L1 - blue folder — Redondo Beach City Council, June 9, 2026

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2026
L.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 PROPOSED BUDGET AND 2027-31 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
PROCEDURES:
a. Reconvene the Public Hearing;
b. Take testimony;
c. Receive and file Budget Response Reports; and,
d. Continue the Public Hearing to June 16, 2026.

CONTACT: Stephanie Meyer, Finance Director
• Public Communications
From: SUSAN HIGGINS
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Cc: Mike Witzansky; Elizabeth Hause; Kelly Orta; CityClerk Subject: AVIATION PARK PICKLEBALL FACILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) - City Council June 9, 2026 Budget Discussions
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:32:48 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

City Clerk - Please include this email in the Blue Folder for the City Council Meeting on June 9, 2026 regarding CIP Budget Discussions
Dear Mayor Light, D1 Councilmember Waller, D2 Councilmember Castle, D3 Councilmember Kaluderovic, D4 Councilmember Obagi, D5 Councilmember Berendt, We are very appreciative that the City Council incorporated The Aviation Park Pickleball Facility as an item in the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority Area 3: Infrastructure and Public Spaces, Goal 3.2: Expand and Enhance Public Spaces, Amenities, and Programs, Item 52 “Advance efforts to develop the Aviation Park Pickleball facility and explore potential timeefficient procurement/construction methods along with opportunities to cultivate public/private partnerships.”
Additionally, we were pleased to see that the City Manager proposed additional funding of $500,000 for this Aviation Park Pickleball Facility in the 2027-2031 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program which, if approved by City Council, would increase total funding for this CIP project to $1,095,000.

This is all good progress and we hope that this Aviation Park Pickleball Facility will receive prioritization this year with the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain bids for the design and construction of this facility at the open field adjacent to the Aviation Park gymnasium building. Knowing the actual design parameters and estimated total construction costs would allow for a more informed basis for budgeting and estimating potential revenue.

We have also read Budget Response Report (BRR) No. 28 relative to an Aviation Park Pickleball facility requesting input from staff (CS/PW/IT) to multiple questions. We wanted to provide our comments and recommendations to the questions about court fees and revenue.

The ideal pickleball facility at Aviation Park would consist of eight (8) dedicated pickleball courts, court fencing, court lighting and bench seating. This is what we have been advocating for since late 2021. An 8-court pickleball facility with court lighting would present the most opportunities for generating revenue for the City and provide the pickleball community (particularly Redondo Beach residents) with the greatest access to play including some available free Open Play time. It would be a win-win scenario.

Our recommended Pickleball Program at this 8 dedicated courts Aviation Park Pickleball Facility:

Conduct Round Robin Tournaments on a quarterly basis or a semiannual basis or an annual basis. Only tournament fees. NO annual membership fee.

Conduct League Play one or two days per week on a seasonal basis (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter). Only League team fees. NO annual membership fee.

Implement a Drop-In Fee Program (courts are skill-level designated):

Monday through Friday 8AM - 2PM
Tuesday and Thursday 5PM - 9PM
Purchase monthly pass at the 1st of every month (or even allow annual pass):
$15.00 senior residents (55 plus)
$20.00 residents
$25.00 non-residents
NO annual membership fee
Court Reservations (for up to 2 consecutive hours per day):

Monday, Wednesday, Friday 2PM - 9PM
Tuesday and Thursday 8AM - 5PM
$12.00 per hour for residents
$15.00 per hour for non-residents
NO annual membership fee
Conduct Classes including Drills and Live Ball for Beginners, Intermediate and Advanced players. Only class fee. NO annual membership fee.

FREE OPEN PLAY on Saturdays and Sundays from 8AM to 9PM. Courts are skill-level designated (same as for Drop-In Play):
2 Beginner/Novice courts with one paddle rack with “Next” slider. 4 Intermediate courts with one paddle rack with “Next” slider. 2 Advanced/Challenge courts with paddle rack with “Next” slider.

If a court is not being used by the designated skill level, then it is open for use by others.

CLARIFICATION NOTES:

Drop-In Play is conducted the same as Open Play. The difference is money.

Drop-In Play requires a FEE to play. Open Play is FREE to play. Players rotate into a game using a paddle rack with a “Next” slider. When others are waiting to play, it is four players on and 4 players off after one game. Pickleball is mostly a Doubles game with 2 players on each side. Games are played to eleven (11) win by two (2) and sometimes a single game is played to fifteen (15) win by one (1).

Skill Level Designations mainly consist of:

Beginner: Those new to pickleball, learning the rules, scoring and basic shots.

Novice/Low-Intermediate 2.0 & 2.5 level: Know the rules, can rally consistently and working on shot placement, strategy and court positioning.

Intermediate 3.0 level: Have dependable serves and returns, understand basic strategy like soft game and can volley at the net.

Intermediate Advanced 3.5 level: Have a variety of shots, understand doubles strategy and can sustain faster paced rallies.

Advanced 4.0 and above level: Have mastered control, spin and advanced strategies.

Need for Updated/Upgraded Website: Registering for and paying fees for Classes, Leagues, Tournaments, Drop-In Play, and Court Reservations requires a City Parks and Recreation website capable of handling all of these activities. This is how it is done in Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, and Hermosa Beach. The El Segundo Parks and Recreation site is particularly good and easy to use.

