CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Closed Session at 5:00 PM and Open Session at 6:00 PM

Council Chambers

1315 Valley Drive

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Members Present:

• Mayor Rob Saemann, 
• Mayor Pro Tem Mike Detoy, 
• Councilmember Ray Jackson, 
• Councilmember Michael D. Keegan, 
• and Councilmember Dean Francois 

Staff Present:

• City Manager Steve Napolitano, 
• Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore, 
• Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker, 
• Interim City Clerk Reanna Guzman, 
• Community Development Director Alison Becker, 
• Parks and Recreation Director Lisa Nichols, 
• Public Works Director Joe SanClemente, 
• Police Chief Landon Phillips, 
• Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza, 
• Executive Assistant Ann Yang, 
• Office Assistant Ariana Rodriguez, 
• Lead Special Events and Filming Coordinator Kalyn Kaemerle, 
• and Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey 

---

1.

CLOSED SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 5:00 PM

Mayor Saemann called the Closed Session meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.

2.

ROLL CALL

Interim City Clerk Reanna Guzman announced the virtual attendance of Mayor Pro Tem Detoy in accordance with AB 2449 "just cause" clause due to contagious illness. 

Councilmember Jackson was absent during the Closed Session roll call but was present for the Closed Session meeting.

Interim City Clerk Reanna Guzman announced a quorum.

3.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

Mayor Saemann opened public comment.

No public comment was provided.

4.

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:08 p.m.

4.a

MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on January 13, 2026

4.b

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: Threatened Litigation

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) and (e)(4)
The City finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.
Number of Potential Cases: (1) potential case(s) regarding Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)

5.

OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM

Mayor Saemann called the Open Session to order at 6:09 p.m.

6.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Greg Newman.

7.

ROLL CALL

Interim City Clerk Reanna Guzman announced the virtual attendance of Mayor Pro Tem Detoy in accordance with AB 2449 "just cause" clause due to contagious illness. All members were present and a quorum was announced.

8.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore provided the Closed Session report. No reportable action was taken.

9.

ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS

Mayor Saemann announced the Mayor’s Town Hall Forum that took place on Thursday, January 29, from 6-8 PM in the Council Chambers.

10.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Detoy and was seconded by Councilmember Jackson to hear items 16. b, 17. b, 17. c, and 17. d first, and continue with the remainder of the agenda.

Motion failed, 2-3. Mayor Saemann, and Councilmembers Francois and Keegan did not support. 

A motion was made by Councilmember Francois and was seconded by Councilmember Keegan to remove item 17.c and 17.e from the agenda and approve the remainder of the agenda.

Motion failed, 2-3. Mayor Saemann, Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Councilmember Jackson did not support. 

• Moved by: Mayor Saemann
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To hear items 16. b and 17. b after Consent Calendar and continue with the remainder of the agenda.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

11.

PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

11.a

CULTURE CLUB X HERMOSA BEACH

Allison Hales from Culture Club South Bay and Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols provided information.

11.b

RECOGNIZING LOCAL ARTISTS FOR THEIR ART ON 24 WRAPPED UTILITY BOXES

Public Works Director Joe SanClemente provided a presentation and introduced artists. 

11.c

HERMOSA BEACH SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION

President of the Hermosa Beach Sister City Association, Laura Carmona, and Vice President George Barks gave a presentation.

12.

