REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Minutes
Redondo Beach City Council
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Closed Session – Adjourned Regular Meeting 4:30 p.m.
Open Session – Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
4:30 PM - CLOSED SESSION – ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Redondo Beach City Council was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Mayor Light in the City Hall Council Chambers, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, California.
B. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Waller, Castle, Kaluderovic, Obagi, Behrendt, Mayor Light
Councilmembers Absent: None
Officials Present: Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Joy Ford, City Attorney
Laura Diaz, Records Mgmt. Supervisor
Mathew Silver, Program Coordinator/Liaison
C. SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION - None
D. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS – ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS - None E. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS AND NONAGENDA ITEMS Liaison Silver reported no eComments and no Zoom attendees.
F. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION – 4:34 P.M.
F.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the Government Code Section 54956.8.
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Greg Kapovich, Waterfront & Economic Development Director Katherine Buck, Waterfront & Economic Development Manager Mike Cook, Information Technology Director
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
PROPERTY:
Portions of the Redondo Beach Police Pier Substation and International Boardwalk Parking Structure
(portions of APN #s: 7503-002-913 and 7503-033-905)
NEGOTIATING PARTY:
Crown Castle Fiber LLC
UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Price and Terms
F.2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED POTENTIAL LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4). Two potential cases F.3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.8. NEGOTIATOR: Mike Witzansky, City Manager Andy Winje, Public Works Director PROPERTY: Portion of Vail Avenue (White Circle) public right of way adjacent to properties along the 3400 block of Johnston Avenue (Adjacent APNs: 4151-007-023, 4151-007-022, 4151-007-043, 4151-007-042, 4151-007-045, 4151-007-041, 4151-007-040, 4151-007-039, 4151-007-038, and 4151-007-037) NEGOTIATING PARTY: Owners of the Adjacent APNs UNDER NEGOTIATION: Both Terms and Conditions
F.4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). Name of case: Daniel Mendoza-Conner v. City of Redondo Beach, et al. Case Number: 23TRCV00481
F.5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the Government Code Section 54956.8.
AGENCY NEGOTIATOR:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Elizabeth Hause, Community Services Director
Greg Kapovich, Waterfront & Economic Development Director PROPERTY:
Portions of the Redondo Beach Marina Parking Lot and Seaside Lagoon (portions of APN #s: 7503-029-900 and 7503-029-903)
Portions of Harbor Drive, Pacific Avenue, Catalina Avenue, Gertruda Avenue, Herondo Street, and Esplanade
NEGOTIATING PARTIES:
Kellie Hawkins, Englander Knabe & Allen on Behalf of Nike, Inc.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Price and Terms
F.6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the Government Code Section 54956.8.
AGENCY NEGOTIATOR:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Elizabeth Hause, Community Services Director
Greg Kapovich, Waterfront & Economic Development Director PROPERTY:
Portions of the Redondo Beach Marina Parking Lot
(portions of APN #s: 7503-029-900 and 7503-029-903)
Portions of King Harbor turn basin and hand launch
NEGOTIATING PARTIES:
Adam Brzyski, Game On Live Studio, Water Polo Program Coordinator UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Price and Term
Liaison Silver read titles to be discussed at Closed Session.
City Manager Witzansky announced the following would be participating in Closed Session: City Manager Mike Witzansky, City Attorney Joy Ford, Assistant City Attorney Cheryl Park, W.E.D. Director Greg Kapovich, W.E.D. Manager Katherine Buck, IT Director Mike Cook, Public Works Director Andy Winje, City Engineer Lauren Sablan, Human Resources Director Diane Strickfaden, Outside Legal Counsel Joshua Dale, and Community Services Director Elizabeth Hause.
Motion by Councilmember Obagi, seconded by Councilmember Castle, to recess to Closed Session at 4:35 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
G. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Light reconvened to Open Session at 6:02 p.m.
H. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Waller, Castle, Kaluderovic, Obagi, Behrendt, Mayor Light
Councilmembers Absent: None
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Officials Present: Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Joy Ford, City Attorney
Laura Diaz, Records Mgmt. Supervisor
I. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
City Manager Witzansky reported no reportable action for Closed Session.
J. ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING
Motion by Councilmember Castle, seconded by Councilmember Waller, to adjourn to the Open Session at 6:02 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
6:00 PM – OPEN SESSION – REGULAR MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Redondo Beach City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Light in the City Hall Council Chambers, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, California.
B. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Waller, Castle, Kaluderovic, Obagi, Behrendt, Mayor Light
Councilmembers Absent: None
Officials Present: Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Joy Ford, City Attorney
Laura Diaz, Records Mgmt. Supervisor
C. SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION
Mayor Light invited veterans and active-duty military to stand and be recognized for their service.
Phoenix Martinez-Whitaker, 5th grader at Tulita Elementary School, led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Light asked all to remain standing for a moment of silent invocation.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
D. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/AB 1234 TRAVEL Mayor Light reported attending a US Council of Mayors’ meeting with Google last week regarding the use of AI for the City; reported a discussion regarding a bill that is moving forward with Cal Cities on the Housing Element with Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi; participated last week with South Bay Parkland Conservancy on weeding the bluff garden on the Esplanade and went over some facts he learned during the event on other things the Conservancy provides to the community.
Councilmember Behrendt reported transportation and parking expenses related to the January 23rd League of California Cities meeting and noted that documentation is available through the Council’s Executive Assistant upon request; reminded everyone about the joint District 4 and District 5 Community Meeting scheduled for Monday, February 23rd at 6:00 p.m. at the RBPAC with special guest Police Chief Stephen Sprengel.
Councilmember Obagi echoed what Councilmember Behrendt announced; stated that the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday would be considering Artesia Blvd regulatory changes and encouraged people to speak up if they are in favor or against the changes; reported that he walked down PCH in Laguna Beach, which is similar to Artesia Blvd with its narrow sidewalks, and noticed that they have trees frequently spaced from one another on the sidewalks that provide shade and protection for pedestrians; showed a short video of the area and commented that he felt much more comfortable walking there than on Artesia Blvd.; announced a ribbon cutting on Thursday at 4:00 p.m. at the North Redondo Beach bike path at the corner of Felton and Rockefeller and stated he would not be there due to attending the ICA Board Meeting in Santa Barbara.
Councilmember Kaluderovic reported attending the ECRHA Committee Meeting for LA County and emphasized to the members there that they need to prioritize data for accountability as a primary focus.
Councilmember Waller stated he reported last week transportation and parking expenses related to the January 23rd League of California Cities meeting; attended the Mayors’ AI workshop at Google Spruce Goose Campus; hosted 20 residents at his Community Meeting last Saturday; attended the Riviera Village Association Meeting that morning and stated that Summer Festival is in planning and Dine-Around-the-Village is tentatively scheduled for June 3rd; spoke about the ribbon cutting for the bike path being on Perkins and Rockefeller; announced the Public Safety Open House on Sunday, March 8th from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Civic Center.
E. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA
Motion by Councilmember Obagi, seconded by Councilmember Kaluderovic, to approve the order of the agenda as written.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
F. AGENCY RECESS - None
G. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS - ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS
G.1. For Blue Folder Documents Approved at the City Council Meeting City Clerk Manzano reported Blue Folder items for H.5, J.1, and L.1.