We highly recommend City Council approve creating a Community Stakeholders Group to work collaboratively with City Staff on the Aviation Park Pickleball Facility from the design phase through completion of the facility construction and perhaps to help establish the pickleball play program. This would allow the pooling of skills of the knowledgeable pickleball individuals with the City Staff’s knowledge of the City processes and procedures towards a successful project conclusion.

Should you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact our Group Lead, Susan Higgins, at email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Redondo Beach Residents Pickleball Players Group
Susan Higgins, Group Lead - District 4
John Aguilar - District 3
Karen Aguilar - District 3
Giselle Appert - District 5
John Blandford - District 5
Marlo Blandford - District 5
Tracey Bracy - District 1
Lynn Carroll-Carter - District 2
Tom Carter - District 2
Shannon Carter - District 5
Teri Carter - District 5
Skip Chov - District 4
David Chu - District 3
Leigh Daltorio - District 2
Mary Ann Dillon - District 1
Beth Drayer - District 1
Cade Erickson - District 5
Brad Fleischer - District 5
Sue Fogelson - District 2
Greg Francis - District 4
Tami Fukuda - District 1
Sue Gallagher - District 2
Lisa Grant - District 4
Dzana Homan - District 4
Donna Hunter - District 5
Valerie Iacopucci - District 1
Joe Leibfried - District 5
Kelley Mayeda - District 5
Lou McCauley - District 5
Lisa Michelle - District 4
Greg Olson - District 1
Lisa Olson - District 1
Jimmy Pagnini - District 1
Patty Perkins - District 1
Wendy Rudick - District 5
Bobby Trevino - District 5
Judi Wise - District 3
From: SUSAN HIGGINS
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: AVIATION PARK PICKLEBALL FACILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) - City Council June 9, 2026 Budget Discussions
Date: Saturday, June 6, 2026 5:16:45 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

City Clerk,
Please include this email in the City Council Agenda package “Blue Folder” for the Meeting on June 9, 2026, as it pertains to Agenda Item L.1, Continued Public Hearing to Consider the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Proposed Budget and 2027-2031 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.

Thank you,
Susan Higgins
Begin forwarded message:

From: SUSAN HIGGINS <[email protected]>
Subject: AVIATION PARK PICKLEBALL FACILITY CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) - City Council June 9, 2026 Budget Discussions
Date: June 2, 2026 at 4:32:28 PM PDT
To: "Jim (James) Light" <[email protected]>, Brad Waller <[email protected]>, Chadwick Castle
<[email protected]>, Paige Kaluderovic
<[email protected]>, Zein Obagi
<[email protected]>, Scott Behrendt
<[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Hause <[email protected]>, Kelly Orta <[email protected]>, [email protected]
City Clerk - Please include this email in the Blue Folder for the City Council Meeting on June 9, 2026 regarding CIP Budget Discussions Dear Mayor Light, D1 Councilmember Waller, D2 Councilmember Castle, D3 Councilmember Kaluderovic, D4 Councilmember Obagi, D5 Councilmember Berendt,
We are very appreciative that the City Council incorporated The Aviation Park Pickleball Facility as an item in the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority Area 3:

Infrastructure and Public Spaces, Goal 3.2: Expand and Enhance Public Spaces, Amenities, and Programs, Item 52 “Advance efforts to develop the Aviation Park Pickleball facility and explore potential time-efficient procurement/construction methods along with opportunities to cultivate public/private partnerships.” Additionally, we were pleased to see that the City Manager proposed additional funding of $500,000 for this Aviation Park Pickleball Facility in the 2027-2031 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program which, if approved by City Council, would increase total funding for this CIP project to $1,095,000.

Our recommended Pickleball Program at this 8 dedicated courts Aviation Park Pickleball Facility:

Conduct Round Robin Tournaments on a quarterly basis or a semiannual basis or an annual basis. Only tournament fees. NO annual membership fee.

Conduct League Play one or two days per week on a seasonal basis (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter). Only League team fees. NO annual membership fee.

Implement a Drop-In Fee Program (courts are skill-level designated):

FREE OPEN PLAY on Saturdays and Sundays from 8AM to 9PM.

Courts are skill-level designated (same as for Drop-In Play):
2 Beginner/Novice courts with one paddle rack with “Next” slider. 4 Intermediate courts with one paddle rack with “Next” slider. 2 Advanced/Challenge courts with paddle rack with “Next” slider.

If a court is not being used by the designated skill level, then it is open for use by others.

CLARIFICATION NOTES:

Drop-In Play is conducted the same as Open Play. The difference is money. Drop-In Play requires a FEE to play. Open Play is FREE to play. Players rotate into a game using a paddle rack with a “Next” slider. When others are waiting to play, it is four players on and 4 players off after one game. Pickleball is mostly a Doubles game with 2 players on each side. Games are played to eleven (11) win by two (2) and sometimes a single game is played to fifteen (15) win by one (1).

Skill Level Designations mainly consist of:

Beginner: Those new to pickleball, learning the rules, scoring and basic shots.

Novice/Low-Intermediate 2.0 & 2.5 level: Know the rules, can rally consistently and working on shot placement, strategy and court positioning.

