CITY COUNCIL - July 28, 2026
1. CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM
Public Comments:
2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. POST DEADLINE SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment For Item 3.pdf This Public Comment period is limited to Closed Session agenda items only. Public Comment is limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.
4. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments:
4.a
MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on June 23, 2026 Public Comments:
4.b
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
Public Comments:
Pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case: Norma Iaia v. City of Hermosa Beach
Case Number: 23TRCV03562
Name of Case: Koerner v. City of Hermosa Beach
Case Number: 25STCP00891
4.c
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Public Comments:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) Number of potential cases: One (1)
5. OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
Public Comments:
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Public Comments:
7. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
8. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Public Comments:
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
Public Comments:
10. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:
10.a
HERMOSA BEACH ROTARY CLUB CHECK PRESENTATION FOR K9 ARCO ARMORED VEST Public Comments:
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Public Comments:
This is the time for the City Council to:
Notify the public of any changes to the agenda;
Remove items from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration; or Rearrange the order of the agenda.
MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA AND WAIVE FULL READING
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. E-comment Report 7-28-26.pdf
2. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 12.pdf
3. POST DEADLINE SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment For Item 12.pdf Hermosa Beach Property Owner
See attached PDF for Public Comments
These comments were previously submitted by email to the City Clerk, who confirmed receipt and stated that they would be included with General Public Comments when the City publishes the comments for the July 28, 2026 meeting. As of 8:30 PM on July 27, they do not yet appear on the HTML agenda. I am therefore submitting the same comments through the City’s eComment system to ensure that they are timely included in the public record and available to the City Council before the meeting. This is a backup submission of the same public comment, not a separate or additional substantive comment. Please post only one copy. The formatted PDF and supporting exhibits were previously provided to the City Clerk by email.
Bryson Roberts
Why will this sales tax measure work under Napolitano? Up to this point, Steve Napolitano has only proven to be the human equivalent of warm diarrhea stuffed into a cheap suit. th
Dear City Council
Re: Taxpayer Subsidies
Many residents want a dog park and yet the city is demanding full reimbursement for all related staff expenses as indicated below in the MOU with Bark for a Park (BFAP) and I guess thats ok, we are in a fiscal crisis.
Although BFAP will manage and fund the feasibility work, City staff will provide project oversight and technical review.
Accordingly, the MOU requires BFAP to reimburse the City for actual Project-related staff, legal, engineering, environmental review, consultant, administrative, project management, and plan check costs.
Because the level of City involvement cannot be determined in advance, the MOU provides for reimbursement of actual costs incurred.
This approach ensures that the
Project sponsor (not the City) bears the costs associated with evaluating and administering this non-Capital Improvement Program project.....
But when it comes to the Monument, Gateway & Wayfarer signs project that was supposed to be fully funded by the former Mayors $500k donation and the Chamber of Commerce $50k, the city has basically ignored recovering the city costs despite the fiscal crisis This raises questions related fiscal accountability and the equitable application of cost recovery rules Staff costs to date for the "Sign" project are already quite high given all the planning and design work, mock-ups, safety reviews, staff reports, etc., and city costs will only grow significantly as further safety reviews are conducted, bid packages are prepared & evaluated and the project enters the implementation phase.
Yet the city has no realistic plan to identify city expenses and recover them from the sponsor donations.
Obviously, if you can track the BPAP expenses you can and should track and recover taxpayer all subsidies associated to the "sign" project.
At a minimum the city should identify the full direct & indirect taxpayer costs for the "sign" project and either have the donors pay the full cost; else have the council budget for and authorize them.
Thank you,
tonyhiggins
tony higgins
Some facts about funding a new 100 million dollar pier
click or tap on the Pier_funding.pdf above.
warning: ai generated
This is the time for members of the public to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken (City Manager Reports, City Councilmember Comments, Consent Calendar items not pulled for separate discussion, and Future Agenda Items). If public comment is provided on a Public Hearing or Municipal Matter item, public comment on the same item will not be accepted when the item is heard at a later part of the meeting.
The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker from those present in City Council Chambers and via the remote participation options listed on the agenda. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council.
No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager. Members of the public will have a future opportunity to speak on items pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, Public Hearings, and Municipal Matters when those items are heard.
13. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Public Comments:
14. UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Public Comments:
This is the time for members of the City Council to report on their attendance at ad hoc subcommittees or standing committee meetings, conferences, or other official activities as City representatives.
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. Councilmembers may orally register a negative vote on any Consent Calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration before the vote on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item before the vote on the Consent Calendar. Items removed for separate discussion will be provided a separate public comment period.