Motion by Councilmember Waller, seconded by Councilmember Castle, to receive and file the Blue Folder items.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
H. CONSENT CALENDAR
H.1. APPROVE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED AND REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2026
CONTACT: ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
H.2. APPROVE MOTION TO READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER
READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
CONTACT: ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
H.3. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
A. JANUARY 20, 2026 ADJOURNED AND REGULAR MEETING
CONTACT: ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK
H.4. PAYROLL DEMANDS
CHECKS 30538-30550 IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,158.64, PD. 2/13/26 DIRECT DEPOSIT 307372-308003 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,412,465.23, PD. 2/13/26
EFT/ACH $470,954.48, PD. 2/9/26 (PP2602)
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DEMANDS
CHECKS 123446-123663 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,015,937.57
EFT CA DEPT OF TAX AND FEE ADMIN $12,589.00
CONTACT: STEPHANIE MEYER, FINANCE DIRECTOR
H.5. APPROVE CONTRACTS UNDER $35,000:
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
1. APPROVE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH 1736 FAMILY CRISIS
CENTER FOR SHELTER AND COUNSELING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,864 FOR THE TERM JULY 1, 2025 TO JUNE 30, 2026 CONTACT: ELIZABETH HAUSE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
2. APPROVE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH DISABILITY COMMUNITY
RESOURCE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,538 FOR THE TERM JULY 1, 2025 TO JUNE 30, 2026 CONTACT: ELIZABETH HAUSE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
3. APPROVE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH VENICE FAMILY CLINIC
FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,538 FOR THE TERM JULY 1, 2025 TO JUNE 30, 2026
CONTACT: ELIZABETH HAUSE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
4. APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT (BCHD) AND THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH FOR UNIT 324 LOCATED AT 514 N. PROSPECT AVENUE, REDONDO BEACH, CA TO
SERVE AS OFFICE SPACE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE CRISIS RESPONSE (ACR) TEAM IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,725.07 FOR THE TERM FEBRUARY 17, 2026 TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2026
CONTACT: JOY FORD, CITY ATTORNEY
5. APPROVE A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH AND CLEAR RECOVERY CENTER LLC TO LICENSE AND USE
OFFICE SPACE AT BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT (BCHD) UNIT 324 LOCATED AT 514 N. PROSPECT AVENUE, REDONDO BEACH, CA IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1.00 PAYABLE TO THE CITY FOR THE TERM FEBRUARY 17, 2026 TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2026
CONTACT: JOY FORD, CITY ATTORNEY
H.6. APPROVE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH TATA COMMUNICATIONS (US) INC. TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2027 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH GU HOLDINGS (GOOGLE) FOR THE OPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK FACILITIES IN THE CITY’S RIGHT OF WAY FOR A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2027
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
CONTACT: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
H.7. ACCEPT AS COMPLETE THE RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT, CYCLE 2 PHASE 4, JOB NO. 40190, AUTHORIZE THE CITY
ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE PROJECT WITH
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER, AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF THE RETENTION UPON EXPIRATION OF THE 35-DAY LIEN
PERIOD AND NO CLAIMS BEING FILED UPON THE PROJECT
CONTACT: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
H.8. APPROVE THE SECOND FUNDING AMENDMENT FOR PROJECT
#9200000000M460209 BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FOR THE NORTH REDONDO BEACH BIKEWAY EXTENSION - INGLEWOOD AVENUE PROJECT NO.41260
CONTACT: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
H.9. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEASURE M FUNDING AGREEMENT #9200000000M460208 BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FOR THE NORTH REDONDO BEACH BIKEWAY EXTENSION - FELTON LANE TO INGLEWOOD AVENUE - PROJECT AND RESET THE CITY ENGINEER’S
AUTHORIZATION LIMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT COSTS FOR THE PROJECT TO $125,000
CONTACT: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
H.10. ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2602-008, A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING RETIRED ANNUITANT, COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR
NICOLE BAVIS TO RECEIVE THE AUTHORIZED SALARY INCREASE TO
PERFORM EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH DUTIES AS REQUIRED OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS SUPERVISOR CLASSIFICATION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 & 21224
CONTACT: STEPHEN SPRENGEL, CHIEF OF POLICE
H.11. APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHSTAR ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE
KINGSDALE AVENUE RESURFACING (BETWEEN GRANT AVENUE AND
182ND STREET) PROJECT, JOB NO. 40880, INCREASING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY $14,980 FOR A NEW NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL OF $433,206
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
CONTACT: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
H.12. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE USE OF PROPOSITION C 40% DISCRETIONARY FUNDS BY BEACH CITIES TRANSIT FOR THE TERM OCTOBER 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2028
CONTACT: ELIZABETH HAUSE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
H.13. RECEIVE AND FILE THE CITY TREASURER’S SECOND QUARTER, FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 REPORT
CONTACT: EUGENE SOLOMON, CITY TREASURER
H.14. APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE REDONDO
BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO HELP FUND CITY PROVIDED SCHOOL RESOURCE POLICE OFFICER SERVICES FOR THE TERM JULY 1, 2025 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2027
CONTACT: JANE CHUNG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
Motion by Councilmember Waller, seconded by Councilmember Obagi, to approve the Consent Calendar as written.
Councilmember Obagi thanked the Public Works Department for item H.9 and Assistant City Attorney Cheryl Park for the agreement with Tata and Google.
Mayor Light invited public comments.
City Clerk Manzano reported no one online and one eComment opposed to H.5.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
City Clerk Manzano read title to item H.10, adopt by title only Resolution No. CC-2602- 008.
I. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - None
J. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
J.1. For eComments and Emails Received from the Public
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, District 3, stated that she left off on 2021 at last week’s Council meeting and the last thing said was that Holly Mitchell pointed out that it was the people that kept coming to those Board meetings and talking to them was the important part;
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
reported her first Board meeting was in 2021 and stated from there she researched and educated herself on terms, processes, industry practices, etc. and learned how Metro operated; stated she attended City Council meetings regularly and was later joined by her husband and two others and together they got their message through; reported that Holly Mitchell’s motion to finalize Hawthorne Blvd. reflected all their comments beautifully summarized; provided more details on the all the work she had done over the years and stated it was hard; mentioned that Chelsea Schreiber helped with her online campaign and stated it was a rewarding moment at the final Board meeting.
Georgette Gantner reported having materials to distribute.
Motion by Councilmember Kaluderovic, seconded by Councilmember Obagi, to receive and file.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
Georgette Gantner stated that she is working on a project regarding Artesia and took pictures of the property located at 2017 to 2019 Artesia Blvd., which is known as Der Kinder Garden but has been abandoned for 17 years; reported tracking down the owners of the property and sending them letters; stated she would like to make it into a Community Center for Redondo Beach residents and mentioned maybe using one of the buildings as an art center; noted that she has not heard from the owners yet but that there is a caretaker for the property; mentioned that her group, Redondo Beach Art Group, are excited about the location and hope something could come of it; stated that by contacting the owners of the vacant properties it might incentivize them to do something that would benefit the community.
Holly Osborne, District 5, showed a copy of the LA Times and reported her latest research appeared on the front page titled “Reinventing a Region Overbuilt with Asphalt”; said to the Council that it applies to their projects that they are building and they want to keep the sidewalks wide and plant trees for shade because they don’t have that in North Redondo; urged Council not to let new developers narrow the sidewalks and encouraged them all to read the article.
Suddeth Gaylord, District 5, stated he just wanted to thank the Councilmembers for all they do; commented that it was an astonishing thing that happened with the light rail and spoke about the perseverance of Niki, her husband, and Holly; noted that Council backing their people was a pivotal moment; said it was pointed out to him that item F is a closed meeting item but relates to the property he lives on and asked if someone could contact him to let him know what it is about.
City Manager Witzansky stated he would contact Suddeth Gaylord regarding the item later.
Shiela Lamb stated she wanted to offer a different framing on the highest and best use of Public Land; said when population grows faster than open space, quality of life declines,
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
parks become overcrowded and the health and climate benefits of open space erode; spoke about Redondo Beach being park poor by County standards and with RHNA park access per resident will decline; noted that the City will point out that they have Quimby fees but stated those are not enough to maintain park ratios in high cost land markets like Redondo Beach and, if replacement park land is not possible, Public Land becomes even more important to protect; stated the recent vote to increase FAR on PI land shifts how the City treats public assets and once it is intensified and monetized the open space potential is permanently lost with no realistic pathway to replace it; noted that cities that manage growth well use more robust tools than Redondo Beach currently uses and explained what those cities do; stated she is not arguing against housing but is arguing for responsible growth; asked the Council to pause and consider whether they are stewarding Public Land as a civic infrastructure, or repositioning it as a budget tool.
Mark Nelson (via Zoom) recalled that last week they discussed the implications of the
1.25 FAR on the Beach Cities parcel, Council had given the City Manager and Planning Director direction to bring forward some zoning restrictions, and he discussed the setbacks of the buildings on the BCHD campus; stated that leaves them with the question of how much damage has the existing Beach Cities complex already done to the housing values; said using hedonic price models they have determined that properties within a mile of BCHD are down $200 million plus; stated that the Council should consider how much more damage it wants to allow to the surrounding neighborhoods if it gives BCHD what it is asking for, which is essentially 60 ft. tall along the lot lines; opined it is time for the Council to schedule a public hearing to have a discussion in the open with the Planning staff and with the City Manager to craft the restrictions that are needed to protect the public.
Laura Duke (via Zoom), District 3, stated she wanted to comment on the General Plan Land Use Element update from last month and the subsequent 5-0 vote; said that City staff saying public institutional is misleading and people need to realize public zone land is broken down into different subsets and commented that staff did not put up a slide detailing the different public zones; reported that “public community facility” is what they are talking about for this situation and staff should be specific; urged people to do the research to understand it before they vote because City staff is biased on this issue; commented that the City is making big decisions for the residents that could change all public zones forever; pointed out that Councilmember Waller asked a question last month about the new residential care facility that demonstrated he doesn’t know that RCFE is a conditional use under the public community facility zone and that Councilmember Castle spoke about the hospital location but there is no hospital there anymore; suggested they say “public community facility zone at Prospect and Diamond”, not the BCHD campus because the land is not their campus; stated that City staff and Councilmembers should take a deeper look at the public zones and not lump everything into public institutional and taking staff’s recommendation of a 1.25 FAR allowance on the public zone puts future zones, public zones, at risk; suggested that BCHD promote a residential care facility for the elderly, which is a public care facility, and one that is affordable to public people and Beach Cities’ residents.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Nancy Skiba (via Zoom), District 4, commented that it would be a good time now for people to start looking into getting rid of Ranked Choice Voting.
City Clerk Manzano reported no one else online and no eComments.
K. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Light reported speaking to members of the Planning Department, City Manager, and Public Works; discussions with members of the Planning Commission and several Councilmembers before the hearing was scheduled; noted that he was meeting with the developer, but they cancelled before the meeting.
Councilmember Waller reported meeting with the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, and numerous exchanges with the public which he informed them that he could not comment but their input would be allowed at the public hearing.
Councilmember Castle reported speaking with the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, staff, and members of the Planning Commission; stated he was contacted by the developer, but he referred them to the City Manager.
Councilmember Kaluderovic reported speaking with the City Manager, City Attorney, the Mayor (prior to the scheduled hearing), Councilmember Obagi, staff and the developer prior to it going to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Obagi reported speaking to City staff, Councilmember Kaluderovic, the developer prior to it going to the Planning Commission, Planning Commission members Chair Craig and Hazeltine prior to the Planning Commission decision and Chair Craig after the Planning Commission decision.
Councilmember Behrendt reported speaking to the Mayor, City Attorney, City Manager, staff, members of the public, and Planning Commissioner Doug Boswell.
