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 16, 2026
L.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 PROPOSED BUDGET, 2027-2031 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2606-043, A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING AN ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
a. Reconvene the Public Hearing, take testimony;
b. Close the Public Hearing;
c. Receive and file Budget Response Reports;
d. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC-2606-043, incorporating the adjustments identified in BRR #1 and the final City Council motion; and e. Direct staff to take actions necessary to implement the fee and rate changes approved as part of the Adopted Budget.
CONTACT: Stephanie Meyer, Finance Director
• Public Comments
From: Vijay Jeste
To: Stephanie Meyer
Cc: CityClerk; Mike Witzansky; Jacob B. Kamsvaag; Jerry Woodham; Jasmine Allen; Trent Turner; Nick Sherbin; Damien Marin
Subject: Re: Input on FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 5:43:14 PM
Attachments: image001.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.
Hello Stephanie:
I mentioned last night how our city is overlooking growth and not evaluating strategic options to improve the top (revenue) line.
The city’s economic structure is unusual. One employer, Northrop Grumman, towers over the rest, while the next tier—Cheesecake Factory, Target, Macy’s, Frontier, Kensington—is in the 100–260 employee range. That’s a steep cliff, not a gentle slope.
Most neighboring cities have multiple employers in the 1,000–3,000 range; Redondo has one giant and then a long tail of small players. That’s closer to a “company town” profile than a typical coastal suburb.
The city’s tax base doesn’t fully reflect the employment concentration because Northrop’s major tax contributions (like property tax on large facilities) are filtered through county and state formulas. Redondo doesn’t capture a proportionate share of the value that such a huge employer represents. Meanwhile, its retail and hospitality base is modest compared to Hermosa, Manhattan Beach, or Long Beach.
Also, unlike Torrance or Long Beach, it doesn’t have a broad bench of large employers to spread the fiscal load.
The senior‑care gap makes the structure even more lopsided. With BCHD planning to remove a memory‑care facility (Silverado) and the 65+ population rising, Redondo is losing a critical service for its fastest‑growing demographic. In other words, Redondo is over‑reliant on one industrial employer, underdeveloped in diversified commercial activity, and now at risk of under‑serving its aging residents.
Here is the analysis of data collected from past budgets from 2000 to 2025:
· Population: Essentially flat.
· Total Expenditures: Up 120–150% in nominal dollars. Public safety (police + fire) accounts for the majority of the general fund.
· Per‑Capita Spending: Up 120–150% in nominal terms. A small city feels inflation more sharply because labor‑intensive services dominate the budget. · City Workforce: Up 10–20% in authorized positions. Most growth is in police, fire, and public works.
Overall picture: Redondo Beach has grown its spending faster than its population, but the pattern is typical for small cities where public safety consumes 60–70% of the general fund, and personnel costs rise faster than inflation.
Discussion and debate over such critical issues can take place only through a strategic planning session. In view of how such a meeting was conducted earlier this year, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
I have talked about process improvement in practically every meeting because I have seen how much difference it makes when this methodology is implemented.
The results are real, amazing, and unbelievable. I have experienced it myself. San Diego is the closest thing California has to a Deming‑style municipal transformation, with leadership explicitly framing it as a cultural change.
San Diego has implemented Lean Six Sigma across multiple departments, partnered with UC San Diego, and built an internal “Operational Excellence Academy.” Documented results include:
· Reduced 911 call processing times by 16%, potentially saving 22 lives annually · Improved library material sorting productivity by 42%, saving an estimated $121,953 annually in staff time
· Cut street‑light maintenance lead times by ~3 days, saving $15,000 in early phases
· Created a citywide Lean Six Sigma training pipeline through UC San Diego Extended Studies, sending cohorts of managers through Green Belt programs to build a continuous improvement culture
· Launched the Operational Excellence (OpEx) Academy in 2017 to institutionalize Lean Six Sigma tools and data‑driven decision‑making across departments.
