live directly across the street from Valley Park with my two young children, and this park is a central part of our daily lives. My son regularly rides his bike in the exact area being considered, and the park serves as one of the few safe, open, and accessible green spaces for neighborhood families. There is also a well-loved climbing tree that local children use, as well as wildlife—including an owl that resides in one of the trees—that would likely be impacted by fencing and increased dog activity.

While I understand and support the desire to create a dedicated dog park in Hermosa Beach, I strongly believe that Valley Park East is not an appropriate location. The proposal characterizes this portion of the park as “relatively unused” with “little to no neighbor impact”, but as a nearby resident, I can attest that this is not an accurate reflection of how the space is currently used. It is actively enjoyed by families, children, and neighbors on a daily basis.

Fencing off one of the nicest and most functional parts of our neighborhood park for exclusive dog use would significantly reduce access for the broader community—particularly young children who rely on this space for safe outdoor play. Additionally, placing an off-leash dog area in a residential neighborhood raises concerns about noise, safety, and overall compatibility with surrounding homes.

I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the location of this project. A more appropriate site would be along the Greenbelt closer to downtown, which is more central to the entire Hermosa Beach community and less embedded within a residential setting. This would allow for broader access while minimizing the impact on families who depend on neighborhood parks like Valley Park.

Again, I support the concept of a dog park—but not at the expense of one of our most valuable shared family spaces.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kate Hirsh
Jessica Lebeouf
I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposal to place a dog park at Valley Park. I love dogs (we had 2 for over 15 years and are in the process of adopting another) and support finding appropriate spaces for the community’s pets, but Valley Park is not the right location for an off-leash dog park for many important reasons.

Valley Park serves as one of the few remaining open green spaces for families, children, and residents seeking a peaceful recreational environment. The park is heavily used by young children for play, sports, picnics, and community gatherings. Converting any portion of this shared space into a dog park would significantly change the character, safety, cleanliness, and accessibility of the park for the broader community.

One of the biggest concerns is that Valley Park is directly adjacent to a school and frequently used by children and families. An off-leash dog park next to a school creates avoidable safety and liability concerns. Even well-behaved dogs can become unpredictable in crowded environments, especially around running children, bicycles, balls, food, and noise. Parents should not have to worry about dog fights, aggressive behavior, unleashed animals escaping fenced areas, or children accidentally encountering unsafe situations while visiting the park or walking to and from school. Inevitably, those that come to go to the dog park will also create more Dogs all over the actual park even if its just coming or going to the park. Most likely also more off-leash even running around the park as it will draw more to this area. My children personally come out of school every single day and play at the park (which is the #1 reason we moved to Hermosa) and if a dog park went in we would absolutely not continue this.

Sanitation and odor are also major concerns. Dog parks inevitably create strong odors from urine and feces, especially during warmer months. Even with responsible owners, waste is often missed or improperly disposed of. This can negatively affect nearby playgrounds, picnic areas, sidewalks, and surrounding neighborhoods. Children should not be playing in areas where contamination from pet waste becomes a regular issue. Dog waste can also introduce bacteria and parasites into grass and soil where children frequently play.

Noise is another serious issue. Barking dogs, owner gatherings, whistles, and increased activity levels would substantially increase noise in what is currently a peaceful neighborhood park. Residents living nearby would likely experience ongoing disturbances throughout the day, including early mornings and evenings.

Parking and traffic are already limited in the area. Valley Park does not have sufficient infrastructure to support increased vehicle traffic from a destination dog park. Visitors from outside the neighborhood would add congestion to already crowded residential streets, making parking more difficult for families attending school functions, youth sports, and park activities. Living on 27th, Parking is already a huge issue for any of the residences in the area and many of the lots require the street parking. Increased traffic also raises pedestrian safety concerns for children and families crossing nearby streets.

Maintenance and enforcement are additional concerns. Dog parks require constant upkeep, monitoring, fencing repairs, waste management, watering, and enforcement of rules. Without continuous oversight, problems such as aggressive dogs, excessive barking, neglected waste, and rule violations can quickly escalate. For those that have been to other dog parks also know that they do have to be updated frequently. This creates additional financial and operational burdens for the City.