L. PUBLIC HEARINGS
L.1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION,
CONCESSIONS REQUESTED UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, AND A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 49 UNITS, 5 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME AND 3 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 4 STORIES AND 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, WITH 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND 2 FLOORS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING WITH 129 PARKING SPACES AND SPACE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 14 VALET PARKING SPACES, LOCATED ON FIVE PARCELS (7508012013, 7508012012, 7508012011, 7508012010, 7508012009) WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2)
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
AT 401-417 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
PROPERTY OWNER: Redondo Seaside Living, LLC
APPLICANT: Redondo Seaside Living, LLC
LOCATION: 401 - 417 S. Pacific Coast Highway
CASE NO: 2025-0074
PROCEDURES:
1. Open the public hearing and take testimony;
2. Close the public hearing and deliberate;
3. Adopt the attached resolution by title only, waiving further reading.
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION CC-2602-010 OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ADOPTING A CEQA EXEMPTION
DECLARATION AND GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL, THEREBY APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 65912.124(E) BASED UPON A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT --
CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 49 UNITS, 5 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME & 3 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 4 STORIES AND 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, WITH 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND 2 FLOORS OF
SUBTERRANEAN PARKING WITH 129 PARKING SPACES AND SPACE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 14 VALET PARKING SPACES, LOCATED ON FIVE
PARCELS (7508012013, 7508012012, 7508012011, 7508012010, 7508012009) WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2) AT 401-417 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CASE NO. 2025-0074) -- IS “CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS” IN THE CERTIFIED LCP WITH THE APPLICATION OF
ALLOWABLE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS PERMITTED BY AND HEREBY
APPROVED UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
Motion by Councilmember Obagi, seconded by Councilmember Kaluderovic, to open the public hearing.
Councilmember Obagi also disclosed correspondence with staff.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
Community Development Director Wiener announced he would be joined by Planning Manager Sean Scully, Assistant City Attorney Cheryl Park, and Outside Legal Counsel Diana Varat (virtually) for the presentation; provided some context around the application by noting that it is due to state law; explained that state legislature has determined that there is an affordable housing crisis due to a lack of housing supply; stated that legislature, over the past 7 to 8 years, has taken a more aggressive position on housing production, deregulating housing, and taking away local control which he wanted to
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
mention for the benefit of the audience; stated what is before them is the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Coastal Development Permit and request for concessions and waivers through Density Bonus Law; provided a slide with information and a map of the subject property located at 401 to 417 South Pacific Coast Highway or PCH (west side between Pearl and Ruby); explained that the lot size is approximately 33,000 sq. ft., located in the Coastal Zone, in the commercial C-2 zone, and surrounded by commercial and multi-family zoning; provided a brief summary of the project stating that the applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that would be four stories high, include a subterranean two-level garage, and 49 residential units, of which five would be deed restricted for very low income; stated the project would include 17,000 sq. ft. of ground level commercial space and showed a drawing of the proposed project from the garage to the upper level; noted, as he mentioned before, there are several state housing laws in play with the review and consideration of the project including SB330, AB2011, and State Density Bonus Law; provided renderings of the proposed project from the PCH front view; provided a slide with the regulatory framework which went over the multiple state housing laws including SB330; explained that SB330 limits the City’s ability to deny a project or reduce density and limits the City’s discretion in reviewing a project so now they can no longer apply subjective design standards; noted that AB2011 is the most significant housing law that applies to this project and that it allows residential development along commercial corridors in areas zoned for commercial use; explained further that it requires ministerial review and entitlement process, which typically this project would be a staff approved project with no public hearing, but because it is in the Coastal Zone AB2243 and State Density Bonus Law applies; stated that four primary housing laws are being applied to this project; provided background on the project which included a required Coastal Development Permit and that required a public hearing with the Planning Commission, which took place on December 18th, and the Planning Commission denied the application during that hearing; stated that shortly after the denial the applicant filed an appeal so that the application could be heard by the City Council; reviewed the Planning Commission’s reasons for the denial: 1) the project would impede Coastal access by reducing the required number of parking spaces from 68 to 44, stated it was important to note that there is a provision in state law AB2011 that says deviations, zoning waivers allowed through Density Bonus Law shall not constitute a basis for determining a project is inconsistent with the City’s local Coastal Program, 2) by not meeting parking requirements, there would be overflow parking that could impact the roadway and ingress/egress to Fire Station 1, and 3) the Planning Commission did not see a reduction in the cost of the project that came with the request for the concession to avoid the utilization study; reported that the applicant has modified the project based on the feedback and concerns from the Planning Commission meeting and now includes 129 parking spaces and they accomplished this by expanding the garage; stated that the applicant is proposing to meet the commercial parking requirements; noted that 61 residential parking spaces is prescribed by State Density Bonus Law.
Mayor Light asked what the normal amount of parking would be without the Density Bonus Law.
Planning Manger Scully calculated 98 plus a factor for visitor parking and said he would
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
need to double check to confirm the total.
Mayor Light commented that it is over 40 parking spaces short of the City’s normal standard for a development of its size.
More discussion followed.
Councilmember Behrendt wanted clarification that the State Density Bonus Law says that the City does not get to block it, that the concession and waiver apply to the LCP standards.
Community Development Director Wiener responded that Councilmember Behrendt was correct in his statement; continued with his presentation; stated that the applicant originally requested three concessions but removed concessions 2 and 3 since the applicant revised the plan; reported of the three concession the only one they are still proposing is to increase the FAR from 1.5 to 2.58 and they also maintain the original waivers for the project: allow to increase the number of stories from 3 to 4, reductions in setbacks, and allowance to exceed the zoning height limit of 45 ft. for the stairwell and elevator; stated that the applicant has also requested new waivers related to the expanded parking area: reduce the private storage for each unit from 400 cubic feet to 300 cubic feet, allow the use of 10 tandem parking for commercial and residential uses, allow the use of 13 compact spaces which exceeds the allowed number of compact spaces on a project, and allow the use of 14 valet spaces at the discretion of the applicant based on demand; stated the applicant also added some minor project modifications:
reduced the steepness of the slope of the driveway, added more additional secure bike parking on the site, increased the valet queuing area, modified the landscape plans to incorporate trees with greater shade canopy, addition of bike racks on Pearl St. and PCH, and addition of “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings at the project access driveway; circled back to the safety concern that was raised by the Planning Commission as part of the basis for the denial, which was the proximity to the Fire Station and the potential to access the roadway that leads to the Fire Station; provided a map with the two locations and stated that staff met with Fire Department staff and they did not believe there are any unique concerns or safety issues associated; noted that the applicant submitted a traffic study which was included as an attachment to the packet and addresses the safety issues surrounding the site.
Mayor Light asked if Pearl St. is a primary route to get to PCH for the Fire Department, so speed humps are not allowed and used the example of Broadway being a street that doesn’t allow them due to the Fire Department’s use of the street.
Deputy Chief Jason May stated that Pearl is a primary access route, and they would go directly in front of the development project to access both PCH and the east part of the City but could not speak to whether speed humps would be restricted.
Traffic Engineer Ryan Liu stated that Broadway is on the map of streets that currently do not allow speed cushions, but Pearl is not so speed cushions could be placed on that street as long as it met the threshold.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Councilmember Kaluderovic commented that speed cushions are spaced a certain distance apart so that the fire trucks don’t actually go over the humps.
Traffic Engineer Liu said she is correct; noted that all speed cushions that they install in the City are spaced so that wide axel vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances can bypass them.
Community Development Director continued his presentation; stated what constitutes a specific adverse impact is defined in state law and it states it is supposed to be significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable and also based on objective identified written public health or safety standards; noted that the question of “what type of project or situation would that apply to?” came up at the Planning Commission meeting and he provided some examples of situations; pointed out that the state sets the bar high with making that determination because it is essentially the sole basis that can be relied on to deny a housing project or request a concession or waiver of the Affordable Housing Law; stated, since the Planning Commission meeting, they were contacted by the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission advised staff that the finding of limiting access to Coastal resources and their opinion was not an objective standard in the context of this project and they did not feel it was applicable to the project; reported that staff has been in contact with State HCD and they transmitted a letter to the City and that letter is included in the packet as an attachment; stated it is a letter of Technical Assistance and also a Notice of Potential Violation; noted that in the letter they state their opinion that the denial was in violation of AB2011 and they cite state law as the basis for their enforcement authority to take action on that; pointed out that the project has various state laws, Coastal acts, and State Housing Law applied and they have heard from both agencies since the decision was made; stated the procedures were: open the public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing, and deliberate; noted staff’s recommendation is to adopt the attached resolution granting the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial.
Mayor Light asked if the applicant had a briefing that they wanted to give.
City Attorney Ford confirmed that they have up to an hour for the briefing.
Ben Agarwal stated he has worked with staff for many years on a couple of projects, he is a resident of Redondo Beach, and has raised two daughters and four grandchildren in Redondo Beach; stated he is an engineer by training, earned a doctorate in Structural Engineering, and after working for companies decided he wanted to build homes; spoke of following the procedures, rules and regulations of the City in all the projects he has done; felt that the City needs his project because smaller more affordable housing is needed in the City; noted that over the past years builders want to make the most money which means more square footage and the homes have become bigger and bigger; reported building 27 units in North Redondo before it was a desirable location and now it is where people want to live; spoke of more tax revenue coming into the City if he is allowed to build this new project; provided slides of projects he has done in the past where he worked with the City to have zoning changed from commercial to residential: one on
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
the corner of Aviation and Artesia where a Shell station used to be, a 27-unit building on the corner of Catalina and Francisca, and installed an artifact at the corner of Elena and Francisca; stated that they think the project will add to the community and that there will always be fears around things done in the City but they do it with community feedback and with time and energy to do it properly.