APPROVE
15.a
CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-077
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CHECK REGISTERS 7-28-2026 - 26-AS-077.pdf
2. Attachment 1. 6-17-26.pdf
3. Attachment 2. 6-24-26.pdf
4. Attachment 3. 7-2-26.pdf
5. Attachment 4. 7-8-26.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.b
CASH BALANCE REPORT - 26-AS-080
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - MAY 2026 CASH BALANCE REPORT - 26-AS-080.pdf
2. Attachment 1. May 2026 Cash Balance Report.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.c
REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR MAY 2026 - 26-AS-081 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT- MAY 2026 REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND CIP REPORTS - 26-AS-081.pdf
2. Attachment 1. May 2026 Revenue Report.pdf
3. Attachment 2. May 2026 Expenditure Report.pdf
4. Attachment 3. May 2026 CIP Report by Project.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.e
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AS OF JULY 21, 2026 - 26-PW-051 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - CIP STATUS REPORT JULY 2026 - 26-PW-051.pdf
2. Capital Improvement Program Status Report as of July 21, 2026.pdf
3. Estimated CIP Project Schedule FY 2025-2026 – Updated July 21, 2026.pdf (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
RECEIVE AND FILE
15.f
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTY’S URBAN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2028-2030 - 26-PW-045 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APPROVING THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN CDBG PROGRAM - 26-PW-045.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Draft Cooperation Agreement.pdf
CEQA:
Determine the resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(4), 15378(b)(5), and 15061(b)(3). (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
A) DETERMINE RESOLUTION IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
15.g
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CORRECTING A CLERICAL ERROR IN EXHIBIT A RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 (SB 1) PROJECT LIST FOR FY 26-27 - 26-PW-049 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - RESO TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR RELATED TO SB1 - 26-PW-049.pdf
2. Attachment 1 - Nunc Pro Tunc Resolution No. 26-7552.pdf
3. Attachment 2 - Exhibit A - Hermosa Beach Fiscal Year 2026-2027 RMRA Project List.pdf CEQA:
The Project is exempt under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3). (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
ADOPT NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION NO. 26-7552
15.j
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FINAL PARCEL MAP - 26-CDD-066 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT- FINAL MAP 138 1ST STREET - 26-CDD-066.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Final Parcel Map No. 84286.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Los Angeles County Engineer Review.pdf CEQA:
Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act SUBJECT:
FINAL MAP NO. 84286 (CUP NO. 24-10, PDP NO. 24-03)
LOCATION:
138 1
st
Street
APPLICANT:
Maria Islas
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
A) DETERMINE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
15.k
APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR ON-CALL STAFF AUGMENTATION SERVICES - 26-CDD-060 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. - 26-CDD-060.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Proposed PSA with CSG Consultants Inc.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Fourth Amendment with CSG.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Third Amendment to Agreement with CSG.pdf
5. Attachment 4. Second Amendment to Agreement with CSG.pdf
6. Attachment 5. First Amendment to Agreement with CSG.pdf
7. Attachment 6. Agreement with CSG.pdf
8. Attachment 7. Work Plan and Fee Schedule.pdf
CEQA:
Determine that the approval is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act or, in the alternative, that the approval is exempt under CEQA. (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
A) DETERMINE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
B) APPROVE
15.l
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE SALARY AND BENEFITS REPORT FOR UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS - 26-AS-084 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS - 26-AS-084.pdf
2. Resolution and Amendment to the Unrepresented Group Salary and Benefits .pdf
3. Salary and Benefits - Exhibit A.pdf
th
i hope you all look at Exhibit A in Attachment 3.
These benefit increases seem excessive and call into question the city's commitment to cost reductions. (Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)
ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
15.m
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVING A SIDE LETTER TO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE GENERAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES’ BARGAINING UNIT, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 986 - 26-AS-082 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A SIDE LETTER TO THE MOU BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE TEAMSTERS' UNION - 26-AS-082.pdf
2. Resolution and General and Supervisory Employees' Group Bargaining Unit, Teamsters Local 986 Side Letter.pdf (Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)
ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
15.n
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A SIDE LETTER TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES’ GROUP - 26-AS-083 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A SIDE LETTER TO MOU BETWEEN CITY AND PAE GROUP - 26-AS-083.pdf
2. Resolution and Professional and Administrative Employees Group Side Letter.pdf (Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)
ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
15.d
AWARD OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TEAMCIVX FOR REVENUE MEASURE INFORMATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES - 26-AS-086 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT-PSA FOR REVENUE MEASURE INFORMATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES - 26-AS-086.pdf
2. Agreement - TeamCivX.pdf
3. TeamCivX Proposal.pdf
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
APPROVE
15.h
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO ESTABLISH MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH BARK FOR A PARK - 26-PR-054 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH BARK FOR A PARK - 26-PR-054.pdf
2. Draft MOU.pdf
3. BFAP Side Letter for Billable Hours.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 15.h.pdf
5. POST DEADLINE SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 15.h.pdf Wendy Finster
This MOU authorizes Bark for a Park to begin designs for the two possible dog park locations the Council approved. If you have concerns about the Greenbelt as a possible location, make those concerns in item 17.b. And for those against the Greenbelt (and I’ve heard many that love the location), if the ballot measure moves forward, voting in November is your chance to be heard. Let's keep making progress on bringing a dog park to Hermosa.