PUBLIC COMMENT

tony

Dear City Council Hermosa Beach's per capita police costs appear to be several times higher than the median California city and substantially above the state average. This needs to be considered. I welcome corrections but my understanding is that based on recent budget discussions and general fund allocations, Hermosa Beach dedicates approximately 50% to 60% of its general fund to police services. With a population around 19,500 residents and a total city operating budget of approximately $53.6 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year, the per capita police spending can be estimated at roughly $1,300 to $1,600 per resident annually. I believe the california average police cost per capita is around $700. If our costs are nearly double the statewide average we need to be clear on why. If it's in good-part because we are a tourist and bar town then a fair argument might be made that those that financially benefit from the most tourism and bar traffic should pay more for police services. More business funded downtown private security might be a fair tradeoff. If its because we have too many chiefs and not enough indians perhaps the city should look at partnering with Manhattan and/or Redondo. Care needs to be taken to ensure the downtown business district bars and tourism doesn't leave police enforcement in residential neighborhoods paying more & more for a shorter & shorter end of the stick. To that end the last comprehensive city business district(s) costs vs revenue analysis was in 2015 and it concluded that AT BEST it was a just breakeven on balance sheet. Thats worthy of consideration and that makes it all the more important that the businesses-mix add not detract from what makes hermosa special for our residents, our quality of life. And as we approach the city forecasted fiscal challenges ($14 million in cumulative operating budget deficits by 2031 and $150 million in unfunded capital projects by the same date its high time we clearly understand whether the business district is a revenue or cost center for the city. 2centtony

tonyhiggins

Interesting article on Mb employee salaries. It mentions City Manager Napolitano and looks at city salaries & total compensation in ways we might consider for a public hearing It also offers some interesting insights &recommendations. escribe requires cut & paste of the url below. https://mbweekly.net/mb-weekly-01-22-2026/

Mayor Francois opened public comment. The following public comment was provided.

In Person Public Comment:

• Randy Balik
• Jacob Ireland
• Sarah Harper
• Collen Villegas
• Nicki Negrete-Mitchel
• Eric Horne

Virtual Public Comment: 

• Kent Allen

13.

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

Councilmember Keegan provided comments.

Councilmember Francois provided comments.

City Manager Napolitano provided comments.

Councilmember Francois provided additional comments. 

14.

UPDATES ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITIES

Councilmember Francois announced his attendance at the League of California Cities. He shared their discussions on statewide e-bike regulations.

Mayor Saemann announced his attendance at the January South Bay Cities Council of Governments meeting and provided information about the regional flexibility study, the West Basin Municipal Water District Grass replacement project, the Baldwin Hills and urban water sheds new resiliency co-design planning tool rollout, and the consolidated grant program. He also shared information on homeless services from the South Bay Council of Governments.

15.

CONSENT CALENDAR

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To approve the consent calendar.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

15.a

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

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

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

  Motion Carried

15.b

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

(Interim City Clerk Reanna Guzman)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To approve the minutes of the January 13, 2026 regular meeting.

  Motion Carried

15.c

CHECK REGISTERS - 26-AS-011

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To receive and file the check registers for January 7, 2026 through January 14, 2026. The Administrative Services Director certifies the accuracy of the demands.

  Motion Carried

15.d

CASH BALANCE REPORT - 26-AS-010

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To receive and file the November 2025 Cash Balance Report.

  Motion Carried

15.e

ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 17.08.020 (D) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS (CITYWIDE). - 26-CDD-017

CEQA: Determine the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Common Sense Exception).
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To adopt by title only and waive second reading of Ordinance No. ORD-26-1494 “Approving a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA 25-04), amending Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Subsection 17.08.020 (D) pertaining to Home Occupations; determine the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Common Sense Exception); and direct the City Clerk to print and publish the summary ordinances in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days following adoption and post it on the City’s bulletin for 30 days.

  Motion Carried

15.f

APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK SAFETY - 26-PD-005

(Police Chief Landon Phillips)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To approve the proposed first amendment to an agreement with Flock Safety for the lease of ten Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) for an additional year for a total of $30,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest the proposed first amendment, subject to approval by the City Attorney.

  Motion Carried

15.g

​​APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE HERMOSA GARDEN CLUB FOR USE OF COMMUNITY CENTER AND THE CLARK BUILDING​ - 26-CR-010

(Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To approve an agreement with the Hermosa Garden Club for use of the Clark Building and Community Center beginning February 2026 through June 2028; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest, subject to approval by the City Attorney.

