N1 - blue folder — Redondo Beach City Council, July 21, 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
JULY 21, 2026
N.1 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MODIFICATION

TO THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO

HEDGE-RELATED ORDINANCES
CONTACT: JOY A. FORD, CITY ATTORNEY

STEPHANIE JOHNSON, QUALITY OF LIFE PROSECUTOR

COLE WEBB, LEGAL INTERN
• Public Communications
From: Miles Burkart
To: CityClerk
Subject: Blue Folder Submission – Item N.1 (Hedge Ordinances) – for July 21, 2026 Date: Saturday, July 18, 2026 12:11:18 AM
Attachments: 00_INDEX_Enforcement_Failures.pdf
03_Email_CE-13009_2100_Huntington.pdf
01_Email_CE-12969_1802_Huntington.pdf
02_Email_CE-13117_1922_Huntington.pdf
04_Email_CE-13122_2211_Huntington.pdf
09_Black_Hole_Board.pdf
08_AASHTO_Caltrans_Safety_Standards.pdf
05_Email_CE-13089_2120_Clark.pdf
06_Email_CE-13093_2117_Huntington.pdf
07_Leadership_Confirmation_Safety_Cases_Exempt_From_Pause.pdf 11_Email_CE-13011_1901_Harriman.pdf
10_Waldo_Board.pdf
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.

Dear City Clerk,
Please find attached 12 PDF files to be distributed as a "Blue Folder" packet to the Mayor, City Council members, and City Manager for the July 21, 2026, City Council meeting.

These materials provide critical context regarding current on-the-ground enforcement failures for Item N.1: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Modification to the Redondo Beach Municipal Code Pertaining to Hedge-Related Ordinances.

This packet contains:

Boards that will be used on 7/21.

Evidence of unresolved systemic failures in current sightline and hedge enforcement protocols (1901 Harriman Lane).

Unresolved data and documentation regarding outstanding paused code enforcement cases submitted from prior public comments.

Please confirm receipt of this email and verify that these materials will be distributed to the Council and leadership prior to the meeting.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Miles Burkart
14-Year Redondo Beach Resident
Miles Burkart < >
Case CE-12969 — 1802 Huntington — Improper Closure
2 messages
Miles Burkart < > Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 10:23 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Ms. Colindres,
Case CE-12969 at 1802 Huntington has been closed, however the violation has not been corrected.

On April 30, 2026 I notified the department in writing that thinning would not resolve the sightline obstruction at this address — the hazard is structural, caused by a mechanically supported multi-stemmed shrub tied to an adjacent tree within the front setback. That obstruction remains over 42 inches and continues to block driveway visibility.

The prescribed remedy was inadequate. And no remedy has been attempted by the homeowner. The case was closed without achieving compliance with RBMC §10-5.1524 or §4-10.02(c)(1).

Please advise on the basis for closure and what enforcement action will be taken to bring this property into compliance. A current photograph documenting the ongoing obstruction is attached.

Miles Burkart
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 2:17 PM Miles Burkart < > wrote:

Hi Isabella,
Thank you for the update and for contacting the property owner. I want to flag several concerns for the record before the May 14 compliance date.

1. CLASSIFICATION: THE PLANT IS A SHRUB, NOT A TREE
Pineapple guava (feijoa/Acca sellowiana) is botanically classified as a multi-stemmed evergreen shrub. Its natural, untrained form is multi-branched — it only takes on tree-like form when deliberately trained to a single trunk over time. Nursery and horticultural sources consistently classify it as a shrub or hedge plant.

At 1802 Huntington, the plant has not been trained to tree form.

More importantly: the plant is currently being physically supported with a nylon rope attached to the adjacent pomegranate tree because it is growing lopsided toward the driveway. A plant that requires mechanical support to maintain its form is not a tree by any reasonable standard. It is a shrub being propped against another plant, creating a combined vegetative mass within the front setback.

2. THINNING WILL NOT RESOLVE THE VISIBILITY HAZARD
The obstruction at this address is not caused by density alone — it is caused by the size, position, and combined mass of two plants bound together within the setback area. Thinning a mechanically bound shrub that remains over 42 inches will not eliminate the sightline obstruction affecting driveway visibility. The hazard is structural, not cosmetic and it will grow back the same way.

3. APPLICABLE STANDARD
RBMC §10-5.1524 requires that no fence, hedge, or wall exceed 42 inches within the required front setback. The vegetation at this address — a multi-stemmed shrub tied to an adjacent plant — meets the definition of a hedge or vegetative obstruction under the code. The 42-inch standard applies regardless of how the plant is labeled.

I respectfully ask that the city reconsider the proposed remedy and require height compliance to 42 inches rather than thinning. I will assess conditions after May 14 and follow up if the visibility hazard remains.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Miles
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 11:02 AM Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Miles,
Code Enforcement has been in contact with the property owner about the pineapple guava (feijoa) tree. She will be asked to thin the tree to improve visibility, not cut it to 42 inches.

