City Council on 2026-05-05 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 05-05-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2026-05-05 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
05-05-26
18:00
70 35 2 28 2
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2026-05-05 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 05-05-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
F.5. 26-0569 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:
Feras Adamo, an individual; Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop Inc., a California Corporation v. City of Redondo Beach; Jim Light, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive
Case Number: 26STCP01367
1 0 0 1
H.9. 26-0372 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-023,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT TO
CALMEX ENGINEERING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,477,163.25 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL STREET
REHABILITATION PROJECT CYCLE 2 PHASE 5, JOB NO. 40190
1 0 0 1
H.10. 26-0396 APPROVE THE CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-024, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS OF CERTAIN STREET
LIGHTING FIXTURES, APPURTENANCES, AND LANDSCAPED AREAS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2026 AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 2027, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC
PROTEST HEARING
SET JUNE 2, 2026, AS THE DATE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 STREET
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT
1 0 1 0
H.11. 26-0422 APPROVE REMOVAL OF THE NORTHBOUND STOP
SIGN ON S IRENA AVENUE AT OPAL STREET
9 0 9 0
H.18. 26-0572 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-026
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION
TO THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FOR
THE INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP FUND TO SUPPORT MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE
ALL AGREEMENTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND
AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE GRANT
1 0 1 0
J.1. 26-0547 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 2 1 0 0 N.1. 26-0520 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY'S CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM
20 1 17 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for F.5. 26-0569 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:
Feras Adamo, an individual; Manhattan Beach Smoke Shop Inc., a California Corporation v. City of Redondo Beach; Jim Light, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive
Case Number: 26STCP01367
Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 11:36am 05-04-26
Interesting.
Agenda Item: eComments for H.9. 26-0372 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-023, A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT TO CALMEX ENGINEERING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,477,163.25 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT CYCLE 2 PHASE 5, JOB NO. 40190
Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 11:42am 05-04-26
How about funding the N Prospect Ave. median for much needed and decades over due upgrades for remediation of public safety and public noise nuisances? Thank You.
Agenda Item: eComments for H.10. 26-0396 APPROVE THE CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS OF CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES, APPURTENANCES, AND LANDSCAPED AREAS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2026 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC PROTEST HEARING SET JUNE 2, 2026, AS THE DATE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
STREET LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT
Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:41am 05-05-26
Electronic files and links are essentially cost-less to post. The public has NO IDEA what the City is approving because only a summary table is provided. It's unacceptable for the City to meet the barebones minimum requirements that do not allow the public to be informed with the spending of our funds. I oppose any forward motion until the City has released the detail for public review and comment.
Agenda Item: eComments for H.11. 26-0422 APPROVE REMOVAL OF THE NORTHBOUND STOP SIGN ON S IRENA AVENUE AT
OPAL STREET
Overall Sentiment
Scott Abcarian
Location:
Submitted At: 5:45pm 05-05-26
1- drivers turning onto Irena from Torrance are accustomed to the stop sign being there. If that stop sign is removed, drivers may continue to expect cross traffic to stop, creating a serious risk of collision with vehicles traveling up Irena that would no longer be required to stop. 2, one of the main concerns in this neighborhood is that drivers already use Irena and Opal as a cut-through to avoid the light at Torrance and Prospect. Removing the stop sign would make it easier for drivers to turn quickly onto Irena from the other side, and then whip around onto Opal Street,( where children play and residents regularly cross the street- This includes vulnerable pedestrians, such as neighbors crossing the street with older adult parents in a wheelchair.
3, the argument that removing the stop sign may force drivers to yield to oncoming traffic is not reassuring. The goal should not be to create a situation where drivers are reacting to more oncoming traffic. The goal should be to keep all traffic slow, predictable, and safe within a residential neighborhood. 4, residents cross these streets often. Removing a stop sign reduces driver stopping behavior and makes the area less safe for pedestrians, especially children, families, older adults, and people with mobility limitations.
A better solution would be to restrict right turns onto Irena from Torrance, or otherwise discourage cut-through traffic from using residential streets to bypass the Torrance/Prospect intersection. The problem is not that drivers are stopping too much. The problem is that too many drivers are entering the neighborhood too quickly and using these residential streets as a shortcut.
Traffic calming should make the neighborhood safer and slower for residents, not easier for cut-through drivers to move through quickly.