There are also concerns regarding fairness and park access. Valley Park currently serves a broad cross-section of the community. A dog park would prioritize one specific use over many others and reduce usable open space for children, seniors, and residents who may not feel comfortable around off-leash dogs due to allergies, fears, past experiences, or cultural preferences.

Approving a dog park at Valley Park may also set a precedent for further conversion of community green spaces into specialized-use facilities without broad community consensus. Before making such a permanent change, the City should thoroughly evaluate alternative locations that are more appropriate and less impactful to schools, children, neighborhoods, and existing recreational use.

I respectfully ask the City Council to preserve Valley Park as a safe, clean, family-oriented open space and reject the proposal for a dog park at this location. Please consider alternative sites that are better suited for this type of facility and more compatible with surrounding infrastructure and community needs. I would support the Green Belt far more than Valley Park if the city feels there has to be a dog park in this location.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community.

Gabi Adler
I strongly support a dog park in Hermosa Beach! Our city is the only one in the South Bay without a dog park, and yet quite a few appropriate spaces for one. I suggest either the Beach area or the Edith Rodaway park as my preferences, but ANYoption would be better than the status quo! Laura Pena
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff -
I want to begin by thanking the Bark for a Park residents, subcommittee, and everyone who has invested time, energy, and heart into this effort. Their work is a positive example of what can happen when residents actively engage in improving our community, including for our furry residents as well.

Bark for a Park’s ability to raise more than $70,000 in donations and pledges and secure a matching grant of up to $250,000 is no small feat. At the same time, I think Council has to be honest about the tradeoffs.

The staff report is clear that while the nonprofit may help fund design and construction, the City would still be responsible for ongoing maintenance and operations after completion. Those are not minor obligations. They are recurring service commitments. That is why this discussion cannot be separated from the City’s larger fiscal and operational realities. If the City is discussing service reductions, maintenance pressures, and limited staff capacity, then the public deserves a clear explanation of the tradeoff if a new maintenance intensive amenity is added.

What service gets reduced?
What project gets delayed?
What maintenance standard declines elsewhere?
I support the concept of a dog park. But support for the concept should not mean bypassing the hard questions about long term operations. If the City moves forward, Council should require a full operating and maintenance analysis before making any final commitment. Staff itself says a comprehensive feasibility report would still be needed.

If the City is going to continue studying locations, the Greenbelt appears to offer the greatest overall public value. Staff identified major benefits including a central location near the civic center, minimal impact on homes, a flat and shaded environment, nearby public restrooms and parking, stronger potential to support ADA requirements, and high foot traffic that could potentially support our downtown businesses. That matters because the Greenbelt is not just a possible dog park location. It is the location with the clearest potential to connect a community amenity with broader economic and placemaking value.

Bark for a Park made that same point in its recommendation letter, noting that a Greenbelt location could draw dog owners downtown which is what we need during the day time, mid week. And importantly, staff reported that during the January 21, 2026 onsite meeting with a Principal Designer from Gaudet Design Group, “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.” That is significant. It means the Greenbelt is not only compelling from a community and economic standpoint, but was also identified by the designer as the preferred site compared with Valley Park.

Of course, the Greenbelt also comes with a requirement for a public vote. But that challenge should not cause the City to overlook the location that may offer the best long term value to the community.

I appreciate and support the residents who brought this forward. I appreciate the Bark for a Park Subcommittee for showing what active civic participation can look like. But if the City is going to move this forward, then the Council owes the public a transparent answer to two questions:

1. What is the long-term operational tradeoff?

2. Which location creates the greatest lasting public benefit if the City is going to take that on? If the answer is that a dog park still makes sense, then I believe the Greenbelt deserves serious consideration because it appears to offer the strongest combination of feasibility, minimal residential impact, access, community value, and possible economic benefit.

Thank you.

Laura Pena
Kelly Castro
Dear Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council,
I am writing to express concern about the proposed off-leash dog park at Valley Park East, as described in the “Bark for a Park” proposal.