  Motion Carried

15.h

ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 2.20 COMMUNITY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 2.28 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY DEPARTMENT, AND 12.30 SPECIAL EVENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY - 26-CR-015

(Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. ORD-26-1495 amending Chapters 2.20, 2.28, and 12.30 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to update references to the Community Resources Department to the Parks and Recreation Department, the department director’s title to Parks and Recreation Director, and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission; and direct City Clerk to publish a summary ordinance.

  Motion Carried

15.i

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AS OF JANUARY 15, 2026 - 26-PW-005

(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To receive and file the Capital Improvement Program Status Report as of January 15, 2026.

  Motion Carried

16.

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

16.a

APPROVAL OF IMPACT LEVEL III NEW 2026 SPECIAL EVENT: LA GALAXY SOCCER CELEBRATION - 26-CR-013

(Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols)

Lead Special Events and Filming Coordinator Kalyn Kaemerle provided a staff presentation. 

Councilmember Jackson asked various questions. 

Councilmember Francois asked various questions. 

Los Angeles Galaxy Game Presentation & Events Director Nick Gilbert provided information. 

Los Angeles Galaxy Event Representative Kara Korber provided information.

No in-person public comment was provided.

Virtual Public Comment:

• Anthony Higgins 

The City Council continued to deliberate on this item.

• Moved by: Councilmember Jackson
  Seconded by: Councilmember Keegan

  To approve the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s recommendation to include Impact Level III new special event, Los Angeles Galaxy Soccer Celebration, on the 2026 Special Events Calendar with an amendment for LA Galaxy to consider a VIP section on the beach as well as continue to coordinate with local businesses to host additional VIP sections. 

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

  Motion Carried

*Attachment 11. "SUPPLEMENTAL Public Comments from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 2025" was added to item 16.b

16.b

ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO REMODEL AND ADD A THIRD STORY TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 901 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE - 26-CDD-011

Howard Lee month correction

In my following eComment/letter to Director Becker, submitted earlier, I mistakenly indicated the November Planning Commission meeting. I meant the October 21st Planning Commission meeting, when the 901 Hermosa Avenue application was first heard, prior to the commission continuing the matter to a date uncertain, which became December 16 in their commission.

Howard Lee

Monday, Jan 26, 2027 Re: Missing Testimony from the 901 Hermosa Ave re-hearing to be in Council Jan 27, 2024 To: Hermosa Beach Community Development Director Allison, Dear Director: Not necessarily of your making Ms Allison, however during the City Manager Suja Lowenthal era of the prior ~7 years, imv the Community Development Department since what I view as the unintended early retirement of former director Ken Robertson and the departure of many former employees of the department, and then the former City Clerk's imposition of imv the disastrous and amateurish eScribe agenda/minutes system in July of 2024, many staff reports of continued matters both from the Planning Commission to a future Planning Commission meeting, and then when reheard at the Council as in the case of the 901 Hermosa Avenue proposed-project (in both cases) FAILED to include all prior public testimony, both oral and via eComments, in some manner. Only a couple of emails seem to be included with the prior Staff report of the 901 Hermosa Avenue matter which are included only in its PDF. The prior eScribe links to the full item with also eScribe’s convoluted system of attachments and eComments are not present and it's probably because of the fact that eScribe provides no means to extract a direct link to an agenda's particular item, a MAJOR DEFICIENCY OF eScribe. You can only include a direct link to an eScribe full meeting’s agenda and then you must reference the item # within same. With regard to the 901 Hermosa Avenue application’s Public Hearing, I and Laura Pena had submitted eComments for the November Planning Commission meeting on the matter, with and without attachments. Those comments were not included, as prior to eScribe they always had been in the Granicus days, for both the December continuation of that item in the Planning Commission, nor for tomorrow's January 27 re-hearing at the Council. Only a couple email comments were as mentioned. Would you review same and be sure to add as supplemental attachments the eComments of Laura Pena, and Howard Lee (with attachments) as made in the November meeting for the 901 Hermosa Avenue application that’s being re-heard by the Council January 27, 2026. Also the link to the full eScribe videos should be included for review by the Council as to what went down in the two Planning Commission meetings on the matter, including what the applicant and his representatives stated during same. I'm sorry that, in my view, you had to pick up all of the mess of the Community Development Department which in my view was entirely created by the absentee and arrogant/ignorant operation of Suja Lowenthal, the prior disastrous HB City Manager, again imv. Most Respectfully, Resident Howard Lee

CEQA: Determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

Community Development Director Alison Becker introduced Temporary Planner Kaneca Pompey. 