To close I don’t think we can put a price on the safety of children and family in our neighborhoods. Collectively the gem stone streets pay millions in property taxes every year. Considering these facts, a cul de sac termination to the western end of Opal st, or even a simple no right turn onto Irena from Torrance seem very reasonable in my opinion.
Sheri Benator
Location:
Submitted At: 5:37pm 05-05-26
I oppose this removal of the stop sign as a resident in this neighborhood, Many people, including children, walk, play, and bike near there. Removing this stop sign is a bad idea as it will make it less safe and could easily result in injuries as cars will be moving faster.
Sheri Benator
Location:
Submitted At: 5:37pm 05-05-26
I oppose this removal of the stop sign as a resident in this neighborhood, Many people, including children, walk, play, and bike near there. Removing this stop sign is a bad idea as it will make it less safe and could easily result in injuries as cars will be moving faster.
Zach Drummer
Location:
Submitted At: 5:17pm 05-05-26
DO NOT REMOVE THE STOP SIGN: The original request was to make Opal a dead end/cul-de-sac because of the concerns over cars traveling at high speeds from Torrance doing a quick left onto Opal and speeding up Opal.
When this proposal was heard in March, several homeowners came to the meeting to oppose removing the stop sign and our voices overruled without any clear rationale. We appreciate and would like the "hardening" proposed but all neighbors pointed out concerns over removing the stop sign because we all can see it would make it an unsafe intersection.
The city is only thinking about this from the perspective of cars, not pedestrians. Pedestrians cross at the stop sign on Irena because crossing at Torrance is not safe because you have cars whipping around from Torrance and if you can go further in the block and know the cars coming at you from Irena have to stop, there is more space to see the cars from Torrance coming. Furthermore, even drivers would not be made safer by removing the stop sign because this creates a perfect T-bone situation where two cars are traveling towards each other without a clear right of way and there isn't much time/space when turning from Torrance onto Opal to see someone coming at you on Irena. Furthermore, Irena is a hill and there is reduced visibility when traveling up the hill. Finally, this now makes it possible for people traveling north on Irena to make a hard right onto Opal without stopping or slowing down.
Cost should not be an issue since NOT removing a stop sign costs NOTHING. It would actually cost MORE to remove it.
Finally, the city is missing the point of the original request to make it a dead end in order to REDUCE cars speeding through the street because the street has several children who play there and elderly people who walk it on a daily basis.
Please do not remove the stop sign. Please consider the original request and intent behind it to make cars go slower and make the neighborhood safer. I do not want to drive by a cross with flowers at the end of the street when someone is inevitably hurt because of the city's decision to remove a stop sign that everyone in the neighborhood opposed.
Brooke Abcarian
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 05-05-26
The residents of Opal street are very against removing this stop sign! It will be less safe for pedestrians and for people traveling west on Opal Street.
Christopher Bothwell
Location:
Submitted At: 4:12pm 05-05-26
Despite the place of this existing stop sign fairly close to another stop sign, I believe removing the Stop sign on Irene at Opal would be mistake and would create negative consequences as to the ideal goal of making this a safer intersection. The overall objective is to enhance the safety and this area to both pedestrians and automobile traffic. Removal of the stop would accomplish either of these goals, but rather create a situation where traffic becomes more dangerous and the safety of pedestrians crossing Irene would be diminished.
As pointed out in the previous council meeting, this is a unique location with the placement of two stop signs in close proximity. But there is a reason for this because the logistics of this intersection are unique. This is not a standard conforming intersection, hence this is the reason the stop has been place in its current location decades ago. Removing the stop sign would be a step backwards concerning safety in order to attempt to make this unique intersection conform to what most intersection are like, Has anyone at the city government done any research on the number of accidents which have happened at this intersection? I have lived here over 10 years and there has not been a single car or pedestrian accident at this intersection. So, I pose the question of why would you try to fix something that is working? Why would you spend tax money on a solution to a non-existent problem? I strongly believe that removal of this stop sign will lead to future accidents at location which is currently not having any. If it is not broken; do fix it.
Matthew Dixon
Location:
Submitted At: 2:42pm 05-05-26
I oppose this removal of stop sign as a resident in this neighborhood out of concern for safety specifically children who play on this area and elderly dog walkers. I have personally many cars speed through this area over the years.
Tony Kostas
Location:
Submitted At: 2:12pm 05-05-26
Do not understand why it’s good to remove a stop sign. The way people come hard around Irena, from Torrance Bl either direction, than left into Opal, would make sense to leave the Stop. I would suggest leaving alone.
