CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

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

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:

• Interim City Manager Napolitano, 
• Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore, 
• Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker, 
• City Clerk Myra Maravilla, 
• Community Development Director Alison Becker, 
• Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols, 
• Police Chief Landon Phillips, 
• Public Works Director Joe SanClemente, 
• Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza, 
• Special Events and Filming Coordinator Austin DeWeese, 
• and Senior Management Analyst Kenneth Bales 

---

1.

OPEN SESSION—CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM

Mayor Saemann called the Open Session to order at 6:12 p.m.

2.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Jeff Bonafede.

3.

ROLL CALL

City Clerk Maravilla announced a quorum. All members were present.

4.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

There was no Closed Session. No Closed Session Report was provided.

5.

ANNOUNCEMENTS—UPCOMING CITY EVENTS

Mayor Saemann announced the following community events:

• Coffee with a Cop is taking place on Wednesday, October 1, 2025, at Java Man from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The community was invited to attend.
• Carrie and the Prom is taking place on Friday, October 10, 2025 at the Community Center Theater. This event is for ages 18 and up. The event features a reception including a 70's-themed prom and tours of local filming locations at 7:00 p.m. and a screening of the horror classic "Carrie" at 8:30 p.m. Tickets for this event are $10. 
• Friends of the Park is hosting Pumpkins in the Park on Saturday, October 11, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park on 350 Prospect Ave. Families are welcome to enjoy a costume contest, face painting, a photo booth, games and pumpkin decorating.

6.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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

• Moved by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy
  Seconded by: Councilmember Jackson

  To approve the order of the agenda.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

7.

PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

7.a

RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY LEADERS KATHY KNOLL AND JEFF BONAFEDE

Mayor Saemann read a Certificate of Recognition into the record, acknowledging Kathy Knoll and Jeff Bonafede for their contributions to the City. 

Kathy Knoll provided comments. 

Jeff Bonafede provided comments.

7.b

RECOGNIZING HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 - OCTOBER 15, 2025

Mayor Saemann read a proclamation into the record recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15, 2025 to October 15, 2025.

7.c

RECOGNIZNG CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR DAY ON OCTOBER 1, 2025

Mayor Saemann read a proclamation into the record recognizing California Clean Air Day on October 1, 2025.

8.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Howard Lee 'Thanks again for labeling STAFF reports as STAFF reports BUT Community Development and Public Works need still need to get on board'

City Clerk and City Manager: This comment is primarily directed at the City Clerk's and City Manager's office: Thanks again for the clear labeling of the Staff report, i.e. first eScribe attachment to each item. HOWEVER, while I have written to Community Development / The Planning Commission, and Public Works / The PW Commission, they as of their last meeting’s agenda are still not using the Agenda convention as used by the City Council and the Parks & Rec Department / Parks & Rec Commission in naming the STAFF report of each item clearly as being “Staff Report”. Kindly City Clerk and City Manager get them on board - such that agenda attachment naming is consistent across all bodies and their meeting agendas. Thank you City Clerk and City Manager. Most respectfully, Howard Lee

Is escribe a lemon?

Dear City Council, Please click on the pdf above regarding escribe and its ongoing unresolved problems. thank you tony higgins

Leonard Shapiro

Why are flags in Hermosa Beach City Hall and the fire department at half-mast to support an unrepentant racist, homophobe, transphobe, and misogynist podcaster?

This is the time for members of the public to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken (City Manager Reports, City Councilmember Comments, Consent Calendar items not pulled for separate discussion, and Future Agenda Items). If public comment is provided on a Public Hearing or Municipal Matter item, public comment on the same item will not be accepted when the item is heard at a later part of the meeting.

The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker from those present in City Council Chambers and via the remote participation options listed on the agenda. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Mayor or City Council. 

No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager. Members of the public will have a future opportunity to speak on items pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, Public Hearings, and Municipal Matters when those items are heard.

Mayor Francois opened Public Comment. 

In Person Public Comment:

• Sarah Harper
• Jan Brittain
• John Holway
• Nancy Schwappach
• Rory Barish
• Jeff Prugh
• Quint Carroll
• Eric Horne

Virtual Public Comment:

• Josh Krasnegor 
• Anthony Higgins

9.

CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

Mayor Saemann provided comments about the upcoming Mayor's Town Hall at the Clark Building.

10.

UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES AND STANDING COMMITTEE DELEGATES/ALTERNATES

Councilmember Francois provided the following announcements:

• Attended the Los Angeles County Library Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 17, 2025;
• Attended Locale 90254: Oktoberfest event on Saturday, September 27, 2025;
• Attended the Leadership Herrmosa Beach orientation with Mayor Saemann on September 13, 2025; and
• Attended the City of Redondo Beach's groundbreaking ceremony for the open space improvement at the corner of Herondo Street and Pacific Coast Highway on Tuesday, September 30, 2025.

11.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. Councilmembers may orally register a negative vote on any Consent Calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration before the vote on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item before the vote on the Consent Calendar. Items removed for separate discussion will be provided a separate public comment period.

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To approve the Consent Calendar.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

11.a

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

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  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

11.b

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

(City Clerk Myra Maravilla)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To approve the minutes of the September 9, 2025 Regular Meeting.

  Motion Carried

11.c

CHECK REGISTERS - 25-AS-076

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the check registers for the period of September 3, 2025, through September 17, 2025. The Administrative Services Director certifies the accuracy of the demands.

  Motion Carried

11.d

CASH BALANCE REPORT - 25-AS-074

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the June 2025 and July 2025 Cash Balance Reports.

