Mar 17, 2026 City Council

[00:00:04]

I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THE CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

[4:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION - ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING]

PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

HERE. MAYOR LIGHT. HERE. DO WE HAVE ANY BLUE FOLDER ITEMS FOR CLOSED SESSION? NONE FOR CLOSED SESSION. OKAY. THERE'S NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE.

IS ANYONE ONLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS? THERE ARE NO ECOMMENTS AND NO ATTENDEES ON ZOOM.

OKAY, COULD YOU READ OFF WHAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IN CLOSED SESSION?

[F. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION]

ITEM F.1 IS UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, ANTICIPATED POTENTIAL LITIGATION AND THERE IS ONE POTENTIAL CASE.

ITEM F.2 IS UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL.

EXISTING LITIGATION. THE NAME OF THE CASE IS JIRO KOYANAGI VERSUS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. JEREMY C CASNER. JOSHUA R CASNER AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE.

CASE NUMBER 23TRCV01318. ITEMS F.3 THROUGH F.5 ARE UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR. FOR F.3 THE PROPERTIES ARE PORTIONS OF THE REDONDO BEACH MARINA PARKING LOT.

PORTIONS OF APN NUMBERS 7503-029-900 AND 7503-029-903.

PORTIONS OF KING HARBOR TURN BASIN AND HAND LAUNCH.

FOR F.4 THE PROPERTIES ARE PORTIONS OF THE REDONDO BEACH MARINA PARKING LOT AND SEASIDE LAGOON PORTIONS OF APN NUMBERS 7503-029-900 AND 7503-029-903 PORTIONS OF HARBOR DRIVE, PACIFIC AVENUE, CATALINA AVENUE, GERTRUDA AVENUE, HERONDO STREET AND ESPLANADE. FOR F.5 THE PROPERTIES ARE PORTIONS OF THE REDONDO BEACH MARINA PARKING LOT AND SEASIDE LAGOON PORTIONS OF APN NUMBERS 7503-029-900 AND 7503-029-903. ITEM F.6 IS UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND LABOR NEGOTIATOR, AND THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION IS REDONDO BEACH PART TIME EMPLOYEES, AND ITEM F.7 IS UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR AND THE PROPERTIES ARE 200 NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

A PORTION OF APN 750-500-9902 715 JULIA AVENUE.

PORTION OF PARCELS APN NUMBERS 750-702-0900 AND APN NUMBER 750-702-1900 3007 VAIL AVENUE, A PORTION OF APN 415-001-7931. 1935 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD, APN 404-900-8903. PARKING LOT AT THE CORNER OF FELTON LANE AND 182ND STREET, APN 415-803-3900 AND 807 INGLEWOOD AVENUE. A PORTION OF APN 408-302-4900. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND CITY MANAGER WITZANSKY, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE OUT OF UNIFORM WITHOUT ANY GREEN TODAY, WE'LL BE SPEAKING TO THESE ITEMS. THAT'S RIGHT. MY MAIDEN NAME, MY MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME IS FRYE.

I'M CERTAINLY DISSING MY IRISH HERITAGE TODAY.

FOR ALL ITEMS MYSELF CITY ATTORNEY JOY FORD, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CHERYL PARK, FOR ITEM F.1, WE WILL BE JOINED BY ANDY WINJE, OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, FOR ITEM F3 WE WILL HAVE DANA MCCUNE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL DIANE STRICKFADEN OUR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, ANDY WINJE AGAIN, AND MIKE KLEIN, OUR DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

FOR ITEM F.3, ELIZABETH HAUSE, OUR COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR, AND KATHERINE BUCK, OUR ACTING WATERFRONT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

FOR ITEM F.4 AGAIN ELIZABETH HAUSE, FOR ITEM F.5, WE WILL HAVE KATHERINE BUCK OUR ACTING WATERFRONT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, LUKE SMUDE, OUR ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND JOHN GOETZ, OUR OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL ON THE MATTER.

FOR ITEM F.6 WE WILL HAVE DIANE STRICKFADEN AND FOR ITEM F.7 LUKE SMUDE, ASISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COULD I GET A MOTION TO RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION? SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL FOR? AYE ANYONE OPPOSED? AYE. AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? NO, NO. OKAY. NOT OPPOSED. OKAY, SO WITH THAT, THAT'S A UNANIMOUS.

SO WE'LL RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. WE'LL BE BACK ON OR ABOUT 6 P.M.

[00:05:04]

THANK YOU. SESSION FROM CLOSED SESSION. COULD I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. HERE. MAYOR LIGHT.

HERE. OKAY. CITY MANAGER WITZANSKY, ANYTHING TO REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION, PLEASE.

NO ITEMS THIS EVENING. MAYOR. OKAY. WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN TO OUR REGULAR OPEN SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR OPEN SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

[A. CALL TO ORDER]

PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. HERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

HERE. MAYOR LIGHT. HERE. OKAY. IF WE HAVE ANY VETERANS OR ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY IN THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE STAND TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR SERVICE.

ANYBODY OUT THERE? OKAY, WELL, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR YOUR SERVICE. YEAH, I'M NOT STANDING UP.

OKAY, SO LET US ALL STAND FOR THE SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND REMAIN STANDING FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE.

AFTERWARDS, I'D LIKE TO CALL UP ELISE, WHO WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE.

ELISE, THE FLOOR IS ALL YOURS. SHE'S PUTTING IT DOWN.

THERE, YOUR MIC'S ON. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ELISE.

I AM A SEVENTH GRADER AT ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL, MY FAVORITE SUBJECT IN SCHOOL IS SOCIAL STUDIES, AND I LOVE TO VISIT THE LIBRARY AND VOLUNTEER IN REDONDO BEACH.

PLEASE PUT YOUR HAND OVER YOUR HEART AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. READY? BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

AND PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT INVOCATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. ELISE. GREAT JOB.

COME ON UP AND GET A PICTURE WITH THE COUNCIL.

GREAT JOB. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR COMING. THANK YOU.

WE COULD HEAR YOU VERY CLEARLY. MOM, MOM AND BROTHER. DO YOU WANT TO GET UP FOR A PICTURE? SORRY, ELISE.

NO NO NO NO. GET IN THE PICTURE. OH, IN THE PICTURE.

YEAH. THAT'S CRAZY. OH. YEAH. ASK THE PHONE. RIGHT.

THANK YOU. RENEE. THANKS, RENEE. DON'T WORRY.

YEAH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL DONE.

[D. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ AB 1234 TRAVEL EXPENSE REPORTS]

I DO HAVE TWO PRESENTATIONS TONIGHT.

JOY. DO YOU WANT TO JOIN US? GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH TONIGHT'S AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE A VERY SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENT BY ONE OF OUR VERY OWN. LILA, COULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? THERE YOU ARE.

I COULDN'T FIND YOU IN THE AUDIENCE, I WAS WORRIED.

IT IS MY HONOR TO SHARE THAT LILA OMURA HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS WOMAN OF THE YEAR AWARD RECIPIENT BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSION FOR WOMEN. CONGRATULATIONS.

THIS RECOGNITION WAS PRESENTED AS PART OF THE COMMISSION'S 40TH ANNIVERSARY WOMAN OF THE YEAR COMMEMORATIVE CELEBRATION ENTITLED MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER, WOMEN EDUCATING AND INSPIRING GENERATION, WHICH ALSO MARKS THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN.

FOR THE PAST FOUR DECADES, THIS COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED WOMEN ACROSS LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHO HAVE HELPED BRING ABOUT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE,

[00:10:08]

LILA REPRESENTED THE DISTRICT OF HOLLY J. MITCHELL SUPERVISOR OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MAKING THIS RECOGNITION ESPECIALLY MEANINGFUL FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME LILA'S DEDICATION AND LEADERSHIP HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED.

IN 2025, SHE WAS NAMED THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR, RECOGNIZING HER EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND IN 2024, SHE WAS HONORED AS WOMAN OF THE YEAR BY AL MURATSUCHI, WHO REPRESENTS CALIFORNIA'S 66TH STATE ASSEMBLY DISTRICT.

THESE RECOGNITIONS SPEAK VOLUMES ABOUT THE IMPACT LILA HAS MADE THROUGH HER PROFESSIONALISM, LEADERSHIP, AND COMMITMENT TO SERVING OTHERS.

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, I WANT TO SAY HOW PROUD WE ARE OF YOU.

YOUR WORK EXEMPLIFIES THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT THAT STRENGTHENS OUR COMMUNITY AND SHAPES AND INSPIRES OTHERS.

ALTHOUGH THE OFFICIAL AWARDING TOOK PLACE LAST WEEK AT THE HISTORIC MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL, WE WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY HERE TONIGHT TO RECOGNIZE LILA AND CELEBRATE HER ACHIEVEMENT WITH THE REST OF OUR COMMUNITY.

SO ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE PEOPLE OF REDONDO BEACH, IT'S MY PLEASURE TO PRESENT YOU WITH THIS CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION COMMEMORATING YOUR SELECTION AS THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WOMAN OF THE YEAR HONOREE AND THANKING YOU FOR THE MANY WAYS YOU SERVE AND INSPIRE OTHERS. SO FOR YOU.

COME ON UP AND SHOW US YOUR AWARD. SO THERE'S THIS MUCH BIGGER AND MUCH MORE COLORFUL.

VERY NICE. SO CONGRATULATIONS. DID YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS? THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT WAS SUCH AN HONOR. AND I HAVE TO SAY, THIS WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT.

I WANT TO SAY ALMOST ALL THE CITY STAFF, OUR POLICE, OUR FIRE, OUR NONPROFITS, MY AMAZING SUPERVISORS, THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, PAST AND PRESENT.

SO. AND YOU, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, YOU RESIDENTS WHO CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO ME.

WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE ON THE STREETS THAT ARE NEEDING HELP.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. AND I THINK WE WE'VE FORGOTTEN ALL THOSE WORDS TO SAY WHAT LILA ACTUALLY DOES.

SHE ALLUDED TO IT. SHE IS OUR FIRST RESPONDER TO THE HOMELESS HERE.

SO SHE GOES OUT AND TALKS WITH THEM, GETS A RAPPORT WITH THEM AND GETS THEM TO VOLUNTEER TO BECOME PART OF OUR HOMELESS PROGRAM, WHICH HAS WON AWARDS ACROSS THE COUNTY. AND WE'RE A STATE LEADER, SO WELL DONE.

THERE'S THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE A BIG PART OF ALL OF THIS, AND I WANT TO GIVE THEM EACH A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT LEILA.

SO WE'LL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC.

I WILL JUST SAY THAT, LILA, I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE THIS ATTENTION.

AND YOU DON'T DO IT FOR THE ATTENTION. YOU GO OUT EVERY DAY HELPING PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS LIKE WHAT YOUR PASSION IS, WHAT YOUR HEART IS. AND YOU ARE INSPIRING. AND I THINK WE ALL GATHER AROUND YOU TO SUPPORT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SO EXCEPTIONAL.

WE ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I AM JOY FORD. I AM THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO THANK SUPERVISOR MITCHELL FOR RECOGNIZING LILA FOR ALL HER HARD WORK AND DEDICATION. AND THIS IS NOT JUST A JOB TO LILA.

SHE PUTS HER HEART INTO IT, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES HER EXCEPTIONAL.

AND I HAD THE HONOR TO ATTEND THE CEREMONY, AND THERE WERE VERY EXCEPTIONAL WOMEN WHO WERE ALSO HONORED THAT DAY.

AND LILA IS UP THERE WITH THEM, IF NOT ABOVE THEM.

I WAS JUST SO PROUD OF HER. SHE NOT ONLY HELPS THE COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTS BOTH HOUSED AND UNHOUSED, BUT SHE TRULY IMPACTS, I THINK, EVERY DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY.

AND WE ARE SO GRATEFUL AND SO PROUD. THANK YOU, LILA, FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO.

MY NAME IS STEPHANIE JOHNSON. I'M A SENIOR DEPUTY CITY PROSECUTOR, AND I GET TO WORK ALONGSIDE LILA EVERY SINGLE DAY AND SEE THE AMAZINGNESS THAT

[00:15:02]

AND YOUR MOTIVATION TO MAKE THIS WORLD AND OUR CITY A BETTER PLACE IS, IS REALLY SECOND TO NONE.

AND IT MAKES YOU SO DESERVING OF THIS, THIS AWARD.

AND WE ARE SO LUCKY TO HAVE YOU AS PART OF OUR REDONDO BEACH FAMILY AND THAT YOU CONTINUE TO CHOOSE US.

WE CONGRATULATE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND ASK YOU ALL TO RISE AND APPLAUD AND RECOGNIZE.

MY MOM AND MY BABY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANKS FOR BEING SO RESPONSIVE LILA. OKAY.

THANK YOU. FOR OUR SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD.

OKAY. FOR OUR SECOND PRESENTATION TONIGHT, WE'RE PROUD TO RECOGNIZE WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH, A TIME DEDICATED TO CELEBRATING THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF WOMEN THROUGHOUT OUR NATION'S HISTORY, FROM PIONEERS WHO FOUGHT FOR EQUALITY TO THE WOMEN WHO LEAD, SERVE AND INSPIRE OUR COMMUNITY TODAY.

THEIR IMPACT CONTINUES TO SHAPE A STRONGER FUTURE FOR ALL OF US.

HERE IN REDONDO BEACH WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE WOMEN WHO LEAD IN EVERY FIELD FROM PUBLIC SERVICE AND EDUCATION TO BUSINESS, HEALTHCARE, AND COMMUNITY ADVOCACY. THEIR DEDICATION, RESILIENCE AND VISION HELP MAKE OUR CITY THE VIBRANT AND WELCOMING COMMUNITY WE ARE PROUD TO CALL HOME. THIS MONTH ALSO INCLUDES INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY ON MARCH 8TH, A GLOBAL REMINDER OF THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE AND THE WORK THAT STILL LIES AHEAD TO ENSURE OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY FOR ALL.

I'M VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE A COLLEAGUE ON THE DAIS WITH WITH US, COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC, WHO IS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF A WOMAN MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH HER LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE.

FOR THAT REASON, IT IS MY HONOR TO PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH TO COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC.

COUNCIL. THANK YOU.

YEAH. SHE'S A TOWERING EXAMPLE. THANK YOU. THANKS, EVERYBODY.

OKAY. CONTINUING ON WITH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND AB1234 FOR TRAVEL REPORT, EXPENSE REPORTS.

I'LL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT TONIGHT.

I DO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. AND IT IS THAT THE DISTRICT FOUR, DISTRICT FIVE JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING.

THE PILLARS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERIES, PART TWO.

WE'VE CHANGED THE DATE BY ONE DAY. IT'S GOING TO BE APRIL 2ND.

THURSDAY, APRIL 2ND, 6 P.M. AT THE REDONDO BEACH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.

AND WE WILL BE JOINED BY THE REDONDO BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.

WE HOPE CHIEF BUTLER WILL BE THERE. DIVISION CHIEF JASON MAY, WHO'S HERE TONIGHT, AND OTHERS.

[00:20:01]

APRIL 2ND, 6 P.M., REDONDO BEACH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OPEN TO ALL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. YES, I ECHO THAT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT THE COMMUNITY MEETING JOINT D4 D5 APRIL 2ND.