Our city’s new proposed capital improvement budget adds up to $199 million, including carryover, from the FP preparation work. There is no other time than now to get serious about overhauling the entire CIP process with a view to streamlining, simplifying, and making it more cost-effective. If done right, it will yield savings of at least 10%. You can do the math.
I was able to get most of the analysis by using the AI tools at our disposal – CoPilot (Microsoft), Gemini (Google), and ChatGPT. It didn’t take more than a few minutes to collect and review it. The only thing you have to do is to make sure you are asking the right questions and feeding the right data. Unfortunately, our administrative staff doesn’t have any interest in data collection or analysis. One person dedicated to doing this work in the Finance Department will more than justify his/her salary.
You will notice one of the Top Ten employers in our city is The Kensington, which offers Assisted Living, Memory Care and Nursing Care options to its residents. We also have another one, Silverado, that is renting space in the building at 514 Prospect Ave, owned by Beach Cities Health District (BCHD). I was on its strategic planning committee for 8 years. What I noticed in its semi-annual “Strategic Planning” sessions was anything but strategic. It was much like the one our city had a few months back.
BCHD is now planning to demolish the building and has given eviction notice to Silverado’s 110 residents. They will be forced out of this facility and out of Redondo Beach, as there is no other organization that offers similar service.
This may not mean much to the city administration, but it has long-term consequences. Redondo Beach’s population over 65 is growing faster than any other age group, and the loss of Silverado’s memory‑care facility comes at the worst possible moment. Silverado is one of the few places in the South Bay equipped to care for residents with dementia and advanced cognitive needs, allowing families to keep loved ones close and connected to their community.
Forcing these seniors to relocate means uprooting the most vulnerable residents we have, often in the final years of their lives, and pushing families to seek care in other cities.
The financial impact to the City may be small, but the human impact is profound:
we lose continuity, we lose community, and we lose the capacity to support an aging population that will only grow in the coming decade.
In a city that prides itself on quality of life, removing a critical senior‑care resource without a clear replacement is not just a service gap — it is a step backward at a time when we need to be planning ahead.
Again, this is my strategic view of the current situation. Simply regurgitating numbers would not reveal such issues that need urgent attention from the Mayor, City Council members, and administrative staff.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM Stephanie Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
BCC Mayor and City Council, Budget and Finance Commission Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Attached please find a letter from the Budget and Finance Commission with input on the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget and CIP.
We will also include this letter as supplemental material for next Tuesday’s meeting.
Stephanie
Stephanie Lazicki Meyer
Finance Director
310.697.3134
[email protected]
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.
Expert Witness Briefing Memorandum
TO: Members of the Redondo Beach City Council
CC: City Attorney
FROM: North Prospect Avenue Property Owner, Taxpayer, and Financial/Research Expert Witness
DATE: June 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Expert Evidentiary Notice of Municipal Code Exceedances, Projected Federal Hazard Thresholds, and Quantifiable Fiscal Liability Risk along North Prospect Avenue (Beryl Street to Diamond Street)
I. Objective and Expert Standing
This memorandum is submitted to the City Council and City Attorney to provide objective, expert-level awareness regarding a structural fiscal and legal exposure facing the City of Redondo Beach. As a resident property owner, taxpayer, and professional expert witness specializing in financial modeling, economic analysis, and empirical research, my objective is to place clear, data-driven evidence onto the concurrent record.
This analysis frames the current and projected noise environments on North Prospect Avenue not merely as a neighborhood annoyance, but as a documented municipal liability. By presenting a quantified matrix of damages rooted in peer-reviewed US economic and public health literature, this briefing ensures that the City Attorney has a formal, on-the-record baseline of the fiscal risks associated with prolonged municipal inaction.
II. Baseline Empirical Data under Consideration
A rigorous review of the formal city records establishes a significant gap between statutory limits and physical reality.
● Zoning Framework: The land use designation governing North Prospect Avenue is strictly Low Density Residential (R-1).