I have serious concerns about the safety of children playing at this park, one of only two sizeable green spaces in our city, by inviting “dog owners” from far and wide to spend time at Valley Park. We have already had issues with pedophiles ************ to children at both Valley and South Park. Remember the bathroom incidents at Valley Park? This proposed dog park will also impact the critically short parking situation for residents and parents getting their kids from school, activities at the park, and the Rotary.

Valley Park is an important shared space for our community. It is used daily by residents for recreation, relaxation, and family activities. Many neighbors rely on this park as one of the few accessible green spaces in a residential area, and it plays a meaningful role in the quality of life for those who live nearby.

We recognize and support the idea of creating a dog park in Hermosa Beach. However, we believe Valley Park East is not the right location. Converting part of a neighborhood park into a fenced, off-leash area may introduce concerns related to noise, safety, and compatibility with the surrounding residential environment.

Myself and residents immediately adjacent to the park support exploration of the Greenbelt option versus Vally Park.

Please refocus efforts to the Greembelt which is a more suitable and underutilized space for a dog run like the successful new area in Polliwog Park.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of community input.

Sincerely,
Kelly Castro
Hermosa Beach Residen
Moira Nelson
Personally, I would very much like to have a dog park in Valley Park. There are large areas of the park away from the play and picnic areas that would make convenient locations. Also, the park is already heavily used as a meeting place and off-leash running place by dog owners and their dogs. I think it would be good to shift that usage toward a designated part of the park where we might hope it could be better regulated and monitored.

Melinda Green
Please find my letter opposing the creation of a dog park in Valley Park and incorporate it into the public record. I oppose a dog park because it will negatively impact families, degrade the character of Valley Park, create safety issues to children at Hermosa Vista School, increase traffic congestion, and unnecessarily drain the City's limited financial and environmental resources.

Hilary Meade
We need a dog park in Hermosa. Where else can we allow our dogs to get energy out when most people don't have back yards? They are not allowed on the beach and they must be on leash everywhere else. Please approve this park.

Stephen McCall
Against current options. Valley Park ought to be South East, away from valuable open space used by community, and not on Green Belt, especially not within view of Pier Ave.

Consider 'Open Park' model, as per NYC, with open use before 7am and after 9pm, with restrictions on certain areas: playground etc. This does not look to have been included in Staff Study. Benefit of no major capital cost, low maintenance and keep parks open.

Thanks!
Bill Graw
I’ve lived in Hermosa Beach for 33 years. I have raised two dogs over the past 20 years, and I truly love dogs. However, I’m concerned about this particular proposal for a dog park. Hermosa Valley Park was remodeled in 2001 and is perfect exactly as it is. There are zero fences. Adding fencing to our existing open space feels like a step in the wrong direction.

As a successful entrepreneur who has held a business license in Hermosa since 1998, I am skeptical about how the city could financially sustain the costs of maintenance and enforcement if the park were constructed. With that said, if a dog park were to be approved, it would make more sense to centrally locate it near existing city services, including Animal Control, Public Works, and the Police and Fire Departments. The Greenbelt between City Hall and the Community Center (Skateboard Park) would be a more logical location.

For the record, I am not anti-dog park; I am offering a logical perspective. If a dog park is to be constructed, maintenance and enforcement should be the primary focus of the city. This decision is much bigger than asking, 'Do we need a dog park?'; it is asking, 'Can we afford a dog park?' Ultimately, due to the annual recurring costs, this decision should be up to the tax-paying voters. I urge the council to truly find out what the majority of residents think in regards to the location and overall costs of a dog park and put it on the ballot.

Nayiri Dermenjian
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council Members,
I am writing to express my and my family's strong support for the proposed off-leash dog park at Valley Park East.

We moved to Hermosa Beach just before Covid hit. Our children went to school for 4 months before Covid forced them to stay home and do online learning. We did what most people did… adopted a dog to make online school a bit more tolerable. Two years ago, while running our dog at the park with a leash on, we got a $250 ticket that alleged “Dog at large.” Though we fought the ticket for months, at the end of the day we still had to pay that fee. We pay exorbitant amount of property taxes to have access to parks for our children and pets. It was a very upsetting experience for us as a family, and since then I have personally been fully vested in having a dedicated leash free park where our dog can run without the fear of being ticketed. Almost immediately after that experience, I became a member of the board of directors of Bark for a Park. I wanted to be a part of a plan to design and implement a safe, thoughtfully designed off-leash space for our community dogs.