ALSO, I WANT TO DO A SHOUT OUT TO OUR DISPATCHERS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WALKING THE WATERFRONT A LOT AND I'VE NOTICED GRAFFITI ON DIFFERENT PARTS, LIKE THE STORM DRAIN OUTLET AS WELL AS THE SHORE WALL.

I REPORTED ON ACCESS REDONDO BEACH AND WITHIN 48 HOURS IT'S GONE.

SO THAT'S ALL TO SAY PLEASE CONTINUE TO REPORT GRAFFITI AND REDONDO BEACH ON ACCESS REDONDO BEACH.

HOW SHOULD THEY REPORT IT? ACCESS REDONDO BEACH.

OKAY. IT'S AN APP ON ANDROID AND THE IPHONE. AND IF YOU GOOGLE IT, IT'LL BE YOUR NUMBER ONE SEARCH RESULT.

ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC.

THANK YOU MAYOR. I DO HAVE A REPORTABLE EXPENSE ON MONDAY.

I ATTENDED THE EMERGENCY CENTRALIZED RESPONSE CENTER.

THE ECRC, WHICH IS A HUB OF OUTREACH FOR LA COUNTY WHEN IT COMES TO HOMELESSNESS.

THERE WAS A PARKING EXPENSE THAT I WILL BE SUBMITTING.

AND LAST FRIDAY, I WAS HAPPY TO HOST CO-HOST WITH THE MAYOR, A BROWNIE TROOP HERE TO LEARN ABOUT CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP, AND VERY INSPIRED BY THOSE YOUNG LADIES.

LOTS OF ENERGY, LOTS OF GREAT QUESTIONS. AND WE LOVE ENGAGING WITH ALL PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THOSE LITTLE ONES. AND HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY INSPIRING COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP AT THEIR AGE AND BEYOND.

SO THAT WAS INCREDIBLE AND KIND OF A SHOUT OUT TO ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE WITH THEIR BROWNIE TROOP BOY SCOUTS.

WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

ALSO I WILL BE ATTENDING THE RUHS PRESENTATION OF SOMETHING ROTTEN ON FRIDAY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. THEY ALWAYS PUT ON AN EXCEPTIONAL PRODUCTION AND I THINK YOU SHOULD ALL SHOULD ATTEND.

I'LL GIVE YOU A REPORT NEXT WEEK. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I LIKE THE ONE RESPONSE WE GOT BACK ON.

THEY ASKED ONE OF THE BROWNIES WHAT SHE LEARNED.

AND WAS IT FLAVORED TOBACCO? NO, NO, SHE SAID, I LEARNED I CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.

YEAH, GOOD, I LOVE THAT. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. I ATTENDED THE HIGH SCHOOL'S REDONDO INVITATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TRACK MEET.

THAT'S A TERRIFIC TRACK MEETS THAT IS SPONSORED BY NIKE.

AND IN FACT, IT'S SO LARGE THAT THEY HAVE TO DO SOME OF THE EVENTS AT WEST HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL AS OUR OWN REDONDO UNION.

IT WAS A TWO DAY EVENT AND VERY WELL ATTENDED.

AND THEN THIS WEEK, I'D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT ON THURSDAY AT WILDERNESS PARK, WE'LL BE HAVING THE RIBBON CUTTING FOR THE NEW LOWER POND THAT'S BEEN RENOVATED AND REFURBISHED, AND THAT WILL BE ON THURSDAY AT 2 P.M.

AND WEDNESDAY WE'RE DOING THE RIBBON CUTTING FOR THE ALTA VISTA COURTS. YOU'RE GOING TO. OF COURSE. SORRY, I STOLE YOUR DETAILS.

GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE. LAST WEEKEND WAS THE SAINT PATRICK'S DAY RUN IN RIVIERA VILLAGE.

IT WAS A WELL ATTENDED EVENT. IT WAS VERY WELL RUN.

AND I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR PUBLIC WORKS AND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS WHO MADE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WENT VERY SMOOTHLY AND SAFELY AND SAFELY.

ALTA VISTA PICKLEBALL COURTS RIBBON CUTTING, AS THE MAYOR SAID, IS WEDNESDAY, TOMORROW, MARCH 18TH AT 1 P.M..

AND SINCE OTHER PEOPLE DIDN'T MENTION IT, I ALSO HAVE ON THE FUTURE CALENDAR COMING UP COFFEE WITH A COP.

SATURDAY, MARCH 21ST, NINE TO NOON AT MICKEY'S DELI UP AT ARTESIA AND INGLEWOOD BOULEVARDS.

STATE OF THE CITY THE MAYOR FORGOT TO MENTION IS MARCH 24TH.

DON'T GO YET, BUT OKAY. YOU STARTED AT 7 A.M.

THAT'S SONESTA HOTEL BALLROOM. THE SOUTH BAY CITY'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN. IS MARCH 26TH, 8 A.M. TO 2 P.M.

AT THE WEST DRIFT IN MANHATTAN BEACH, FEATURING OUR OWN ELIZABETH HAUSE ON A PANEL, AND THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HELD A FISH FRY.

THEY'VE BEEN HOLDING IT. THEY'VE HAD TWO OF THEM ALREADY.

IT WAS A GREAT EVENING. IF YOU MISSED IT, THE LAST ONE OF THE SEASON WILL BE FRIDAY, MARCH 27TH, 5 TO 8 P.M. AT 214 AVENUE I IN REDONDO BEACH.

AND AT THAT EVENT, I WILL BE ON A PANEL OF MAYORS REPRESENTING THE CROWN JEWEL OF THE SOUTH BAY REDONDO BEACH.

IT DIDN'T SHOW THAT ON THE AGENDA. SO THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT FOR ME. OKAY. WELL, THEY COVERED EVERYTHING I WAS GOING TO COVER, SO. WELL DONE. LET'S SEE.

WE'LL MOVE ON. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED EARLIER COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI ABOUT I THINK THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS MOVE A PORTION OF N.2 FORWARD RATHER THAN.

[E. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA]

[00:25:04]

THE CROSSING GUARDS ARE ACTUALLY REPRESENTED IN THE TITLE OF N.2, SO I'M NOT SURE IT WOULDN'T BE IMPROPER ANYWAYS, BUT IT'S JUST THERE'S AN ATTACHMENT ASSOCIATED WITH N.2.

SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO BRING THAT PORTION OF N.2 FORWARD.

I DON'T THINK THE CITY MANAGER WANTED. THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THAT WE'RE PROVIDING KIND OF TWO DISJOINTED PRESENTATIONS, AND THEN WE'RE SEGREGATING THE PRESENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH CROSSING GUARDS, WHICH IS A FAIRLY LIMITED COMPONENT OF THE MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW.

SO I THINK IF, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE GENERAL PUBLIC FEEDBACK UNDER NON-AGENDA ITEMS, YOU COULD DO THAT SAFELY.

IT'S NOT INCLUDING THE TITLE. IT IS SOMEWHAT PART AND PARCEL OF THE BUDGET DISCUSSION.

IT IS AN ATTACHMENT THERE, BUT I DON'T I MEAN, UNLESS JOY DISAGREES, I'D RATHER JUST LET LET HIM TESTIFY TO N.2 RIGHT NOW AND THEN AND THEN MAYBE THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT. YEAH, JUST AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I JUST WOULD RATHER NOT SEGREGATE THOSE TWO COMPONENTS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO, WE'LL LOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR THE KIDS.

EXACTLY. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION? MOVE TO ALLOW FOLKS TO TESTIFY TO ITEMS WITHIN N.2 DURING J FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOT TESTIMONY. YES. PUBLIC COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU. JUST FOR THE RECORD. YEAH. DURING J.

OKAY. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, ANYONE ELSE WISH TO MOVE ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA? ANYTHING FURTHER? MAYOR TO EXTEND IT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY.

DO YOU NEED TO LIMIT 40 MINUTES? WHAT'S YOUR LIMIT? IN CASE THEY DO GO OVER 21. 21 CARDS AT THREE.

YES. FOR THEM. OKAY. SO 40 40 MINUTES. SO WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT FOR PUBLIC.

40 MINUTES AND TWO MINUTES EACH. YEAH. BUT THEN NOBODY GETS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANYTHING ELSE.

SHE HAS 21 CARDS JUST FOR THAT. YES, FOR N.2 FOR N.

OR FOR. THAT'S WHY I SAID N.2 AND THEN COMMENTS ON N.2.

AND THEN WE'LL DO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MAY I RECOMMEND THAT WE START WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS ON N2.

LET THEM SPEAK AND THEN CONTINUE N.2. THAT'S EXACTLY.

YEAH. YEAH. SEPARATE FROM ITEM J. SEPARATE FROM ITEM J.

YEAH. SO IT'D BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO MAKE IT SO THAT.

AND TO MOVE IT RIGHT AFTER THIS, WE MOVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR N.2.

RIGHT. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WHERE WE ARE NOW.

SO N.2 WILL GO FIRST, THEN J, THEN H. N.2 PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THE REST OF THE WHOLE REST OF THE. OKAY. SO MOVED.

OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND. I HAVE A QUESTION. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATE A NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK.

YES. AND THAT'S THE REASON WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO WAIT TILL LATE AT NIGHT. PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION TO WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE THE PRACTICE IN LIGHT OF THAT.

WE'LL MOVE INTO UP AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE TO COMMENT ON N.2, NOT THE PRESENTATION.

IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF YOUNG CHILDREN HERE WHO WANT TO SPEAK. YES. OKAY. THIS IS OKAY.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO MOVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA? OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THAT MOTION. ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL BE GOING TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON N.2,

[N. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION]

SO WE'LL GO BY CARDS FIRST. THE FIRST I HAVE IS HARD TO READ.

OTIS SLOTH I THINK IS THE NAME. AND THEN SECOND IS INDY HICKSON.

COME ON UP OTIS. NO CLAPPING. IF YOU IF YOU SUPPORT SOMEONE, WAVE YOUR HANDS.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU GO DOWN LIKE THIS. OKAY, SCOTT, SHOW THEM HOW TO LOWER.

OTIS IS A. OH, HE'S DONE IT BEFORE. THERE YOU GO.

GOSH, HE LOOKS SHARP. GREEN TIE AND. OKAY, OTIS, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

THANK YOU. HI. MR. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS OTIS. I'M IN. I'M A FOURTH GRADER AT JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY IN REDONDO BEACH.

IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING THIS ISSUE IN THE AGENDA.

I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY AT FORD AND AVIATION.

AS YOU CAN SEE, I BROUGHT A LOT OF MY FRIENDS WITH ME.

I STILL RIDE MY BIKE TO SCHOOL AND CROSSING THAT INTERSECTION CONTINUES TO FEEL DANGEROUS.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CARS AND SOMETIMES DRIVERS DON'T SEE US.

WE NEED A CROSSING GUARD NOW FOR THE REST OF THE SCHOOL OF THIS SCHOOL YEAR.

WE STILL HAVE 54 MORE SCHOOL DAYS AND WE DON'T WANT, AND WE WANT TO BE SAFE.

I ALSO COLLECTED SIGNATURES FROM 133 STUDENT JEFFERSON STUDENTS, ALONG

[00:30:04]

EVERYONE HERE SUPPORTS HAVING A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION AND SUPPORTS A SAFER, MORE DIRECT WAY FOR KIDS TO GET TO SCHOOL.

OR JUST KIDS TRYING TO GET TO SCHOOL SAFETY. WE'RE ALL TRYING TO DO OUR PART.

MY CLASSMATES CARE SO MUCH. THEY TOOK TIME TO WRITE, TO WRITE A NOTE TO.

TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS. MAY I PLEASE PRESENT THEM TO YOU? YES. MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. SECOND. ALL FOR? AYE. GO AHEAD. GIVE THEM TO HER. HE KNOWS WHAT TO DO.

WILL YOU PLEASE? WILL YOU PLEASE HELP US GET A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION TO KEEP US SAFE.

THANK YOU. WELL DONE. OKAY. KATE HICKSON. I'M SORRY.

INDY HICKSON AND THEN KATE HICKSON. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS INDY HICKSON, AND I LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

TONIGHT I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY LITTLE BROTHER.

HE WROTE A SPEECH AND IT SAYS I GET TO RIDE MY BIKE TO SCHOOL EVERY DAY WITH ALL OF MY FRIENDS.

WE HAVE A BIKE GROUP, AND OTIS CANNOT BE IN THAT BIKE GROUP BECAUSE WE ALL RIDE BY OURSELVES.

WE DO THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE CROSSING GUARDS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE OKAY.

THEIR NAMES ARE LISA AND CHRIS. IF YOU COULD GET MORE CROSSING GUARDS, OTIS COULD GET THE PRIVILEGE OF RIDING HIS BIKE TO SCHOOL WITH US AS LONG AS OTHER UNDERPRIVILEGED KIDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KATE HICKSON.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS KATE HICKSON AND I LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLACE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION AND ASK YOU TO TAKE ACTION NOW.

THERE ARE 54 MORE SCHOOL DAYS LEFT IN THE YEAR, AND WE WANT TO, THEY WANT TO WALK AND RIDE THEIR BIKES SAFELY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. I'M HAVING TROUBLE READING THE FIRST NAME, BUT THE SECOND NAME IS MCLAUGHLIN.

IT LOOKS LIKE ALLURA. IS IT EMILY? EMILY. EMILY.

NO, NO, YOU WERE THE SECOND ONE. THERE'S ANOTHER MCLAUGHLIN HERE, BUT YOU CAN GO NOW.

WE'LL GET TO THE. BOTH OF YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS EMILY MCLAUGHLIN AND I LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLACE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORT IN AVIATION AND ASK YOU TO TAKE THIS ACTION NOW.

THERE ARE 54 MORE SCHOOL DAYS LEFT IN THE YEAR, AND WE WANT TO WALK AND BIKE TO SCHOOL SAFELY NOW INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. CAN YOU READ THAT ONE? OLIVIA. I THINK IT'S NOT. IS IT OLIVIA OR ALLURA OR SOMETHING MCLAUGHLIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS OLIVIA MCLAUGHLIN AND I'M A MOM HERE AT REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PLACEMENT OF A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION, AND RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DO THIS NOW SO THAT WE CAN BE SAFE FOR THE REMAINING 54 DAYS OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION, IF I MAY. YES.

GO AHEAD. FOR THE SPEAKER WHO JUST CAME UP. OLIVIA.

COME BACK. OLIVIA. IS THIS FOR JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY? FOR JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY? YES. ARE YOU ABLE TO GO UP TO AVIATION AND GRANT AND USE THAT CROSSING GUARD AND THEN COME DOWN FROM THERE? SO IT WOULD TAKE AN EXTRA 20 MINUTES FROM THERE.

BICYCLE UP. OKAY. YEAH. OR BICYCLE DOWN. YES.

YEAH. ANOTHER 20 MINUTES. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH.

THANK YOU. OKAY. MILES MCLAUGHLIN AND THEN GEORGE DUNBAR.

COME ON DOWN, MILES. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS MILES, AND I AM A STUDENT HERE IN REDONDO BEACH.

A CROSSING GUARD AT AVIATION AN FORD ALLOW OUR KIDS TO GET TO SCHOOL SAFER AS WELL AS FASTER BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE HAVE TO GO DOWN TO GRANT TO CROSS AVIATION WITH A CROSSING GUARD THAT THIS WILL SAVE US EXTRA, THIS WILL SAVE AN EXTRA 20 MINUTES ON OUR WALK TO SCHOOL, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS SAFER.