Intermediate 3.0 level: Have dependable serves and returns, understand basic strategy like soft game and can volley at the net.

Intermediate Advanced 3.5 level: Have a variety of shots, understand doubles strategy and can sustain faster paced rallies.

Advanced 4.0 and above level: Have mastered control, spin and advanced strategies.

Should you have any questions or desire additional information, please contact our Group Lead, Susan Higgins, at email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Redondo Beach Residents Pickleball Players Group
Susan Higgins, Group Lead - District 4
John Aguilar - District 3
Karen Aguilar - District 3
Giselle Appert - District 5
John Blandford - District 5
Marlo Blandford - District 5
Tracey Bracy - District 1
Lynn Carroll-Carter - District 2
Tom Carter - District 2
Shannon Carter - District 5
Teri Carter - District 5
Skip Chov - District 4
David Chu - District 3
Leigh Daltorio - District 2
Mary Ann Dillon - District 1
Beth Drayer - District 1
Cade Erickson - District 5
Brad Fleischer - District 5
Sue Fogelson - District 2
Greg Francis - District 4
Tami Fukuda - District 1
Sue Gallagher - District 2
Lisa Grant - District 4
Dzana Homan - District 4
Donna Hunter - District 5
Valerie Iacopucci - District 1
Joe Leibfried - District 5
Kelley Mayeda - District 5
Lou McCauley - District 5
Lisa Michelle - District 4
Greg Olson - District 1
Lisa Olson - District 1
Jimmy Pagnini - District 1
Patty Perkins - District 1
Wendy Rudick - District 5
Bobby Trevino - District 5
Judi Wise - District 3
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Joy Ford; Mike Witzansky
Subject: Blue Folder Item - CIP Discussion 6/9/26 City Council Meeting and for Non-Agenda Item Comment for both Planning and Public Works Commissions
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 5:25:53 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Requested as a blue folder item due to the limited ability to provide graphics in eComments.

The following was provided as an eComment for 6/9:

I have provided recommendations for fully funded or $0 placeholder projects to mitigate hazards to the 500-600 N Prospect and Paulina neighborhoods, including a safety and soundwall, as well as speed reducing speed tables for Prospect between Beryl & Diamond.

In support of action by the Council, we are currently preparing the following:

To demand effective mitigation, these severe neighborhood impacts can be rigorously translated into dollar values to demonstrate a massive "cost of inaction" to municipal planners. Safety and kinetic risks are quantified using the federal Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) alongside injury scale tracking to calculate the economic drain of preventable crashes. Health damages are monetized by aggregating the direct medical expenditures and lost productivity associated with pollution-induced illnesses, while the continuous noise pollution is valued through hedonic pricing models. Because residential properties typically lose 0.5% to 1.0% of their total market value for every single decibel ambient noise rises above standard comfort thresholds, capturing this localized property depreciation mathematically proves that installing traffic calming and acoustic barriers is a highly profitable, costbeneficial investment in community infrastructure.

The full text of the truncated eComment along with images is below for the Blue Folder and the Public Record:

Topic 1: 40 mph+ Traffic on Residential Streets
When vehicles travel at speeds exceeding 40 mph directly on residential streets, the neighborhood environment transforms into a high-risk zone. At these velocities, a driver's field of vision narrows drastically, and total stopping distance more than doubles compared to standard 20 mph limits.

Because kinetic energy scales quadratically with speed, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 40 mph faces an astronomical 80% to 90% probability of death or severe injury, compared to less than a 10% risk at 20 mph. This creates an immediate, severe threat to vulnerable road users, completely stripping away the safety of children playing, neighbors walking dogs, and cyclists navigating their own neighborhood.

Topic 2: Un-Barrier-Separated Arterials Abutting Residential Streets The physical juxtaposition of a 40+ mph arterial directly abutting a narrow residential street without a safety barrier leaves local residents completely unprotected from catastrophic errant vehicle intrusions. High-speed arterials demand wide recovery zones; without a structural barrier—such as a concrete jersey wall or heavy guardrail—the narrow residential street effectively serves as a hazardous, impromptu runoff lane. Any loss of vehicle control, sudden swerve to avoid debris, or secondary collision on the arterial can instantly send a multi-ton vehicle hurtling at lethal speeds directly into local residential traffic, onto sidewalks, or straight into front yards where pedestrians have a false sense of security.

Topic 3: Unenforced Speeding on 4-Lane Arterials
A four-lane, 35 mph arterial operating without consistent speed enforcement inevitably functions as an unmanaged speedway that bleeds danger into adjacent narrow residential streets. The presence of multiple lanes invites aggressive lane-changing and encourages drivers to treat the roadway like a highway, frequently pushing actual travel speeds well past the posted limit. Because there is no structural separation or enforcement friction, drivers maintain these elevated speeds right up to the turning points, turning local intersections into high-velocity conflict zones and making it incredibly hazardous for residents to safely pull out of narrow side streets.