● Statutory Thresholds: Per Table 3-11-9 (Redondo Beach Permissible Sound Levels), the lawful exterior limits for R-1 zones are fixed at an average hourly noise level of 50 dBA during daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
● Field Measurements: Data from Table 3-11-3 and Table 3-11-4 demonstrates that existing traffic patterns generate an average hourly noise level of 64.3 dBA during AM peaks (with maximum transient spikes of 77.1 dBA) and 68.8 dBA during PM peaks (with maximum transient spikes of 85.2 dBA). The documented 24-hour weighted noise average is 65 dBA.
● Admitted Municipal Baseline: The City of Redondo Beach explicitly recognizes via its
General Plan Noise Element mapping that North Prospect Avenue from Beryl Street to Diamond Street sustains noise contours of 65 dB on the roadway and 60 dB at the surrounding R-1 residential properties. This reflects a baseline exceedance of 10 to 15 dBA above the city's own regulatory limits.
● Future Projected Hazard: Table 3-11-16 projects 5-to-15-year future project impacts that yield a formal finding of a significant noise level and public hazard due to regular violations of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) health and safety thresholds (which limit residential project noise to an 8-hour average noise level of 80 dBA and a 30-day weighted average of 75 dBA).
Because decibels are logarithmic, the 60 to 65 dBA threshold admitted by the city at these properties represents a sound pressure level three to four times louder than the legally permitted 50 dBA residential baseline.
III. Financial and Epidemiological Risk Modeling
From an analytical standpoint, allowing a known, measured environmental hazard to persist creates exposure to multi-vector financial claims. Peer-reviewed US research establishes that these decibel exceedances generate real, compounding damages across three mutually independent economic accounts.
1. Real Estate Capital Loss (Hedonic Depreciation)
● Methodology: Hedonic Price Modeling isolates environmental variables to determine asset value degradation. In US real estate economics, the Noise Depreciation Index (NDI) serves as the standard metric (Nelson, 2004; Federal Highway Administration guidelines).
● The Loss: In high-value coastal California residential markets, the NDI establishes a 0.5 percent to 1.2 percent permanent reduction in home equity per decibel exceedance above a 50 dBA baseline. For an illustrative South Bay residential property valued at a base of 1,500,000 dollars, the current admitted 10-to-15 dB exceedance translates to an uncompensated equity drop of 120,000 to 180,000 dollars per household. This asset exposure accelerates toward 300,000 dollars per household under unmitigated future project conditions that trigger the 75 dB FTA hazard threshold.
2. Public Health Outlays (Cardiovascular Stress Costs)
● Methodology: The standard Environmental Burden of Disease framework (Babisch, 2006; U.S. EPA) maps how continuous transportation noise above 55 dB acts as an involuntary physical stressor. It accelerates the sympathetic nervous system, inducing elevated cortisol production and chronic arterial hypertension. ● The Loss: Epidemiological relative risk curves demonstrate a linear increase in clinical cardiovascular disease and heart attacks for every 5 dB increase above baseline safety
markers. This translates directly into predictable, compounding health insurance claims, direct out-of-pocket medical treatments, and loss of productivity.
3. Welfare Degradation (Annoyance Metrics)
● Methodology: Federal regulatory standard Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) and Highly Annoyed Percentage curves (Miedema & Oudshoorn, 2001; Environmental Health Perspectives) quantify psychological and cognitive strain. ● The Loss: At the admitted 65 dB 24-hour weighted average baseline, polynomial modeling indicates that 15 percent to 20 percent of the exposed population achieves a status of "highly annoyed". Welfare economics values this ongoing degradation of quiet enjoyment at an annual Willingness-to-Pay flow cost equivalent to 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent of annual household income per year to avoid the stress.
IV. Verification of Structural Independence (No Double-Counting) To assist the City Attorney in properly evaluating the municipality's risk exposure, the residents present the following economic proof. These three damage categories are entirely separate and additive. Mitigating one does not inherently dissolve the others, and a failure to act leaves the City exposed across three distinct liability accounts:
● Total Corridor Risk & Damage Potential:
○ Hedonic Capital Equity Loss: One-time, permanent destruction of fixed real estate asset value.
○ Public Health Medical Billing: Annual, cumulative out-of-pocket expenses for cardiovascular care.