The property owner has 2 weeks to comply, so the compliance date is May 14, 2026.

Thank you,
Isabella Colindres | Code Enforcement Officer
Redondo Beach Police Department | Quality of Life Unit
401 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
[email protected] | 310-697-3563
We Are the Community – Leading the Way in Law Enforcement You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 6:40 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Subject: Follow-Up: Case #52231 — 1802 Huntington Ave, Vegetation Height / Visibility Hazard CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Officer Colindres,
I am following up on code enforcement case #52231 at 1802 Huntington Ave.

On February 24th, I submitted a comment directly in the Comcate case record noting that the left-side vegetation in the front setback had not been addressed.

This is not a tree, it is a shrub and it continues to obstruct sightlines to the driveway, creating an ongoing visibility and safety hazard for pedestrians and drivers.

That comment has not received a response.

Under RBMC §10-5.1524, vegetation in the front setback is subject to the 42-inch maximum height limit. The bush in question remains out of compliance and has not been trimmed adequately or removed.

Could you please provide a status update on this case, including any inspection findings or compliance deadlines communicated to the property owner? A written response is appreciated.

Thank you for your time.
.Miles
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 12:25 PM
Subject: City of Redondo Beach: Request #(52231) has been resolved To: < >
Dear Anonymous Anonymous,
Request received on 01/23/2026 concerning Code Enforcement>Code Enforcement - Other has been resolved. If there are any further questions please feel free to contact us again via the link below and reference the Request# in the subject line. Thank you. https://clients.comcate.com/myfeedbackView.php?view=2317792&id=23 Sincerely,
City of Redondo Beach
https://www.redondo.org
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.

IMG_0532.jpeg
1949K
Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 9:56 AM To: Miles Burkart < >
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Dear Miles,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Case CE- 12969 at 1802 Huntington Ln.

At this time, the City is reviewing the current municipal code provisions related to hedge height. Pending further legal guidance from the City Attorney's Office, Code Enforcement has paused enforcement actions on RBMC Section 10-2.1524, Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Obstructions in All Zones.

As a result, no additional enforcement action will be taken at this time. Once the City Attorney provides direction regarding the applicable code and enforcement process, we will determine the appropriate next steps and proceed accordingly.

We appreciate your patience while this review is underway.

Sincerely,
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Miles Burkart < >
RE: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service case number 52642 5 messages
City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]> Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 10:40 AM To:

Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Hello,
A follow-up review was conducted on 2/26/26 regarding the concern about the avocado trees along Flagler.

The vegetation in question consists of avocado trees located behind the existing fence. While the trees extend above fence height, tree height itself is not regulated under the municipal code. At the time of inspection, the vegetation was not obstructing the sidewalk, encroaching into the public right-of-way, or creating a documented visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians within the required sight distance area.

Based on current conditions, no violation exists, and no corrective action is required.

Case No. 52642 remains closed.

Thank you.

Isabella Colindres

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

POLICE DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY SERVICES UNIT
(310) 697-3563 | [email protected]
>>>> Attachments <<<<
1901 Harriman No violation Download
Miles Burkart < > Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 3:02 PM
To: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Hello Isabella,
Thank you for the additional follow-up. I have two items I would appreciate clarification on.

1. Code section used for the determination
Could you please confirm the specific section of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code that was used to evaluate the property and determine that the vegetation does not violate intersection visibility or obstruction standards? Understanding the exact code provision and evaluation criteria used would help me better understand the basis for the determination.

2. Additional field observations on visibility
After visiting the site, I took photographs from both sidewalks approximately 12 feet back from the corner, with the camera positioned at roughly 60 inches above grade (see attached).

From that position, a full-size pickup truck (RAM 1500, approximately 23ft long and 7 ft tall) stopped at the stop sign is not visible at all from the cross sidewalk (see attached).

From the opposite sidewalk along the property line, visibility of an approaching vehicle is limited to approximately the front 1/4 or to the wheel area only when viewed from the same 12-foot setback (see attached).

Given those observations, I am wondering how vegetation is evaluated in this situation.

The avocado trees along the property are planted in a continuous line at approximately 24–36 inches spacing, creating what functions visually as a screen. Could you clarify whether vegetation planted and maintained in this manner is evaluated strictly as individual trees, or whether the City evaluates closely spaced plantings functioning as a privacy hedge or visual screen when assessing potential intersection visibility impacts? Thank you for your time and clarification.
[Quoted text hidden]
2 attachments
IMG_0135.jpeg
1728K
IMG_0131.jpeg
1566K
Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 11:16 AM To: Miles Burkart < >, City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]> Cc: Jo Salcido <[email protected]>, Norma Cook <[email protected]> Hello,
Thank you for your follow-up and for providing the additional photographs and observations.

When I initially visited the location, the conditions observed did not indicate a violation of the items identified in the original complaint. Specifically, tree height itself is not regulated under the Redondo Beach Municipal Code, and the fence height at the property appears to be within the allowable limits.