  Motion Carried

11.e

REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR JUNE 2025 - 25-AS-071

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the June 2025 Financial Reports.

  Motion Carried

11.f

REVENUE REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR JULY 2025 - 25-AS-072

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the July 2025 Financial Reports.

  Motion Carried

11.g

REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM FY 2024–25 TO FY 2025–26, APPROVAL OF RELATED REVENUE REVISIONS - 25-AS-079

please pull for discussion

Dear City Council, this report is missing a grand total that will obviously be a positive number. but what percent of that positive number is from projects that came in under budget and what percent of that positive grand total is projects that were delayed or late? does anyone care? th.

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To approve the budget reappropriation of certain unspent FY 2024-25 amounts to the FY 2025–26 Budget.

  Motion Carried

11.h

CITY’S TREASURER’S REPORT - 25-AS-073

(City Treasurer Dave Pedersen)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the June 2025 and July 2025 City Treasurer’s Reports.

  Motion Carried

11.i

ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND HMBC SECTION 17.42.180.D, ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT (TA 25-02), TO EXTEND THE SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PROGRAM FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 2027 - 25-CDD-136

CEQA: Determine the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To adopt by title only and waive second reading of Ordinance No. ORD-25-1489  titled “Approving a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA 25-02), amending Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.42.180.D, extending the short-term vacation rental program an additional two years and determining the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)"; determine the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; 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

11.j

REPORT ON RECENT ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF CALL UP DE NOVO REVIEW UNDER HBMC SECTION 2.52.040 - 25-CDD-133

Deanna Bradshaw

I agree with Nancy Schwappach's comment!

Howard Lee 'Yes two members of the Council would best take jurisdiction of the 3415 Palm Dr application'

Council, City Clerk, City Staff and others: The problem with the 3415 Palm Dr. application approval is not the applicant; it was the Planning Commission approval as made along with the lackadaisical Contract City Attorney present in letting the Commission do a sloppy approval, and further which was in general good, but very much lacking in clear specifics. The City Attorney present stated clearly they could continue the item for another Public Hearing, so why didn't they do that? Commissioner Mike Flaherty while voting for the project raised the important issue that they really had not yet seen the final resolution or adjusted conceptual drawings as reviewed further by staff. The applicant had only submitted a possible alternative plan. The applicant had not formally given up on his original submittal that I could see. Furthermore while the applicant changed their plans to be 35 feet 3-4 inches tall along Hermosa's sloping-height-envelope (which sloping-height-envelope line for this applicant would be a full 5 feet above the 30-foot limit in this R3 zone at 35 feet) no one knows what that will mean when revised plans and working drawings are submitted after that some-what open-ended approval by the Commission. Furthermore while the applicant decreased the units by one, from five to four, it appeared in my review that the alternative plans had essentially then only 4 car spaces garaged, but as I could see, now there appeared to be zero additional/guest spaces whatever. There appears to be definite unresolved guest parking issues and the applicant will both be screwing themselves and the city as such if those are not clarified. My views within, and which lead me to believe that Yes, two on the Council really do need to take jurisdiction over this P.C. approval and have their own de novo new Public Hearing by the Council on the project for all concerned’s best interests, and tidy up all the loose ends. Otherwise God only knows what the applicant will end up legally being able to assume was approved. Best not let this become yet another cluster-f%$&. Most Respectfully, Howard Lee

Howard Lee 'Community Development and the P.C. Have Failed Us'

Council, City Clerk, City Staff and others: The Community Development Department has, imv, gone to hell in a handbasket in recent years. The problem was created by the former City Manager hiring directors who were then not informed of long established procedures and who evidently didn’t spend any time to learn what those long-established procedures were. This has been the case with all the departments that imv Suja so completely wrecked for her micro-management personal style. Those with institutional knowledge on the Planning Commission also seem scared to death to raise any issues in public. The least they could do is ask why the appeal dates are no longer mentioned by staff when the Commission makes an approval or disapproval which is appealable to the City Council. Certainly the applicants would like to know. The appeal period for decades has been the 10-day period beginning on the date of the Council meeting whereat the Council would be receiving for filing, the Action Minutes of the Planning Commission in which the item was approved or disapproved. They used to announce something to the effect “that the decision on this matter is appealable to the City Council for 10 days commencing i.e., 9/30/2025.” Then at that meeting date, whether the Council pulled the minutes or not, any two members of the Council not having a conflict of interest in the matter, could indicate to the City Clerk during the 10-day period that they were going to have the council take jurisdiction over the item in the minutes and rehear the item. Many times that took place right on the very last day to appeal by two councilmembers. Btw, if the city is closed on the 10th day to appeal, it was extended to the next day that the City was open. Thus the appeal period usually is in fact 13-days. If two members of the council appealed the decision for whatever reason, the city would necessarily cover all costs of the appeal including noticing. Also, any other individual or group could also choose to appeal the matter if said individual or group could not enlist two members of the Council to do so, except then they would need to pay the appeal fees the city had in place for such type of appeal. Thus this matter of pulling the Action Minutes has once again become another unnecessary cluster-f%$ as a result of virtually all previous long-established ways of doing things in city being totally messed up by the former Suja administration (over the prior seven years) and also primarily the prior council majorities which included (you know the list) as manipulated by former Councilman Justin Massey whose agenda was his way or the highway. Massey was unquestionably the all-knowing de facto turd of the city. I.e. the greatest manipulating individual of the Hermosa government, probably in the city’s history. And now probably the most despised prior ceremonial-Mayor. My views all herein of course. Most Respectfully, Howard Lee