○ Welfare & Annoyance Costs: Year-over-year drop in daily living utility measured by Willingness-to-Pay metrics.
1. Temporal Separation (Capital Shock vs. Annual Flow): Hedonic property depreciation is an immediate, permanent reduction in a homeowner's net worth. Conversely, the health costs (medical billing, prescriptions) and annoyance costs (daily stress, cognitive impact) are annual flow costs that accumulate every single month a resident continues to breathe and sleep in that high-noise environment.
2. The Information Asymmetry Gap: The City cannot argue that health risks are already "baked into" the lower property values. While a real estate buyer adjusts their bid based on the audible volume they hear during an open house, ordinary buyers do not possess epidemiological data to calculate their future marginal cortisol spikes or long-term stroke risks. Because the real estate market lacks the capacity to price future medical claims, medical damages remain entirely un-internalized by property values and must be accounted for independently.
3. Disjoint Populations (The Landlord-Tenant Test): If an R-1 property on North Prospect is rented out, the financial damages split completely: the non-resident landlord absorbs
100 percent of the capital depreciation (lower asset value and depressed rent), while the tenant absorbs 100 percent of the elevated medical bills and psychological trauma.
Because these damages hit completely different balance sheets and can be suffered by entirely different people, they are legally independent.
V. Expert Recommendations for Risk Mitigation
Operating from the perspective of an expert witness taxpayer seeking to stabilize municipal financial risk and safeguard the resident population, I submit the following strategic recommendations to the City Council:
● Recommendation 1: Immediate Commissioning of a Targeted Engineering Study The City should retain an independent acoustical engineering firm to design a corridorspecific mitigation plan for North Prospect Avenue between Beryl Street and Diamond Street, aimed explicitly at reconciling the current 10-to-15 dBA municipal code violation. ● Recommendation 2: Structural Capital Improvements (Safety-Sound Walls) Incorporate the construction of high-performance structural safety-sound walls along the western edge of the R-1 residential boundaries into the current capital planning cycle to physically block energy transmission and bring the corridor within lawful 50 dBA limits. ● Recommendation 3: Integration of Passive Roadway Mitigation Mandate the deployment of rubberized asphalt concrete or open-graded friction courses during the next scheduled resurfacing of North Prospect Avenue. Empirical highway data shows rubberized asphalt surface treatments consistently lower tirepavement interaction noise by 4 to 6 dBA. ● Recommendation 4: Proactive Traffic Calming and Speed Management Implement physical speed-stabilizing mechanisms, such as modern speed tables and optimized signal synchronization at the Beryl and Diamond intersections, to smooth traffic flows and eliminate the highly damaging maximum acceleration spikes (currently measuring up to 85.2 dBA).
Conclusion
By placing these metrics, peer-reviewed study mechanics, and independent financial implications into the formal record, the City of Redondo Beach is fully apprised of the scale of its exposure. Executing the expert recommendations outlined above represents a prudent, defensible strategy to protect public health, restore R-1 zoning integrity, and insulate the city from the financial liabilities associated with long-term environmental inaction.
Memorandum
TO: City Attorney, City of Redondo Beach
FROM: North Prospect Avenue Property Owner, Taxpayer, and Financial/Research Expert Witness
DATE: June 14, 2026
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Bibliography of Evidentiary Sources and Institutional Authorities Regarding Environmental Noise Liabilities on North Prospect Avenue I. Purpose and Scope of This Memorandum
This independent technical memorandum is submitted directly to the Redondo Beach City Attorney to compile, standardize, and legally document the exact academic literature, statutory frameworks, and environmental reports utilized to establish the City's potential fiscal liability on the North Prospect Avenue corridor.
As an expert witness in finance, economic analysis, and empirical research, my goal is to ensure that the City Attorney's office has a fully cross-referenced, formal record of the data supporting the structural asset depreciation, public health risks, and community welfare losses impacting the residential section between Beryl Street and Diamond Street.
This bibliography serves as the evidentiary foundation for the accompanying expert notice, satisfying the formal requirements for putting a municipal entity on notice of present and projected hazards.