As Board members of Bark for a Park, we have worked closely with the Parks & Recreation Commission to evaluate potential locations throughout Hermosa Beach. After extensive study, discussion, and public input, the Commission voted unanimously to move forward with a dog park and carefully considered numerous locations, including areas behind the baseball field, behind the South Park restroom, the Valley Park West slope, Bicentennial Park, and portions of the Greenbelt. These sites were ultimately ruled out due to concerns including ADA compliance, fire and safety access, neighborhood proximity, and ballot measure requirements.

Following this thorough evaluation, Valley Park East emerged as the clear and most practical choice.

Valley Park East offers the infrastructure and accessibility necessary to create a successful dog park within budget. The site already includes nearby parking, restrooms, open green space, and ADA-accessible access points. Importantly, a fenced, designated dog park creates a safer environment for everyone by separating off-leash pets from children’s play areas, AYSO activities, basketball courts, and other park uses. The location is also ideally situated away from nearby homes, minimizing neighborhood impact.

Equally important, this project comes at an extraordinary financial opportunity for the City. Bark for a Park supporters are prepared to help fund the project privately, including an anonymous donor who has pledged to match all gifts of $100 or more up to $250,000!! To date, more than $70,000 has already been raised. Our supporters are committed not only to helping build the park, but also to supporting its maintenance and long-term success.

This project reflects the very best of Hermosa Beach: community involvement, volunteerism, and neighbors coming together around a shared vision. Dog parks are more than pet amenities—they are gathering spaces that strengthen community ties, encourage outdoor activity, and foster connection among residents of all ages and backgrounds. Few public spaces today create spontaneous interaction and civic cohesion the way dog parks do.

Approving the Valley Park East Dog Park would be a meaningful investment in the quality of life, health, and connectedness of our community for years to come.

Thank you for your consideration and leadership.

Sincerely,
Nayiri Dermenjian
Alysa Brennan
We truly need an off leash park for this dog-friendly community! Valley Park certainly has space for it; I walk my older dog on leash there 2-3 times a week. But my husband has to drive every day to Redondo to take our other dog to that park since he needs freedom to run and expend energy. An energetic dog that is cooped up in a small apartment or house is not good for our close housing here in Hermosa. Adopting a dog truly changed my life. Having a park would encourage others to adopt shelter dogs and walk and socialize with them - all import things for health and well being.

Bobbi Newman
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council Members,
My husband and I moved to Hermosa in 1969 with our two toddler children and have had 5 dogs during these many years. During this time we’ve enjoyed walking on the green belt on and off leash when it was legal.

Over the years we visited all the parks for more exercise and fun with the children and pets and we finally visited adjacent cities like Redondo, elSegundo then some small dog park strips in Manhattan beach, Most dog runs and dog parks are sunny, dusty and dirty.

During all these years we’ve lived in walking distance to Valley Park and socialized for years with other dog owners, small, medium and large . Sadly, all these dogs need more freedom to run and play so now we are excited to support the new proposal for Valley Park for a safe, clean, shady area to do just that. We’ve waiting many years to have an enclosed space to let our dogs off leash.

We’re looking forward to enjoying this with our dog, Laiki, our adult children, their dogs and our grandchildren with their dogs.

The area proposed in the park is one we walk often. We rarely see anyone lingering or walking in the specified area and it’s east of the playground and bathrooms. It’s very far from where large groups gather to do team practice or large special events, We are pleased and grateful this project is being considered. Our three-generational family in Hermosa Beach thanks you.

Bobbi and Ron Newman
3312 Hermosa Ave
Hermosa Beach

IRINA GAAL
My name is Irina Gaal and I live at 652 Gould Ave, half a block from Valley Park. I've been a Hermosa resident for over 25 years.

I respectfully ask that the city please allow for the creation of a dog park in the area of Valley Park referred to as Valley Park East (near the north east corner).