Greg Mc
Location:
Submitted At: 1:29pm 05-05-26
Removing this stop sign will make the intersection less safe.
Please do NOT approve this proposal.
Please either reject it, or postpone the decision and allow more time for review and public comment.
Due to the unusual layout of this intersection, it should NOT be treated like a more standard T-intersection.
I am a homeowner in the area and have driven through this intersection for many years. The proposed traffic calming - putting up "cones" to discourage fast turns - makes sense. Removing the stop sign does not make sense and I believe it could make the intersection less safe.
I know of several people on that block of Opal who OPPOSE removing the stop sign. It is not just changing a long standing intersection, as the staff report says. It is the nature of the change - removing the stop sign is not "traffic calming." It would not actually slow down the southbound traffic, but would make unsafe speeds more likely on the northbound side.
Keeping the stop sign is better for pedestrian safety.
Thank you for considering my input and the input of other neighborhood residents who want to KEEP the stop sign.
Greg McClain
Agenda Item: eComments for H.18. 26-0572 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-026 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FOR THE INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP FUND TO SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH AND
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL
AGREEMENTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS, AND AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE GRANT Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:47am 05-05-26
Again, the public has a full right to understand how the City is spending our tax funding, but directly and via activities. The cost of including links to the documents are de mininis, yet there are none and the taxpayers have no way to know the specifics of the ask. The documents exist and must be provided to taxpayers.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 26-0547 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:44pm 05-05-26
(1) This memorandum identifies essential capital projects for consideration during the current capital planning cycle to address critical safety, noise, and public health concerns in the residential area surrounding the 500-600 block of N. Prospect Avenue.
Capital Project Recommendations_ Safety-Sound Wall (Big Prospect side of the divider parcel) Establishes a physical safety barrier for pedestrians and frontage users. It provides essential noise reduction to mitigate risks such as chronic stress and cardiovascular health impacts documented in peer-reviewed research, specifically addressing the "significant" noise profile projected for upcoming construction in the area. _ Speed Tables (Big Prospect between Beryl St. and Diamond St.) Reduces vehicle speeds to improve physical safety for residents and campus visitors.
Slower traffic also directly reduces ambient environmental noise, further protecting the community from associated negative health impacts.
(2) There is no reason that taxpayers should have to suffer the cost of false alarms when residents mistook spray on holiday snow and condensate for smoke-filled rooms. On December 11, 2025, a 911 report from an errant property owner triggered a massive multi-agency emergency response to the 120-unit Silverado memory care facility. This memo outlines the estimated "loaded" operational costs and the legal mechanisms for shifting financial liability to the reporting party.
Liability and Cost Recovery Analysis
Because the emergency was not the result of a system malfunction or facility negligence, but rather an errant report, the City of Redondo Beach has two primary avenues for cost recovery:
A. Civil Cost Recovery (Municipal Code)
The City can bypass standard "False Alarm" fines (typically ~$179) and bill the reporting party for extraordinary service costs. This is common when a resident's reckless actions result in a significant drain on municipal resources.
B. Criminal Restitution (California Penal Code)
PC 148.3 (False Report of Emergency): If the investigation determines the report was made knowingly or with reckless disregard, the individual faces misdemeanor or felony charges.
Alexander Martin
Location:
Submitted At: 9:11pm 04-30-26
I know I have brought this up so many times. In the near future, will Beach Cities Transit's service at Manhattan Village Mall (Rosecrans Ave) and Plaza El Segundo (Pacific Coast Highway) be simplified so that Line 109 remains on those aforementioned streets? This has been discussed in the Service Study from 2022/2023. I know BCT is going to swap the southern terminals so that Line 109 now ends at the Redondo Beach Pier, while Line 102 is extended to Riviera Village, as was confirmed at the March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 26-0520 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CITY'S CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM
Overall Sentiment
An Th
Location:
Submitted At: 8:56pm 05-05-26
Children’s safety is not where we should be focusing to make budget savings.
Rachel Carter
Location: 90277, Redondo beach
Submitted At: 8:49pm 05-05-26
I oppose reducing the number of crossing guards. Specifically the corner of prospect and beryl is one of the most dangerous corners to cross. People drive entirely too fast zooming down prospect and our kids safety should not be jeopardized.