II. Formal Bibliography (APA Format)
A. Local Statutory and Project Authorities
● Beach Cities Health District (BCHD). (2021). Healthy Living Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121. ○ Application: This certified document serves as the data source for Table 3-11-3 (Existing Noise Levels Measured in the Project Vicinity), Table 3-11-4 (Daytime and 24-hour Average Noise Levels), and Table 3-11-16 (Projected 5 to 15 Year Future Project Impacts). It provides the definitive baseline proof that the city's residential environments are actively experiencing severe decibel exceedances.
● City of Redondo Beach. (1993; as amended through 2025). City of Redondo Beach General Plan: Noise Element.
○ Application: Establishes the official municipal recognition, circulation mapping, and geographic placement of the 65 dBA on-road and 60 dBA at-property noise contours impacting the Low Density Residential (R-1) zoned parcels along North Prospect Avenue between Beryl Street and Diamond Street.
● City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code. Title 4, Chapter 24: Noise Regulation. (Specifically referencing Table 3-11-9, Permissible Sound Levels). ○ Application: Defines the strict statutory exterior noise limitations for Low Density Residential (R-1) zones, establishing the legal maximums at an average hourly noise level of 50 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
B. Federal Regulatory Standards
● Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Report No. 0123). U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment.
○ Application: Serves as the primary federal benchmark for establishing construction and long-term project operation hazards on residential land uses. This report defines the 8-hour average noise level limit of 80 dBA and the 30-day weighted average limit of 75 dBA, which are utilized in the finding of significant noise level hazards on the North Prospect Avenue corridor.
C. Peer-Reviewed Economic and Public Health Literature
● Babisch, W. (2006). Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk: Updated review and synthesis of epidemiological studies. Noise and Health, 8(30), 1–29. ○ Application: Establishes the definitive biological and epidemiological pathways linking chronic transportation noise exposure above 55 dBA to involuntary sympathetic nervous system activation, sustained cortisol spikes, clinical hypertension, and elevated relative risks of ischemic heart disease.
● Miedema, H. M., & Oudshoorn, C. G. (2001). Elements of a dose-response relationship for road traffic noise and annoyance. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(4), 379–389.
○ Application: Provides the peer-reviewed polynomial mathematical equations used by federal agencies to map community welfare degradation, demonstrating that 15 percent to 20 percent of a population becomes clinically "highly annoyed" when subjected to the city-admitted 65 dBA 24-hour weighted average baseline. ● Nelson, J. P. (2004). Meta-analysis of airport and traffic noise and hedonic property values: Problems and prospects. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(1), 1–27. ○ Application: Establishes the structural foundation for the Noise Depreciation Index (NDI) within Hedonic Price Modeling. It validates that high-value residential properties experience a permanent 0.5 percent to 1.2 percent reduction in asset capital value per decibel exceedance above standard 50 dBA baselines.
III. Analytical Summary of Interdependent Liabilities
As a professional analyst, I highlight for the City Attorney's review that these documented sources collectively validate a multi-tiered legal exposure for the City of Redondo Beach. The liability is structured across three mutually independent financial realities that do not overlap or double-count:
1. The Real Estate Equity Loss Account: Grounded in Nelson (2004), this measures the immediate, permanent destruction of fixed asset value borne by the property owner due to localized environmental degradation allowed by the City.
2. The Public Health Care Cost Account: Grounded in Babisch (2006) and the U.S. EPA framework, this measures the active, rolling out-of-pocket medical bills and insurance claims generated by chronic, involuntary autonomic stress. Because regular home buyers cannot calculate future physiological tissue damage when placing a real estate bid, these medical costs remain entirely un-internalized by the housing market and accumulate independently.
3. The Daily Living Utility Account: Grounded in Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001), this utilizes Willingness-to-Pay models to calculate the daily psychological toll, cognitive impairment, and severe sleep fragmentation suffered year-over-year by the physical occupants of the corridor.