Seema Dhir, partner on the project and daughter of Ben Agrawal, spoke of living in Redondo Beach most of her life, owning her first home in Redondo, and working in Redondo for over 10 years; stated that the project is called Nivasa Living which means home and dwelling and their tagline is “Coastal Living, Connected Community” and spoke about the efforts they have made to work with the concerns they have heard; stated they have taken meaningful steps in sustainability and landscape, affordability, parking and operations, and safety; noted they included mobility forward amenities such as dedicated bike rooms with repair stations; spoke about making the project work now and also for the future; explained they are trying to create synergy between residents and ground floor businesses so they support each other and the broader community; stated they have engaged a team to help develop the right tenants and once they have approval they are committed to making the synergy; spoke about building out spaces around tenants needs, recruiting businesses that align with Redondo Beach values, and coordinating programing to the commercial spaces that support the residents and residents that support the businesses; stated that a Coastal feel is what they are working to bring and explained how they are trying to create it in the design.
James Fischer, Partner with DFH Architects, went through the proposed project and the voluntary modifications they made as a result of the Planning Commission hearing; stated they are proposing a 49 unit mixed-use project with ground floor commercial and residential amenity spaces and common uses with three floors of residential dwelling units above with one, two, and three bedroom units; reported that 8 of the 49 units will be designated as affordable, 129 parking spaces will be provided, the total height of the building will be 45 ft. and four stories; noted that they will provide over 9,800 sq. ft. of usable open space; explained that the ground floor will have vehicle ingress and egress solely off of Pearl and the main pedestrian entry off of PCH throughout the street facing courtyard; stated that the main commercial spaces will be along PCH and additional commercial space towards the back of the project will be mostly residential focused uses; provided details of the residential lobby, elevator, stair access, and resident lounge; provided details regarding the setbacks and where they would be located and the distances of each.
Councilmember Obagi referenced the “Keep Clear” that was lightly etched on one of the slides and asked if they intended to keep that.
James Fischer responded that yes, they do intend to keep that and it is something they consulted with the City Traffic Engineer on and he recommended keeping it for queuing space; mentioned that they are also not reducing any existing sidewalk widths; reported that they are voluntarily adding short term bike spaces along Pearl and PCH and also providing a room with three cargo bikes and a workstation space on the ground floor
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
which will be accessible by the users of the commercial spaces.
Mayor Light asked if the co-working is just for residents and not a separate co-working business.
James Fischer responded yes, that is correct; provided a slide of the driveway transitions and stated they are now providing a maximum slope of 5% for a distance of 20 ft. from the Pearl St. property line based on feedback from the City Traffic Engineer; stated, per the recommendations of the EPD, they added the “Keep Clear” paint on the street.
Mayor Light asked if the ramp slope is why they shifted the building to the south.
James Fischer stated no, they were able to do that without impacting the building footprint; continued the presentation and provided a slide with their landscape plan; highlighted one of their sustainable features, which is also how they are going to treat stormwater management, with on grade planters that they refer to as lid planters; mentioned where the canopy street trees would be placed and where large planters would be placed; provided a detailed slide of the first level parking and showed where they have made the modification to provide the code required parking for both commercial and residential; stated that they will have a handful of compact and tandem spaces and mentioned that the tandem spaces would be provided to the two and three bedroom units; noted that they also have commercial tandem spaces available for employees of the commercial uses; noted that the complex will also be made available to users of the building and made available for the City’s new NEV Parking Program through the local travel network; stated that they have a plan for valet parking, to be used at the discretion of the owners, and all vehicle queuing will be within the garage; stated that no queuing will take place on Pearl St.; provided a slide with details of the lowest level of the parking, which they also increased the footprint of as they did with P1; reported that they will have code compliance EV parking located on both levels; provided more details on the unit make up and the organization of the units around the courtyards with views of the ocean; spoke of the roof having 360 degree views, seating, and a relaxing environment and a large portion will be designated for PV panels and low lying mechanical equipment per code requirements; went through more slides with details of the structure; showed the building height diagram and noted that the required height for the LCP is 45 ft and they are not requesting adjustment from that but they are requesting an extra story; stated they are requesting waivers for the stair and elevator towers so they can exceed the height limit; highlighted the transit accessibility, showed a map with all the local transit stops within a half mile of the site; provided a slide showing the exterior design of the building and gave more explanation regarding the aesthetics and features of the building; introduced Elisa Paster their Land Use Attorney.
Elisa Paster, Managing Partner of Rand Paster & Nelson, stated she is the Land Use Counsel for the project; referenced the voluntary changes the client made to the project and noted it came with a cost but that the applicant has demonstrated a lot of good faith in doing the modifications; stated City staff did a good job going through the reasons the Planning Commission’s denial must be overturned; reiterated that they are subject to the objective standards that apply to the project, which include the Density Bonus Standards
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
and LCP Standards as deviated from through the Density Bonus Law; noted it is very significant that both the Coastal Commission and HCD weighed in and hoped the Council would take that into account; reported doing the expert traffic study with the previous amount of parking, which was 105, and since then they have increased it to 129 and stated their expert traffic engineer found that was sufficient parking because there is a lot of synergy in the uses; spoke of the City’s code being outdated and that the parking numbers probably need to be updated; stated that the project will provide eight lower income units which will be proportionately mixed with the rest of the project; stated that the most recent red line draft of the draft Housing Element shows the City needs this project to help meet its RHNA numbers and HCD will be watching that; felt if the project is denied based on non-objective standards it will make a difference and make things harder; said this is the type of project that AB2011 contemplated, it is fully consistent with the plans and policies and will be an asset to the community; stated that not only does the law compel them to approve this project, it is a good project, and a lot of time and money was spent on the design to reflect the Coastal lifestyle; wanted to clarify that the co-working space would be open to both the public and the residents; asked that they are allowed some time for rebuttal after public comment.
City Attorney Ford confirmed that they do get a 20-minute rebuttal.
Mayor Light said he appreciated the accommodation on the parking for the commercial and that addressed some of his concerns since there is not a lot of parking in that area; stated he also appreciated the materials they have chosen; commented that he did not appreciate the veiled threat of having an attorney come up and address them on the law since the City has their own; voiced some concerns about the Eddy having 115 units and there is still 15 units unoccupied on the market and asked if this project consisted of rentals or condos.
Elisa Paster responded that they are condominiums for sale, but the affordable units will be rental units.
Some discussion followed regarding the parking for the area.
Mayor Light voiced concern regarding the market rates and asked if they knew what they would be pricing them at.
Elisa Paster said due to the time it will take to build the project they do not know what the rates will be and will wait to see what the market is at that time.
Mayor Light reiterated that the Eddy still has 50 of 115 units unoccupied at this time and it opened in July 2025.
Some discussion followed regarding the Eddy being rentals and the units in this project being for sale.
Ben Agarwal stated that the units in their project will be for sale and the rental units are
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
affordable units and will be rented out even before they finish construction; noted it would allow those that deserve to live in the City but can’t afford to, the ability to do so with the affordable units.
Mayor Light stated his other concern is the commercial component and said they have seen high turnover and high vacancy in developments that are mixed-use with no front parking; said what he would love to see is commercial that is additive to the City’s coffers that would help make up for the cost of the residents that are going to live in their facility; mentioned that he has concerns because of 1800 PCH, The Montecito on Artesia, and the Eddy; reported that the Eddy has only filled two of the 11 commercial spaces they have since July 2025; said it is not a make or break for him; asked if they intended to put solar up.
James Fischer responded that it is a code requirement and it will be determined during design of how much will be needed.
Mayor Light reported that District 1 and District 2 has a significant number of affordable units throughout so they are not devoid of affordable units in the Coastal zone; spoke of Redondo Beach having some of the highest density development compared to most beach cities; pointed out that they are one of three cities that caused the person who started the Coastal Act to write the first initiative because of the high rises and the condo complexes blocking access to the beach; stated he is offended by some of the wording used by their attorney; felt they are moving in the right direction though; asked if they would consider using native plants versus some of the exotics they have listed.
Elisa Paster responded they would be happy to look into using native plants.
Mayor Light asked if the dual parking could be used only for residential and then they would not need the valet.
Elisa Paster stated that they envisioned the residential tandems would be for the two and three bedrooms and the commercial tandems would be for employees and they would like the flexibility to have valet if needed.
Mayor Light asked if tandem parking could be only for residential.
Elisa Paster noted that all the residential parking is on the second floor and all the commercial parking is on the first floor and they need to have some of the dual on the first floor.
Mayor Light asked if they would consider a bioswale or a deep well on the parkway in front of the facility to take in some of the stormwater off of PCH.
James Fischer said it is something they could have their civil engineer discuss with Public Works but mentioned it could be costly so they would need to be cautious.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Elisa Paster added they can make a good faith effort to do that, but they don’t think they could accept it as unconditional.
Councilmember Waller mentioned concerns regarding the roof patio and asked if there would be limitations on the furniture and use of the patio.
Seema Dhir stated that there will be noise restrictions, time restrictions, and a limit on capacity.
Elisa Paster added that they will not be allowing amplified noise on the roof patio.
Councilmember Waller asked if they could increase the number of trees.
Elisa Paster said they could look into it but they would need to talk to their landscape architect; wondered if there are any spacing requirements and said they would need to work with Public Works on it.
James Fischer stated there is a street spacing requirement, and it also depends on the canopy of the tree; said they would need to work with their landscape architect and the City to determine the proper spacing.
Councilmember Waller requested them to consider making the project a three story because of the concerns with the height and mass; referenced the eight affordable units and wondered if they could increase that amount so that police officers, firefighters, teachers, and others that work in the City could actually afford to live in the City they work.
Elisa Paster said unfortunately they cannot increase the number of affordable units but would be happy to do targeted marketing to police, fire, teachers, nurses, and people who work in the City to the extent allowed by Fair Housing Law.
