CITY COUNCIL - July 28, 2026
1. CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM
Public Comments:
At 5:02 p.m., Mayor Detoy called the meeting to order.
At 5:02 p.m., Mayor Detoy called the meeting to order.
2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
City Clerk Martha Alvarez led the roll call and announced a quorum.
Present:
Mayor Detoy, Councilmember Jackson, and Councilmember Francois
Absent:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan and Councilmember Saemann
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan and Councilmember Saemann arrived at 5:04 p.m.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
Attachments
|
Public Comments
1. POST DEADLINE SUPPLEMENTAL Emailed Comment For Item 3.pdf Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Yumi Tallayama (In-Person)
Jim Holtz (In-Person)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.
4. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments:
The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:15 p.m.
5. OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
Public Comments:
Mayor Detoy announced that Mayor for the Day Harrison Heryanto would be calling the meeting to order and leading the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance.
At 6:23 p.m., Mayor for the Day Harrison
Heryanto called the meeting to order.
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Public Comments:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor for the Day
Harrison Heryanto.
7. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:
City Clerk Martha Alvarez led the roll call and announced a quorum.
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 approved the settlement of Norma Iaia v. City of Hermosa Beach
(Case No. 23TRCV03562), under which the City will pay $75,000 in exchange for a full release of all claims and dismissal of the action. The settlement was approved by a 5-0 vote.
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS
Public Comments:
Mayor Detoy thanked everyone who attended the Mayor's Conversation and Picnic at the Park event and announced that there will be a planned event for late August. Announced the upcoming International Surf Festival to be held from Friday, July 31, 2026, through Sunday, August 2, 2026, the full schedule is available at surffestival.org. Spoke about National Night Out from the Hermosa Beach Police Department on Tuesday, August 4, 2026, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at Clark Field, the event will have a drone and K9 demonstrations, the public can meet Police Officers, and partake in food and games. Lastly, announced the Hermosa Beach Triathlon scheduled for Sunday, August 9, 2026, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the event will include a 1/4 mile ocean swim, 10 mile bike ride along Valley/Ardmore, and a 3 mile run on The Strand. There will be no parking along Ardmore Avenue from Pier Avenue to 8th Street. Overnight parking will be temporarily allowed in the City's Community Center and South Park parking lots.
Emergency Management Coordinator Maurice Wright introduced Acting Assistant Fire Chief for the Los Angeles County Fire Department (Division 1) Kelsey Wade.
Acting Assistant Fire Chief Wade described his career for over 35 years ago with the Hermosa Beach Fire Department as an explorer and expressed looking forward to a strong working relationship with the Los Angeles County and the City of Hermosa Beach.
10. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Public Comments:
10.a
HERMOSA BEACH ROTARY CLUB CHECK PRESENTATION FOR K9 ARCO ARMORED VEST Public Comments:
K9 Armor Co-Founder, Suzanne Saunders and Rotary Club President, Cole Mueller presented a $4,000 check to fund a bulletproof vest for Hermosa Beach Police K9 Arco.
Police Chief Landon Phillips and Canine handler Officer Torres expressed gratitude for the vest for partner Arco.
Mayor Detoy presented a Certificate of Recognition to the Rotary Club and noted the K9 Armor continues to seek donations for approximately 100 unprotected dogs remaining in the Los Angeles County.
11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND WAIVER OF FULL READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Public Comments:
Councilmember Francois pulled Item 15.d, Councilmember Saemann pulled Item 15.h, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan pulled Item 15.i from the Consent Calendar.
Moved by:
Councilmember Jackson
Seconded by:
Councilmember Francois
A motion was made by Councilmember Jackson, seconded by Councilmember Francois, to approve the agenda as amended, with Item 15.d heard later in the meeting; Item 15.h heard after Item 17.a and before Item 17.b; and Item 15.i heard after Item 17.e.
Ayes (5)
Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Detoy, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan Motion Carried
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
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Yumi Tallayama (In-Person)
Jim Holtz Translating for Yumi (In-Person)
Sarah Harper (In-Person)
Jim Holtz (In-Person)
Franklin Rogers (In-Person)
Ellie Grace Shultz (In-Person)
Traci Horowitz (In-Person)
Michelle Hampton (In-Person)
Sheryl Main (In-Person)
Rick Koenig (In-Person)
Ira Ellman (In-Person)
Heidi Fernandez (In-Person)
Jim Rosenberger (In-Person)
Phuong Bui (Virtual)
Kent Allen (Virtual)
Jackie Tagliaterro (In-Person)
Matt McCool (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.
13. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Public Comments:
Councilmember Saemann reported on his attendance at the JPIA (Joint Powers Insurance Authority) Board of Directors meeting.
Councilmember Francois reported on his attendance at the Los Angeles County Sanitation District meeting and announced a Community Forum scheduled for August 17, 2026, from 6:00–8:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan reported on his attendance at the July 9, 2026, ICA (Independent Cities Association) Conference in San Diego, hosted by Councilmember Jackson, which included discussions on grant funding and downtown retail improvements.
Councilmember Jackson thanked the public speakers and expressed disappointment regarding the dissolution of CPAP (Community Police Advisory Board), noting his intent to bring the matter forward as a future agenda item.
Mayor Detoy thanked staff for accommodating two Mayor for a Day participants, provided an update on LACERA (Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association) Board activities, and reported attending the Gateway Park ceremony in Redondo Beach.
14. UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Public Comments:
No other comments were made by City Councilmembers.
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
Councilmember Francois pulled Item 15.d, Councilmember Saemann pulled Item 15.h, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan pulled Item 15.i from the Consent Calendar.
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 the consent calendar with items 15.d, 15.h, and 15. i being pulled for separate discussion.
Ayes (5)
Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Saemann, Councilmember Jackson, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Mayor Detoy Motion Carried
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)
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 check registers for June 17, 2026, through July 8, 2026.
Motion Carried
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)
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 May 2026 Cash Balance Report.
Motion Carried
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)
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 May 2026 Financial Reports.
Motion Carried
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)
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 Capital Improvement Program Status Report as of July 21, 2026.
Motion Carried
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)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7567, approving participation in the Los Angeles Urban County Program and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest to a three-year cooperation agreement with the County of Los Angeles, effective July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2030, subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Motion Carried
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 (Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt nunc pro tunc Resolution No. 26-7552 adopting a revised list of projects for fiscal year 2026-2027 ffunded by the ROad Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, correcting clerical error on Exhibit A by approving a revised Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (“RMRA”) Project List identifying the specific project locations required by the California Transportation Commission (“CTC”), and adopting a list of projects for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2026–2027 funded by Senate Bill 1 (“SB 1”).
Motion Carried
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 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)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7569, approving Final Parcel Map No. 84286 for a two-unit residential condominium project located at 138 1st Street and determining that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map; and authorize the City Clerk to endorse the certificate for said map.
Motion Carried
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
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to determine the approval is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and is exempt from CEQA; to approve a professional services agreement (“PSA”) with CSG Consultants, Inc. (”CSG”) for continued on-call staff augmentation services for a term through June 30, 2028; and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest the attached PSA subject to approval by the City Attorney.
Motion Carried
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)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7570, approving and adopting an amendment to the Salary and Benefits for the Unrepresented Classifications.
Motion Carried
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)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7571, adopting a Side Letter to the MOU between the City of Hermosa Beach and the General and Supervisory Employees’ Bargaining Unit, Teamsters Local 986.
Motion Carried
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)
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7572 to adopt a Side Letter to the MOU between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Professional and Administrative Employees’ Group, for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028.
Motion Carried
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. (Associate Planner DeDe Tran)
Associate Planner DeDe Tran provided the PowerPoint Presentation.
The property owner's representative, Wajid Drabu, spoke on the development plan.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments
.
The following individual(s) spoke:
Tony Higgins (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor
Detoy
closed the floor to
pubic
comments.
Moved by:
Councilmember Francois
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Councilmember Francois, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7573 approving a Certificate of Appropriateness (HRR26-01) and a Precise Development Plan (PDP26-04) to allow façade improvements and interior reconfiguration of an existing commercial building located at 90 Pier Avenue in the General Commercial (C-2) Zone; adopting Exhibit A containing findings, determinations, and conditions of approval; and determining that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Ayes (5)
Councilmember Francois, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Saemann, Councilmember Jackson, and Mayor Detoy Motion Carried
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)
Administrative Director Brandon Walker provided the PowerPoint Presentation.