Topic 4: Acoustic Impacts of 85th Percentile Arterial Traffic For homes situated a mere 60 feet from a four-lane arterial where the 85th percentile speed reaches 45 mph, the acoustic toll is continuous and destructive. Traffic noise does not scale linearly; a vehicle traveling at 45 mph generates roughly twice the acoustic energy of one traveling at 35 mph due to heightened tire-pavement friction and engine load. At 60 feet, this keeps ambient noise levels fluctuating well above 65 to 70 dBA, shattering the federal standards for residential peace. This creates a relentless wall of sound that renders front yards unusable, penetrates standard residential windows, and eliminates the possibility of a quiet, restful indoor living environment.

Topic 5: Chronic Health and Environmental Damages
The combined forces of high-speed kinetic energy, noise, and localized emissions inflict a profound toll on human health. Living in close proximity to a high-speed arterial exposes residents to concentrated plumes of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which deeply penetrate lung tissue to trigger asthma, cardiovascular inflammation, and chronic respiratory diseases. Simultaneously, the persistent, low-frequency traffic noise acts as a physiological stressor; by disrupting sleep cycles and triggering the constant release of cortisol and adrenaline, it directly elevates long-term risks for hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and cognitive development delays in children, while the ever-present threat of high-speed impacts creates a baseline of chronic community anxiety.

Topic 6: Monetizing Damages for Benefit-Cost Measures
To demand effective mitigation, these severe neighborhood impacts can be rigorously translated into dollar values to demonstrate a massive "cost of inaction" to municipal planners. Safety and kinetic risks are quantified using the federal Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) alongside injury scale tracking to calculate the economic drain of preventable crashes. Health damages are monetized by aggregating the direct medical expenditures and lost productivity associated with pollution-induced illnesses, while the continuous noise pollution is valued through hedonic pricing models. Because residential properties typically lose 0.5% to 1.0% of their total market value for every single decibel ambient noise rises above standard comfort thresholds, capturing this localized property depreciation mathematically proves that installing traffic calming and acoustic barriers is a highly profitable, cost-beneficial investment in community infrastructure.

Topic 7: Potential Solutions

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; Mike Witzansky Subject: Blue Folder Item RBCC June 9 2026 Capital Projects Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 2:29:23 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I am forwarding my comment from last week for reconsideration at this next meeting. I had no idea that last week was focused on expense items instead of capital.

On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 12:44 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Because the interface will only accept text on eComments, I provided a comment there and am resorting to the blue folder for the specific recommended capital projects for the benefit of the 500-600 blocks of Prospect and Paulina.

They are a roughly $200,000 safety and sound barrier, and a roughly $100,000 sinusoidal speed table. They are detailed in this email and attachment. It would be beneficial to carry them a $0 placeholders for discussion next year.

From: Brock Rogerson
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: IMPORTANT: N Prospect Ave. Update and City Council Tomorrow Night Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 6:59:36 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach City Clerk,
Please accept the following as public comment for the June 9 City Council meeting.

I am writing regarding the ongoing resident concerns along Prospect Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood about traffic noise, vehicle speed, and safety, particularly in the 500–600 North Prospect Avenue area. I am a resident at 527 Prospect.

I believe a practical and constructive solution is worth exploring: a targeted sound barrier wall along the affected portion of Prospect Avenue.

My understanding is that the City has previously reviewed larger and more expensive mitigation options. However, a more targeted sound barrier wall may be a viable and more cost-effective alternative. It could help address multiple resident concerns at once, including traffic noise, perceived safety, and the lack of separation between higher-speed arterial traffic and adjacent residential homes.

One potential funding approach would be for the City to evaluate structuring this project as a Proposition 218-compliant special benefit assessment district for the specific parcels that would directly benefit from the wall. If legally and financially feasible, the improvement could potentially be financed through assessment bonds or a similar municipal financing structure, with the benefiting parcels repaying the cost over time through annual assessments on their property tax bills.

For discussion purposes, I suggest the City evaluate a 20-year amortization period as a reasonable starting point for this type of improvement, subject to confirmation by the City Engineer, assessment engineer, and bond counsel. A 20-year term would appear to strike a fair balance between affordability for the directly benefited homeowners and alignment with a conservative estimate of the sound wall's useful life. The City could also test 15-, 20-, and 25-year scenarios to understand the annual cost impact for each affected parcel.

This approach could provide a balanced path forward. It would not place the full burden on the City’s general fund or broader taxpayer base, but it would still give directly impacted residents a potential mechanism to fund a meaningful improvement that addresses the sound, safety, and traffic-related concerns they have been raising.

I respectfully request that the City Council consider directing staff to review the feasibility, estimated cost, expected useful life, potential parcel boundaries, and Proposition 218 assessment-district structure for such a project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
Brock A. Rogerson
Partner | R2 Capital Partners Inc.
mobile: 1.310.977.5125
site: r2capital.ca | surehomestays.com
email: [email protected] ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
<[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: N Prospect Ave. Update and City Council Tomorrow Night To: Darryl Boyd <[email protected]>
Hi folks on Prospect and Paulina from my email list - I'm attaching my comments to the City Council for the Tuesday meeting. They are focused on the health and safety impacts from the fast/noisy traffic on big Prospect that hits both 500-600 Prospect and Paulina according to the new impact maps in the General Plan. The street is getting louder and it's traveling further than the prior City approved plan. I too encourage everyone to send comments by email to [email protected] with Public Comment:
6/9 City Council Meeting. Better yet, attend in person or by Zoom and let them hear your voice! See Darryl's email for more information and details. Thanks to Darryl for his work! My comment for tomorrow - filed with [email protected] "Requested as a blue folder item due to the limited ability to provide graphics in eComments.