However, based on the additional information you have provided regarding visibility from the corner, I will be sending a notice to the property owner requesting that the vegetation along the corner be evaluated and trimmed as necessary to ensure that visibility at the intersection is not impacted.

Thank you for bringing your observations to my attention.

Best,
Isabella Colindres | Code Enforcement Officer
Redondo Beach Police Department | Quality of Life Unit
401 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
[email protected] | 310-697-3563
We Are the Community – Leading the Way in Law Enforcement You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 3:02 PM
To: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]> Cc: Jo Salcido <[email protected]>; Norma Cook <[email protected]>; Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Subject: Re: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service case number 52642 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. [Quoted text hidden]
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.

Miles Burkart < > Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 5:57 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]>, Jo Salcido <[email protected]>, Norma Cook <[email protected]> Hello Isabella,
Thank you for the notice sent to the property owner.

I wanted to follow up on my earlier question regarding the applicable code section, which was not addressed in your response.

RBMC §10-2.1524(d)(1) states:
"All corner lots shall maintain for safety vision purposes a triangular area at the street intersection corner of the lot... Within such triangular area, no tree, fence, shrub, or other physical obstruction higher than thirty-six (36) inches above the established sidewalk grade shall be permitted." Trees are explicitly named in this provision.

I have visited the property since the case was closed and the vegetation within the 15-foot corner visibility triangle remains above 36 inches (see attached photo).

Could you kindly confirm:

1. Was a re-inspection conducted prior to closing the case?

2. Was compliance with the 36-inch standard within the 15-foot triangle verified? Thank you,
Miles Burkart
[Quoted text hidden]
IMG_0452.jpeg
259K
Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 12:18 PM To: Miles Burkart < >
Cc: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]>, Jo Salcido <[email protected]>, Norma Cook <[email protected]> Hi Miles,
Thank you for your follow-up.

Code Enforcement has been in communication with the property owners regarding the vegetation at this location. The trees and vegetation have since been thinned and trimmed to address visibility concerns at the corner.

A follow-up was conducted today, April 30, 2026, and the trimming and thinning completed by the property owners will suffice.

As the issue has been addressed, this case will remain closed, and no further action will be taken.

Thank you,
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]
Miles Burkart < >
Case CE-13009 — 2100 Huntington — Status Request
2 messages
Miles Burkart < > Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:24 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Ms. Colindres,
Case CE-13009 at 2100 Huntington remains open. The corner lot safety violation has not been corrected.

What is the next enforcement action and when?
Miles Burkart
Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 9:44 AM To: Miles Burkart < >
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Dear Miles,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Case CE- 13009 at 2100 Huntington Ln.

We appreciate your patience while this review is underway.

Sincerely,
Isabella Colindres | Code Enforcement Officer
Redondo Beach Police Department | Quality of Life Unit
401 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
[email protected] | 310-697-3563
We Are the Community – Leading the Way in Law Enforcement From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:24 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Subject: Case CE-13009 — 2100 Huntington — Status Request CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. [Quoted text hidden]
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.

Miles Burkart < >
CE-13122 — 2211 Huntington — Status Request
2 messages
Miles Burkart < > Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:32 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Ms. Colindres,
Case CE-13122 at 2211 Huntington remains open. The multiple violations on this property have not been corrected.

Additionally, a hazardous condition exists at this property — metal bolts are protruding from the fence addition at a height accessible to pedestrians and children.

This presents a risk of serious injury independent of the height violation and requires immediate inspection.

What is the next enforcement action and when?
Miles Burkart
Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 9:45 AM To: Miles Burkart < >
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Dear Miles,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Case CE- 13122 at 2211 Huntington Ln.

We appreciate your patience while this review is underway.

Sincerely,
Isabella Colindres | Code Enforcement Officer
Redondo Beach Police Department | Quality of Life Unit
401 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
[email protected] | 310-697-3563
We Are the Community – Leading the Way in Law Enforcement From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:32 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Subject: CE-13122 — 2211 Huntington — Status Request
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. [Quoted text hidden]
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.

Miles Burkart < >
Case CE-13089 — 2120 Clark — Status Request
2 messages
Miles Burkart < > Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:47 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Ms. Colindres,
Case CE-13089 at 2120 Clark remains open. The violation has not been corrected for this hedge surrounding the property.

What is the next enforcement action and when?
Miles Burkart
Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 9:46 AM To: Miles Burkart < >
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Dear Miles,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Case CE- 13089 at 2120 Clark Ln.

We appreciate your patience while this review is underway.

Sincerely,
Isabella Colindres | Code Enforcement Officer
Redondo Beach Police Department | Quality of Life Unit
401 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
[email protected] | 310-697-3563
We Are the Community – Leading the Way in Law Enforcement From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:48 PM
To: Isabella Colindres <[email protected]> Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Subject: Case CE-13089 — 2120 Clark — Status Request
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. [Quoted text hidden]
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.