Councilmember Waller asked City staff the impacts and risks for the City if they deny the project.
City Attorney Ford stated the letter received from HCD concluded the Planning Commission’s actions are inconsistent with AB2011; noted it is in their packet; reported the enforcement actions that the State can take with the Attorney General would be bringing a lawsuit against the City and subjecting the City to increased fines, all attorneys’ fees, and a court could order the City to approve the project among other orders.
Councilmember Kaluderovic stated from her calculations there would be four 1 bedrooms, two to three 2-bedroom units, and at least one 3-bedroom unit; asked if they would be designated in any particular space in the complex.
Elisa Paster said they would work with City staff on the locations and that Fair Housing Law states they cannot be in the worst locations and spread throughout the property; noted they would have the same finishes as the other units; in response to Councilmember Kaluderovic’s question, she stated that five units would be very low
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
income and the other three units would be moderately low income.
Discussion followed regarding the LA County Affordable Guidelines.
Councilmember Kaluderovic spoke about the difficulty of tracking and maintaining the inventory of affordable units in the City; stated, since they are the landlord and would be participating in the maintenance, it would be helpful to the City if they were able to track and maintain the units and streamline the effort with City staff; referenced the commercial spaces and that the presentation mentioned they engaged a team to help recruit businesses, asked what they are doing to make the spaces attractive to businesses.
Seema Dhir said they have been trying to find businesses that want to be there and then they will build out what they actually need; stated that the first-floor ceilings are high.
Councilmember Kaluderovic confirmed that their engagement is seeking out the businesses and then curating the space to be what they need to have them thrive in the community.
Seema Dhir said yes but until they have approval they cannot start.
Mayor Light asked if they intend to keep the building after they build it or sell it.
Ben Agrawal reported he has a non-profit trust, he will designate the trust to own the affordable units, and intends to keep run it from there.
Councilmember Obagi said he appreciated the changes they made to the project after the Planning Commission denied it and that they appealed to the Council to give them an opportunity to get it right especially in the State’s eyes; spoke about the Arbutus Unedo tree they chose for the front of their development and stated if they put two of them 30 feet apart it would provide a canopy over the sidewalk; asked if they would impose a goal of planting those trees every 30 feet so eventually they would have a full canopy there, which would create a more pleasant environment for the area.
Councilmember Castle mentioned they need to keep in mind that visibility for the commercial space is important so they will need to balance the amount of trees with keeping visibility; asked the project architect if there would be a setback in front of the building since there is no parking currently on that stretch of PCH.
Some discussion took place but not at the podium therefore, not able to capture the speaker.
James Fischer spoke of areas around the property that have setbacks and noted that the entry courtyard is set fairly deep to the center of the building.
Councilmember Obagi stated they have recognized that the flat signs on the storefronts on Artesia Blvd. are not visible to people driving by and suggested that they consider
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
offering their future tenants blade signs.
Mayor Light asked if the Keep Clear zone would create sensor issues for the traffic light.
Traffic Engineer Liu stated that it would potentially change the location of the sensors and the project team would need to work with Caltrans to relocate those loops and push them a bit further back; stated they could work with Caltrans through an encroachment permit.
Mayor Light asked who is responsible for the Keep Clear.
Traffic Engineer Liu responded that the City could condition it to the developer so they can install it at their cost or pay the City to install it; noted it could be a part of their off-site improvements, when they redo the sidewalk and curb, they can do the Keep Clear zone at that time.
Mayor Light asked, since the setback was decreased, would it impact the sight line for turning out of the development onto Pearl onto PCH.
Traffic Engineer Liu stated they do maintain the sight lines there; explained that he requested the project change the 20 ft. of driveway, that is 5% or less so that when you are exiting that driveway the driver will be on more level ground and can see the sidewalk; further mentioned a car can pull out of the driveway, there is angled parking to the left, and they can creep into that angled parking area to check for traffic.
Mayor Light invited public comments.
Barbara Zipper, resident since 1996, stated the development will be what she is looking at from her home on Francisca; reported putting about a half million dollars to get an ocean view and now this development will be her view; noted that all the buildings in the area are a max of two stories and this development is grossly oversized for the neighborhood being at four stories; suggested they remove the commercial and only have residential; pointed out that there are strip malls down the street that are all empty but they do need the affordable housing; stated she is blown away that the Fire Department said there will be no impact and she disagreed; understood that development is needed and the current structure has been sitting empty for years but asked that they right-size it and do what is right for the people that live there.
Simon Faynboym stated he was published in Forbes and the publications were Uncompromised Communication and Maneuverability; noted that he is a local physician, grew up in poverty, and finally got a chance to live in Redondo; stated that the project is for people with higher economic status, it is luxury living, it is not a resolution to the current housing crisis in Redondo; reminded everyone that the current administration loves lawsuits and, regardless of if they agree or not, lawsuits are the current way of doing things; opined that the developers of the project are trying to sidestep the community and only answering questions to the legal line so they can get the project here; stated that there was tons of feedback at the last meeting and they came back with extra parking spaces but sidestepped all the other stuff discussed; stated that past behavior is a
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
predictor of future behavior and when things go wrong they will figure out a way to maneuver around it.
Devin Null stated he lives about a block and a half away from the development site and that his family has owned homes near the area in the past; opined that the report done on the traffic analysis was not correct and that Seema Dhir’s comments that people will ride their bikes or walk to work are also not correct; spoke about the numbers given for parking spaces for each unit and that they are not realistic so they will have issues with parking especially when there is street sweeping; noted the battle they currently have when it comes to parking; appealed to Ben and Seema to think about the impact they will have when it comes to parking; stated he likes the rest of the development but the commercial space is not needed and does not want to live next to a four-story complex.
Dr. Andy Lesser spoke about the City realizing the developments on Catalina was a big mistake and unfortunately, now, the State is forcing things that the Council has no power over; noted that even though they don’t have power over density and height, there are things they do have control over and that is safety; stated that the driveway doesn’t belong on Pearl, the driveway belongs on the highway; said he lives on Pearl and it is a safety issue because the fire trucks, ambulances, and rescue vehicles go up and down Pearl day and night; noted it is a major route and there will be traffic congestion; agreed with Barbara Zipper that they should pencil it out as just residential and lower the height; opined that the roof deck will attract parties and the noise impact will be felt; opined that the development is designed wrong, it is too big, too tall, and not safe; referenced a big building on Broadway and Torrance Blvd. and stated accidents happen there all the time because the vision is poor; felt the same will happen on Pearl and PCH with the development’s current design; referenced a graphic he shared with the Council showing what will happen when cars pile up trying to get into the garage; suggested, before they break ground, they should go back and redesign it to be a three-story high, residential building with the driveway on PCH and a dedicated right-turn lane for southbound traffic and possibly consider a traffic signal with a protected left turn arrow for northbound traffic.
Judith Lonsdale pointed out that the property the are discussing was open and on notice from the outset that they are one block from Fire Station 1, and said she had mentioned that to the Planning Commission via Zoom at their meeting; said it was odd that the representative from that Fire Station said it is not a designated route because she lives there and emergency vehicles go up and down Pearl St. about 2 to 3 times every day; voiced concern that it would slow down response time for emergencies and impact traffic; stated there are e-Bike riders and cars that continuously run the 4-way stop at Pearl and Francisca and with the increase in density of the new residents from the complex there will be more crashes in the future; said safety is the non-negotiable and is where they have discretion.
Mark Finigan asked to pull up the slide that shows the Pearl entrance; stated with the roof deck and stairwell the building is actually five-stories; opined that Redondo does not need a five-story building, that the development should only be residential and not have commercial underneath; stated his main concern is the entrance on Pearl St. and said his
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
house is next to the location on Pearl St. and the only way for him to get to his driveway is coming from the ocean from the Fire Station; noted that cars back up on Pearl and PCH and he cannot safely make a left turn from that street; stated that the only way to get into the new building will be from the Esplanade, the Elks, or from the Fire Station which also means cars will be queuing on Pearl St. and making PCH traffic worse; proposed that they move the driveway to the high throughput area, said there are already three driveways built in front of 401; voiced his concerns with the traffic on Pearl causing delays for emergency vehicles to get through and agreed that the development’s driveway should be put on PCH; credited the developers for making the modifications, believes that development is needed in the area, but feels safety is an issue there if the development is five stories and the driveway remains on Pearl.
Thad Jones, lives on Francisca, stated he does home design and has worked on renovations for residents; noted he follows the rules from height restrictions to setbacks and they all make sense; questioned why the City would bend rules for a developer to build something with such a high elevation; commented that there are a lot of people that are concerned about this development but understandably do not understand the process; stated he will lose his entire ocean view with this project and would understand it better if it was a three-story building within code; hoped the Council would represent the residents who have been following the rules and feels this development does not.
Holly Osborne, District 5, stated she had written to the Planning Commission after the project was presented to them and said that they should just remove the commercial and have residential only; noted that several other people have suggested it that evening so why don’t they just ask the developers to do that; spoke of hating tandem parking and compact parking just leading to scratches on cars; suggested no tandem parking, no compact parking, get rid of the commercial, and then the property will have enough parking.
Alex Fineman, Redondo Beach homeowner, spoke in favor of the project and feels more housing is necessary and enriches the City’s future; stated that this project is exactly the kind of solution that other cities are adopting; noted it is on a transit corridor, within walking distance of schools and commercial centers, reduces car dependency, adds 49 homes, and does not displace a single resident; stated that the City has recognized the importance by including it in its recent Draft Housing Element and hoped it would be approved in accordance with the Housing Element; urged Council to grant the appeal and approve the project.
Georgette Gantner, District 2, stated that the developer asked for the FAR to go from 1.5 to 2.58; commented that she doesn’t feel that is fair and hoped it was not under consideration.