Melinda Green
I am against the City executing an MOU with Bark for the Park. This MOU, as drafted, gives Bark for the Park too much power. They have the ability to retain their own experts, rather than have the City choose their preferred experts. The insurance limits are low and expose the City to risk in the event of litigation. Bark for the Park is not a defined term and loosely referred to as a "community organization". How can an undefined "community organization" provide the City with proper indemnity? Despite the legal and financial risks, I do not agree that the City should engage with Bark for the Park. Bark for the Park is not impartial and will only hire experts who support their dog park. I do not agree that Hermosa Beach needs an off-leash dog park or that this is wanted by a majority of the community. It is a waste of City resources (environmental and staff time) for something wanted by a small minority of residents. Bark from the Park has not spoken with neighbors of Valley Park to learn our concerns and has not responded to my emails asking for additional questions. They have not demonstrated any willingness to hear opposing opinions and gain consensus and would rather exist in an echo chamber. They hide behind anonymous donors who dictate where the funding will go. The City should not enter into a legal agreement with this organization, especially given the City's current fiscal limitations.
Ann Gotthoffer
Please pull this item from the consent calendar. (I do not see comment I thought I posted earlier, but this sums it up).
Jaclyne Friedman
My husband and I are both against any dog park on the Greenbelt. There are so many walkers and joggers and strollers and dog walkers now this would only add to the problem with more poop and pee. Pee is. Ever cleaned up and it will invite coyotes etc. A dog park on the sand by 1st street sounds good or a small section of valley park is perfect. They did similar at Live Oak . . Please leave our previous beautiful open space as it is.
Cedric McRae
Please pull this item from the consent calendar. I agree with points made by Claudia Berman in her comment.
Kent Jeppesen
I oppose and request this item be pulled from the consent calendar.
I prefer that a dog park be placed elsewhere than on the greenbelt.
Christine Tong
I oppose and request this item be pulled from the consent calendar.
I don't want a dog park on the greenbelt. Valley Park a better option. Prefer to keep greenbelt as it is now.
Heidi Fernandez
Dear City Council,
Please pull this item from consent.
This MOU needs to go back to the drawing board. The Hermosa Beach Greenbelt should not be considered as a viable option for a Dog Park. Full stop. To see that the Greenbelt is being tossed around as an option for a Dog Park violates the Greenbelt's legal zoning as OS-1.
As stated correctly in the language of the MOU, (page 4 Item D) changing the zoning of the Greenbelt requires a vote of the People. ------------------------------------------------------------------- (Page 4, Item D:
D. Greenbelt-Specific Provisions. For any Greenbelt proposal, BFAP acknowledges: (1) Ordinance No. 89-1001 currently requires dogs to remain on leash and restricts construction of new facilities within the Greenbelt; (2) implementation may require ballot measure approval, ordinance amendments, zoning amendments, and environmental review (3) the City shall bear only those election costs required by law or expressly approved by the City Council and nothing herein obligates the City to fund BFAP's public outreach, advocacy, campaign, consultant, or related expenses associated with any proposed ballot measure; (4) failure of any ballot measure automatically terminates all Greenbelt-related obligations without liability to City; (5) any Greenbelt Dog Park must preserve the Greenbelt’s open-space character and visual continuity; and (6) any Greenbelt Dog Park proposal may be denied if environmental, operational, accessibility, or legal constraints cannot be adequately mitigated.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuing the Greenbelt option for a Dog Park is offensive to the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Pursuing the Greenbelt option for a Dog Park is a waste of taxpayer dollars in the form of a potential ballot initiative.
Pursuing the Greenbelt option for a Dog Park should be withdrawn along with this consent item.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Fernandez
Hermosa Beach resident since 1981
Judith Mango
Dear Council Members:
I strongly oppose the proposal to locate a dog park on the Greenbelt between Pier Avenue and 11th Street. While I support providing amenities for dog owners, this location is fundamentally unsuitable and should be removed from consideration.
The Greenbelt is one of Hermosa Beach’s most treasured public open spaces. It was created as a passive recreational corridor where residents walk, jog, enjoy nature, and experience a rare sense of peace in an increasingly urban environment. A fenced dog park is an intensive recreational use that is incompatible with the Greenbelt’s intended purpose and character.
The proposed site is also physically inadequate. The available area is only about 15 feet wide and is heavily constrained by approximately 42 mature trees that zigzag throughout the length of the site. Those trees are not isolated around the perimeter; they occupy the space itself, leaving little usable area for a safe, functional dog park. Attempting to fit a dog park into such a narrow corridor would create an awkward, overcrowded facility that would neither serve dogs well nor preserve the Greenbelt for everyone else.
Equally concerning is the potential impact on these mature trees. Concentrated dog activity, repeated foot traffic, soil compaction, irrigation conflicts, and increased maintenance all pose risks to root systems and long-term tree health. Mature trees are among the City’s most valuable environmental assets. They cannot simply be replaced once damaged.
This location is also immediately adjacent to the Greenbelt pathway, one of the City’s busiest pedestrian corridors. The close proximity would inevitably increase conflicts between walkers, runners, families with children, cyclists crossing intersections, and dogs entering and leaving the enclosure. Noise from barking dogs, odors, waste management issues, and increased maintenance demands would permanently alter the quiet character of the Greenbelt.