Miles Burkart < >
Case CE-13093 — 2117 Huntington — Status Request
3 messages
Miles Burkart < > Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:26 PM
To: Ivana Robles <[email protected]>
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Ms. Robles,
Case CE-13093 at 2117 Huntington remains open. The violation has not been corrected.

What is the next enforcement action and when?
Miles Burkart
Ivana Robles <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 4:42 PM To: Miles Burkart < >
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Dear Miles,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Case CE- 13093 at 2117 Huntington Ln.

We appreciate your patience while this review is underway.

Sincerely,
Ivana Robles | Code Enforcement Officer
Redondo Beach Police Department | Community Services Unit 401 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
[email protected] | 310-697-3560
We Are the Community – Leading the Way in Law Enforcement From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 11:26 PM
To: Ivana Robles <[email protected]>
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>
Subject: Case CE-13093 — 2117 Huntington — Status Request You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Ms. Robles,
Case CE-13093 at 2117 Huntington remains open. The violation has not been corrected.

What is the next enforcement action and when?
Miles Burkart
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.

Miles Burkart < > Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:18 PM
To: Ivana Robles <[email protected]>
Cc: Norma Cook <[email protected]>, [email protected] + Mike Witzansky
Ms. Robles,
Thank you for your response. I want to clarify the nature of this complaint for the record.

This case has been open for 106 days. A site inspection was completed and the violation verified — yet no Notice of Violation was ever issued. The pause is now being invoked on a case where the city failed to act before the pause even existed.

The hedge at 2117 Huntington Lane runs the full perimeter of the property and blocks sightlines at two driveways. This is a self-evident public safety hazard. No special framing from a complainant should be required — any reasonable inspection would reveal it.

The City Attorney's Office has confirmed that safety-based enforcement continues during the pause. This property presents exactly that situation. I am requesting this case be evaluated under that exception and that enforcement proceed accordingly.

Cheers,
Miles Burkart
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 4:42 PM Ivana Robles <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Miles,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Case CE- 13093 at 2117 Huntington Ln.

We appreciate your patience while this review is underway.

Ms. Robles,
Case CE-13093 at 2117 Huntington remains open. The violation has not been corrected.

Miles Burkart < >
Question Regarding Enforcement Pause — Sightline Safety Cases 4 messages
Miles Burkart < > Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 12:37 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: "Zein Obagi, Jr." <[email protected]>
Mr. Witzansky and Ms. Ford,
I read the Easy Reader article from June 9th regarding the city's decision to pause enforcement of hedge height ordinances while the code is under review. I understand and appreciate that the city is taking a thoughtful look at rules that may not reflect current conditions in Redondo Beach.

I did want to ask a clarifying question, and I hope this is the right channel for it.

The 42-inch front setback limit and the 36-inch corner visibility triangle limit are not, as I understand them, aesthetic standards. They exist because the city determined that obstructions above those heights create sightline hazards for drivers and pedestrians. I have personally witnessed multiple near-accidents in the neighborhood attributable to visibility obstructions, and my complaints have been filed with that concern in mind.

That context feels meaningfully different from a dispute about hedge aesthetics or privacy, which appears to be what is driving the current policy review.

So my question is: Does the enforcement pause apply equally to cases where the documented concern is a safety obstruction — since the height limits themselves reflect a safety determination the city already made when it enacted the code? I recognize you are managing a complicated situation and I am not trying to add to the difficulty. I just want to understand where things stand.

Thank you for your time.

Miles Burkart
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Joy Ford <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:18 AM To: Miles Burkart < >, Mike Witzansky <[email protected]> Cc: "Zein Obagi, Jr." <[email protected]>
No, it does not apply to safety concerns, nor does it bar anyone from making any complaints. The nature of the complaint will determine whether or not code enforcement will take any action.

Joy Abaquin Ford
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important City Attorney
Redondo Beach City Attorney’s Office
415 Diamond Street │ Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-318-0655
From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 12:37 AM
To: Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]> Cc: Zein Obagi, Jr. <[email protected]>
Subject: Question Regarding Enforcement Pause — Sightline Safety Cases CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. [Quoted text hidden]
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.

Zein Obagi, Jr. <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:42 AM To: Joy Ford <[email protected]>
Cc: Miles Burkart < >, Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>, [email protected] Thank you City Attorney Ford!
Zein (Zane) E. Obagi, Jr.

Councilmember, Redondo Beach Council District 4
Text or Call Me: 310-625-9346
City Business: [email protected]
Political: [email protected]
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important [Quoted text hidden]
Mike Witzansky <[email protected]> Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 6:04 PM To: Miles Burkart < >, Joy Ford <[email protected]>
Cc: "Zein Obagi, Jr." <[email protected]>
Hello…Thank you for the note…Safety issues will continue to be addressed…Have a good evening…Mike From: Miles Burkart < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 12:37 AM
To: Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]> Cc: Zein Obagi, Jr. <[email protected]>
Subject: Question Regarding Enforcement Pause — Sightline Safety Cases CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mr. Witzansky and Ms. Ford,
[Quoted text hidden]
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.