Wayne Craig, District 1, stated he was at the Planning Commission when he heard this; felt everyone should watch the Planning Commission meeting because it shows why they need to have their neighborhood voices initiative passed in Sacramento; commented that it is the reason why they don’t have zoning control anymore; stated from his
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
understanding the same developer is building the same exact building at Inglewood Ave./190th in the City but it won’t come to the Planning Commission since it is not in the Coastal zone; spoke about the Planning Commission being concerned about the parking and noted that it is about 45 parking spaces short since they also need to add in visitor parking spaces; stated that their parking study was done in January which doesn’t show how busy the summer will be; said he found a couple of things interesting in the parking study: 1) they said currently there is a queue of four cars that might be going out to Pearl to PCH and that after the project was built they didn’t anticipate that to get any larger, 2) on page 7, it said they didn’t have a concern about emergency egress because when people see flashing light they move their cars; commented that cars cannot move when they are in a queue; felt that even though the parking study was done, there are issues that can come up on it; voiced concerns about the Coastal Commission’s letter regarding parking and the Fire Department stating there would be no impact to them; felt that it is a better project since they brought it to the Planning Commission first and then made some modifications but stated there will not be enough parking.
Shiela Lamb said she wanted to speak on an important point in the Administrative Report because it is how they protect coastal access while operating under constrained state housing law; stated the report noted that the originally proposed parking supply may have been sufficient based on a shared parking utilization study but sufficiency is not the legal standard in the Coastal zone, LCP compliance is the standard; reported that the Planning Commission found that the project failed to meet the LCP’s objective commercial parking requirement, which exists to protect public access to the Coast, the Harbor, and the Pier; stated that the distinction matters and that if they collapse objective Coastal standards into general performance modeling they will turn the LCP into a suggestion and not a governing document; said she appreciated the applicant revising the project to comply with the LCP standard; wanted to acknowledge the Coastal Commission’s guidance, cited in the report, that broad statements about limiting access to Coastal resources is not by themselves objective standards that can support denial of AB2011; said she agrees with the legal framing but wanted everyone to know that the Coastal Commission was not saying that the Coastal access doesn’t matter, they are saying that they must anchor the City’s decisions to objective standards in the LCP; stated that the Planning Commission did apply the LCP faithfully to the residents; said what is concerning is that the state is asserting that LCP can be overridden by housing statutes.
Brian Lane commented on a previous speaker talking about the difficulty of turning left into his place on Pearl St. and stated that the traffic study says that 90% of the people in the complex will be doing that exact same thing but doing it even closer to PCH, which is very difficult to do; referenced the email from Dr. Andy Lesser that provided slides showing the problem with trying to turn left when on Pearl St. coming off of PCH; said the Keep Clear will not be perfect and once a car is waiting to turn left into the new complex, the next car that wants to turn right will not be able to; stated that the Police and Fire Departments will see more activity in that area.
Grace Peng (via Zoom), on behalf of League of Women Voters, spoke of the League being a good governance organization and she has been following state housing law and
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
reviewing the project; reported that on February 13th, the City released their revised Housing Element, and under Section D (removing governmental constraints) the City noted that they require two parking spaces regardless of the size of the unit; commented that that is very unusual for cities in California; referenced page 120, where the City promised HCD that they would address and remove the parking constraint by November 2023, which the City has not done; stated that asking for very expensive additional underground parking spaces so that existing residents in the area can continue to enjoy free street parking is an unfunded mandate; spoke of imposing same parking and same parking tax for all units regardless of size is ludicrous especially because low income people often are disabled and can’t drive and seniors own less cars; pointed out that the high school is within a couple of blocks and that according to the Finance Department of the State of California, RUHS is expected to lose 18% of their student population.
Time ran out for this speaker.
Nancy Skiba, District 4, opined the project should get rid of the commercial part, that the development is too big and will tower over houses, and that they need to have another driveway; voiced concern that there will be crashes near the site; commented that the City needs more housing for renters and, if they offer the affordable units to City employees first, low-income renters won’t be able to get an apartment.
Mark Nelson (via Zoom) commented that HCD and Coastal Commission seem to be aligned that the developer’s plans are supported by State law; noted that Council is showing concern for neighbors who are speaking out and the adjacent C-2, R-3 abutting properties; stated that he is not concerned about C-2 and R-3’s but he is about R-1’s; spoke of the Council’s concerns about traffic, height, setbacks and carve outs for residents and City employees but the City has not shown the same for the R-1 neighbors adjacent to other developments; felt if the C-2 and R-3 neighbors get a 45-foot limit then the R-1 should get that or even a 40-foot; stated that the biggest issue is the local neighbors haven’t lawyered up yet; mentioned that the urban, landlocked sites, such as this development, don’t have the advantage to easily accommodate a 1.25 FAR, like BCHD can with their 10-acres, and that is where State law tends to bind; recommended that the City just save the money and go with HCD and Coastal because in his experience Coastal will prevail so it might be best to settle it right here and right now.
Ken Taylor, 14-year resident of Redondo Beach, stated he had been a resident of Manhattan Beach for 35 years and had to move because it became too congested; asked that the Council do its best not to let Redondo Beach become too congested.
Laura Duke, District 3, said she pulled up the zoning map and to her it looks like it is C-4 where the commercial four-story is going; stated all the buildings along PCH seems very height respectful and asked if this project would go to a Measure DD vote, Article 27; commented that a three-foot setback is absurd if that is what she heard correctly and it would be similar to Legado; asked City staff to show the zoning maps again; felt that Dr.
Lesser’s points on hearing seals brought up a good point that the structures should be of concern to residents; noted the Kensington at Knob Hill is two stories and that the Coastal Commission or Coastal Act is trying to limit properties west of PCH to two-stories; said
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
she thought they were a charter city and had stronger local zoning laws; thanked Sheila Lamb, Wayne Craig and the whole Planning Commission and Holly Osborne for always doing their job and looking out for residents.
Nike Schwartz, resident since 2014, stated she loves living there but parking is a nightmare; noted that the Firehouse, Women’s Club, summer beach goers, and street sweeping make parking very difficult; asked that the Council does not make living in Redondo Beach more difficult and that they vote with residents in mind.
Arianne O’Brien, 25-year resident, commented that the project is dangerous and negligible and the proposed height is a major concern; opined that the traffic studies done within the past 6 to 12 weeks is not a true reflection of what a beach city needs; stated that dogs have been hit and car accidents happen at the intersection and potentially children will be hit; mentioned that no one has talked about delivery trucks going in and out of the property to move people in or out and that it just won’t work.
Hudson Brann, District 1, spoke in strong support of Item L.1, the appeal of the 49-unit mixed-use project; stated that his generation is getting priced out of Redondo Beach since rent is 40% of their paychecks but that these new homes would allow them to work in Redondo and live in the community; stated it would be an insult to his generation to deny a project that meets zoning and safety standards and no proven harm; stated it was denied by a technicality and that it has been amended; stated the site is key to the City’s revised Housing Element and approving it builds good faith towards compliance and avoids tougher mandates; urged Council to grant the appeal, overturn the denial, and approve the project.
City Clerk Manzano reported no more for Zoom and 7 in support, 3 opposed, and 1 eComment undeclared.
Marcy Guillermo (via Zoom), District 1, stated the safety concerns along Pearl St. need to be better addressed; reported that she lives nearby and walks through the area but it is very dangerous; noted that there are some trees, some skinny parkways but it is not continuous all the way down through PCH; stated if the developer is a member of the community they should work with the City and make Pearl St. safer for pedestrians and suggested they work with the neighbors in the single-family units to make sure they can exit their garages safely; commented that busses have a difficult time trying to make left turns on Pearl Ave. and there have been many close calls for accidents; urged the developers to work with the City and neighbors to ensure Pearl St. is designed in a safe way.
City Clerk Manzano reported no more speakers.
Mayor Light asked the developer to come to the podium for more questions; mentioned that several people have asked about eliminating the commercial portion of the development; asked if that is possible and if it is a significant impact to the affordability of the project.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Elisa Paster stated it is a significant impact and they are not able to eliminate the commercial.
Mayor Light asked for the rationale.
Elisa Paster stated it is part of the project as they are proposing it and it contributes to providing for the affordable units.
Mayor Light invited the developer to voice their rebuttal.
Seema Dhir stated, in closing, they have worked in good faith, listened carefully, and made meaningful modifications and investment in response to the feedback; reported that the project meets the objective standards that apply, including being within the 45-foot height limited under the LCP and the location of the driveway access on Pearl was consistent with the City Traffic Engineer’s directions; asked that the Council approve the project that evening.
Mayor Light summarized requests that were given earlier that evening to include the use of native plants wherever possible, to look at a bioswale or deep well off of PCH, maximize trees to provide shade, and to use blade signs.
Councilmember Castle stated they would need to look into the blade signs because it may not comply with the ordinance; recalled that certain parts of the City need to have signs flat against the building per the sign ordinance but would need to confirm that.
Mayor Light asked the developers if they are accepting of the things mentioned.
Seema Dhir responded that they are willing to accept them to the best of their ability.
Mayor Light asked City staff to explain why they pushed for the driveway to be on Pearl versus PCH.
Traffic Engineer Liu stated if there is an opportunity to place driveways on lower traffic, smaller streets that is always the preference.