The following was provided as an eComment for 6/9:

In support of action by the Council, we are currently preparing the following:

The full text of the truncated eComment along with images is below for the Blue Folder and the Public Record:

Topic 7: Potential Solutions

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:08 PM Darryl Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon N Prospect Ave. Neighbors and other Concerned Residents, It's budget season once again in City Hall and our District 3 Council Member Paige Kalauderovic is nowhere to be found for 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents and the Beryl Heights Community. The past 3 or 4 City Council Sessions Mark Nelson and I have been speaking up and fighting for funding and budget to fix the failed and incomplete N Prospect Ave. median. And we also appreciate our neighbor and Public Works Commissioner Candace Nafissi for speaking up for us in the PWSC meeting in April to City Manager Mike Witzansky. We are looking for approximately $300K for traffic calming, noise remediation, and landscape completion. We have submitted the request week after week as a Blue Folder item and so far have only been ignored.

Paige doesn't speak for us, she just sits there with her head down while other Council Members put in requests for their Districts and Mayor Light asks for more funding for the Wilderness Park. Mark and I speak up, we ask Paige to acknowledge us and put in a budget request for us, but it's complete crickets from her. I ask her to replant the 34 weakling and dying Jim Light's California wax Myrtle plants on the median and to please plant another row to fill in the 9 feet curb to curb gap in the wide part of the median. We have dried up weeds, dandelions, eroding mulch, and exposed irrigation that isn't working properly. She is totally silent. What is this? We found out in last week's Council session that Paige has time to work on a low income housing project for the City of Hawthorne via the South Bay Housing Trust in which she is now a board member and apparently a Real Estate authority in her own mind. Why is Paige focused on the City of Hawthorne and not District 3 Redondo Beach and resolving our problems here? Paige is taking photo opps planting trees at Ensenda Parkette, yet the 30 trees that were supposed to be planted on N Prospect Ave. median never happened. And she won't respond when I call her out on this.

Or Paige, along with Jim Light, helped Allen Sanford get a $40,000 advertising contract for Beach Life Festival. And she's still hopeful to get RBPD that $19M gun range. Tomorrow night the RBPD will ask for nearly $60K for a brand new Ford Explorer for their Admin Department. You can bet that Paige will back that, but no budget request from Paige for us in this cycle. Where do the tax paying Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. and Beryl Heights fit in? This is wrong.

Paige was an absentee in the April 2025 Public Works Sustainability Commission meeting in which we had a majority of residents who wanted a few speed bumps on Little Prospect. No fight for us from Paige, she was a complete no show which allowed the City Manager and Traffic Engineer to screw us out of our request. Paige had the backing of Jim Light surprisingly, to pursue speed tables for Big Prospect to get that traffic calmed down out there which would also help with noise issues.

Paige never pursued it, she did absolutely nothing about it.

Remember the landscape plan with hedges, succulents, and 30 trees that was proposed to us on 2/8/25? The neighborhood meeting where Paige brought Jim Light along? After months of plant sampling, Paige informed Jim Light that the majority of residents preferred the Podocarpus plant over Jim's demand for California Native plants. Paige did not stand up to Light for us. Instead Light got his way and we got screwed. In fact she allowed him to interfere in the entire project which from my understanding this action by Light violated the City Charter. So we got not 1 plant that was proposed to us in that landscape plan. We got a cheap looking, non functioning, campaign token.

Supposedly according to Paige, there was a $200K reserve for improvements to that median. Where did that money go? Paige can't remember ever saying that. But I have the email and many more via Public Records Requests. It was all just a campaign stop, and nothing but lies from both of them.

Don't forget that Paige who never once had a meeting with us regarding anything to do with Beach Cities Health District demolition and construction, voted along with the rest of the City Council to give BCHD CEO Tom Bakaly and the BCHD Board of Directors what they wanted. An increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.58 to 1.25 basically giving BCHD the go ahead to more then double the size and build the monstrosity that they want on that campus. And where was Jim Light who could have vetoed the 5-0 vote to maybe give us Residents that are most affected by this decision some consideration? Light is pals with Tom Bakaly, so of course he wouldn't veto on our behalf.

And Alcove Beach Cities is a whole other scam by BCHD to circumvent the Residents of Redondo Beach and our vote of NO on Measure BC. All being backed by Jim Light and the entire City Council.

Most recently Paige has been seen socializing with BCHD's Board Member Vanessa Poster. Paige hosted a gathering at her house for State Assembly candidate Scott Houston. Paige was seen hobnobbing with City Council Members, Jim Light, and BCHD's Vanessa Poster. What was behind their need to get Houston elected? Someone who could do their bidding at the State level for certain grant money? Was the well drying up with Al Maratsuchi termed out? It was a big failure for Houston and his Redondo Beach City Government supporters. And none of this is a good look for Paige. It has disloyalty to us, self service and special interests written all over it.