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 8:30pm 05-05-26
RBUSD has benefited greatly from recent tax increases to support ballot measures for the school district. A financial reveal of taxpayer monies they have in reserve might have many people re-thinking how this program operates. The school district also is the single largest owner of land/properties in the city. With the city facing budgetary constraints, it's long past time for the school district to start funding programs and other expenses that the city has been sponsoring.
With the entire crossing guard program under the purview of the police department, we use expensive employee dollars to backfill for absenteeism of crossing guards, simultaneously taking law enforcement individuals off the street in their primary and critical job function! At a minimum, consideration should be given to moving the program (should it remain as city-run) to another city department such as Public Works.
Those advocating maintaining the existing number of crossing guards might consider promoting shifting the number of crossing guards exceeding what the city can afford at this time, to the school district to fund. This issue is more than just the number of crossing guards; it's also how the program should be funded.
Eliza Lane
Location:
Submitted At: 6:21pm 05-05-26
I strongly oppose the proposal of reducing the amount of crossing guards in the Redondo District. I believe the district has a responsibility to protect students and ensure a safe passage and transport to and from school.
Reducing the amount of crossing guards would impact student safety, especially with the rise of E bikes, and E bike incidents. I also think this will open the district up to potential liabilities and lawsuits when accidents do occur.
Edwin Arcos
Location:
Submitted At: 6:14pm 05-05-26
Por medio de la presente, deseo expresar mi firme oposición a la decisión de retirar al guardia de cruce asignado al área donde mi hijo de primaria cruza diariamente para llegar a la escuela. Esta medida representa un riesgo serio y evitable para la seguridad de los estudiantes.
El guardia de cruce cumple una función esencial: proteger a los niños en un entorno donde el tráfico es constante, impredecible y, en muchas ocasiones, acelerado o distraído. Confiar en que los estudiantes pequeños crucen solos, especialmente en horas de mayor congestión, aumenta significativamente la posibilidad de accidentes.
Mi hijo, al igual que muchos otros estudiantes, depende del guardia para cruzar de manera segura. Su presencia no es un lujo ni un detalle menor; es una medida de seguridad comprobada que previene lesiones y garantiza que los niños lleguen a la escuela y regresen a casa sin incidentes.
Solicito respetuosamente que la escuela y el distrito reconsideren esta decisión y restablezcan al guardia de cruce de inmediato. La seguridad de nuestros hijos debe ser siempre la prioridad más alta.
Alexandra Gudmundsson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:02pm 05-05-26
I oppose the idea of reducing the number of crossing guards at Redondo Beach schools. Drivers are distracted and drive way too fast in school zones as it is. Our crossing guards at Jefferson regularly avoids accidents in the tiny parking lot from frazzled drivers backing up into traffic. The idea of reducing the number of crossing guards that are helping our kids get to school safely is ludicrous.
Lisa Alemi
Location:
Submitted At: 5:55pm 05-05-26
Please reinstate the crossing guard at the intersection of Flagler and Morgan Ln. The safety of families and students walking through that intersection every morning and afternoon depends on a reliable crossing guard to protect them from vehicles and E bikes that frequently failed to stop at the stop sign and speed through the intersection.
This morning, I witnessed an E biker almost hit a pedestrian crossing the street. They missed the pedestrian by inches. This afternoon three cars ran through the stop sign without stopping. These incidences occur every single day and the ones mentioned above were only from today.
It is the duty of Redondo Beach to provide safe mechanisms for students to get to school each day. While parking strips and or speed bumps may help, a crossing guard is what truly protects these children.
Please reinstate the crossing guard at this intersection for the safety of Jefferson students and families.
Jennifer Arcos
Location:
Submitted At: 5:38pm 05-05-26
I am writing to formally oppose the removal of the crossing guard assigned to the area where my elementaryaged son crosses. This decision raises serious safety concerns for me as a parent, and I believe it puts students at unnecessary risk.
The crossing guard plays a critical role in ensuring children can safely navigate traffic during busy morning and afternoon hours. Drivers are often distracted, rushed, or unfamiliar with school-zone expectations. Without a trained adult present to manage the flow of cars and protect students, the likelihood of accidents increases significantly.
My son, like many young students, relies on the crossing guard for guidance and protection. Expecting children to cross alone—especially at an intersection that already experiences heavy traffic—creates an avoidable hazard.
The presence of a crossing guard is not a convenience; it is a safety measure that directly prevents injuries.