NATIONAL AND STATE SAFETY STANDARDS — DRIVER

SIGHTLINE HEIGHTS
This exhibit anchors the height dimensions used in RBMC §10-2.1524 to the driver-sightline standards published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and adopted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Driver Eye Height — 3.5 Feet (42 Inches)
AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ("Green Book"), 2018 edition:

The Green Book establishes 3.5 feet as the height of a passenger-vehicle driver's eye above the road surface. This value is used across all AASHTO sight distance calculations — stopping, intersection, passing, and decision.

California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Chapter 200 — Geometric Design and Structure Standards, Topic 201, §201.3:
"Stopping sight distance for motorists is measured from the driver's eyes, which are assumed to be 3 1/2 feet above the pavement surface."
The RBMC §10-2.1524 front setback height limit — 42 inches — corresponds exactly to the AASHTO-standard driver eye height adopted by Caltrans for sight distance calculations.

Stopping Sight Distance at Residential Speeds
AASHTO Green Book, 2018 edition, Table 3-35:

Design Speed Stopping Sight Distance
20 mph 115 feet
25 mph 155 feet
These distances represent the minimum roadway visibility required for a driver to perceive an obstacle and bring the vehicle to a full stop. Both distances are directly relevant to residential streets and driveway egress conditions.

Application to Redondo Beach residential setbacks:

An obstruction at or below 42 inches within the front setback preserves the driver's line of sight over the top of the obstruction, consistent with AASHTO/Caltrans design assumptions. An obstruction above 42 inches interrupts that line of sight at the driver's eye level.

The RBMC §10-2.1524 corner visibility triangle limit of 36 inches applies the same principle to intersection sight distance, providing additional margin for a stopped or approaching driver at street corners.

Source documents cited above are published national and state road design standards. Full text is publicly available:
• AASHTO Green Book, 7th edition (2018) — American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
• California Highway Design Manual — Caltrans, dot.ca.gov Hitchhiker's Guide to Safety Complaints
ACCESS

REDONDO

BLACK HOLE
CLOSED

RESOLVED

Miles Burkart < >
RE: City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service case number 52642 5 messages
City of Redondo Beach - Customer Service <[email protected]> Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 10:40 AM To:

Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Hello,
A follow-up review was conducted on 2/26/26 regarding the concern about the avocado trees along Flagler.

Based on current conditions, no violation exists, and no corrective action is required.

Case No. 52642 remains closed.

Thank you.

Isabella Colindres

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

From that position, a full-size pickup truck (RAM 1500, approximately 23ft long and 7 ft tall) stopped at the stop sign is not visible at all from the cross sidewalk (see attached).

Given those observations, I am wondering how vegetation is evaluated in this situation.

Thank you for bringing your observations to my attention.

I wanted to follow up on my earlier question regarding the applicable code section, which was not addressed in your response.

I have visited the property since the case was closed and the vegetation within the 15-foot corner visibility triangle remains above 36 inches (see attached photo).

Could you kindly confirm:

1. Was a re-inspection conducted prior to closing the case?

A follow-up was conducted today, April 30, 2026, and the trimming and thinning completed by the property owners will suffice.

As the issue has been addressed, this case will remain closed, and no further action will be taken.

Thank you,
[Quoted text hidden]
[Quoted text hidden]

INDEX OF ENFORCEMENT FAILURES
Six cases. All submitted as §10-2.1524 code violations. All received the same boilerplate — enforcement is paused — after the City Attorney and City Manager confirmed in writing that safety cases are exempt from the pause. Three improperly closed. Three open, no substantive response. One documented injury hazard, follow-up complaint closed in under 14 hours - no cause.

1. IMPROPER CLOSURE — REMEDY INADEQUATE
CE-12969 — 1802 Huntington Ln
Case closed without compliance achieved. On April 30, 2026, I notified the department in writing that the prescribed remedy (thinning) would not resolve the sightline obstruction. The obstruction is structural — a mechanically supported multi-stemmed shrub tied to an adjacent tree within the front setback. Case closed regardless. Obstruction remains over 42 inches and continues to block driveway visibility. Photograph attached to my June 24, 2026 email.

Response: pause boilerplate cited.

2. NO RESPONSE — OPEN CASE
CE-13117 — 1922 Huntington Ln
Corner-lot visibility violation. Case remains open. Written status inquiry sent June 24, 2026. No response.

Response: pause boilerplate cited.

3. NO RESPONSE — OPEN CASE
CE-13009 — 2100 Huntington Ln
Corner-lot safety violation. Case remains open. Written status inquiry sent June 24, 2026. No response.

Response: pause boilerplate cited.