Administrative Services Director Walker, Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore, and City Manager Steve Napolitano responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Barbara Ellman (In-Person)
Laura Pena (In-Person)
Alain Jauffret (In-Person)
Eric Horne
(In-Person)
Tony Higgins (Virtual)
Kent Allen (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor
Detoy
closed the floor to
public
comments.
City Manager Napolitano provided clarification and responded to City Council questions.
Moved by:
Councilmember Saemann
Seconded by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to adopt Resolution No. 26-7574, calling for the placement of a general tax measure on the ballot for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election for submission to the qualified voters of an ordinance enacting a general transactions and use tax at the rate of one-half percent (0.5%) for general governmental purposes; request the formation of a citizens’ oversight committee; designate Councilmember Saemann and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan to prepare the argument in support of the measure and any rebuttal; and select the ballot letter designation “HB,” with “HBB” and “A” as alternate designations.
Ayes (4)
Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Detoy, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan Noes (1)
Councilmember Francois
Motion Carried
Substitute Motion
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan to pass the staff recommendation regarding the sales tax only. The motion failed due to a lack of a second.
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
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. (Parks and Recreation Manager Brian J Sousa)
Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols introduced Parks and Recreation Manager Brian Sousa Parks and Recreation Manager Sousa provided the PowerPoint presentation.
Parks and Recreation Manager Sousa, City Manager Steve Napolitano, and Public Works Director Joe SanClemente responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Nayiri Dermenjian (In-Person)
Chandrea Miller (In-Person)
Barbara Ellman (In-Person)
Jack L. (Virtual)
Lauren Pizer Mains (In-Person)
John Burry (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.
City Manager Napolitano responded to City Council Questions.
Moved by:
Councilmember Saemann
Seconded by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to approve the MOU with the 10% cap outlined in the side letter, excluding the Greenbelt as a potential location.
Moved by:
Councilmember Francois
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Francois, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to approve the MOU as presented, including both Valley Park East and the Greenbelt as potential locations and a 10% cap on staff costs, as outlined in the side letter from Bark for a Park.
Ayes (3)
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Noes (2)
Councilmember Jackson, and Mayor Detoy
Motion Carried
17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
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. (Parks and Recreation Manager Brian J. Sousa)
Parks and Recreation Manager Brian Sousa provided the PowerPoint presentation.
Parks and Recreation Manager Sousa and Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments
.
The following individual(s) spoke:
Alain Jauffret
(In-Person)
Tony Higgins (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor
Detoy
closed the floor to
public
comments.
Moved by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann to adopt the resolution by title, designate one or more Councilmembers to file arguments regarding the City measure, select the ballot letter designation, and clarify that the proposed project would be located between Pier Avenue and 11th Street. The maker of the motion withdrew the motion.
Moved by:
Councilmember Francois
A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Francois to place the draft resolution on the ballot with the following requirements: privately funded construction; a location between Pier Avenue and 11th Street; a maximum size of 400 feet by 40 feet; and a minimum distance of 100 feet from the nearest residential lot. The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Jackson
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Jackson, to receive and file the report and take no further action.
Ayes (5)
Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Saemann, Mayor Detoy, and Mayor Pro Tem Keegan Motion Carried
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)
Recreation Supervisor Nick Shattuck provided the PowerPoint presentation.
Recreation Supervisor Shattuck and Parks and Recreation Manager Brian Sousa responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments
.
The following individual(s) spoke:
Alain Jauffret (In-Person)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor
Detoy
closed the floor to public comments.
Moved by:
Councilmember Francois
Seconded by:
Mayor Detoy
A friendly amendment was made by Mayor Detoy to include a cost-of-living adjustment rounded to the nearest $10. The friendly amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion.
A motion was made by Councilmember Francois, seconded by Mayor Detoy, to approve the fee increase to $3,150 per school year and incorporate an annual cost-of-living adjustment, rounded to the nearest $10, going forward.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Motion Carried
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)
Recreation Supervisor Nick Shattuck 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.
Moved by:
Mayor Detoy
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A friendly amendment was made by Councilmember Jackson to include a two-year phased fee increase.
The friendly amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion.