I practically raised my family in Valley park, given how many hours we all spent there with my kids as they were growing up. Now I walk through there daily with my dog. It’s such a wonderful space that is used by all sorts of groups in our community. There are already so many dogs in the park, as many of us become empty nesters and change our focus to hanging out with our dogs, building a community of other dog-loving empty nesters and new dog owners. It would be so wonderful to have a space where dogs could run off leash so we could continue to build on our dog-loving community rather than struggling with twisting leashes. The area being proposed is perfect-- secluded, rarely used by anyone other than dog owners. When my kids were growing up, they used all the other large areas in the park, not this scooped out landscape where you can't run carefree or practice kicking or throwing balls. Kids just don't use that space.

We received a flyer that some people believe a dog park in this small section somehow keeps Valley park from being a place for everyone. That couldn't be further from the truth. Creating a dog park makes it even more a place for everyone as now dog owners would be able to safely let their pets run without impacting others in the park.

I really really hope you make this project happen.

Mary Ann Benson
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council Members,
My husband and I have been residents for 39 years. We have had 5 dogs during that time. We would walk or run them 3 times a day and frequent all of the city’s parks. But since they were unable to be off-leash, we would drive to Huntington Beach, Coronado, Idyllwild and Carmel, just to name a few, so that we could run, hike, swim and socialize them, off-leash.

As a Board Member for Bark for a Park, we have worked closely with the Parks and Recreation Commission, your City Manager and each of you in order to address any and all city and resident concerns, in order to have an opportunity to also have our fury residents have a place to run and play.

We believe that we have found such a place. This is an isolated, underused space within the 8.75-acre of Valley Park. The area is east of the bathrooms and near the corner of Gould Avenue and Valley Drive. This section is away from the playground, basketball courts, picnic tables and amphitheater. It is also physically away from homes, to address any noise issues.

Valley Park has been widely used by families, children, neighbors and on-leash dogs. Anyone who lives near or frequents this area is aware of this. The only difference is that our proposal is to have our dogs in an unused area which is isolated from other activities and events at the park.

We intend on keeping the green space in its design. In fact, there would be far more attention to its green space upkeep than the overall park, which continually shows its wear due to soccer and other activities. And any wildlife or nature impacts would be negligible to its current status.

In closing, anyone who feels that this is a bad idea, should see how Valley Park is now and then see that an out-of-the way, under-utilized area would have zero impact to them or to our current park.

After all, the park should be for everyone…even our dogs.

Thank you for your thorough consideration to this proposal.

Mary Ann Benson
Bark for a Park Board Member and resident
Alan Benson
resident
Samuel Sampson
Hermosa Beach thrives on its outdoor culture, yet we are missing a dedicated space for our canine citizens. A dog park provides a clear, legal boundary for play, which inherently improves the safety and cleanliness of our other public parks. Instead of navigating the uncertainty of shared spaces, a dog park offers a 'best of both worlds' solution: a vibrant hub for owners and a more peaceful experience for the rest of the public. I urge the council to designate a space that reflects our community’s needs.

Steve Yeager
I hope we get an off leash area in Valley Park for my two small dogs. Currently hundreds of people with their dogs come to the park and many let their dogs run free in different areas of the park making enforcement nearly impossible leading to very few citations. Lets fence off an area so everyone is happy.

Wendy Finster
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for the proposed off-leash dog park at Valley Park East.

We have proudly called Hermosa Beach home for more than 11 years, raised our children here, and shared our lives with our 10-year-old dog, Summer. Over the past several years—especially since Covid—the number of dogs and dog-owning families in Hermosa has grown tremendously. Our community deserves a safe, thoughtfully designed off-leash space where residents and their pets can gather, exercise, and connect.

Following this thorough evaluation, Valley Park East emerged as the clear and most practical choice.

Approving the Valley Park East Dog Park would be a meaningful investment in the quality of life, health, and connectedness of our community for years to come.

Thank you for your consideration and leadership.

Sincerely,
Wendy Finster, Board Member, Bark for a Park
Paul Finster, Hermosa Beach Resident
Chandrea Miller
I live in Hermosa Beach with my three dogs. All of my neighbors have dogs too. We are patiently waiting for our park! Thank you for making this dream come true! Mark Clifford
Wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse this agenda item.