Mayor Saemann opened the public hearing. 

Planner Pompey provided a staff presentation. 

Councilmember Jackson asked various questions. 

Councilmember Francois asked various questions. 

Planner Pompey provided additional information. 

Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided information. 

Councilmember Keegan asked various questions. 

City Manager Napolitano provided comments.

Ex parte communications were disclosed by Councilmember Francois, Mayor Saemann, and Councilmember Keegan.

Councilmember Keegan announced visiting and entering the building. 

The Applicant, Kyle Ransfield, provided information about this item. 

Councilmember Francois asked the applicant various questions. 

Mayor Saemann asked questions. 

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy asked various questions. 

In Person Public Comment:

• Brandon Straus
• Dan Riley

Virtual Public Comments:

• Anthony Higgins

The Applicant was invited back to the podium and provided additional information. 

Mayor Saemann closed the public hearing. 

The City Council continued to deliberate on this item. 

• Moved by: Mayor Saemann
  Seconded by: Councilmember Francois

  To determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301, class 1 and section 15305, class 5 of the CEQA guidelines; adopt a Resolution No. RES-26-7536 approving Precise Development Plan (PDP23-04) and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 23-03) to remodel and add to an existing two-story commercial building that measures 12,012 square feet located at 901 Hermosa Avenue. The lot line adjustment consolidates three existing parcels into a single lot, subject to conditions of approval, as amended; and to approve the project with the following conditions: 

  • Direct staff to recalculate the floor area and required parking with the intention of requiring an in-lieu fee for any spaces not provided on-site; and
  • Require the area of the second floor that is shown as decommissioned space to be utilized for storage uses; and
  • Prohibit any decommission space.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

16.c

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT (TA 25-03) AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CODE PERTAINING TO APPEAL PERIODS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS - 25-CDD-138

CEQA: The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Moved by: Mayor Saemann
  Seconded by: Councilmember Jackson

  To continue the item to the next City Council meeting. 

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

  Motion Carried

17.

MUNICIPAL MATTERS

17.a

UPDATE ON HOMELESSNESS EFFORTS - 26-CMO-004

(Senior Management Analyst Sara Russo)

This item was moved to the next City Council meeting. 

17.b

APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND VISITORS BUREAU AND HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER FOUNDATION FOR ITS SPECIAL EVENTS IN 2026 THROUGH 2028 - 26-CR-012

Kathleen Knoll

Dear Mayor Saemann and Council members, I’m writing in regard to the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. I think we all agree this has become a wonderful tradition in the City of Hermosa Beach, and truly hope to see it continue this year. We are asking the City to help with some of the fees the Chamber has requested, as this event should be a partnership between the City and the Chamber. I am a current Chamber board member and I want to assure you that we are evaluating all events to ensure they align with our mission and are financially responsible. The Chamber is actively course-correcting past oversight. As Board members, we are volunteers like you who all care deeply about Hermosa Beach and its business community. Over the past several years, the Chamber took on many events when the City was no longer able to manage them, I believe this shift began when the city was dealing with the Macpherson lawsuit. This led to a very event-heavy model which is no longer sustainable. The Board is now hitting reset—streamlining operations, improving financial oversight, and recommitting to transparency. A review of event finances shows that rising costs like insurance, security, and barricades have significantly reduced net revenue, making it difficult for the Chamber to sustain these events on its own. Our hope is that the City will partner with us to help preserve important community traditions like the St. Patrick’s Day Parade while supporting the long-term health of the Chamber and our local businesses. These events are good for our community and our businesses. Thank you for listening to my opinion on this matter. Sincerely, Kathy Knoll.