A dog park deserves a location that provides adequate space, appropriate buffering from neighboring uses, and room for future maintenance without sacrificing one of Hermosa Beach’s signature open spaces. This site provides none of those qualities.
The Greenbelt is a unique public resource. Once its passive, natural character is compromised, it cannot easily be restored.
I respectfully urge the City Council to reject this location and direct staff to identify a site that is better suited for a dog park while preserving the Greenbelt for the quiet enjoyment of all residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Judith Mango
Maritza Alvarado
Dear Council Members:
The Greenbelt is not an appropriate location for a dog park. Residents already enjoy this beautiful pathway every day by walking their dogs on a leash while respecting the natural beauty and tranquility of the area.
The Greenbelt is more than just open space—it is the heart and soul of our wonderful city. It provides a peaceful refuge for walkers, runners, families, and nature lovers. Once its character is changed, it will be nearly impossible to restore.
Please protect this treasured community asset. The Greenbelt is sacred to so many residents. Please don’t touch it. Preserve it for future generations to enjoy as it has been for many years.
Claudia Berman
Dear City Council,
Please pull this item from consent. A 20-page agreement with a side letter proposing substantive changes submitted eight days before this meeting is not a routine consent item.
Additionally, the MOU approval should not occur tonight, as it needs to be re-drafted with the following areas addressed:
SIDE LETTER:
A side letter with material changes is not a standard practice. Council should decline to approve both the MOU and the side letter as presented and direct staff to return with a single clean redrafted MOU that incorporates whatever terms the Council determines are appropriate. Question: Why is the name of the side letter redacted? Can the city clerk weigh in on why that is not public information? MOU SCOPE:
The scope should be limited to the following:
PHASE 1: Pre-development and feasibility with a go/no decision based of feasibility and for the greenbelt, a compatibility analysis with a pedestrian walking path. Based on feasibility/compatibility for each location, proceed to phase 2.
PHASE 2: Planning, design, budgetary estimates, and public outreach/education/surveys.
Don’t spend time and money on permitting, until the public can weigh in on the two locations with enough information to give an informed decision.
The MOU should contain a list of deliverables and timelines for BFAP. Much of the language is vague. The end date is blank. The end date should be a negotiated data point.
If a project does forward, a new MOU should be created with BFAP for permitting, construction, and operations phase.
BUDGET:
All funding for this MOU should be supplied by BFAP as they have verbally stated in meetings. There should not be a cap as requested in the side letter.
If BFAP cannot commit to full cost coverage without a cap, that is a signal this MOU is not ready to be signed. BFAP should be given the time they need to assess their costs.
PUBLIC OUTREACH IS UNDEFINED AND UNBUDGETED”
The MOU requires BFAP to “participate in community outreach efforts directed by City.” That is the extent of the outreach commitment. There is no outreach plan, no outreach timeline, no outreach budget, and no definition of what adequate community engagement looks like before a preferred location is selected. This could be specified in the MOU.
THE GREENBELT CHALLENGES:
There are two challenges to the Greenbelt. 1) Voter-approved restrictions that require a public vote to amend. 2) The recognition that the Greenbelt is not simply open space but a walking path (ADA and wood chips) with extensive plantings, trees, and native plants.
Ballot Initiative:
This should only follow the completion of PHASE 2 and this MOU.
Acknowledgement of the Greenbelt’s Primary Use:
Just because something is feasible doesn’t mean it’s preferable.
Throughout every document in this package, the Greenbelt is described as “open space.” What is consistently absent is any acknowledgment that the Greenbelt is a designated walking path used daily by residents of all ages. A fenced dog park would not sit beside open space. It would sit alongside an active pedestrian corridor. That is a fundamentally different design and safety challenge than the documents acknowledge.
The questions that flow from this that remain completely unanswered:
• How does a fenced dog park with a double-door entry system function safely alongside a continuous pedestrian walking path? • What is the buffer between the fenced dog area and the walking path? • How are conflicts between off-leash dogs inside the fence and pedestrians, children, and leashed dogs on the walking path managed? • What signage and physical separation is required and who pays for it? • Has any comparable dog park been sited directly alongside a designated public walking path? What did those communities learn? Just because a site is technically feasible does not mean it is the right fit.
LEGAL QUESTION:
Naming BFAP in the ballot resolution recitals while simultaneously approving this MOU creates a legal record that could limit a future council’s ability to walk away from this project. The city attorney should address this risk on the record before either vote is taken.