[00:35:04]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. MILES GEORGE DUNBAR AND THEN SABRINA DUNBAR.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS GEORGE DUNBAR, AND I'M PROUD TO STAND WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND THEIR REQUESTS FOR A CROSSING GUARD AT FORT AND AVIATION. THIS WILL EASE THE MINDS OF OUR PARENTS AND MAKE WALKING OR BIKING TO SCHOOL SAFER FOR OUR STUDENTS.

THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING THE YOUTH OF REDONDO BEACH.

THANK YOU. SABRINA DUNBAR AND THEN DEAN CORRAL OR CORAL.

CORAL. EVENING MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS SABRINA DUNBAR AND I'M A MOM HERE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PLACEMENT OF A CROSSING GUARD AT FORT AND AVIATION.

IT'S REALLY DANGEROUS. MY SON GOES EVERY MORNING AND EVERY AFTERNOON HE'S ALMOST BEEN HIT BY A CAR.

HE'S SEEN AN ACCIDENT. LIKE WHEN HE'S CROSSING.

IT'S SUCH A DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE A CROSSING GUARD AT THAT INTERSECTION.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, DEAN CORRAL AND THEN ISAIAH SHARKOLY.

SURE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT OUT. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS DEAN, AND I AM NINE YEARS OLD. I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I DON'T LOVE CROSSING THE STREET AT FORD AND AVIATION.

AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, MY FRIEND OTIS TOLD YOU HOW SCARY THAT INTERSECTION IS.

SINCE THEN, WE'VE BEEN BUSY. WE'VE TALKED TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND GATHERED A LOT OF SIGNATURES FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE TIRED OF SEEING ACCIDENTS THERE.

I RIDE MY BIKE TO SCHOOL WITH MY LITTLE SISTER AND MY DAD EVERY MORNING.

I CAN TELL MY MOM IS SCARED WHEN WE LEAVE THE HOUSE.

I SEE HOW SHE LOOKS AT THE TRAFFIC AND I CAN SEE HOW FAST THE CARS GO.

I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD FEEL HAPPY AND SAFE ON THEIR WAY TO SCHOOL.

MY SISTER, MY DAD AND I JUST WANTED IT TO CLASS WITH A SMILE ON OUR FACES.

WE WORKED REALLY HARD TO BRING YOU THESE NAMES BECAUSE WE KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT US TOO.

WE WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO HELP US BY GIVING US A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND KEEPING EVERYONE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE.

THANK YOU. ISAIAH. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND EVERYONE HERE TONIGHT. MY NAME IS ISAIAH.

I'M A SIXTH GRADER AT PARIS MIDDLE SCHOOL AND I LIVE IN THE JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD.

MANY STUDENTS AND FAMILIES HAVE TO CROSS AVIATION BOULEVARD TO GET TO SCHOOL, AND IT CAN FEEL REALLY SCARY BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IS BUSY AND CARS MOVE FAST.

A CROSSING GUARD WOULD HELP EVERYONE FEEL SAFER WHEN THEY ARE WALKING OR BIKING TO SCHOOL.

IT ALSO HELPS DRIVERS KNOW WHEN KIDS ARE CROSSING.

SO EVERYONE SO EVERYONE CAN GET TO THE INTERSECTION SAFELY.

THERE ARE MANY STUDENTS WHO USE THAT CROSSWALK EVERY DAY. HAVING A CROSS GUARD THERE, EVEN JUST FOR THE REST OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES. PLEASE CONSIDER MOVING ACROSS CROSSING GUARD TO AVIATION AND FORWARD TO HELP KEEP KIDS SAFE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. CHARLES MILLER AND THEN ALEXANDRA PIERCE AND GENEVIEVE SEDGWICK.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CHARLES AND I LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLACE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION AND ASK YOU TO TAKE THIS ACTION NOW.

THERE ARE 54 MORE SCHOOL DAYS, AND WE WANT TO WALK AND RIDE OUR BIKE TO SCHOOL SAFELY NOW INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. THANK YOU, ALEXANDRA PIERCE AND GENEVIEVE SEDGWICK, AND THEN KAROLINA PIERCE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. OUR NAMES ARE GENEVIEVE SEDGWICK AND ALEXANDRA PIERCE, AND WE LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH. WE STRONGLY ASK YOU TO PLACE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORT AND AVIATION AND ASK YOU TO TAKE THIS ACTION NOW.

THERE ARE 54 MORE SCHOOL DAYS, AND WE WANT TO WALK AND BIKE TO SCHOOL SAFELY NOW, INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL NEXT YEAR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. DID YOU GUYS PRACTICE THAT? YEAH. WE COULD TELL. KAROLINA PIERCE AND THEN MARGOT SCHLOFF.

ALL RIGHT, KAROLINA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS KAROLINA PIERCE. AND I'M PROUD TO STAND WITH MY NEIGHBORS IN THEIR REQUESTS FOR A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION. THIS IS WILL THE MINDS OF PARENTS AND MAKE WALKING SAFER FOR BIKING TO SCHOOL, WALKING OR BIKING TO SCHOOL FOR OUR STUDENTS.

THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING THE YOUTH OF REDONDO BEACH.

[00:40:07]

HI, MY NAME IS MARGOT AND I AM IN SECOND GRADE AT JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY IN REDONDO BEACH.

I RIDE ON THE BACK OF MY PARENTS BIKE WITH MY SISTER.

WE FOLLOW ALL THE RULES AND TRY TO BE VERY CAREFUL, BUT FORD AND AVIATION STILL FEEL SCARY.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CARS AND IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHEN IT'S SAFE TO CROSS.

THAT MAKES ME FEEL NERVOUS. A CROSSING GUARD WOULD HELP US FEEL SAFE.

PLEASE HELP US GET A CROSSING GUARD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY. RIVER. AND THEN JACKIE ANTOINE.

ANTOINE. GOOD EVENING. CITY COUNCILS AND MAYORS. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD ADD A A CROSS CODE BETWEEN FORD AND AVIATION.

BECAUSE EVERY DAY MANY KIDS LIKE TO DRIVE, RIDE THEIR BIKE TO SCHOOL, AND SOMETIMES IT'S VERY DANGEROUS FOR THEM TO EVEN WANDER.

MAKING SURE THEY'RE SAFE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JACKIE ANTOINE AND I LIVE HERE IN REDONDO BEACH.

A CROSSING GUARD AT AVIATION AND FORD WILL ALLOW OUR KIDS TO GET TO SCHOOL SAFER AS WELL AS FASTER BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN GRANT TO CROSS AVIATION WITH A CROSSING GUARD. THIS WILL SAVE US 20 MINUTES OF A WALK AND GET TO SCHOOL SAFER.

PLEASE APPROVE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AVIATION NOW.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION, IF I COULD, MAYOR FROM JACKIE. SURE. THANK YOU.

DO YOU LIVE CLOSER TO THE CROSSING GUARD ON GRANT AND AVIATION OR THE CROSSING GUARD ON PROSPECT AND AVIATION.

IN THE MIDDLE? IN THE MIDDLE. OKAY. WHICH ONE WOULD BE? PROBABLY AROUND FORD. YEAH, IT'S RIGHT AT LIVE ON FORD.

WE'RE ALL AROUND FORD. YES. OKAY. THERE'S A THERE'S A THERE'S A POCKET OF JEFFERSON FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA.

AND SO THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE, THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE, THE GOLDEN HILLS.

OKAY. GIOVANNI SEDGWICK. AND THEN KEITH PIERCE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS GIO.

HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LET'S WAIT TILL SOMEBODY SILENCES THEIR PHONE.

WE WANT TO HEAR EVERYTHING YOU SAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS GIO, AND I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND THEIR REQUEST FOR A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION.

THIS WILL EASE THE MINDS OF PARENTS AND MAKE WALKING OR BIKING TO SCHOOL SAFER FOR OUR STUDENTS.

THANK YOU FOR PROTECTING THE YOUTH OF REDONDO BEACH.

THANK YOU. OKAY. HEATH PIERCE AND THEN JOHN SEDGWICK.

HEATH IS OKAY. HEATH IS NOT HERE. OKAY. HEATH IS NOT HERE.

SO. JOHN SEDGWICK. GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE YOU GUYS? MY NAME IS JOHN SEDGWICK AND I LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLACE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD IN AVIATION AND ASK THAT YOU GUYS PLEASE TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY.

THERE ARE 54 DAYS OF SCHOOL LEFT AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO WALK AND BIKE TO SCHOOL SAFELY NOW, RATHER THAN WAITING UNTIL NEXT SCHOOL YEAR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WHAT GRADE ARE YOU IN? OKAY LET'S SEE. TRICIA MURAKAWA. AND THEN LUCY SCHLOFF.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR HEARING THE COMMUNITY MOSTLY WHO LIVE IN DISTRICT FOUR.

AND I KNOW COUNCILMAN BEHRENDT. YOU'RE ASKING, WHY CAN'T YOU WALK FROM WHERE WE LIVE OVER TO GRANT AND LUCY IS GOING TO TALK NEXT.

BUT CAN YOU CAN JUST IMAGINE, I CAN WALK A LOT FASTER THAN LUCY CAN, EITHER TO GRANT OR TO PROSPECT, BUT THEN ONCE YOU WALK OVER THERE AND YOU HAVE TO STILL WALK AROUND AND THEN JEFFERSON IS THAT WAY, INCLUDING IF YOU WALK FROM PROSPECT ALL THE WAY AROUND, LUCY'S LEGS ARE PROBABLY HALF AS LONG AS MINE ARE, WHICH IS WHY IT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 20 MINUTES.

I KNOW IT SOUNDS INCREDULOUS, BUT THAT'S. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR THE CROSSING GUARD AT FORD.

I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE CURVINESS OF AVIATION AND THE SPEEDING THAT OCCURS ON AVIATION, BUT WE DO HAVE PHOTOS. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC OF ALL THE KIDS WALKING FROM FORD AND AVIATION.

SO WE WOULD JUST THANK YOU FOR EVEN CONSIDERING THIS, AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THESE KIDS,

[00:45:07]

AND IF YOU MAKE THIS DECISION WHENEVER YOU DO, I BELIEVE THAT THESE KIDS HAVE CHANGED THEIR WORLD.

SO I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LUCY SCHLOFF AND THEN EVAN SCHLOFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL GO MUCH LOWER. YOU CAN BEND THAT MIC DOWN.

HI, MY NAME IS LUCY SCHLOFF AND I AM IN FIRST GRADE AT JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY IN REDONDO BEACH.

I WANT MY BROTHER AND ALL KIDS TO BE SAFE WHEN THEY WALK OR RIDE TO SCHOOL.

I RIDE WITH MY MOM OR DAD, BUT ONE DAY I WANT TO RIDE MY OWN BIKE AND I DO NOT WANT MY MOM TO BE WORRIED. PLEASE HELP US GET A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD AND AVIATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HOW OLD ARE YOU, LUCY? SIX.

SIX. GOOD JOB. THANK YOU. OKAY. EVAN SCHLOFF.

OH. IT TAKES FOREVER.

WE CAN HEAR YOU. YOU STAND UP. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS EVAN SCHLOFF. I'M A FATHER OF THREE, WHICH YOU'VE ALL HEARD FROM TONIGHT.

VERY PROUD FATHER OF THREE AND PROUD OF EVERYBODY HERE.

SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR SHOWING UP. I LIVE HERE IN REDONDO, AND A CROSSING GUARD AT AVIATION AND FORD WILL ALLOW OUR KIDS TO GET TO SCHOOL SAFER AS WELL AS FASTER, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN TO GRANT AND CROSS AVIATION WITH A CROSSING GUARD.

THIS WILL SAVE AN EXTRA 20 MINUTES ON OUR WALK TO SCHOOL.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S SAFER. PLEASE APPROVE A CROSSING GUARD AT FORD IN AVIATION NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE LAST CARD I HAVE IS TALIA PIERCE.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? JUST COME ON DOWN. IF YOU. YOU ONLY GET TO SPEAK ONCE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS LEONARDO RICEVUTO AND I LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLACE A CROSSING GUARD AT FLORIDA AND AVIATION.

AND I ASK YOU TO TAKE THIS ACTION NOW. THERE ARE 54 MORE SCHOOL DAYS, AND WE WANT TO WALK AND BIKE TO SCHOOL SAFELY NOW INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET? YEP. COME ON DOWN.

HI, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS AMY RICEVUTO. I ACTUALLY HAVE FIVE KIDS, AND I THINK THAT THE ONLY PIECE THAT HAS BEEN MISSING IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE LOGISTICS OF HOW THIS WORKS. SO BECAUSE OF THIS, LIKE HOW THE ZONED IS FOR JEFFERSON, HALF OF IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND SO THESE KIDS DON'T HAVE AN OPTION EXCEPT TO CROSS THAT.

AND HAVING FIVE KIDS WHO BIKE AND WALK, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, RIGHT? THAT'S THE GOAL IN LIFE. AND THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO GET THEM ACROSS.

GOING DOWN TO GRANT IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE AREA IS NOT REALISTIC, ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNING.

YOU'RE TRYING TO RUSH YOUR KIDS OUT THE DOOR. CAN'T FIND SHOES, CAN'T FIND BACKPACKS. YOU HAVE GOT TO GET THEM OUT.

SO I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION. AND NOBODY WANTS THEIR KIDS CROSSING BY THEMSELVES.

YOU GUYS HAVE ALL BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME, AND KEEPING KIDS SAFE IS REALLY THE GOAL.

SO I THINK ALL OF US ARE HERE JUST BECAUSE WE WANT OUR KIDS TO BE SAFE.

THERE'S NO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE A SHORTCUT OR GET THEM, YOU KNOW, GET THEM ANYWHERE BUT TO SCHOOL SAFELY.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ALL OF OUR KIDS.

I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE HERE BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT, YOU KNOW, WANT IT TO BE SAFE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. WELL, LOOK, I THANK YOU FOR BEING RESPECTFUL AND KEEPING YOUR APPLAUSE DOWN.

SO LET'S TAKE A MOMENT TO APPLAUD. I LOVE TO SEE THE KIDS TESTIFY.

WELL DONE. AND IF I MIGHT MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO ALSO COMPLIMENT ALL THE SPEAKERS IN BEING SO DIRECT AND BRIEF WITH YOUR COMMENTS. THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

[00:50:01]

WELL DONE. AWESOME. AND I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ITEM, BUT I'LL SAY THAT I DID PULL UP A MAP OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WHAT SCHOOLS PEOPLE ARE ASSIGNED TO, SO I'LL SHOW THAT TO THE COUNCIL WHEN WE GET TO THIS ITEM.

AND, AND HOPEFULLY THEY CAN SEE CLEARLY WHY A CROSSING GUARD IS BEING CALLED FOR THERE.

SO WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL'S FORBEARANCE IN BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

I WOULD LIKE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO THIS ITEM N.1 AND TWO TO AFTER N.1.

SO MOVED. SECOND, ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THIS LATER THIS EVENING.

CAN YOU PASS THIS DOWN? THERE'S NO HANDS RAISED AND NO ECOMMENTS FOR THIS ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE DOWN TO. WE'RE BACK TO ITEM G.