4. INJURY HAZARD UNADDRESSED — SECOND COMPLAINT CLOSED WITHOUT

INSPECTION
CE-13122 (open) + CS-26-532 (closed) — 2211 Huntington Ln Original case (CE-13122) remains open with multi-violation uncorrected, including a documented injury hazard — metal bolts protruding outward from a DIY fence addition at pedestrian height, accessible to children on the public sidewalk. On June 24, 2026 at 11:33 PM, I submitted a second complaint (CS-26-532) specifically identifying the bolt hazard as requiring immediate inspection independent of the existing case. That complaint was closed on June 25, 2026 at 2:20 PM — approximately 14 hours later — with no inspection, no reason, and no findings on record. Bolts remain in place.

Response: pause boilerplate cited on CE-13122.

5. NO RESPONSE — OPEN CASE
CE-13089 — 2120 Clark Ln
Hedge violation surrounding the property; driveway sightlines obstructed. Case remains open, violation uncorrected. Written status inquiry sent June 24, 2026. No response.

Response: pause boilerplate cited.

6. IMPROPER CLOSURE AFTER FULL LEADERSHIP ESCALATION
CE-13093 — 2117 Huntington Ln
Case escalated in writing on July 12, 2026 to CE Officer Robles, City Manager Witzansky, Councilmember Obagi, City Attorney Ford, and CE Supervisor Cook. Property owner is a licensed professional landscaper. Hedge exceeds 12 feet. No response received from any recipient. Case subsequently closed without notification. Property remains out of compliance.

Response: pause boilerplate cited.

Attached: Full email chain for each case above.

July 21, 2026
Mayor Light and Members of the City Council
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: Agenda Item N.1 – Proposed Hedge Ordinance Revisions and ComplaintDriven Enforcement Mayor Light and Council Members,
I respectfully submit this comment regarding the proposed revisions to the City's hedge ordinance.

While I appreciate the effort to clarify definitions, establish notice requirements, and discourage frivolous complaints, I believe the proposal fails to address the underlying issue that has generated so much controversy among residents: enforcement is largely complaint-driven and therefore inherently inconsistent.

The staff report acknowledges that hedge enforcement increased following an influx of complaints beginning in late 2025 and proposes that enforcement remain primarily complaint-driven through the use of "bona fide complainants." The report further proposes that many enforcement actions would only move forward after a qualifying neighbor submits a complaint.

The obvious question is:

If these hedges truly represent significant traffic safety, crime prevention, emergency access, or fire safety concerns, where is the evidence that such problems have existed in Redondo Beach over the past 30-plus years? This ordinance has existed for decades.

Throughout those decades, Redondo Beach has had mature trees, mature hedges, landscaping, and private front yards. Yet the City has not demonstrated a pattern of hedge-related traffic accidents, crime problems, emergency response failures, or fire incidents caused by residential hedges exceeding 42 inches. The staff report offers conclusions and concerns, but it does not present a history of documented incidents demonstrating that residential hedges have created a citywide public safety crisis.

If these conditions truly represented a substantial threat, one would reasonably expect decades of supporting evidence.
• Where are the documented hedge-related traffic collisions? • Where are the documented hedge-related fire incidents? • Where are the documented hedge-related crime trends?
• Where are the documented hedge-related emergency response failures? The reality is that Redondo Beach has successfully functioned with mature trees, mature hedges, and extensive landscaping for decades.

The recent surge in enforcement appears to be tied not to a sudden change in public safety conditions, but to a sudden increase in complaints.

That distinction matters.

Public policy should be based on facts and demonstrated public needs, not merely on complaint volume.

The report itself acknowledges that enforcement activity dramatically increased only after complaints increased.

As a result, this proposal feels less like a solution to an actual public safety problem and more like a solution to a political problem: reducing hedge-related complaints received by elected officials and City staff.

Under the proposed framework, two properties with identical conditions could be treated entirely differently. One property receives a violation notice simply because it has an unhappy neighbor. The other receives no notice because nobody complains.

That is not uniform enforcement.

That is neighbor-driven enforcement.

If a hedge genuinely presents a public safety hazard, then it should be addressed because it is a hazard, not because someone living nearby decides to initiate enforcement.

TREES, HEDGES, AND LANDSCAPING ARE COMMUNITY ASSETS
Redondo Beach should be encouraging more landscaping, not less.

Trees, hedges, and mature landscaping:
• Increase property values.
• Improve neighborhood appearance.
• Reduce urban heat island effects.
• Provide cooling and shade.
• Improve air quality.
• Capture and store carbon.
• Reduce stormwater runoff.
• Reduce noise pollution.
• Support wildlife and pollinators.
• Enhance privacy.
• Improve walkability and neighborhood character.
• Improve mental health and overall quality of life.

Research consistently shows that homes with mature trees and quality landscaping command a premium in the marketplace. Buyers place value on privacy, shade, beauty, established greenery, and neighborhood character. Mature landscaping is often one of the first features prospective buyers notice and one of the most difficult features to replace once removed.

Trees and mature hedges take years, and often decades, to establish. Once removed, they cannot be recreated overnight.

These are community assets, not community problems.

Redondo Beach proudly promotes itself as a Tree City USA community. At a time when cities throughout California are investing in urban canopy expansion, climate resilience, neighborhood cooling, and environmental sustainability, it is difficult to understand why Redondo Beach is considering policies that could discourage residents from planting and maintaining mature landscaping.