CEQA:
Determine that approval of the memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) because it constitutes organizational and administrative activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Alternatively and independently, determine that the action is not a commitment to any specific project and therefore is not a "project" under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). Any future Dog Park proposal will be subject to separate CEQA review prior to project approval. (Parks and Recreation Manager Brian J Sousa)
A
PPROVE
15.i
APPROVAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH LAWN BOWLING CLUB AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF PUBLIC PURPOSE AND PUBLIC BENEFIT - 26-PR-047 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - AGREEMENT WITH HERMOSA BEACH LAWN BOWLING CLUB AND - 26-PR-047.pdf
2. Draft Resolution.pdf
3. License Agreement with HBLBC.pdf
(Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
A
)
APPROVE
B
)
ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M
Public Comments:
16.a
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 90 PIER AVENUE. - 26-CDD-069 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - 90 PIER AVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND PDP26-04 - 26-CDD-069.pdf
2. Draft Resolution (Including Exhibit A).pdf
3. Project Plans.pdf
4. Zoning Map.pdf
5. Ordinance No. 98-1186.pdf
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-65.pdf
7. Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER).pdf
8. Public Notification Materials.pdf
9. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 16.a.pdf
Todd Tullis
Let's keep things moving to fill this big empty storefront in the traffic center of town.
CEQA:
Determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15301 Class 1 of the CEQA Guidelines.(Associate Planner DeDe Tran)
A) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
B)
DETERMINE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA
C)
ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
17.a
APPROVAL OF PLACING A BALLOT MEASURE AND PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE CITY MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION THAT WOULD ALLOW A DESIGNATED MEASURE CALLING A ONE-HALF CENT (0.5%) SALES TAX - 26-AS-085 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT-BALLOT MEASURE FOR SALES TAX - 26-AS-085.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution .pdf
3. Attachment 2. Proposed Ordinance Amendments.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Ballot Letter Designation Form.pdf
5. Attachment 4. Arguments and Rebuttals Form.pdf
6. Attachment 5. Ballot Label Supporters and Opponents Attestation Form.pdf
7. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.a.pdf
Laura Pena
Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff -
I understand the City has real financial pressures but asking residents to approve another sales tax requires more than saying the City needs additional revenue. It requires a proposal that clearly shows the City learned from the last two elections.
We rejected a 0.75% sales tax in 2022, with only about 45 percent voting yes. The City came back again in 2024 with another 0.75% measure. That version added a 20 year sunset, audits and a citizen oversight committee and it performed even worse, receiving only about 43 percent support.
Those results should not simply be treated as a communications problem. They were a message from residents that concerns about taxes, spending, accountability and trust had not been resolved.
The current proposal reduces the tax to a 0.50% increase. That is an improvement. But in several important ways, the new language actually provides voters with fewer protections than the measure they rejected in 2024.
1. NO FIXED SUNSET DATE.
The language says the tax would continue “until ended by voters.” So does that mean the tax continues indefinitely unless residents organize another election to repeal it? The 2024 measure at least had a 20 year sunset. After residents rejected that proposal, I do not understand why the new measure would remove the expiration date entirely.
A sunset date is an accountability tool. It gives the City a reasonable period to address the fiscal challenges and then requires it to return to the voters, show the results and make the case for renewal. A similar sunset period sunset would be much more responsive to the concerns expressed in the prior elections.
2. DISCLOSE COMBINED SALES TAX RATE.
The ballot question does not disclose the combined sales tax rate residents and businesses would actually pay. The recent County sales tax increase brings the combined rate in our City to approximately 10.25%. If this measure passes, that rate would increase to approximately 10.75%.
We should not have to learn the combined sales tax number from an opposition campaign. The City’s ballot materials, website, mailers and public presentations should plainly state both numbers: the rate before the measure and the rate after the measure.
Calling the proposal “one-half cent” may be technically accurate, but it does not give voters the full picture. Transparency means explaining the cumulative impact, especially when another tax increase has already been approved and will take effect just before this election.
3. CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
The proposed language does not include a citizen oversight committee. The 2024 measure expressly included citizen oversight. The current language refers to independent audits and public reporting, but those are not the same thing.
A meaningful oversight committee should review the use of the funds, compare actual results with the City’s fiscal plan, track whether the structural deficit improved and issue public findings that require a City response.
The City should not approach this as a question of how to better sell the measure. It should ask how to create a better measure.
I respectfully ask the Council to revise the proposal by adding a real sunset, restoring a citizen oversight committee, and disclosing the combined 10.75% tax rate.
We may ultimately decide that additional revenue is necessary. But after two failed measures, the burden is on the City to offer a meaningfully different agreement not simply a smaller tax supported by another communications campaign.
Trust will not come from better messaging. It will come from better protections, complete information and accountability that voters can actually enforce.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration.
Laura Pena
Ann Gotthoffer
Please approve placing this measure on the ballot for a small sales tax increase. Hopefully we can pass it in November this time.