By consolidating the local environmental record (the BCHD FEIR and City General Plan) with federal safety manuals (FTA Report No. 0123) and validated academic research, this memorandum ensures the City has received comprehensive, formal notice of its exposure to ongoing liabilities stemming from environmental inaction.
From: Eleanor Manzano
To: Khatirah Nazif
Subject: Fwd: BLUE FOLDER - BUDGET & FINANCE AGENDA ITEM - JUNE 16, 2026 Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 8:45:11 AM
See below
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy McLeod <[email protected]>
Date: June 16, 2026 at 8:14:55 AM PDT
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Cc: James Light <[email protected]>, "Chadwick B. Castle" <[email protected]>, Brad Waller <[email protected]> Subject: Re: BLUE FOLDER - BUDGET & FINANCE AGENDA ITEM - JUNE 16, 2026
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi there.
I inadvertently forgot to list
- increased “park and ride” shuttle services/vehicles
to my budget recommendations.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 16, 2026, at 7:25 AM, Kathy McLeod
<[email protected]> wrote:
Greetings. I’m a lifelong resident of Redondo and was taught early on to respect our ocean and sea life. Needless to say, we have a oneof-a-kind harbor and ocean view that is not here for our mere entertainment purposes, to make money off of, or to be used as a backdrop — but for our awe and reminder of nature’s beauty….to educate our children as to the ocean’s greatest life lessons (not found on social media).
Today, we’re facing the noticeable effects of the State’s development mandates on our fragile coastline. In addition, we are at the throes of numerous new recreational and sporting events coming into our City and waterfront/harbor. While these events generate revenue for our City and are enjoyed by tens of thousands of visitors and residents, they can come with a price to our harbor which we should prepare for.
The most current data shows increased development and human activity in coastal cities have a direct correlation in rising ocean and land temperatures, human bacteria, and micro-plastics going into our ocean runoffs. This development is creating UHIs (Urban Heat Islands) on our coast. This paradigm shift also is resulting in seawater nutrient depletion affecting fish populations and, more recently, a new and harmful species of kelp being found in our coastal waters. In essence, we could potentially create our own private climate change here in Redondo.
We have already witnessed the devastating effects of last year’s Domoic Acid Event (with prevailing studies showing harmful domoic acid formed in Algal Blooms when exposed to human bacteria and warming water temperatures). We saw a record number of marine mammals and avian deaths on our shoreline.
On a human level, bacteria alerts, beach closures and public health concerns have increasingly been occurring on our beaches. Aside from health concerns, these closures can gravely affect tourism.
BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
I urge our City Council to prioritize and allocate funding that will help counter the consequences of development changes at hand in our City….changes that have the potential of negatively and permanently impacting King Harbor and our beaches, including:
- Sewage improvements
- Beach Runoff improvements
- Technically-advanced water and sand analysis units
- The hiring of an Oceanographer to the Harbor Commission and an arm to the Urban Development Commission
- Increased Harbor Patrol
- Designated "On-the-beach” patrol personnel - especially during weekends and peak events
- Increased funding to the Harbor Tideland Fund, MMCC, OARRA - Stricter fines for numerous infractions on our beaches (ie, dogs on the beach, food carts on the beach, illegal fishing, fishing remains on our pier, gathering living marine life in tide pools, leaving fishing line/equipment in fishing spots (breakwater, etc.), not picking up dog poop).
There is only one King Harbor. It is our City's greatest asset - and it is our responsibility (I would say our LARGEST responsibility) as a city - and as individuals - to protect and preserve her now and for future generations. The more “bells and whistles” we are adding around our waterfront may draw more revenue - but at what price? Thank you.
Kathleen McLeod
Redondo Resident
310-491-4877
From: Darryl Boyd
To: CityClerk; City Clerk Records; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Mike Witzansky; Ryan Liu; Andrew Winje; Michael Klein; Mark Garlock; Marc Wiener; Joy Ford Subject: UPDATED REQUEST FOR BUDGET AND FUNDING THE N PROSPECT AVE MEDIAN 6/16/26 Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 9:05:16 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 6/16/26 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:
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