[G. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS - ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS]

HOLD OFF UNTIL THE DOOR IS CLOSED. OKAY. OKAY.

SO WE HAVE FOUR FOUR BLUE FOLDER ITEMS. WE HAVE H.7 APPROVE OF FUNDING AMENDMENT FOR PROJECT NUMBER 9200000000M550213 BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE REDONDO BEACH AVENUE BIKE IMPROVEMENT AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROJECT.

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OF NON-AGENDA ITEMS, PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TWO, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 2026 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW.

RECEIVE AND FILE PRESENTATION ON THE STATUS OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, PROVIDE DIRECTION ON IDENTIFIED FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 COST SAVING STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY 4/5TH VOTE AND BY THE TITLE, BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NUMBER 2603-014 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

MODIFYING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ATTACHMENT ONE, COUNCIL APPROVED MODIFICATIONS AND REVISED AND SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD LOCATION MAP. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE? SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ALL FOR? AYE. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[H. CONSENT CALENDAR]

WE HAVE H.1 THROUGH H.16. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WISH TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR H.1 TO H.16.

MOVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

BEFORE WE CAST THE VOTE, WE WILL TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

AND I HAVE ONE CARD THAT'S WAYNE CRAIG.

THIS MIGHT TAKE A WHILE TOO, A LOT OF SMALL KIDS TALK. JUST GET ON YOUR KNEES, WAYNE.

I REALLY LIKE BEING SLOUCHED OVER WORSE THAN I AM NOW.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS ITEM TONIGHT BUT LET'S BECAUSE IT'S REGARDING THE $100,000 IS GOING TO GO TOWARD PAYMENT OF A CONSULTANT FOR A GUN RANGE.

LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT. THE MID-YEAR BUDGET MAKES IT CLEAR THE CITY IS FALLING SHORT, MISSING TARGETS, AND STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH BASIC FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.

AND YET, IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY IS EFFECTIVELY SEARCHING FOR COINS IN THE SEAT CUSHION JUST TO STAY ON TRACK, YOU ARE CONTINUING TO SPEND $100,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY ON A CONSULTANT FOR AN UNFUNDED $19 MILLION GUN RANGE PROJECT.

NOT A CRITICAL PROJECT. NOT AN URGENT ONE. A PRODUCT, A PROJECT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BUILD, AND EVEN MORE CONCERNING, A PROJECT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO OPERATE IF IT EVER GETS BUILT.

THAT'S NOT JUST POOR JUDGMENT. THAT'S IRRESPONSIBLE.

RESIDENTS ARE TIGHTENING THEIR BELTS. THE CITY SHOULD BE DOING THE SAME.

INSTEAD, YOU'RE POURING MONEY INTO WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A PIPE DREAM.

EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON THIS IS A DOLLAR NOT AVAILABLE FOR REAL NEEDS, EMERGENCY REPAIRS, INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURES, OR CLOSING THE VERY BUDGET GAPS THAT WE ARE NOW EXPERIENCING.

AND LET'S BE CLEAR, THERE'S STILL $1.1 MILLION TIED UP IN THIS RIDICULOUS PROJECT ACCOUNT.

$1.1 MILLION AT A TIME WHEN YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY SCRAMBLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET, THAT KIND OF MONEY SHOULD NOT BE SITTING IN A SPECULATIVE FUND WITH NO VISIBLE PATH FORWARD. THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED. THIS IS JUST ABOUT PRIORITIES RIGHT NOW.

[00:55:03]

IT'S TIME TO STOP. STOP FUNDING THIS $19 MILLION GUN RANGE PROJECT.

STOP WASTING MONEY ON CONSULTANTS AND RETURN THE $1.1 MILLION THAT STILL REMAINS IN THIS PIPE DREAM OF A COUNT BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND WHERE IT COULD SERVE THE PUBLIC.

ANYTHING LESS IS A FAILURE OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

AND HERE'S AN IDEA. HOW ABOUT $100,000 GOING TO A CROSSING GUARD ON FORD AVENUE? THAT MIGHT BE A START. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS H? CAN I PULL H.9, PLEASE? OKAY, WELL, WE ALREADY HAD A MOTION, SO I'M OKAY IF HE WANTS TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION. SO CAN YOU MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION AND PULL H.9 AND APPROVE H.1.

DID I MAKE THE MOTION? YEAH. OKAY. SO A MOTION TO APPROVE ALL ITEMS EXCEPT FOR H.9 AND PULL H.9.

SECOND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

YOU BEAT YOUR OWN COUNCIL MEMBER. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE? OKAY, I WILL CALL THE VOTE THEN. ALL FOR? AYE.

OKAY. H.1, ALL THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS APPROVED EXCEPT H.9, WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS IN A MOMENT.

SO DO YOU HAVE TO READ ANY OF THOSE? GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.

NO. THERE'S NONE. OKAY, SO NOW WE GO TO THE EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS.

[I. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS]

AND I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE ON THIS SHOOTING RANGE ISSUE.

SO WE'VE GOT A SHOOTING RANGE THAT'S CURRENTLY OPEN AIR, CAUSES NOISE TO TORRANCE AND POTENTIALLY SHOOTS PARTICLES UP WHERE THE POLICE HAVE TO CALL AND LET THE DISPATCHERS KNOW BEFORE THEY START SHOOTING AT THE RANGE, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GET CALLS FROM AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING THERE'S THERE'S FIREARMS, THERE'S GUNS FIRING OFF IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY START TO SHOOT.

WE'RE IN. WE'RE IN BAD NEED OF AN UPGRADE. WE ALSO ARE IN NEED OF RECRUITING AND RETAINING POLICE OFFICERS.

AND ONE THING THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS LOOK AT WHEN THEY COME TO JOIN AN AGENCY IS WHAT KIND OF FACILITIES DO THEY HAVE FOR US TO TRAIN AT? SO LAST YEAR, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I GOT AN UPDATE FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, IS THAT LAST YEAR WE WERE VERY CLOSE FROM GETTING A GRANT OR PARTNERSHIP FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO BUILD THIS $19 MILLION SHOOTING RANGE.

AND THEY SAID, HEY, YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS.

YOU'RE SO CLOSE, BUT YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS AND GET SOME MORE DEFINITION TO YOUR RENDERINGS AND YOUR DRAWINGS.

AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE HIRING THIS ARCHITECT IN ORDER TO MAKE US MORE ELIGIBLE TO USE THE $1.1 MILLION THAT WE PUT ASIDE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A $19 MILLION FACILITY THAT WILL BE EXCELLENT FOR BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO, MR. CRAIG, I GOT A GREAT AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR YOU, BUT BUT I THINK YOU'RE DEAD WRONG ON THIS ISSUE.

MOVE TO SUPPORT. MOVE TO APPROVE H.9. SECOND.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION, AND A SECOND. DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS H.9? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS IS A ENORMOUS QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE.

WE TALK ABOUT PICKLEBALL NOISE AND TRAFFIC NOISE.

WE HAVE AN OPEN AIR SHOOTING RANGE BUILT IN 1947.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T OPERATE IT OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

I HAVE COMPLAINTS FROM A RESIDENT WHO WAS A A FRESHMAN AT COLUMBINE IN 1999 WHO WAS NEARBY THE RANGE WHEN THEY WERE SHOOTING AND WAS TRAUMATIZED. THIS IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE.

AND WE DESERVE, WE OWE OUR RESIDENTS TO EXPLORE THIS AND JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE A UNDERSTANDING OF THE NOISE THAT THIS GENERATES, I LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF EAST OF INGLEWOOD.

I HEARD IT LAST NIGHT WHEN THEY WERE FIRING. THERE WAS SHOOTING LAST NIGHT AND I HEARD IT ON MY PORCH.

SO THIS EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THE AREA THAT IT IS.

AND IT, IT COMPLETELY WARRANTS THE EFFORTS THAT ARE, THAT WE ARE GOING TO.

AND BY THE WAY, THE GRANT THAT WE ARE SEEKING IS TO FULLY FUND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OF IT, NOT FROM OUR TAXPAYERS HERE IN REDONDO BEACH.

SO THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS THERE IS NO PLAN B FOR THIS SHOOTING RANGE THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE 1947.

SO THERE IS NO BACKUP PLAN. AND IT'S AN EXCEPTIONAL COST FOR OUR TRAINING FOR OUR OFFICERS TO TRAIN.

THEY NEED TO BE THEY NEED TO BE TRAINED ON THE SKILLS THAT, THAT PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT DO IT. WE ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE ONE, BUT WE NEED IT UPGRADED.

WE NEED OUR RESIDENTS TO HAVE SOME PEACE OF MIND AND QUALITY OF LIFE, AND WE'RE GOING TO DELIVER IT.

[01:00:02]

I'D ADD IN. I HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS IN DISTRICT ONE WHO HAVE HEARD THE SHOOTING ABOUT.

AND I'VE HEARD IT FROM MY FRONT YARD, BUT I'VE, FROM PEOPLE LIVING ON ESPLANADE HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE NOISE FROM THE SHOOTING RANGE.

YEAH. NOT SURPRISING. OKAY. LAST CHANCE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS H.9? ANYONE ONLINE. WE HAVE A HAND RAISED. NANCY SHIVA.

GO AHEAD. NANCY. GOOD EVENING. THEY COULD BUILD THE SHOOTING RANGE SOMEWHERE IN THE BASEMENT OR SOME PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE NEW POLICE STATION, WHICH OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE, SUCH AS EL SEGUNDO.

I THINK TORRANCE AND OTHER ONES, AND IT CAN BE TOTALLY SOUNDPROOFED BEHIND GLASS AND IT WOULDN'T DISTURB THE NEIGHBORS.

THANK YOU. SO DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? I CERTAINLY CAN.

OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR OUR REPLACEMENT FACILITY AND RENOVATION, THE ANNEX DOES NOT INCLUDE FUNDING FOR A GUN RANGE LEVEL WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE TWO FACILITIES, IT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR TO BE INCORPORATED INTO AN INDOOR STRUCTURE.

WE ARE VERY MUCH HOPEFUL TO RECEIVE THE FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING TO ALLOW FOR THIS CONTINUATION OF THIS OFF SITE FACILITY AS A KEY AND CRITICAL COMPONENT OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE, IN CONCERT WITH A RENOVATED ANNEX AND A NEW MAIN STATION.

SO THAT'S HOW WE FUNDED THIS. THAT'S HOW WE'RE PURSUING THIS EFFORT.

I THINK WE WERE THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFTER LAST YEAR'S APPLICATION WAS VERY SINCERE.

AND WE WERE VERY MUCH ON THE PRECIPICE OF RECEIVING FUNDING.

AND THIS WE HOPE THIS EFFORT HERE, THIS, AND I SHOULD POINT OUT, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACT AMOUNT THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT IS AN ON CALL TOTAL OF $100,000.

THE SPECIFIC TASK WORK ORDER THAT WE'RE ASSIGNING TO ADVANCE OUR DRAWINGS FOR THE GUN RANGE HAS AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF 30 TO $35,000.

SO JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC'S EDIFICATION.

IT'S NOT $100,000. IT'S 30 TO $35,000. AND IF WE'RE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO GET THIS GRANT, WE WILL HAVE SPENT 100, $150,000 TO ACHIEVE ROUGHLY $19 MILLION IN FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

SO THAT THAT WOULD BE A JUST A TREMENDOUS OUTCOME FOR US.

SO WE'LL KNOW THIS SUMMER AND OUR FINGERS REMAIN CROSSED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING.

OKAY. SO WITH THAT, I WILL CALL THE VOTE. ALL FOR H.9? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THERE'S NO ONE ON ZOOM AND NO ECOMMENTS. I THOUGHT I ALREADY ASKED THAT.

OKAY. OKAY, LET'S GO DOWN TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

[J. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS]

EACH SPEAKER WILL BE AFFORDED THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE.

WRITTEN REQUESTS WHICH I HAVE WILL BE CONSIDERED FIRST.

SO WITH THAT RICK MCQUILLIN AND THEN MIKE SHIELDS.

RICK HERE? OKAY. MIKE SHIELDS. HI. MIKE SHIELDS, THE SECOND DRUMMER.

OH, IT DOES SAY THAT. SORRY. NORTH REDONDO, NOT ME.

WE BOTH HAVE A SON NAMED SCOTT. VERY CONFUSING WHEN YOU GO TO GAMESTOP.

ANYWAY, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

ON MY WAY HERE TONIGHT I WAS ASKED TO CHANGE MY PASSWORD.

NOT BY MY PHONE, NOT BY MY LAPTOP, NOT BY ANY DEVICE I WAS CARRYING, BUT BY THE CROSSWALK BUTTON ACROSS THE STREET.

YOU PRESS IT, YOU WAIT. AND EVERY MINUTE OR SO THE THING SAYS CHANGE PASSWORD.

I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN IT'S NOT THE CITY'S JOB TO MANAGE MY LOGIN CREDENTIALS.

SO IF SOMEONE IN UT COULD LOOK INTO THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

THAT SAID, I DIDN'T COME HERE TO TALK ABOUT CROSSWALK BUTTONS.

I'M SURE YOU KNOW WHY I'M HERE BY NOW. I CAME TO TALK ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES, SPECIFICALLY THE OPPORTUNITY THIS CITY LEAVES ON THE TABLE.

EVERY DAY WE GO WITHOUT A DEDICATED FILM COMMISSIONER.

TWO CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION SEATS TURN OUT IN OCTOBER.

I'D RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS CITY CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT THAT LONG.

RENTS HERE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE CHURCHES ARE RUNNING FOOD PROGRAMS NOT JUST FOR THE HOMELESS, BUT FOR WORKING PEOPLE WHO CAN'T MAKE ENDS MEET.

WE GAVE LILA EARLIER AN AWARD FOR HER DEDICATED SERVICE TO THESE PEOPLE.

I'VE LIVED HERE OVER 32 YEARS, AND I MAY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO NOT STAY HERE TOO MUCH LONGER.

AND I'M NOT ALONE. WE NEED REVENUE. THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES IT COME FROM AND HOW FAST WE MOVE?

[01:05:04]

PRODUCTIONS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR LOCATIONS THAT PHOTOGRAPH WELL AND HAVE COOPERATIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

REDONDO BEACH HAS ALL OF THAT. WHAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IS SOMEONE WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND SAY, COME FILM HERE. IN 32 YEARS, I'VE SEEN MAYBE 2 OR 3 FULL PRODUCTIONS THAT COME COME THROUGH THIS CITY.

THAT'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MISSED REVENUE, MISSED HOTEL, RESTAURANT, CREW AND PERMIT REVENUE.

I'M A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH BAY FILMMAKERS GROUP ON FACEBOOK.

I HOLD A LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP IN THE ACADEMY OF MAGICAL ARTS.

THAT'S THE MAGIC CASTLE, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T GET IT ALREADY.

WITH DIRECT WORKING RELATIONSHIPS THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY, I'M NOT PROPOSING TO SHOW UP AND FIGURE IT OUT. I'M PROPOSING TO SHOW UP.

READY. I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT TO A COMPENSATED FILM COMMISSIONER ROLE.

NOT IN OCTOBER. NOW, WITH CLEAR MANDATE TO BRING PRODUCTION BUSINESS HERE.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS. WHAT'S MISSING IS THE POINT PERSON.