Dency Nelson
Yes, please put this Measure for a One-Half Cent Sales Tax on the November Ballot, and please let's hope it passes this time. This should have passed in the two previous attempts or we wouldn't be in as bad a financial situation as we find ouselves now! If we expect to continue be the paradise we all love we have to be prepared to pay for it! You get what you pay for, folks, and kicking the can down the road has only made matters worse! th
Please see the more_taxes.pdf above
(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)
A) A
DOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
B) DES
IGNA
TE ONE OR MORE COUNCILMEMBERS TO FILE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CITY
MEASURE
C) SELECT BALLOT LETTER DESIGNATION
17.b
APPROVAL OF PLACING A BALLOT MEASURE AND PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, TO ALLOW A DESIGNATED OFF-LEASH DOG PARK WITHIN THE GREENBELT - 26-PR-050 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - BALLOT MEASURE FOR A DOG PARK ON THE GREENBELT - 26-PR-050.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Draft Resolution(1).pdf
3. Attachment 2. Ballot Letter Designation Form.pdf
4. Attachment 3. Arguments and Rebuttals Form.pdf
5. Attachment 4. Ballot Label - Supporters and Opponents Attestation Form.pdf
6. Attachment 5. Ordinance No. 89-1001 .pdf
7. Attachment 6. November 7, 1989, Sample Ballot .pdf
8. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.b.pdf
9. SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment for Item 17.b.pdf
Justin Massey
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers:
Asking voters, on an artificially cramped schedule, to change the zoning of the Greenbelt to allow an off-leash dog park *before* a dog park is found to be feasible would put the cart before the horse and disserve voters.
This agenda item is problematic. As an initial matter, the staff report indicates the subject was requested as an informational (not a decisional) item, but the item purports to ask Council to decide whether to place a measure on the November ballot (a little over 90 days from now) asking voters to authorize the Council to "consider" a dog park on the Greenbelt.
Beyond that problem, the item is ambiguous to the point of misleading. The ordinance would do more than authorize the Council to "consider" a dog park; it would change the zoning of the Greenbelt to authorize the Council to establish a dog park: "SECTION 2. Amendment. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 89-1001 is amended to add the following language: 'Notwithstanding any provision requiring dogs to be on leash within the Greenbelt, the City Council may ... designate a specific limited area within the Greenbelt for future consideration as an off-leash Dog Park.'” Whether or not a Councilmember or voter wants rezone the Greenbelt, placing a vote of this magnitude on the ballot -- 90 days before the election and before a dog park is even determined to be feasible -- is an expensive disservice to the voters.
Please reject this item, complete the study of whether a dog park is feasible on the Greenbelt, and revisit this item farther in advance of any election where the question would be put to voters.
Thank you.
Cedric (Mickey) McRae
I am opposed to placing this measure on the ballot. I do not think the Greenbelt is the place for a dog park. Hermosa is too small for a dog park in my opinion.
Heidi Fernandez
Mayor Detoy and City of Hermosa Beach Council Members,
I implore you to withdraw any support you might have to amend Ordinance No. 89-1001. The Hermosa Beach Greenbelt is perfect as is currently zoned OS-1. Clearly, if you decide to go forward with this proposed ballot measure, you have an ulterior motive in mind for the future of the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt.
The group that has worked tirelessly and has raised a boatload of money for their vision of a Dog Park in Hermosa Beach has withdrawn their selection of the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt as a possible site.
So...why are 3 City Councilmembers so "on board" with this ballot initiative? I hope you are able to read the room tonight, and dispose of this unnecessary and expensive ballot initiative concept.
If you move forward with it, expect to UNLEASH the passion of the voters of Hermosa Beach...dog owners and non-dog owners alike. We want our Greenbelt protected as it stands now. FULL STOP.
Respectfully,
Heidi Fernandez
Hermosa Beach Resident since 1981
Ann Gotthoffer
I am against placing this on the ballot for many reasons. Primarily, I believe the Greenbelt would be a terrible place for a dog park. I doubt it would even be "legal" without changing the zoning / agreement with Santa Fe.
I am also opposed to cutting up part of Valley Park for a dog park. I admire and respect the Bark for a Park group, and I also love dogs. However, the bottom line is we don't have the space, the money, or staff to undertake new projects that are not critical. The RB park on 190th is just across the street from Hermosa Beach - it is not a difficult walk from Pier Ave. and there is street parking for those that can't make that walk.
Please vote NO on this proposal and remove 15h from consent calendar as well.
Thank you
Christine Tong
I oppose this and prefer to not put on the ballot. Keep the greenbelt designated as it currently is.
Maritza Alvarado
Dear Council Members:
Please do not disturb the Greenbelt. It is a treasured and sacred place for our residents, valued for its natural beauty, tranquility, and unique character. Once its appearance is altered, it cannot easily be restored. Please protect this special community space and preserve it for future generations.
Thank you
Marion Pearl
Dear City Councilmembers,
A dog park right on the greenbelt?
Seriously? It will be without greenery in no time, just like the one in Redondo.
You see how the Strand is full of barely scratched up dog poop by every evening! Now an ugly fence around more smelly concentrated dog poop on the greenbelt? Seriously? Can’t you find a place to put this out of sight? Behind the Kiwanis building? Keep Hermosa beautiful, including the Greenbelt!
Marion Pearl
Bill Graw
Based on the already wasted resources spent on a potential dog park in the city of hermosa beach, once and for all, PUT THIS TO THE VOTERS. The residents need thier voice heard. Let the voters decide ANY location for a Dog Park.
Judith Mango
Dear Council Members:
I am strongly opposed to placing a dog park measure on the November ballot to alter the protections of our beloved Greenbelt.