So I'm asking you, if you care about this City, your neighborhood, your future, your property values, your quality of life, please call in, Zoom in or, or show up in person TOMORROW NIGHT 6/9/26 6pm to express to Paige and Jim Light that you are not happy with them and that they need to correct this situation. If we can't get people to speak up NOW we are going to lose this fight. I am running out of energy and the will to do this, and that's just what Jim Light, Paige, and BCHD are hoping for. So please get behind me and Mark's efforts on this. We are out of time.

Please forward this email.

Darryl
Agenda Item J - Non Agena - Public Participation
Agenda Item L1 - Budget Discussions - Public Participation **PREFERABLE** TO JOIN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM (FOR PUBLIC INTERESTED IN SPEAKING.

Register in advance for this meeting:
https://redondo.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_t8jPPUm6RbCHd-6sH6nE3A After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

If you are participating by phone, call 1-669-254-5252 Webinar ID: 160 818 8697 be sure to provide your phone # when registering. You will be provided a Toll Free number and a Meeting ID to access the meeting. Note; press # to bypass Participant ID.

Attendees will be muted until the public participation period is opened. When you are called on to speak, press *6 to unmute your line.
eCOMMENT: COMMENTS MAY BE ENTERED DIRECTLY ON THE WEBSITE AGENDA
PAGE:
https://redondo.granicusideas.com/meetings
1) Public comments can be entered before and during the meeting. 2) Select a SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM to enter your comment; 3) Public will be prompted to Sign-Up to create a free personal account (one-time) and then comments may be added to each Agenda item of interest.
4) Public comments entered into eComment (up to 2200 characters; equal to approximately 3 minutes of oral comments) will become part of the official meeting record.

EMAIL: TO PARTICIPATE BY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, EMAILS MUST BE

RECEIVED
BEFORE 3:00 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING (EMAILS WILL NOT BE READ OUT LOUD): Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the posted agenda received after the agenda has been published will be added as supplemental materials under the relevant agenda item. Public comments may be submitted by email to [email protected]. Emails must be received before 3:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to ensure Council and staff have the ability to review materials prior to the meeting Darryl
--
Darryl Boyd - Broker/Owner, MRP, SFR, CPTS
Specialized Court Services:

Expert Witness - Probate & Trust Valuation Disputes
Substitute Administration - Probate Cases
DARRYL B. BOYD, BROKER
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 490-0139 Direct cellular
[email protected]
DarrylBoydBroker.com
CA DRE #01178871

From: Darryl Boyd
To: CityClerk; City Clerk Records; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford; Andrew Winje; Michael Klein; Mark Garlock; Ryan Liu; Stephen Sprengel Subject: UPDATED REQUEST FOR BUDGET AND FUNDING THE N PROSPECT AVE MEDIAN 6/9/26 Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 10:55:44 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
***City Clerk please include this email and attachments as a “Blue Folder” item for TONIGHT'S 6/9/26 Redondo Beach City Council meeting and include it in the Public Record.

REQUEST FOR BUDGET AND FUNDING THE N PROSPECT AVE MEDIAN Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. thank Public Works Commissioner Candance Nafissi very much for speaking up for us on 4/27/26 at the Public Works Sustainability Commission meeting.

A few of Candace's comments: "The sound from the street is insane" and "I have zero peace", "I feel bad for the Prospect people" should tell you everything. This isn't just a N Prospect Ave. problem. This is now a Beryl Heights neighborhood problem. It's a community and citywide problem. It's a Quality Of Life problem. You are all well aware of the entire situation here at 500-600 N Prospect Ave. as I have been seeking resolution since October 2024, well documented to all of you.

Listen to Candance’s comments to City Manager Mike Witzansky below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CyiWMyXI-6Mby6qqi7S7j4LsALNtSgRA/view? usp=drive_link
We need proper funding and corrective action taken. No more excuses and walking away from what is a clear Public Safety and Noise Nuisance situation.

THE N. PROSPECT AVE MEDIAN NEEDS FUNDING FOR NECESSARY

UPGRADES
The N Prospect Ave. median is over 60 years old. It has never been upgraded to compensate for increased traffic, increased car and motorcycle noise, increased toxic fumes from vehicles with illegal exhaust systems, emergency vehicles, buses, 18 wheelers, and big box trucks. Other noise from vehicles includes cell phone conversations, ultra loud audio and booming bass. The Beach Cities Health District campus produces traffic and noise from its tenants, businesses, employees, patrons, visitors, emergency vehicles, and its own Residents. Our properties are being intruded upon and we are being assaulted by unrelenting noise and vibration day and night.

It is beyond time to modernize and upgrade the median for safety and noise reduction. In the past, cars have run over the median, taken out a light pole, and landed in front of our homes. 521, 523, 525 Prospect Ave Residents were witnesses and were impacted. Thankfully no one was injured or killed. We need real protection for all Residents at 500-600 N Prospect Ave., especially for our neighbors with children. An 8-10’ wall is needed on the outer perimeter of median #1, Beryl St. to BCHD crossing. This section gets the heaviest and fastest moving traffic and the most noise.

INSTALLATION OF SPEED TABLES ON MAIN N PROSPECT AVE
Traffic Calming Benefits:

1. Increased Safety.

Slowing the speeding vehicles down, especially at the hill crossing Beryl St. will increase public safety. Pedestrians and Residents are currently under very unsafe conditions. Speeding and erratic driving is a threat to Residents and Pedestrians.