We need to increase our tree canopy, not shrink it.

The City's objective should be clear:
• Protect existing mature trees.
• Preserve mature hedges.
• Encourage additional landscaping.
• Expand the urban canopy.
• Improve neighborhood beauty.
• Provide environmental benefits for future generations.

TREE CANOPY, CLIMATE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
The environmental value of trees and landscaping cannot be overstated.

Trees and large hedges:
• Lower neighborhood temperatures during heat waves.
• Reduce air-conditioning demand and energy consumption. • Improve air quality through pollutant removal.
• Capture carbon dioxide and support climate goals.
• Reduce stormwater runoff and localized flooding.
• Help prevent soil erosion.
• Improve biodiversity.
• Create habitat for birds and pollinators.
• Reduce noise from traffic and neighboring properties. • Improve community health and well-being.

Cities throughout California are actively investing public funds to increase tree canopy because the benefits are measurable and long-term.

Redondo Beach should be leading efforts to preserve and expand greenery throughout the city, not creating additional barriers that could ultimately reduce it.

NOT ALL PROPERTIES ARE CREATED EQUAL
One of the fundamental flaws with the current ordinance is the assumption that every property, street, and neighborhood condition is identical.

They are not.
• Not all front-yard trees, hedges, and landscaping create traffic visibility issues. • Not all properties create public safety concerns.
• Not all streets are designed the same way.
• Not all lots have the same setbacks, elevations, parking configurations, sight lines, traffic volumes, or neighboring structures.

Many residential streets throughout Redondo Beach contain:
• Wide parkways.
• Street trees.
• Parking lanes.
• Wide sidewalks.
• Setbacks between landscaping and travel lanes.
• Low traffic volumes.
• Significant clear visibility beyond private landscaping.

In these situations, mature trees, hedges, and landscaping may have little or no measurable impact on public safety while providing substantial benefits to residents and the neighborhood.

The City should focus on actual conditions and actual hazards rather than assuming all landscaping presents the same level of concern.

THE CITY CREATED THE PRIVACY PROBLEM
The reality is that Redondo Beach is not the same community it was decades ago.

Many of our traditional bungalow-style neighborhoods have been transformed through development approvals that allow significantly larger homes, multiple-unit configurations, and two-story and three-story structures where much smaller homes once stood.
• The City approved these changes.
• The City approved the increased density.
• The City approved larger homes.
• The City approved development patterns that place second-story and third-story windows, balconies, roof decks, and living spaces overlooking neighboring properties, often separated by as little as 8 to 10 feet.

In many neighborhoods, residents who once enjoyed reasonable privacy now find themselves living next to substantially larger homes with direct views into bedrooms, backyards, patios, pools, and living spaces.

The City also approved policies that have contributed to many of the parking and density challenges experienced throughout Redondo Beach today.

As density has increased, property owners have naturally sought additional landscaping, hedges, and screening to restore some degree of privacy.

This is not unreasonable.

It is a direct response to changing neighborhood conditions.

A 42-inch hedge may have seemed reasonable decades ago when neighboring homes were single-story bungalows.

It is much less reasonable when homeowners now live next to large two-story and three-story residences overlooking backyards, patios, pools, and private living spaces.

Likewise, a six-foot hedge is often insufficient when neighboring structures rise far above that height.

Residents deserve privacy.

Privacy is not a luxury.

It is a legitimate quality-of-life concern.

MANY PROPERTIES HAVE ONLY A FRONT YARD
For many residents, especially in older Redondo Beach neighborhoods, the front yard is not merely decorative landscaping.

It is their primary outdoor living space.

Many homes have limited rear yards or no meaningful backyard at all due to lot size, building placement, topography, or redevelopment patterns.

For many residents, the front yard functions as:
• Their family gathering area.
• Their children's play space.
• Their outdoor recreation area.
• Their gardening area.
• Their primary private outdoor refuge.

Landscaping and hedges make these spaces usable, comfortable, and private.

Removing privacy landscaping diminishes residents' quality of life and reduces the enjoyment of their property.

GREENERY CREATES NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, NOT WALLS
There is a substantial difference between driving down a street lined with mature trees, hedges, and landscaping and driving down a street lined with walls, fences, hardscape, and concrete.

One creates beauty, shade, environmental benefits, privacy, and neighborhood character.

The other creates a harsher urban environment.

Residents consistently value greenery because it softens the built environment and helps offset the increasing scale and density of newer development.

A city known for mature trees and landscaping is far more attractive than one known primarily for walls and concrete.

MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED SAFETY
The City's report relies heavily on visibility concerns, yet modern vehicles contain safety technologies that did not exist when many of these regulations were originally developed decades ago.

Today's vehicles increasingly include:
• Backup cameras.
• Cross-traffic alert systems.
• Blind-spot monitoring.
• Collision avoidance systems.
• Pedestrian detection systems.
• Automatic emergency braking.
• Parking sensors.
• 360-degree camera systems.