A motion was made by Mayor Detoy, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to approve a two-year phased fee increase with an annual cost-of-living adjustment rounded to the nearest $10.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Motion Carried
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
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)
Community Development Director Alison Becker provided the PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Alain Jauffret
(In-Person)
Tony Higgins (Virtual)
Jon David (Virtual)
Laura Pena (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.
Moved by:
Mayor Detoy
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Detoy, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to receive and file the 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Mayor Detoy, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Motion Carried
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
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)
Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols and Recreation Coordinator Kambria Vint responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Alain Jauffret
(In-Person)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.
Parks and Recreation Director Nichols responded to City Council questions.
Moved by:
Councilmember Saemann
Seconded by:
Mayor Detoy
A motion was made by Councilmember Saemann, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, to approve the license agreement and adopt Resolution No. 26-7568
, making
findings of public purpose and public benefit regarding the use of City property by the Hermosa Beach Lawn Bowling Club; approving license agreement; and implementing public access, risk allocation, and operational requirements.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Motion Carried
17. MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Public Comments:
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)
Community Development Director Alison Becker provided the PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council questions.
Mayor Detoy opened the floor to public comments. The following individual(s) spoke:
Laura Pena (Virtual)
Seeing no further requests to speak, Mayor Detoy closed the floor to public comments.
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Jackson, to approve the professional services agreement with IK Consulting, LLC, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Motion Carried
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
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)
Public Works Director Joe SanClemente provided a PowerPoint presentation and 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 comment.
Moved by:
Mayor Pro Tem Keegan
Seconded by:
Councilmember Saemann
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, seconded by Councilmember Saemann, to award a construction contract for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 504—Playground Equipment Replacement—to R.E. Schultz Construction, Inc., in the amount of $209,440; authorize the Director of Public Works to establish a project contingency of $42,000 and approve contract change orders up to the approved project contingency amount; and adopt Resolution No. 26-7575, approving the construction of Capital Improvement Project No. 504 (“CIP 504”), Playground Equipment Replacement Project, pursuant to Government Code Section 830.6, including a 10% project contingency.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Jackson, Councilmember Francois, and Councilmember Saemann Motion Carried
Moved by:
Mayor Detoy
A substitute motion was made by Mayor Detoy to approve the staff recommendation with a 20% project contingency. The substitute motion failed due to lack of a second.
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)
City Clerk Martha Alvarez provided the PowerPoint presentation and 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.
The City Council directed staff to return with the item as a formal action item, with options for remote participation, while maintaining the default practice of scheduling commission appointments when all members are present.
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 report.
Ayes (5)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Saemann, and Councilmember Jackson Motion Carried
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Public Comments:
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)
Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker provided the PowerPoint presentation and 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 comment.
City Manager Steve Napolitano and Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore 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 continue the item to the August meeting and direct staff to return with alternative informational outreach options and cost structures.
Ayes (3)
Mayor Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Keegan, and Councilmember Saemann Noes (2)
Councilmember Jackson, and Councilmember Francois
Motion Carried
18. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comments:
Councilmember Saemann requested for staff to return with a report on option for the future development of Downtown Parking Lot A as a potential revenue-generating asset, including public-private partnership and bonding scenarios. Mayor Pro Tem Keegan and Mayor Detoy concurred.
Councilmember Jackson requested for staff to return with options for establishing a formal Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Commission, in light of the City’s dissolution of the Community Police Advisory Board (CPAP), Mayor Detoy concurred.
Mayor Detoy requested for staff to return with information on a potential moratorium on Data Centers within the City limits, informed by recent developments in neighboring City of El Segundo, Councilmember Jackson concurred.
Mayor Detoy requested for staff to return with a review of the existing Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) hardware vendors and contracts to assess security vulnerabilities and privacy protections for residents, Councilmember Francois concurred.
19. CITY MANAGER REPORT
Public Comments:
No City Manager Report was provided.
21. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments:
At 12:33 a.m., Mayor Detoy adjourned the meeting and provided a reminder that Council would be dark on August 11, 2026, and the next Regular City Council meeting would be Tuesday, July 28, 2026, with Closed Session at 5:00 p.m. and Open Session at 6:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned in memory of James Hudson Beckwith ("Jimbo"), a longtime Hermosa Beach resident and owner/CEO of California Marketing Device, who passed away June 25, 2026, at the age of 79