Mayor Light mentioned that Alex Fineman quoted him from social media saying he spoke to other cities about housing; said he spoke to other cities about how to regain local control and how to do affordable housing and balance it at the local level; stated that views are not protected in Redondo, they do not have a view ordinance, and the Coastal Act does not protect private views from private homes, it only protects public views; noted that the commercial part is cooked into their project and it would be an impediment to construction to consider commercial; noted that staff supports an entrance off of Pearl from a safety perspective, and the fire professionals say they can work around more traffic on Pearl; clarified that Measure DD applies at zoning changes and this is not a zoning change; commented that all the reasons given are invalid from what he can see.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Motion by Councilmember Obagi, seconded by Councilmember Kaluderovic, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
Councilmember Obagi stated he got elected 4 or 5 years ago on an anti-density platform; said his very first action was to vote on a plan to add 2,493 zoned units to Redondo Beach, and he had to do that three times to try to get HCD’s approval and certification; spoke of a project on Catalina that was going to house multiple people in one unit with very tiny bedrooms and he tried to figure out a compromise with those developers to get the project but ultimately Council decided to deny them, but realizing the City was susceptible to action by the State government, he asked the developer to resubmit the project with modifications that address the concerns of the residents and the surrounding community; reported that they did and the project was approved with no litigation and without enforcement action; said he appreciated the Planning Commission’s actions with this project, that they listened to the residents, took into consideration the Coastal Act, and did what they thought was best; said he appreciated the developer’s response to the Planning Commission’s feedback and in revising the project to provide more parking; thanked HCD for their unsolicited technical assistance on the subject and giving the City the opportunity to make it right; stated, as a final note, there is frustration about towers in Redondo Beach but it is the future, there will be elections relative to State Senate and State Assembly and this is the public’s opportunity to get engaged and find out how the future and representatives are going to vote on these state density issues; stated they all want to achieve affordable housing in Redondo Beach but they also want to have some control over the process and control over what comes in; said he believes the people on the dais have a better gauge on what is desired in the neighborhood and what impacts the neighborhood can handle.
Motion by Councilmember Obagi, seconded by Councilmember Kaluderovic, to adopt by title only Resolution No. CC-2602-010 of the City Council of the City of Redondo Beach, adopting a CEQA exemption declaration and granting the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial, thereby approving the request for a Coastal Development Permit.
Mayor Light asked if he could add the four things the developer agreed to.
Councilmember Obagi added “to the best of your ability, those four conditions incorporated.”
City Manager Witzansky voiced concerns about calling them “conditions”.
More discussion followed and Councilmember Obagi said he has seen their work on Catalina and will take the developers at their word.
Councilmember Behrendt agreed with Councilmember Obagi; spoke about the excellent work of Marc Wiener and Sean Scully along with the support of the City Attorney’s office, City Manager, City staff, especially Traffic Engineer Liu; recognized that Deputy Chief
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Jason May gave them helpful information and the Mayor got them a better product; fully supported the motion.
Mayor Light thanked the Planning Commission for their due diligence and their objective criteria; acknowledged the developer and thanked them for compromising and helping with the commercial parking.
Councilmember Waller told the public that they have heard them but they represent the fiduciary needs of the City and, as mentioned before, Sacramento is forcing their hands; stated Sacramento is limiting their ability to act and to be independent and that is where his vote is coming from; commented that he would love to vote in support of the residents that spoke there that evening but Sacramento is forcing their hand.
Mayor Light asked for a roll call vote for the record.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Waller, Castle, Kaluderovic, Obagi, and Behrendt
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion carried 5-0 by roll call vote.
City Clerk Manzano read adopt by title only Resolution No. CC-2602-010.
Motion by Councilmember Kaluderovic, seconded by Councilmember Obagi, to take a 10-minute break at 9:10 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
RECONVENE FROM RECESS – 9:22 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Waller, Castle, Kaluderovic, Behrendt, Mayor Light Councilmembers Absent: Waller, Obagi
Officials Present: Eleanor Manzano, City Clerk
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Joy Ford, City Attorney
Stephanie Meyer, Finance Director
M. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS - None
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
N. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION
N.1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ASSIGNMENTS OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25, WHICH ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 ADOPT BY 4/5THS VOTE AND BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2602-009, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING TO RE-BUDGET
DEPARTMENTAL CARRYOVER REQUESTS AND CARRY OVER
UNEXPENDED BALANCES AS OF JUNE 30, 2025 FOR DONATIONS,
GRANTS, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS
CONTACT: STEPHANIE MEYER, FINANCE DIRECTOR
Finance Director Meyer stated she is there to present the Year-End Carryover item; stated she will talk about the purpose of the report, the City’s General Fund revenue and expenditure, and an estimated ending fund balance and the recommended use of the fund balance; said she would discuss input from the Budget & Finance Commission regarding the report, discuss next steps, and end with staff recommendations to Council; summarized what she will provide: estimated unaudited General Fund balance at the close of the fiscal year, additional detail on the General Fund, present assignments for Council’s consideration, step in FY 2024-2025 audit process, and FY 2024-2025 General Fund Summary; stated, for the year ending June 30, 2025, revenue exceeded estimates by about 3%, and they spent about 2% below budget; showed a slide with the summary of the City’s General Fund Revenue by major category; stated that they had better than anticipated results in Use of Money and Property; noted that Transfers In is used to record movement between funds within the City; showed a slide for Tax Revenue and noted that it is the City’s largest single source so they include more detail including historical data; reported they had slightly better than anticipated results in UUT and property transfers tax; stated that there was a big jump between 2022-23 and 2023-24 because of the change in accounting recommended by their auditors in FY 23-24 and explained the changes; stated that they are looking at bringing Council some adjustments at mid-year for TOT.
Mayor Light asked, if they net it out, what did the City get from TOT.
Finance Director Meyer responded that in 23-24, the expense was about $2.8 million and the last FY was about $2 million so about $7 million this year net.
Councilmember Behrendt asked if they are booking the 2023-24, 2024-25 TOT from the Marine Avenue hotels into the On-Site Fund, which the City is not actually receiving but still booking as revenue.
Finance Director Meyer responded that they are recording it as revenue and then they are recording the off-setting expense; added that they are showing it go in and out.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
City Manager Witzansky stated that it was recommended by CLA and their prior auditors liked the net approach but CLA liked the gross revenue transfer out approach.
Finance Director Meyer provided a Tax Revenue slide showing the magnitude of property tax compared to the City’s other tax sources; provided an Expenditure slide and reported that they ended the year at about $2.6 million or 2.3% better than they budgeted, mainly due to savings in the City’s contracts and services line; stated they had a strong hiring in 2024-25 and it was the first year of the full impact of some of their MOU increases; spoke about the Transfers Out item which included: regular items, 2021A Lease Revenue Bond, 2019A Bond, reported in 2024-25 they made a $3.1 million contribution to the City’s SelfInsurance Fund, transferred about $3 million to the Capital Projects Fund, and stated that is also where they booked the $2 million payment to their reserve fund related to the Marine Avenue hotels; stated even with those transfers the City ended exactly within budget; showed the Expenditure slide, which gave some historical data on the major categories, noted the spending increase for Personnel and Fringe and corresponding increase in their Internal Services spending and reviewed the Transfers Out; provided a slide for General Fund FY 2024-25 Expenditure by Department, noted they have about a 1% savings overall including encumbrances and the one exception they have is the Fire Department; mentioned that their approach to overtime budgeting has driven the exception and they have updated their overtime budgeting for 25-26 so it should not happen again; provided information on their estimate for General Fund ending balance, showed how they get from their starting balance by backing out the City’s contingency reserve and other mandatory designations and transfers to get to their available balance, which they estimate at $5.2 million; provided a slide with Recommended Use of Balance which included: limited department requests, Harbor Uplands Fund support, and no additional spending pending mid-year review; stated that they anticipate bringing some revenue adjustments to the Council and potentially some additional needs for their internal service funds; stated, in preparation for the 26-27 budget, they don’t recommend Council put $2 million into the CalPERS reserve only to take it out again three months later; stated, with the recommendations including the initial carryover and the net million dollars for Harbor Upland support, it leaves about $3.2 million and they recommend leaving it unallocated; summarized the input from the Budget & Finance Commission, stated they supported limited department carryover, wanted to focus on only necessary items, supported replenishing the CalPERS Reserve Fund, and want to just maintain other balances unallocated for future priorities; said the next steps would be to look at mid-year on March 17th and work on the 24-25 ACFR, which they are not on schedule for but should have for Council in three months; stated staff’s recommendations for Council that evening is to receive and file the report and adopt a resolution to re-budget carryovers and unexpended balances.
City Manager Witzansky stressed the need to be cautious and judicious with the remaining $3.2 million unallocated funds because they will have adjustment needs at mid-year; spoke of seeing a softening of the City’s sales tax projection by about $300,000; noted they will probably revise the City’s property tax figures upward; noted they typically see increased Internal Service Fund pressure and their history of claims, litigation, expenses, etc. have been high in recent years and felt it would affect the number this
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
fiscal year; spoke more about the need to be cautious with the $3.2 million and spoke about the Uplands Fund transfer and the need for the investment they put into it; hoped the mid-year report will reflect positive structural balance in the Uplands Fund; reminded Council that they balanced the 25-26 budget with a $3.5 million draw from the Pension Reserve to get them through the fiscal year so they will still deal with structural issues that need to be addressed going into the 26-27 budget preparation.
Councilmember Castle reported that they have received emails from members of the Budget & Finance Commission asking to double the $8.6 million reserve, but the recommendations provided by the Budget & Finance Commission for the presentation seems to be a bigger priority in terms of excess funds; asked if that was an accurate comment.
Finance Director Meyer said it sounded accurate for the immediate question but felt if the Commission was asked, they would put the CalPERS Reserve Fund first.
City Manager Witzansky added that both ultimately provide the same backstop; stated that they created the Pension Reserve Fund because they knew they were going to have ebbs and flows to that figure and the economic contingency is a percentage of the General Fund spending as a policy matter, but the funds being set aside for access by the Council, so they are effectively the same.