I respectfully request that the school and district reconsider this decision and reinstate the crossing guard immediately. The safety of our children must remain the top priority.
Andi Galindo
Location:
Submitted At: 4:47pm 05-05-26
We are a soon-to-be Washington family, and live in the neighborhood surrounding Washington and Adams.
Redondo Beach schools are situated within residential neighborhoods that were never designed to accommodate the amount of car traffic generated during daily drop-offs and pick-ups. Even with crossing guards in place, these periods are already congested and chaotic. Removing crossing guards who actively manage crossings and traffic flow will only increase the risk of accidents, particularly for young children navigating busy streets.
Crossing guards do more than help children cross safely - they provide structure and predictability during the most hectic times of day. Their presence helps mitigate dangerous driver behavior, supports families who choose to walk their children to school, and contributes to an overall safer environment in our neighborhoods.
At a time when we should be encouraging walking and reducing traffic congestion around schools, this proposal moves us in the opposite direction.
Olivia Wills
Location:
Submitted At: 4:01pm 05-05-26
The recommendation to reduce crossing guards jeopardizes safety at key points for children in the community. I hope this recommendation will be reconsidered and a more mindful and strategic proposal considered.
Jen Salvino
Location:
Submitted At: 2:49pm 05-05-26
The recent recommendation to eliminate crossing guards from our school zones threatens the safety of thousands of children, the well_being of our broader community, and the fiscal health of the district. While budget constraints are a legitimate concern, eliminating this proven lifesaving service is a short_sighted solution that will cost far more—in lives, injuries, and dollars—than it saves. My Grandson goes to Washington and I OPPOSE this measure.
Removing guards shifts responsibility to drivers and parents, exposing the district to negligence lawsuits. The average settlement for a child_injury claim exceeds $250,000—far higher than the annual cost of the crossing_guard program.
Carolyn Pichotta
Location:
Submitted At: 2:43pm 05-05-26
As a parent of three Jefferson Elementary students, I am strongly opposed to the city reducing the crossing guards that protect our young children on their way to and from school.
I was disappointed to see that our crossing guard at Flagler and Morgan was recently moved. Flagler and Harkness are very busy, especially in the morning with people rushing on their commutes between 190th and grant/aviation. My husband and I have witnessed numerous occasions where drivers do not stop at the stop signs. My husband has almost been hit walking our children to school and he is 6'3", much more visible than a school aged child. I am shocked that the plan is now to remove more crossing guards, including on Harkness where is where our TK and Kinder students cross.
Reading the administrative report, it appears that the city is justifying this change, at least in part, because when a crossing guard calls in sick, a municipal service officer is pulled from his or her duties giving parking tickets which is apparently unacceptable. Is the city really telling us that they are more concerned with enforcing street sweeping than protecting the children in our community? There has to be another solution. Please keep our crossing guards in place.
Dave Klatt
Location:
Submitted At: 2:38pm 05-05-26
We are a Jefferson Elementary family who crosses the Flagler and Morgan Lane intersection. This is a very busy intersection which is a main thoroughfare from Grant to 190th. High School and Middle School students on their e-bikes along with parents dropping their children off at school cause Flagler to be very busy in the morning hours. Many students cross this intersection and I was shocked to hear that our crossing guard was "reallocated" to an intersection that is much further away from the school and has less Jefferson student foot traffic compared to the intersection immediately next to the school.
Now we learn that the City Council proposes to drop the total number of guards by 1/3rd? We understand that costs are rising and staffing is difficult but we find it hard to believe that in a wealthy community like Redondo Beach, the City Council has to cut crossing guards who actually help keep our children safe. The City Council cannot find the budgetary needs by cutting some other less significant program? It is very ironic that a City Council member ran on the basis of adding a crossing guard to her neighborhood school...and now the City Council is proposing to make a significant cut to the entire program.
Please re-evaluate this proposal and find cuts in other, less direct, programs that don't impact our children's safety.
Anna Scott
Location:
Submitted At: 2:32pm 05-05-26
As the mother of two children currently at Jefferson Elementary school, I was very disappointed to hear of the removal of our crossing guard on the corner of Morgan and Flagler. I am now no longer comfortable with my children walking to school, given the high amount of traffic. I think it’s only a matter of time before something tragic happens. Please prioritize the safety of our children and find other areas to cut back on spending.