Ira Ellman

I favor the City subsidizing the St. Patricks' Day Parade due to increasing security costs. Any incremental sponsor money received should be used to cover the city's share first. In addition, I am against a second Fiesta (Labor Day Weekend). It has been excellent having this three day weekend free of the Fiesta takeover of downtown. One each year is enough.

Cammie Herbert

Mayor and Councilmembers, The City, its businesses and its residents have said businesses need help. I think Special Events bring a large group of people to town. And we hope it will bring them back when they see how awesome it is. With the rising costs of running an event, The City cannot do these events alone, just as the Chamber cannot. Thanks for helping businesses!

Carolyn Petty

The purpose of a Chamber of Commerce is to advocate for businesses. Unfortunately, our Chamber is really just a Chamber of Events – and now they cannot even run events. At this point, it is time to do the chamber (and its members) a favor and not renew the contract for events. The city can put the Fiesta out to bid, and that money can fund other city events. How many times has the council seen chamber board member(s) show up at a council meeting and provide thoughtful input? I don’t believe I have ever seen board members take the time to attend meetings – unless it was pertaining to their own business. Therein lies the problem. As long as the chamber has contractually obligated events as a continued distraction, they will never fulfill their mission and purpose. This is why you should not renew the contract – not as a punishment, but to recognize that they need to focus on their mission. However – if you waiver in this belief, please recognize that if an entity behaves irresponsible and reckless with their finances, the last thing a municipality should do is hand over taxpayer money to that entity, thus getting intertwined. You should already be aware of the chamber’s financial negligence, but for the benefit of everyone reading this, below is a brief listing of their problems: Since 2019 the chamber has been financially negligent and reckless in their decision making. The chamber has burned through nearly all of its working capital – because the board and chamber president continue to assume that the city will serve as a financial backstop. The chamber had a significant cash balance at the beginning of 2019, but that money has been methodically drained. Chamber staff have been paid high salaries while at the same time, most of them had (have) other jobs – leading most of us to question how much of their time is even dedicated to the chamber. That question is also easily answered by simply looking at how much contract labor has skyrocketed since 2019 – because chamber staff no longer does this work, they merely pay someone else to do their work. Not only was staff given bonuses as the chamber lost money – but money that should have accrued to the chamber was instead handed over to board members. It is well known that various board members have financially profited from their position on the board (beer garden at the fiesta), so again, it is no surprise that the chamber is running out of money and asking the city for financial support. The chamber even ended the program that funded non profits who worked the beer garden at the Fiesta – with that money going into the pocket of a board member. How can the city council disregard this? It is an affront to everyone who understands the importance of those non profits in our community. However, the board seems to have no concern about the impropriety of their actions. It is also important to note that lower sponsorship money has been the direct result of the ineptitude of the chamber staff. One of the long time /sponsors was personally insulted and walked away. How many other sponsors left due to the attitude of chamber staff? Shouldn’t they be held accountable for lost revenues – not use this poor performance metric as a sympathy play to get money from the taxpayers? When former board members / community members have expressed concerns – which has happened numerous times over the years, those people have been ignored or silenced via threats. When a community member expressed concern about the actions of chamber board and staff, the board then used $10,000 of member funds to fund a personal lawsuit by the chamber president against that community member. How is that not a clear warning to anyone who dares to criticize the chamber? Not only is this an inappropriate use of member funds, but it also demonstrates their complete lack of concern for governance. Another reason why no taxpayer funds should go this chamber. The chamber has had an entire year to address the parade, and instead waited until the last minute, backing the council into a corner. Do not let them box you in – please be the leaders that you are, force them to get back to their mission of advocacy. This is not a punishment, it is something that needs to be done.