This does not mean visibility should be ignored.

However, it does mean that transportation safety in 2026 is dramatically different from transportation safety in previous decades.

The City should evaluate current realities and technologies rather than relying solely upon assumptions developed years ago.

MARKET EXPECTATIONS HAVE CHANGED
The market has already spoken.

Many newly built homes selling for well over $2 million throughout Redondo Beach are installing substantial hedges, mature landscaping, trees, and screening specifically because buyers expect privacy.

These homeowners are investing significant resources in landscaping to improve quality of life, property value, aesthetics, environmental benefits, and privacy.

Property values reflect those expectations.

The ordinance should recognize current realities rather than attempting to regulate today's neighborhoods using standards developed for a very different Redondo Beach.

POLICY ALTERNATIVES TO COMPLAINT-DRIVEN ENFORCEMENT
Rather than expanding complaint-driven enforcement, the City should consider policies that preserve neighborhood character while addressing legitimate safety concerns.

1. Focus Enforcement Only on Demonstrable Safety Hazards Prioritize:
• Intersection sight triangles.
• Driveway visibility obstructions.
• Sidewalk blockages.
• ADA access issues.
• Encroachments into public rights-of-way.
• Documented fire hazards.

2. Create a Hedge Preservation and Administrative Review Program Allow existing mature hedges to remain through:
• Grandfathering provisions.
• Administrative approvals.
• Neighborhood compatibility reviews.
• Case-by-case evaluations.

3. Establish a Citywide Urban Canopy Initiative
Focus on:
• Increased tree canopy coverage.
• Preservation of mature landscaping.
• Drought-tolerant planting incentives.
• Native planting programs.
• Shade and cooling initiatives.

4. Encourage Good-Neighbor Resolution
Before enforcement occurs, encourage:
• Mediation.
• Neighbor-to-neighbor communication.
• Voluntary resolution.

5. Develop Preservation Standards
Study:
• Tree preservation.
• Mature hedge preservation.
• Privacy screening standards.
• Environmental benefits of landscaping.

REDONDO BEACH SHOULD BECOME A PRO-TREE AND PRO-LANDSCAPING CITY
This discussion presents an opportunity to move the conversation in a more positive direction.

Instead of asking:
"How do we enforce more hedge violations?"
The City should be asking:
"How do we preserve more trees, hedges, and landscaping?" A forward-looking environmental policy would focus on preserving and expanding greenery while addressing genuine safety concerns where they actually exist.

TREES, HEDGES, AND LANDSCAPING ARE NOT THE PROBLEM
The evidence presented to date does not establish that trees, hedges, and landscaping are the source of a significant public safety problem in Redondo Beach.

What residents see instead is:
• Increased density.
• Larger homes.
• Reduced privacy.
• More residents.
• More vehicles.
• More neighborhood conflicts.
• More complaints.

Trees, hedges, and landscaping are not the cause of those changes.

They are often the solution.
• They provide privacy where privacy has been lost.
• They provide cooling where development has increased heat. • They provide beauty where density has increased impacts. • They provide environmental benefits where hardscape has expanded. • They provide neighborhood character where redevelopment has altered community appearance.

The City should recognize trees, hedges, and landscaping as assets to be preserved and encouraged, not obstacles to be regulated and removed.

CONCLUSION
Not every property is the same.

Not every hedge creates a safety issue.

Not every street has the same visibility constraints.

Many homeowners depend upon front-yard landscaping because it is their primary outdoor space.

The City should recognize these differences and adopt policies that preserve greenery while addressing genuine safety concerns where they actually exist.

The ordinance has existed for decades without evidence of widespread hedge-related traffic, crime, fire, or emergency access problems. The City has presented concerns, but it has not demonstrated a history of documented incidents justifying a citywide crackdown on mature landscaping.

What has changed is not public safety.

What has changed is the volume of complaints.

These proposed revisions do not solve the underlying problem. They primarily create a more formal structure for complaint-driven enforcement.

Redondo Beach should choose a different path.
• We should be a pro-tree city.
• We should be a pro-landscaping city.
• We should be a city that values privacy.
• We should be a city that protects mature greenery.
• We should be a city that increases tree canopy rather than shrinking it. • We should be asking how to preserve our existing trees, hedges, and landscaping, not how to create more laws against them.

Most importantly, public policy should be based on documented facts and demonstrated public need, not simply on who complains the loudest.

Trees, hedges, and landscaping are not the problem. They are part of what makes Redondo Beach a desirable place to live.

For additional information regarding urban greenery, environmental benefits, tree canopy preservation, and neighborhood character, I encourage residents and policymakers to review GreenRedondo.org.

Respectfully submitted,
-Andre Leroux
GreenRedondo.com
"United for a Greener Redondo—-Rooted in Respect"
Web-Site
Petition
BLOG
Facebook

Redondo Beach City CouncilJuly 21, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
July 21, 2026