2. Decreased ambient noise levels.

Noise from speeding cars and drivers gunning and racing through the corridor will be decreased. Noise from drivers gunning off of green lights at traffic stops will decrease.

Noise from other larger vehicles will be decreased.

3. Decreased need for additional RBPD man power.

Less Redondo Beach Police Department manpower would be required for traffic enforcement which is a cost savings and frees up RBPD for other needs.

On 2/8/25 the idea of Speed Tables on main N Prospect Ave. was introduced by Ryan Liu at a N Prospect Ave neighborhood meeting. The idea was backed by Mayor Jim Light. Mayor Light provided photo samples of speed tables in an email to me and encouraged District 3 Council Member Paige Kaluderovic to pursue Speed Table installation on main N Prospect Ave. Mayor Light also acknowledged the clear safety issues as he was a personal witness having attended the 2/8/25 neighborhood meeting.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145Ju62VX4NjMYsvDZIee5Xlce5gWXcpo/view? usp=drive_link
As far as we know, Kaluderovic did not pursue the option of installing Speed Tables on main N Prospect Ave. There are Speed Table table installations at Flagler/Dominguez Park, N Paulina Ave., N. Lucia Ave., N. Juanita Ave., N. Irena Ave., N. Francisca Ave. where there is much less traffic and speeding. Why has N Prospect Ave. been skipped?
The benefits of Speed Table installation will outweigh the cost. ***Flagler at Dominguez Park is a perfect example of what needs to be installed on N Prospect Ave. See video below. You will see how my Hummer H2 which is a large vehicle is forced to come within speed compliance very smoothly. Video here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KhhbYm_bRyr7HpbCJT2NYelYak1TxBsa/view? usp=drive_link

INSTALLATION OF A SOUND AND SAFE WALL ON THE OUTER PERIMETER OF N. PROSPECT MEDIAN #1
Safety And Noise Reduction, Health Benefits:

1. Increased Safety. Protects Residents and Pedestrians from speeding and erratic drivers and possible runaway vehicles.

2. Decreased ambient noise levels. Residents are being subjected to 85-95 DB of noise day & night. This is unbearable. 50-55 DB day 40-50 DB night is considered acceptable according to State, County, and Redondo Beach city code.

3. Provides a better health environment for Residents. Fewer toxic fumes can penetrate and impede onto our properties and our persons.

4. Protects Residents from ambient noise reflecting off of the Beach Cities Health District buildings. 500-600 N Prospect Ave. especially in the 515-527 zone are heavily impacted by reflected noise from and off of the BCHD campus and from N Prospect Ave. traffic noise bouncing off of those buildings. It is a 24x7 sonic, surround sound noise nuisance.
***Alternatively, there are industrial fencing soundproofing products available on the market that could be compared and possibly used in lieu of a block wall.

FIX AND COMPLETE THE LANDSCAPING ON THE ENTIRE N. PROSPECT AVE.

MEDIAN
$6,400 was spent by the City of Redondo Beach on a functional landscape and beautification plan that was never installed.

On 2/8/25 at a neighborhood meeting this plan was presented to the Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents were very happy and excited to see this plan that was presented to us come to life. But it never did. The plan included Podocarpus hedges, Geijera parviflora trees, Aloe marlothii succulents. We watched samples planted of the Podocarpus and Aloes and saw them thrive. We were happy. But before we knew it all the test plants were removed and an installation began with completely different plants and no trees. Residents were never advised or given a chance to have input on any changes. The plan is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12iHN3Q-wbHGdP9sDABi5eI6iNLuP_tih/view? usp=drive_link
California wax myrtle plants were installed instead of Podocarpus. Coyote plant and mulch was installed. Achillea millefolium might have been a better consideration for weed control. None of the plants presented to Residents were used.

We asked questions, we were basically told to shut up and accept what we were given. We have watched wax myrtles die and be replaced. Many are still dying or are weaklings that won't grow. The coyote plant has weeds growing in it, the mulch is eroding leaving exposed irrigation lines. These plants were completely wrong for the N Prospect Ave. median application and situation. The hope and goal was to get our privacy and some noise reduction back with a functional landscape plan. We got neither.

Not getting satisfactory answers from Jim Light or Paige Kaluderovic on why changes were made and Residents were excluded from any input or information on who made changes and why, I initiated a Public Records Request on 11/9/25. This PRR was stonewalled for 5 months before any information or correspondence was released to me. To date I have received very limited information on what happened, requests have been stonewalled and information has been received redacted and incomplete.

We do see that in an email from Paige Kaluderovic to Jim Light on 4/2/25 Kaluderovic told Light that the 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents preferred the non-native plants. It was Jim Light's decision to go against the Residents and the plan presented to the Residents, pushing Deputy Public Works Direct Mike Klein for native plants regardless of what the Residents wanted. This was a decision that was never his to make and ruined an excellent plan for the median. This violates the Redondo Beach City Charter Article IX Sec. 9.1 and is misdemeanor under Article XXXIV Sec. 24, punishable by fines or imprisonment.