Steve Sanders

Tax Form 3 of 3

Steve Sanders

Tax Form 2 of 3

Steve Sanders

The Hb Chamber of Commerce continues to bleed money while at the same time giving themselves a raise. In the old days, the Hb Chamber of Commerce was so flush with cash they could loan out funds to help local businesses but now they're repeatedly asking the City of Hermosa for financial assistance. The recently released Tax Year 20204 IRS filings show that assets have declined by $150k in a single year. They have a net loss of $125k on operating activities & yet they paid themselves $60k more than in 2023!  A 31% pay increase from $189k to $249k! By all accounts, the Hb Chamber of Commerce is a financial failure. The Hb Chamber of Commerce VP of Finance recently resigned & now the past President/CEO is resigning. This year the Chamber asked the City for funds to assist with the St. Patrick's Day Parade & most likely next year they'll ask too. In FEB 2025, shortly after they signed a contract to conduct the St. Patrick's Parade, they asked the city for $15,000. The city generously obliged offering a 0% loan but that wasn't good enough so they set up a GoFund type account as they wanted free money & not money they had to pay back. Also, at that meeting the President of the Chamber presented their 2025 schedule of events but there was not one number mentioned: nothing about increase or decrease in spectators, attendee's, etc from 2023 to 2024. The presentation was Middle School level at best. In the back of the room was a representative of a major business from an adjacent city who had a $20,000 check & was prepared to present to the Chamber to cover the additional costs of the St. Patrick's Day Parade + $5,000 more for promoting their business. But after hearing the poor presentation that Chamber made to the Council he said he didn't feel the Chamber was a worthy cause to donate $20,000. I've attached 1 of 3 Tax forms as this system appears you can only attach 1 at a time. Thank you.

(Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols)

City Council recessed at 9:08 pm. 

City Council reconvened from recess at 9:28 pm. 

Interim City Clerk Guzman conducted a roll call and announced a quorum. Mayor Pro Tem Detoy was absent for the remainder of the meeting. 

Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols provided a staff presentation. 

Councilmember Francois asked various questions. 

Community Resources Director Nichols provided additional information. 

Mayor Saemann asked various questions.

Associate Engineer Andrew Nguyen provided additional information.

Councilmember Jackson asked various questions. 

Police Chief Landon Phillips provided additional information. 

In Person Public Comment:

• Michael Bell
• Michelle Crispin
• Erika Newman

Virtual Public Comment:

• Tony Higgins

Councilmember Jackson provided comments.

Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce President Michelle Crispin provided information. 

The City Council continued to deliberate on this item.

• Moved by: Mayor Saemann
  Seconded by: Councilmember Jackson

  Mayor Saemann motioned to have staff and the Chamber explore the possibility of a beer garden for the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and review possibilities to lessen the cost of barricades, and bring the item back for City Council review.
  Councilmember Jackson made a friendly amendment to continue with the historic route use for the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, and perform best practice research to determine cost-saving possibilities, but not bring the item back for City Council review.

  Mayor Saemann accepted friendly amendment.

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

  Motion Carried
• Moved by: Councilmember Keegan
  Seconded by: Councilmember Francois

  Councilmember Keegan motioned to approve the proposed agreement with the Chamber and its Foundation for its special events in 2026 through 2028, with the amendment it to be  for a one-year term with two additional one-year terms available pending City Council approval and City funding of up to $51,125 as requested by the Chamber for the 2026 event only, and future funding would only be provided following a post-event review, which would include a full review of the 2026 St. Patrick’s Day revenue and expenditures, to take place before consideration of the first available one-year term.

  Ayes (3)	Councilmember Francois, Councilmember Keegan, and Councilmember Jackson
  Noes (1)	Mayor Saemann
  Absent (1)	Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  Motion Carried

17.c

CONSIDERATION OF VENDOR SALES ON THE BEACH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - 26-CR-014

(Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols)

This item was moved to the next City Council meeting. 