Nancy Schwappach

Hello. I believe the public generally supports the Project Alternative plan approved by Planning Commission in accordance with the final, unsigned, resolution posted in the Development Projects of the City's website. I know I do. I also believe some of us are concerned that, given the extraordinary nature of this application, the applicant may have leeway to revise the Project Alternative plan in a manner inconsistent with the PC's and public's intentions, such as by enclosing open space, reducing setbacks, and/or lowering the height in some places and raising it in others, to remain within the 35.27' height specified in the resolution. This could impact the "massing" of the project and/or height from Palm Drive or Hermosa Avenue. We would like to see more certainty in this regard. Therefore, if Council does not elect to pull item 11.j., minutes of 9/16/25 planning commission meeting, item 7.B., the builder's remedy project, I think the public would appreciate an explanation as to why. Consider, if you are able, asking staff/counsel whether if you pull the item for future discussion there is a legal risk the applicant may withdraw the 35' "compromise" project and revert to the 50' original plan. And, if staff or counsel advises this is a legal risk, perhaps they could explain the grounds for that advice. Thank you.

BARBARA A CATINO

I'm asking Council to pull for discussion at a future meeting consent calendar item 11.j., the minutes of the 9/16 Planning Commission meeting, agenda item 7.b, approval of the Builder's Remedy project. While I generally support this compromise, I am worried about the final resolution, which the public has not seen and I don't see in your agenda package. I am concerned it may give the applicant too much leeway to modify the compromise plan.

Richard Meaglia

I'm requesting that Council pull for discussion at a future meeting consent calendar item 11 the minutes of the 9/16 Planning Commission meeting, agenda item 7.b, approval of the Builder's Remedy project. I am generally in support of the compromised and revised plan. However, I want to make sure that the plan which the public has not seen and I don't see in your agenda package, conforms to the revised plan submitted by applicant on September 15, 2025 with height limits on the structure as it fronts on Hermosa Avenue of 35 feet and as it fronts on Palm Avenue of 27 feet. I am concerned that the approval may give the applicant the right to modify the compromised plan beyond the height and other limits set forth on the revised plan. Since staff and the public did not have a chance to review and or comment on the revised plan, it will be helpful to review the final version before it is approved.

PLEASE PULL ITEM 11j

Dear City Council In writing this I am not at all critical of the decisions made by the Planning Commission related to 3415 Palm PDP; I support the framework agreement. But I understand the 3415 Palm PDP approved on 9/16/25 has not been released to the public. The reason Im writing is there seem to loose ends and confusion about what comes next. Is the next step going to be a framework or outline of a PDP with a few high level architectural drawings and a list of conditions on parking, building height, sewer connections, etc. AND this outline will accepted as approved PDP with architectural details and plans to follow? I also understand there some confusion on the defined appeal process and when will the clock start. Because of this uncertainty I ask that the Council pull the 9/16/25 Planning Commission Minutes - Item 11j Attachment 2 to explain the next steps. Thank you, tony higgins

Linda Biche

Subject: Please Pull 3415 Palm Drive from Counsent Calendar City Council: I appreciate the Planning Commission’s decision to support the 35-foot alternative for 3415 Palm Drive. However, I urge the City Council to pull this item from the consent calendar for full discussion. Important questions remain about precedent and long-term impacts, and the community deserves continued oversight to ensure Hermosa Beach’s scale and character are protected.

Nancy Schwappach

I request City Council pull from the consent calendar Agenda Item 7.b. of the minutes of the 9/16/25 Planning Commission meeting. I believe Council has the right to pull this for discussion at a future meeting. I also believe Council has limited grounds on which it can request a de novo hearing (something like the Commission exceeded its authority or made an error, that isn't exactly right but is, I think, close). In that regard, I expect Council, and the public, would like to review the actual resolution approving this application, which I suggest be provided to Council before the future meeting at which this item appears on the agenda and is discussed by Council. I suggest only after reviewing that Resolution can Council decide whether Planning Commission exceeded its authority or erred in its approval. This was the public hearing on the "builder's remedy" project at 3415 Palm Drive. At the 9/16 hearing the Commission "approved" a Project Alternative which had been provided to the Commission, and the public, the day before the meeting, via an e-comment from the applicant's plan expeditor, Brandon Straus, containing a letter from the applicant's attorney with a "Project Alternative" plan attached. This Commission's approval was pursuant to a to be drafted resolution, the expected content of which was discussed at the hearing but which has not been made available to the City Council or the public for review. Potential concerns regarding the resolution include: (a) the applicant requested "wiggle room" to make changes to the plan - Planning Commission's standard resolution already contains such language and there should be no reason to modify that language, and (b) because the Project Alternative is still non-conforming, there is a concern they could make changes which would "substantially conform" to the plan provided but would increase the building envelope and/or raise the height. Many of us believe that the building envelope in the Project Alternative should be specifically protected, subject only to the standard discretion granted to the Community Development Director addressed in clause (a). Thank you for your consideration of this request.

(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission Special Meeting of September 8, 2025, and the Regular Meeting of September 16, 2025.

  Motion Carried

11.k

PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 25-CDD-131

(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the tentative agendas for the October 13, 2025 Special Meeting and the October 21, 2025 Regular Meeting.

  Motion Carried

11.l

PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MINUTES - 25-PW-076

(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of July 16, 2025.