I'M READY TO BE THAT PERSON. THANK YOU. I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT THE COMPENSATION TO BE? 4K A MONTH SHOULD BE ENOUGH.

JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? GOOD EVENING MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF.

I WANTED TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR RECENTLY VETOING THE REMOVAL OF OR TO REMOVE THE LICENSE OF A SMOKE SHOP ON NORTH REDONDO.

I WANT TO THANK OUR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SUPPORTED THAT REMOVAL.

THAT'S A GREAT THING FOR OUR CITY. IT'S A GREAT THING FOR OUR YOUTH.

I GIVE LECTURES ALL THE TIME ON VAPING, ON CANNABIS AND WHAT IT DOES TO OUR YOUTH.

MY BACKGROUND, I'M AN IMMUNOLOGIST AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE AN EPIDEMIC OF VAPING FOR OUR YOUTH.

PEER REVIEWED DATA CLEARLY SHOWS IT'S ABOUT TO BECOME AN EPIDEMIC FOR OUR ADULTS AS WELL.

THE OTHER THING THAT CONTINUES TO HOLD TRUE IS THAT SMOKE SHOPS, THEIR VERY PRESENCE, NORMALIZE THE USE OF THOSE PRODUCTS FOR OUR YOUTH BY SIMPLY BEING THERE, THAT'S MARKETING 101. AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO SHARE.

ACTUALLY, I WON'T SHARE THAT NOW, BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. THAT'S A GREAT THING. AND THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT AND I APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU ALL DO. EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM FOR OUR CITY AND FOR OUR KIDS. THANKS.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS? ANYONE ONLINE? THERE'S NO HANDS RAISED. AND THERE'S ONE ECOMMENTS FOR J.1 IN SUPPORT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.

SO WE WILL GO THROUGH EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

[K. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS]

I, I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH SEVERAL OF THE COUNCILMAN AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I'VE TALKED TO. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER.

I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT AND YOURSELF.

MAYOR. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE CITY MANAGER, THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT AS. OBAGI, THEN. OH, I'M SORRY, I WAS OBAGI THERE.

I'VE BEEN BROWN ACTING ON A LOT OF THINGS. WAS IT OBAGI ON THE? NO, I THINK IT WAS BEHRENDT THAT I TALKED. DID WE TALK? I WOULD NOT SAY WE SPOKE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM.

OKAY, THEN IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI THAT I MUST HAVE SPOKEN.

I TALKED TO SOMEBODY THAT WAS NOT BROWN ACTED WITH CHAD.

RIGHT. ALSO WITH STAFF. AND THEN OVER THE LAST YEAR, I WOULD SAY I'VE RECEIVED CALLS FROM RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ALONG THIS BLOCK AS MEMBERS OF DISTRICT TWO. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. I SPOKE TO YOU MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND THAT IS IT.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. TO THE MAYOR AND STAFF.

OKAY. AND. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE AND STAFF.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE WILL GO NOW INTO L1 THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING ALONG GERTRUDA AVENUE.

[L. PUBLIC HEARINGS]

I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT WHOEVER IT IS, YOU GOT THE FLOOR.

I THINK RYAN'S GOING TO KICK IT OFF. YEAH. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

RYAN LIU, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. THIS IS A JOINT PRESENTATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE AT THE 500 BLOCK OF NORTH GERTRUDA.

THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THIS ITEM.

JUST SOME GENERAL PROCESS ON OUR PPZ, PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE AND SOME FACTS.

THESE ZONES ARE GOVERNED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS IN WHICH TO BRING FORWARD A PROPOSED PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE TO

[01:10:06]

IF IT PASSES THE MUNICIPAL CODE FINDINGS, IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PUBLIC WORKS SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION AND THEN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION. THE WAY OUR PPZS WORK IS THAT ONLY RESIDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO PARK DURING THOSE STATED HOURS WITH THE PARKING PERMIT ON THOSE AFFECTED STREETS. IF YOU ARE NOT A RESIDENT AND YOU DON'T LIVE AT THAT ADDRESS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK THERE DURING THOSE STATED HOURS.

SOME HISTORY ABOUT 500 NORTH GERTRUDA. THIS WAS A PETITION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IN LATE 2022.

A PARKING STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN 2023, AND IT MET THOSE RBMC THRESHOLDS DURING THE MID DAY WEEKDAYS WHERE WHERE THE PARKING WAS OVER 75% OCCUPIED AND A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THOSE CARS PARKED THERE WERE NOT REGISTERED TO RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES ON THAT BLOCK.

AT THE AUGUST PUBLIC WORKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, THEY APPROVED THE PPZ AT A PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT TO COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL, AND THEY RECOMMENDED OUTREACH TO THE AREA BUSINESSES.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE LAND USES AROUND THE AREA AS WELL.

IN DECEMBER OF 2023, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE PPZ RESOLUTION, SUBJECT TO A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SINCE THIS PPZ IS WITHIN THE THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE. THE PROPOSED HOURS WHERE ONLY RESIDENTS CAN PARK ARE MONDAY TO FRIDAY, 8 A.M. TO 6 P.M. AND THE COASTAL AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH IS ANY AREA WEST OF PCH.

I'D LIKE TO TURN OVER TO STEVEN YOUNG, WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THE EXISTING PARKING REGULATIONS AND THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

HERE'S A SITE PLAN OF THE EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS.

HERE IN THE PURPLE, YOU'LL SEE THE AREA IN QUESTION CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR HOUR INCREMENTS FROM 8 A.M.

TO 6 P.M. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. THE PROPOSED PARKING REGULATIONS WILL ONLY APPLY TO THE PURPLE AREA.

WE'RE PROPOSING THIS. THE CITY IS PROPOSING A 8 A.M.

TO 6 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. PARKING PERMIT ONLY FOR RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA HERE.

THE EXISTING SURROUNDING USES FOR THIS SITE. SO IN THE BLUE IS THE PARKING AREA TO THE SOUTHWEST.

YOU'LL SEE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. TO THE NORTHWEST ARE THE COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND YOU'LL SEE SOUTH PACIFIC, NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE COASTAL ZONE IS EVERYTHING WEST OF NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

THE COASTAL, THE SITE ITSELF IS ABOUT 0.3 MILES FROM THE NEAREST WATERFRONT PROPERTY.

WITH REGARDING THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS, FINDINGS TWO AND THREE CAN BE SATISFIED AS FINDING TWO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT AND FINDING THREE IS ADDRESSED THROUGH COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, FINDING ONE IS LESS CLEAR.

WHILE THE PROJECT'S LIMITED IN SCALE AND DISTANCE FROM THE WATERFRONT COULD SUPPORT A FINDING IN CONFORMITY, AS STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS ABOUT SETTING A BROADER PRECEDENT PRECEDENT FOR SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE STAFF ALSO NOTES THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS GENERALLY NOT SUPPORTED PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE, AND HAS OBSERVED THAT DURING MAJOR WATERFRONT EVENTS, VISITORS MAY PARK IN THE AREA AND WALK ALONG BERYL STREET TO REACH THE SHORELINE.

HERE IS THE RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE DRAWING, THE OVERVIEW OF THE STREET AND THE CURRENT USAGE? YEAH. AND I THINK THE ZONING, THE ONE BEFORE THAT, MARC.

MARC'S GOT A FEW MORE COMMENTS TO MAYOR AND I MIGHT HAVE A FEW AS WELL.

YEAH. THANK YOU, STEVEN AND RYAN. SO AS STEVEN OUTLINED, FINDING TWO OF OUR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IS NOT APPLICABLE.

IT MEANS FINDING THREE. IT'S REALLY FINDING ONE IS THE ONE THAT'S KIND OF A WOBBLER.

AND THAT'S WHETHER IT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

ON THE ONE HAND IT IS SOME DISTANCE. FOR THE AUDIENCE, CAN YOU JUST SAY ONE, TWO AND THREE ARE? YEAH. SO CRITERIA ONE IS IT COMPLIES THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, TWO IS THAT YOU REMIND ME BETWEEN THE FIRST. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF LOCATED BETWEEN THE SEA AND THE SHORELINE AND THE FIRST PUBLIC.

SO IT'S. THAT ONE IS RULED OUT BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND THREE HAS TO DO WITH CEQA OR THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT COMPLIANCE, AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S NOT IMPACTED BY THIS PREFERRED PARKING PROJECT.

SO REGARDING ONE AND THAT'S WITH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COMPLIANCE, IT IS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE SHORELINE.

[01:15:05]

HOWEVER, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION GENERALLY DOES NOT ALLOW PREFERRED PARKING IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

THEY DID CONTACT STAFF ABOUT THIS AND EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

AND THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY SET A PRECEDENT, BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST OF THIS TYPE OF PREFERRED PARKING THAT THE CITY HAS ISSUED IN THE COASTAL ZONE. SO I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THAT'S REALLY FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THAT FIRST FINDING COULD BE MADE.

WE HAVE INCLUDED A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL SHOULD THE COUNCIL DETERMINE THAT IT IT CAN MAKE THE FINDING AND IT SUPPORTS THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD, MAYOR, IF I COULD, THAT THERE WAS SOME OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD THAT IS ADJACENT TO THIS BLOCK OF GERTRUDA.

MANY EMPLOYEES RELY ON ON STREET PARKING IN ORDER TO ACCESS THEIR VEHICLES FOR WORK THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT ABUT THIS AREA. ONE IN PARTICULAR, THERE'S A RESTAURANT AT THE CORNER THERE, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND GERTRUDA. THEY HAVE LIMITED PARKING IN THE INTERIOR OF THEIR SPACE, A LOT OF THEIR A LOT OF THEIR CUSTOMERS RELY ON ON THE CUL DE SAC THERE, IF YOU WILL, FOR PARKING.

ALONG WITH SOME OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA. SO THIS IS A VERY ACTIVE COMMERCIAL SPACE.

AND, AND I THINK THAT'S LOGICALLY, WHILE SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE PREFERENTIAL PARKING HERE, BUT IT'S ALSO WHAT GIVES US SOME CAUSE AND OF CONCERN.

AND THEN ALSO LOGICALLY WHY WE'RE HEARING FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION ON THIS.

SO WE, WE, WE ARE VERY HESITANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED WITH THIS AS, AS PROPOSED DUE TO SORT OF THE, THE GENERAL CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY BUSINESSES AND HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED HERE BY OUR PLANNING STAFF.

SO NOT TO, NOT TO NECESSARILY PREJUDGE YOUR OUTCOME, BUT THIS ONE AS NOTED, ISN'T AN EASY ONE TO SUPPORT FROM A FINDING STANDPOINT. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL DONE. SO ON THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE SOUTH OF THE, OF GERTRUDA, THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE STREET BEHIND IT.

IS THAT WHAT THAT'S SHOWING? NO. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE RESIDENCE ON THE BACKSIDE? SAYS NO PARKING. FRIDAY, 8 A.M.. SORRY, THAT'S JUST THE LABEL FOR THE EXISTING STREET SWEEPING REGULATION.

SO THERE'S NOT A STREET BACK THERE THAT'S. NO.

OKAY, SO THAT SHOULD BE OVERLAID ON GERTRUDA.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO SHOW ALL THE DETAILS.

I GOT IT. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CHART. I WAS CURIOUS HOW THAT ROAD MAGICALLY APPEARED.

IT'S A REALLY MARKETABLE ALLEY. DO THE DO THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THIS SECTION GET ANY SAY IN THIS? OUR PROCESS DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO. THEY WERE NOTIFIED.

THEY WERE NOTIFIED. AND WHAT DID THEY COMMENT TO IT? YEAH, THEY WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS OF THIS PROCESS.

AND A FEW OF THEM DID SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC NOTICING FOR THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAIVER, THE BUSINESSES ACTUALLY ONE OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS ACTUALLY REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AS LAID OUT IN THE ZONING CODE, THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. THEY OPPOSED IT? GENERALLY. YEAH, THE BUSINESSES OPPOSED, BUT IN THE EARLIER PHASES THEY DID NOT GET A VOTE IN THE IN THE PETITION PROCESS.

I'M SORRY THEY DID NOT GET A VOTE IN THE PETITION PROCESS.

ONLY RESIDENTS GET IT. CORRECT. AND THE PUBLIC WORKS, OUR PUBLIC WORKS YARD IS JUST JUST JUST WEST OF THERE.

CORRECT. I KNOW I'VE GONE OVER THERE FOR MEETINGS AND IT'S TOUGH TO FIND PARKING, JUST, YOU KNOW, EVEN ON THE WEST END OF THAT STREET, BECAUSE A LOT OF IT, I THINK IS NO PARKING.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE ALREADY PARKED THERE FOR THEIR JOBS. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE FOR ME.

I'M GOING TO RELY ON THE COUNCILMAN FROM THAT DISTRICT.

YOU SHOULD HAVE THE BEST INSIGHT INTO THIS. SO I WILL GO WITH WHATEVER YOU DESIRE ON THIS.

I THINK MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS FIRST THE COASTAL ACCESS.

THIS BLOCK IS IN PARTICULAR POINT THREE MILES FROM THE WATERFRONT.

AND IF ANYONE WAS OUT AT THE WATERFRONT OVER THE LAST WEEKEND.

WE'RE ONLY IN MARCH, AND ALL OF THE PARKING AT THE MARINA, LOTS WERE FULL.

ALL THE PARKING AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE WAS FULL.

AND WHEN WE HAVE EVENTS LIKE THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUPER BOWL 10-K, WE HAVE BEACH LIFE COMING UP.

WE'VE HAD OTHER EVENTS LIKE THE IN-N-OUT CAR SHOW WHERE A LOT OF THE PARKING AT THE WATERFRONT IS TAKEN.

ALL OF THE SPILLOVER TRAFFIC GOES UP INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLOCKS, MOST OF THE OTHER BLOCKS ARE FULLY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS BLOCK IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE IN THAT IT IS ROUGHLY IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE.

[01:20:04]

SO WHEN IT CAME TO A VOTE OF SEEING WHO WAS SUPPORTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, PERMITTED PARKING, IT WAS ONLY THE RESIDENTIAL TENANTS OF THE BLOCK WHO WERE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT.

AND ALL OF THE PINK PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOT ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

AND JUST SPEAKING WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS, THE EMPLOYEES AT THE PUBLIC WORKS YARD, MOST OF THEM PARK ON THE STREET OVER THERE.

SO WHEN WE DID THE SURVEY TO SEE AT NOON WHEN WHO WAS PARKING ON THE BLOCK, MOST OF THE TENANTS OR MOST OF THE CARS ON THE BLOCK ARE NOT INDEED RESIDENTS OF THAT BLOCK BECAUSE THEY'RE MOSTLY EMPLOYEES OF THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AS WELL AS CUSTOMERS TO THE BUSINESSES.

SO I THINK FOR THAT REASON AND JUST DEMAND FOR COASTAL PARKING, AND THEN ON A WEEKEND, THIS BLOCK WOULD PROBABLY BE THE MOST AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AT THE WATERFRONT. I DON'T THINK IT WORKS FOR THIS BLOCK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO YOU VOTE AGAINST BOTH OF THESE? YES. I THINK TO. THE CDP AND THE AND THE CEQA.