City Clerk Manzano reported no one online and no eComments.
Motion by Councilmember Castle, seconded by Councilmember Obagi, to receive and file and report for discussion and possible action regarding the assignment of the General Fund balance for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2025, and adopt by 4/5 vote and by title only Resolution No. CC-2602-009.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
City Clerk Manzano read adopt by 4/5 vote and by title only Resolution No. CC-2602-009.
N.2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FORMAT AND TIMING OF THE CITY’S NEXT STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION
RECEIVE AND FILE THE MONTHLY UPDATE TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 10, 2025 CONTACT: LUKE SMUDE, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER
City Manager Witzansky stated they are seeking direction on two items that evening; the first is to set the date for their next Strategic Planning Session and they suggested either March 24th or March 31st ; the second is in response to Councilmember Obagi’s referral to discuss any format changes to the Strategic Planning process, which they are open to direction on; noted that the referral contemplated a more simplistic review this year
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
because many of the items on the plan are still the same objectives that they are actively working towards completing and several that are complete have secondary phase work in progress; said Council can either do a continuation of the plan they currently constructed with an update and staff could facilitate it efficiently without the need for a third party facilitator or if they prefer to revisit the goals, outstanding threads, and think more strategically long-term they would recommend using Leading Resources as they have in the past and stay with the more traditional format; stressed that staff is at capacity and they have a lot of outstanding capital projects, a lot of policy matters they are working on, and a lot of state mandates that they are reviewing so they do not have a lot of bandwidth for new objectives; turned the floor over to Councilmember Obagi since it was his referral.
Councilmember Obagi commented that they understand they cannot add more to staff; noted that they have all participated in preparing the goals; confirmed the cost of hiring Leading Resources and felt they don’t need it since they are still working on everything and staff is overloaded; suggested they have an informal process using City staff and invite the public to come; stated they could do a SWOT analysis to the extent that the public wants to give them their opinions on their weaknesses and then they can go through and update the goals; suggested that the Councilmembers think of items that really need to get on the radar of the City now and reasons it cannot wait and they can also review the CIPs that are already funded and in the queue and determine which are priority that they want to see done in the next year or two so that staff has clear direction from Council.
Mayor Light asked Councilmember Obagi why he thought it needed to be addressed because he thought there were things that have changed since the last one and they should look at it as a Council; noted that he did not want to debate it but, after the Council of Mayors, he learned what other cities are doing to balance the impact of housing mandates and they don’t currently have anything like that in their Strategic Plan.
Councilmember Obagi asked if the Mayor felt a mediator was needed during the session.
Mayor Light said no, he didn’t feel she was needed; voiced concern that in the current process when they meet an objective they mark it as done rather than tracking it through the actual accomplishment of the original goal; wanted to hear from Councilmembers Waller and Castle since they have not been to a Strategic Planning Session yet.
Discussion followed and examples were given and suggestions on how to track it were provided.
City Manager Witzansky stated he would like to codify next steps because staff is doing more work on items that have been marked done but there is more work to be tracked in association with the overall objective.
Councilmember Behrendt stated he was reluctant when the referral was made but can see the merit of examining it now; commented that in seeing the long list, he is supportive
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
of the slimmed down informal approach but agrees with the Mayor that there are items that need follow through tracking; reported that Councilmembers Waller and Castle were at the last Strategic Planning Session; agreed with Councilmember Obagi that if there are time sensitive items or things that are tied to another activity they should consider moving it up to be worked on before something else on the list; recognized that City staff is at full capacity and when items are added it pulls resources and compromises current items; stated he is interested in hearing about the Conference of Mayors but would like to be cautious about adding on more.
Councilmember Castle agreed with Councilmember Obagi on a slimmed down version but add important things to the Strategic Plan, discuss them, and prioritize what would best serve the City; opined that the outside expert was not needed for this session, they could go through the list to update it, and figure out next steps on their own.
Mayor Light asked who would record the meeting.
City Manager Witzansky stated it would probably be a combination of Luke Smude and Jane Chung along with some help from the City Clerk’s office; spoke of bringing in staff that have been involved in the work efforts to provide status updates and present logical next steps so they can codify it as a group.
More discussion followed.
City Manager Witzansky recommended they make it a standalone meeting earlier in the day because more staff will be available and more engaged collectively.
Discussion followed regarding what day works best to schedule the meeting.
Councilmember Waller stated he is fine with any of the dates for the Strategic Planning Session and is fine not having the consultant for this next Strategic Planning Session; commented that if staff feels they do not need a consultant for this he is fine with it but does feel having a consultant every once in a while is important since it changes the dynamic.
City Manager Witzansky said they have not done it without a consultant before so this will be a change; stated if Council as a whole feels comfortable with it they can pilot it and see how it goes.
Mayor Light asked the City Manager if he could go through the items and indicate next milestones, so they don’t spend too much time discussing it during the session.
City Manager Witzansky agreed that he would do some prep work, draft logical next steps, note what direction they already have from Council and administrative action that is taking place and then coalesce around the unknown.
Councilmember Obagi stated he discussed with Councilmember Behrendt that they could
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
do the session in-house this time and then decide when they should do another Strategic Planning Session with the consultant.
Motion by Councilmember Obagi, seconded by Councilmember Castle, to proceed as discussed, receive and file the updates to the Strategic Plan, and schedule the Strategic Planning Session for March 31st at 2:00 p.m.
Discussion regarding the time of day for the Strategic Planning Session and the procedures around the meeting were discussed while forming the motion.
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
O. CITY MANAGER ITEMS
City Manager Witzansky stated he had three items: 1) Adjourned Regular Meeting at 1:00 p.m. for next Tuesday, 2) he went to the Cal Cities City Managers’ Conference and stated it was a very good conference and he got some takeaways that he hopes to incorporate into future City Manager Reports, and 3) Greg Kapovich will be leaving the City to take a job closer to home as the Community and Economic Development Director for the City of Signal Hill and they will start recruitment for his replacement in the next month or so; provided some background on what Greg Kapovich has accomplished in his time with the City especially in the Waterfront.
Mayor Light added that the Waterfront would not be where it is today without W.E.D.
Director Kapovich.
P. MAYOR AND COUNCIL ITEMS - None
Q. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REFERRALS TO STAFF
Councilmember Obagi asked for a BRR for the cost to conduct a parking study for Aviation Blvd. south of Artesia Blvd. relative to adding bike lanes there at the cost of street parking, including what grant opportunities could exist to fund the study or the addition of bike lanes; asked for a BRR for the cost to put some plants or vegetation on Flagler and Ripley.
Councilmember Castle added that there is another location at the corner of South Juanita and Camino Real that could use some beautifying.
R. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
R.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the Government Code Section 54956.8.
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Greg Kapovich, Waterfront & Economic Development Director
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Katherine Buck, Waterfront & Economic Development Manager Mike Cook, Information Technology Director
PROPERTY:
Portions of the Redondo Beach Police Pier Substation and International Boardwalk Parking Structure
(portions of APN #s: 7503-002-913 and 7503-033-905)
NEGOTIATING PARTY:
Crown Castle Fiber LLC
UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Price and Terms
R.2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED POTENTIAL LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4). Two potential cases R.3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.8.
NEGOTIATOR:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Andy Winje, Public Works Director
PROPERTY:
Portion of Vail Avenue (White Circle) public right of way adjacent to properties along the 3400 block of Johnston Avenue
(Adjacent APNs: 4151-007-023, 4151-007-022, 4151-007-043, 4151-007-042, 4151-007-045, 4151-007-041, 4151-007-040, 4151-007-039, 4151-007-038, and 4151-007-037)
NEGOTIATING PARTY:
Owners of the Adjacent APNs
UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Both Terms and Conditions
R.4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
Name of case:
Daniel Mendoza-Conner v. City of Redondo Beach, et al.
Case Number: 23TRCV00481
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
R.5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the Government Code Section 54956.8.
AGENCY NEGOTIATOR:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Elizabeth Hause, Community Services Director
Greg Kapovich, Waterfront & Economic Development Director PROPERTY:
Portions of the Redondo Beach Marina Parking Lot and Seaside Lagoon (portions of APN #s: 7503-029-900 and 7503-029-903)
Portions of Harbor Drive, Pacific Avenue, Catalina Avenue, Gertruda Avenue, Herondo Street, and Esplanade
NEGOTIATING PARTIES:
Kellie Hawkins, Englander Knabe & Allen on Behalf of Nike, Inc.
UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Price and Terms
R.6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - The Closed Session is authorized by the Government Code Section 54956.8.
AGENCY NEGOTIATOR:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
Elizabeth Hause, Community Services Director
Greg Kapovich, Waterfront & Economic Development Director PROPERTY:
Portions of the Redondo Beach Marina Parking Lot
(portions of APN #s: 7503-029-900 and 7503-029-903)
Portions of King Harbor turn basin and hand launch
NEGOTIATING PARTIES:
Adam Brzyski, Game On Live Studio, Water Polo Program Coordinator UNDER NEGOTIATION:
Price and Terms
S. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – None
T. ADJOURNMENT – 10:11 P.M.
Motion by Councilmember Kaluderovic, seconded by Councilmember Waller, to adjourn the meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Motion carried 5-0 by voice vote.
The next meeting of the City Council of the City of Redondo Beach will be an Adjourned Regular meeting to be held at 1:00 p.m. (Open Session) on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, in the Redondo Beach City Hall Council Chamber, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, California.
All written comments submitted via eComment are included in the record and available for public review on the City website.
Respectfully submitted:
Eleanor Manzano, CMC
City Clerk