Kathy Barron
Hermosa Beach residents have so many dogs that a dog park would be so welcome here Kent Mader
Hermosa Beach has beautiful sunsets, incredible community spirit, and 3,000 dogs who have been patiently waiting their turn like very good boys and girls. Manhattan Beach has a dog park. Redondo Beach has a dog park. We love being the scrappy little sibling of the South Bay, but even the youngest pup eventually gets to run off-leash. Bark for a Park has done everything right — the petition, the research, the 11 locations. The only thing left is for Hermosa to fetch this opportunity and RUN with it. We are so ready to grow up. Let's make it official. Drop the leash. Let's GO (Senior Recreation Supervisor Brian Sousa)
This item was considered out of order.

Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols provided a brief introduction to the item.

Senior Recreation Supervisor Brian Sousa provided the PowerPoint presentation.

Senior Recreation Supervisor Sousa, Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore, City Manager Steve Napolitano, and City Clerk Martha Alvarez responded to City Council questions.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments and clarified that due to high volume of public comments, each speaker would have two minutes for public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:

Jack Levy (In-Person)
Carla Buck (In-Person)
Kimm Dunne (In-Person)
Wendy Finster (In-Person)
Jim S (Provided a speaker card but did not speak)
Gina R (In-Person)
Mark H (In-Person)
Jeff M (In-Person)
William G (In-Person)
Roi G (In-Person)
Irina G (In-Person)
Shawn P (In-Person)
Eric P (In-Person)
Jim S (Was called again, provided a speaker card but did not speak) Tony Higgins (Virtual)
Kristin Moreno (Virtual)
Tom Coyle (Virtual)
Laura P (In-Person)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

City Manager Napolitano and Senior Recreation Supervisor Sousa responded to City Council questions.

A motion was made by Councilmember Jackson, seconded by Mayor Deoty, to direct staff to proceed with a comprehensive feasibility analysis of the South Park location.

Moved by:

Councilmember Saemann
Seconded by:

Councilmember Francois
A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to direct staff to proceed with a comprehensive feasibility analysis of Valley Park East as the primary location and the Greenbelt as a secondary location, and to return with information on a potential ballot measure regarding the Greenbelt location.

Ayes (3)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Saemann, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan Noes (2)
Councilmember Jackson, and Mayor Detoy
Motion Carried

17.a
DEPARTMENT FY 2026-2027 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS - 26-AS-054 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT-DEPARTMENT FY 27 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS - 26-AS-054.pdf

2. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.a.pdf
Ira Ellman
- If not already done, I would recommend a hiring freeze until the budget process is complete. - Increase controls on overtime (pre-approval, if that is not in place) - In addition to stating the negative impact t services from a 10% cut in their department as shown in the staff report, managers should detail what they will do to make it work. - The City Council should form a sub-committee and/or citizens group to investigate potential revenue, both incremental to current sources and creative new sources. Increasing sales tax on Hermosa residents is more than likely to fail again. - I am not particularly confident that Council Members will ask tough questions of department heads regarding headcount, utilization and efficiency of their 2026-2027 budget. - Closing the $3.2mm gap for the coming fiscal year and future years will be difficult. Cutting departmental expenses will be necessary, as short-term revenue generation is not an easy task. (Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
At 9:32 p.m., the City Council recessed and reconvened at 9:42 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.

City Clerk Martha Alvarez led roll call.

Present:

Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann City Manager Steve Napolitano provided a brief overview regarding the budget process.

Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker provided the PowerPoint presentation.

Police Chief Landon Phillips provided the Police Department PowerPoint presentation.

City Manager Napolitano and Police Chief Phillips responded to City Council questions.

Public Works Director Joseph SanClemente provided the Public Works Department PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council questions.

Parks and Recreations Director Lisa Nichols provided the Parks and Recreation Department PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council questions.

Community Development Director Alison Becker provided the Community Development Department PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council questions.

Senior Management Analyst Sara Russon and Senior Management Analyst Kenneth Bales provided the City Manager's PowerPoint presentation.

City Clerk Martha Alvarez provided the City Clerk's Office PowerPoint presentation.