  Motion Carried

11.m

OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 707 (DURAZO) - 25-CCO-041

(City Clerk Myra Maravilla)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To take a position in opposition of Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter expressing the City’s position.

  Motion Carried

11.n

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AS OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 - 25-PW-065

tony higgins

Dear City Council in addition to the public comment below CAN you please consider what public interest is served by not including the ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE in the CIP Status Report. Deleting the ORIGINAL ECD and only reporting the CURRENT ECD obviously runs counter to reasonable public accountability & transparency goals at a time when the Public Works Department is trying to prove it is capable of completing large complex projects like the Civic Facilities or the City Yard projects on time AND on budget. Thank You for considering. th

tony higgins

Dear City Council, The project descriptions and status have improved significantly over the past year. Now if you would color-code each project row background red, yellow or green the council could zero in on the problem areas and not waste time and offer assistance. Red background - if the next major milestone or project ECD is going to be missed or the project is over budget, Yellow background - if the next major milestone or project ECD may be missed or over budget, Green background - if the project ECD and budget are on track. Or if you don't like a rainbow of colors in your status documents simply add a column with a red, yellow or green traffic light indicating the overall status as Mr. Burry suggested several years ago. This would allow the council to quickly investigate.possibly offer helt to avoid or mitigate the problem. Whether or not you implement these status format changes the goal is to never be blindsided by a missed deliverable or an over budget project. Thank You for considering. tony higgins

(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the Capital Improvement Program Status Report as of September 17, 2025.

  Motion Carried

11.o

APPROVAL OF FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES BETWEEN WESTGROUP DESIGNS AND THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - 25-PW-061

(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To approve the proposed fourth amendment to agreement with Westgroup Designs, Inc. to provide on-call architectural services extending the term to October 11, 2026; and authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed amendment, approve minor modifications if necessary, and execute all related documents, with the City Clerk attesting the agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney.

  Motion Carried

11.p

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE AND AMBULANCE MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE 2025 - 25-CMO-063

(Emergency Management Coordinator Maurice Wright)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the June 2025 Fire and Ambulance monthly report.

  Motion Carried

11.q

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE AND AMBULANCE MONTHLY REPORT FOR JULY 2025 - 25-CMO-064

(Emergency Management Coordinator Maurice Wright)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To receive and file the July 2025 Fire and Ambulance monthly report.

  Motion Carried

11.r

APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH HERMOSA BEACH YOUTH BASKETBALL FOR USE OF THE HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM AND ROOMS AND OUTDOOR BASKETBALL FACILITIES - 25-CR-069

CEQA: Approval of the agreement with Hermosa Beach Youth Basketball (HBYB) to provide use of the Hermosa Beach Community Center gymnasium and rooms and outdoor basketball facilities would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15304 (e). 
(Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols)

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To approve a three-year agreement with HBYB for use of the Hermosa Beach Community Center gymnasium and rooms, and outdoor basketball facilities commencing with the 2025-26 winter season through the 2028 summer season; determine the approval of the agreement with Hermosa Beach Youth Basketball (HBYB) to provide use of the Hermosa Beach Community Center gymnasium and rooms and outdoor basketball facilities would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15304 (e); and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and the City Clerk to attest, subject to approval by the City Attorney.

  Motion Carried

12.

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

12.a

ITEM TO BE CONTINUED - INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND HBMC SECTION 2.52.40 RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS

Howard Lee The Item Is Missing A Staff Report Giving A Reason

Council, City Clerk and Staff: There should be at the minimum a brief staff report indicating why this item is recommended by staff to be continued. Such is not present. Why is that? Someone having an interest in this item has no way of knowing if it will actually be continued. This is not the way to properly place and word an item on the agenda. The public sees this only as sloppiness, laziness, or incompetence unfortunately. Howard Lee, Resident

(Community Development Director Alison Becker)

• City Council continued the item to the next regular City Council meeting on October 14, 2025.

12.b

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND HBMC SECTION 10.36.010 TO INCREASE PARKING METER RATES - 25-AS-069

Andrew Gawdun

It's laughable that the City has a desire to raise the parking costs when we can't ever fill the spaces we have. It would make sense if this was a booming busy town and there was actual money to be made. This just continues to perpetuate the idea that Hermosa is self serving, out of touch and not looking at ways promote visitors and business to it's community. Maybe we look at ways to help attract folks here and then once that works we look into raising the costs.

Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce

Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff, The Chamber understands the City’s need to review parking rates as part of broader financial planning. We ask, however, that the potential effects on our local business community remain front of mind in these discussions. Hermosa’s small businesses depend on steady customer traffic. If parking rates rise significantly above neighboring cities, it creates a competitive disadvantage that could shift visitors elsewhere. Over time, this means fewer customers for our merchants and restaurants and a smaller sales tax base for the City itself. Accessible, reasonably priced parking is not just a convenience, it is a cornerstone of keeping our commercial areas vibrant and ensuring our local economy continues to thrive. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau

Fiona Fleming

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, As a downtown business owner. I urge you to reconsider raising parking rates in Hermosa Beach. Increasing rates now will discourage both locals and visitors, pushing them to spend time and money in neighboring cities instead of here. Hermosa Beach thrives on tourism and local patronage of our businesses. Parking costs are often the first impression visitors encounter when arriving in our city. Higher fees may discourage people from staying longer, or in some cases, from visiting at all, especially when they can easily choose neighboring communities with more affordable and accessible parking. It is also important to note that most parking lots remain underutilized for much of the year, only reaching capacity during peak summer months. Raising prices in an already underutilized system risks further deterring visitors during the off-season, precisely when our businesses most need support. Affordable parking draws people in, supports our businesses, and strengthens the local economy. Please keep rates reasonable so Hermosa Beach remains welcoming and accessible year round for our neighbors and visitors alike. Thank you. Fiona Fleming, Owner/Operator Patrick Molloy's Pier Plaza

Josh Royal

Josh Royal here with the Lighthouse Cafe. I am against doubling the parking rates by the beach. Any increases should be made over time and less drastic. This could hurt our local businesses in Hermosa who are already struggling to compete with other areas like Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach who will still have the lower rates. This is short sighted and not thinking about the long term effects of an increase like this to the local economy that is already struggling compared to our neighbors. Please don't pass this and come up with other options that are more business friendly.