17.d

REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF LAND VALUE RECAPTURE ORDINANCE, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO AMEND FEES FOR THE LAND VALUE RECAPTURE PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Randy Balik

Hello City Council, I am a 30-year Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City, and this character we all speak of can be preserved even with some thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones. Some seem to continue to be opposed to this even though such projects can add a few homes above shops, which would both strengthen local businesses, and be incremental in terms of well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it. The Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging what many of us residents support. The LVR program is literally stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. Such developments are the antithesis of "preserving" our Hb character. HB should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense, which does include the commercial areas, though small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program, eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects, and create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible. Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. This balanced approach reflects how many residents feel. Thank you.

adam malovani

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am a Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City. I do support thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones, projects that add a few homes above shops, strengthen local businesses, and bring incremental, well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it. I am concerned that the Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging exactly the kind of modest mixed-use projects many residents support. Instead of producing housing, it appears to be stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. I believe our City should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense: In commercial areas Through small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to: Remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program Eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects Create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. Thank you for listening and for considering a balanced approach that reflects how many residents feel.

Michelle Crispin

See attached

Laura Pena

Dear Mayor & City Council - After reviewing all the reports, data, and policy plan documents; I recommend an exemption for small downtown lots from our Land Value Recapture (LVR) Program. The evidence we now have from an economic, legal, and market based perspective shows that continuing to apply LVR to these parcels is no longer aligned with feasibility, and in fact has become a government imposed constraint under state housing law. I want to highlight guidance from the City’s own consultant that is especially relevant today. In October 2023, Kosmont advised that “the City should plan on revisiting the fee based on both market response relative to the intent of the LVR program.” That guidance is difficult to ignore because the inputs underlying their analysis have shifted dramatically: construction costs are higher, financing is far more expensive, lender risk tolerance has declined, return expectations have increased, and broader economic uncertainty continues. Most importantly, the market response has been unequivocal. Since LVR was introduced, analyzed, adopted, and implemented, the City has seen zero applications, zero inquiries, and zero interest on small lots, the very properties relied upon in the Housing Element. When a consultant advises that fees should be revisited based on market response, and that response is complete silence, the conclusion is not ambiguous. The market has rejected the program. Under state housing law, a city may not maintain policies that render its Housing Element sites infeasible to develop. Doing so constitutes a government imposed constraint and is now among the clearest triggers for legal challenge under both HCD review and recent case law. The Redondo Beach appellate ruling reinforced this principle, making clear that cities may not rely on theoretical capacity or paper zoning where actual feasibility is blocked by local policy. Small commercial lots in our City, typically 3,000 to 5,000 square feet with 30-foot height limits are already difficult to develop. The addition of a significant fee did not capture value; it eliminated interest altogether. Because these parcels represent a meaningful share of our Housing Element inventory, the LVR fee is now impairing our compliance. A fee that produces zero projects, zero interest, and zero applications is not an incentive, it is a barrier. And under state law, that barrier constitutes a governmental constraint. For these reasons, I respectfully recommend exempting small downtown lots from the Land Value Recapture fee and seriously considering removal of the program in its entirety. This approach aligns with current economic conditions, the Housing Element’s requirement to avoid government imposed constraints, and the clear market evidence from the past several years. If there is concern that LVR has not been in effect long enough to evaluate, that view overlooks the City’s own Housing Element history. LVR was adopted in December 2021 and included from the outset of Housing Element discussions, long before the ordinance took effect in 2024. For nearly three years, property owners, architects, and lenders have been evaluating its feasibility impacts. The policy signal has been clear and the response has been consistent. The LVR program now sits at the intersection of rapidly evolving state housing law, including changes that explicitly protect small scale infill and mixed income development. When a local ordinance appears to conflict with that framework, and when the City’s own analysis shows widespread infeasibility on small sites, the legal risk is no longer theoretical. I encourage the Council to view reform of the LVR program not as a retreat from values, but as an act of responsible governance one that aligns local policy with state law, protects taxpayers, and reduces avoidable legal exposure while still advancing thoughtful, incremental housing in our commercial corridors. I believe this Council wants to leave our City stronger, more resilient, and better aligned with the laws that govern us. Thoughtful reform is an opportunity to demonstrate stewardship, rebuild trust with small property owners, and direct staff to work collaboratively on incentives that genuinely support incremental, small-scale infill development. I am hopeful you will choose a path forward that reflects both our shared values and sound governance. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Pena