This council is being asked to advance a ballot measure under the illusion that the stretch from Pier Avenue to 11th Street is an empty, open canvas. It is not. It is a thriving narrow ecosystem.
I walked this exact site this morning to gather the hard data. This area is a mere 15 feet wide. Tightly packed within this narrow 15-foot strip is a continuous, zig-zagging urban canopy of 42 mature trees, including rare Torrey Pines, eucalyptus, and bottlebrush.
So what is the plan for these trees? Are we going to cut down decades-old mature canopy trees just to clear space for a dog park and a fence? Let’s look at the physical reality of trying to force an active dog park into this narrow space.
How can the city build a double-gated entry with a straight fence line when 42 massive tree trunks are zig-zagging through the entire space? A fence cannot physically clear these trees without digging posts directly into their critical root zones, causing immediate structural damage.
Because the space is restricted to a tight 15 feet, dogs will be forced to urinate directly on the bark and over concentrated root zones. Dog urine is highly acidic. It will instantly kill the existing green grass, turn this narrow corridor into a toxic mud pit, and slowly suffocate the root systems of these 42 majestic trees.
To prevent a biohazard wasteland, the city will have to rip out the natural grass entirely and replace it with artificial turf or decomposed granite.
We would be actively voting to trade a living, breathing green forest for a chain-link fence and synthetic surfaces.
Furthermore, using a ballot measure to undo protections that our community valued enough to enshrine decades ago sets a dangerous precedent. If we start chipping away at the rules protecting our passive green spaces, what is next? Let's protect our 42 trees, preserve our narrow green space, and move this project to the infrastructure-ready alternative at Valley Park and keep the 1989 Greenbelt restrictions completely intact Thank you.
María Haase
I believe we should not have a dog park on the Greenbelt Claudia Berman
Dear City Council.
Please vote no on placing this measure on the November ballot tonight for the reasons below.
THE IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS IS MISSING:
The future agenda item for this meeting listed an impartial analysis from the city attorney would be part of this package. It is not here. The Council should not vote to place this on the ballot tonight without it.
VALLEY PARK EAST HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT:
Council designated Valley Park East as the primary location on May 12. Voters deserve to know why the primary site is being bypassed in order to change the Greenbelt zoning now.
PUBLIC WORKS HAS A TWO-YEAR BACKLOG:
Voters could approve this in November and the city would have no realistic path to deliver it without displacing committed projects. If you plan to vote for this ballot measure, which projects do you want delayed in order to move this forward? A ballot measure can wait until the 2028 election, if the public works schedule remains unchanged.
WHAT VOTERS WILL NOT KNOW ON NOVEMBER 3:
* Although the staff report says that the dog park location on greenbelt would run from Pier Ave. to 11th Street, no site location is listed in the ballot draft. * No cost estimate for construction
* No engineering plans
* No site plan or mockups
* No ADA compliance analysis
* No grading or drainage study
* No geotechnical analysis
* No biological or environmental study
* No noise or sanitation analysis
* No tree and root impact study
* No design for fencing, surfacing, water, shade, or waste management * No operations plan
* No maintenance plan or cost estimate
* No answer for what happens if private funding by “Bark for the Park” is not available to cover the costs * No occupant load limits for people or dogs (small, medium, large) * No square footage estimates
* No enforcement plan
* No analysis on impact on the walking path (walkers, joggers, and residents with on-leash dogs) and memorial benches * No time frames
* No contingency plan if it’s built and there are significant complaints A YES VOTE HANDS THE DECISION TO A FUTURE COUNCIL AND DELIVERS NOTHING TO THE COMMUNITY:
Placing the measure on the ballot will cost taxpayers $1,400 (plus legal fees for the yet to be delivered impartial analysis). If passed it won’t deliver one thing, and residents would lose their right to decide the future of the greenbelt when/if there is a defined project. Why would you want to transfer your constituents direct say to yourselves? Whose interests does this timeline serve? POTENTIAL LEGAL EXPOSURE:
Naming Bark for a Park in the ballot resolution recitals and acknowledging their financial commitments in an official public document, while simultaneously approving a formal MOU with that same organization, creates a legal record that could limit a future council's ability to modify, relocate, or deny this project even after voters approve the measure. A zoning change shouldn’t be dependent on a 3rd party group.
CONCLUSION:
The responsible path is to complete the feasibility studies, evaluate both sites, conduct meaningful public outreach, develop real cost estimates/timelines.
And for the Greenbelt most importantly, assess a dog park compatibility with the Greenbelt's primary use as a walking path. Then ask voters to decide with the complete information in front of them. The Greenbelt has been protected for 38 years. The voters who protected it deserve to make this decision when the full picture is available, not before it exists.
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
I do think that directing two feasibility studies at the same time, did a disservice to BFAP. The more cost effective way would have been to proceed with a full vetting and community outreach for the priority location first. Then see where that lands. I’m sure a lot of lessons could be learned in that process.
Also, attached are a few comments from FB that highlight some concerns with the Greenbelt location.