Administrative Services Director Walker and City Manager Napolitano concluded the PowerPoint presentation.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments.

Seeing no requests to speak, Mayor Deoty closed the floor to public comments.

Moved by:

Mayor Detoy
Seconded by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
A motion was made by Mayor Detoy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to receive and file the FY 2026–2027 Department Budget Presentations.

Ayes (5)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Motion Carried

17.c
CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE TO PICKLEBALL MEMBERSHIP AND RESERVATION FEES - 26-PR-025 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - UPDATES TO PICKLEBALL MEMBERSHIP AND RESERVATION FEES - 26-PR-025.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Kelly Pickleball Courts Use Policy.pdf

3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.c.pdf
(Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols provided the PowerPoint presentation.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:

Geraldine Poon (In-Person)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

City Manager Steve Napolitano, Parks and Recreation Director Nichols, and Senior Recreation Supervisor Brian Sousa responded to City Council questions.

Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to approve Option 2, setting the annual membership rate at $25 and the resident hourly reservation rate at $12 per hour.

Ayes (3)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Saemann, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan Noes (2)
Councilmember Jackson, and Mayor Detoy
Motion Carried

17.d
CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LOS ANGELES COASTAL AREA SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY - 26-CMO-029 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. CONSIDERATION OF CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) - 26-CMO-029.pdf

2. National Park Service Letter Request.pdf

3. Los Angeles Area Special Resource Study Newsletter.pdf

4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.d.pdf
tonyhiggins
Dear City Council. Someone needs to say if the national park option is the only viable path to a new pier that would otherwise cost 100 million dollars if 30 financing is included.

You want new pier? Are you willing to give up the city's ownership of its beach to get it? Dav
There are a couple of things that need to be more well understood or clarified from the Staff report. One is about the pros/cons of designation. The other is about City's ability to avoid designation. (1) Designation appears to present potential (additional) local control and 'red tape' issues, traded off versus prospective funding. How well do we really understand the potential downside and the mechanisms by which Hermosa might lose local control? (2) Would Hermosa have the power to reject designation by the Federal government throughout the entire evaluation process, even if we agreed to initially participate in for exploratory reasons? David Grethen - Hermosa Beach Resident
(City Manager Steve Napolitano)
City Manager Steve Napolitano provided a brief overview and provided clarification.

Management Analyst Leo Zalyan provided the PowerPoint presentation.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments.

Seeing no requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, to e
xamine the potential benefits and concerns associated with joining the NPS Special Resource Study before making any decision. The motion failed for lack of second.

Management Analyst Zalyan responded to City Council questions.

Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Mayor Detoy
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Mayor Deoty, to direct staff to participate in the National Park Service Los Angeles Coastal Area Special Resource Study and to return draft comments for City Council review prior to submission.

Ayes (3)
Councilmember Francois, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Noes (2)
Councilmember Jackson, and Councilmember Saemann
Motion Carried

17.e
INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO DISCUSS IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALCOHOL-SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS - 26-PD-008 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - ID REQUIREMENTS FOR ALCOHOL SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS - PD-008 - 26-PD-008.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Correspondence .pdf

3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.e.pdf
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)
Police Chief Landon Phillips provided the PowerPoint presentation.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments.

Seeing no requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

Police Chief Phillips responded to City Council questions.

Moved by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:

Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to receive and file the informational report.

Motion Carried

17.f
INFORMATIONAL ITEM REGARDING LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR ASSEMBLY BILL 1942: ELECTRIC BICYCLES: REGISTRATION AND SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES - 26-CMO-024 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - AB 1942 - 26-CMO-024.pdf

2. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.f.pdf
mc guerry
This law, as well as the measures Manhattan Beach is taking, will not solve the "issues" around "ebikes." Almost every "issue" with "ebikes" is already illegal, whether it be the illegal e-motos that go over 28 mph to things like the running of stop signs.

All this law will do is punish law-abiding citizens who want an easier way to get around our city. Older and disabled individuals who can no longer ride a regular bike will be one type of person this law harms.