Courtney Hughes
Location:
Submitted At: 2:20pm 05-05-26
Eliminating the crossing guard at the intersection of Lillenthal and Ralston would create an immediate and serious safety risk for our community’s children. This is not a lightly used crossing—it is one of the primary routes for students traveling to both Washington Elementary and the nearby middle school, many of whom walk or bike independently.
During peak school hours, traffic volume and driver behavior already make this intersection challenging. The presence of a trained crossing guard provides not just traffic control, but a visible signal to drivers that children are present and have the right of way. Removing that safeguard shifts an unreasonable burden onto young students to navigate a complex and potentially hazardous situation on their own.
Beyond the direct safety concerns, this decision would also undermine broader community goals around walkability and reducing school-related traffic congestion. Families who no longer feel it is safe for their children to walk will be more likely to drive, increasing congestion and compounding the very risks the crossing guard helps mitigate.
Additionally, if the concern is resource allocation, utilizing personnel such as parking enforcement or street sweeping staff during peak school commute times to support student safety would be a far more impactful use of city resources. Redirecting existing staff for short, high-need windows each day prioritizes child safety without requiring entirely new expenditures.
I strongly urge the Council to maintain the crossing guard at this critical location - as well as the others considered for elimination - and prioritize the safety and well-being of our students.
Braley Klatt
Location:
Submitted At: 1:45pm 05-05-26
I am a Jefferson Parent of 2 boys. We live on the corner of Morgan and Flagler. We have had two crossing guards over the majority of our children's tenure at Jefferson. We were disappointed to find that our crossing guard was relocated. Our intersection is bombarded with ebikers and cars at that intersection. Many times, during the week, the intersection at Flagler and Havemeyer gets backed up to our street and we need the extra staff. Multiple families on our street will no longer allow their kids to walk to and from school now that there is no crossing guard.
We have had little to no opportunity to voice our opinion and feel blindsided by the increase in the number of guards being cut. I ask you to reconsider removing the Crossing Guard at Morgan and Flagler. I further make a call to action to offer a Town Hall that is appropriately advertised at schools, newspapers, ect, to allow parents the time to express our concerns. The safety of our children is more important that saving the city money!! Erin Al-Awar
Location:
Submitted At: 1:25pm 05-05-26
Reducing the number of crossing guards protecting the children who walk/ride bikes to school would be absolutely catastrophic. Walking/biking are our primary modes of school transportation and the crossing guards provide an invaluable service in keeping our kids safe. At our school Jefferson Elementary, two guards would be insufficient, especially since one of the two guards in your proposed plan is currently posted in the low foot traffic area of Aviation and Ford. I have personally seen several “near misses” during high traffic hours in the Jefferson area- even with the current amount of guards in place. This will inevitably be made worse with fewer guards. I suspect other schools have the same issue. Our kids safety must come first. Also, reducing the number of crossing guards will likely make more parents hesitant to allow their kids to walk, which could increase car traffic around our already congested schools. Please do not sacrifice our children’s safety to save money.
R. P. Tucker
Location:
Submitted At: 1:16pm 05-05-26
I strongly oppose the removal of the crossing guard at Beryl and Prospect. That intersection is arguably one of the busiest intersections in the entire city around school drop off time. Find another option.
Danielle Wagner
Location:
Submitted At: 12:56pm 05-05-26
The proposed change to the crossing guard program is putting our children at risk. Every crossing guard I see in our community is providing a valuable service for children in busy intersections. Cars and e-bikes are not stopping at stop signs, especially on Flagler, putting pedestrians at risk. Not enough school children are utilizing Aviation/Ford to warrant a crossing guard unless you add one. Where is the data to show how many people are hit by cars at these intersections? Or are running stop signs? If you managed the crossing guard employees more effectively, especially letting them work near their homes, you could reduce absentee costs.
Jillian Pexa
Location:
Submitted At: 12:10pm 05-05-26
As the parent of a kindergartener, and someone who drives past three of our public schools in the morning (Parras, RUHS & Beryl), this proposed modification seems like a huge safety risk. In just a two mile radius from our house we have thousands of people walking, biking (including young people on e-bikes), and driving to our schools--we need more support in keeping the area safe, not less! I travel up Prospect every day past our schools and see several accidents/incidents a week (and these are typically outside schools/neighborhoods/streets that don't have crossing guards). Our crossing guards near Beryl frequently interrupt dangerous behavior and keep our kids and families safe. I urge the City Council to explore alternatives that do not endanger our most vulnerable.