Elka Worner

Staff has spent hundreds of hours developing the city’s Land Value Recapture Program, a policy designed to incentivize affordable housing. But since the ordinance went into effect in 2024, no one has submitted an affordable housing project or paid the LVR fee. Zero applications. Smart development in our commercial areas makes sense, especially for our Housing Element. I agree with the proposal set forth by the Planning Commission and am confident you will also take into consideration the position of the local property owners. Thank you.

Cammie Herbert

Mayor and Councilmembers, I know we are required to bring in housing. I support small scale mixed use development in our commercial zones. I’ve even thought the city could consider having residential at its city yard and encouraging the Hermosa Pavilion to convert their empty spaces to some studios. However I do not support the Land Value Recapture program. There are no applications so It seems that the LVR is not only not creating housing, but stalling projects on small commercial lots. Which in turn seems to keep bringing us to higher density developments in residential neighborhoods. I hope you will consider: - removing 1-2 unit projects from the program -eliminating fees on small mixed use projects. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jonathan Edward David

Please find aletter from Upper Pier Property Owners, who want to see the program eliminated from all downtown lots - past planning commissions recommendation of only the 1-2 unit exemption.

MC Guerry

I do not object to you taking this action, but what I really want is for you to eliminate the Land Value Recapture Fee everywhere. We need more housing units and this fee discourages new development.

CEQA: The action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

This item was moved to the next City Council meeting.

17.e

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT - 26-CDD-012

(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

This item was moved to the next City Council meeting. 

17.f

APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION TO SUPPORT UPGRADES TO THE BASKETBALL COURT EQUIPMENT AND APPROVE THE INCREASE OF PROJECT CONTINGENCY TO CIP 619 – KELLY COURTS RENOVATION PROJECT - 26-PW-003

(City Engineer Saad Malim)

City Engineer Saad Malim provided a staff presentation.

Councilmember Jackson asked various questions. 

No Public Comment was provided.

• Moved by: Councilmember Keegan
  Seconded by: Mayor Saemann

  To accept into the CIP 619 – Kelly Courts Renovation Project budget a donation of funds from The Hermosa Beach Youth Basketball League in the amount of $14,224 for the upgrade of basketball court equipment; add estimated revenue of $14,224 at Account # 301-3908-4201 in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Fund 301 for the donation; and authorize the Director of Public Works to increase the total project contingency amount on the Kelly Courts Improvement project to $244,942 and to approve contract change orders up to the amount of the approved project contingency.

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

  Motion Carried

18.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

18.a

MAYOR SAEMANN REQUESTS SUPPORT FOR STAFF TO RETURN WITH AN ACTION REPORT TO CONSIDER PLACEMENT OF A COMMEMORATIVE SIGN HONORING THE LIFE AND SERVICE OF TORRANCE POLICE OFFICER GARY ELTON RIPPSTEIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF 8TH ST AND ARDMORE AVE

City Manager Napolitano provided information. 

Public Works Director SanClemente provided information. 

Chief Phillips provided information. 

No support was provided.

18.b

TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 26-CMO-006

Mayor Saemaan requested support for a full report on the development of parking lot D. 

No support was provided. 

Councilmember Francois requested support for an informational item on the Police Department resources regarding safety on The Strand.

City Manager Napolitano provided information.

No support was provided.

19.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

No City Manager Report was provided.

20.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

20.a

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE AND AMBULANCE MONTHLY REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2025

(Emergency Management Coordinator Maurice Wright)

20.b

POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY CRIME STATISTICS AND BICYCLE RELATED CITATIONS ISSUED - 2025

(Police Chief Landon Phillips)

20.c

ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2025

(Associate Engineer Andrew Nguyen)

20.d

ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2026

(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

21.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:46 p.m.