Ebikes have the possibility of bringing transformational change to our transportation system. Pollution from autos is the leading contributor to the climate crisis and microplastics in our oceans. We need to reduce the number of cars on the road and encouraging ebikes is a great way to do that.

This law will just discourage their use and will not even succeed in curbing the illegal activities in our city.

The Hermosa Beach Police Dept has purchased e-bikes for their officers to use. This action is a wonderful first step in actually solving the "issues" of "ebikes." I urge you to reject this law.

FYI - based on misinformation I have heard from members of the council, please note that Class 3 ebikes are NOT like motorcycles. They have a max speed of 28 mph and can not have a throttle. In addition, one must be at least 16 to be on one.

Again, reject this unnecessary and harmful law.
tonyhiggins
Dear City Council,
The council should immediately schedule an agenda item to adopt complementary rules with Manhattan Beaches recently passed common sense ebike regulations.

We dont need ebikers pulling out their headphones, earbuds and cell phones the minute they cross the MB border to cruz on our busy strand and roads. thank you
tonyhiggins
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)
Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo provided the PowerPoint presentation Senior Management Analyst Russo and City Manager Steve Napolitano responded to City Council questions.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments.

Seeing no requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

Moved by:

Councilmember Saemann
Seconded by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to direct staff to return with a letter of support for AB 1942 (Assembly Bill 1942) as currently written as an action item on a future Consent Calendar.

Ayes (4)
Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Noes (1)
Councilmember Francois
Motion Carried

15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:

15.d
AMENDMENTS TO THE HERMOSA BEACH ROTARY CLUB AND HERMOSA BEACH KIWANIS CLUB AGREEMENTS - 26-PR-024 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - ADMENDMENTS TO THE KIWANIS CLUB AND ROTARY CLUB AGREEMENT - 26-PR-024.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club Lease Agreement.pdf

3. Attachment 2. Hermosa Beach Rotary Club Lease Agreement.pdf

4. Attachment 3. Proposed Amendment to the Kiwanis Club Lease Agreement.pdf

5. Attachment 4. Proposed Amendment to the Rotary Club Lease Agreement.pdf (Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar to be considered after Municipal Matters.

Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols provided the staff presentation.

Councimember Saemann reported his role as part of the Kiwanis Club and noted no personal financial gain was involved.

Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments.

Seeing no requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.

Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore, Parks and Recreation Director Nichols, and City Manager Steve Napolitano responded to City Council questions.

Moved by:

Mayor Detoy
Seconded by:

Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
A motion made by Mayor Detoy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to approve the seventh amendment to the agreement with the Hermosa Beach Rotary Club, approve the first amendment to the agreement with the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club, and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest both amendments subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Ayes (5)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Motion Carried

18. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comments:

Councilmember Jackson requested that a comprehensive review of city speed limits be agendized as an informational item, focusing on major thoroughfares including Hermosa Avenue, 27th Street, Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue, and Prospect Avenue. City Manager Napolitano indicated staff would evaluate available options under current state authority and report back to Council, noting that Public Works capacity constraints would be a factor. The request received support from Mayor Detoy.

18.a
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 26-CMO-030
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. STAFF REPORT - TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 5-12-26 - 26-CMO-030.pdf

2. Attachment 1. Tentative Future Agenda.pdf
Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.

This item was received and filed by order of the Chair.

19. CITY MANAGER REPORT
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 19.pdf
City Manager Steve Napolitano reminded the community that City Hall and the Community Center will be closed on Monday, May 25, 2026, in observance of Memorial Day. Street sweeping and parking enforcement along PCH (Pacific Coast Highway), as well as all construction work, will be suspended that day; all other local parking regulations remain in effect, and trash collection will be delayed by one day.

20. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Public Comments:

20.a
PARKING CITATIONS AND METERED REVENUE REPORT - APRIL 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Parking Citation and Revenue Report - April 2026.pdf (Senior Management Analyst Ken Bales)
This item was received and filed by order of the Chair.

21. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments:

At 12:11 a.m., Mayor Detoy adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, May 26, 2026, a 5:00 p.m.

Hermosa Beach City CouncilMay 12, 2026

Hermosa Beach City Council
May 12, 2026