The California Wax Myrtles will never replace Pordacarpus in density. Right now the myrtles that have survived flap in the wind, with gaps in between, providing no real privacy, and noise just seeps through. The original Oleander hedges had a height of approximately 12’ high and 9’ density curb to curb, they provided great privacy and noise reduction. The California Wax Myrtles were the wrong choice for this application.

The Podocarpus and Geijera parviflora would have been a very good combination aesthetically and for noise reduction.

Pordocarpus is known for its density, low maintenance, is highly effective for noise reduction, absorbs & deflects sound waves.

Geijera parviflora is known for its dense foliage, grows 20 to 30 feet tall, drought tolerant, adapts well to poor soils, absorbs and deflects sound waves.

Podocarpus was preferable, used in high traffic & noise situations like Manhattan Beach Blvd. and near South High School according to Mike Klein. Kline speaks about Mayor Jim Light wanting native plants at 2:48 PWSC 4/28/25. The Mayor interfered in the process, going against what was known to work and against the City Charter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lZorunVUoHNUcJJ116uewVMPu3Zr7GDK/view? usp=drive_link
The open space to the rear curb should be filled with another row of these plants to fill out 9’ curb to curb. There are several dead plants between 515 to 527 that need replacement, and many more up and down the street.

FUNDING FOR THE N PROSPECT AVE. MEDIAN UPGRADES IS REQUESTED AND BADLY NEEDED.

Residents here have been ignored, and the upkeep and upgrades of the N Prospect Ave. median itself has gone neglected for decades now.

Paige Kaluderovic mentioned $200K of funds and possibly more were set aside for the median when I originally began the requests to get something done here.

Somehow those funds didn’t exist when I tried to revisit that option and she had a lapse of memory regarding what she said. So I am requesting that CIP funds be looked at again for the N Prospect Ave. median in this budgeting cycle.

ALTERNATIVE FUNDING:

BCHD who has been a bad neighbor to us for many years now, should step up and contribute with funding as should their new developer partner which I assume at this point will be Sunrise. We as Residents of the Beach Cities help to fund BCHD. They should give something back to us for the abuse and disregard for our Quality Of Life that they have put us through and the coming demolition and construction nightmare that will be forced upon us. Mr. Witzansky stated on 4/27/26 in the PWSC meeting that Public Works and the Transportation Department has done a good job of finding funding for projects. So alternative funding, if needed, should be seeked out immediately for us on N Prospect Ave. This is a very worthy, way past due, much needed project.

The “Bike Path To Nowhere” behind BCHD where kids & transients get high, loiter, and leave their garbage found funding. The street dug up in front of 519 N Prospect Ave. on 4/7/26 for a nonexistent “sink hole” at a cost of approximately $20-25,000 was a waste of our taxpayer dollars. An unused median site design at a cost of $6,400 was wasted. Speed Tables at Flagler/Dominguez Park, N Paulina Ave., N.

Lucia Ave., N. Juanita Ave., N. Irena Ave., N. Francisca Ave., a crosswalk at Beryl St. and N. Guadalupe. Parks and Pickleball courts all get funded. Beach Life Festival got a $40,000 advertising contract. Former RBPD Chief Hoffman got $487,000 for "graffiti removal". Money is being spent on things that could wait and wasted on nonemergencies.

We also know through a PRR that safety upgrades to the median were denied by the City Manager last year and that the Public Works Director diverted funds that may have been used for N Prospect Ave. to Catalina Ave. For some reason we are forced to beg for proper funding for remediation of public safety and noise nuisances and the restoration of our privacy and Quality Of Life. Another year has gone by and our District 3 Council Member has not stepped up for us and has gone silent. Please fix that.

STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY LAWS AND ORDINANCES ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.

Quality Of Life for 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents has been detrimentally impacted over the past 2 years by clear Public Safety and Public Noise Nuisances on the N Prospect Ave median and corridor. If the City Of Redondo Beach refuses to strictly enforce State, County, and its own local laws and ordinances as it should, then the above requests are in line and completely reasonable. We need action taken and funding budgeted by Redondo Beach City Government immediately.

We are not 2nd rate Residents here. Many of us are homeowners of over 30 years.

We know the differences on our street, in our neighborhood, and in our City. Saying that there is not enough CIP to go around is not an acceptable response and it’s actually insulting to us. Heads of City Departments are very well paid. There are several very highly paid City of Redondo Beach employees. Half of just one of those very high annual salaries would pay for what we need on the 500-600 N Prospect Ave. median.

Our elected officials are supposed to work with us to find solutions, not back pedal, break promises, and disappear. The City Manager telling us this is how Redondo Beach is and to just live with it is unacceptable. The 500-600 N Prospect Ave.

Residents need solutions funded and implemented. We need help and we need relief.

City Employees get paid very well by us. We elected our City Government to represent us and to protect us. So please do so.
500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents are suffering psychological & physical abuse, a loss of property values, and the loss of our lawful right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of our properties due to the inaction of Redondo Beach City Government.

Please correct this and budget for and fund the N. Prospect Ave. median safety and noise improvement project.

Darryl Boyd
bcc: 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents
And other concerned Redondo Beach Residents
--
Darryl Boyd - Broker/Owner, MRP, SFR, CPTS
Specialized Court Services:

Redondo Beach City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
June 9, 2026