Jeff Raedy

There’s plenty to dislike about this increase: 1. What problem is it solving? Let’s get the unstated part out there first: It’s trying to solve the fact that voters soundly rejected the sales tax increase measures in 2022 and 2024, and the city doesn’t have to put this self-estimated $3.8 million revenue grab on the ballot. It was parking tickets two weeks ago. What’s next? 2. These increases will not put our parking rates on par with our neighbors. It takes some tortured logic to make that case from the staff report’s own table. Why is San Diego included instead of Los Angeles? Could it be because LA’s lowest rate is 60 cents per hour (up to a max of $6 for about 24 spaces for a few high-demand hours per day)? 3. I don’t know why the city thinks it’s completely immune from market forces. This is the latest example of the city claiming it can raise prices (or taxes) and assume it will have no effect on demand (as stated explicitly in the staff report). If this were so, why not raise the hourly parking rate to $10/hr for a revenue jackpot? We all know it doesn’t work like that. People vote with their feet and cars; even seemingly-slight changes generate trends. 4. Why raise the rates so significantly after just two years? Rate increases, relatively modest until now, have been averaging every 5ish years, which seems reasonable. After two years the city is going to hike things so significantly? The kids call this “sus”. See point #1. 5. All of this boils down to traffic for our downtown businesses. Have you been downtown on a typical weekday before 6pm? Parking supply far outweighs parking demand. We need to do things to encourage people to park in our city, not make it more expensive. Didn’t the city just make (or is in the process of making) a significant investment in pay stations to replace individual meters? Let’s table this across-the-board increase and think long-term about dynamic pricing to bolster daytime business while capitalizing on high demand parking times.

Howard Lee 'NO to obsence parking rate increase, and there were no notice placards seen anywhere'

Council and Staff, I believe I read in the staff report that the citywide 50% proposed increase in parking meter rates, and the 100% increase proposed in the downtown parking-lots for parking meter rates will result in $3.8 million in additional annual revenue. Given such a significant hit to be made on both residents and visitors even desiring to pay $5 per hour to park downtown I find it incredulous that the de facto only notice of significance is a less than detailed EasyReader newspaper notice two weeks ago. Notwithstanding this is a standard trick to reach the moon, and be happy to get part way there, the rates are way toooooo high right now. All of us are not on fat government pensions. So today I checked out the downtown parking lots on foot, expecting to see some Fluorescent-Orange notice placards (whether legally required or not). I could not find even one Fluorescent-Orange city placard notice or even one of the dinky 8.5 x 11 white page notices to let the people know the rates in those lots are to be doubled and that they are invited to the public hearing. Btw, why didn’t the staff report even indicate who or what the Finance Subcommittee was about. Another indicated to me that they understood Councilmembers Mike Detoy and Raymond Jackson were the Finance Subcommittee. Good God no wonder a 100% increase is being proposed. Their names should have been indicated in the staff report if they are the so-called “Finance Sub-Committee”, i.e. the most useless councilmembers on the Council are on that committee. Good God! All this is so unconscionable. Crappy government left over from the Suja operation. Then the table of comparison of other city rates, as used so often to justify rate increases by cities. I.e. the Monkey See, Monkey Do approach to finance. How ridiculous is that list; For comparison it included San Diego, Santa Monica, Beach cities on PCH, i.e. Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach. Only Redondo Beach, or Manhattan Beach even qualify to being on that list. If this is the best staff can do then hello? My God, why didn’t you include New York City? Bottom line the deceit of the Suja Lowenthal era and lack of transparency is clearly still ongoing and needs to end. The ignorance of City Council members who had no real long term awareness of Hermosa Beach but got on the City Council for their own personal ego, or resume, they’re not going to be remembered for long after they are off the council. Transparency has been flushed down the toilet in Hermosa Beach during the last 7 years due again primarily because of the hacks who manipulated and wrapped themselves around the Suja Lowenthal regime. Those who still want to operate under that regime as if it was still around need to wake up and smell the coffee. Regarding this item: The Parking Meter rates are sky high right now for Hermosa Beach. This is the dead-wrong time to be even suggesting ripping off further, those who would want to visit businesses downtown, especially in the daytime; and this without even mentioning the parking meter enforcement operation. Have you considered removing some of the Suja personnel hired for her bloated operation, or cancelling some of the projects, tightening the belt? I didn’t see that mentioned or suggested in the staff report. Note: My views all herein. Btw, why are there six parking places reserved at city hall for the city council members and the city attorney? I happened to see that today. Staff does a better job of putting up those no parking notice placards in front of city hall than they do to increase parking meter rates $3.8 million per year. And why are you not inviting all in city to be able to have dinner with you in the up-stairs conference room when there could be three or more of you present. That’s likely a Brown Act violation when you are not giving notice that 3 or more of you may be present together somewhere and that all are welcome to join them and observe. You are essentially having a de facto closed session as such; Especially when you are eating on the Hermosa treasury’s nickel. Where is the City Treasurer reporting on this fact? You all knew what the job was, and what the pay was. Why did you run if you need to graze on the city treasury, and then not even put out a single notice placard when you’re proposing to raise parking meter rates 50% and 100% to take in $3.8 million more per year. Carry a brown bag if you can’t eat at home. Leave the parking spaces for residents who need to attend the meetings. If the residents are expected to park along the greenbelt, then why not the councilmembers too? Sorry for a few digressions. But, NO to parking meter rate increases at this time; and NO to adding more parking meters anywhere in the city. But YES to doing a far better job of noticing in the future for such ordinances. Most Respectfully, Howard Lee

Laura Pena

Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff – I understand the rationale to review our City’s parking rates so adjustments can be made accordingly. But losing three Starbucks overnight in our small city is a wake up call. Even big brands can pull out when the math stops working. That’s why we should set parking rates with data so quick errands and casual visits stay easy, and our small businesses stay busy. According to your own comparison charts, Redondo parking rates are $2.00/hr, and Manhattan are $2.50-$3.50/hr. If our city jumps to $5.00/hr in lots and $3.00/hr at meters, we risk losing quick trip visits (coffee, pickups, impulse shopping, dining, etc) to cheaper, nearby options shrinking both small business sales and the City’s sales tax base. Even if most meter transactions are from nonresidents, those are the very customers our shops depend on and they can easily choose Redondo or Manhattan Beach if we’re priced notably higher. Recommendations: 1. Start with demand responsive, not one size fits all: Set a clear 70-85% target and adjust by zone and time in $0.50 increments in both directions. If occupancy drops below 70%, rates come down. Since we have an Administrative Service Department Activity Dashboard, add the breakdown so everyone can see the numbers. Currently, the Parking Activity Type Breakdown categories are too general. It would be helpful to see the numbers per lot. For example, I can see the parking permits for employees (daily/monthly) that use Lot C but that doesn’t show us the impact on visitor numbers. 2. Keep us competitive: Set our baseline rates near MB/RB (e.g., meters in the $2.50-$3.50 range, lots a notch higher only where occupancy proves there is demand), then let the data do the work. 3. Protect quick stops: Offer “first 5-10 free” in shoulder periods to keep grab and go visits frictionless. 4. Create event high season/special parking rates: Use special event pricing when demand spikes two hours before to four hours after big events or holidays. Keeps regular days affordable especially during the week and off season. For example, use a lighter touch version for beach impact days (e.g., Fiesta, Summer Weekends, etc) and for regional big events (e.g., World Cup 2026 & Olympics 2028) publish rates in advance, signed clearly, and turned off when crowds subside. Let’s keep our City welcoming and lively. Calibrate prices with data, stay competitive with MB/RB, reinvest back into our business areas, and use targeted event pricing when the crowds actually arrive. We need to set rates that are welcoming, competitive, and based on demand. Price for access, not just revenue. You might be surprised at how incremental adjustments can create a win-win strategy for all. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Laura Pena

Greg Newman

I understand that tomorrow’s agenda includes a review of the City’s parking meter rates and parking lot hourly charges. While I appreciate that Hermosa Beach faces many unfunded capital improvement projects and the need to secure revenue to address them, I am concerned that significant increases in parking fees will have a detrimental effect on local businesses and their customers. As the owner of several businesses in Hermosa Beach, I’ve seen first-hand how previous rate changes impact the downtown economy. The last increase just over two years ago was a shock to many of our customers, and its effects were felt across the business community. Today, business levels are flat at best—down in many cases—and another steep increase could compound these challenges. Not only do higher parking fees affect our guests, they also make it very expensive for our team members to park during their shifts. This adds another financial burden on the local workforce and makes it harder for businesses to recruit and retain staff—especially in a hospitality-driven community like ours. We recognize the City’s needs and are willing to support a reasonable adjustment to rates. However, an increase in the range of 5–10 percent would be far more appropriate and sustainable than the larger jump currently under consideration. This approach would balance the City’s revenue goals with the long-term vitality of its business district. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your ongoing service to our community. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further with you or provide additional context from the perspective of local business owners.

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker provided a presentation.

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy asked various questions.

Interim City Manager Steve Napolitano provided information.

Mayor Saemann asked various questions.

Director Walker provided information.

Senior Management Analyst Kenneth Bales provided information.

Councilmember Francois asked various questions.

In Person Public Comment:

• George Barks
• Vincent Busam
• Kathy Knoll

Virtual Public Comment:

• Anthony Higgins
• Josh Krasnegor
• Matt McCool
• Ann Gotthoffer

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy provided information about the Finance Subcommittee meeting. 

Councilmember Francois asked various questions and provided comments.

Councilmember Keegan asked various questions and provided comments.

Councilmember Jackson provided comments.

Mayor Saemann provided comments.

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

  To introduce by title only and waive first reading of Ordinance No. ORD-25-1490 titled “Amending Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.36 Parking Meters, Increasing Meter Rates”, as amended, to increase parking meter rates to $3 and parking in beach lots A, B, and C to $3.50.

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

  Motion Carried

12.c

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND HBMC SECTION 10.36.010 TO METER LOT E - 25-PW-075

Josh K

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I’m writing to oppose converting Lot E to paid meters. Using the City’s downtown/Pier Ave meter hours and rates (10 a.m.–2 a.m.; $2/hr 10 a.m.–8 p.m., $2.50/hr 8 p.m.–2 a.m.), and the on-the-ground reality that the lot is mainly open at night, the numbers and community impacts do not support this change. 1) Financial Reality (with “mostly open” nights) Installing ~25 modern smart meters is projected to cost $190,000–$220,000 upfront (even a “low-end” system is $100k+ including hardware, labor, electrical, software, signage, and contingency). Ongoing maintenance, software, enforcement, and collection costs further reduce returns. Using reasonable assumptions for Lot E: Hours & rates: 10 a.m.–2 a.m.; $2/hr (day), $2.50/hr (night) Occupancy: 50% by day, 10% by night (lot is mostly open at night) Meters: 25, 2-hour max Costs: $200,000 capital (Year 1), $20,000/year maintenance & software, $60,000/year enforcement. Results: Annual revenue: ≈ $104,938 Annual operating costs: $80,000 Year 1 loss (includes build): –$175,063 Years 2+ annual net: +$24,938 Cumulative break-even: about Year 5 Given these figures, this is a slow, risky payback that depends on optimistic daytime occupancy and continued operating discipline. Has the City completed a formal revenue analysis for this specific lot—including occupancy by time of day, enforcement assumptions, and a 10-year P&L—demonstrating a positive outcome? 2) Neighborhood Spillover Free 2-hour parking keeps cars out of nearby residential streets. Meters will push drivers to avoid fees by parking in front of homes, increasing congestion, noise, and safety concerns. 3) Low Demand for Paid Parking Spots are typically open both day and night. Meters “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist and may suppress use of the lot. 4) Business Impact & Future Congestion With 210 PCH poised to bring multiple businesses, this block will already see more activity. Paid meters make parking less attractive for customers, pushing more cars into the neighborhood and undermining access to local businesses. 5) Weak Enforcement Record Parking enforcement rarely patrols Lot E; resident calls can take hours. If the current 2-hour limit isn’t reliably enforced, meters won’t fix the core problem—they add cost and friction. 6) Lack of Transparency & Justification The notice does not explain: why the change is needed, who is driving it, or what problem it solves. Key questions remain: How much revenue is projected for this lot? What are the detailed installation and maintenance costs? Will enforcement and collection costs erase the gains? Without clear answers, the public cannot evaluate the value of this change. 7) Equity & Fairness Metering a long-standing free lot shifts costs onto local residents and small businesses. High-demand, pier-adjacent areas already generate revenue; Lot E serves a community function and should remain accessible. Conclusion: Lot E currently helps prevent spillover into neighborhoods and supports small businesses. Converting it to meters would impose a large upfront cost, rely on optimistic assumptions to break even around Year 5, and does not solve a demonstrated problem. Please reject the proposal unless the City can show a clear need, transparent justification, and a sound financial case for this specific lot. Sincerely,

Craig Rogers

We have enough parking congestion in the area of Lot E. Adding meters will just worsen the burden on PCH, 2nd & 3rd St to avoid paying $3.00 an hour. The local business need to be supported and not send their to businesses that have free off street parking.

Cynthia Furnberg

To: Honorable City Council Re: 9/30 Hearing to Meter Lot E The staff report lacks the analysis of potential lost business and lost sales taxes therefrom to the city when patrons decide to continue driving on PCH across 190th and go to the strip malls right there in Redondo with free parking. The others will park at CVS, business condos behind the lot, or further congest PCH, 2nd and 3rd Streets, just causing further parking problems for those businesses and residents, and not achieve the goals recited for the income expected, leaving the city with at least a $30K bill to pay. Also, there are many businesses on both sides of PCH that do not have off street parking that rely on Lot E. A lot of businesses on PCH are already hurting with this economy, and this will just hurt them further and push patrons to free parking businesses next door in Redondo. People will pay for meters at the beach, as they want to enjoy the ocean, but that doesn’t apply to Lot E.

Elaine Kim

What benefit is Hermosa getting from this increase? I only see downsides. First you take away overnight parking in most of the city, do not allow all residents west of Valley have parking passes despite tons of metered street parking, and now you’re raising rates for locals and visitors who have been barely returning since covid. Do better

Howard Lee AGAINST more LHB PARKING METERS

Please Click/Tap this message and then click/tap the blue attachement for Howard Lee eComment as PDF.

tony higgins

Dear City Council, We are being told there is virtually no impact to residents related to the placement of SILVER Meters on the 25 parking spaces in LOT E. But there is no analysis whatsoever, at least in the staff report, that considers the amount available street parking in nearby residential neighborhoods during peak and off-peak season periods. It's reasonable to assume that putting new Silver Meters in Lot E will just make residential street parking in nearby neighborhoods more preferred, shifting still more visitor parking onto residential streets. In fact, the residential street parking supply may be exhausted before the metered parking spaces in Lot E begins to fill in. Sometimes it's hard to find even one open spaces per block and putting Silver Meters in Lot D can only impact resident parking negatively. Until the city does an analysis that proves there is adequate peak & off-peak season residential street parking in nearby neighborhoods; only YELLOW meters or no meters at all should be allowed in LOT E. Resident impact should not be an afterthought. Thank You for Considering tony higgins Staff Report: https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18891 Ordinance - Silver Meter https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=18892

(Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker)

Administrative Services Director Brandon Walker provided a presentation.

Mayor Saemann asked various questions.

Councilmember Francois asked various questions.

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy asked various questions.

Director Walker and Senior Management Analyst provided information.

In Person Public Comment:

• George Barks
• Sam V.
• Ben Robishaw
• Duncan Pipes

Virtual Public Comment:

• Josh Krasnegor
• Anthony Higgins
• Mike T.
• Matt McCool

Councilmember Francois provided comments. 

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy provided comments.

Councilmember Jackson provided comments.

Councilmember Keegan provided comments.

Mayor Saemann provided comments.

• Moved by: Councilmember Francois
  Seconded by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy

  To take no action to meter Lot E. 

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

  Motion Carried

13.

MUNICIPAL MATTERS

13.a

APPROVAL OF NEW 2025 SPECIAL EVENT—AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION HIGH SCHOOL BOYS BEACH VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE MATCHES - 25-CR-067

CEQA: Approval of the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) High School Boys Beach Volleyball League Matches would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (e). 
(Special Events and Filming Coordinator Austin DeWeese)

Special Events and Filming Coordinator Austin DeWeese provided a presentation.

Councilmember Keegan provided comments.

• Moved by: Councilmember Jackson
  Seconded by: Councilmember Francois

  To approve the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s (“Commission”) recommendation to allow a new Impact Level II special event, the AAU High School Boys Beach Volleyball League Matches on the volleyball courts north of the Pier within the Commercial Zone on Sunday, October 12, on the 2025 Special Events Calendar; and determine the approval of the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) High School Boys Beach Volleyball League Matches would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (e). 

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

13.b

ADOPT A RESOLUTION AND APPROVE CONTRACTS FOR CIP 619–KELLY COURTS IMPROVEMENTS - 25-PW-057

CEQA: The Project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and section 15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction)
(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

Public Works Director Joe SanClemente provided a presentation.

In Person Public Comment:

• Scott Hayes

Councilmember Keegan provided comments.

• Moved by: Councilmember Keegan
  Seconded by: Councilmember Jackson

  To award a construction contract for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project 619–Kelly Courts Improvements to All-American Construction Solutions in the amount of $825,999, ratifying City staff determination that lower bids were non-responsible (lowest-bid); authorize the Director of Public Works to establish a project contingency amount of $124,000 and to approve contract change orders up to the amount of the approved project contingency; adopt the Resolution No. RES-25-7522 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach Approving the Construction of CIP 619 Kelly Courts Improvements Pursuant to Government Code Section 830.6 and Establishing a Project Payment Account”; authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion following final completion of the project and the City Clerk to record the document with Los Angeles County; approve the proposed fourth amendment to an agreement with NUVIS & Associates to provide on-call landscape architectural services extending the term to December 3, 2026; determine the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and section 15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction); and authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract and proposed contract amendment, approve minor modifications if necessary, and execute all related documents, with the City Clerk attesting the agreements subject to approval by the City Attorney. A friendly amendment was made by Councilmember Keegan, accepted by Councilmember Jackson, that Community Resources Director Lisa Nichols work with HBYB to coordinate their practices at the Community Center gym should their practices be impacted during construction.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

13.c

AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ADMINISTRATION AND LABOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES - 25-PW-064

(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

Public Works Director Joe SanClemente provided a presentation.

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy asked various questions.

• Moved by: Councilmember Keegan
  Seconded by: Councilmember Francois

  To award a contract for on-call CDBG Administration and Labor Compliance Services to Tina Gall at a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000 for a term of five years ending October 1, 2030; award a contract for on-call CDBG Administration and Labor Compliance Services to Willdan Engineering at a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000 for a term of five years ending October 1, 2030; and authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest the proposed agreements subject to approval by the City Attorney.

  Ayes (5)

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

  Motion Carried

13.d

REQUEST TO REVIEW THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION PROCESS FOR OVERSIGHT AND INPUT ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) - 25-PW-074

(Public Works Director Joe SanClemente)

Public Works Director Joe SanClemente provided a presentation.

Councilmember Francois asked various questions.

Councilmember Jackson asked various questions.

Councilmember Keegan asked various questions.

Mayor Saemann asked various questions.

City Clerk Myra Maravilla provided information.

Councilmember Jackson asked various questions.

Mayor Pro Tem Detoy asked various questions.

In Person Public Comment:

• David Grethen
• Scott Hayes

• Moved by: Councilmember Keegan
  Seconded by: Councilmember Francois

  To receive and file the report.
• SUBSTITUTE MOTION 1
  Moved by: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy
  Seconded by: Councilmember Jackson

  To bring back an action item to appoint Mayor Saemann, Councilmember Jackson, and two members of the Public Works Commission to a subcommittee to formalize the roles and responsibilities of the Public Works Commission.

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

  Motion Carried

14.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

This is the time for Councilmembers to schedule future agenda items and to ask questions about the status of previously approved future agenda items. No discussion, debate, or public comment will be taken. Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items. The tentative future agenda items document is provided for information only. 

Councilmember Francois moved to remove the future agenda item to discuss Ordinance No. ORD-98-5937 (Historic/Landmark Designations) from the tentative future agenda. The motion failed due to a lack of second. 

Interim City Attorney Jason Baltimore provided information about CEQA review pertaining to historic and landmark designations. 

Councilmember Jackson requested support for an update on the City's homelessness response program to include a discussion on car camping. Mayor Saemann provided support for this item. 

14.a

TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - 25-CMO-065

Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information.

15.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

Interim City Manager Steve Napolitano provided a City Manager Update.

16.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

This is reserved for items that do not require City Council action. The City Council may request a future agenda item to discuss an informational item. Otherwise, discussion of informational items will not be taken. 

17.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.