CEQA:
Determine that adoption of the proposed election resolutions is not a "project" under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) because the resolutions constitute governmental organizational and administrative activities that do not authorize a physical change to the environment. Any future Dog Park proposal will remain subject to separate CEQA review. (Parks and Recreation Manager Brian J. Sousa)
A) ADOPT RESOLUTION
S
BY TITLE
B) DESIGNATE ONE OR MORE OF ITS COUNCILMEMBERS TO FILE
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE CITY MEASURE
C) SELECT BALLOT LETTER DESIGNATION
To receive and file. No action taken.
17.c
P.A.R.K. AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM FEE UPDATES - 26-PR-048
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - PARK AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM FEE UPDATES - 26-PR-048.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Current Program Cost Recovery (1).pdf
3. Attachment 2. Proposed Program Cost Recovery (1).pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.c.pdf
(Recreation Supervisor Nick Shattuck)
APPROVE
17.d
CONSIDERATION OF VALLEY PARK SUMMER DAY CAMP FEE UPDATE - 26-PR-049 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - VALLEY PARK SUMMER DAY CAMP FEE UPDATE - 26-PR-049.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Current Program Cost Recovery.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Proposed Program Cost Recovery.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.d.pdf
(Recreation Supervisor Nick Shattuck)
APPROVE
17.e
REVIEW OF SUBMITTAL OF THE 2025 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT - 26-CDD-050 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - HOUSING ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2025 - 26-CDD-050.pdf
2. 2025 Annual Progress Report.pdf
3. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.e.pdf
CEQA:
Determine the report is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
RECEIVE AND FILE
17.f
APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IK CONSULTING, LLC FOR ON-GOING ACCELA CIVIC PLATFORM SOFTWARE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - 26-CDD-064 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IK CONSULTING FOR ON GOING - 26-CDD-064(1).pdf
2. Attachment 1. Professional Services Agreement with IK Consulting, LLC.pdf
3. Attachment 2. Exhibit A - Updated Scope of Services.pdf
4. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.f.pdf
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
APPROVE
17.g
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CIP 504 - 26-PW-050
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR CIP 504 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PROJECT - 26-PW-050.pdf
2. Draft Construction Agreement .pdf
3. Draft Resolution(1).pdf
4. Bid Opening Log.pdf
5. Bid Documents for R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc. (Lowest Responsible and Responsive Bidder).pdf
6. CIP 504 Project Plans, Contract Documents and Specifications .pdf
7. Staff Report 25-PW-085.pdf
8. SUPPLEMENTAL Presentation for Item 17.g.pdf
CEQA:
The Project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and section 15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction). The proposed work is an alteration of existing public structures or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing use. Further the proposed work consists of reconstruction of existing court structures where the new courts will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. No exceptions to the CEQA exemption apply. (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
A) AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION BY TITLE
17.h
INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON VOTING PROCEDURES FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - 26-CCO-015 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - VOTING PROCEDURES - 26-CCO-015.pdf
2. SUPPLEMENTAL 17.h Voting Procedures.pdf
David Grethen
Please see the attached PDF with discussion and recommendations about the Board and Commissioner appointment and voting process.
Commissioner appointments by Council should continue using the paper voting process to the fullest extent practical, including recommendations summarized below and discussed in the PDF for the following areas:
1. Remote Councilmember participation (Only the remote Councilmember votes by voice)
2. Tie-breaker resolution (Only tied applicants are eligible for tie-breaker rounds)
3. Avoidance of nominations unless impractical (Large number of applicants versus seats) David Grethen
Public Works Commission
(City Clerk Martha Alvarez)
RECEIVE AND FILE
18. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comments:
This is the time for Councilmembers to schedule future agenda items and to ask questions about the status of previously approved future agenda items. No discussion, debate, or public comment will be taken. Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items. The tentative future agenda items document is provided for information only.
18.a
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 26-CMO-043
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. STAFF REPORT - TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA 7-28-26 - 26-CMO-043.pdf
2. Attachment 1. Tentative Future Agenda.pdf
Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
19. CITY MANAGER REPORT
Public Comments:
20. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Public Comments:
This is reserved for items that do not require City Council action. The City Council may request a future agenda item to discuss an informational item. Otherwise, discussion of informational items will not be taken.
20.a
CROSSING GUARD INFORMATION
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Crossing Guard Information Item Update 7-28-26.pdf
(Police Chief Landon Phillips)
20.b
POLICE CRIME STATISTICS FOR MAY 2026
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Monthly Crime Report Summary - May 2026.pdf
(Police Chief Landon Phillips)
20.c
PARKING CITATION AND METERED REVENUE REPORT - JUNE 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Parking Citation and Revenue Report - June 2026.pdf
(Senior Management Analyst Ken Bales)
20.d
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 20, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. May 20, 2026.pdf
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
20.e
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Action minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission of June 2, 2026.pdf (Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols)
20.f
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of June 16, 2026.pdf (Community Development Director Alison Becker)
20.g
ACTION MINUTES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2026 Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. April 13, 2026 Meeting.pdf
(Human Resources Manager Tyler Cashman)
21. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments: