Redondo Beach City Council
June 17, 2025

FISCAL YEAR
2025-2026
BUDGET

RESPONSE

REPORTS
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
Table of Contents

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
FY 2025-26 BUDGET
The following is a list of Budget Response Reports to be delivered with the FY 2025-26 Budget. A glossary with full Department names is at the end of the document. # Dept Question Submitted

1. FS What changes or corrections have been made to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and CIP since the initial publishing on May 16, 2025? 06/10/25
6/1725 (1A)

2. FS/CM What written correspondence and/or motions have Commissions provided to the City Council regarding the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget? 06/10/25

3. PW What is the cost to construct a sound wall on the Prospect median between Beryl St. and Diamond St.?
06/03/25

4. CA What is the cost for an inclement weather shelter, and what is the possibility of partnering with local churches? 06/10/25

5. CCO What is the cost to enhance and make the process to record meeting minutes more efficient, including the possibility of using technological solutions? 06/10/25

6. CCO
What were the final costs for FY 2024-25 elections? What are the options, and costs, to implement a resident survey and educational outreach program related to Ranked Choice Voting?
06/10/25
(Blue Folder)

7. CD
What position changes does the recently completed Community Development Organizational Assessment recommend, and what are the associated costs?
06/10/25

8. CD/PW Can the Big Lots parking lot be reopened for use? 06/03/25

9. CM What are the costs and revenue opportunities for licensing the City logo for resale purposes?
06/10/25

10. CM/FS What costs related to Measure FP implementation does the City expect to incur in FY 2025-26 and are they eligible for Bond reimbursement? 06/10/25 Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
Table of Contents

# Dept Question Submitted

11. CS What is the Metro GO pass / Ride-for-Free on Beach Cities Transit (BCT) program, and what is the cost to add this program to the BCT system? 06/10/25

12. CS
What are the usage statistics for City-owned facilities that are leased or rented daily over the last three years? How does the City make these facilities available, and what external groups have used them? What revenue has the City collected associated with the use of these facilities? 06/10/25
(Blue Folder)

13. FS What percentage of the City’s major revenue sources does each zip code generate? What primary economic activities occur in these areas? 06/10/25
(Blue Folder)

14. FS/CT
What is the status of ongoing legislation related to Utility Users’ Tax and streaming services? What actions would the City need to take to benefit from rulings favorable to cities?
06/10/25

15. Police What is the status of Sworn personnel staffing in the Police Department? 06/03/25

16. Police What is the status of Civilian personnel staffing in the Police Department? 06/03/25

17. Police
How is the Police Department addressing traffic enforcement and safety on residential streets and the enforcement of truck routes, and what are the costs associated with these efforts?
06/03/25

18. Police What is the status of parking meter permit revenue and what are the options to prorate the parking meter permit fee? 06/03/25

19. Police What is the status of revenue collection following the Police Department’s 24- 25 Master Fee Schedule update? 06/03/25

20. Police
What technology platforms does the Police Department utilize to increase transparency and build trust, and what are the plans for the evolution of these programs to meet changing needs?
06/03/25

21. Police
How does the Police Department’s Wellness Program support employee health and morale, what are the plans for the evolution of these programs to meet changing needs, and what are the anticipated long-term benefits of investing in this initiative?
06/03/25

22. PW What are the options and costs to address speeding concerns on the Prospect frontage road? 06/03/25

23. PW What tools can be acquired to expand the maintenance capacity of the Public Works Department, including the cost to purchase an asphalt zipper? Can 06/03/25 Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
Table of Contents

# Dept Question Submitted
the City partner with neighboring cities to defray roadway maintenance costs?

24. PW What is the cost to add raised crosswalks and a speed table on Ford Avenue, and is it a feasible solution to improve pedestrian safety? 06/03/25

25. PW What would it cost to replace the fencing along the north side of Grant Avenue, west of the railroad bridge? 06/03/25

26. PW/ CS What is the cost to replace the basketball hoops, resurface the court, and install a mini dog run at General Eaton parkette? 06/10/25

27. CS
What improvements have been completed at the Perry Park Teen Center to date, what additional amenities have been identified by the community and Youth Commission for installation, what is the estimated cost, and how much funding is available/recommended in the CIP for these items? 06/10/25
(Blue Folder)

28. IT/CM What is the cost of an AI software tool (information agent) to assist City residents and customers with online information and service requests? 06/03/25

29. IT/CM What is the cost to replace/upgrade the City’s current Comcate customer service request/referral software program?
06/03/25

30. PW/ CS What is the cost to paint the Artesia & Grant train crossing bridges and what funding is available in the proposed Budget to complete this work? 06/10/25
(Blue Folder)

31. CS What special events were designated as Signature Events and received City subsidy in Fiscal Year 2024-25? 06/10/25

32. CS What was the cultural and entertainment rental activity at the RBPAC in FY 2024-25, and what rental activity is expected in FY 2025-26? 06/10/25

33. CS Can an additional fee (surcharge) for use of the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center be implemented to fund facility upgrades? 06/10/25

34. WED What is the cost for an additional Economic Development staff member? 06/03/25

35. Library What is the cost to create a sensory room in the Public Library? 06/03/25

36. PW What is the cost to repaint the King Harbor entryway (at PCH) sign poles and to replace the plastic sign face/logo? 06/03/25

37. CS What projects have received funding from the John Parsons Public Art Fund, and what amount remains unallocated and available in the fund? 06/10/25
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
Table of Contents

# Dept Question Submitted

38. WED/
PW
What is the cost to replace the flags above International Boardwalk with new CIty/Pier branding?
06/03/25

39. FS How did the City’s current pension unfunded accrued liability (UAL) develop following the 2021 UAL payoff using lease revenue bonds? 06/03/25

40. PW/
Police
Can the City add parking meters on Herondo Street, west of Francisca Ave.? What is the cost for installation, if so, and what additional revenue would be estimated as a result of the implementation? Can some of the spaces be used to create an additional vehicle lane to assist with east bound traffic throughput at PCH?
06/03/25

41. PW/
WED What is the cost to replace the light pole banner hardware in Riviera Village? 06/03/25

42. WED What are the costs of installing and maintaining LED string lights on the trees in the Artesia Blvd. median?
06/10/25

43. Police
What is the fiscal impact of staffing the current 27 Crossing Guard locations in the City, plus two additional locations at the Greenbelt pedestrian crossing on Artesia and at the intersection of Inglewood and Grant Avenues? What do neighboring cities and school districts contribute to crossing guard services?
06/10/25

44. PW
What is the estimated cost to repair critical public infrastructure in the waterfront including the beach pedestrian path, the storm drain outfall facilities south of Topaz, and the sea walls in King Harbor? 06/03/25

45. PW What would be the cost to replace the fencing at the Perry Park baseball field, and would a replacement project be eligible for Quimby Funds? 06/03/25

46. PW What is the cost to conduct an in-depth structural analysis of the Pier Parking Structure’s upper deck? 06/10/25

47. PW What are the options, and associated cost, to install dedicated bicycle lanes on Palos Verdes Boulevard? 06/03/25

48. PW What is the cost to systematically replace aging street signs and traffic signal poles throughout the City? 06/03/25

49. PW
What are the cost estimates and funding options to identify and perform major reconstruction on non-residential City streets that are currently unfunded though other City programs?
06/10/25

50. PW What are the costs and options to paint murals in intersections using the City’s new logo? 06/03/25
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
Table of Contents

# Dept Question Submitted

51. WED
What are the costs associated with adding hardware and banner signs to the street light poles along Artesia Blvd, and what are the costs anticipated to maintain the existing banners along Harbor Drive?
06/03/25

52. HR
AB 2561 was signed by Governor Newsom and became effective January 1, 2025. Under this new law, what are the City’s new reporting obligations regarding vacant job positions?
06/10/25

53. PW
How does the City’s Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Replacement Program work and what City vehicles and equipment are scheduled for replacement in the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year?
06/10/25

54. IT
How does the City’s Information Technology Equipment Replacement Program work, and what equipment is recommended for replacement in the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year?
06/03/25

55. Police/
CS
What are the public safety and traffic control costs to close Catalina Avenue between Ave I and Vista Del Mar for pedestrian oriented special events? How much additional parking revenue was generated in Riviera Village in 2024 as a result of the change to the Holiday free parking waiver period? 06/03/25

56. CS When did the City last update Seaside Lagoon Fees? What are options to increase these fees, and what revenue could this generate? 06/10/25

57. PD
How many preferential parking zones does the City maintain? How many permits are issued in each of the zones? What are the current permit fees and when were they last adjusted? What is the estimated cost to maintain and enforce the preferential parking program?
06/10/25

58. PW What would it cost to trim the palm trees on Artesia Boulevard every year? 06/10/25

59. CS What is the cost to add a Supervisor Position to the Recreation Services Division of the Community Services Department? 06/10/25 Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #01

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#01
June 10, 2025
Question:

What changes or corrections have been made to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and CIP since the initial publishing on May 16, 2025?
Response:

The City has made the following changes to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and CIP since posting the document on May 16, 2025.

Section Page Revision & Justification
General Information
Frequently Asked
Questions
Responses for revenue and spending
questions to reflect current numbers
City Organizational Chart Revised Boards and Commissions to reflect reorganizations effective in FY
2024-25.

Mayor & Council Moved City staff to a new page; added
City Manager to that page; re-ordered
Elected Officials to alphabetical order
City of Redondo Beach
Profile and Statistics
Updated employer information and noted
it applies to non-Government
employment
Departments Department Summary Tables
All Departments Updated FY 2023-24 Actuals and FY
2024 Revised Budget due to errors in
data upload.

Information Technology
Human Resources
Finance
Police
Fire
Community Services
Waterfront & Economic
Development
Public Works
Updated FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget
to reflect final changes made in financial
system and incorporated in summary
tables but not reflected in data upload.

With the updates, Departments match to
Citywide summary data. Citywide data/
summaries did not change.

Remove duplicate entries for 2021A
Bond payments in non-General Funds:

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #01

Section Page Revision & Justification
(Information Technology, Human
Resources, Fire, Police Community
Services, Waterfront & Economic
Development, Public Works
Departments)
Correct duplicate/ prior year Car
Allowance, Cell Phone Allowance, and
Personnel Adjustments (Finance, Police,
Community Services, Public Works)
Duplicate South Bay Center payment
pass-through (Waterfront & Economic
Development)
City Clerk’s Office Updates City Clerk Administration
Summary to correctly reflect that
Division’s allocation versus repeating the
entire Department
Departments Department Personnel Tables/ Personnel Summaries Fire Move Fire Division Chief and Fire
Captain positions to the correct location
under Fire Prevention
Public Library Update number of Library Clerks from 2
to 5
Community Development Correct position count for Community Development Director from 1.0 to 0.5
under Building Services
Departments Department Sections/ General Formatting
City Clerk’s Office Hide extraneous tables for Personnel Summary and Summary of Goals blocks
consistent with other Department/
Division presentations
Human Resources Change title to Summary of Personnel
Public Works Format Summary of Personnel to fit all
columns
Police Format Summary of Personnel to fit all
columns
Public Library Format org chart to be larger and more
readable
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #01

Section Page Revision & Justification
Finance, Fire
Community Development
Waterfront & Economic
Development
Public Works
Update tables in goals, objectives,
benchmarks to be fit the page/ be more
readable
In addition to the changes noted above, staff made the following changes throughout the book:
• Corrected minor grammar/punctuation/spacing in narrative sections • Updated the document throughout to add blank pages so that the document will print correctly with tabs to separate sections.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #01A

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#01A
June 17, 2025
Question:

What changes or corrections have been made to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and CIP since the initial publishing on May 16, 2025?
Response:

An initial response to this question was presented at the June 10, 2025, City Council Meeting as BRR #01. Following the meeting, staff identified additional edits and formatting changes for the final FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget and CIP documents. The changes are reflected below, and are in addition to those included in BRR #01.

FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget
Section Page Revision & Justification
Financial Summaries
Summary of Estimated
Revenues and
Appropriations and
Estimated Changes in
Fund Balance
Remove $790,000 in revenue from the Deposit
Fund to reflect entries from the prior year that
were included in error.

Add an adjustment for capital carryover
appropriation and introduce a sub-total for
capital and City appropriations that excludes
carryover amounts.

This calculation appropriately identifies the
one-year appropriations amount for the City’s
Budget Resolution, while still displaying the
carryover amount in the table to reflect
uncommitted funding available for future year
projects in each fund total.

Add footnote explaining this subtotal and tie it
to the Budget Resolution.

Debt Add a section providing an overview of the
City’s debt that is consistent with best practice
for budget documents.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #01A

Section Page Revision & Justification
Revenues
Two-Year Comparison of
Estimated Revenues by
Fund
Create additional data summaries to provide
additional ways to view Proposed Budget
numbers.

Revenue Detail by FundCharacter
Available ResourcesWhere it Comes From
Expenditures
Two-Year Comparison of
Expenditures by Fund
Create additional data summaries to provide
additional ways to view Proposed Budget
numbers.

Two-Year Comparison of
Expenditures by
Department
Expenditure Detail by
Fund-Character
Expenditures Detail by
Department
Expenditures-Where it
Goes
2025-30 Proposed Capital Improvement Program
Section Page Revision & Justification
Recommended FY 25-26 Project
Funding by Project x
Include the former District 3
Discretionary Infrastructure Project to
more clearly show the transfer of
available carryover funds to the newly
added Project-Parks Performance
Events Project
Recommended FY 25-26 Project
by Fund xv
Proposed Five Year CIP Funding -
FY 25-26 To FY 29-30 With
Projected FY 24-25 Carryover
Funds
xviii
In addition to the revisions noted above, staff will review and correct formatting, grammar, and sentence structure throughout the documents, as needed.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #02

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#02
June 10, 2025
Question:

What written correspondence and/or motions have Commissions provided to the City Council regarding the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget?
Response:

As part of the FY 2025-26 Budget preparation process, the City Manager attended Commission meetings to share budget themes, solicit input on priorities, and gather Commission feedback on the FY 2025-26 Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The dates of the discussions are shown below:

Date 2025 Commission
February 27 Public Safety Commission
March 10 Harbor Commission
March 24 Public Works & Sustainability Commission
April 2 Budget & Finance Commission
April 9 Public Amenities Commission
June 2 Planning Commission – General Plan Consistency Review June 12 Budget & Finance Commission
The following information summarizes the formal Budget feedback provided by the Commissions as a result of those discussions. It is important to note that while each of the above Commissions discussed the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget and CIP, not all of the Commissions opted to make a formal motion or to draft written correspondence for City Council consideration.

Budget & Finance Commission
The Budget & Finance Commission discussed the FY 2025-26 Budget on April 2nd and is scheduled to meet again to consider the Proposed Budget on June 12, 2025. Staff will include any formal feedback provided by the Commission at the City Council meeting on June 17, 2025.

Cultural Arts Commission
The Cultural Arts Commission discussed the FY 2025-26 Budget on March 26, 2025, and unanimously approved the following:

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #02

• Ensure all projects currently funded by the City Council from the John Parsons Public Art Fund (JPPAF) are rolled over into FY 2025-26. • Do not allocate any remaining JPPAF balance, in anticipation of a LGBTQIA+ artwork and the reinvigoration of public art for Lilienthal Park, with the exception of the Utility Box Art Wrap Project.

Harbor Commission
The Harbor Commission discussed the FY 2025-26 Budget on March 10, 2025, and drafted the attached letter of recommendations.

Planning Commission
The Planning Commission discussed the FY 2025-26 Budget on June 2, 2025, and recommended the following items:
• Update the Residential Objective Standards
• Consider tree canopy requirements to address the heat island effect • Consider water capture and on-site stormwater retention requirements for Citywide private development
o Threshold for requirement – Demo and rebuild, redevelopment of site • Prepare an Area Plan for Catalina Avenue from PCH to Francisca to Herondo St. • Develop standards for Citywide Bike Racks
• Expand the City’s Bicycle Routes Citywide
• Extend the Bike path along the SCE Transmission Easement The Commission also adopted by a 5-0 vote a Resolution finding that the Proposed 2025- 30 CIP is consistent with the City’s Adopted General Plan. The Resolution is included as an attachment.

Youth Commission
The Youth Commission discussed the FY 2025-26 Budget on April 3, 2025 and requested the City Council’s consideration for the following items:
• Perry Park Teen Center Amenities
o A variety of games and activities including pool, foosball, arcade games, field trips, video games, instructional and recreational classes, and sport tournaments
o New equipment including a 3-D printer, sound equipment, and snack/vending machines
o Lounge area and fun outdoor space
• Programs/Activities
o After school program for junior high students
o Community garden for teens
o Low-cost and teen-friendly amenities at the Pier

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-**-PCR-***
2025-2030 CIP CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
PAGE NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-**-PCR-***

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED 2025-2030

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) IS CONSISTENT WITH

THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 65401 OF THE CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT CODE
WHEREAS, Section 65401 of the California Government Code requires that the "Planning Agency" (i.e. Planning Commission) of a municipality review any Capital Improvement Program (CIP) within its jurisdiction for conformance with the adopted General Plan for the jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, at its special meeting of June 2nd, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach reviewed the proposed 2025-2030 CIP for the City as to its conformance and consistency with the adopted City of Redondo Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the projects proposed reflect the need for public roadways, public utilities and other community facilities during the next five-years in concert with the provisions of the General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City of Redondo Beach’s General Plan, Land Use Element, Conservation, Recreation and Parks, and Open Space Elements, Utilities Element, and Circulation Element include numerous Goals, Objectives, and Policies that reflect the need for the continuation of existing and the development of new public service and recreation uses and facilities, utility infrastructure, and transportation facilities.

SECTION 2. The proposed 2025-2030 CIP for the City of Redondo Beach includes numerous projects in support of existing and new public service and recreation uses and facilities, utility infrastructure, and transportation facilities and is therefore consistent with the adopted General Plan for the City of Redondo Beach, pursuant to Section 65401 of the California Government Code.

SECTION 3. The Planning Commission shall forward a copy of this resolution to the City Council so the Council will be informed of the action of the Planning Commission.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-**-PCR-***
2025-2030 CIP CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
PAGE NO. 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2025. ________________________
Wayne Craig, Chair
Planning Commission
City of Redondo Beach
ATTEST:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH )
I, Marc Wiener, Community Development Director of the City of Redondo Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-**-PCR-*** was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Redondo Beach, California, at a special meeting of said Planning Commission held on the 2nd day of June, 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
_______________________________
Marc Wiener, AICP
Community Development Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
City Attorney’s Office
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #03

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#03
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to construct a sound wall on the Prospect median between Beryl St. and Diamond St.?
Response:

The Public Works Department Parks Division is currently working on irrigating and replanting the median on Prospect as part of the Department’s regular annual work plan.

Recent data from Caltrans indicates that the current estimated cost for a masonry block wall in the median on Prospect Avenue between Beryl St. and Diamond St., built to Caltrans sound wall specifications, is $2.3M (per the table below). The below table includes a cost escalation / inflation factor of 35% to account for the time required to complete design, procurement, and installation. When including anticipated inflation, staff estimates that $3.1M would need to be budgeted for a masonry sound wall project.

Additional research would be required to determine whether installation of a sound wall is technically feasible due to the limited size of the median and the potential for underground conflicts.

SOUNDWALL (MASONRY
BLOCK)
Length (LF) 1,050
Height 24
Square foot (Sq ft) 25,200
Price/Sq ft* $ 68.22 $ 1,719,144.00
CM Inspection 10% $ 171,914.40
Design 15% $ 257,871.60
Contingency 10% $ 171,914.40
Subtotal $ 2,320,844.40
Inflation budgeting factor 35% $ 812,295.54
Total Estimated Budget Cost $ 3,133,139.94
*2025 Caltrans Cost Data: https://d8data.dot.ca.gov/contractcost/results.php?item=582001&cs=1 Another option to improve the median is to add a wrought iron fence and guardrail, similar to the installation on PCH across from South High School in Torrance. Including the same Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #03

35% escalation / inflation factor, staff estimates $1M would need to be budgeted for a wrought iron fence and guardrail, (per the table below).

GUARDRAIL
Price/LF* $ 58.59 $ 61,519.50
CM Inspection 10% $ 6,151.95
Design 15% $ 9,227.93
Contingency 10% $ 6,151.95
Subtotal $ 83,051.33
Inflation budgeting factor 0.35 $ 29,067.96
Total Estimated Budget Cost $ 112,119.29
*2025 Caltrans Cost Data:
https://d8data.dot.ca.gov/contractcost/results.php?item=832007&ob=0&DISTRICT%5B%5D=07&Year%5B%5D=y2025&Year%5B%5D=y2024& min=&max=&minU=&maxU=&unit=none&start=Search
8' WROUGHT IRON FENCE
Price/LF $ 450.56 $ 472,983.00
CM Inspection 10% $ 47,298.30
Design 15% $ 70,947.45
Contingency 10% $ 47,298.30
Subtotal $ 638,527.05
Inflation budgeting factor 0.35 $ 223,484.47
Total Estimated Budget Cost $ 862,011.52
*2025 Caltrans Cost Data:
https://d8data.dot.ca.gov/contractcost/results.php?item=iron+fence&min=&max=&minU=&maxU=&unit=none&DISTRICT=07&Year=y2025%2 Cy2024&sortby=adjprice&desc=&convert=&ob=0
Total Guardrail Cost $ 112,119.29
Total Wrought Iron Fence Cost $ 862,011.52
Total Estimated Budget Cost $ 974,130.81
The budget estimates are only for the installation of these features and do not include any significant changes to the existing infrastructure. During the design process, it may be determined that these features would require existing physical constraints to be altered, such as widening the median, or the removal of parking on the frontage road, to accommodate construction requirements or minimum travel distances.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #04

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#04
June 10, 2025
Question:

What are the costs for an inclement weather shelter, and what is the possibility of partnering with local churches?
Response:

In order to develop solutions for periods of inclement weather in Redondo Beach, staff from the City Attorney’s Office met with representatives from First United Methodist Church and Saint Andrew’s Presbyterian Church. Both faith-based organizations expressed interest in partnering with the City to provide space for individuals to stay overnight during inclement weather, if the City provides security and support from case managers who bring eligible clients to stay overnight. Both organizations were willing to either take turns providing space each night there in inclement weather, or to house a share of people each night during such conditions. Each group was confident in its ability to provide volunteers to help administer an as-needed inclement weather shelter program.

According to The Weather Channel, Los Angeles County gets on average 36 days per year with measurable rain, with over 90 percent of that rain falling from November through April. A pilot program will be initiated to provide approximately ten beds with accommodations needed for a single overnight stay per bed. The basic necessities needed to conduct this overnight stay would include overnight security from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am, microwaves, a coffee maker, first aid kits, a cigarette outpost receptacle, and food (i.e., water, dinner grab-n-go meals, simple breakfast). The basic necessities for personal use would include cots, sleeping bags, blankets, waterproof cot protection, pillows with protectors, and dental hygiene products.

The total cost to operate an overnight shelter from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am is approximately $770 per day for 10 individuals, with a start-up cost of $2,080. To implement the pilot program, a total of $29,800 would need to be appropriated.

The table below provides a breakdown of the costs:

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #04

VARIABLE COSTS
Description Cost
Basis
Cost Per
Unit
# of
Units
# of
Days
TOTAL
COST
Hygiene Kit (toothbrush,
toothpaste, first aid)
Per
Person
Per Day
$1 10 36 $360
Food/Beverage (breakfast,
dinner, water, coffee)
Per
Person
Per Day
$20 10 36 $7,200
Unarmed Security Guard
(6PM - 8AM)
Per Day $560 N/A 36 $20,160

TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS
36 DAYS $27,720

TOTAL VARIABLE COST
PER PERSON PER DAY $770

FIXED COSTS
Description Cost
Basis
Cost Per
Unit
# of
Units
# of
Days
TOTAL
COST
Coffee Machine Each $60 3 N/A $180
Microwave Each $90 3 N/A $270
Cigarette Outpost
Receptacle
Each $60 3 N/A $180
Cots Each $75 10 N/A $750
Waterproof Cot Protector Each $20 10 N/A $200
Sleeping Bags Each $7 10 N/A $70
Blanket Each $30 10 N/A $300
Pillow Each $7 10 N/A $70
Pillow Protector Each $2 10 N/A $20
Waterproof Pillow Protector Each $4 10 N/A $40
TOTAL FIXED COSTS $2,080
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #05

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#05
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to enhance and make the process to record meeting minutes more efficient, including the possibility of using technological solutions? Response:

Historically, the City Clerk’s Office has utilized external minute secretaries to record meeting minutes for the City Council, Commissions, and other public meetings as needed. In 2007, the City was charged $30 an hour, but current rates have reached $85 an hour, with some service providers seeking to charge $120 an hour. There is a small pool of qualified minute secretaries, which makes it difficult to identify and contract with capable parties or firms when the City needs to add outside staffing.

In February 2025, Granicus implemented Swagit, a new video streaming product that includes captioning services. Within five days of a completed meeting, Swagit will upload transcripts on the City’s website. A minute secretary then reviews each transcript to make sure names are spelled accurately, spelling errors are corrected, and speakers are identified properly, to provide summary minutes for the corresponding meeting. The Swagit feature has reduced the time required to produce summary minutes, but due to the number of errors in the original draft transcript, the assigned minute secretary still must spend significant time reviewing/preparing the summary document.

One alternative, and less expensive, solution to consider, is the utilization of action minutes rather than summary minutes. This process is used by several cities (see the attached example from the City of Chula Vista). The action minutes process would reduce the number of meeting minute pages by more than 80% and would substantially reduce the overall cost of minute secretary services.

To ensure minutes are posted more quickly, a minute secretary has been assigned to oversee the production of all City Council, Board, and Commission meeting minutes to ensure that they are completed, approved, and posted on the City’s website for public access in a timely manner.

The annual cost for Swagit is $27,375 and an additional $60,000 is budgeted each year for minute secretary services.

Present: Deputy Mayor Chavez, Councilmember Fernandez, Councilmember Inzunza, Councilmember Preciado, and Mayor McCann Also Present: City Manager Kachadoorian, City Attorney Verdugo, City Clerk Bigelow, and Deputy Director, City Clerk Services Malone City of Chula Vista
Regular City Council Meeting

MINUTES
Date: February 11, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.

Location: Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA Minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the agenda.

1. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. City Clerk Bigelow called the roll.

Deputy Mayor Chavez arrived at 5:01 p.m.

3. Led by Councilmember Inzunza.

4. 4.1
The proclamation was presented.

5. John Acosta spoke regarding Item 5.5.

City Clerk Bigelow announced that a revised page 7 for Item 5.1 had been distributed. Action on the item was with respect to the revised document.

Moved by Mayor McCann
Seconded by Councilmember Fernandez
To approve the recommended actions appearing below consent calendar Items 5.1 through 5.5. The headings were read, text waived. The motion was carried by the following vote:

Yes (5) Mayor McCann, Deputy Mayor Chavez, Councilmember Preciado, Councilmember Inzunza, and Councilmember Fernandez Result, Carried (5 to

5.1 Approve the minutes dated: February 4, 2025

5.2 Approve a motion to read only the title and waive the reading of the text of all resolutions and ordinances at this meeting.

5.3 Adopt a resolution accepting the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024.

Item 5.3 heading:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-019 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2024

5.4 Adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of City Council Policy No. 220-01 Investment Policy and Guidelines, amending the existing policy, delegating investment activity authority to the Director of Finance/Treasurer, and accepting the investment report for the quarter ending December 31, 2024.

Item 5.4 heading:

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-020 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF COUNCIL POLICY 220-01, INVESTMENT POLICY AND GUIDELINES, AMENDING THE EXISTING POLICY, DELEGATING INVESTMENT

ACTIVITY AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/TREASURER, AND ACCEPTING THE INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2024

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE

SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Presentation of Proclamation Honoring Chula Vista Firefighters for Their Efforts in Fighting the Border 2 Fire and Los Angeles Fires
CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5.1 through 5.5)
Approve Meeting Minutes
Waive Reading of Text of Resolutions and Ordinances
Annual Report: Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024, and Update on Reserve Funds
Policy and Investment Report: Amend City Council Policy No. 220-01, Delegate Investment Activity Authority to the Director of Finance/Treasurer, and Accept the Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 31, 2024

5.5 Adopt resolutions: A) Amending the Classification Plan and Compensation Schedule to reflect the addition and deletion of position titles and amending the authorized position count in various departments; B) Approving the revised Fiscal Year 2024-25 Compensation Schedule effective February 21, 2025, as required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and place an Ordinance on first reading amending Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.05.010 to add the unclassified position titles of Chief Communications Officer and Chief Veterinarian and delete the position title of Communications Manager. (First Reading) (4/5 Vote Required) Item 5.5 headings:

A) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-021 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN

AND COMPENSATION SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE ADDITION AND DELETION OF POSITION TITLES AND AMENDING THE

AUTHORIZED POSITION COUNT IN DEPARTMENTS
B) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-022 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 21, 2025, AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5
C) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.05.010 ADDING THE

UNCLASSIFIED POSITION TITLES OF CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER AND CHIEF VETERINARIAN AND DELETING THE UNCLASSIFIED POSITION TITLE OF COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER (FIRST READING) (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED)

6. John Acosta spoke regarding campaign contributions and submitted written communications.

Roy Estrella, Jr. introduced himself as a future candidate for elective office.

7. 7.1 
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the time specified in the notice.

Senior Planner Mallec gave a presentation on the item.

Mayor McCann opened the public hearing.

Nick Lee and Maria Miller, representing Baldwin and Sons, the applicant, gave a presentation on the item.

Jenne submitted written comments expressing a neutral position.

John Acosta spoke in opposition.

Victor Diaz requested that action be delayed or labor standards related to the item be amended.

There being no further members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor McCann closed the public hearing.

Moved by Mayor McCann
Seconded by Councilmember Preciado
To adopt Resolution No. 2025-023 and place the below ordinance on first reading, headings were read, text waived. The motion was carried by the following vote:

Yes (5) Mayor McCann, Deputy Mayor Chavez, Councilmember Preciado, Councilmember Inzunza, and Councilmember Fernandez Result, Carried (5 to 0)
Item 7.1 headings:

A) RESOLUTION NO. 2025-023 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING A FIRST ADDENDUM (IS23- 0001) TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SEVEN SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN (FEIR 04-06) AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA23-0005); THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP23-0001); THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SEVEN SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AND ASSOCIATED REGULATORY DOCUMENTS (SPA23-0002); AND A TENTATIVE MAP FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE SEVEN (TM23- 0001)

B) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE OTAY

RANCH VILLAGE SEVEN SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (FIRST READING)

8. 8.1
There were none.

8.2 Finance Director Schoen and Budget and Analysis Manager Prendell gave a presentation on the item.

Moved by Mayor McCann
Seconded by Councilmember Fernandez
To accept the General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan – Fiscal Years 2026-2035 report, the heading was read. The motion was carried by the following vote:

Yes (5) Mayor McCann, Deputy Mayor Chavez, Councilmember Preciado, Councilmember Inzunza, and Councilmember Fernandez Result, Carried (5 to 0)

9. There were none.

10. City Manager Kachadoorian spoke regarding an upcoming Gaylord Pacific job fair.

11. Employee Compensation and Positions: Approve Classification Plan and Compensation Schedule; Position Counts; Revised Compensation Schedule; and Unclassified Ordinance

PUBLIC COMMENTS

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Otay Ranch Village Seven Sectional Planning Area: Amend the Otay Ranch Village Seven Sectional Planning Area Plan, Including Associated Regulatory Documents, and a Tentative Map

ACTION ITEMS
Consider Items Removed From the Consent Calendar, if Any Long-Term Financial Plan: Accept the General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan – Fiscal Years 2026-2035 Report

PUBLIC COMMENTS (CONTINUED)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORTS

11.1 Charter Review Commission
- Ryan Keyes
Civil Service Commission
- Michael Baranic
Moved by Mayor McCann
Seconded by Councilmember Preciado
To ratify the above appointments. The motion was carried by the following vote:

Yes (5) Mayor McCann, Deputy Mayor Chavez, Councilmember Preciado, Councilmember Inzunza, and Councilmember Fernandez Result, Carried (5 to 0)

12. Council members reported on attendance at recent events and made community announcements.

At the request of Councilmember Inzunza, there was a consensus of the City Council to add an item to a future agenda to consider a resolution support of Senate Bill 10, “Otay Mesa East Toll Facility Act: toll revenues: environmental mitigation,” authored by Senator Steve Padilla.

At the request of Councilmember Inzunza, there was a consensus of a majority of the City Council, with Mayor McCann opposed, to make a referral the City Manager and City Attorney to report to the City Council on the options for Councilmembers to issue proclamations, in addition to the Mayor.

At the request of Deputy Mayor Chavez, there was a consensus of the City Council to direct staff to raise the Pan-African flag in recognition of Bla History Month.

13. There were none.

14. There were none.

15. Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and City Council Policy No. 346-03, the City Attorney maintains official minutes and records of action taken durin closed session.

City Attorney Verdugo announced that the City Council would convene in closed session to discuss the items listed below.

John Acosta spoke regarding Item 15.2.

Mayor McCann recessed the meeting at 6:46 p.m. The City Council convened in closed session at 6:51 p.m., with all members present.

15.1 Agency designated representatives: Maria Kachadoorian, Tiffany Allen, Courtney Chase, Marco Verdugo, Tanya Tomlinson, and Sarah Schoen
Employee organization: IAFF, MM/PR
Action: No reportable action.

15.2 Name of case:
1) CV Amalgamated LLC dba Caligrown v. City of Chula Vista, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020-00033446-CU-MC-CTL; 2) CV Amalgamated LLC dba Caligrown v. City of Chula Vista, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2024-00023455-CU-MC-CTL; 3) Arturo Castanares v. City of Chula Vista, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2021-00017713-CU-MC-CTL; and 4) Just Construction, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista, San Diego Superior Court, 37-2023-00044536-CU-BC-CTL Action: No reportable action.

16. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

Ratification of Appointment to the Following Commissions:

COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS

CITY CLERK'S REPORTS

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)

ADJOURNMENT
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #06

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#06
June 10, 2025
Question:

What were the final costs for FY 2024-25 elections? What are the options, and costs, to implement a resident survey and educational outreach program related to Ranked Choice Voting?
Response:

Cost
The November 5th, 2024, Statewide Election included three City Measures:

1. Measure FP, a general obligation bond to finance the construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of public safety facilities

2. Measure RB, a City Charter amendment to conform with Supreme Court decision that voter approval requirement cannot be applied to changes necessary to meet the State’s Housing Element laws

3. Measure SD: a School Board charter amendment to allow Board of Education members to receive up to $240 per month under the California Education Code.

The total cost for all three measures from the Los Angeles County/Register Record’s Office is $159,451
In 2023, Redondo Beach voters passed a measure to adopt instant runoff voting, and the City Council implemented Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), a form of instant runoff voting, for the first time as part of the March 4, 2024 General Municipal Election.

The election included races for Mayor, City Council Districts One, Two, Four, and the City Attorney, along with three seats on the Redondo Beach Unified School District Board and six City measures, however, ranked choice voting was not applied to all of these contests.

The overall cost for the March 4
th, 2024 Election was $361,691:
• Staff: part-time, overtime, and temporary staff services (pre, day of and postelection) to assist with vote-by-mail process and signature verification. $31,457 • Postage: mailing of Voter Information Guide and prepaid vote-by-mail ballots. $37,302
• Voter Outreach: part-time staff, printing postcards and postage, outside vendor. $60,368
• Supplies and Advertising: election associated supplies, certificate framing, annual election conference registration and travel, and legal advertising. $8,286 • Contracts/Professional Services
o Netfile: e-filing and City website publication of campaign finance reporting. $4,300
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #06

o Consultants: professional services for pre, day of and post-election consultation, and voter management election software. $33,039 o Printing: fulfillment, printing of voter information guide with measures, ballots by districts and city-wide, language translation, and minus the reimbursement of candidate statements. $144,727
o Ballot Tabulation Equipment: includes vendor assisted on-site services. $37,214
o LA County: Verification of signatures not found in the county’s subscription database. $4,998
Resident Survey and Educational Outreach Program for RCV FM3 Research, the same firm that conducted the Measure FP survey, provided a proposal to conduct a resident survey. In their proposal, they outlined plans to assess various aspects of Redondo Beach’s recently implemented RCV system, including voter awareness and residents’ comfort using the new format. The survey would provide data to help support public outreach efforts aimed at educating voters about the new system, among other topics. The total cost for 400 interviews is $31,500 or 500 interviews for $34,750.

For a third party to implement the educational outreach program, the City Clerk contacted two potential vendors. One provided an estimated quote of $30,000, while the other is still pending.

Based on previous cost for mailers and postcards, including postage, the total typically ranges from $15,000 to $20,000. For the March 4, 2024, election, two mailers were sent out.

If the City were to conduct the voter educational outreach internally, the City Clerk’s Office would begin its efforts six months before the election rather than the two and a half months allocated to the March 4, 2025 Election. The office would update and implement the RCV Voter Education and Outreach Plan.

The estimated cost for the March 2, 2027 General Municipal Election would be between $100,000 and $125,000. Once the public has developed a better understanding of RCV, spending for voter education outreach would decrease over time. At that time, efforts could shift to educating new residents while continuing standard outreach through a onetime postcard that is sent to all voters along with their voter guide.

TO Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk
City of Redondo Beach
FROM Richard Bernard and Adam Sonenshein
FM3 Research
RE: Proposal to Conduct Survey Research on the City’s New Ranked-Choice Voting System DATE May 29, 2025
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3 Research or FM3) is pleased to present this proposal to conduct survey research to assess a variety of issues related to Redondo Beach’s recently implemented ranked-choice voting system—including how much voters know about the system and whether they liked it and/or were confused by it. The survey will also provide data that could help inform a public outreach effort to explain the new system to voters, among other topics. We believe our firm is an excellent choice to provide these research services for several reasons detailed in our proposal, including:
• FM3 has an up-to-date familiarity with voter sentiment in Redondo Beach, having most recently conducted research in 2024 to assess the viability of the ultimately successful Measure FP, a $6.28 million public safety facilities bond; previously, in 2009 our voter research informed voter sentiment around the passage of Measure RB-A (utility user tax). We are prepared to jump right into this project without missing a beat. • More broadly, we have extensive experience conducting research throughout the South Bay, which has provided us with a comprehensive understanding of the region’s voters and residents. As a result, our team is deeply familiar with not only the local electorate but also the issues, cycles and rhythms of local public opinion and its evolution over time. Local clients include the cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Palos Verdes Estates and Torrance, as well as Manhattan Beach Unified School District, South Bay Union School District and Wiseburn Unified School District. • FM3 has a strong grasp on how to elicit and interpret voter opinion on issues related to electoral and political reform, including ranked-choice voting. We have worked in numerous jurisdictions as they developed (and sometimes passed) electoral reform measures, as well as conducted post-election research following the implementation of such measures. Furthermore, FM3 has worked in a variety of communities that have been using reformed systems—such as ranked-choice voting—for years including Oakland, San Francisco, so we understand the nuances of voters’ attitudes toward these issues from a practical standpoint. Having worked on this issue in multiple communities and from different lenses will allow us to structure effective research instruments for this project that will help us gather the most useful data to help you achieve your goals.

• FM3 features a local presence and accessibility. Our Los Angeles office is located just a short drive from Redondo Beach. Metropolitan Los Angeles is home to our firm and the voters we know best. Our senior research staff for this project is located nearby and is always willing to make the drive to Redondo Beach to meet with you in person and discuss your project, present results, or help you leverage our research to achieve your goals.
• Our approach is focused on providing the best possible ongoing strategic consultation to our clients. We do not simply conduct a poll, present the results, and leave you and your team to figure out how to put them to use. Instead, we want to be a member of your strategic team. As a medium-sized research firm, FM3 provides its clients with a level of personal attention and service from our senior staff that is more often associated with much smaller organizations, while concurrently offering the wide range of services, adherence to expedited timelines, and rigorous quality control expected from larger research firms.

The following page provides an overview of our recommended research specifications and associated costs.

We appreciate the opportunity to be considered for this project and look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Bernard, Partner
[email protected]
(310) 428-1809 (cell)
Adam Sonenshein, Senior Vice President
[email protected]
(310) 569-3653 (cell)

Recommended Research Plan
Methodology Dual-mode survey using a combination of telephone (cellular and landline) and online interviews
Contact Methods Telephone calls, email invitations, and text invitations Sample 400-500 registered voters, with half of the sample comprising those who voted in the March 2025 election and half comprising those who did not vote in the March 2025 election. The final results will be weighted back to the expected proportion of voters who participated in the March 2025 election (approximately 23%). This will provide more robust data on the subset of registered voters with experience with ranked-choice voting, while also providing reliable data citywide.

Margin of
Sampling Error*
±4.9% for a sample of 400 interviews
±4.4% for a sample of 500 interviews
*At the 95% confidence level (i.e., in 95 out of 100 cases) Survey Length 15 minutes on average; there will be additional questions for the respondents who voted in March 2025 than those who did not
Languages English and Spanish
Deliverables Following the completion of the survey, we will provide:
• The survey questionnaire
• A complete analysis of survey results in PowerPoint
• A presentation of the survey results
FM3 will also be available for ongoing consultation and any further analysis of the research.

Costs The chart below contains the total estimated costs for this research. These prices are comprehensive and include all costs for questionnaire design, sample acquisition and preparation, translation, programming, email and text invitations, bilingual survey hosting, bilingual telephone interviewing, data entry and analysis, and reporting.

Survey Length Cost
400 Interviews $31,500
500 Interviews $34,750

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
2024

VOTER EDUCATION
AND

OUTREACH PLAN

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

2024 - VOTER EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PLAN
Table of Contents
I. Background and Outreach Objectives......................................2 II. Outreach Strategies and Timelines...........................................2 A. General Public..................................................................................3 III. Voter Outreach at the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall & Other City Facilities .............................................................................6 IV. Voter Outreach on Election Day……………………………………………..6
V. Election Day Staff Support……………………………………………………..7
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………..8
Appendix A- Newspapers………………………………..………………………….8
Appendix B- Social Media……………………………………………………………8
Appendix C- Community Partners……………………………………………….9

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

I. Background and Outreach Objectives
The mission of the City Clerk’s Office is to conduct all local elections in the City of Redondo Beach (the City) in a manner that is free, fair, and functional.

The City Clerk’s Office is responsible for administering a Voter Education and Outreach Plan in compliance with federal, state, and municipal laws, including the statutory mandates of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, the City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section Title 2, Chapter 2, and Charter Article XVIII.

With the ongoing goal of communicating general election information to City residents, the City Clerk’s Office Outreach Plan has one main objective; to equip voters with knowledge of choices in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) contests for city elected city offices, with a focus on a new ballot design that will allow for voters to rank candidates for city elected offices in order of their preference.

The City held its General Municipal Election on March 7, 2023, conducted by an all-mail ballot.

The electorate successfully voted (by 76.67%) for Measure CA5, amending the City Charter Section 18.4, which replaces runoff elections for city elected offices with an instant runoff voting method.

While developing strategies for educating voters about the new voting method, the City Clerk’s Office sought to identify effective outreach practices from other jurisdictions, particularly those jurisdictions that have adopted instant runoff voting. In addition to adopting best practices of other jurisdictions, the City Clerk’s Office plans to build its 2024 RCV educational campaign.

Collaboration with community partners features prominently in the 2024 Outreach Plan.

II. Outreach Strategies and Timelines
The City Clerk’s Office is committed to reaching the community and voters in the City with relevant notices about a new way of marking the ballot for RCV contests. To meet this goal, the City Clerk’s Office will roll out a voter education plan that includes a wide variety of direct communications via print and digital media, as well as collaboration with community partners.

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

A. General Public
In developing communication strategies, the City Clerk’s Office will provide the City’s voters with information about the new voting method by utilizing the following strategies.

1. Print Media
Print materials remain an essential part of the City Clerk’s Office communications. The City Clerk’s Office will produce flyers, brochures, and posters, highlighting the features of the new voting method and the changes in ballot marking for the RCV ballot format.

Postcards – The City Clerk’s Office will send a postcard to every residential household in Redondo Beach containing specific information of the new voting method and the new RCV ballot.

A second postcard will follow reminding residents to vote. Both postcards will invite voters to call the City Clerk’s Office and use the City’s website, https://www.redondo.org/elections, to find more information.

Timeline: 1st postcard – Approximately two months before Election Day; “Don’t Forget to Vote” postcard – Approximately two weeks before Election Day
Voter Information Pamphlet & Vote-By-Mail (VBM) Packet – The March 2025 Voter Information Pamphlet to be mailed to approximately 50,000 voters, will devote significant space to information about the new voting method and proper ballot marking for RCV contests, with an emphasis on the effects of over-voting or under-voting. The Vote-By-Mail (VBM) packet will include a ballot, a postage-paid return envelope, and voting instructions. These instructions will illustrate proper marking of the ballot and provide a link to the webpage on https://www.redondo.org/elections with information about RCV, which may include an interactive practice RCV ballot.

Timeline: One month before Election Day
Newspapers – The City Clerks’ Office will place multiple notices in local newspapers, most of which also maintain a presence online. For a list of newspapers in which the City Clerk’s Office intends to place notices, see Appendix A.

Timeline: 1st run – Approximately three months before Election Day; 2nd run – One month before Election Day
Brochures and posters – The City Clerk’s Office will produce various materials that will be distributed throughout Redondo Beach such as community presentations, street fairs and

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

festivals, canvassing, and registration drives. All brochures and posters will also be made available for distribution to community organizations, with downloadable versions available on https://www.redondo.org/elections.

Timeline: Creation – Approximately Seven months before Election Day; Distribution- Approximately six months and up until one month before Election Day
Demonstration ballots – At all outreach events, City Clerk’s Office personnel will emphasize the new RCV ballot format. To reinforce verbal explanations of how to mark an RCV ballot with expanded rankings, presenters will use demonstration ballots to visually demonstrate how to rank a different candidate in each column. Additionally, demonstration RCV ballots will be distributed to participants to facilitate the opportunity to practice marking the ballot and to ask questions.

Timeline: Creation – Approximately Seven months before Election Day; Distribution – Approximately Six months and up until one month before Election Day

2. Digital Media
Website – The City Clerk’s Office will dedicate several pages on https://www.redondo.org/elections to information related to the new voting method and the new RCV ballot format. The website will host an interactive practice RCV ballot as well as answers to frequently asked questions on topics such as over-voting, under-voting, skipped columns, and much more.

Timeline: Rollout – Approximately seven months before Election Day Press releases – The City Clerk’s Office will issue a series of press releases to its media contacts, organizations, and ever-growing list of interested individuals. Press releases will be posted on the City Clerk’s Office’s website in order to reach individuals who prefer to obtain election information online.

Timeline: Periodically seven months and up until one month before Election Day Public Service Announcements – The City Clerk’s Office will produce and distribute a 30- second public service announcement (PSA) to air on local cable networks (Spectrum Cable Channel 8 & Frontier Communications Channel 41) about the new voting method and the new ballot format. The PSA will offer viewers a glimpse of the new system and highlight key differences between the old and new ballot formats.

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

Timeline: 1st run – Approximately three months before Election Day; 2nd run – One month before Election Day
Social media – The City Clerk’s Office will utilize, Facebook & Instagram to announce public events, forums, and public voting method demonstrations and to share partner updates with other City departments and community partners.

Timeline: Periodically starting seven months before Election Day RCV presentation – The City Clerk’s Office will develop an online RCV slideshow that describes the new RCV ballot format, illustrates how to rank up to 6 candidates for a single office, discusses the implications of marking an RCV contest incorrectly, and shows how votes are tabulated. This demonstration will be available on https://www.redondo.org/elections and presented at events throughout Redondo Beach.

Timeline: Rollout – Approximately seven months before Election Day

3. Community Partnerships
Presentations and events – The City Clerk’s Office will conduct educational presentations about the new voting method and RCV ballot format at a variety of City locations, such as community centers, schools, places of worship, and entertainment and meeting halls. The City Clerk’s Office’s community partners include non-profit organizations, community-based and private sector organizations, and other City departments and government agencies. At these events, participants will have the opportunity to practice marking demonstration RCV ballots and ask questions. For an ongoing list of community partners, see Appendix C.

Timeline: Periodically starting seven months before Election Day Content for community partners – In addition to providing in-person outreach throughout the City, the City Clerk’s Office will develop ready-made content available to community partners to share in their newsletters, blog posts, organizational websites, and social media accounts. This content will educate the City of Redondo Beach about the changes they will experience when casting their vote by mail or in person.

Timeline: Creation – Approximately seven months before Election Day; Distribution – Four months and up until one month before Election Day

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

III. Voter Outreach at the City Clerk’s Office, City Hall & Other City Facilities
In preparation for deployment of the new voting method, the City Clerk’s Office will develop outreach and educational materials for use at the City Clerk’s Office and throughout City Hall.

These materials will include a new poster at the City Clerk’s Office public counter, a flyer for inclusion in the candidate filing documents packet, and slideshows for lobby monitors.

Poster at the public counter – In the weeks preceding each election, visitors to the City Clerk’s Office will be greeted by a “Did you know?” poster. The poster will indicate that Redondo Beach will debut a new voting method in the upcoming election and highlight that, among other benefits, the system is capable of providing up to 6 ranks in ranked-choice voting contests. The countertop poster will encourage visitors to “Ask us for more information” or visit https://www.redondo.org/elections
Timeline: Approximately seven months before Election Day Candidate packet – Many local candidates for the upcoming election will receive filing paperwork packets, with forms and documents to be submitted by various deadlines. In anticipation of this process, the City Clerk’s Office will create a section in the candidate filing packets that will provide information about the new RCV ballot format and explain the process of counting votes in RCV contests.

Timeline: Approximately four months before Election Day City Hall & Facilities Slideshow – Visitors to City Hall & Facilities will be able to view a slideshow of current election-related topics on large monitors. This slideshow will project announcements regarding important dates for the next election, announcements about the new voting method, and illustrations and information about the RCV ballot format.

Timeline: Approximately four months before Election Day IV. Voter Outreach on Election Day
The City Clerk’s Office will develop educational materials for various City facility locations featuring information about the new voting method and the expanded RCV ballot format.

Ballot instructions – In recognition of the importance of providing clear direction on how to mark the ballot, the City Clerk’s Office will develop ballot marking illustrations and instructions to be

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

featured on official ballots. These updated instructions will focus on how to properly mark the expanded RCV ballot format.

Instructional sheet – The City Clerk’s Office will create an instructional sheet to be placed at various City facility locations. This sheet, will explain the effects of an “under-vote”, “over-vote”, and skipped rankings. The instructional sheet will be written in a manner that permits voters to understand the RCV process and to decide themselves which course of action to take.

Timeline: Materials will be developed and made available at various City facility locations on Election Day
V. Election Day Staff Support
Election Day staff play an important role in not only administering voting on Election Day but also providing voters with the knowledge and resources they need to fully participate in elections.

Providing comprehensive training to Election Day staff is an important outreach method since City staff can provide direct voter education.

Email & Phone Calls– The City Clerk’s Office will develop and email election-specific informational materials to City staff prior to Election Day. These materials will serve as an introduction to the features of the new voting method and the new RCV ballot format. The materials will also provide notice to both new and experienced staff that some important aspects of Election Day procedure have changed and will require dedicated attention.

Timeline: 1st Email – Three months before Election Day; 2nd Email – One month before Election Day
Training materials – A staff election manual, covering every aspect of the new voting method and all mail ballots. The manual will also feature updated ballot issuing scripts, highlighting the new RCV ballot format and the new way of marking the ballot. Staff will receive the manual.

Timeline: Ongoing starting four months before Election Day

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

Appendices
Appendix A – Newspapers
Appendix B – Social Media
Appendix C – Community Partnerships
Appendix A- Newspapers
Organization Name & Website
Easy Reader https://easyreadernews.com/
Daily Breeze https://www.dailybreeze.com/
City of Redondo Beach Newsletter
Appendix B- Social Media
Platform
Facebook- Facebook.com/cityofrb
Instagram- @cityofrb

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

Appendix C- Community Partnerships
Organization Name & Website
AYSO https://ayso.org/
South Bay Sports League https://www.southbaysports.com/ Redondo Beach Little League- https://www.redondolittleleague.com/ AYSO South Redondo https://www.ayso34.org/
AYSO North Redondo https://www.ayso17.org/
BCHD https://www.bchd.org/
Redondo Beach Rotary Club https://www.redondobeachrotary.org/ Redondo Beach Elks https://www.elks.org/lodges/home.cfm?LodgeNumber=1378 Redondo Beach Kiwanis https://redondokiwanis.com/
Redondo Beach Woman’s Club https://redondowoman.org/
American Legion https://post184.com/
South Bay Galleria https://www.southbaygalleria.com/
Superbowl 10K https://redondo10k.com/
Farmer’s market https://www.rivieravillagefarmersmarket.com/ Chamber of Commerce https://www.redondochamber.org/
League of Women Voters https://lwvc.org/
Riviera Village Association https://rivieravillage.net/ North Redondo Business Assoc. https://nrbba.org/
King Harbor Yacht Club https://khyc.org/
Redondo Beach Yacht Club https://kingharbor.com/discover/redondo-beach-yacht-club/ Port Royal Yacht Club https://pryc.us/
Pier Assoc. https://redondopier.com/
USPS- Post Offices https://www.usps.com/
Heritage Pointe https://www.heritagepointeredondobeach.com/ Silverado Beach Cities https://www.silverado.com/locations/beach-cities/ Thrive Boutique Senior Living https://thrivebsl.com/
The Kensington https://thekensingtonredondobeach.com/
Redondo Union PTSA https://www.redondounion.org/apps/pages/RUHS_PTSA South Bay Adult School https://www.southbayadult.org/
School District https://www.rbusd.org/
Beryl Heights PTA https://berylpta.com/
Alta Vista PTA https://altavista.rbusd.org/
Birney Elementary PTA https://birney.rbusd.org/
Jefferson Elementary PTA https://www.dolphinpta.com/
Lincoln Elementary PTA https://lincoln.rbusd.org/
Madison Elementary PTA https://www.madisonpta.org/home

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

Tulita Elementary PTA https://tulita.rbusd.org/apps/pages/pta Washington Elementary PTA https://sites.google.com/explorerspta.org/explorerspta/home Adams Middle School PTSA https://www.adamsmiddle.org/apps/pages/AdamsPTSA Parras Middle School https://www.parrasmiddle.org/apps/pages/ptsa Jewish Community Center https://www.jccmb.com/
The South Redondo Jewish Center https://www.jewishbeach.org/ SeaCoast Church of Redondo https://www.seacoastredondo.com/ Journey South Bay Church https://www.journeysouthbay.org/ First United Methodist Church https://fumcrb.org/
Saint James Catholic Church https://www.saintjames.church/ St. Lawrence Martyr Church https://www.stlm.org/
Redondo Beach Church of Christ https://redondochurchofchrist.com/ Church of Redondo Hills https://www.redondohills.net/
Riviera United Methodist Church https://www.rivieraumc.com/ St. Paul’s United Methodist Church https://stpaulsrb.org/ St. Andrews Presbyterian Church https://www.sntandrews.org/home Coastline Covenant Church https://coastlinecovenant.com/ Sovereign Grace Bible Church https://sgbcrb.org/
One Faith Church in Christ https://www.1faith.church/
Breakwater Church https://www.breakwaterembassy.org/
Redondo Beach Center for Spiritual Living https://www.redondocsl.org/ The River Church of the South Bay https://riversouthbay.org/ Grace Missionary Baptist Church No Website (2217 Belmont Ln, Redondo Beach, CA 90278) Immanuel Lutheran Church https://www.immanuelrb.com/
St. Andrew’s and Christ Episcopal Church https://www.andrewandchrist.org/ South Bay Community Church of the Brethren https://www.andrewandchrist.org/ Church of Religious Science No website (907 Knob Hill Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90277) South Bay Bible Church No website (1016 S Prospect Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90277) South Bay Unitarian Fellowship https://www.sbuf.org/
Jesus Center https://www.jesuscenter.com/
South Bay Adventist Church https://southbaychurch.net/South_Bay_Church/Home.html St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church https://www.stkatherinegoc.org/ Resurrection Lutheran Church https://www.resurrectionlutheranchurch.org/ Grant Avenue Baptist Church No website (2215 Grant Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278) St. James Catholic Church https://www.saintjames.church/ Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witness https://www.jw.org/en/ Temple Menorah https://www.templemenorah.org/
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintshttps://local.churchofjesuschrist.org/en/us/ca/redondobeach Whole Foods Market 405 N Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, Ca 90277 Ralph’s 1413 Hawthorne Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

Vons 1212 Beryl St, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Trader Joe’s 1761 S Elena Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Smart & Final Extra! 1516 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Grocery Outlet 2115 Artesia Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Spouts Farmers Market 1515 Hawthorne Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Vons 245 Palos Verdes Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Smart & Final Extra! 615 N Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Vons 4001 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Redondo Food Mart 529 S Catalina Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Shell 1200 Beryl St, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Shell 1700 Artesia Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Shell 3601 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
ARCO 2730 Marine Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Mobil 2714 Artesia Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Speedway Express 1890 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Chevron 1500 Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Chevron 1630 S Elena Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Chevron 3705 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
76 247 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
76 2118 Artesia Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #07

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#07
June 10, 2025
Question:

What position changes does the recently completed Community Development Organizational Assessment recommend, and what are the associated costs? Response:

The Organizational Assessment prepared by Matrix Consulting Group for the Community Development Department recommends the following two positions:

1. Reclassify the Administrative Assistant position in the Building and Safety Division to an Administrative Analyst classification and expand it to 40 hours per week.

Approximate Cost: $160,000 annually

2. Create a Permit Center Supervisor position (or similar classification) in the Building and Safety Division to oversee building permitting and public counter operations.

Approximate Cost: $180,000 annually
Both of these positions will be considered following completion of the Department fee study that is currently underway. Staff anticipate presenting the results of the study and any associated position adjustments to the City Council in the next few months.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #08

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#08
June 3, 2025
Question:

Can the Big Lots parking lot be reopened for use?
Response:

The Big Lots building (1207 Aviation Blvd.) was recently issued a building permit to complete structural and seismic upgrades. The temporary fence around the parking lot was installed to protect the property and to facilitate safe ingress and egress during construction. City staff contacted the property owner and contractor requesting that they consider relocating the fence to make more parking available to the public during construction. Both the owner and contractor indicated that they believe the fence should remain in its current location for security and liability reasons and expressed concerns with any relocation. The City’s Chief Building Official concurs that the location of the fence is appropriate for the scope of the project and should remain as is.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #09

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#09
June 10, 2025
Question:

What are the costs and revenue opportunities for licensing the City logo for resale purposes?
Response:

The below information summarizes the costs to date associated with the licensing of the City’s logo and the possible costs for services that would be needed to produce and market logo related merchandise. Additionally, there is some preliminary information regarding possible revenues. In order to advance this concept further, more targeted research and analysis would be required, and it would be recommended that a standalone item be scheduled as part of a future City Council meeting agenda to have a more focused discussion.

Costs
On August 20, 2024, the City Council approved a contract with Innovent Law to prepare and submit trademark filings for the City’s logo with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On March 12, 2025, filing applications were completed and submitted for the following classifications.
16 Paper goods and printer paper items, including brochures, stationery and adhesives
21 Cups, mugs and other household containers
22 Packaging bags and sacks
25 Baseball caps, hats, sweatshirts, t-shirts, polos, and other attire 28 Holiday décor and ornaments
35 Administration of community services projects, inclusive of promotional material 37 Installation, maintenance and repair of streetlights and outdoor public places, inclusive of construction site signs and notifications
38 Website and webpages
39 Bus transport, and other modes of passenger transportation 41 Material related to educational services, events; production and distribution of videos; and rental of performing arts facilities
45 Material related to police and civil protection services Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #09

The total cost for trademarking the City's Logo was $14,900. Below is a breakdown of the costs.

Mark Fee (flat fee) $1,800
First three classifications $300
Additional classifications ($700 each) $6,300 ($700 x 9) Legal Services $6,500
Total $14,900
Additional costs may include legal feels to ensure compliance with trademark and City policies; productions costs for printing, embroidery, or digital reproduction costs; and advertising and distribution. If the City decides to establish an online store, further costs may include website domain set up and hosting, website design, platform fees, inventory and fulfillment, marketing and advertising, and labor to oversee store operations. The table below illustrates a preliminary estimate of these costs based on cursory research.

Item Estimated Cost
Legal Fees Varies depending on business structure
Production Costs Varies depending on inventory type, quantity, and manufacturing method
Advertising and Distribution ~ $5,000 to $10,000 for marketing materials and distribution
Website Domain Set Up and
Hosting
~$10-20 annually for domain costs
~ $1,000 one time for website set-up
~ $1,000 to $10,000 annually for hosting (varies by
provider)
Website Design ~$1,000 for basic design, higher for custom development
Platform Fees (e-Commerce) ~$400 monthly depending on platform Product Inventory and
Fulfillment
Varies depending on inventory type, storage, and
packaging, and delivery methods
Marketing and Advertising ~up to $20,000 monthly depending on ad type, scope, and frequency
Labor (oversee store
operations, website)
Varies based on staff size and hours
Revenue Opportunities
Cities may charge a fee for the use of their official logo or branding elements. For example, the City of Rochester, NY has a tiered license fee structure charging $50 for a two-year term for non-commercial usage and $100 for a two-year term for commercial usage. Last year, the city collected approximately $2,000.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #09

Cities may also establish and operate their stores to sell city branded merchandise. For example, the City of New York operates the City Store, which sells branded products through both a physical storefront and an online store. The CityStore was originally created in the late 1980s and sells official New York City (NYC) souvenirs, memorabilia, collectibles, wedding gifts and favors, and municipal publications. The city generates hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue annually through these sales.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #10

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#10
June 10, 2025
Question:

What costs related to Measure FP implementation does the City expect to incur in FY 2025-26 and are they eligible for Bond reimbursement?
Response:

The following direct costs have been included in the FY 2025-26 Budget for Measure FP implementation. All of the identified expenditures will be reimbursed by the bond, once issued.
• Program Coordinator / Owners Representative Services – This entity will assist the City in developing an overall construction approach and timeline. Selection of the recommended firm is complete and staff are in the process of preparing the associated consulting services agreement for phase one of the anticipated work. The contract will be presented to City Council for consideration of approval in July. The Budget includes $350,000 for this work, and is more than sufficient to cover the phase one contract expenses proposed by the consultant.
• Project Coordinator (part time) Support – A part time staff member was hired in April to assist with overall Measure FP implementation management, including scheduling, coordination, and administrative work associated with advancing the project through critical milestones. The Proposed Budget includes $72,800 for this supporting staff work.

As noted above, these costs are eligible for Bond reimbursement as established in the City’s reimbursement resolution adopted on March 18, 2025.

It should be noted that the City will incur other Measure FP related costs as part of the bond issuance. The City’s Municipal Financial Advisor and hired Bond and Disclosure Counsel will be paid as part of the bond sale. These costs are estimated to total approximately $200,000. Consistent with industry practice, these costs are directly payable from bond proceeds and therefore do not require a Budget appropriation.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #11

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#11
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the Metro GO pass / Ride-for-Free on Beach Cities Transit (BCT) program, and what is the cost to add this program to the BCT system? Response:

The Metro GoPass program provides free, unlimited transit access to students participating in K-12, Adult Schools, and Community Colleges in Los Angeles County.

This pass is only available to students whose school district has opted to participate in the program. The goal of the program is to increase ridership, improve student health, and better support student success by partnering with existing transit programs such as the TAP Cooperative Program (TAP Program). GoPass establishes cost-sharing partnerships with school districts and community colleges while creating regional student passes through collaboration with other transit agencies in the county.

To participate, school districts and transit agencies are required to contract independently with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit District (Metro). Currently, Beach Cities Transit (BCT) and Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) have not opted into the program. In order for the GoPass program to be available to Redondo Beach students, RBUSD would need to agree with Metro to distribute and provide GoPass cards at a rate of $7 per student. Participating school districts do not receive direct revenue from Metro, but rather the program provides increased accessibility of public transportation for their students, which can help with attendance, academic performance, and to build positive community relations. The program is viewed as an investment in the students' well-being and future success.

Once an agreement between a school district and Metro is signed, school districts receive GoPass TAP cards and materials to distribute to students. Metro can also assist school districts with the distribution of the TAP cards. Currently, GoPass is available for use with the following transit agencies:

AVTA Burbank Bus
City of Commerce Culver Citybus
LADOT DASH Foothill Transit
Gardena Transit (GTrans) Glendale Beeline
Lawndale Beat LA County Shuttles
Long Beach Transit Norwalk Transit
Montebello Bus Pasadena Transit
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #11

Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Torrance Transit
BCT currently participates in the TAP program, which is a regional fare payment system that utilizes reloadable smart cards. This system is used by various transit agencies throughout Southern California and relies on the use of Bus System Validator devices for processing at the time of boarding. These devices are also used for the GoPass program, so the City’s current fleet is already capable of accepting GoPass cards.

The GoPass program is based on a revenue-sharing model, which distributes revenue generated from the school district to partner transit agencies in direct proportion to the number of GoPasses used at each agency. Below is an example, provided by Metro, that outlines cost-share calculations for the Lynwood Unified School District.

Figure 1: Lynwood Unified School District GoPass example As shown above, the fees collected by the school district are shared among partner transit agencies and each transit agency’s revenue payout is based on the number of boardings within each respective system. In the case above, there are 100,000 boardings for Lynwood Unified School District in FY 2023. Of the total boardings, Lynwood Trolley had 50% and therefore would receive 50% of the total revenue generated from the use of GoPass in FY 2023.

The GoPass program could benefit BCT by allowing students from other districts to utilize Redondo Beach’s transit system, potentially increasing ridership as well as revenue for the City. For example, RBUSD had 9,560 students enrolled in TK through 12th grade in FY 2024. If all students enrolled in the GoPass program, the cost to RBUSD would be $47,800. Figure 2 below provides a breakdown of how the total revenue would be generated.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #11

RBUSD Total Enrollment FY24
RBUSD Enrollment FY24 (TK-12) 9,560
Cost Sharing/Student $7
Estimated Revenue from RBUSD $66,920
Tap Cards Distributed 9,560
Cost of Tap Cards ($2 ea) ($19,120)
Balance of Revenue Share $47,800
Figure 2: Potential revenue based on student enrollment Currently, BCT provides monthly student passes for those enrolled in RBUSD and who are also residents of the City for $8. Revenue generated from these passes in FY 2024 was $17,560. On average, the number of monthly BCT bus passes sold was approximately 183. Figure 3 provides a breakdown of monthly passes and revenue to the City for student passes.

Figure 3: BCT Passes sold FY24 - Based on K-12 Redondo Beach resident students If implemented, the GoPass would replace the City’s student pass program. Since the City’s student pass participants remain relatively consistent each month, GoPass estimates are based on the total monthly average of BCT’s student bus passes. With approximately 183 students participating in the City’s student pass program, the potential annual gross revenue is estimated to be $915, which is a 95% decrease. The City’s Monthly BCT Bus Passes Sold FY24
BCT Student Pass Cost $8
Month Passes Sold Amount
July '23 42 $336
August '23 199 $1,592
September '23 208 $1,664
October '23 211 $1,688
November '23 220 $1,760
December '23 211 $1,688
January '24 193 $1,544
February '24 187 $1,496
March '24 188 $1,504
April '24 183 $1,464
May '24 190 $1,520
June '24 163 $1,304
Total 2195 $17,560
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #11

allocation would be calculated based on ridership. Figure 4 shows the potential revenue share BCT would be able to acquire through this program. The revenue payout is determined at the end of the year based on the total number of boardings throughout the region.

Revenue Estimate based on Average BCT Buses Sold in FY 2024 Tap Card Distributed (based on average # of K-12
Students Purchasing Monthly BCT Passes) 183
Cost Sharing per Student ($7 ea) $1,281
Cost of Tap Cards ($2 ea) ($366)
Balance of Revenue Share $915
Figure 4: BCT GoPass Estimates based on FY 2024 Bus Pass Purchases If the City decides to opt into the GoPass program, the City does not incur direct costs or expenses but stands to gain from increased ridership, which could lead to higher overall revenue. While RBUSD’s decision to participate in the GoPass program is outside of the City’s jurisdiction, future participation by RBUSD would shift student bus pass revenue projections as GoPass would replace the current system. However, this transition could yield broader benefits, such as increased accessibility to public transportation for students, positive community engagement, and the potential increase in ridership that may outweigh the initial revenue adjustment.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#12
June 10, 2025
Question:

What are the usage statistics for City-owned facilities that are leased or rented daily over the last three years? How does the City make these facilities available, and what external groups have used them? What revenue has the City collected associated with the use of these facilities?
Response:

The Community Services Department oversees and facilitates the use of a variety of Cityowned facilities, both indoors and outdoors. Sites are located throughout the City and include multiple amenities and rental opportunities at each location.

The City’s facilities and fields are heavily utilized by residents, community organizations, and local programs. These spaces support a wide range of recreational, cultural, and educational activities that reflect the City’s ongoing investment in community well-being.

While compiling usage and revenue data for this Budget Response Report, staff has identified the need for more structured oversight of the City’s rental program.

Staff is working on a comprehensive and formalized facility and field use program, inclusive of a fee schedule and facility use calendar, codified through executed agreements with user groups. These tools would enable the City to:

1. Recover costs associated with ongoing wear and tear on public assets;

2. Offset administrative expenses related to scheduling and facility management;

3. Ensure all users carry appropriate insurance to limit liability exposure; and

4. Protect resident access to public spaces, particularly in instances where commercial activities, such as outdoor fitness classes, may limit equitable community use.

Formalizing these procedures would strengthen operational accountability while maintaining the community-first focus of these shared resources. Detailed usage statistics for Community Services-managed facilities are provided below, organized by indoor and outdoor locations.

Staff’s analysis led to the follow-up actions and considerations included below:

1. Develop agreements with qualified youth sport leagues that utilize City-owned field space
o Establish a graduated use rate (i.e., per player, hourly fee, flat charge per season, special event/tournament rates, etc.)
o Example: Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) Field Usage by the Redondo Beach Little League
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

▪ $20 per player fee
▪ Fields at Lincoln and Adams
o Projection using RBUSD rate:
▪ South Bay Sharks (formally Redondo Beach Pop Warner)
▪ Two Locations: Perry and Aviation Fields
▪ Approximately 160 participants
▪ Rate of Usage:
• Aug (20 days): Mon - Fri 5:00-7:00pm
• Sept- Oct (32 days): Mon - Thurs 5:00-7:00pm
• Nov (3 weeks) (12 days): Mon - Thurs 5:00-7:00pm
▪ 160 players, $20 per player = $3,200

2. Develop agreements with qualified youth sport leagues that utilize the Aviation Gymnasium facility.
o Establish a graduated use rate (i.e., per player, hourly fee, flat rate per season, special event/tournament rates, etc.)
▪ Current court reservation fees are $175 for the large gym and $150 for the small gym.

3. Consider establishing a rate for scout groups utilizing the Scout Houses.

4. Consider establishing an Outdoor Fitness Permit, which allows for private, outdoor instruction with limited capacity and scheduling (personal fitness). o Example: Hermosa Beach
▪ $130 monthly fee + $127 annual application fee, per location ▪ Limited to:
• 6 total hours per week
• No more than 10 people at a time, including the instructor • Requires insurance, Business License, and proper certification to teach/instruct
o Projection using HB rates: approximately $4,000 in additional revenue for 10 annual permits that include two locations for each applicant. These are conservative figures, as this program is anticipated to be popular given the number of unpermitted instruction taking place throughout the City

INDOOR FACILITIES
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

The table below provides an overview of all indoor facilities, indicating whether each location and individual facility provides private rental opportunities, contract activities, City-run camps/activities, existing leases, or use that is free of charge:

Table 1: Snapshot of the Variety of Uses of Indoor Facilities

INDOOR FACILITIES
Location Facility Private
Rental
Contract
Activities
City-run
Camps/
Activities
Existing
Lease
Reserved
Without
Charge
Alta Vista
Park
Community Room ● ● ●
Racquetball Courts ● ●
Anderson
Park
Senior Center ● ● ●
Boy Scout House ● ●
Girl Scout House ● ●
Artesia
Office Classroom ●
Aviation
Park
Gymnasium (large) ● ● ●
Gymnasium (small) ● ● ●
Dance Rooms ● ● ●
Fitness Center (NG) ●
Dominguez
Park
Historical Museum
Morrell House ●
Perry Park
Senior Center ● ● ● ●
Teen Center ●
Morris Scout House ● ● ●
Veterans
Park Senior Center ●
Wilderness
Park Visitors Center ● ● ● ●
Table 2: Indoor Facilities Usage Data
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Total
Alta Vista
Community
Room
Rental
Revenue $6,925 $58,482 $75,041 $140,448
Rental Hours 177 437 316 930
Alta Vista
Racquetball
Courts
Rental
Revenue No Data $5,034 $5,969 $11,003
Rental Hours No Data 726 632 1,358
Anderson
Park Senior
Center
Rental
Revenue $1,225 $14,908 $16,965 $33,098
Rental Hours 18 92 66 176
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Total
Aviation
Park Large
Gymnasium
Rental
Revenue $104,508 $117,294 $118,029 $339,831
Rental Hours 774 849 660 2,283
Aviation
Park Small
Gymnasium
Rental
Revenue $95,808 $106,680 $122,029 $324,517
Rental Hours 815 888 793 2,496
Aviation
Park Dance
Room
Rental
Revenue $400 $400 $450 $1,250
Rental Hours 10 10 10 30
Perry Park
Senior
Center
Rental
Revenue $01 $6,193 $8,854 $15,047
Rental Hours 6 47 44 97
Alta Vista Park
Community Room
• The rental rate is $200 per hour, plus an additional $550 in fees, which includes the $400 refundable rental deposit. Additional staffing fees may apply • Private rentals
• Contract activities
• Community or group meetings
• Free of charge for City Council Neighborhood District Meetings Racquetball courts
• Two indoor racquetball courts available for private rental to Alta Vista members for an annual membership fee of $25
• Hourly court fees range from $9 to $11, depending on the day, time of use, and age of the player
Anderson Park
Anderson Park Senior Center
• Senior-related programs, activities, and events that are managed by City staff • Community room is available for private rental for birthday parties, family gatherings, and other events
• Rental fees range from $85 to $130 per hour, plus additional staffing fees, as needed. A refundable $400 deposit is also required.
• Easter Seals utilizes a dedicated room and office space Monday through Friday Boy Scout and Girl Scout Houses
• Used year-round by local Boy and Girl Scout groups for meetings, small gatherings, and other scout-related activities
• Facilities are provided to Scouting Organizations at no cost • City assumes all maintenance costs
1 Rental revenue was collected in the prior fiscal year.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

Artesia Office-Community Services Department
Classroom used for
• Contract activities such as karate, music classes, and seasonal camps • Not available for private rental
• Revenue is generated by use for contract activities
Aviation Park
Aviation Park Gymnasiums (Small and Large)
• Available by private rental as well as through the City’s license agreement with Northrop Grumman, which provides limited weekday use to its employees • Used by local basketball clubs and local sports organizations holding basketball camps
• Rental rates are $175 per hour for the large gymnasium and $150 per hour for the small gymnasium
• Redondo Beach Youth Basketball League (RBYBL) also utilizes both gymnasiums for its league activities free of charge
• RBYBL accounts for approximately 50% of the total annual usage Dance Room
• Available for private rental at $45 per hour
• Sees limited use
Northrop Grumman Fitness Room
• License agreement provides exclusive use of a large room at the back of the gymnasium facility for its employees to use as a fitness area • This area is not available for members of the public or City use • City collects $10,359 per month for the exclusive use of this space, as well as for select use of the two gymnasiums and dance room during pre-designated times Dominguez Park-Heritage Court
Morrell House
• Morrell House is leased to the Redondo Beach Historical Society (Society), which maintains and programs the site for public use
• The City contributes up to $18,000 annually for utilities and ongoing expenses, and costs beyond that are the Society’s responsibility
• Society may rent the space to local organizations, however, there are no reporting requirements or rental fee limits, so facility usage is unknown to staff Historical Museum
• Managed by staff and includes the City’s collection of artifacts and historically significant pieces
• Only available to the public during its regular operations and City-sponsored events
• No rental revenue is collected
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

Perry Park
Senior Center
• Provides a variety of senior-focused programs, activities, and events throughout the year
• Available for private rental for meetings, small gatherings, and events • Used for free to host City Council Neighborhood District Meetings • Rental fees range from $85 to $130 per hour, plus $150 in facility and staff fees, when required
• $400 refundable security deposit is also required
Teen Center
• Remains closed for private rental
• Used for the City’s seasonal camp programs, which generate revenue for those activities
• Staff anticipates having the Teen Center available for private use when it reopens later this year
Morris Scout House
• Used by local scouting groups for their meetings and other small gatherings • facilities are used free of charge, with the City funding all repairs and maintenance Veterans Park
Senior Center
• Hosts events, activities, and other senior-related programs • Not currently available for private rentals
• Used for a variety of community meetings and larger senior events Wilderness Park
Visitors Center
• Hosts a variety of activities for all ages, including City-sponsored seasonal camp programs and an early childhood education program for children aged 18 months to 6 years, during the school year
• The early childhood education program operates under the contract class program, which allocates 30% of its registration fee revenue to the City • Periodically used free of charge by the South Bay Parkland Conservancy for organizational meetings
• Facility is available for private use, it is not typically utilized for this purpose

OUTDOOR FACILITIES
The Community Services Department also oversees the use of various outdoor facilities, including sports fields and courts, areas available for moon bounce rentals, and more.

Each outdoor facility noted in Table 9 is used for different purposes with varying rental rates:

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

Table 3: Snapshot of the Variety of Uses of Outdoor Facilities

OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Location Facility Private
Rental
Contract
Activities
City-run
Camps/
Activities
Existing
Lease
Reserved
Without
Charge
Open
Amenity
Alta Vista
Park
Picnic Shelter ● ●
Moon Bounce Area ●
Tennis Courts (8) ● ● ●
Julia Field ● ●
Dog Run ●
Community Garden ●
Anderson
Park
Moon Bounce Areas (2) ●
Open Field ●
Basketball Court (half) ● ●
Tennis Courts (2) ● ● ●
Pickleball Court ●
Aviation
Park
Football/Soccer Field ● ● ● ●
Track ●
Dominguez
Park
Dog Park ●
Sport Fields (2) ● ●
Franklin
Park
Moon Bounce Area (2) ●
Basketball/Pickleball
Courts ● ●
Pickleball Court ●
Field ● ●
Fulton
Playfield Open Field ● ●
Perry Park
Sports Field ● ● ● ●
Batting Cages ●
Basketball/Pickleball
Courts ● ● ●
Skate Park ●
Seaside
Lagoon
Picnic Areas (10) ● ●
Luau Shelter ● ●
Wilderness
Park
Amphitheater ● ●
Camp Sites (4) ● ●
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

Table 4: Outdoor Facility Usage Data
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Total
Alta Vista
Picnic
Shelter
Rental
Revenue $2,762 $14,727 $98,121 $115,610
Rental Hours 173 373 340 886
Moon Bounce
Permits 12 48 14 74
Alta Vista
Tennis
Courts
Rental
Revenue No Data $101,578.23
$122,237.3
9 $223,815.6
2 Rental Hours No Data 12,750 10,712 23,462
Round Robin
Hours No Data 2,173 1,526 3,699
Julia Field
RB Sunset
League 742 hours 742 hours 742 hours $0
AYSO –
Region 17 458 hours 458 hours 458 hours $0
Miscellaneous 10 hours 10 hours 10 hours $1,100
Anderson
Park Moon
Bounce
Areas
Rental
Revenue $360 $6,746 $9,011 $16,117
Rental Hours 245 1,107 825 2,177
Moon Bounce
Permits 45 140 165 350
Aviation
Field
Rental
Revenue $68,625 $85,950 $85,650 $240,225
Rental Hours2 664 688 650 2,002
Dominguez
Park Sport
Fields
Rental
Revenue $250 $250 $280 $780
Rental Hours3 752 752 968 2,472
Franklin
Park Moon
Bounce
Areas
Rental
Revenue $280 $3,246 $3,185 $6,711
Rental Hours 124 557 310 991
Moon Bounce
Permits 20 67 62 149
2 This total includes the hours used by Redondo Beach Youth Football League, which averages 115 hours each year.

These hours are currently offered free of charge to the organization. 3 This total includes the hours used by the Redondo Beach Little League, which averages 750 hours each year.

These hours are currently offered free of charge to the organization.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Total
Fulton
Playfield
Sport Field
Rental
Revenue $400 $700 $1,000 $2,100
Rental Hours 20 35 50 105
Perry Park
Field
Usage
RB Little
League 742 hours 742 hours 958 hours $0
AYSO –
Region 34 58 hours 100 hours 116 hours $0
Miscellaneous 15 hours 10 hours 10 hours $1,025
Seaside
Lagoon
Picnic and
Luau
Shelter
Hours Used 34 hours 321 hours 327 hours $176,665
Wilderness
Park
Camp Sites No Data 130 days 80 days $37,270
Amphitheater No Data 29 days 25 days $1,193
Alta Vista Park
Picnic Shelter and Moon Bounce Area
• Typically used in tandem, however, it is not required • Picnic shelter is $125 for a half day, or $250 for a full day • Moon bounce reservations are $40 for residents and $60 for non-residents, plus a $25 electrical use fee
Tennis Courts (8)
• Available to Alta Vista Tennis Center members for an annual membership fee of $25
• Hourly rental rates vary between $10 and $13, depending on the day, time of use, and age of the player
• City provides Round Robin play for all levels of play during select times each week o Participation is $8 per player, per day
Julia Field
• Used for softball or baseball play, or soccer
• Used by the Redondo Beach Sunset Youth Baseball League as well as AYSO, Region 17, in the outfield area
• City does not charge either group for their use of the facilities • Staff recommends entering into formal use agreements to establish clear responsibilities for each party and implement a fair and equitable fee structure to support field upkeep and maintenance
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

Dog Run
• Not available for private reservation and is open to the public Community Garden
• Maintained and managed by the South Bay Parkland Conservancy through a license agreement with the City
• The City does not reserve this space and, therefore, does not collect revenue for its use
Anderson Park
Two Moon Bounce Areas
• Reservations are $40 for residents and $60 for non-residents, plus a $10 processing fee
Open Field Area
• Used for contract activities and is not available for private rental Half-Court Basketball Court Shared with Pickleball Court • Not available for private rental, but are used for City-run camps and activities Tennis Courts
• Used periodically for contract activities
Aviation Park
Turf Field
• Part of a license and concession agreement with South Bay Sports, which funded the replacement of the artificial turf field
• Agreement allows South Bay Sports to utilize the field for its purposes during select dates and times, leaving the remaining times for the City to reserve for youth sport groups, including football and soccer organizations
• Current rate for field use is $125 per hour
Track
• Open amenity that cannot be reserved for private use
Dominguez Park
Dog Park
• Not available for private use and remains an open and available amenity for the community
• No entry fee or revenue generated from this facility
Sports Fields (2)
• Used for baseball and softball are available to the community and can be reserved for private use by sports organizations for $25 per hour • City reserves these fields for the Redondo Beach Little League organization for league play
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

• League’s use the field free of charge
Franklin Park
Two Moon Bounce Areas,
• Available for private rental and are used throughout the year for $40 for residents and $60 for non-residents, plus a $10 processing fee
Shared Basketball and Pickleball courts
• Used for contract activities and are not available for private rental Dedicated Pickleball Court
• Open amenity for any community member to use without a reservation Open Field
• Open amenity for any community member to use without a reservation • Area is used periodically for contract activities
Fulton Playfield
Open Field Area
• Hosts a variety of activities
• Available for private rental for $22 per hour
Perry Park
Sports Field
• Open amenity that also serves as a location for contract activities • Used by multiple youth sports organizations free of charge • Available for private rental at a $40 hourly rate
Batting Cages
• Not available to the public and are solely managed and operated by the Little League organization
Shared Basketball and Pickleball Courts
• Open amenity when not being utilized by City-run camps or activities • RBYB utilizes the basketball courts for practices in the evenings during regular season play, typically 16 hours each week between December and March Skateboard Ramp Area
• Open amenity that cannot be reserved for private use
Seaside Lagoon
Seaside Lagoon is a seasonal facility, open from Memorial Day to Labor Day. During the off-season, the lagoon is available for private use.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #12

10 Picnic Areas and Luau Shelter
• Available for private rental during regular season dates • Picnic areas are available for $60 a day
• Private rental rates for the Luau Shelter range from $400 to $2,800 a day, depending on the type of group, and the day and time of use • These areas are available for use by City-run camps and activities, but remain available to lagoon guests when not previously reserved Information regarding entry fees to the Seaside Lagoon is outlined in BRR #56.

Wilderness Park
Campsite Areas (4)
• Available for private rental
• Select campsites used by City-run camps and activities • Available for reservation on weekend dates only for $450 Amphitheater
• Available for private rental
• Used by City-run camps and activities
Outdoor Fitness Permit
The unpermitted use of open space by private trainers or instructors continues to be a concern for cities in the South Bay. In order to offset private use of public areas, provide formality and permitting capabilities for the instruction being provided, and to ensure liability insurance is in place, staff recommends the development of an Outdoor Fitness Permit. This permit would allow usage of predesignated outdoor spaces for limited hours each week, and set limitations for the number of students to ensure group sizes remain small.

The City of Hermosa Beach currently offers a similar program, charging $127 for an annual application plus an additional $130 monthly fee for each location used by the permittee. Based on these rates, the City could estimate approximately $4,000 in additional revenue from issuing 10 annual permits that include two locations for each applicant. These are conservative figures as staff anticipate this program to be popular, given the amount of unpermitted instruction taking place throughout the City. However, the success of this program is contingent on enforcement capabilities and would require a strong partnership with the City’s Code Enforcement Team.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #13

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#13
June 10, 2025
Question:

What percentage of the City’s major revenue sources does each zip code generate? What primary economic activities occur in these areas?
Response:

The tables below show the City’s primary tax sources by zip code. Percentages are based on FY 2023-24 data, which is the last full year of actual revenue available. For the Property Tax and Sales Tax tables, some revenue sources, such as sales tax revenue received from the County and State tax pools, or certain property tax adjustments, are not associated with a specific address/zip code. The City’s two current largest economic commercial area contributors are Rivera Village and the Waterfront, which are both located in the 90277 zip code.

Property Tax (General Fund)
Zip Amount % Total
90277 $16,450,785 46%
90278 $17,856,559 50%
Unallocated
by zip
$1,629,402 4.5%
Total $35,936,746 100%
Sales Tax
Zip Amount % Total
90277 $5,051,086 47%
90278 $3,792,044 35%
Unallocated
by zip
$1,979,349 18%
Total $10,822,479 100%
Transient Occupancy Tax
Zip Amount % Total
90277 $5,548,533 62%
90278 $3,456,469 38%
Total $9,005,002* 100%
*If the City retained all generated TOT
Zip Amount % Total
90277 $5,955,672 92%
90278 $505,825 8%
Total $6,461,497* 100%
*Actual revenue
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #14

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#14
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the status of ongoing legislation related to Utility Users’ Tax and streaming services? What actions would the City need to take to benefit from rulings favorable to cities?
Response:

In 2022, the City of Santa Barbara billed Disney for back taxes related to the City’s 2008 video utility users’ tax (VUT). Disney appealed the bill on the grounds that the tax applied only to cable and traditional television channel services. An independent Hearing Officer, retired appellate court Justice James Lambden, ruled in favor of the City of Santa Barbara upholding the City’s assignment for collection of VUT Taxes related to streaming services under Santa Barbara’s Municipal Code. In his decision, Justice Lambden stated “The (video users’ tax) VUT approved by the City’s voters was patently intended to consider future developments in the 21st century’s changing technological environment. Applying the meaning of ‘channel’ as defined to over-the-air broadcasts in the former century to defeat that intention would be absurd in context of new technology.” In April 2024, Disney filed a lawsuit to appeal the tax assessment.

On November 13, 2024, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the City of Santa Barbara and Disney appealed this ruling. The case is currently pending in the California Court of Appeal (Disney Platform Distribution Inc. et. al. vs Keith DeMartini et. al., Case No. 24CV02313, Superior Court of California, October 25, 2024).

City staff members are working with Avenu Insights & Analytics (Muniservices) to monitor activity related to the lawsuit. If the courts continue to rule in Santa Barbara’s favor, the City Treasurer’s Office will coordinate with the City Manager’s Office, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Financial Services Department to develop possible next steps and report back to the Council with options. Staff would also work with Muniservices to identify implications for the City and its ability to tax under Redondo Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9 subsection 8-9.09 VUT, including potential Municipal Code amendments and Proposition 218 requirements to implement such changes.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #15

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#15
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the status of Sworn personnel staffing in the Police Department? Response:

Staffing for the Redondo Beach Police Department’s (RBPD) 98 budgeted sworn personnel, plus one over-hire for a Captain position, which expires at the end of 2025, is shown on the following table.

Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
Chief of Police 1 0 0 1
Police Captain
4 (1 over-hire)
0 1 (over-hire) 3
Police Lieutenant 6 0 0 6
Police Sergeant 15 0 0 15
Police Officer 73 0 5 68
Total 99 0 6 93
RBPD currently has 93 sworn positions filled, which includes five trainees in the field training program and five recruits in the academy. In addition, two officers are on modified duty and/or out long-term due to medical reasons.

RBPD currently has five applicants in backgrounds, of which two are lateral transfers.

One conditional offer has been made to a police recruit with the next academy class set to start on June 30, 2025. Additional recruit interviews occurred on May 7, 2025.

Recruitment has been a consistent challenge for law enforcement agencies, and RBPD is not exempt from this issue. RBPD continues to develop new and innovative ways to recruit qualified candidates via social media, academy visits, mobile sign boards, professional flyers, referrals, and recruitment efforts. Additionally, RBPD intends to remain focused on marketing the City’s many video vignettes, special programs, and special assignment details to stimulate interest on its social media platforms.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #16

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#16
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the status of Civilian personnel staffing in the Police Department? Response:

The current status for the Redondo Beach Police Department’s (RBPD) civilian personnel is shown in the following tables.

Administrative Services
Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
Executive Assistant 1 0 0 1
Senior Management Analyst 1 0 0 1
Analyst 2 0 0 2
Total 4 0 0 4
Community Service Officers
Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
CSO III 3 0 0 3
CSO II (Jailers) 10 0 1 9
Total 13 0 1 12
CSO II (Jailer) has one vacancy, and one candidate is currently in backgrounds.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #16

Communications Unit
Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
Public Safety Communications
Manager 1 0 0 1
Communications Supervisors 4 0 0 4
Communication Dispatchers 9 0 5 4
Total 14 0 5 9
There are currently five vacancies for Communications Dispatcher. Six dispatch candidates are in backgrounds, with one conditional offer being extended, pending testing. Dispatch Trainee applications continue to be accepted. One retired Dispatch Supervisor has returned as a part-time employee to assist with the current shortages in the Communications Dispatch Center but is limited to working 960 hours per fiscal year to comply with CalPERS guidelines for retirees.

Records Unit
Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
Police Records Manager 1 0 0 1
Lead Police Services Specialist 2 0 0 2
Police Services Specialist 6 0 2 4
Administrative Specialist 1 0 1 0
Office Specialist III 2 0 1 1
Total 12 0 4 8
There are currently two vacancies for Police Services Specialists (PSS), with two candidates currently in backgrounds. Testing for Administrative Specialist position was recently completed, with two candidates advancing to backgrounds.

There is one vacant Office Specialist III position. RBPD has submitted a Decision Package for City Council consideration that would deauthorize the vacant Office Specialist III position for cost savings to help offset additional civilian personnel recommended for other units.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #16

Investigations Division
Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
Administrative Specialist 1 0 0 1
Crime Analyst 1 0 0 1
Police Identification Technician 1 0 0 1
Total 3 0 0 3
All positions in the Investigations Division are currently filled.

Community Services Unit
Position Authorized Frozen Vacant Filled
Municipal Services Supervisor 1 0 0 1
Municipal Services Officer 6 0 0 6
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 1 0 0 1
Code Enforcement Officer 2 0 0 2
Total 10 0 0 10
Proposal to Add a Second Municipal Services Supervisor
The department civilian staffing Decision Package includes a proposal to add one (1) additional Municipal Services Supervisor. The current Municipal Services Supervisor oversees a team of 22 Municipal Services Officer (MSO) employees across two locations:
the Police Annex building and City Hall. Approximately half of the MSOs are part-time employees with varying schedules, including nights and weekends. Currently, the Supervisor follows a standard 4/10 work schedule, similar to the majority of Police civilian employees, which results in municipal services personnel being unsupervised on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. These shifts are primarily staffed by part-time MSOs, who would benefit from additional oversight.

Adding a second Municipal Services Supervisor would provide full-week coverage, improve field supervision, and create a more balanced distribution of administrative duties. Additionally, this addition would enhance succession planning and overall efficiency. Lastly, enhanced supervision will increase citation issuance by 5 to 10%, resulting in additional General Fund revenue. The fully loaded cost of employing a fulltime Municipal Services Supervisor is $152,277, to be offset by reductions in part-time and full-time staffing costs in other areas as noted above, along with an increase to citation revenue.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #16

Proposal for a Full-Time Social Media Program Coordinator The department’s current Social Media Program Coordinator manages the Department’s online presence but is limited to part-time hours. Expanding this role to full-time would enhance digital outreach efforts and allow the coordinator to manage social media platforms for not only the Police Department but also other City departments.

A full-time Social Media Program Coordinator would ensure consistent messaging, timely updates, and improved public communication across all City Departments. This expansion would strengthen community engagement, increase transparency, and create a unified digital presence for the City. This would be a new position, not currently included in the existing City job specifications. The estimated cost, based on comparable full-time coordinator positions, is $114,732.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #17

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#17
June 3, 2025
Question:

How is the Police Department addressing traffic enforcement and safety on residential streets and the enforcement of truck routes, and what are the costs associated with these efforts?
Response:

The Redondo Beach Police Department (RBPD) and the Public Works Department are committed to improving traffic safety and reducing illegal truck traffic through a multifaceted approach that includes grant funding, community engagement, enforcement initiatives, and public education. Below are the key measures being implemented to enhance safety on residential streets.

Grant Opportunities
The RBPD Traffic Unit has successfully secured two grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to support enforcement and education efforts. The Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Grant provides $160,000 in funding to reimburse overtime staffing dedicated to traffic enforcement strategies aimed at reducing accidents and improving roadway safety. This grant funds various initiatives, including DUI/CDL checkpoints to target impaired drivers, DUI saturation patrols in areas with high DUIrelated incidents, and primary collision factor enforcement focused on violations that commonly cause collisions, such as speeding, distracted driving, and running stop signs or red lights. The program also supports joint enforcement operations in collaboration with nearby agencies to conduct large-scale traffic safety efforts, as well as public education programs that promote roadway safety and compliance with bicycle and e-bike laws.

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant provides $50,000 to fund enforcement operations and public education efforts aimed at reducing pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities. The grant supports bicycle and e-bike safety programs that encourage responsible riding habits and compliance with traffic laws. Additionally, it funds traffic awareness campaigns that utilize digital platforms and public outreach to educate residents on pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Traffic Complaint Hotline
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #17

RBPD operates a Traffic Complaint Hotline that allows residents to report traffic concerns such as speeding, reckless driving, and problem intersections. This system helps the Traffic Unit identify high-risk areas and allocate enforcement resources accordingly.

Complaints are regularly reviewed, and enforcement efforts are adjusted based on the information received to deliver a proactive approach to traffic safety. The average number of locations on the Citywide Hotline list at any given time is 16.

Educational Messaging and Speed Reminders
To reinforce safe driving behaviors, RBPD employs various educational tools. Digital message signboards are placed in strategic locations throughout the City to provide reminders about local traffic laws and safety concerns. There are 21 fixed speed reminder signs across the City that encourage drivers to adhere to posted speed limits.

Additionally, four portable radar speed trailers are periodically deployed in different areas to raise awareness about vehicle speeds in problem areas or during periods of high expected traffic volumes. RBPD also utilizes social media to disseminate traffic safety tips, updates on law changes, and reminders about responsible driving practices.

Stealth Stat Device
RBPD uses the Stealth Stat system, a mobile device designed to collect vehicle speed data without being visible to drivers. This tool enables RBPD to analyze speeding patterns, assess the validity of complaints, and determine whether additional enforcement efforts should be deployed in specific areas without having to assign staff to manually collect data. By leveraging this data-driven approach, RBPD can more effectively identify and target high-risk locations for speed enforcement.

Drive Slow Redondo Campaign
The Drive Slow Redondo campaign was developed last year by the Community Services Unit at the direction of the City Council to promote safe driving in residential areas. A student-designed campaign logo featuring a snail on wheels with the slogan #DriveSlowRedondo was selected to help spread awareness. Since its launch, the campaign has continued to expand, with ongoing promotion through social media, educational messaging, and community outreach. Banners and yard signs remain strategically placed throughout the City to remind drivers to reduce their speed and prioritize safety. This year, the program is being reinforced with additional outreach efforts and staff are working to develop new partnerships to further encourage responsible driving behaviors.

Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
RBPD is working to enhance Commercial Vehicle Enforcement to regulate large truck traffic within City limits. The Department has collaborated with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to periodically conduct specialized enforcement operations. These efforts have resulted in over 80 citations being issued to commercial vehicle drivers for various infractions and more than 30 commercial vehicle inspections conducted by CHP officers to ensure compliance with safety and weight regulations. The RBPD is continuing to explore additional joint operations with CHP to further strengthen its overall enforcement efficiency.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #17

Directed truck route enforcement aims to address ongoing resident complaints about unauthorized commercial vehicle traffic on Palos Verdes Blvd and Prospect Avenue. By conducting targeted enforcement twice per month, Traffic Officers can enhance compliance with the truck route ordinance, improve road safety, reduce noise and pollution, and protect the City’s roadway infrastructure. The initiative will be carried out without disrupting regular Citywide traffic operations. Enforcement will specifically target eastbound commercial vehicle traffic on Palos Verdes Blvd and all truck traffic on Prospect Avenue, ensuring compliance with local regulations.

The estimated cost of this enforcement effort is $22,335.36 per year, covering 24 enforcement details at $116.33 per officer per hour (four-hour detail / two officers), resulting in an estimated cost of $930.64 per directed enforcement detail. Currently these details are absorbed by the traffic unit’s regular operating budget and come at the expense of either citywide traffic enforcement activities. Dedicated funding would need to be identified to allow Traffic Officers to conduct these targeted operations on an ongoing basis while also maintaining full staffing for regular traffic enforcement Citywide.

Targeted enforcement typically leads to increased compliance, fewer resident complaints, improved road conditions, and a better quality of life due to reduced roadway congestion and pollution.

The Department of Public Works has installed all feasible and enforceable truck route signage to formalize the City’s currently approved truck routes around Palos Verdes Boulevard and Prospect Avenue. The signage includes one blinking and two conventional truck route signs along Palos Verdes Blvd, and one conventional truck route sign along Prospect Avenue.

Existing truck route issues were discussed by the Public Works & Sustainability Commission in March 2024, the Public Safety Commission in January 2025, and at additional neighborhood meetings with concerned residents. One of the core issues discussed at these meetings was the number of designated truck routes that enter the City of Redondo Beach from the City of Torrance. Trucks legally traveling on designated truck routes in the City of Torrance, such as Palos Verdes Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Del Amo Boulevard, do not have a legal truck route to link to in the City of Redondo Beach. Therefore, enforcing Redondo Beach’s truck route prohibitions at the City border are not feasible as trucks cannot make U-turns prior to crossing the City limit.

Resolving truck route issues between the two cities is critical to discouraging illegal truck traffic on certain streets, and guiding trucks to designated truck routes. City staff have already installed all legally defensible truck route signs and thus far have been unsuccessful in convincing the City of Torrance to consider enacting truck route changes that would improve compliance in both communities.

On a related note, Assembly Bill (AB) 98 was recently passed and requires all cities to update their Circulation Element to include designated truck routes by January 1, 2028.

Truck routes must now follow specific standards, such as avoiding residential areas and Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #17

concentrations of sensitive receptors, as defined by the State of California. Therefore, another opportunity will arise in which Redondo Beach’s (and other South Bay cities) truck routes will be updated to follow the guidelines included in AB 98, which will include additional input from South Bay communities. Funding would be required to update the City’s Circulation Element. The cost to update the Circulation Element can range between $50,000 for a minor update to more than $125,000 for a more comprehensive overhaul.

E-Bike Safety Initiatives
RBPD launched multiple initiatives to enhance e-bike safety and enforce traffic laws. With a strong emphasis on compliance, Officers have significantly increased citation enforcement for violations such as riding without a helmet, disregarding traffic signals, improper lane usage, and reckless riding. This proactive approach is designed to promote safer riding behaviors and improve overall road safety for all users. Additionally, digital signage has been strategically placed throughout the City to reinforce awareness of e-bike regulations and encourage responsible riding.

In addition to enforcement, RBPD has continued to utilize a positive reinforcement program where law-abiding e-bike riders receive gift cards along with a QR code that links to an educational video promoting e-bike safety and regulations. Educational outreach efforts include hosting community meetings and safety seminars, collaborating with the Redondo Beach Unified School District to educate students on responsible riding practices, and working with the City Attorney’s Office to continue a bicycle diversion program through the Los Angeles County Courts for riders receiving citations. RBPD is also coordinating with neighboring South Bay cities to conduct joint enforcement operations and develop unified messaging on e-bike safety.

With grant funding from the OTS, the RBPD has scheduled eight Bicycle Education “Rodeos” to educate students on safe riding practices and traffic regulations. These interactive events provide hands-on instruction and demonstrations to help young cyclists develop the skills necessary to navigate city streets safely.

Red Light Camera Program
Implementing a red-light camera program in Redondo Beach could enhance road safety by deterring drivers from running red lights, a leading cause of traffic collisions. Since 1988, Culver City's program, has demonstrated success, with a 42% reduction in red-light violations after expanding its system. In 2023, their program generated approximately $3.5 million in revenue, offsetting its $1.3 million operational cost. Redondo Beach, with 108 signalized intersections and 60 reported red-light-related collisions since 2020, could benefit from similar enforcement, particularly at high-risk intersections like Pacific Coast Highway at Torrance Blvd and Aviation Blvd at Grant Ave.

Redflex Traffic Systems, a vendor operating in California, offers a cost structure of approximately $5,500 per camera per month, with no upfront installation fees. This fixed monthly rate includes all necessary equipment and services. While the program could Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #17

improve safety and reduce collisions, its effectiveness would depend on factors such as staffing for citation processing and legal/court related follow up. If implemented successfully, a red-light camera system could reduce injuries and fatalities while generating revenue to sustain its operation.

Conclusion
The Redondo Beach Police Department remains committed to a comprehensive approach to traffic safety, combining enforcement, education, and community engagement. By leveraging grant funding, targeted enforcement, public outreach, and collaboration with local and state agencies, RBPD is dedicated to creating safer streets for all road users, including drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #18

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#18
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the status of parking meter permit revenue and what are the options to prorate the parking meter permit fee?
Response:

The City’s parking meter permit program provides a convenient and cost-effective way for members of the public to utilize City parking meters, by allowing permit holders to park in designated spaces for a flat annual fee without having to make individual meter payments. The annual permit runs from November 1st through October 31st of the following year.

As part of the FY 2024-25 budget, which included a comparison of the permit fees from other cities and an overall adjustment to outdated Police master fee schedule, the cost of the annual meter permit was increased from $110 to $175, and for Riviera Village employees from $60 to $70. Vehicles utilizing the permit must still abide by posted time limits and other parking restrictions. Riviera Village employee permits can only be used in designated spaces.

To illustrate the value, someone parking at a meter two days a week for four hours, at $1.75/hour (increased in FY 2024-25 from $1.50/hour), would pay $728 per year, with the $175 annual permit rate saving them $553 a year.

For someone that visits on a regular basis of five days a week, for four hours each day, the hourly rate would total $1,820 per year. The permit provides $1,645 in savings. For meters that do not have an hourly limit, the savings would be even greater.

The table below provides data for meter permit sales through the third quarter of FY 2024- 25 as compared to the same period last fiscal year:

FY 2023-24 Q3 FY 2024-25 Q3 VARIANCE
Permit Sales 1,839 1,654 (-185) 10% 
Revenue $202,290 $289,064 $86,774 43% 
Although there has been a slight decrease in the number of meter permits sold since last year, the overall revenue has increased by 43%.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #18

Proration Options:

The City Council requested options for possible cost proration of the annual permit fee.

Currently, the annual permit runs from November 1st through October 31st of the following year for a flat fee of $175, regardless of when the permit is purchased.

The $175 fee equates to $14.58 per month. Some options for prorating include:
• Creating a monthly permit for at least $14.58 per month • Creating a quarterly option at a cost of at least $43.75 per quarter • Creating a bi-annual fee of at least $87.50 per six-month period Each of the options above would have an effect on administrative processing and would likely reduce City revenue as many people would choose to purchase the permits for only the most desirable months of the year. Currently, Parking Enforcement staff handle a high volume of sales initially, from October through December, that tapers off significantly afterwards. Implementing a prorated system would divert staff to assisting with permit sales consistently throughout the year, adding to their other required duties. Staff in the field would also have to distinguish between multiple permit options to determine if individual vehicles were displaying valid permits.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #19

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#19
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the status of revenue collection following the Police Department’s 2024-25 Master Fee Schedule update?
Response:

The Police Department Master Fee Schedule encompasses a variety of fees related to Police services and enforcement activities, including report copy fees, parking citations, parking permits, alarm permits, concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits, and Police stand-by fees for special events.

Police Department fees were not adjusted for well over 10 years. As a result, the City Council adopted a Strategic Plan objective to comprehensively update the Police Master Fee Schedule with the goals to 1) recover increased costs associated with personnel and operations 2) align specific fees closer to market rate, and 3) remove fees that are no longer applicable or have transitioned to other City Departments. A tiered approach to fee adjustments was approved as part of the FY 2024-25 budget adoption and implemented at the beginning of the fiscal year as follows:
• 10% increase to the majority of fees in FY 2024-25
• A targeted, larger increase to the parking meter permit fee, parking citation fees, CCW permits, and Police stand-by fees in FY 2024-25
• 25 cent increase to the hourly parking meter rates in FY 2024-25, and an additional 25 cents in FY 2025-26
• Return with a proposed additional 5% increase to fees in FY 2025-26 (DP #1) The actions taken by City Council last year have had a significantly positive impact on General Fund revenue. A YTD comparison between FY 2023-24 end of Q3 and FY 2024- 25 end of Q3 showed an additional $441,862 in revenue, the majority of which is attributed to the hourly parking meter rate and parking meter permit fee increases.

For FY 2025-26, a 5% fee increase, along with a targeted increase for alarm permit fees of more than 5% to align the fees with similar fees in neighboring jurisdictions, is proposed in DP #1. These changes are expected to generate an additional $152,231 in General Fund revenue. This action will finalize the action approved in FY 2024-25 to realign fees with current operating costs.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #20

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#20
June 3, 2025
Question:

What technology platforms does the Police Department utilize to increase transparency and build trust, and what are the plans for the evolution of these programs to meet changing needs?
Response:

The Redondo Beach Police Department (RBPD) utilizes technology platforms to gather, process, and distribute information to maximize staff efficiency and provide the best level of service to our community. While some platforms are discretionary, others are embedded in RBPD’s culture and inform the public’s expectations for Police service in the City. As such, these tools have become necessary, even if they are not legally required. While the majority of these platforms are funded through Patrol contracts and the Department’s professional services account, certain agreements require support from additional funding sources to implement. RBPD continuously evaluates the products in use to take advantage of updated feature developments and new products that can enhance service delivery to the community.

Currently RBPD utilizes the following technologies:

Aerodome, Inc. (subsidiary of Flock Group, Inc.), is the Drone as a First Responder (DFR) platform that utilizes commercial drone equipment and sensors to respond to calls for service. This maximizes situational awareness, improves efficiency, and aids in identifying and capturing suspects. Aerodome utilizes proprietary technology including ground-based radar, radio frequency sensors, ADS-B and remote ID data, to fly beyond visual line of sight.

SPIDR Tech, Inc. is RBPD’s primary customer service portal that sends surveys via text or email to every customer that contacts the Communications Unit. The system records customer responses for categories including response time, communication, and the resolution of calls so RBPD leadership and staff can evaluate and respond to customer feedback. More than 20% of customers engage with RBPD using the surveys, resulting in responses from more than 3,800 customers each year.

Motorola Solutions Vigilant comprises a portion of RBPD’s Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) system and uses camera equipment mounted at traffic signals to identify license plates for stolen vehicles and individuals wanted for crimes. Currently, there are Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #20

10 cameras at five intersections in the City, and one semi-portable ALPR camera deployed at various/periodic locations. Some of these systems have exceeded their useful lifespan, having been in operation for more than 5-years. An evaluation is being conducted to identify and address equipment that is no longer serviceable. The Vigilant database includes commercial license plate data for more than 44-billion records.

Motorola Solutions – Wave is a cell phone application that allows for two-way, encrypted radio communication on established police and public safety frequencies without traditional radio equipment, which costs upwards of $8,000 per unit.

Flock Safety is an additional ALPR system utilized by RBPD that uses camera equipment mounted at traffic signal locations to record license plates in order to identify stolen vehicles and individuals wanted for crimes. There are currently three Flock ALPR cameras deployed at three intersections in the City. Flock ALPR covers more than 4,000 communities throughout the country and utilizes proprietary technology, including artificial intelligence object recognition, to make the system an effective tool for law enforcement.

Zencity is a communications tool that sends surveys via social media advertisements and social media posts to individuals who are geolocated near Redondo Beach. These surveys aim to collect feedback and gather insights related to public safety services and community concerns.

LeadsOnline provides a database of social media, public auction, and other commercially available information to help investigators locate and identify potential stolen property.

Veritone is a computer application accessible via desktop and mobile phones that facilitates the reporting of demographic information to comply with the 2015 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA), which prohibits racial and identity profiling by law enforcement agencies in California. RIPA requires law enforcement agencies to report data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) on all vehicle and pedestrian stops, as well as citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling.

Peregrine Technology is a data aggregation platform that provides a central search and dashboard function to unify data from desperate systems to unify information from legacy systems that had previously been siloed. For example, data from both the Vigilant and Flock ALPR systems can be accessed in real-time using Peregrine’s high-tech platform.

Perigrine adds value to a number of tools by making the data more readily available and useful across traditional technological boundaries.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #20

Fiscal Impact:

The annual cost breakdown of the above technology platforms is as follows:

Platform Annual Cost
Aerodome Drone as a First Responder
$180,000
($275,000 following FAA 14 CFR part 107.31
BVLS waiver)
SPIDR Tech $21,065
Motorola Vigilant ALPR $20,762
Motorola Wave $5,616
Flock Safety ALPR $11,523
Zencity $15,000
LeadsOnline $9,120
Veritone $9,800
Peregrine Technologies $96,500
TOTAL $369,386
($464,386 following FAA Aerodome waiver)
RBPD’s core operating budget can support approximately half the annual costs for its technology platforms, accounting for costs associated with various other systems central to Police operations (i.e. records management, timekeeping, personnel evaluation and training, legal updates, etc.). In prior years, RBPD has bridged the funding gap with a combination of one-time decision package requests and use of Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF). As part of the FY 2025-26 budget, RBPD has submitted DP #23 for an additional ongoing appropriation of $187,2025 to permanently fund these vital technology platforms.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #21

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#21
June 3, 2025
Question:

How does the Police Department’s Wellness Program support employee health and morale, what are the plans for the evolution of these programs to meet changing needs, and what are the anticipated long-term benefits of investing in this initiative? Response:

The Redondo Beach Police Department’s (RBPD) Wellness Program is a comprehensive initiative designed to enhance the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of employees while fostering a stronger sense of teamwork and Department cohesion. Over the past year, RBPD made significant investments in both physical and mental wellness, leadership development, and boosting team morale, recognizing that a well-rounded approach to employee wellness is essential for maintaining a healthy and motivated workforce.

Employee wellness is especially critical in law enforcement due to the unique demands of the profession, including exposure to high-stress situations, unpredictable work hours, and the physical and emotional toll of the job. Police officers face life-or-death decisions, traumatic events, and intense public scrutiny on a regular basis, which makes creating a wellness program in the Police Department a key priority. Additionally, the quality of the Department’s wellness program is a key recruitment consideration when attracting new police personnel.

RBPD has implemented a range of strategies to support these wellness initiatives, including:

Physical Wellness
To support physical health, RBPD has incorporated weekly circuit training sessions led by an on-site personal trainer, helping employees improve overall fitness, build strength, and reduce stress. Additionally, in-house Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu classes are taught by two of our own officers to provide both physical conditioning and practical defensive tactics training to help improve confidence and resilience.

Mental Wellness
RBPD has partnered with Sharp Performance for cognitive coaching to provide employees with personalized tools to strengthen mental clarity, manage stress, and improve decision-making in high-pressure situations. Employees are paired with a dedicated coach and participate in virtual one-on-one sessions where they receive Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #21

tailored guidance and support. Additionally, the program includes access to app-based training videos that allow employees to reinforce their skills and strategies at their own pace, ensuring continuous development and mental resilience.

Leadership Development
RBPD has also prioritized leadership growth, hosting the first ever “Empowering Women Leaders” workshop featuring distinguished female speakers that have established exemplary careers in law enforcement. This workshop provided valuable insights and mentorship opportunities, encouraging the professional growth of female employees to prepare them for future leadership roles within the Department.

Additionally, RBPD organized two leadership-focused keynote sessions with Codey Gandy of Echelon Front and Garth Massey of Command Ready, where they emphasized accountability, decision-making under pressure, and building high-performance teams.

These sessions provided employees with practical leadership strategies to strengthen communication, enhance teamwork, and improve overall operational efficiency.

Team Morale and Camaraderie
Building team cohesion and morale has also been a key focus. RBPD partnered with Golf Pro, Jordan King Thomas to put together the first ever Golf Clinic, giving employees throughout all levels of the organization a relaxed environment to bond and strengthen relationships. The Annual RBPD Holiday Team Building Event and Annual All Department Day have further reinforced this sense of community. The All-Department Day featured a message and update from Chief Hoffman, keynote speakers Codey Gandy and Garth Massey, and was followed by a department-wide BBQ for employees and their families. These events create meaningful opportunities for connection, strengthen relationships across all divisions and ranks, and reinforce the message that every employee is a valued and integral part of RBPD’s success.

Long-Term Benefits
Investing in employee wellness is a strategic decision that will produce tangible benefits for both the Department and the community. Improved physical and mental resilience will lead to better decision-making in the field, quicker response times, and give individuals the tools to more effectively handle high-stress incidents. Enhanced fitness levels will reduce the risk of injuries, decrease workers’ compensation claims, and improve overall operational readiness. Increased employee morale and job satisfaction will strengthen retention and reduce the costs and disruptions associated with job turnover and recruitments.

Future Plans
RBPD plans to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the Wellness Program, gathering feedback from employees to identify opportunities for improvement and expansion. Future enhancements may include adding more specialized training sessions tailored to the physical and mental demands of law enforcement, increasing access to cognitive coaching and stress management resources, and expanding family-inclusive events to further strengthen the Department’s sense of community.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #21

The Department intends to continue the current circuit training and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu classes, which have already shown positive results in improving both physical and mental resilience. Additionally, RBPD has recently partnered with Sandbox, a local gym, to explore opportunities for expanding fitness offerings for RBPD staff. RBPD also intends to continue working with Sharp Performance to provide cognitive coaching and mental wellness support. The Department would also like to make events such as the Women’s Leadership Workshop, All Department Day, and other meaningful gatherings annual traditions. Expanding and refining these events will ensure that they remain responsive to the evolving needs of Department, reinforce the goal of operational excellence, and enhance public safety outcomes.

Future success is contingent on funding. The proposed City Budget includes DP #33 requesting a General Fund appropriation of $74,000 to support the Police Department wellness program in the coming fiscal year.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #22

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#22
June 3, 2025
Question:

What are the options and costs to address speeding concerns on the Prospect frontage road?
Response:

The Public Works Department and the District 3 Council Member have received complaints about speeding, wrong-way violations, noise, and safety concerns along the frontage road adjacent to the 500-600 blocks of Prospect Avenue. In response to these complaints, Public Works Department staff led a neighborhood meeting to introduce options to replant hedges in the median to help visually define the street/median space and processed a speed cushion request for the frontage road.

The recorded 85th percentile speed along the frontage road was 24 mph. The thresholds of the City’s Speed Cushion Policy were not met along the roadway and as result speed cushions are not recommended. These findings were discussed by the Public Works & Sustainability Commission (PWSC), where Commissioners voted not to recommend the installation of speed cushions to the City Council. In lieu of speed cushions, the PWSC recommended striping treatments to help reduce wrong-way violations.

Striping treatments are currently being assessed and are slated to be discussed at an upcoming PWSC meeting with the aim of reinforcing the one-way segment of the frontage road. The assessment includes treatments such as striped curb extensions, reflective pavement markers, and additional red curb painting. City staff can install these striping and signage improvements internally for an approximate cost of $1,500. Funds are available in the City’s Traffic Calming budget to support the work effort. If additional striping modifications are recommended, the City’s on-call striping contractor would have to be engaged.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #23

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#23
June 3, 2025
Question:

What tools can be acquired to expand the maintenance capacity of the Public Works Department, including the cost to purchase an asphalt zipper? Can we partner with neighboring cities to defray roadway maintenance costs? Response:

An asphalt zipper is a high-powered grinding attachment used for pulverizing asphalt and gravel roadway surfaces. Asphalt zippers provide a far more efficient method of removing asphalt as compared to traditional saw-cutting and jackhammering. A six-foot zipper attachment unit costs approximately $215,000. However, zippers are exclusively used for asphalt removal, and acquiring one would not be practical unless a range of other major equipment was also acquired. In order to utilize the equipment regularly, the Public Works Department’s Street Maintenance scope of operations would need to be expanded significantly.

For asphalt removal operations, a front-end loader would be needed to host the zipper attachment, which is estimated to cost an additional $120,000. A 13-ton dump truck would also be needed to haul away removed asphalt and transport new asphalt from the plant to the job site, with an estimated cost of $125,000.

For laying new asphalt, the following equipment would be needed:
• An asphalt drag bog to lay new asphalt: $17,000
• A scraper box to level new asphalt: $8,000
• A steam roller with trailer to compact newly laid asphalt: $70,000

With regard to staffing, the Street Maintenance Division is not currently equipped to perform large-scale asphalt replacement operations. Shifting focus to asphalt replacement would take focus away from other core services, such as sidewalk leveling, traffic sign and signal maintenance, and pothole repairs. Four additional full-time positions – an Equipment Operator, two Maintenance Worker IIs and one Leadworker – would need to be added to the Public Works Department’s personnel budget to regularly deploy the equipment at an estimated annual cost of $425,000.

Establishing a large-scale asphalt replacement operation would require a substantial expansion of the Public Works Department and would have significant upfront and ongoing costs for the needed equipment and staffing.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #23

The City of Torrance performs some asphalt replacement in-house with a zipper attachment, but has indicated that they do not have the capacity to consider sharing resources at this time. The cities of Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach have expressed a willingness to explore partnership with Redondo, but additional research and outreach with Public Works personnel will be needed to determine the value and efficacy of a shared asphalt repair program.

Front-End Loader with Asphalt Zipper Attachment
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #24

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#24
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to add raised crosswalks and a speed table on Ford Avenue, and is it a feasible solution to improve pedestrian safety?
Response:

The Public Works Department and the District 4 Councilmember have received complaints about speeding and stop sign violations along Ford Avenue. There are several all-way stops along Ford Avenue. Like other stop-controlled intersections, they are solely dependent on driver behavior. There are no physical measures that compel drivers to proceed with caution. Stop sign compliance can be especially challenging along major street approaches like Ford Avenue if the intersecting minor street is low volume, one-way, and/or terminating.

Physical measures such as speed bumps and cushions are effective at forcing drivers to operate vehicles at slower speeds, which in turn improves safety. However, they are typically not placed at or near intersections. Speed cushions are typically placed midblock between intersection controls like stop signs, under the assumption that drivers comply with the stop signs. At intersections, physical speed control measures include raised crosswalks or intersections. A raised crosswalk brings the crosswalk up to sidewalk level, raising the profile of crossing pedestrians and creating a speed bump-like profile that forces drivers to reduce speed and make eye contact with conflicting approaches. A raised intersection is similar, where the entire intersection is raised to sidewalk level. The closest local example of a raised intersection is the Longfellow Street corridor in Santa Monica. Longfellow is an example of a “shared street” or “woonerf” as it is known in the Netherlands. Curbs were removed along Longfellow, which created raised and permeable intersections at intersecting streets with native planting and runoff features.

Raised intersections are costly and require a thorough study to account for drainage.

Engineers in the public Works Department performed a conceptual feasibility analysis to determine if a raised intersection could be installed along Ford Avenue. The intersection at Ford Avenue and Ormond Lane is a potential candidate for a raised intersection since it is located at a high point for both streets. This reduces drainage concerns, but a full survey and design would be required to determine actual feasibility and potential impacts on adjacent driveways. The cost to design and install a raised intersection at Ford Avenue Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #24

and Ormond Lane is estimated to be $150,000, with approximately $20,000 of the total dedicated to design costs.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #25

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#25
June 3, 2025
Question:

What would it cost to replace the fencing on the north side of Grant Avenue, west of the railroad bridge?
Response:

The 300-foot section of chain link fencing in this area has been in place for many years and is in dilapidated condition. Removing the existing fencing and replacing it with sixfoot, vinyl-coated, green chain link fencing is estimated to cost $66.30 per linear foot.

After adding a 15% contingency, the estimated cost to replace the fence is $22,900.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #26

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#26
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the cost for basketball hoop replacement, court resurfacing, and a mini dog run at the General Eaton Parkette?
Response:

The Public Works Department anticipates completing most of the improvements to the basketball hoop and court at General Eaton Parkette prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2024- 25 as part of its regular work program. Staff plans to re-stripe the basketball court, rather that resurface it, as a more cost-effective and immediate solution. Resurfacing would require assistance from a contractor, at an estimated cost of approximately $13,000, including a 20% contingency.

Installing a mini dog run in the parkette presents several challenges:
• Limited Space: There are existing concrete pads and mature trees that must be addressed in any layout.
• Close Proximity to Housing: Neighbors may be impacted by use of the parkette as a dog run.
• Adequate Sizing: Space must be functional to encourage regular use.

Given the parkette’s limited size and its location within a dense residential neighborhood, staff does not recommend proceeding with the installation of a dog run.

However, if Council decides to move forward, Area 4 (depicted below) presents the most viable option due to its larger size and ability to allow multiple dogs and their owners to gather comfortably.

The estimated costs for installing a fence, a gated entry point, and a few benches in this area is approximately $20,000. To reduce costs, staff recommends retaining the existing grass and concrete pads to monitor their condition over time.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #26

• Area 1 on the map provides approximately 1,800 square feet but includes trees that could impact usability.
• Areas 2 and 3 are each about 1,300 square feet and are not considered suitable due to their limited size.
• Area 4 offers the largest footprint at approximately 2,400 square feet. However, it includes concrete pads along the eastern edge of the park, which could complicate installation.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #27

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#27
June 10, 2025
Question:

What improvements have been completed at the Perry Park Teen Center to date, what additional amenities have been identified by the community and Youth Commission for installation, what is the estimated cost, and how much funding is available/recommended in the CIP for these items?
Response:

The Public Works Department has recently completed renovations to the Perry Park Teen Center, utilizing $107,000 (of the originally appropriated $144,000) in CIP funds to perform the following work:
• Removed unnecessary decorative structures from interior • Patched and painted interior walls, arches, restrooms, and kitchen area • Replaced new drywall where needed
• Closed-off the small service window in the kitchen
• Replaced existing drain sink connections and water shut-offs to retrofit for a commercial stainless-steel sink
• Removed and replaced approximately 1,700 square feet of colored floor tiles to match with existing blue and grey tiles
• Rebuilt four existing area heaters and installed four new thermostats • Relocated storage room door to create a large display wall to allow for the placement of a monitor
• Coated floor in kitchen and storage room with epoxy paint • Reglazed 72 existing windows adding new windowpanes and painted frames • Installed new rain gutters
• Repaired and repainted exterior of the building, including metal structures • Installed a new water bottle filling station
• Installed landscaping including new plants and drip irrigation system in the front planter
The FY 2025-26 CIP Budget proposes to add $21,000 of funding to the roughly $37,000 remaining in the Teen Center CIP account for a total of roughly $58,000 to purchase new furniture, furnishings, and equipment for the Center that have been identified by the community and Youth Commission. This includes, but is not limited to, couches, bookshelves, movable wall separators, televisions, game systems - including arcade games and skee-ball, a ping pong table, a pool table, outdoor furniture, kitchen furnishings (i.e. refrigerator, electric stove, and oven), a speaker system, and office furniture.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #27

Community & Youth Commission Feedback:

The 2024–2025 Youth Commission’s Teen Survey Subcommittee developed a Teen Survey to gather input on a range of teen-related topics, including interest in reopening the Teen Center. The survey received 214 responses from local teens. Overall, the responses highlighted that Redondo Beach teens desire to participate in social and recreational activities, creative and educational programs, and enjoy Teen Center amenities that satisfy their desire to spend time in a safe space:
• Social and Recreational Activities: Responding teens indicated they enjoy hanging out with friends, watching movies, participating in sports, online gaming, and trying new foods. Teens also expressed interest in game nights, themed social events, talent shows, and open mic nights.
• Creative and Educational Programs: Teens expressed interest in arts and crafts workshops, cooking/baking classes, music-related activities, and technologybased programs. Teens also showed interest in career preparation activities like workshops and job fairs.
• Teen Center Amenities and Safe Spaces: Many teens would like a dedicated space for studying, socializing, and gaming. There is also a high interest in the Teen Center providing a vending/snack area, tabletop game spaces, and pool tables. Teens would like the City to provide a safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment where they can relax and connect with friends.

Additionally, the Youth Commission provided verbal support for a variety of amenities for the Teen Center, including vintage arcade games, skee-ball, pinball machine, pickleball equipment, white board, gaming equipment (PS5), sound equipment, outdoor seating, dimming and colored lights, and lounge/ game space(s).

In a final effort to gather community input, City staff collaborated with the Youth Commission to host an Open House event at the Teen Center on Monday, April 14, 2025, from 5:00 to 6:00pm. During the event, staff presented conceptual layouts based on the feedback from the survey and the Youth Commission, allowing the teen attendees to review and provide additional input.

Based on the finalized layout and design needs, staff developed a preliminary equipment and furniture budget totaling $62,000. To fund these purchases, staff will utilize the remaining $58,000 in CIP funds, supplemented with $4,000 (if needed) from the Teen Center’s Special Departmental Supplies account. Procurement and installation are scheduled to take place from June through August 2025.

Staff will continue to work with the Youth Commission and local partners to plan an official re-opening celebration for the facility in September 2025. Additionally, the FY 2025-26 proposed budget includes new operating funding for teen programs and facility rental activities through Decision Packages 43 and 44 to support program materials, events, movie nights, and other teen-centered initiatives. The funding would also provide support for two part-time staff positions to enhance program delivery.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #28

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#28
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost of an AI software tool (information agent) to assist City residents and customers with online information and service requests? Response:

On April 24, 2025, the City Manager’s Office and the Information Technology team met with the City’s website solutions provider, Revize, who recently partnered with OpenAI (ChatGPT) to offer an integrated, conversational, AI chatbot for deployment on municipal websites. Revize’s chatbot utilizes machine learning to perform intelligent searches and deliver information based on content “learned” from the City’s published web pages, as well as additional data and forms provided by City staff. The enhancement tool would cost an estimated $3,200 per year, with an implementation period of approximately 90 days. The cost to implement the chatbot can be accommodated within the approved FY 2025–26 Budget for the Information Technology Department.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #29

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#29
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to replace/upgrade the City’s current Comcate customer service request/referral software program?
Response:

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Solution Options Modern Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software packages offer a wide range of functionalities tailored for municipalities, including contact management, customer engagement, communication tracking, task assignment, and workflow automation. With a variety of solutions available in the market today, the City must determine the most appropriate path forward.

Current System – Comcate (Access Redondo)
The City currently utilizes “Access Redondo,” a mid-tier CRM solution provided by Comcate. Designed specifically for small to mid-sized municipalities, Comcate holds a strong presence in the public sector market. Access Redondo has seen only minor updates over its approximately 20-year tenure with the City. On April 21, 2025, City staff met with Comcate representatives to review their latest product offering.

Comcate has developed a modernized version of its CRM application, enhancing both the web and mobile interfaces to deliver a more contemporary user experience. While the core functionality remains consistent, this upgrade offers the least disruption to existing operations and user workflows, with minimal implementation costs. It also presents the most seamless transition for both staff and external users. Upgrading to Comcate’s latest product offering would result in a one-time cost of $23,900 with little change to annual subscription costs being paid currently.

Alternative Mid-Tier Solutions
The City may consider transitioning to an alternative mid-tier CRM platform, such as FreshDesk, CivicPlus, or Zoho. These options could introduce new features and offer the opportunity to redesign how the City engages with its residents. However, adopting a new system would entail significant additional costs, including extended procurement and implementation timelines, staff and constituent retraining, data migration, and increased annual software expenses.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #29

While pricing may vary, a reasonable budget estimate would require a one-time expenditure of approximately $400,000 to the Information Technology Fund and an ongoing annual additional expense of $100,000.

Enterprise-Level CRM Solutions
Alternatively, the City could explore top-tier CRM platforms such as Salesforce, Oracle, or Microsoft Dynamics. These enterprise-level solutions are highly customizable and capable of supporting complex workflows and must be customized to provide the functionality necessary, which requires extensive knowledge to configure and maintain the platform. Implementation costs can reach the high six-figure, to low seven-figure range, with substantial annual licensing fees. A similarly sized public-sector agency recently implemented SalesForce CRM with a $1.2 million dollar implementation cost and an annual licensing cost of $180,000.

Staff recommends proceeding with Comcate’s latest CRM offering. This option is the most cost-effective, requires minimal training for both staff and constituents, and adequately meets the City’s functional needs without adding unnecessary complexity. To move forward with Comcate, a one-time $23,900 increase to the Information Technology Fund is required, and an annual $4,000 will need to be budgeted annually to fully fund the updated platform.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #30

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#30
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to paint the Artesia & Grant train crossing bridges and what funding is available in the proposed Budget to complete this work? Response:

The train crossing bridges over Grant Avenue and Artesia Boulevard are owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). In 2024, the City entered into a license agreement with Metro to paint the exteriors, pillars, and undersides of the bridges. Staff solicited order of magnitude cost quotes from local painting contractors. The scope of work for the estimates includes repainting of all previously painted areas, along with concrete, metal framing, center columns, bridge beams, ladders, handrails, adjacent street level retaining walls, and concrete fascia.

Traffic control was estimated for 10 days during normal working hours and would include lane closures, traffic cones, delineators, signs, and on-site staff to flag the work zone.

The estimated costs are as follows:

Paint Artesia Bridge $77,000
Paint Grant Avenue Bridge $84,000
Traffic Control $43,000
Total $204,000
The proposed Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY 2025-26 includes a new project to paint the bridges, funded by $225,000 of general discretion Capital Program Funds.

Subsequent to the request for budget estimates to paint, staff became aware that lead abatement on the bridges may be required before painting. The City’s on-call environmental consultant, Ellis Environmental Management, Inc. (Ellis) was engaged to inspect the bridge and prepare a memo regarding hazardous material abatement. The report is attached and indicates the presence of lead paint, which will need to be abated.

The abatement work includes removal and containment of all hazardous materials, legal disposal of all waste and debris, and monitoring/reporting by an environmental compliance consultant. The abatement work is a relatively predictable cost, however, there is considerable variation in estimated costs to access the bridges to do the work.

Freight trains use the railroads daily. The bridges span two lanes of car traffic on Grant Avenue and four lanes of heavy traffic on Artesia Blvd. Details of the construction Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #30

conditions allowed by the City of Redondo Beach and the City of Lawndale will impact the cost of access, which would potentially include setting and removing scaffolding, traffic control, lane closures, full road closures with detours, night work, and/or weekend work.

The potential for the painting and abatement contractors to collaborate may be a way to reduce costs. The restrictions imposed by the two cities, along with the resulting contract specifications, will significantly impact the time and costs required to access the work, making it difficult to have full confidence in an abatement estimate.

That said, staff has been working with Ellis Environmental and some of their known abatement contractors to develop an estimated range of cost. The given abatement costs per bridge range from $125,000 to $175,000, with the caveat that contract details will be necessary to provide a more reliable estimate.

Staff is prepared to explore creative cost-saving options, such as closing lanes overnight for a 24-hour work period to complete the work more efficiently. Although the currently proposed CIP budget will likely not be sufficient to abate and paint both bridges, staff anticipates at least one bridge could be completed this year. Funding may become available next year to complete the second bridge.

It should be noted that half of the Artesia Bridge is located within the City of Lawndale.

Informal inquiries with Lawndale staff indicate a willingness to allow the City of Redondo Beach to perform the work, however a financial partnership does not appear likely.

Grant Avenue Train Bridge
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #30

Artesia Boulevard Train Bridge
879 W. 190th Street, Suite 400
Gardena, CA 90248
Tel: (310) 544 1837
www.ellisenvironmental.com
Environmental Testing ▫ Contract Administration ▫ Site Assessments and Closure May 13, 2025
Mr. Gary Laolagi
City of Redondo Beach, Public Works
531 N. Gertruda Ave.

Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: Sampling for Asbestos and Lead – Client-Specified Locations Grant Avenue Bridge – 4617 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 90278

1. Executive Summary
On March 7, 2025, Ellis conducted an inspection for possible asbestos- and lead-containing materials in client-specified locations (only) at the subject site. Sampling and inspections were performed on the bridge prior to planned repainting efforts – see photos and Figures 1-2. Results are summarized below.

Asbestos
No asbestos was identified in sampled materials, which included:

1. tar / coating on metal

2. concrete

3. tar / mastic on wood platform

4. coating on metal support / handrail
No other materials were sampled. Reference the “Results” section and Table 1 for a complete list of asbestos-related samples
Lead
The following sampled paint is “lead-based” (>0.06 % lead by wt.):

1. white wood paint

2. beige metal handrail paint

3. metal platform support paint

4. multicolored beam web and flange paint
A licensed abatement contractor is required for the removal or disturbance of the lead-based paints listed above.

The following sampled paint is “lead-containing” (<0.06 % lead by wt.):

1. beige concrete paint
Avoid torching, welding, or abrading on lead-containing paints without prior exposure monitoring. See “Results” section and attached lead “Trigger Tasks” for more information. Also reference Table 2 for a complete list of lead-related samples.

This was not a complete hazardous materials survey; only client-specified locations and materials were sampled. Any materials not identified in existing reports should be sampled prior to disturbance. The removal of asbestos- and lead-containing materials is regulated by SCAQMD Rule 1403 (asbestos only), Cal/OSHA Title 8 § 1529, Cal/OSHA Title 8 § 1532.1, and their federal regulatory counterparts. See attached regulatory summaries.

2. Methodology
All samples were collected by Andrew Meyer (CSST #24-7678, CDPH #12221) and Nikk Norris (CSST #22-7183, CDPH #9376), both EPA course-certified building inspectors employed by Ellis.

Each sample was placed in a sealed container and provided with a unique identifying number.

Samples were transported to an EPA/NVLAP – accredited laboratory and analyzed by the following methods as appropriate for the sampled material:
• Asbestos. 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart F, Appendix A. (AHERA Final Rule). Results expressed in percent of measured area.
• Lead in Paint. Flame AAS (SW 846 EPA method 3050B/7000B). Results expressed in percent by weight.

3. Inaccessible Areas
Sampling was limited to client-specified materials and locations (only) – see drawings and Section 1 above. There is a chance that additional suspect materials (e.g. pipe insulation above hard ceilings) may be exposed during renovation or demolition efforts. Such materials, if not identified in existing reports, should be sampled and analyzed prior to disturbance.

4. Results
Refer to the attached drawing and laboratory analysis reports.

Asbestos
No asbestos was identified in the following sampled materials:

1. tar / coating on metal

2. concrete

3. tar / mastic on wood platform

4. coating on metal support / handrail
No other materials were sampled. See Tables 1-2 and Figures 1-2 for a complete list of sampled materials and their locations.

The removal of any material containing asbestos in an amount greater than one percent (AsbestosContaining Material or ACM) is regulated under EPA-SCAQMD Rule 1403, 29 CFR 1926.1101 (federal OSHA) and other state and local guidelines. Removal of any material containing asbestos in an amount greater than 0.1 percent is also regulated, under Cal-OSHA Title 8 Section 1529.

Asbestos-containing waste material (ACWM) generated during the removal of friable and nonfriable ACM must be disposed of as hazardous asbestos waste and non-hazardous asbestos waste, respectively. For asbestos-containing materials with asbestos concentrations of less than 1% but greater than 0.1%, so called Asbestos-Containing Construction Materials or ACCM, waste generated during abatement activities may be disposed of as standard construction waste but must

still be removed by a DOSH registered abatement contractor. Prior to renovation or demolition, retain a licensed abatement contractor to remove asbestos materials identified.

Lead
The following sampled paint is “lead-based” (>0.06 % lead by wt.):

1. white wood paint – (0.13% lead by wt.)

2. beige metal handrail paint – (6.8% lead by wt.)

3. metal platform support paint – (9.9% lead by wt.)

4. multicolored beam web and flange paint – (6.6 – 8.3% lead by wt.) A licensed abatement contractor is required for the removal or disturbance of the lead-based paint listed above. Drum and profile all uniquely generated waste streams prior to transportation or disposal. See attached regulatory summaries for more information.

The following sampled paints are “lead-containing” (<0.06 % lead by wt.):

1. beige concrete paint – (0.023 – 0.030% lead by wt.)
Avoid torching, welding, or abrading on lead-containing paints without prior exposure monitoring as is stipulated in Cal/OSHA Title 8 § 1532.1. Reference the attached lead “Trigger Tasks” document for additional information on “lead-based” (>.06%) and “lead-containing” (<.06%) paints and work practices.

No other materials were sampled. See Tables 1-2 and Figures 1-2 for a complete list of sampled materials and their locations.

The disturbance of lead-containing materials is regulated by Cal/OSHA Title 8 § 1532.1, California Department of Public Health CDPH Title 17, and their federal regulatory counterparts. See attached regulatory summaries.

5. Statement of Independence
Ellis is a privately held company and is not affiliated with any financial institution or other corporate entity. Ellis is retained as an independent contractor to provide objective, impartial investigation or analytical services regarding environmentally regulated hazardous or toxic materials. This report is not an endorsement or rejection of any specific methods used in handling or transport of potentially hazardous chemicals. Nor is it intended as a complete hazardous materials survey of the entire building or facility. Ellis provides independent testing for asbestos, lead, indoor air contaminants and other potentially hazardous materials. The company and its employees are certified and licensed to practice in the State of California. Retained laboratories are accredited by the EPA (AREAL), NIOSH (AIHA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Respectfully Submitted:

ELLIS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

Prepared by:

Ryan C. Davidson
Senior Project Manager
CAC #15-5395
CDPH #0368
Proj. No.: 25-226 Distribution: Gary Laolagi, Mike Klein

Photos
(above) Lead-based white wood paint, beige handrail paint, multicolor metal support paint, beam paint, and lead-containing concrete paint.

REF. MATERIAL

MATERIAL
LOCATION FRIABLE DAMAGE % ASB QTY* UNIT
A1, A2, A3,
A4, A5 tar / coating on metal see Figures 1-2 - -
none
detected - ft²
A6, A7, A8,
A9, A10 concrete see Figures 1-2 - -
none
detected - ft²
A11, A12,
A13
tar / mastic on wood
platform see Figures 1-2 - -
none
detected - ft²
A14, A15,
A16
coating on metal support
/ handrail see Figures 1-2 - -
none
detected - ft²
Not a complete survey; only client-specified materials were sampled.

IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS MATERIALS

NON-ASBESTOS MATERIALS

NONE IDENTIFIED
Ellis
Table 1
Asbestos Results Summary
City of Redondo Beach
Train Bridge
4617 Artesia Blvd.

SHEET 1 OF 1
Proj. #25-226
Sample Dates: 4/29/25
REF. MATERIAL
LEAD

RESULTS
(% by wt.)
LEADBASED?
(>0.06% by
wt.)
LEADCONTAINING?
(>0.01 to <0.06%
by wt.)
L1 white wood paint 0.13% YES -
L2 beige metal handrail paint 6.8% YES -
L4 metal platform support paint 9.9% YES -
L5 multicolored beam web paint 8.3% YES -
L6 muilticolored beam flange paint 6.6% YES -
L3 beige concrete paint (east bound) 0.030% no YES
L7 beige concrete paint (west bound) 0.023% no YES
Not a complete survey; only client-specified materials and locations were sampled. See report text.

Ellis
Table 2
Lead Results Summary
City of Redondo Beach
Train Bridge
4617 Artesia Blvd.

SHEET 1 OF 1
Proj. #25-226
Sample Dates: 4/29/25
Ellis Environmental Management
430 Silver Spur Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Date Collected 04/29/2025
Project Desc: 25-226 - City of Redondo - 4617 Artesia Blvd, Bridge - Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Date Received 04/29/2025
Date Analyzed 05/02/2025
Date Reported 05/02/2025
Accreditation: NVLAP Lab Code 600117-0
Methodology:

Sample Count: Samples Submitted: 16; Layers Analyzed: 16 EPA Method 600/R-93/116
PLM Asbestos Report Job ID: 107553
15200 Grevillea Ave
Suite A
Lawndale, CA 90260
Phone: 310-431-9270
www.pinnaclelab.com
Composition %
Asbestos
Materials
Composition %
Non-Asbestos
Materials
Sample Description
Sample Color
Client Sample Location
Asbestos
Detected?
(Yes/No)
Lab ID #
Client Sample ID #
Layer #
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) Analysis for Bulk
107553-001 No
A1
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Underside/Metal Coating/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-002 No
A2
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Underside/Metal Coating/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-003 No
A3
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Underside/Metal Coating/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-004 No
A4
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Underside/Metal Coating/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-005 No
A5
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Underside/Metal Coating/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-006 No
A6
1 Concrete
Gray
Concrete
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-007 No
A7
1 Concrete
Gray
Concrete
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-008 No
A8
1 Concrete
Gray
Concrete
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-009 No
A9
1 Concrete
Gray
Concrete
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-010 No
A10
1 Concrete
Gray
Concrete
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-011 No
A11
1 Mastic
Black
Wood Platform - Mastic/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
05/02/2025 Page 1 of 2
Composition %
Asbestos
Materials
Composition %
Non-Asbestos
Materials
Sample Description
Sample Color
Client Sample Location
Asbestos
Detected?
(Yes/No)
Lab ID #
Client Sample ID #
Layer #
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) Analysis for Bulk
107553-012 No
A12
1 Mastic
Black
Wood Platform - Mastic/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-013 No
A13
1 Mastic
Black
Wood Platform - Mastic/Tar
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-014 No
A14
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Metal Support/Handrail Coating - Platform
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-015 No
A15
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Metal Support/Handrail Coating - Platform
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
107553-016 No
A16
1 Coating
Beige/Black
Metal Support/Handrail Coating - Platform
Non-Fibrous Material
100%
None Detected
Approval: Steve Vaughn (Laboratory Manager)

END OF REPORT

Disclaimer: Bulk sample(s) submitted was (were) analyzed in accordance with the procedures outlined in EPA-600/R-93/116 (Method for Determination of Asbestos in Building Materials, 1993) and Appendix E to Subpart E of 40 CFR Part 763.

Samples were analyzed using Calibrated Visual Estimations (CVES); therefore, results may not be reliable for samples of low asbestos concentration levels. This report applies only to the items as received in the lab. "None Detected" means that no asbestos was observed in the sample. "< 1%" (less than one percent) means that asbestos was observed in the sample but the concentration is below the quantifiable level of 1%. This report may not be reproduced, except in full without the expressed written consent of Pinnacle Laboratory. This report may not be used to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NIST, NVLAP, AQMD, or any government agency.

Analyst: Megan De Lara(Analyst)
05/02/2025 Page 2 of 2

Client SampleDescription Collected Analyzed Weight RDL Lead Concentration Test Report: Lead in Paint Chips by Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B/7000B)* LA Testing
5431 Industrial Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Phone/Fax: (714) 828-4999 / (714) 828-4944
http://www.LATesting.com [email protected]
Attn: Results
Ellis Environmental Management, Inc.
879 W. 190th St
Suite 400
Gardena, CA 90248
Received: 4/30/2025 08:00 AM
25-226 - CITY OF REDONDO - 4617 ARTESIA BLVD, BRIDGE - REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278 Fax:

Phone: (310) 544-1837
Project:

Collected: 4/29/2025
332512387
CustomerID: 32EEMI45
CustomerPO: 25-226
ProjectID:

LA Testing Order:

Site: WHITE WOOD PAINT
5/6/2025 0.275g 0.13 % wt
332512387-0001
L1 4/29/2025 0.0064 % wt
Site: BEIGE HANDRAIL PAINT - METAL
5/6/2025 0.269g 6.8 % wt
332512387-0002
L2 4/29/2025 0.64 % wt
Site: BEIGE CONCRETE- CENTER / EAST BOUND - COMPOSITE
5/6/2025 0.26g 0.030 % wt
332512387-0003
L3 4/29/2025 0.0064 % wt
Site: PLATFORM METAL SUPPORT PAINT
5/6/2025 0.2772g 9.9 % wt
332512387-0004
L4 4/29/2025 0.64 % wt
Site: MULTICOLORED BEAM FACE PAINT
5/6/2025 0.2722g 8.3 % wt
332512387-0005
L5 4/29/2025 0.64 % wt
Site: MULTICOLORED BRIDGE UNDERSIDE PAINT
5/6/2025 0.295g 6.6 % wt
332512387-0006
L6 4/29/2025 0.64 % wt
Site: WEST BOUND - CONCRETE PAINT
5/6/2025 0.2871g 0.023 % wt
332512387-0007
L7 4/29/2025 0.0064 % wt
Test Report PB w/RDL-2.0.0.0 Printed: 5/6/2025 10:04:54 AM Page 1 of 1 Michael Chapman, Laboratory Manager
or other approved signatory
LA Testing maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by LA Testing. LA Testing bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted.

Analysis following Lead in Paint by LA Testing SOP/Determination of Environmental Lead by FLAA. Reporting limit is 0.008% wt based on the minimum sample weight per our SOP. "<" (less than) result signifies the analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. Measurement of uncertainty is available upon request. Definitions of modifications are available upon request.

Samples analyzed by LA Testing Huntington Beach, CA AIHA LAP, LLC-ELLAP Accredited #101650, CA ELAP 1406 Initial report from 05/06/2025 10:04:54
OrderID: 332512387

OrderID: 332512387

OrderID: 332512387 Page 3 Of 3

LEAD HAZARD EVALUATION REPORT
State of California—Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Public Health Section 1 — Date of Lead Hazard Evaluation _____________________ Section 3 — Structure Where Lead Hazard Evaluation Was Conducted Lead Inspection Risk assessment Clearance Inspection Other (specify) _____________________________ City County Zip Code
Construction date (year)
of structure
Type of structure
Multi-unit building School or daycare
Single family dwelling
Section 4 — Owner of Structure (if business/agency, list contact person) Address [number, street, apartment (if applicable)] City State Name Telephone number
Section 5 — Results of Lead Hazard Evaluation (check all that apply) No lead-based paint detected
No lead hazards detected
Intact lead-based paint detected
Lead-contaminated dust found
Section 6 — Individual Conducting Lead Hazard Evaluation Name
Name and CDPH certification number of any other individuals conducting sampling or testing (if applicable) CDPH certification number Signature Date
Section 7 — Attachments
A. A foundation diagram or sketch of the structure indicating the specifc locations of each lead hazard or presence of lead-based paint;
B. Each testing method, device, and sampling procedure used; C. All data collected, including quality control data, laboratory results, including laboratory name, address, and phone number.

First copy and attachments retained by inspector
Second copy and attachments retained by owner
Third copy only (no attachments) mailed or faxed to:

California Department of Public Health
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch Reports
850 Marina Bay Parkway, Building P, Third Floor
Richmond, CA 94804-6403
Fax: (510) 620-5656
CDPH 8552 (6/07)
Zip Code
Address [number, street, apartment (if applicable)] City State Zip Code Telephone number
Section 2 — Type of Lead Hazard Evaluation (Check one box only) Address [number, street, apartment (if applicable)]
Other____________
No
Deteriorated lead-based paint detected
Lead-contaminated soil found Other____________________
Yes
Don’t Know
Children living in structure?
Ryan Davidson

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS – LEAD
California Title 8. Industrial Relations, Division 1, Department of Industrial Relations, Chapter 4, Division of Industrial Safety, Subchapter 4, Construction Safety Orders, Article 4, Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors, and Gases, §1532.1, Lead.

This section applies to all construction work where an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead. All construction work excluded from coverage in the general industry standard for lead by section 5198(a)(2) is covered by this standard. Construction work is defined as work for construction, alteration and/or repair, including painting and decorating. It includes but is not limited to the following:
(1) Demolition or salvage of structures where lead or materials containing lead are present; (2) Removal or encapsulation of materials containing lead; (3) New construction, alteration, repair, or renovation of structures, substrates, or portions thereof, that contain lead, or materials containing lead;
(4) Installation of products containing lead;
(5) Lead contamination/emergency cleanup;
(6) Transportation, disposal, storage, or containment of lead or materials containing lead on the site or location at which construction activities are performed, and (7) Maintenance operations associated with the construction activities described in this subsection.

California Health & Safety Code 17961 et al.

Deems a building to be in violation of state law if it contains lead hazards, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce provisions related to lead hazards. Makes it a crime for a person to engage in specified acts related to lead hazard evaluation, abatement, and lead-related construction courses unless certified or accredited by the Department. Permits local enforcement agencies to order the abatement of lead hazards or issue a cease and desist order in response to lead hazards.

California Labor Code 6716 to 6717 Lead-Related Activities in Construction Work Provides for the establishment of standards that protect the health and safety of employees who engage in lead-related construction work, including construction, demolition, renovation and repair.

California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 35001 Includes requirements for lead hazard evaluation and abatement activities, accreditation of training providers, and certification of individuals engaged in lead-based paint activities.

LEAD - “TRIGGER TASKS”
(SOURCE: California Title 8 Section 1532.1.)
Following testing, Construction Managers and Superintendents may use the following to decide whether (and for how long) an abatement contractor should be retained during disturbance of painted surfaces.

Paint Categories

1. Lead-Based. >.06% Lead by Weight. Start-to-finish, retain an abatement contractor to perform trigger tasks listed below.

2. Lead-Containing. 0.009 – 0.06% lead by weight. Avoid torching or mechanical grinding; no other special precautions.

3. Non-Lead-Containing <.009% lead by weight. No special lead-related precautions required.

TRIGGER TASKS - Lead-Based Paints Only:

Lowest Exposure Trigger Tasks:

Unless proven otherwise (Negative Exposure Assessment, or "NEA"), assume exposures greater than 50 and up to 500 μg/m3 where lead-based coatings or paint are present:
• manual demolition of structures
• manual scraping
• manual sanding
• heat gun applications
• power tool cleaning with dust collection system
• spray painting with lead
• any other task where employees may be exposed over the PEL.

Medium Exposure Trigger Tasks:

Unless proven otherwise (NEA), assume exposures greater than 500 and up to 2,500 μg/m3 where leadbased coatings or paint are present:
• use of lead-containing mortar
• lead burning
• rivet busting
• power tool cleaning without dust collection systems
• cleanup of dry expendable abrasives
• abrasive blasting enclosure movement and removal
Highest Exposure Trigger Tasks:

Assume exposures greater than 2,500 μg/m3 unless proven otherwise where lead-based coatings or paint are present:
• abrasive blasting
• welding
• cutting
• torch burning
Ellis www.ellisenvironmental.com 310 544 1837
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS – ASBESTOS
Current state and federal regulations pertaining to asbestos are summarized below. The summary is not all-inclusive, and does not address specific removal or disposal requirements for individual materials.

NESHAPS
The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), regulation 40 CFR Part 61, states that no visible emissions are allowed during building demolition or renovation activities which involve regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACMs). All buildings, regardless of construction date, must be surveyed for ACMs prior to demolition or renovation. The US EPA and/or the local air quality management district which implements US EPA actions must be notified prior to any building demolition, even if no ACMs are present. An ACM is defined as any material with an asbestos content of greater than one percent and which (a) is friable, or (b) Category I non-friable ACM that has or will become friable, or (c) Category II friable ACM that may become or will become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of demolition or renovation.

According to NESHAP, ACM is material containing more than one percent asbestos as determined using the methods specified in Appendix A, Subpart E, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, PLM. The NESHAP classifies ACM as friable or non-friable. Friable ACM is ACM that contains more than one percent asbestos and when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

Non-friable ACM also contains more than one percent asbestos and is further classified as either Category I ACM or Category II ACM. The materials are distinguished by their potential to release fibers when damaged. Category I ACMs are much more likely to release fibers when damaged.

In accordance with the US EPA's NESHAP regulation, facilities planned for renovation or demolition must be surveyed for the total amount of asbestos materials, which must be categorized as friable, Category 1 non-friable, and Category 2 non-friable ACMs.

Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The SCAQMD is a government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the area of the Los Angeles and surrounding counties. The District’s regulating and enforcement authority comes from federal law. In response to the NESHAP requirements, the SCAQMD implemented Rule 1403 to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.

AHERA
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires performance of asbestos surveys and the development of Asbestos Management Plans for all of the nation's primary and secondary schools. The general procedures mandated under AHERA are considered the industry standard and are applied to all surveys performed.

Ellis www.ellisenvironmental.com 310 544 1837
Cal-OSHA
Per Cal-OSHA standards, Title 8 § 1529, Asbestos-Containing Construction Materials (ACCMs) are defined as any material with an asbestos content greater than one-tenth of one percent (>0.1%). Cal-OSHA sets forth requirements to register with the agency as a licensed abatement contractor for activities which may disturb ACCM’s; however, though registration as a licensed abatement contractor is not required for the disturbance of asbestos concentrations below 0.1%, OSHA still maintains work practice requirements and prohibitions for asbestos in materials at any concentration – See section 1.1 below. Cal-OSHA requirements for ACM and ACCM have been classified as Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV Asbestos related work. The classes are distinguished by their potential to release fibers. Cal-OSHA prescribes specific engineering controls and work practices for each Class of Asbestos related Work.

1. Class I – This Class refers to removal of ACMs identified as Thermal System Insulation (TSI) or surfacing (sprayed-on or troweled-on) materials. These materials are generally considered friable.

2. Class II – This Class refers to removal of ACMs identified that are not TSI or surfacing materials.

These materials are generally considered non-friable.

3. Class III – This Class refers to repair and maintenance operations of all identified ACMs.

4. Class IV – This Class refers to incidental contact with identified ACMs such as custodial staff.

1.1 OSHA / Cal-OSHA – Work Practice Requirements for Asbestos at Concentrations Less Than 0.1% asbestos
Per OSHA Interpretation Letter 2003-11-24-0:
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2003-11-24-0 Those work practice requirements and prohibitions that must be observed regardless of the exposure levels and of the percentage of asbestos in the installed construction materials are:
 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(1)(ii), which requires: wet methods, or wetting agents, to control employee exposures during asbestos handling, mixing, removal, cutting, application, and cleanup, except where employers demonstrate that the use of wet methods is infeasible due to, for example, the creation of electrical hazards, equipment malfunction, and, in roofing, except as provided in paragraph (g)(8)(ii)
2 of this section;
 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(1)(iii), which requires: prompt clean-up and disposal of wastes and debris contaminated with asbestos in leak-tight containers except in roofing operations, where the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(8)(ii)
3 of this section apply;
 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(3)(i), which prohibits: high-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point-of-cut ventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air;  29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(3)(ii), which prohibits: compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials containing asbestos, unless the compressed air is used in conjunction with an enclosed ventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud created by the compressed air; and
 29 CFR 1926.1101(g)(3)(iv), which prohibits: employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.
 29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(2)(i), the provision for establishing that neither asbestos PEL is exceeded: Each employer who has a workplace or work operation covered by this standard shall ensure that a "competent person" conducts an exposure assessment immediately before or at the initiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during that operation or workplace. The assessment must be completed in time to comply with requirements which are triggered by exposure data or the lack of a "negative exposure assessment," and to Ellis www.ellisenvironmental.com 310 544 1837
provide information necessary to assure that all control systems planned are appropriate for that operation and will work properly;
 29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(6)(i), a provision covering the observation of monitoring: The employer shall provide affected employees and their designated representatives an opportunity to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in accordance with this section;
 29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(5)(i), a provision covering employee notification of monitoring results: The employer shall notify affected employees of the monitoring results that represent that employee's exposure as soon as possible following receipt of monitoring results;  29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(5)(ii), another provision covering employee notification of monitoring results: The employer shall notify affected employees of the results of monitoring representing the employee's exposure in writing either individually or by posting at a centrally located place that is accessible to affected employees; and  29 CFR 1926.1101(n)(2)(i)-(iii), a set of provisions covering recordkeeping for measurements of exposures to airborne asbestos.

California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code 25915 (former Connelly Bill) requires all building owners in the State of California to provide written notification to employees, tenants, and contractors of the presence and location of ACCMs within their buildings. Some exclusion to the notification rule for restricted access areas is allowed. All documentation related to asbestos surveys (and air monitoring) must be made available to employees, tenants, or contractors for review. ACCMs are defined as any materials with an asbestos content greater than one-tenth of one percent (>0.1%). The California Health and Safety Code also require that a seller with any knowledge of ACMs on a property disclose such information or knowledge to other parties involved in a real estate transaction.

Building Demolition / Renovation
In accordance with the US EPA's NESHAPs regulation and the SCAQMD, all structures planned for renovation or demolition must be surveyed for ACMs prior to the planned renovation or demolition.

Subsequent removal of identified ACMs is also required. Removal involves, to the greatest extent practical, the complete removal, disposal, and replacement, if necessary, of the ACMs. Removal usually also requires encapsulation of the remaining structure to lock down residual fibers which may exist.

Removal of ACMs is required prior to renovation and/or demolition activities. The US EPA and SCAQMD require removal of all RACMs prior to demolition or renovation. RACMs include friable and non-friable (Category I and II) which have or will become friable by demolition or renovation activities.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #31

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#31
June 10, 2025
Question:

What special events were designated as “Signature Events” and received City subsidy in Fiscal Year 2024-25? What corrections/adjustments need to be made to the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget document for inclusion in the Adopted Budget? Response:

Special events that take place on public property are categorized as one of the following:
a Signature Event, City-initiated event, or other event. Signature Events are designated by the Mayor and City Council as having community benefit and receive subsidized support and/or staff assistance in predetermined amounts. Each event receives an assigned level of support, which is identified by Council according to the event’s specific needs. The list of Signature Events is reviewed annually as part of the budget process.

For FY 2024-25, a total of $53,500 was allocated as follows.

EVENT SUBSIDY
AMOUNT

TOTAL CITY
FEES
Halloween Trick or Treat Stroll $2,500 $2,468
Riviera Village Holiday Stroll $2,500 $5,077
Christmas Boat Parade $4,000 $55
Redondo Beach Super Bowl Sunday 10K $10,000 $64,648
Springfest $13,000 $7,423
LA Kings 5K & Hydrocephalus LA Walk $7,000 $16,338
Riviera Village Summer Festival $12,500 TBD
*King Harbor Sea Fair $2,000 TBD
*A FY 2025-26 Special Event Application has not been received.

Events that do not receive a City subsidy are required to pay the full cost of all applicable special event fees. Continuation of the above fee waivers (signature event subsidies) in the listed amounts has been included in the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget. No Budget adjustments are required to maintain the current level of support.

Evolving Security Requirements
During the June 3, 2025, Public Hearing on the proposed FY 2025-26 Budget, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce requested an increase in the City subsidy amount for the Super Bowl Sunday 10K, citing significantly higher City service costs.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #31

Recent national and international security concerns have necessitated tighter protective measures at events that occupy public roadways. Hard barricades, such as water-filled barriers or parked public safety/Public Works vehicles, have replaced cones and caution tape. Additionally, Traffic Control Plans undergo rigorous review and adjustment. These enhanced requirements increase labor costs for police staffing and public works crews, and drive additional overtime. The table below demonstrates the year over year cost escalation for the Super Bowl 10K in these areas:

Cost Escalation: Super Bowl Sunday 10K FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Public Safety (Police Fees/Staff) $14,580 $17,214
Public Works (Street Maintenance/Staff) $9,946 $28,055
TOTAL $24,526 $45,269
The FY 2024-25 invoice to the Chamber totaled $54,648.12, inclusive of the City’s $10,000 subsidy. Of that amount, $16,935 reflects a two-day reservation of Seaside Lagoon, based on rates adopted by Council as part of the FY 2024-25 fee schedule and calculated for 1,900 attendees.

For reference, below is the cost escalation for the LA Kings 5K Run, specific to public safety and Public Works costs:

Cost Escalation: LA Kings 5K FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Public Safety (Police Fees/Staff) $8,100 $11,250
Public Works (Street Maintenance Only) $3,840 $3,840
TOTAL $11,940 $15,090
Total FY 2024-25 charges for the 5K Run were $16,337.69. The LA Kings engaged a private barricade contractor and did not rent Seaside Lagoon. As such, their event incurred no charges for vehicle placement to secure intersections or facility-rental fees.

There are several options available to the Chamber of Commerce and other event coordinators in the City to mitigate these costs, including:

1. Increase participant entry fees to mirror current market conditions and security obligations.

2. Contract early with a barricade vendor to design a Traffic Control Plan that minimizes reliance on City crews and equipment.

3. Re-evaluate the necessity of reserving Seaside Lagoon or consider alternate venues.

According to the Chamber’s 2023 Form 990, the Super Bowl 10K generated $422,401 in gross receipts against $254,759 in direct expenses, yielding net proceeds of $167,642.

In light of this positive margin and the security-driven nature of the recent fee increases, staff recommends that the Chamber pursue all three of the above mitigation options before the City considers committing additional subsidy.

Special Event Invoice
DATE: 20-Feb-25
415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
DATE OF EVENT: 14-Sep-24
EVENT: LA Kings 5K in Redondo Beach & Hydrocephalus LA Walk SPONSOR: LA Kings
ADDRESS/CITY: 555 N Nash St, El Segundo, CA 90245
CONTACT: Jen Pope, 845-304-2241

DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
DUE ACT NO.

PROJECT
NO.

Community Services Special Event Processing Fee $ 165.00 10032000-405520 S9999 Public Works/Eng. Div.

Street Closure Permit/inspection.

ID/signature required in Eng/Door E paid 10052100-410720 S9999 Fire Fire Inspection Fee $ 169.00 10022100-410500 S9999 Fire/Harbor Patrol Fire Dept Standby - 10022400-410520 S9999 Waterfront/Econ Dev Tidelands Revenues - 60045200-405010 S9999 Waterfront/Econ Dev Uplands Revenues - 60145200-405010 S9999 Police/Staffing Police Fees/Staffing $ 11,250.00 10021180-410910 S9999 Police/Sound Variance Sound Variance Permit - 10021150-410910 S9999 Police/Parking
Enforcement
Parking Meter Fees
(87 spaces x 6 hours) $ 913.50 10021200-410900 S9999
Public Works Street Maintenance $ 3,840.19 10051800-411920 S9999 Engineering Building Inspection - 100422-410500 S9999
Engineering After-Hours Building Inspection - 10042200-410500 M1093 SUBTOTAL $ 16,337.69
City of Redondo Beach Subsidy $ (7,000)
TOTAL DUE: $ 9,337.69
Note: invoice based on estimated services--actuals may be higher.

Insurance/Waiver of Liability Cleared on: 2/12/24
Conditions of approval:

1. 20' fire lanes required throughout venue.

2. Redondo Beach Business Licensing requirements apply.

3. Temporary no parking signs must be posted starting 72 hours prior to the event taking effect. Permittee responsible for daily inspection of signs to ensure they have not been altered or removed. Temporary No Parking approval form must be filled out daily with photos: one up close and one long shot of the posted areas. Daily inspection approval and photos must be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected].
** All Health Department, ABC, and other governmental regulations must be obeyed ** * For weekend/off-hour emergency contact list, call Police Front Desk: 310-379-2477.

DATE: 19-Feb-25
DATE OF EVENT: February 10-11, 2024
EVENT: Redondo Beach Super Bowl Sunday Run
SPONSOR: Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
ADDRESS/CITY: 514 N Prospect Ave #301, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 CONTACT: Dominik Knoll, 310-376-6911, ext 21

DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DUE
Business License Business License Tax, $34x1 day -
Community Services Special Event Processing Fee $ 55.00 Public Works/Eng. Div.

Street Closure Permit/inspection.

ID/signature required in Eng/Door E $ 686.00
Fire Fire Inspection Fee $ -
Fire/Harbor Patrol
Fire Dept Standby - paramedic
fee $ 1,252.52
Waterfront/Econ Dev Tidelands Revenues -
Waterfront/Econ Dev Uplands Revenues -
Police/Staffing
Police Fees/Staffing - 108 staff
hrs $ 17,213.82
Police/Sound Variance Sound Variance Permit $ 79.00
Police/Parking
Enforcement
Parking Meter Fees
62 spaces x 4 hrs $ 372.00
Public Works Street Maintenance & Staff $ 28,054.78
Community Services
Seaside Lagoon Reservation and
Entrance Fee $ 16,935.00
SUBTOTAL $ 64,648.12
City of Redondo Beach Subsidy $ (10,000)
$54,648.12
Insurance/Waiver of Liability Cleared on: _____________ Conditions of Approval:

1. City of Redondo Beach Building Department requirements apply.

2. ABC permit required.

3. See www.publichealth.lacounty.gov for food service requirements.

4. Fire lanes and exits must be maintained throughout event.

5. Temporary no parking signs must be posted starting 72 hours prior to the event taking effect. Permittee responsible for daily inspection of signs to ensure they have not been altered or removed. Temporary No Parking approval form must be filled out daily with photos: one up close and one long shot of the posted areas. Daily inspection approval and photos must be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected].
** All Health Department, ABC, and other governmental regulations must be obeyed ** * For weekend/off-hour emergency contact list, call Police Front Desk: 310-379-2477.

TOTAL DUE:
415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
FINAL Event Invoice
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #32

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#32
June 10, 2025
Question:

What was the cultural and entertainment rental activity at the RBPAC in FY 2024-25, and what rental activity is expected in FY 2025-26?
Response:

In FY 2024-25, the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center (RBPAC) was utilized for 177 days. Of that total, it was used by fee-paying clients (renters) for 158 days and used without charge for City events/activities for the remaining 19 days. The 158 rental days include 48 unique clients and 71 unique events. Staff estimates total revenue for FY 2024-25 to be $950,708. Some minor variability in the final revenue amount is expected due to differences in actual event duration, which impacts total charges billed for actual hours of facility use.

An additional nine days, encompassing six weekdays and three weekend days, were given to the North Redondo Beach Business Association (NRBBA) at no cost for its annual Springfest Carnival. This resulted in the City denying two separate rentals at a loss of revenue of approximately $55,000.

The venue was also used for internal City events for 24 total days. These events were strategically scheduled to avoid revenue loss by selecting dates that were less desirable to potential renters.

Below is a comprehensive table detailing each activity held in the RBPAC throughout FY 2024-25. All indications point to similar show bookings and revenue for FY 2025-26.

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
($)
July 2024 –
January
2025
REI
Bicycle
Safety
Classes
Youth Class 20 2,500
7/11/24 &
2/25/25
South Bay
Police
Training
Assoc.

Regional
Police
Training
Regional
Police
Training
2 2 1,600
7/13/24
Parris
Entertainme
nt, Inc.

World
Dance
Crews
Champions
hip
Internationa
l Dance
Competition
1 1 10,255
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #32

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
($)
7/16-20/24
KrossKulture
Musical
God of
Kross
Kulture
World
Music
Concert
3 2 1 11,703
7/21/24
American
Cancer
Society
Relay for
Life Car
Show
Classic Car
Show 1 1 1,000
7/24-27/24
Insider
Entertainme
nt Group
Star Makers
Internationa
l
Talent
Show 2 2 2 26,285
8/23/24 Elvis Show
So Cal Dean Z Tribute Concert 1 9,171
9/15/25
Shakti
School of
Bharata
Natyam
Shakti
Nostalgia
Indian
Classical
Dance
1 1 8,196
9/9-10 &
12-14/24
Nuestras
Raices
Noche
Mexicana
Mexican
Folkloric
Dance
3 2 1 14,368
10/11-12/24
Dakshini
Bengali
Association
Prashmita
Paul &
Richa
Sharma in
Concert
Indian Cult.

Concerts 2 2 19,014
10/17 thru
5/5/25
Swan
Productions
, LLC
Distinguish
ed Speaker
Series
Season of 6
Speaking
Presentatio
ns
6 6 28,873
10/21 &
23-27/24
Redondo
Ballet
Company
Through
The Pages Youth Ballet 3 3 2 24,979
11/8/24 OHO
Productions
Anubhav
Singh Bassi
Indian
Standup
Comedy
1 1 8,770
11/14-16/24 Virgelia
Productions
Miss/Mrs./M
iss Teen
Latina
Global,
Asia,
Europe
Beauty
Pageants 1 2 1 21,132
11/21-22/24
Calas Park
Volunteer
Association
La Vida Es
Una Fiesta
Mexican
Folkloric
Dance
1 1 1 9,526
11/24/24
Japan
America
Soccer
Assoc.

Dance,
Dance,
Dance!
Japanese
Dance
Concert
1 1 7,460
11/29/24
Reaching
Educational
Milestones
Ultimate
Tribute
Show
R&B
Tribute
Concert
1 1 8,233
12/1-8/24
Debbie
Allen Dance
Academy
Hot
Chocolate
Nutcracker
Christmas
Show 5 3 10 80,557
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #32

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
($)
12/17-18/24
St.

Anastasia
Elementary
School
Annual
Christmas
Pageant
Elementary
Christmas
Show
2 1 8,314
12/19/24 Dance1 2025 Winter
Recital
Dance
Recital 1 1 6,788
12/20/24
Golden
State Pops
Orchestra
Holiday
Pops
Spectacular
Christmas
Concert 1 1 9,646
1/4-12/25
Encore
Theatre
Group
Charlie and
the
Chocolate
Factory
Community
Theater
Musical
4 5 47,369
1/18-19/25
Kala Koa
Entertainme
nt
So Cal
Slack Key
Festival
Hawaiian
Concert 2 2 13,304
1/24-26/25
Starbound
Dance
Competition
Starbound
National
Talent
Competition
Dance
Competition 3 3 39,962
2/1/25
Reaching
Ed.

Milestones
Music 4
The Soul
R&B
Concert 1 1 6,683
2/2/25 Culture
Shock LA
Vibe Jrs.

Hip Hop
Dance
Competition 1 1 9,612
2/8/24 Leap Dance
Competition
2025 Leap
Dance
Dance
Competition 1 1 13,458
2/13/25
Reaching
Educational
Milestones
PreValentine
Day Soul &
Blues
Soul &
Blues
Concert
1 1 5,840
2/14-16/25
Gravit8
Dance
Competition
2024 Dance
Competition
Dance
Competition 3 2 24,179
2/22/25
Flypoet
Entertainme
nt
Flypoet
Classic
Slam
Poetry
Competition 1 1 9,158
2/24 & 26-
28 & 3/1-
2/25
Redondo
Ballet
Company
Snow
Queen Youth Ballet 3 3 2 25,132
3/6/25
Northrop
Grumman
Manageme
nt Club
Dinner/Mee
ting with
Standup
Comedy
Dinner/Club
Meeting 1 1 4,909
3/7-9/24
School of
Dance and
Music
Le Corsaire Youth Ballet 2 1 12,851
3/12-16/25
Hall of
Fame
Dance
Competition
Hall of
Fame
Dance
Challenge
Dance
Competition 2 3 4 58,288
Budget
FY 2025- 2026
BRR#32

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS

USED (M-TH)
DAYS

USED (F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
($)
3/28-30/25
Las Vegas
Dance
Starz
2025
Thunderstru
ck Dance
Dance
Competition
33 34,474
4/3-6/25
Spotlight
Dance
Competition
Spotlight
Dance Cup
Dance
Competition
133 42,790
4/7-14/25 Living Art
Productions
Living Art
Experience
Easter Art
Live Models
Tableaux
w/Orchestra
531 30,721
4/25-26/25
NDM
Bollywood
Dance
Parivaar
2025
Bollywood
Dance
Recitals
22 15,808
4/27/25 Soroptimist
s Int’l. MB
Women’s
Voices
Now/Girls
Voices Now
Women &
Girls Short
Film
Festival
11 1,500
5/2-4/25
Starbound
Dance
Competition
Starbound
National
Talent
Competition
Dance
Competition
33 39,962
5/10/25
Hoffman
Murphy
Real Estate
Document
Shred
Event
Docs.

Shred
Event
11 300
5/10 &
6/13-14/25
Fifth Row
Center
Performing
Arts
2025
Recital
Dance
Recital
121 21,125
5/11/25
Reaching
Educational
Milestones
A Mother’s
Day
Serenade
Dinner &
R&B
Tribute
Concert
11 6,048
5/15-18/25 Kids Artistic
Revue
KAR Dance
Competition
Dance
Competition
133 55,227
5/23-25/25 Angel City
Chorale
People Get
Ready
Choir
Concert
31 17,869
5/31 &
6/1-8/25
School of
Dance and
Music
The Party’s
Just Begun
Dance
Recital
44 10 34,768
6/9-10/25
Alliance
Neuwirth
HS
2025
Commence
ment
HS
Graduation
21 9,221
6/11/25
Alliance
Collins
Family HS
& Alliance
Bloomfield
HS
2025
Commence
ments
HS
Graduation
12 10,727
6/10/25
Alliance
Virgil
Roberts MS
2025
Culmination
MS
Graduation
11 5,760
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #32

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
($)
6/12/25
Hawthorne
M&S
Academy
HS
2025
Commence
ment
HS
Graduation 1 1 9,651
6/15/25 Tasty
Hawaiian
Kapena &
Friends
Hawaiian
Concert 1 1 12,174
6/28/25 1Love
Father’s
Day:

Ronnie
Laws
Jazz Sax
Concert 1 1 13,468
TOTALS 57 101 94 $950,708

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
3/17-24/25 NRBBA Springfest Community
Carnival 6 3 4
FEE
WAIVED
Springfest resulted in the loss of $55,000 in potential revenue from two dance competitions during these dates.

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
Various Council
District 5
District
Meetings
City
Community 3 3
Various Public
Works
Training
Sessions
City –
Internal 6
Various PW/Athens
Event
Hazardous
Waste/
Shredding/
Compost
City
Community 5
RBFD
Fire
Department
Training
City –
Internal 1 1
RBPD
Police
Awards
Ceremony
City –
Internal 1 1
RBPD National
Night Out
Community
Fair 1 1
Various
Human
Resources/
RBPD
Police
Candidates
Testing
City –
Internal 3
4/21/24
Community
Services
Seniors/Fa
mily
Services
Volunteers
Appreciatio
n Luncheon
City –
Internal 1 1
12/9/24 Community
Services
SFS
Christmas
Party
City –
Internal 1 1
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #32

DATE USER EVENT EVENT
TYPE
DAYS
USED
(M-TH)
DAYS
USED
(F-SU)
# of

PERFORM
ANCES

REVENUE
($)
Seniors/Fa
mily
Services
9/4-5/24
Community
Services
Seniors/Fa
mily
Services
Senior
Health Fair
City –
Internal 2 1
TOTALS 23 1 9
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #33

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#33
June 10, 2025
Question:

Can an additional fee (surcharge) for use of the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center (RBPAC) be implemented to fund facility upgrades?
Response:

The City’s Master Fee Schedule includes several cost-recovery fees associated with use of the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center (RBPAC), such as an Administrative Fee, Application Fee, Lamp Use Recharge Fee, and others. The proposed FY 2025-26 Budget includes a 3% annual increase in commercial rental rates for the RBPAC over the next three years, along with a 5% annual increase in nonprofit rates over the same period. If approved, these adjustments are projected to generate approximately $13,000 in additional rental revenue in the coming fiscal year.

To date, the RBPAC has not established a specific fee to support facility upgrades or general upkeep. The introduction of a surcharge is now under consideration. Below are projected annual revenues based on various surcharge rates:
2% of Total
Fees
3% of Total of
Fees
5% of Total
Fees
$20,110 $30,165 $50,276
Should the City Council wish to proceed with implementing a surcharge, staff recommends implementing a 3% surcharge. This would begin to address the need to generate funds for facility maintenance while also being mindful of the proposed rental rate increases and the impact the new fee would have on long-standing user groups, particularly nonprofit organizations.

Revenue generated from this surcharge could be designated for capital replacement and facility improvements, with unused funds rolling over annually until sufficient resources are available to address significant facility maintenance items and upgrades. This approach would enable proactive, long-term facility planning and support the long-term excellence and functionality of the RBPAC.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #34

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#34
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost for an additional Economic Development staff member? Response:

The Waterfront and Economic Development Department was asked to identify the cost to hire an Economic Development Manager. The City has an existing job class specification for an Economic Development Manager and the salary range for the position is $92,340 to $128,988 annually. Including fringe benefits, the total compensation package for the position ranges from $138,588 to $183,064. The minimum qualifications for applicants of the Economic Development Manager position are a bachelor’s degree in a related field and three years of experience in economic development or municipal planning.

Alternatively, the City could hire a more junior Economic Development position, such as an Economic Development Associate/Specialist. The minimum qualifications for the position are a bachelor’s degree in a related field and one year of work experience in redevelopment, economic development, or real estate. The City has an existing job class specification for an Economic Development Associate and the salary range for the position is $75,336 to $104,976 annually. Including fringe benefits, the total compensation for the position would range from $117,952 to $153,923.

When looking at current open Economic Development Manager positions and Economic Development Specialist positions available in other jurisdictions, the salaries for the Redondo Beach positions fall within a reasonable range compared to those offered in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #35

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#35
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to create a sensory room in the Public Library? Response:

The addition of a sensory room aligns with Redondo Beach Public Library’s mission to be a welcoming atmosphere to meet the information, educational, recreational, and cultural needs of all Library users.

A sensory room at a public library is a thoughtfully designed, calming space that offers a range of sensory experiences to support individuals of all ages, especially those with sensory processing needs such as autism, ADHD, or anxiety. Sensory rooms are being increasingly introduced in a wide range of public spaces, and libraries are incorporating sensory rooms to create more inclusive and welcoming spaces for all patrons. Rooms are made available for use by children, teens, and adults with sensory needs and are monitored and scheduled by staff.

Planning a sensory room in a public library requires careful consideration to ensure it is inclusive, functional, and supportive of diverse sensory needs. Key factors include selecting a quiet, low-traffic location within the library to minimize external noise and distractions. The room should be designed with flexible lighting options, such as dimmable or natural light, and soundproofing elements to create a calming atmosphere.

Furniture and equipment—like soft seating, tactile panels, weighted blankets, and fidget tools—should accommodate a range of sensory preferences, from soothing to stimulating. Accessibility is crucial, so the layout must be wheelchair-friendly, with leverstyle handles instead of knobs. Additionally, library staff should receive training on how to accommodate neurodivergent patrons and maintain the room as a respectful, welcoming space for all.

Considerations:

Atmosphere & Lighting
• Soft, dimmable lighting replaces harsh fluorescents—often with LED colorchanging lights or fiber optic strands that gently shift hues • The space feels quiet and cocooned, often with acoustic wall panels or soft furnishings to absorb sound
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #35

Furniture & Layout
• Comfortable seating includes bean bags, rocking chairs, floor cushions, or pod chairs that offer a feeling of enclosure
• The layout is open yet cozy, with defined zones for different activities (calming, interactive, reading, etc.)
• Shelves may house sensory-friendly books, including tactile and high-contrast picture books
Sensory Tools & Features
• Fidget toys, stress balls, textured tiles, and sensory bins with sand, beads, or rice are available for tactile engagement
• Weighted blankets or lap pads offer proprioceptive input for grounding and relaxation
• Some rooms feature bubble tubes, interactive light panels, or projection systems that display stars, clouds, or underwater scenes Sound & Audio
• Acoustic panels can absorb ambient noise, reducing echoes and reverberations within the room. This helps create a more predictable and peaceful auditory environment
• A white noise machine or soft background music may play to create a soothing audio environment
Policies
• Sign-up system or time limits to manage capacity and ensure equitable time • Orientation for first-time users
• Clear code of conduct for respectful use
The cost of designing and building a custom sensory room can range significantly, from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars, based on multiple variables. Key factors influencing the total cost include the room’s dimensions, the complexity and sophistication of the sensory equipment and technology, the selection of materials, and the geographical location of the project. The specific integration of sensory stimuli, such as lighting, sound systems, tactile surfaces, and interactive components, also contributes to the final price.

On average, a custom sensory room can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on these considerations. These estimates are based on preliminary research, and more time would be needed to accurately predict total costs.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #35

Two scalable options are provided below: a small (approx. 100 sq. ft.) and a moderatesized (approx. 200-250 sq. ft.) sensory room.

Category Small Room Moderate Room
Remodeling & Construction $15,000 $35,000
Equipment & Supplies $6,000 $8,000
Installation & Setup $4,000 $7,000
Total $25,000 $50,000
Funding for a sensory room could come from a variety of sources. Libraries often seek local, state, or federal grants that support accessibility, inclusion, or public health initiatives. Private foundations, particularly those focused on neurodiversity, education, or disability advocacy, may also provide targeted funding. Additionally, community-based efforts, such as the Friends of the Redondo Beach Public Library, can potentially generate financial support. A combination of these sources can also help to ensure sustainable funding for both the creation and maintenance of the sensory room.

Staff recommends further investigation into the possible addition of a sensory room at the Library. This approach will ensure that the Library makes an informed decision based on real community needs, identifies appropriate furniture and equipment, and investigates how to use limited public library space effectively. It also allows staff the time to identify any specific design standards or guidelines that are applicable to sensory rooms and explore potential funding sources.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #36

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#36
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to repaint the King Harbor entryway (at PCH) sign poles and to replace the plastic sign face/logo?
Response:

The estimated cost to repaint the King Harbor sign is $69,600, including materials and labor, which is currently funded through Capital Improvement Project #41400, which has a $74,000 appropriation. This cost does not include complete paint stripping, which is not expected to be necessary, and is an unknown cost. The re-painting process would include one coat of rust preventative coating on visibly rusted areas, followed by two coats of epoxy primer and one coat of epoxy polymer paint. Additionally, $20,000 would be needed to accommodate seven days of traffic control, which is the anticipated length of time needed to complete the work.

The cost to replace the translucent sign panels, add the new City logo (or update the existing logo), and refresh the wording, “REDONDO BEACH, KING HARBOR”, would be $60,000. This includes the removal of each panel, the fabrication of each individual panel offsite, and the installation of the new panels. Staff recommends budgeting for replacement of all panels at one time for aesthetics and because the removal of one panel may necessitate the removal of others. Aesthetically, replacing the panels during the painting project is ideal as it is easier and faster to paint the sign poles and exterior with the panels removed and the fresh paint may highlight the deteriorated condition of the sign panels, leaving an uneven, and potentially disappointing end result. To include this work in the project, $60,000 of funding would need to be identified to supplement the existing $74,000 budget.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #36

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #37

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#37
June 10, 2025
Question:

What projects have received funding from the John Parsons Public Art Fund, and what amount remains unallocated and available in the fund?
Response:

The City Council has allocated a little more than $1.1M from the John Parsons Public Art Fund (JPPAF) to be used for various public art installations throughout the City. The following projects are included:

Name of Project FY25 Approved
Budget
“Gate Wave” (Re-located Transit Center Sculpture
to be installed at Gateway Park)*** $275,000
“Sea Chatter” (Gertruda Ave. Mural)** $125,000
“Skate Waves” (Pier Skatepark Mural) $75,000
The Esplanade $100,000
Transit Center $75,000
ARTesia Public Art Project $450,000
Big Lots Mural No Funds
Allocated
Lilienthal Street No Funds
Allocated
Utility Box Art Wraps*
(5 approved by Cultural Arts Commission, est.
$10,500)
$10,500*
TOTAL ENCUMBERED $1,110,500
* The Cultural Arts Commission selected five artist submissions for the Utility Box Art Wrap program at its January 22, 2025 meeting. Currently, the contracts with the artists are being reviewed as to form by the City Attorney’s Office. When completed, the five contracts will be submitted to City Council for approval for a total estimated cost of $10,500. If approved, the costs would be deducted from the remaining JPPAF balance identified below.
** The contract with the “Sea Chatter” artist has been approved by Council. The start time for the project has been delayed due to a family illness.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #37

*** The Gate Wave project site has been determined according to the location of the underground utilities in Gateway Parkette. The site will allow for a full-size installation, per the original design. The contract with the artist for installation is in development.

Additional deposits have recently been collected, resulting in a total of $74,272 in available, unallocated project funds. This amount reflects the deduction of the 5% mandatory set-aside for ongoing project maintenance, as required by the City’s Public Art Ordinance (RBMC 10-6.10). When including the Utility Box Art Wrap contracts, the remaining unallocated JPPAF balance is a little under $64,000.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #38

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#38
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to replace the flags above International Boardwalk with new City/Pier branding?
Response:

The Redondo Beach Pier has 22 flag poles, with each displaying a colored flag. The existing flags could be replaced with new 4 foot by 6 foot white flags featuring the City of Redondo Beach logo. Each flag would display a 24-inch full color City of Redondo Beach logo on both sides. The flags would need to be replaced every six months due to exposure to coastal wind and sun, or unanticipated damage. Each flag costs $200 and the vendor requires a minimum order of 50 flags, so the upfront cost of replacing the flags with the branded flags would be $10,000.

The $10,000 purchase would cover the replacement of all 22 flags on the Pier with the new City-branded flags for one year, leaving 6 reserve flags. Alternatively, the City could choose to replace only half of the flags this year, allowing the $10,000 purchase to cover the replacement of half of the flags over a two year period.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #39

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#39
June 3, 2025
Question:

How did the City’s current pension unfunded accrued liability (UAL) develop following the 2021 UAL payoff using lease revenue bonds?
Response:

The City’s unfunded accrued liability, or UAL, represents the difference between the value of contributions towards retirement and the anticipated amount needed to cover these commitments. CalPERS annual contribution rates are set so that when/if annual investment returns equal the target level, or “discount rate”, and actual plan benefits and member experience match actuarial assumptions, the normal annual contributions from member agencies and employees fully cover the future value of benefits. Unfunded liability develops when the actual experience and/or investment returns underperform expectations. Conversely, if investment returns and/or experience outperform assumptions, this results in increased value of contributions and has a positive impact on unfunded liability.

Each year’s performance is assessed individually and amortized over a 20-year period.

Thus, any single year’s unfunded liability reflects the most recent year’s investment and plan experience, combined with the ongoing amortization of prior years until each reaches the end of its 20-year term. The City can experience an annual increase in liability following a positive investment year as the single-year positive return is only one part of the unfunded liability calculation.

The City paid off its entire unfunded liability through lease revenue bonds in 2021. The new (current) unfunded liability reflects investment returns and plan experience since that time. The current unfunded liability is almost entirely due to the impact of FY 2021-22 negative investment returns: which resulted in a negative 6.1% return compared to a positive 6.8% target. At that time, because of the payoff, the City had an unusually large pool of assets exposed to the loss.

The attachment shows the City’s unfunded accrued liability with investment returns, an example from the miscellaneous plan actuarial report showing the development of unfunded liability, and a summary of what contributed to the most recent year-over-year increase in unfunded liability.

The most recent valuation projects the City’s FY 2026-27 unfunded accrued liability payment at $4.3 million, similar to the FY 2025-26 estimate, assuming plan and Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #39

investment performance remain consistent with anticipated amounts. The final calculation, based on actuals, will likely differ from that number; at a minimum, it will reflect the positive impact of the FY 2023-24 9.3% investment returns. The City will receive this valuation in July or August of 2025.

Attachment: CalPERS UAL Summary Slides (from Budget and Finance Commission presentation on September 12, 2024)
Returns & UAL
Fiscal Year
CalPERS
Investment
Return
Valuation
Date
UAL
Payment
Year
UAL Notes
2010-11 21.7% 6/30/2012 FY 2013-14 110,497,727
2011-12 0.1% 6/30/2013 FY 2014-15 132,733,669
2012-13 13.2% 6/30/2014 FY 2015-16 119,722,222
2013-14 18.4% 6/30/2015 FY 2016-17 115,941,505
2014-15 4.8% 6/30/2016 FY 2017-18 137,483,684
2015-16 0.6% 6/30/2017 FY 2018-19 174,162,856
2016-17 11.2% 6/30/2018 FY 2019-20 173,854,333
2017-18 8.6% 6/30/2019 FY 2020-21 202,395,183
2018-19 6.7% 6/30/2020 FY 2021-22 208,715,529
2019-20 4.7% 6/30/2021 FY 2022-23 218,668,761
2020-21 21.3% 6/30/2022 FY 2023-24 163,400,593 UAL decrease from prior year reflects 21.3% return 2021-22 -6.1% 6/30/2023 FY 2024-25 42,545,878
Payoff made 7/15/21; UAL = $0 as of 9/21
Final UAL reflects -6.1% impact on large asset pool
2022-23 5.8% 6/30/2024 FY 2025-26 58,034,065Adds 5.8% investment return & FY 22-23 experience impact to UAL 2023-24 9.3% 6/30/2025 FY 2026-27 TBDWill include impact of 9.3% return - The City’s next actuarial report (July/ August 2025) will reflect 2023-24 investment returns - FY 2026-27 projected payment is $4.2 million. This will change based on actual experience.

BRR #39 Attachment
Slide 1 of 3
FY 2025-26 UAL Calculation
Breakdown of $12.8M UAL in most recent valuation (Miscellaneous) 1 2
3 4
5 1 & 2 Prior year non-investment experience: second year of 20-year amortization; non-investment gain due to favorable experience vs. expectations offsets increase related to benefit change 3 Prior year investment experience: second year of 20-year amortization – reflects large FY 21-22 investment loss
4 & 5 Most recent experience: first year of amortization: investment loss offset by non-investment gain Annual UAL includes impact of gains and losses over time BRR #39 Attachment
Slide 2 of 3
FY 2025-26 UAL: Detail vs. Prior Year
* Called Partial Fresh Start in valuation - this is essentially investment experience. The sum of 6/30/21 UAL balance + 6/30/22 investment loss Miscellaneous Safety TOTAL
FY 24-25 FY 25-26
Delta
FY 24-25 FY 25-26
Delta
FY 24-25 FY 25-26
Reason Delta
Date
Established Prior Valuation
(data 6/30/22)
Current
Valuation
(data 6/30/23)
Prior Valuation
(data 6/30/22)
Current
Valuation
(data 6/30/23)
Prior Valuation
(data 6/30/22)
Current
Valuation
(data 6/30/23)
Benefit Change 6/30/2022 339,225 366,450 27,225 168,350 181,809 13,459 507,575 548,259 40,684 Non-Investment (Gain)/ Loss 6/30/2022 -704,032 -751,906 -47,874 4,099,853 4,378,643 278,790 3,395,821 3,626,737 230,916 Investment (Gain)/ Loss* 6/30/2022 10,946,441 11,988,352 1,041,911 27,696,041 30,107,104 2,411,063 38,642,482 42,095,456 3,452,974 Investment (Gain)/ Loss 6/30/2023 1,846,498 1,846,498 3,294,962 3,294,962 - 5,141,460 5,141,460 Non-Investment (Gain)/ Loss 6/30/2023 -680,338 -680,338 7,302,491 7,302,491 - 6,622,153 6,622,153 UAL TOTAL 10,581,634 12,769,056 2,187,422 31,964,244 45,265,009 13,300,765 42,545,878 58,034,065 15,488,187 What makes up FY 2025-26 UAL increase? • Amortization of prior year investment losses ($3.5 million) • Most recent investment returns 1% below target ($5.1 million) • Public Safety member experience > expectations ($7.3 million) BRR #39 Attachment
Slide 3 of 3
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #40

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#40
June 3, 2025
Question:

Can the City add parking meters on Herondo Street, west of Francisca Ave.? What is the cost for installation, if so, and what additional revenue would be estimated as a result of the implementation? Can some of the spaces be used to create an additional vehicle lane to assist with east bound traffic throughput at PCH? Response:

Additional Parking Meters on Herondo Street
There are a total of 82 angled parking spaces Along Herondo Street between PCH and N Francisca Avenue. There are 36 spaces on the North side, and 46 spaces on the South side. The cost to install new meters in this area is broken down as follows.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #40

North Side Herondo Street South Side Herondo Street
Parking
Meters
Unit
Price Quantity Total
Parking
Meters
Unit
Price Quantity Total
Double-Space
Meters $823 18 $14,814 Double-Space Meters $823 23 $18,929 Poles and
bases $230 18 $4,140 Poles and bases $230 23 $5,290
Installation $5,000 Installation $6,700
One-Time
Costs $23,954
One-Time
Costs $30,919
Total One-Time Cost: $54,873
North Side Herondo Street South Side Herondo Street
Ongoing
Annual
Costs
Unit
Price Quantity Total
Ongoing
Annual
Costs
Unit
Price Quantity Total
Connectivity
fees $10/mo 18 $2,160 Connectivity fees $10/mo 23 $2,760 Estimated
Credit Card
Transaction
Fees
$5,833
Estimated
Credit Card
Transaction
Fees
$7,452
On-going
Costs $7,993
On-going
Costs $10,212
Total On-going Annual Cost: $18,205
To support these one-time, and ongoing, expenditures, additional funding would need to be added to the Police Department’s FY 2025-26 operating budget.

Among the various parking meter areas, Herondo Street and Francisca Avenue have the lowest usage. However, this could be attributed to the fact that the parking spaces east of Francisca are not metered, so visitors can easily opt for the nearby free parking option.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #40

Taking a conservative approach, assuming a 30-50% utilization rate (up to 41 spaces) during daily peak usage (~10 hours), with the new parking meter rate of $2.00/hour starting July 1, 2025, the estimated revenue for FY 2025-26 would be $87,600 (taking into account the time needed to order and install the equipment), and could potentially range between $175,200 and $299,300 annually moving forward. Below is a sampling of scenarios considered by staff.

Utilization Peak Use
(10 hours)
Parking Rate
$2.00/hr
Annual Revenue
(365 days)
25% - 20 meters 200 hours $400 daily $146,000
30% - 24 meters 240 hours $480 daily $175,200
50% - 41 meters 410 hours $820 daily $299,300
75% - 61 meters 610 hours $1,220 daily $445,300
100% - 82 meters 820 hours $1,640 daily $598,600
Lastly, adding parking meters to this area would require approval of a Coastal Development Permit, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption Declaration, and adoption of an ordinance amending RBMC Section 3-6.03 to establish parking meter rates for this portion of Herondo Street.

Addition of a second eastbound through lane at PCH
Currently, the eastbound approach of Herondo Street at PCH provides one left-turn lane, one through lane, one Class II bicycle lane, and one right-turn lane. It has been observed that the single eastbound through lane experiences lower than typical throughput at certain times due to a variety of factors, including abnormally high volumes during beach and harbor peak usage, and distracted driving as a result of a long signal cycle.

Eastbound through traffic volumes on Herondo typically do not reach commonly accepted thresholds to warrant adding a second through lane for the entire block. However, the long signal cycle length at PCH, combined with peak volume anomalies and distracted driving, does at times result in long queues that do not always clear in a single cycle.

Providing a second, 120-foot long through lane at the intersection would provide additional space to clear queued vehicles without removing any existing parking. This could be achieved without removing the bicycle lane by combining the right-turn lane with the second through lane. This would not require reconstructing curbs, but rather lane striping and traffic detection loop changes, subject to Caltrans approval. Since eastbound right-turns on red are already prohibited and eastbound right-turn volumes are low, a dedicated right-turn lane in addition to a second through lane is not warranted. Those movements could be shared with a second through approach lane. A longer second Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #40

through lane, that is extending its beginning westward, could be added for an incrementally low cost of installation, but up to nine parking spaces would need to be removed to facilitate the change.

The cost to modify the striping and traffic loops for the eastbound Herondo approach at PCH is unknown at this time, as a configuration change that adds vehicular throughput may require CEQA environmental analyses. The construction cost to perform this change, subject to Caltrans’ approval, is approximately $100,000. This includes slurry sealing the eastbound approach, restriping the lanes, and reinstalling the traffic detection loops to Caltrans’ specifications.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #41

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#41
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to replace light pole banner hardware in Riviera Village? Response:

There are 80 street light poles in Riviera Village that feature brackets to hold decorative banners to promote various community events. The estimated cost to replace the brackets is as follows:

Hardware ($250 per set x 80 sets) $20,000
Labor $21,000
Total $41,000
The labor cost is based on a two-person City crew working overtime for two weeks.

Budget
FY 2025 – 2026
BRR #42

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#42
June 10, 2025
Question:

What are the costs of installing and maintaining LED string lights on the trees in the Artesia Blvd. median?
Response:

The North Redondo Beach Business Association (NRBBA) has proposed a “Light Up Artesia Blvd 2025” Program to display holiday lighting on trees along Artesia Blvd, from Inglewood Ave to Aviation Blvd, for the period October to January. In order to wrap all 72 trees with holiday lights, approximately 1,920 LED light stringers at $16.50 per stringer would be needed, costing a total of $31,680. Electrical adapters, cords, and supplies would also be required for a cost of $1,865. Labor to install and remove the lights, including worker’s compensation insurance, is estimated to be $39,450. Additionally, the City would have the option to add a maintenance plan for $2,750. Under this plan, if included, the contractor would inspect and maintain the lighting system every 2 weeks from late October to January. The contractor also offers lighting and equipment storage for a fee of $750, if desired, for off-season materials storage.

The total cost breakdown for the identified materials and labor services needed for the “Light Up Artesia Blvd 2025” Program is as follows:

Light stringers $ 31,680.00
Electrical supplies $ 1,865.00
Labor $ 39,450.00
Maintenance $ 2,750.00
Storage $ 750.00
Sales Tax $ 3,438.36
Shipping $ 3,350.00
TOTAL $ 83,283.36
Staff estimates the proposed Light Up Artesia Blvd 2025 Program would cost roughly $83,000. Beyond the 2025 holiday season, the ongoing annual expenses, including labor for installation and removal, maintenance, and storage, are approximately $42,950. The NRBBA proposes to assume financial responsibility starting in 2026, with the hope that the City covers the original $83,000 to initiate and run the program in 2025.

DATE: 4/24/25
Mickey Johnson
President, NRBBA
TREE LIGHTING PROPOSAL
DESCRIPTION:

Installation and removal of LED light stringers on trees on Artesia Blvd in Redondo beach, ca. Includes 72 trees from Inglewood Blvd to Aviation Blvd. Trees to wrapped up to 12ft in height from tall ladders.

Tree counts:
29 – Pine trees – Main trunk to be wrapped
22 – Strawberry trees - Trunks and all arms to be wrapped 21 - Eucalyptus Trees – Main trunk to be wrapped
Light stringers
All trees to be wrapped with New 50 light LED light stringers. Colors to be warm white, Teal, Yellow, Pink, red, Blue. Final color choices to be determined. 1,920 stringers needed. $16.50 per stringer
Total $31,680.00
Electrical supplies
Electrical adapters, cords and supplies for above lighting package Total $1,865.00
Installation and removal Labor
Total Labor $26,450.00
Included
Pricing includes 5 million dollars in Liability Insurance and California Workers Compensation Insurance.

Includes Labor, necessary basic tools, and supplies as needed for project Client to provide all electrical power needed and in good working condition for items requiring power.

Client to secure any permitting as needed.

TOTALS FROM ABOVE:

Materials $33,545.00
Labor $39,450.00
Sales tax $3,438.36
Shipping $3,350.00
TOTAL $79,783.36
ADDITIONAL OPTIONS
Maintence plan
Optional maintenance plan whereas M&M Display will maintain the lighting package for the season from Late October to January. Once every 14 days our team will inspect the lights and client’s electrical outlets.

Client responsible for any plugs tampered with by general public.

Does not include any lighting not installed by M&M Display Inc.

Total $2,750.00
Storage
Storing of client’s lights annually from January to October.

Pricing is per year.

Total $750.00
Terms:
50% Due at signing
25% Due at Installation
25% Due upon removal
NOTE: Please note that materials may be subject to a tariff fee if regulated by the federal government at time of purchase.

I agree to the following terms and conditions of the above agreement.

X____________________________________________ X____________________________________________ Signature Print Name 1 Holiday tree lighting for the
City of Redondo beach

LIGHT UP ATRESIA BLVD
2025
2 ARTESIA BLVD TREE STYLES

AND COLORS
Prepared By Marjori Madura of M& M Display

TREE LIGHTING TO MIMIC OCEAN VIBES AND CORAL

4 WE APPRECIATE YOU
Thank you for this opportunity to provide lighting, décor and service to your team. We value our partnership and look forward to your remarks. As always please feel free to contact us directly to discuss.

Budget
FY 2025 – 2026
BRR #43

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#43
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the fiscal impact of staffing the current 27 Crossing Guard locations in the City, plus two additional locations at the Greenbelt pedestrian crossing on Artesia and at the intersection of Inglewood and Grant Avenues? What do neighboring cities and school districts contribute to crossing guard services?
Response:

Crossing guards offer a valuable community service by ensuring safety for students who walk to and from various school locations in Redondo Beach each day. The Crossing Guard program is managed by the Special Operations Bureau of the Police Department.

As part of the FY 24-25 Budget, City Council approved crossing guard staffing for 27 locations identified as pedestrian crossing areas in close proximity to schools, as noted below. District maps of the locations are included in Attachment B of this BRR. Of the 27 crossing guard locations, 17 are immediately adjacent to an RBUSD school site, and one (1) is adjacent to the St. Lawrence Martyr private school. They are italicized below.

LINCOLN ELEMENTARY
Robinson & Vail
Rindge & Plant

MADISON ELEMENTARY
Mackay & Nelson

BIRNEY ELEMENTARY
Grant & Green
Aviation & Grant
ADAMS & WASHINGTON K-8th
Felton & Grant
Felton & Ripley
Lilienthal & Ripley
182nd & Inglewood
Lilienthal & Ralston
Inglewood & Ralston

TULITA ELEMENTARY
Palos Verdes & Prospect
Palos Verdes & Helberta
Helberta & Prospect

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY
Harkness & Morgan
Harkness & Carlson
Flagler & Morgan
Flagler & Havemeyer

BERYL HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
Beryl & Maria
Beryl & Prospect

ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY
Camino Real & Prospect
Knob Hill & Julia
Julia & Serpentine
Knob Hill & Prospect

PARRAS MIDDLE SCHOOL
Emerald & Lucia
Vincent & Lucia
ST. LAWRENCE MARTYR K-8th
Prospect & Ave G
Budget
FY 2025 – 2026
BRR #43

Crossing Guard Services
Part-time City employed Crossing Guards are hired through the Police Department, along with the use of contract services to bridge gaps in coverage. Should vacant locations happen to occur due to an absence, personnel from other areas of the Police Department, such as Municipal Services or Code Enforcement, are diverted from their primary assignment to assist with coverage.

Historically, there has been difficulty in hiring, retaining, and consistently filling part-time crossing guard positions based on the limited candidate pool. During FY 2022-23, the City Council approved a pay range increase of $20-25/hour for the Crossing Guard positions, with the goal to improve recruitment and move away from the more costly contract services.

Crossing guard staffing is split into morning and afternoon shifts of approximately two (2) hours each, for a total of 4 to 5 hours per day, for the 180 days in each school year. The total rate for a single City-employed Crossing Guard for the entire school year is approximately $18,630.

The Police Department also has an annual agreement with All City Management, Inc. (ACM) for contract services to supplement vacant crossing guard locations. The current ACM contract cost for FY 24-25 is $36.78/hour. The cost for a single contracted Crossing Guard for the entire school year was $29,792, $11K more than a City-employed Crossing Guard. This hourly rate will be increased in FY 25-26.

Data related to individual intersection traffic volume is included in Attachment C of this BRR.

Addition of Two Intersections
City Council has identified two additional locations within the City that could benefit from crossing guards, Inglewood Avenue at Grant Avenue and Artesia Blvd at the Green Belt.

Those proposed locations are situated on major arterial roadways which are heavily trafficked in both morning and afternoon hours.

Intersection assessments were conducted at both intersections by the City of Redondo Beach Police Department Crossing Guard Supervisor and the following data was collected.

Budget
FY 2025 – 2026
BRR #43

Intersection Assessment
Artesia Blvd. & Bike Path
Tuesday, January 21, 2025 – 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

1. Student Bikes (49)
10 were part of large organized group with three parents chaperoning
7 crossed when their light was red
3 were riding in the same direction as the vehicles

2. Student E-Bikes (27)
11 were part of the organized group with adult chaperones 5 crossed when their light was red

3. Student Skateboards (1)

4. Student E-Scooters (5)

5. Student Pedestrians (7)
1 crossed when their light was red

6. Parent & Child on Bike (1)

7. Parent & Child on Ebike (1)

8. Adult Pedestrians (25)
7 were walking dogs, 5 were jogging

9. Adult Bikes (14)
Predominantly crossing after the school traffic is over

10. No Helmets 1 Adult – however I saw at least several students without their helmets buckled

11. Adults & Children & Dog 0

12. Total Persons Crossing (130)

13. Automobiles 2500
Intersection Assessment
Inglewood Avenue & Grant Avenue
Thursday, January 23, 2025 – 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

1. Student Bikes (2) Both Crossed Grant only

2. Student E-Bikes (7) Six Crossed both Inglewood and Grant

3. Student Skateboards (0)

4. Student E-Scooters (1) Crossed both Inglewood and Grant

5. Student Pedestrians (20) 14 Crossed both Inglewood and Grant 6 crossed Grant only

6. Parent & Child on Bike (3) Consisting of one parent and two children

7. Adult Pedestrians (16) 9 Crossed Both Inglewood and Grant 3 Crossed Inglewood only
4 Crossed Grant only
5 were joggers
3 were walking dogs, one also had a child

8. Adult Bikes (4)

9. Adult EBikes (2) One crossed Inglewood only
One Crossed Grant only
One included above carrying two children

10. No Helmets One – The helmet was on his handlebars

11. Adults & Children & Dog One included with “Adult Pedestrians” above

12. Total Persons Crossing (55)

13. Automobiles 2960
Budget
FY 2025 – 2026
BRR #43

Traffic collision review
A one-year collision review was conducted at both locations back to January 1, 2024.

Artesia and the Bike Way (2) collisions reported.
• Vehicle Vs. vehicle traffic collision with no injuries reported and no pedestrians involved.
• Vehicle Vs. Bicyclist collision report. Bicyclist was crossing Artesia Bl. in the Bike way when they were struck by a vehicle. Minor injuries were reported. Vehicle was found at fault for this collision.

Inglewood Av. and Grant Av. (9) collisions reported.
• (7) “non-reportable” collisions occurred at the intersection. Collisions were non injury and did not involve pedestrians.
• (2) traffic collision reports were completed. The collisions were non injury and no pedestrians were involved.

Fiscal Impact of Crossing Guard Services
For FY 24-25, there was existing core budget of $212,600 for part-time personnel providing coverage for 12 intersections. City Council further authorized a one-time General Fund appropriation of an additional $340,000 ($205K for part-time staffing and $135K for contract services) to staff all 27 identified locations. This brought the total allocation for crossing guards in FY 24-25 to $552,600.

For FY 25-26, the core budget of $212,600 for part-time personnel will continue to fund 12 intersections. The proposed budget includes Decision Package #24 that, if approved, would provide $367,000 of additional one-time funding for both part-time personnel ($205,000) and contract crossing guard services ($162,000) to cover the additional 15 intersections, bringing the total budget appropriation for 27 intersections to $579,600.

This figure anticipates an increase to the hourly cost of the contract service from last fiscal year. The Police Department will strive to maximize cost efficiency by filling the majority of locations with City-employed part-time staff when feasible, with the contract services allocation allowing flexibility to fill all locations.

Should City Council choose to add another two intersections, the cost would be $64,800 for contract services, bringing the General Fund total for 29 intersections to $644,400.

Core Budget
12 Intersections
DP#** $367,000 one-time
27 Intersections
Add one-time $64,800 to DP #**
29 Intersections
Total Cost $212,600 $579,600 $644,400
The following chart illustrates historical funding data for crossing guards.

Budget
FY 2025 – 2026
BRR #43

Attachments:

Attachment A – Cost comparison with other cities
Attachment B – District Maps
Attachment C – Intersection traffic analysis
City School District # of Schools
Total # of
crossing
guard posts
City employees
vs. contract
Crossing
guard per
site
Funding from the
School District City Cost
Redondo
Redondo
Beach Unified
School District
11 27 posts
12 part-time
positions allocated
in the budget,
supplemented with
contract services
(ACMS)

0.9 guard per
site None $579,600
Torrance
Torrance
Unified School
District
29 32 posts
16 part-time
positions allocated
in the budget,
supplemented with
contract services
(ACMS)
1 guard per
site None
~$330,000
annually for a
3-year
contract; plus
position costs
Hermosa
Hermosa
Beach School
District
3 14 posts Fully contracted
(ACMS)
1 guard per
site None
~$325,000
annually for a
3-year
contract; plus
position costs
Manhattan
Beach
Manhattan
Beach School
District
7 26 posts Fully contracted
(ACMS)
1 guard per
site None
~$498,000
annually for a
3-year
Contract
Lawndale
Lawndale
Elementary
School District
8 8 posts Fully contracted
(ACMS)
1 guard per
site None $156,340(FY 24-25)
Hawthorne Hawthorne
School District 11 12 posts Fully contracted (ACMS)
1 guard per
site
The City cost is
paid to the School
District
$117,500
(FY 24-25)
BRR #43 Attachment A
Crossing Guard Cost Comparison
Rancho Palos
Verdes Palos Verdes
Peninsula
Unified School
District*
16 7 posts
(4 schools)
Fully contracted
(ACMS)
1 guard per
site
43% City/
57% School
District and
Peninsula
Education
Foundation
$138,120
(FY 24-25)
$59,392
(City share)
Rolling Hills
Estates
4 posts
(3 schools)
1 guard per
site
City only pays for
4 posts, additional
posts are covered
by the School
District
$78,000
(FY 24-25)
Riverside
Alvord
Unified School
District
15 (13 additional
sites are
100% covered
by the school
district)
87 posts Fully contracted
(ACMS)

1.4 guards per
site
2024-25:
50% City / 50%
School District
Gradual reduction
in City contribution
from 50% to 25%
by 2029-30
$1.92M
(FY 25-26)
$714,873
(City Share)
$2.44M
(FY 29-30)
$505,728
(City Share)
Riverside
Unified School
District
49 (6 additional
sites are
100% covered
by the school
district)
*Confirmed Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills do not have crossing guards BRR #43 Attachment A
District Maps
District Maps follow, from north to south.

District 5 – 3 Intersections (Lincoln and Madison schools) District 4 – 3 Intersections (Birney, Adams/Washington schools ) District 3 – 11 Intersections (Adams/Washington, Jefferson, and Beryl Heights schools) District 2 – 2 Intersections (Beryl Heights and Parras schools) District 1 – 8 Intersections (Alta Vista, Tulita, and St. Lawrence schools) Of the 27 crossing guard locations, 17 are immediately adjacent to a RBUSD school site, and one (1) is adjacent to St. Lawrence Martyr private school.

DISTRICT 5 – 3 Intersections
(Lincoln and Madison schools)
BRR #43 Attachment B
DISTRICT 4 – 3 Intersections (plus 1 bordered with D3)
(Birney and Adams/Washington schools)
DISTRICT 3 – 11 Intersections
(Adams/Washington, Jefferson, and Beryl Heights)
BRR #43 Attachment B
DISTRICT 2 – 2 Intersections (2 other intersections on borders) (Beryl Heights and Parras schools)
BRR #43 Attachment B
DISTRICT 1 – 8 Intersections
(Alta Vista, Tulita, and St. Lawrence schools)
BRR #43 Attachment B
1 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
Legend
*Artesia Boulevard at the greenbelt (2500 block) and Inglewood Avenue at Grant Avenue are not currently included in the City Council authorized 27 intersections and are not currently staffed with a Crossing Guard.

All data was gathered over an approximate 90-minute period during the morning rush hour.

Jefferson Elementary School
Alta Vista Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
Madison Elementary School
Tulita Elementary School
Parras Middle School
Beryl Heights Elementary School
Birney Elementary School
Washington / Adams Schools
*Artesia at Greenbelt &
*Inglewood at Grant
2 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
Intersection
Total E-Bike
and Bike
Riders
Unaccompanied
Student Pedestrians
Adult Pedestrians -
Solo & with Students Total Pedestrians Vehicles
Flagler Ln & Havemeyer Ln 57 7 67 74 586
Flagler & Morgan 49 7 58 65 742
Harkness & Carlson 14 20 82 102 490
Harkness & Morgan 19 12 117 129 557
Julia & Serpentine 8 3 133 136 398
Prospect & Camino Real 18 3 43 46 3190
Julia & Knob Hill 3 16 116 132 734
Prospect & Knob Hill 18 3 66 69 2233
Rindge Ln & Plant Ave 16 18 215 233 261
Robinson St & Vail Ave 24 14 78 92 470
MacKay Ln & Nelson Ave 8 8 121 129 111
PV Bl & Helberta 10 0 55 55 2275
Prospect & Helberta 5 15 179 194 1947
Prospect & PV Bl 7 0 49 49 2794
Prospect & Ave G 10 6 91 97 1255
Emerald & Lucia 63 55 37 92 761
Vincent & Lucia 69 47 21 68 1003
Beryl & Prospect 13 1 36 37 3519
Beryl & Maria 33 11 180 191 1364
Grant & Aviation 27 2 33 35 2316
Grant & Green 21 15 154 169 1742
182nd & Inglewood 10 15 24 39 3093
Felton & Grant 174 54 74 128 1892
Ralston & Inglewood 14 3 23 26 2827
Ralston & Lilienthal 50 13 120 133 597
Ripley & Felton 217 550 114 664 589
Ripley & Lilienthal 37 100 224 324 665
Artesia Blvd at Greenbelt 92 13 25 38 2000
Inglewood & Grant Ave 18 21 17 38 2960
3 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 50
100
150
200
250
Total E-Bike and Bike Riders Adults & Students
4 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Unaccompanied Student Pedestrians
5 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Total Pedestrians Adults & Students
6 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Vehicles
7 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
Intersection
Total E-Bike and
Bike Riders
Ranking
Total
Pedestrians
Ranking
Total Vehicles
Ranking Average
Felton & Grant 28 24 18 23.33333
Ripley & Felton 29 27 8 21.33333
Ripley & Lilienthal 21 29 10 20
Grant & Green 17 25 17 19.66667
Artesia Blvd at Greenbelt 27 8 23 19.33333
Beryl & Maria 20 22 16 19.33333
Emerald & Lucia 25 19 13 19
Vincent & Lucia 26 14 14 18
Inglewood & Grant Ave 15 12 26 17.66667
Ralston & Lilienthal 23 20 9 17.33333
Prospect & Camino Real 15 6 28 16.33333
Prospect & Helberta 2 26 19 15.66667
182nd & Inglewood 8 10 27 15
Flagler & Morgan 22 9 12 14.33333
Flagler Ln & Havemeyer Ln 24 12 7 14.33333
Prospect & Knob Hill 15 8 20 14.33333
Grant & Aviation 19 1 22 14
Rindge Ln & Plant Ave 12 28 2 14
Harkness & Morgan 16 19 6 13.66667
Ralston & Inglewood 11 4 25 13.33333
Beryl & Prospect 9 1 29 13
Harkness & Carlson 11 22 5 12.66667
Robinson St & Vail Ave 18 16 4 12.66667
Julia & Knob Hill 1 24 11 12
Prospect & Ave G 7 14 15 12
PV Bl & Helberta 7 5 21 11
Prospect & PV Bl 3 4 24 10.33333
MacKay Ln & Nelson Ave 5 19 1 8.333333
Julia & Serpentine 5 15 3 7.666667
Intersections given a rank for each category: 29 the busiest and 1 the least busy. Average for each category determined the ranking order.

This chart includes all pedestrians (adults and students), all bike riders and all vehicles. 8 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 5
10 15
20 25
Average Rank - All Pedestrians, Bike Riders and Vehicles 9 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
Intersection Total E-Bike and
Bike Riders Ranking
Unaccompanied Student
Pedestrians Ranking Vehicles Average
Felton & Grant 28 26 18 24
Artesia Blvd at Greenbelt 27 16 23 22
Ripley & Felton 29 29 8 22
Emerald & Lucia 25 27 13 21.66666667
Inglewood & Grant Ave 15 24 26 21.66666667
Vincent & Lucia 26 25 14 21.66666667
Ripley & Lilienthal 21 28 10 19.66666667
182nd & Inglewood 8 20 27 18.33333333
Grant & Green 17 20 17 18
Prospect & Camino Real 15 8 28 17
Beryl & Maria 20 13 16 16.33333333
Ralston & Lilienthal 23 16 9 16
Flagler & Morgan 22 11 12 15
Grant & Aviation 19 4 22 15
Ralston & Inglewood 11 8 25 14.66666667
Prospect & Knob Hill 15 8 20 14.33333333
Flagler Ln & Havemeyer Ln 24 11 7 14
Beryl & Prospect 9 3 29 13.66666667
Prospect & Helberta 2 20 19 13.66666667
Harkness & Carlson 11 23 5 13
Robinson St & Vail Ave 18 17 4 13
Harkness & Morgan 16 14 6 12
Rindge Ln & Plant Ave 12 22 2 12
Julia & Knob Hill 1 21 11 11
Prospect & Ave G 7 9 15 10.33333333
PV Bl & Helberta 7 1 21 9.666666667
Prospect & PV Bl 3 1 24 9.333333333
MacKay Ln & Nelson Ave 5 12 1 6
Julia & Serpentine 5 8 3 5.333333333
Intersections given a rank for each category: 29 the busiest and 1 the least busy. Average for each category determined the ranking order.

This chart includes all unaccompanied student pedestrians, all bike riders and all vehicles. 10 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 5
10 15
20 25
Average Rank - Unaccompanied Student Pedestrians, Bike Riders and Vehicles 11 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
Intersection Total Pedestrians Total E-Bike and Bike Riders Average Rank Ripley & Felton 29 29 29
Ripley & Lilienthal 28 21 24.5
Felton & Grant 18 28 23
Ralston & Lilienthal 22 23 22.5
Beryl & Maria 25 20 22.5
Grant & Green 24 17 20.5
Emerald & Lucia 15 25 20
Rindge Ln & Plant Ave 27 12 19.5
Vincent & Lucia 11 26 18.5
Flagler Ln & Havemeyer Ln 13 24 18.5
Harkness & Morgan 20 16 18
Robinson St & Vail Ave 15 18 16.5
Artesia Blvd at Greenbelt 5 27 16
Flagler & Morgan 10 22 16
Harkness & Carlson 17 11 14
Julia & Serpentine 23 5 14
Prospect & Helberta 26 2 14
Prospect & Knob Hill 12 15 13.5
Prospect & Ave G 16 8 12
MacKay Ln & Nelson Ave 19 5 12
Prospect & Camino Real 7 15 11
Julia & Knob Hill 21 1 11
Grant & Aviation 2 19 10.5
Inglewood & Grant Ave 5 15 10
PV Bl & Helberta 9 8 8.5
182nd & Inglewood 6 8 7
Ralston & Inglewood 1 11 6
Beryl & Prospect 3 9 6
Prospect & PV Bl 8 3 5.5
Intersections given a rank for each category: 29 the busiest and 1 the least busy. Average for each category determined the ranking order.

This chart includes all pedestrians and all bike riders. No motor vehicles. 12 BRR #43 ATTACHMENT C
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Average Ranking Pedestrian and Bike Traffic (no vehicles) Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #44

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#44
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the estimated cost to repair critical public infrastructure in the waterfront including the beach pedestrian path, the storm drain outfall facilities south of Topaz, and the sea walls in King Harbor?
Response:

The table below provides order of magnitude estimates for various infrastructure improvements in the waterfront area. In addition to the order of magnitude estimate, the source of each estimate has been identified, along with the year the estimate was created.

Infrastructure Item
Estimated
Cost to
Repair
Year
Cost
Estimate
Created
Cost
Estimate
Source
MARINA/BEACH:

Basin 3 Sea Wall Replacement $12,000,000 2020 Nobel
Consultant
Estimate
King Harbor Sea Level Rise
Adaptation – overall estimate for
perimeter marina basin protection to
address risk for pedestrian sidewalk and
marina access, perimeter inundation
improvements, perimeter dike
construction, seawall construction,
landfill, relocation of utilities, and
mole/building foundation redevelopment
to raise base floor elevations
$291,000,000 2019 Nobel
Consultant
Estimate
Municipal Pier Utilities
Repairs/Upgrades
$100,000 2025 Jilk Heavy
Construction
Estimate
Basin 3 Docks/Gangway Replacement
– new concrete floating docks with
marine structure construction and
landside utilities
$32,000,000 2023 Moffatt&
Nichol
Estimate
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #44

Beach Boardwalk Pedestrian Walking
Path Replacement – the 1000 ft long, 5
ft wide beach pedestrian walkway south
of the Municipal Pier. This walkway is
separated from the beach biking path
and keeps walking and running
pedestrians safe in this very busy
boardwalk area.
$25,000 2025 Contractor
pricing
Mole A Revetment Repair – permitting
with regulatory agencies and follow-up
construction to repair the existing rock
revetment to original design. Damage
due to wave overtopping of adjacent
breakwater.
$500,000 2024 Moffatt &
Nichol & Jilk
Heavy
Construction
STORM DRAIN:

Avenue F Storm Drain Outfall
Replacement – this Storm Drain Ocean
Outfall is a partially exposed 6 x 5 feet
reinforced concrete box located in the
beach sand. The 232 feet linear outfall
was built by the City in the mid
1980’s and approximately 70 feet of the
outfall is exposed at the oceans edge.

It’s designed to convey 360-cfs of storm
water runoff and has significant
structural deficiencies. The existing
structure has exposed opening, rusting
elements and jagged sections of
concrete and steel.
$2,000,000 2019 Los Angeles
County
Public
Works
SANITARY SEWER:

Basin 3 Pump Station Rehabilitation $5,000,000 2025 Staff Estimate
based on
recent
similar
projects
Harbor Drive Pump Station
Rehabilitation
$5,000,000 2025 Staff
Estimate
based on
recent
similar
projects
Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #44

Portofino Way & Mole B Conveyance
System & Manhole Lining
$1,000,000 2025 Sancon
Contract
Pricing
It should be noted that there has been a significant increase in construction costs over the past five years, and that many of the estimates identified above will need to be adjusted to account for inflation. The City hopes to receive a climate resiliency grant from the CA Coastal Commission to fund a comprehensive King Harbor vulnerability assessment that will update several of the critical waterfront infrastructure reconstruction estimates and provide various sea level rise adaptation strategies.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #45

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#45
June 3, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to replace the fencing at the Perry Park baseball field, and would a replacement project be eligible for Quimby Funds?
Response:

A project to replace the ballfield fencing at Perry Park would include the following, as shown on the attached aerial map:

Main Diamond (shown in blue):
• 126 feet of 26-foot chain link fence in the infield
• 205 feet of 10-foot fencing down the left and right field lines • 80 feet of 6-foot fencing for dugouts with privacy screens and roof covers • 60 feet of 16-foot netting down the left and right field lines • Five 8-foot gates
Smaller Diamond (shown in orange):
• 110 feet of 6-foot fencing for the dugouts
• 51 feet of 15-foot back stops, with netting
• Two 8-foot gates
Perimeter Fencing (shown in red):
• 895 feet of 6-foot chain link fencing
• Reinstalling 265 feet of existing windscreen
• 16 feet of 8-foot chain link fencing
• Four swinging gates, including one 15-foot-wide double swinging gate Left Field Netting (shown in purple):
• 106 feet of 10-foot chain link fencing
• 106 feet of 26-foot netting
• New horizontal braces
All existing vertical posts would be re-used.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #45

Based on information obtained from a local fencing contractor, the estimated cost to implement the above scope of work would be as follows:
• $225,000 for galvanized steel, including a 15% contingency • $250,000 for green vinyl coated, including a 15% contingency Use of Quimby Funds
The State of California Government Code Section 66477 authorizes cities to require the dedication of land, impose a payment in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map for residential development. On September 7, 2004, the Redondo Beach City Council adopted an ordinance establishing park subdivision trust dedications and in-lieu fees (Quimby Fees) for new housing units built in the City.

Quimby funds may be used to acquire, develop, and rehabilitate parkland and recreational facilities that serve the neighborhood or region impacted by the development.

Therefore, replacing the fencing at Perry Park would be an eligible use of Quimby funds, as Perry Park is considered a regional facility that serves all of Redondo Beach.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #46

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#46
June 10, 2025
Question:

What is the cost to conduct an in-depth structural analysis of the Pier Parking Structure’s upper deck?
Response:

Walker Consultants (Walker) prepared a proposal to conduct a structural engineering review of the City’s South Pier Parking Structure to determine the feasibility of constructing new buildings on top of the existing parking deck. The proposed cost for the analysis is $151,000.

As part of the FY 2025-26 CIP, staff reduced the proposed funding and scope of work for the North Pier Parking Structure Repairs Project, which is currently underway as part of the Pier Parking Structure Critical Repairs Program, Job No.70610. The reduction in scope acknowledges (after project bidding and a number of value engineering attempts) that it is cost prohibitive to provide all seismic upgrades needed to bring the 60-year-old structure up to current seismic codes. The project's proposed budget is being reduced by $1M, with those funds reverting back to the General Fund. The remaining $1.1M will be used to perform the non-seismic repairs (i.e. spalling repair, waterproofing, cathodic protection, etc.) needed to repair and protect the existing concrete and keep the North Pier Parking Structure serviceable. The available funds will also be used to study alternatives to 1) reduce the upper deck’s seismic loading, 2) help extend the long-term life of the parking structure, and 3) determine the allowable weight for new buildings and the overall engineering feasibility of redevelopment.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #47

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Budget Response Report
#47
June 3, 2025
Question:

What are the costs and options to install dedicated bicycle lanes on Palos Verdes Boulevard?
Response:

Per City Council direction provided on December 3, 2024, staff investigated the feasibility of installing dedicated bicycle lanes on Palos Verdes Boulevard (PVB) and presented the analysis to the Public Works & Sustainability Commission (PWSC) on January 27, 2025.

The City Council has already approved new Class II bicycle lanes on PVB between S Irena Avenue and the eastern City border with Torrance. This area is currently being striped. Due to roadway width considerations, dedicated bicycle lanes on the remaining portion of PVB within the City are not designed, funded, or slated for construction at this time. Staff investigated the feasibility of removing either a travel lane or the parking lane in each direction on PVB, between Irena and PCH, to provide space for bicycle lanes.

Completion of bike lanes in this half mile corridor would close the gap between the pending bike lanes eastward of S Irena Ave and those west of PCH in the City of Torrance. Because parking utilization on PVB was found to be low, the PWSC unanimously voted to recommend the City Council fund the design and construction of bicycle lanes along this stretch of roadway. This concept does not currently have funding.

Because the project, if desired by City Council, would repurpose underutilized parking lanes, there would be sufficient room to install Class IV protected bicycle lanes, which include vertical barriers to prevent vehicular intrusion. If space is available, staff generally recommends Class IV protected bicycle lanes for the improved safety and comfort that they provide to riders. If the Council would like to move forward with a bike lane project in this area, further study and coordination would be required to determine the barrier type best suited for the conditions. The review would consider a number of factors, including how to accommodate street sweeping.

The cost to design and install protected bicycle lanes can vary, depending on the materials used for protection. Staff estimates that if rigid, prefabricated, barriers were used, these bicycle lanes could be designed and installed for approximately $250,000.

The cost would be $150,000 to $200,000 if more flexible materials are utilized. Flexible materials, however, come with higher ongoing maintenance costs.

Budget
FY 2025 - 2026
BRR #46