YES. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

I'VE ACTUALLY PARKED ON THAT STREET. I'VE GOT A FRIEND WHO USED TO HAVE A BMW AND THERE WAS A BMW MECHANIC THERE THAT I THINK MIGHT BE THE LAND ROVER NOW, OR THEY CHANGED TO SOMETHING OR EUROSPORT. BUT WHEN I WOULD DROP HIM OFF OR PICK HIM UP, I WOULD HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER PARKING. SO IT IS LITERALLY REQUIRED PARKING.

IT WOULD IMPACT THOSE BUSINESSES SEVERELY. SO I, I HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING A PARKING PERMIT FOR LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER CHADWICK SAID 25% OF THE BLOCK, SO TO SPEAK, BEING THE RESIDENTIAL.

THOSE BUSINESSES LIKELY HAVE BEEN THERE LONGER THAN THOSE RESIDENCES FOR THE MOST PART.

PARKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN TIGHT. PARKING IS TIGHT EVERYWHERE.

I BELIEVE THERE IS PARKING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PER UNIT, BUT THERE IS PARKING FOR THOSE RESIDENCES AS WELL.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THEIR ONLY CHOICE IS TO PARK ON THE STREET.

IF IT WAS DIFFERENT, THIS WAS BOSTON WHERE THERE WAS ZERO PARKING THEN YEAH, CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, BUT EVEN WHEN I LIVED IN BOSTON, IT WAS IF I PARKED ON MY BLOCK, I WAS LUCKY BECAUSE I'M PARKED AROUND THE BLOCK SOMEWHERE, USUALLY IN THE WINTER. SO IF I HEARD VERY STRONG SUPPORT FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE, I MIGHT CHANGE MY MIND, BUT WITHOUT HIS SUPPORT, I'M. I'M GOOD WITH NOT SUPPORTING EITHER OF THESE.

OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. THANK YOU.

MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER, IF I MAY.

ABSOLUTELY. DOES THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE THE OPTION? MR. CITY MANAGER OF RESCINDING THE DECEMBER 2023 RESOLUTION THAT SPOKE TO A PREFERRED PARKING ZONE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE? I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD.

DO YOU HAVE THE OPTION? YES. YOU COULD COME BACK WITH A SPECIFIC ITEM TO TO, IN EFFECT NULLIFY THAT RESOLUTION, BUT I BELIEVE THE WAY THE RESOL WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION APPROVAL OF A CDP.

AND BY YOUR ACTION TONIGHT, EFFECTIVELY YOU WOULD COMPLETE THAT PROCESS.

AND IF YOU WERE TO VOTE NO ON THE CDP, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE END OF IT.

BUT IF COULD THE RESOLUTION BE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION? IT COULD. BUT IT COULD NOT BE RESCINDED TONIGHT.

NOT BY TONIGHT'S ACTION. YOUR ACTIONS TONIGHT ARE LIMITED TO THE CDP ITSELF.

AND THE CDP HAS THREE FINDINGS, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT ONE OF THE THREE IS NOT MEANT.

FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE CDP TONIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE DETERMINED THAT ONE OF THE THREE OF THEM IS IS, IS A DEFECT IMMATERIAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WE'RE IT ACTUALLY DEALS WITH SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION EFFECTIVELY.

SO NOT APPLICABLE. THE SECOND FINDING IS A CEQA FINDING WHICH IS MET IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE INSTALLATION OF PARKING SIGNAGE. AND THEN THE REALLY THE FIRST FINDING IS YOUR PREEMINENT FINDING, WHICH IS DOES THIS PROGRAM IN EFFECT, OR THIS PPZ COMPORT TO OUR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM? AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING TO RECOMMEND THAT IT DOES.

AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL FOUND THAT DETERMINED THAT ANY ONE OF THOSE THREE FINDINGS WAS NOT MET,

[01:25:02]

AND DO YOU BELIEVE THE COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION, BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED, TO DETERMINE THAT FINDING ONE HAS NOT BEEN MET? DO YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION COLLECTIVELY AS A GROUP? YES. WOULD I RECOMMEND THAT YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? NO. OKAY. RIGHT. THAT WAS FOR NUMBER ONE. FOR NUMBER ONE, AS IT PERTAINS TO NUMBER ONE, AS IT PERTAINS TO NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

THE COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION TO MAKE THAT CHOICE.

OUR BEST, OUR BEST PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION BASED ON OUR ASSESSMENT OF OF WHAT THAT FINDING WOULD ENTAIL, IS THAT WE CANNOT SUPPORT IT. WE CANNOT SUPPORT FINDING NUMBER ONE.

THAT'S OUR BEST PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THEN TO DETERMINE THAT FINDING ONE HAS NOT BEEN MET.

AND THE. THEREFORE, THE RESOLUTION SHALL NOT BE ADOPTED.

IS THAT THE PROPER MOTION TO EFFECTUATE THAT? YES. AND ACTUALLY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MOTION IN THE SECTION FIVE SAYS THAT THIS RESOLUTION AND ALL PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH DOES NOT OBTAIN AN APPROVED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FROM THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, SO THAT'S THE TRIGGER IN WHICH, IF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT OBTAINED, THEN THAT WHOLE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED IN 2023 IS IMMATERIAL.

OKAY, SO THAT'S THE PRIOR RESOLUTION. BUT FOR THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEEN PREPARED FOR THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD DENY IT DUE TO THE INABILITY TO MAKE FINDING NUMBER ONE.

OKAY. SO MOTION TO DENY IT BASED ON AN INABILITY TO MAKE FINDING NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE PROPER MOTION? YES. IF SO DETERMINED BY THE COUNCIL? YES. OKAY, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND BEFORE WE VOTE.

WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT TESTIMONY NOW. OKAY.

AND I DO HAVE CARDS ON THIS. I CAN'T READ THE HANDWRITING.

IT LOOKS LIKE JESSIE MUELLER OR BILER. BELLA? AND THEN. BRAD HAWTHORNE. MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.

THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO US TODAY.

I AM ONE OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT OWNS BEACH CITIES ROVER IN THE PURPLE SECTION.

I SEE THAT WE'RE MARKED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE RIGHT THERE.

MANY OF THE RESIDENTS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS.

BUT THE PARKING AS EVERYONE KIND OF NOTATED IS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

MOST OF IT IS USED FOR CITY, THE POKE AND ANY OVERFLOW FROM OUR BUSINESS.

I AM A REDONDO BEACH LOCAL GRADUATE HOMEOWNER.

KIDS GO TO SCHOOL HERE AND TWO BUSINESSES HERE IN THE CITY.

SO I DO RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND THAT PARKING IS DIFFICULT AROUND HERE AND KNOW THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S I'VE BEEN HERE SO LONG, 42 YEARS NOW THAT I KNEW BEFORE ALL THOSE HOMES WERE BUILT.

I FEEL THOUGH THAT, RESPECTFULLY, I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS AS STATED.

THERE'S PLENTY OF PLACES TO PARK. THESE NEIGHBORS HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT HERE AFTER THESE BUSINESSES WERE, OUR PARTICULAR BUSINESS WAS BUILT IN 1974 ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WE HAVE THREE BUSINESS OWNERS THERE IN THAT SHARE THAT LOT.

WE DO OUR BEST TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS.

IT DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK OUT TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS THAT WE MAY HEAR FROM LATER.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT. ESSENTIALLY, WE'VE BEEN HERE.

THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF PARKING. THE NEIGHBORS DO KNOW WHAT THEY BOUGHT INTO BECAUSE THESE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN LONG NEW SINCE OUR BUILDING HAS BEEN HERE.

SO IT'S NOT A SURPRISE. LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN A BIG COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS BUILT HERE AND ALL THIS PARKING WAS LOST.

AS WELL AS SORRY, I'M FORGETTING THE LAST THING I WANTED TO STATE WAS PRETTY MUCH THAT THE FINAL THING WAS, AGAIN, RESPECTFULNESS OF OUR NEIGHBORS MAJORITY IS THE CITY WORKERS.

AND THE POKE RESTAURANT IS WHAT WE SEE. BUT AGAIN, LOSING THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE, AS I'VE SEEN THROUGH THE CITY, UNFORTUNATELY, OVER THE YEARS, GOING UP AND DOWN TORRANCE BOULEVARD AND ALL THE WAY TO PROSPECT, EMPTY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AFTER EMPTY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AFTER EMPTY COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

IT'S SO SAD TO SEE PEOPLE CAN'T SURVIVE IN THIS AREA ANY LONGER.

A LOT OF PEOPLE MY AGE WHO GREW UP HERE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

I'M VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE A BUSINESS HERE AND I RESPECT EVERYTHING YOU GUYS HAVE DONE AND TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO ME.

[01:30:03]

PEOPLE SPEAKING TODAY USE THE STREET PARKING AS THEIR PARKING, THOUGH THEY HAVE THEIR OWN GARAGES AND PARKING TO PARK.

AND SO IT IS ONLY FAIR TO ME AND THE OTHER BUSINESS OWNERS THAT AND THE CITY WORKERS THAT WE HAVE A PLACE TO PARK AND OPERATE OUR BUSINESS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. BRAD HORN AND THEN RICARDO DE LA ESPRIELLA, I THINK I.

GOT THE MAP. IS THAT OKAY? THE MAP. EXCUSE ME.

HELLO, MY NAME IS BRAD HORN. I LIVE AT 515 NORTH.

FIRST OFF, EVERYBODY USES THEIR GARAGE. THESE GARAGES WERE BUILT A WHILE AGO.

WE ALL PUT OUR CARS IN. THEIR CARS ARE BIGGER.

THEY DON'T FIT TWO CARS ANYMORE. EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS A CAR IN THEIR GARAGE.

THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT. NUMBER TWO, AND I'M JUST GOING TO CORRECT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE PARKING, WEST OF US ON THE WEEKENDS. NOBODY PARKS THERE FOR THE BEACH.

EVERYBODY STARTS PARKING WEST OF CATALINA DOWN TOWARDS HERONDO STREET.

IT'S A GHOST TOWN ON OUR STREET ON THE WEEKENDS.

DURING THE WEEK, THEIR PARKING LOTS JUST POKE PARKING LOT IS EMPTY.

EVERYBODY JUST PARKS ON OUR STREET, THEIR PARKING LOT AT THE AT THE RANGE ROVER AREAS.

YOU LOOK IN THERE DURING THE DAY, THEY HAVE 8 OR 10 SPOTS AVAILABLE.

THEY MOVE ALL THEIR CARS OUT SO THEY CAN ACCESS THEM, PARK THEM ON OUR STREET.

THAT IS NOT FAIR. I GET PARKING IS TOUGH, BUT THEIR ADDRESS IS ON PCH.

WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, THEY KNEW THEY WERE ON PCH.

IT IS TOUGH JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GATE THAT SLIDES OPEN AND BACK.

I GET THAT SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO SHARE. THINGS DO HAPPEN, BUT THEY WILL BRING THEIR CARS OUT, TAKE UP THREE SPOTS WITH TWO CARS TO HOLD A SPOT FOR LATER.

IT IS JUST AWFUL. WHAT ELSE DO I WANT TO SAY? SORRY. I KNOW MY TIME IS. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE LEFT? SO IF YOU SEE WEST WHERE THE CITY WORKERS WORK, THERE IS NO TROUBLE FOR THEM TO PARK DOWN THERE.

EVEN THEY COULD PARK DOWN THERE IF THEY WANT TO.

MY WIFE WILL TAKE THE KID TO SCHOOL. SHE WILL PULL OUT OF THE PARKING SPOT.

SHE COMES BACK. THEY FILLED IT UP WITH A SPOT SO THEY WILL JUST MOVE CARS, TAKE THE SPOT.

SHE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAVE SOMETIMES BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO PARKING BECAUSE THE BUSINESSES COME IN AND TAKE THE SPOTS IMMEDIATELY.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED OUR PERMIT PARKING. AND THIS WAS A SUGGESTION FROM THE COUNCIL BEFORE DOING IT 8 TO 6.

WE WEREN'T REALLY SURE WHAT TIMES WEEKENDS, NO WEEKENDS.

THEY KIND OF SUGGESTED NO. WE'VE SEEN YOUR PARKING THERE, 8 TO 6 IS GREAT.

YOU CAN HAVE YOUR PARKING. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY. YOU PAY THE TAXES FOR THAT STREET, NOT THE BUSINESSES, THEY PAY ON PCH. WE PAY ON GERTRUDA AVENUE, WE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THAT FIRST.

AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT. I HOPE YOU GUYS CHANGE YOUR MINDS AND SUPPORT.

SURE. WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR. YES, SIR. YEAH. IF YOU USE YOUR GARAGES, WHY IS YOUR SPOUSE PARKING ON THE STREET? AND WHY DO YOU NEED AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU NEED STREET PARKING? BECAUSE WE HAVE KIDS AND WE HAVE SUVS. AND WHEN THEY WERE THIS PLACE WAS BUILT IN 89, THEY JUST DON'T FIT TWO CARS ANYMORE.

ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAS A TRUCK, A PICKUP TRUCK.

HE'S IN CONSTRUCTION. IT JUST DOESN'T FIT. SO HE HAS TO PARK ON THE STREET.

HIS WIFE WILL PARK IN THE GARAGE BECAUSE SHE HAS A CAR THAT CAN FIT.

YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD WISH I HAD A HUGE GARAGE.

I WOULD LOVE MY CAR. MY CATALYTIC CONVERTER WAS STOLEN, MY OLD HIGHLANDER.

I'D LOVE TO PARK IN THE GARAGE, BOTH CARS. BUT THAT'S JUST A FACT.

OKAY, I TOTALLY GET IT. WE DON'T OPEN OUR DOORS IN THE GARAGE EXCEPT FOR THE DRIVERS.

SO EVERY GARAGE IS FULL WITH A CAR. AND THEN CUT THAT OFF.

THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE? HOPE YOU GUYS SUPPORT, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

RICARDO DE LA ESPRIELLA. ANY QUESTION? CITY MANAGER.

HI. GOOD EVENING. CITY COUNCIL MANAGERS. MAYOR.

MY NAME IS RICARDO DE LA ESPRIELLA AND ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DATED AUGUST 28/23, THERE ARE SIX BUSINESSES THAT SURROUND THE 500 BLOCK OF NORTH GERTRUDA, AND THERE ARE 28 RESIDENTS IN THE 500 BLOCK OF NORTH GERTRUDA.

YET THOSE BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT EVEN HAVE AN ADDRESS ON THE 500 BLOCK OF NORTH GERTRUDA USE 60% OR MORE OF THAT PARKING DURING THE DAY.

THE AUTO REPAIR BUSINESSES THAT HAVE THE ADDRESS OF 529 NORTH PCH USE THE NORTH STREET TO CONDUCT MOST OF THEIR

[01:35:01]

AS RECENTLY AS SUNDAY, MARCH 15TH AT 10:00 AT NIGHT, THERE'S A TOW TRUCK DROPPING OFF A LAND ROVER IN FRONT OF THE CAR.

AS I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNOW, IN ORDER FOR THESE TOW TRUCKS TO DROP, THE ENGINE HAS TO ACCELERATE.

FLASHING LIGHTS ARE FLARING, FLASHING. I MEAN, AND IT'S EXTREMELY NOISY.

10:00 THAT'S NOT CONSIDERATION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ONE CANNOT GET AN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS LICENSE ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET OR ZONE. THE 500 BLOCK OF NORTH GERTRUDA IS AN R-3A, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AT LEAST THAT AREA. OKAY, THAT IS WHY THE BUSINESS LICENSE WERE ISSUED TO THE PREMISES TO CONDUCT BUSINESS OUT OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, NOT NORTH GERTRUDA, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL.

BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT IF I COME INTO THE CITY TO OPEN A REPAIR SHOP ON ANY OF YOU GUYS FRONT OF THE STREET, I WILL BE DENIED BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT ZONES, AND THERE'S REASONS FOR THAT.

AND WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TO SAY HERE? OH, I GOT TIME.

ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS CONSIDER THIS.

THIS IS A NUISANCE TO US. WE'RE ALL ONE GREAT NEIGHBORS.

I HOPE THAT THEY SUCCEED ON THEIR BUSINESSES.

BUT PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER US, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DIRECT YOUR CUSTOMERS TO DROP THEIR VEHICLES AT NIGHT WITH A TOW TRUCK.

YOU CAN ALWAYS EDUCATE YOUR CUSTOMERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME.

THANK YOU.

HI, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'M ONE OF THE RESIDENTS ON NORTH GERTRUDA AVENUE, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADD A FEW MORE POINTS TO THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE.

I REALLY RESPECT LOCAL BUSINESSES AND I WANT, I WANT TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND MAKE IT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE MORE AND MORE OF THEM IN REDONDO BEACH, NOT LESS. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND WE THINK ABOUT THE ECOSYSTEM OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESSES, AND WE'RE ALL NEIGHBORS.

AND SO IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THEIR NEEDS.

I THINK THAT WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES THAT WE SEE PEOPLE USING NORTH GERTRUDA FOR WE SEE CUSTOMER PARKING AND WE SEE BUSINESS PARKING. AND I THINK EVENT PARKING WAS ANOTHER THING THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING, ESPECIALLY SPILLOVER DURING BIG EVENTS THAT WE HAVE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE NEVER SEEN THE STREET GET FILLED UP WITH PEOPLE PARKING FOR EVENT PARKING BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF OTHER OPTIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE AROUND.

NOW, OF COURSE, I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH PEOPLE NEEDING TO SPILL OVER.

AND USUALLY THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS. SO LIKE IT'S NOT GOING TO FILL UP THE WHOLE STREET GENERALLY.

THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. AND OFTEN IT'S AT NIGHT, IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE HOURS, IN OTHER WORDS, SO LIKE THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT.

I THINK THAT FOR, FOR BUSINESS PARKING, YOU, YOU SEE CUSTOMERS MIGHT NEED TO USE THESE SPOTS IF THEY'RE, LET'S SAY, COMING TO PICK UP THEIR, TO DROP OFF THEIR CAR AND THERE'S NOT A SPOT IN THE IN THE MECHANIC LOT, THEN THEY MIGHT PARK ON THE STREET. THAT'S USUALLY NOT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE ALL DAY.

SO THEY WILL PROBABLY, THEY WILL PROBABLY SORT OF COME AND THEN THEY GO AGAIN.

I THINK WHAT A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH PRIMARILY IS NON-CUSTOMER BUSINESS PARKING, WHERE YOU'LL SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF THE WHOLE AREA WILL BE THESE OVERFLOW KIND OF CARS OUT OF THE MECHANIC, WHERE THEN IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO, ESPECIALLY DURING THAT SORT OF TIME IN THE DAY, IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO FOR, FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PARK OUR OTHER CAR. AGAIN, WE HAVE ONE CAR IN OUR GARAGE THAT FITS AND THEN THE OTHER ONE CAN'T REALLY FIT LIKE A LOT OF OUR OTHER RESIDENTS. SO THE SECOND CAR KIND OF BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO PARK IT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF IF MAYBE FOR THE, FOR THE YARD, IF THEY NEED TO USE THOSE SPOTS.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM PARKING A LOT OF CARS, BUT IF THEY DO NEED TO USE SPOTS, MAYBE THEY COULD FIND SPOTS INSIDE OF THE YARD.

NOT REALLY SURE. BUT YEAH, AGAIN, IT'S MOSTLY IT'S NOT REALLY CUSTOMER PARKING THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE.

IT'S NOT REALLY EVENT PARKING THAT IT'S AN ISSUE. IT'S MORE OF THESE KIND OF LIKE TAKING UP WITH SORT OF OVERFLOW FROM THE BUSINESS FOR BUSINESS PARKING.

[01:40:05]

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION REAL QUICK? YEAH. DO YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY? NO. WELL, YES. SO IT'S A COMMON DRIVEWAY TO GET INTO.

OKAY. IT'S THE AREA WHERE THE PARKING IS. THANK YOU.

SORRY. ARE THOSE REDONDO BEACH CITY TRUCKS THAT ARE ON THE PARKING ON THE STREET? I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. THE REDONDO BEACH CITY ARE TAKING UP A LOT OF SPOTS NOW.

IT MAY BE FURTHER DOWN WHERE THERE'S IS OCCASIONAL CARS, BUT IT'S MORE LIKE YOU KNOW, LIKE THESE LAND ROVERS, MERCEDES, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND YOU'LL SEE LIKE, IT'S LIKE MERCEDES, MERCEDES, MERCEDES LIKE THAT DURING THE DAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU GUYS. APPRECIATE IT.

CARL HENKEL AND THAT'S THE LAST CARD I HAVE.

GOOD EVENING. I'M CARL HENKEL. I LIVE AT 509 GERTRUDA RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE POKE.

BASICALLY I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR 16 YEARS AT THAT LOCATION, TEN YEARS ANOTHER.

SO 26 AND I GREW UP IN HOLLYWOOD RIVIERA. SO I GUESS I TRY TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT TO WHAT'S HAPPENING FOR US AS THE RESIDENTS.

SO WE HAVE SORT OF FOUR SOURCES OF CARS THAT COME AND STAY ALL DAY.

I THINK YOU START WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WORK AT THE MAINTENANCE YARD, A LOT OF THEM STAY TO THE NORTH SIDE, BUT WE DO HAVE 1 OR 2 PER DAY THAT COME AND STAY ALL DAY DOWN IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION.

THAT HAPPENS, I THINK, EVERY DAY. I THINK THEY WOULD AGREE.

THAT'S EVERY DAY. THE MECHANICS BUSINESSES. ALTHOUGH JESSE SAID IT WASN'T A PROBLEM.

IT'S A PROBLEM. AND I LIKE THESE GUYS. I LIKE YOU, CHRIS.

I LIKE YOU, JESSE. BUT THEY, THEY LEAVE THEIR CARS THEIR, THEIR CUSTOMER'S CARS OUT ALONG THE STREET ALL DAY ALL WEEK.

AND THEY TAKE ALL THE SPOTS AND THAT'S, AND THEN THEIR EMPLOYEES COME AND WORK ALL DAY AND THEY TAKE THE REST OF THE SPOTS.

SO THE MECHANICS ARE REALLY USING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE SPACES WE HAVE ON THE STREET.

ADD TO THAT, THEN THE POKE, WHICH THE CUSTOMERS COME AND GO, THE CUSTOMER IS NOT REALLY THE BIG DEAL, BUT THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF EMPLOYEES WHO THEN ALSO PARK THERE DURING THE DAY.

SO THAT REALLY LEAVES US WITH VERY LITTLE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS.

IT'S REALLY TAKEN UP BY, BY THOSE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES AND THE MAINTENANCE YARD AS WELL.

AS FAR AS I WAS THINKING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD BE THE HARM IN ASKING THE COASTAL COMMISSION IF WE QUALIFY FOR NUMBER ONE OR WHY DO, WHY DO YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION? WHY CAN'T WE ASK THEM? HEY, DO WE QUALIFY AND GET AN ANSWER FROM THEM? I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION HERE IF YOU SUPPORT IT OF COURSE, HELPING US WITH THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR US AS RESIDENTS.

SO I'M HERE TO IN SUPPORT OF THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING OBVIOUSLY.

AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SURE I DO. WHAT IF THE PERMIT WAS TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY DURING WEEKDAY HOURS OR.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS WEEKDAYS. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND ALSO, IT REALLY IS NO ISSUE DURING THE WEEKEND.

AND FOR EVENTS, THERE'S THE PERMITS. NOT FOR THAT.

SO IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR THE 10-K. THE PERMIT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

SO NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE WEEKENDS. AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE WEEKDAYS.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER SOLUTION THAT YOU GUYS CAN FIGURE OUT. THIS IS WHAT WE FIGURED OUT THREE YEARS AGO.

AND YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS, BUT WE DEFINITELY ARE IMPACTED EVERY DAY.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SO THE QUESTION WAS WHY ARE WE MAKING THIS DECISION? AND WE WROTE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT AN LCP THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND WE'RE CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING IT.

THERE IS AN APPEALABLE AREA, BUT THIS IS NOT IN THE AREA THAT'S APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION.

SO WE ARE THE ONES TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER THIS COMPLIES WITH THE LCP OR NOT.

I THINK YOU SAID WE ALREADY GOT AN OPINION OUT OF THE COASTAL.

YEAH. WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF, NOT THE COMMISSION THEMSELVES, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PRESENT IT TO THEM, BUT THE COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE. BUT THIS WOULDN'T GO TO THEM ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING IT.

I MEAN, THEY COULD BRING ACTION AGAINST US AND SAY WE'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH OUR LCP.

THAT'S THE THAT'S POTENTIALLY THE RISK FOR US.

IF WE WERE TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY IN TURN THEN VIEWED AS NOT FOLLOWING OUR OWN LCP.

YEAH, YEAH. SO THAT'S THE ANSWER. WE'RE ADMINISTERING OUR OWN LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ALLOWS US TO DO.

IN CITIES THAT DON'T HAVE IT, ALL THESE DECISIONS HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY COASTAL COMMISSION, AND THAT CAN TAKE 18 MONTHS OR LONGER TO GET AN OPINION OUT OF THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A LOT ON THEIR DOCKET.

[01:45:05]

I'M SORRY. THIS MIGHT BE A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.

I'M NOT SURE THIS IS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE GOT A COMBINATION OF ISSUES WITH CUSTOMERS.

WE GOT EMPLOYEES, AND WE'VE GOT RESIDENTS ALL KIND OF FIGHTING OVER LIMITED PARKING SPACES, WHICH THIS LOCATION HAS BEEN SET UP THAT WAY FOR WHAT, 60, 70 YEARS? PROBABLY SO. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S A REMNANT OF THE PLANNING BACK THEN.

BUT HERE'S AN IDEA. A LOT OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY MENTIONED THAT ARE TAKING UP THE STREET PARKING, I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT SHOPPING CENTER, WHOLE FOODS, THERE'S A 1 OR 2 SUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVELS OVER THERE THAT ARE HARDLY EVER USED.

MAYBE WORK A DEAL TO HAVE SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES PARK OVER THERE.

THAT WAY YOU TAKE AWAY THE STREET PARKING THAT THEY'RE USING.

FREE UP SOME SPACE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SPOTS IT MIGHT BE, BUT IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN IN THERE, NO ONE EVER KNOWS THAT THERE'S 2 OR 3 LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN PARKING IN THAT STRUCTURE WHICH COULD BE USED.

ANYWAY, JUST THINKING ABOUT IT, MAYBE THEY COULD WORK A DEAL WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS THERE TO MAYBE PARK THEIR CARS THERE, MAYBE GIVE THEM A COUPON TO GET SOMETHING OFF AT WHOLE FOODS AND GET THEM TO DO SHOPPING AT THE SAME TIME. JUST AN IDEA.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? ANYONE ONLINE? YES, WE HAVE NANCY SHIVA. GO AHEAD.

NANCY. NANCY. OH. HI THERE. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT IN AGREEMENT THAT FOLKS, A LOT OF TIMES THEY TEND TO TAKE UP THE STREET PARKING WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CARS IN THEIR FAMILY OR IN THEIR APARTMENT.

AND THAT HAPPENS UP HERE IN NORTH REDONDO AS WELL.

AND IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING, I KNOW. I SURE HOPE THEY CAN FIND SOME WAY TO ALLEVIATE THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NO ONE ON ZOOM AND NO ECOMMENTS.

OKAY. YOU SHOWED, WHEN YOU SHOWED THE ZONING MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THESE THE WHOLE AREA ZONED COMMERCIAL, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME, I MEAN, RESIDENTIAL ARE THREE, BUT SOME ARE COMMERCIAL.

ARE THEY, YOU KNOW, EXISTING. CAN YOU SHOW UP IF WE COULD.

THERE IT IS. YEAH. SO I THOUGHT YOU SHOWED SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE R-3 SIDE.

LIKE THE ESPECIALLY THE RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.

YES. THERE IS IN THE CORNER OF THE, THE BOTTOM HERE, THAT THAT YELLOW RECTANGLE IS A COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN AN R3- ZONE. YEAH. AND THERE ARE A COUPLE RESIDENTS I THINK RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THAT C-2A ZONE AS WELL.

SO WERE THOSE PREEXISTING USES BEFORE THE ZONING WAS CHANGED.

SO THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING BUT ALLOWED, CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. OKAY. AND DO THESE BUSINESSES HAVE ANY CUPS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO KEEP PARKING ON THEIR SITE OR? I BELIEVE WHEN PRE-CUP WHEN, WHEN THE AUTO SHOPS, THEIR CUP IS FROM A VERY LONG TIME AGO.

I THINK IT, IT'S, IT'S FROM A VERY LONG TIME AGO.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CUP OR ANYTHING THAT.

YEAH. CONDITIONS ARE PARKING. YEAH. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO RESEARCH AND GET BACK TO YOU ON.

OKAY. JESSIE MUELLER I THINK IT WAS. CAN YOU COME DOWN FOR A SECOND? SO SOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID SOME STUFF ABOUT YOUR PARKING HABITS.

DO YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL TO THAT? I MEAN, ARE YOU MOVING CARS INTO THE STREET? WE DO LIKE THEY SAID, WE DO NEED TO OCCASIONALLY SHUFFLE CARS AROUND.

WE ARE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS. WE TRY AND PARK FROM OUR LOT.

IF YOU GO BACK TO OUR ZONE, WHERE ON THE MAP, I APOLOGIZE.

WE ALSO IN FRONT OF OUR BUSINESS WHERE IT'S MARKED PURPLE FOR RESIDENTIAL.

AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU GUYS CAN TELL ME, BUT SO IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITS, DOES THAT MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE 3 OR 4 PARKING SPOTS WE HAVE IN FRONT OF OUR BUILDING THAT IS ALSO USED BY THE RESIDENTS, WE WOULD RECEIVE PARKING OR NO, BECAUSE WE'RE REGISTERED, EVEN THOUGH BECAUSE OURS IS A VERY UNIQUE LOT.

IT'S A DRIVE THROUGH LOT THAT'S NOT ONLY NORTH GERTRUDA FACING BUT ALSO PCH FACING, RIGHT.

AND SO WHICH ALSO NOT ALL, BUT MANY OF THE RESIDENTS USE TO CUT THROUGH TO SAVE TIME TO NOT WALK AROUND THE WHOLE BLOCK.

SO THERE'S GIVE AND TAKES ON, ON A LOT OF PARTS.

AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IS WHAT THEY SAY TRUE? ARE YOUR, ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES PARKING ON THAT STREET? ARE YOUR EMPLOYEES? OUR EMPLOYEES YES, SIR. OUR EMPLOYEES DO NEED PARKING AND THEY DO PARK AND WE TRY TO HAVE OUR EMPLOYEES PARK AS CLOSE AS WE CAN TO THE CITY.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY WORKERS GET THERE PRIOR TO US.

I THINK THEY'RE THERE ABOUT APPROXIMATELY 6 A.M.

AND IT'S ABOUT FULL BY THE TIME WE GET THERE AT ABOUT 7:15.

[01:50:02]

SO THERE IS TOW TRUCK DROP OFF IN THE FRONT OF OUR BUILDING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE IS OUTSIDE THE FENCE.

THERE IS FOR OUTSIDE PARKING SPACES THAT WE DO HAVE TOW TRUCKS.

BUT IT IS TRUE THAT IF SOMEONE IS NOT DIRECTED, A TOW TRUCK NOT KNOWING WHERE THEY'RE GOING, FIRST TIME THERE, WE'LL PULL IN THE BACK. THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER? OKAY. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. NO, IT'S NOT FREE SPEECH. SORRY.

NO YOU CAN'T. SORRY. UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO CALL HIM UP.

NO. OKAY. LET'S SEE, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, SO I THINK WE HAVE TO VOTE UP BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING.

OH, COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TESTIMONY HERE.

AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY EVERYBODY WAS TESTIFYING PRETTY HONESTLY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL.

I THINK I, I VIEW THIS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT'S BEEN ARTICULATED BY MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, INSOFAR AS I THINK THAT THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE PREVENTING THE ACCESS THE COASTAL ACCESS BY HUGGING UP A LOT OF THE PARKING SPOTS.

AND WHEN THE, THE REPAIR SHOP ADMITS TO PARKING BOTH ITS REPAIRED CARS BEING REPAIRED AS WELL AS ITS EMPLOYEES ON THE STREET. I CAN SEE WHY THE RESIDENTS HAVE NO PARKING THERE.

I DO WONDER IF THERE'S A SOLUTION SHORT OF THIS PREFERENTIAL PARKING ZONE FOR THE AREA, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, A COMMERCIAL PARKING PROHIBITION OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

IS THERE ANYTHING SHORT OF A PIECE THAT WE COULD DO TO WARD OFF COMMERCIAL PARKING FROM THIS AREA AND KEEP IT FOR NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL, BUT ACTUALLY JUST COASTAL ACCESS FOR THAT MATTER? WE COULD BUILD A NEW CORPORATION YARD WITH ON SITE PARKING AND FREE UP ONE HALF.

THAT WOULD BE A SOLUTION, RIGHT? WE HAVE VERY LIMITED SPACE IN OUR PUBLIC WORKS YARD, AS A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING TO DIFFERENTIATE THE PURPOSE OF EACH CAR PARKED.

YOU KNOW, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN CAN PARK WITH IN ACCORDANCE TO THE POSTED REGULATIONS.

SO THAT INCLUDES EMPLOYEES OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.

YOU KNOW, A CITY HALL EMPLOYEE COULD COULD PARK THERE IF THEY WISHED.

AND I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EMPLOYEES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR OWN EMPLOYEES IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL.

THIS ISN'T JUST JUST POKE AND THE REPAIR SHOP.

THIS IS PREDOMINANTLY CITY OF REDONDO BEACH EMPLOYEES THAT ARE USING GERTRUDA.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. CAN YOU BRING BACK THE IMAGE YOU HAD? SO THIS IS I THINK THIS IS WHAT CONFUSED COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

IT SAYS FOR HOUR 8 A.M. TO 6 P.M., SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, RIGHT? WHERE I THOUGHT THAT VERBIAGE SAID ONLY DURING THE WEEKDAYS.

SO THAT'S THE FOUR HOUR LIMIT, 8 A.M. TO 6 P.M., SEVEN DAYS A WEEK IS THE EXISTING PARKING REGULATION ON THAT BLOCK.

SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE. I MEAN, THE ACTION HERE WOULD BE TO FOR THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING JUST DURING THE WEEKDAYS.

THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT. IT WOULD, IT WOULD REMOVE THAT FOUR HOUR LIMIT AND REPLACE IT WITH THE PERMIT.

ARE THEY, ARE THERE PARKING SPOTS ON CATALINA ON THE EAST SIDE OF CATALINA AT GERTRUDA? NO, NO, NO. THERE'S NO PARKING THERE. KNOW WHERE THE MURAL IS? NO, IT'S A THROUGH LANE. THERE IS PARKING, AS YOU KNOW, WEST OF GERTRUDA ACROSS CATALINA. AND THERE'S NO PARKING ON PCH IN FRONT OF THOSE BUSINESSES EITHER.

A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF SPACES. OKAY, BUT THAT STREET DOES HAVE FOUR HOUR LIMIT PARKING.

ON GERTRUDA. YES, THAT'S THE EXISTING REGULATION.

SO IF IT WAS ENFORCED, RESIDENTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LEAVE THEIR CAR THERE ALL DAY.

THAT'S ACTUALLY A SENTIMENT WE HEARD AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, IS THAT IF THE EXISTING FOUR HOUR LIMITS WERE ENFORCED, THAT WOULD AFFECT THE RESIDENTS AS WELL. WHICH IS WHAT THEY WOULD NOT WANT.

I WOULDN'T THINK. HAD SOMEONE NOT SPOKEN THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.

NO, THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. JUST A SMALL SECTION THAT.

COME ON DOWN AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. I'LL ALLOW IT IN THIS CASE.

COME TO THE MIC THOUGH. COME DOWN. YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE MIC.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. IT'S ONLY CLOSE TO THE CUL DE SAC THAT THERE'S THE FOUR HOUR LIMIT RIGHT IN FRONT OF FIVE, ONE FIVE, FIVE RIGHT NEXT TO ALL THE RESIDENTIAL AREA RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.

IT IS NOT LIMITED. IT'S LIMITED TO 72 HOURS, BUT THERE'S A SMALL SECTION AS THE CUL DE SAC GOES IS FOUR HOURS.

[01:55:02]

THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THERE'S A VOTE ON THE FLOOR.

SO WE'RE GOING TO I'M GOING TO TAKE THE VOTE ON THE ON THE ON THE MOTION.

AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE IT AFTERWARDS BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

YOU CAN'T VOTE ON ANOTHER MOTION UNTIL WE CLEAR THIS ONE.

IT'S OKAY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER WE VOTE.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE VOTE. ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? AYE. SORRY. SO THAT'S A 4 TO 1.

OKAY. NOW CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. ALL FOR? OH I'M SORRY. SORRY. WE GOT A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL FOR ANYONE OPPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. MOTION FOR AN EIGHT MINUTE BREAK.

RETURNING AT 8:10. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. A MOTION, A SECOND FOR AN EIGHT MINUTE BREAK.

SO THAT MEANS AFTER SHE READS. YEAH. ALL FOR ALL? AYE AND SHE HAS TO READ BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NUMBER CC-26.

SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED, BUT HISTORICALLY LOCAL.

COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. HERE. MAYOR LIGHT.

HERE. OKAY. ON TO N.1 DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE DRAFT USER FEE STUDY.

[M. ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS]

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR ON THIS FEE STUDY THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TONIGHT.

I ALSO HAVE OUR PLANNING MANAGER, SEAN SCULLY, WHO'S SITTING HERE.

THERE WAS NO ROOM FOR HIM UP AT THIS BENCH. AND I HAVE OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, LORENA SOULES.

AND I WANT TO THANK THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS.

AND I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH ERIC OVER THE PAST YEAR.

SO TONIGHT IS JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM. WE DON'T WE'RE NOT BRINGING FORWARD A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT NEW FEES.

WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY WITH SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE.

AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO SOME SPECIFICS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

WE WOULD ADOPT ANY CHANGES DURING THE BUDGET MASTER USER FEES? AND YEAH, TONIGHT'S REALLY SEEKING JUST GENERAL REACTION TO THE STUDY KIND OF ANALYSIS.

ANY QUESTIONS. AND THEN ANY DIRECTION ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGES WOULD THEN MIGRATE THROUGH OUR NORMAL FEE SCHEDULE PROCESS, WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE 27 OR 26-27 BUDGET ADOPTION, WHERE WE DO A NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARING OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE THAT USUALLY IS CONDUCTED IN JUNE. YOU MIGHT RECALL, THAT'S A STANDALONE ACTION THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO THE BUDGET.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. OKAY, SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ERIC JOHNSON TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION.

HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY THAT WE DID THAT HE DID.

AND THEN I WILL HAVE SOME CLOSING SLIDES ON IT.

SO GO AHEAD ERIC. GREAT. THANK YOU MARC. GOOD EVENING MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M ERIC JOHNSON FROM REVENUE AND COST SPECIALIST.

IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU TONIGHT TO PRESENT THIS COST OF SERVICES STUDY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE STUDY, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE OVERVIEW ON RCS AND MYSELF.

RCS WAS FOUNDED IN 1980 IN THE WAKE OF PROPOSITION 13 AND PROPOSITION 4.

SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE. I MYSELF HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1990.

SO 36 YEARS I'VE WORKED WITH ALMOST 150 DIFFERENT AGENCIES OVER THOSE 36 YEARS.

AND AND IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU HERE TONIGHT.

COINCIDENTALLY, I'VE WORKED WITH ERIC TWICE BEFORE TOO, SO I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH THEM.

ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT IS A COST STUDY? WHY ARE WE HERE? WELL, WHAT WE'VE REALLY DONE IS RECAST THE CITY BUDGET WITH A BUSINESS ORIENTATION.

WE DID THIS BECAUSE THE VOTERS TOLD US TO. IN 1978, THEY PASSED PROPOSITION 13, WHICH, AS WE ALL KNOW, LIMITED PROPERTY TAXES. BUT A YEAR LATER THEY PASSED PROPOSITION FOUR, WHICH SAID THAT FEES THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE COST REASONABLY BORNE, PROVIDING THAT SERVICE ARE NOT CONSIDERED TAXES.

THEY WANTED GOVERNMENT TO ACT MORE LIKE A BUSINESS AND KNOW ITS COST.

BUT WHILE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING DOES A GREAT JOB OF IDENTIFYING THE COST AND REVENUES FOR FUNDS, DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, ACCOUNTS, IT WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY WHAT IT COST TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.

[02:00:06]

SO WE HAD TO CREATE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. SO THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND TALK WITH STAFF AND IDENTIFY THOSE, THOSE TIMES, THOSE COSTS. AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT IN A MOMENT. SO THERE IS NO CITY COUNCIL SERVICE THROUGH HERE.

THERE IS NO CITY MANAGER SERVICE. IT'S LIKE WHEN YOU GO TO THE STORE AND YOU BUY A CAN OF CORN, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU BUY THAT CAN OF CORN, THAT THAT INCLUDES THE GROWER, THE SHIPPER, THE GROCERY STORE, THE DISTRIBUTOR, THE CLERK IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU KNOW THAT.

ALL THOSE COSTS ARE BUNDLED IN FOR THE END COST FOR THE CUSTOMER.

SO WE'VE DONE THAT SAME THING HERE. THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO CITY MANAGER SERVICE, NO CITY COUNCIL SERVICE.

THERE'S JUST THE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE FULLY LOADED, LIKE YOU WOULD DO WITH THE BUSINESS, BECAUSE YOU WON'T STAY IN BUSINESS VERY LONG IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR COSTS ARE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.

WE ALSO MATCH THOSE COSTS WITH REVENUES BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU WON'T STAY IN BUSINESS VERY LONG IF YOU AREN'T ABLE TO MATCH REVENUES WITH YOUR COSTS.

SO THIS WAS A THOROUGH PROCESS. WE DEFINITELY WANTED TO UPDATE THE CURRENT FEES, BUT WE ALSO ADD AND REMOVE REDEFINED FEES BECAUSE THE SERVICES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TODAY ARE DIFFERENT WHEN THIS FEE SCHEDULE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BOTH FOR PLANNING AND FOR BUILDING.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE, THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE COSTS REASONABLY BORNE OF PROVIDING THAT SERVICE.

AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE REVENUES, ESPECIALLY ON THE BILLING SIDE, TO TO IDENTIFY WHAT ARE THE REVENUES ON A LARGER SCALE THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED.

AGAIN, WE DID THIS BECAUSE THE VOTERS TOLD US TO. AS I MENTIONED, THEY PASSED PROPOSITION FOUR, 1979, WHICH DEFINES SERVICE FEES AS LIMITED TO THE FULL COST OF PROVIDING THAT SERVICE.

RENTS AND FINES ARE EXEMPTED FROM COST RECOVERY LIMITATIONS, SO YOU CAN CHARGE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OVER AND ABOVE THOSE COSTS.

THEN IN 1996, THE VOTERS PASSED PROPOSITION 218, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PLACED LIMITS ON THE CREATION AND UPDATE OF PROPERTY RELATED FEES. AND THEN IN 2010, THEY PASSED PROPOSITION 26, WHICH CODIFIED A LOT OF THE EXISTING FEE PRACTICES AS ARTICLE 13 C OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, BUT IMPORTANTLY, IDENTIFIED THAT FEES MUST BE FOR A SERVICE DIRECTLY BENEFITING THE FEE PAYER.

THAT PERSON PAYING THE FEE IS THE PERSON THAT'S SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE THE SERVICE.

SO HOW DO WE GO ABOUT DOING THIS? SO OUR FIRST STEP WAS SITTING DOWN WITH STAFF AND IDENTIFYING WHAT ARE THE SERVICES THAT ARE, SERVICES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TODAY AND HOW SHOULD THEY BE STRUCTURED? SO THERE WAS A LARGE RESTRUCTURING OF THOSE FEE SCHEDULES TO REFLECT THE SERVICES BEING HOW THEY'RE BEING PROVIDED TODAY, BOTH ON THE PLANNING SIDE AND ON THE BUILDING SIDE.

SO WE WORKED WITH THEM THROUGH THAT, IDENTIFYING THOSE SERVICES.

THEN WE WANTED TO IDENTIFY HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT FOR THESE VARIOUS DIFFERENT SERVICES.

SO WE, IN THE PLANNING SIDE, AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE VERY A LOT OF STEPS INVOLVED IN A PLANNING APPLICATION.

SO WE BROKE OUT THE STEPS INVOLVED AND, YOU KNOW, TAKEN IN THE APPLICATION, REVIEWING IT WITH THE APPLICANT, PREPARING A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, ALL THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT STEPS TO GET AN APPLICATION FROM START TO FINISH.

WE THEN LOOKED AT HOW MANY OF THESE THEY'RE DOING, SO THAT WE COULD IDENTIFY HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT IN TOTAL.

OUR GOAL AS PART OF THIS PROCESS IS TO IDENTIFY 100% OF STAFF COSTS.

THEY'RE EITHER SPENDING TIME ON OVERHEAD ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES THAT ARE BEING, THAT WILL APPLY BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT, OR THEY'RE SPENDING TIME ON SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS EITHER CHARGED A FEE OR IN THE CASE OF ADVANCED PLANNING OR OR COUNTING, COUNTER SERVICES ARE NOT CHARGED A FEE. SO WHAT WE'LL EVENTUALLY, AS WE TALK HERE, CALL TAX SUPPORTED SERVICES.

SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAME BACK AND WE SAID, OKAY, WE'VE ALLOCATED OUT MORE THAN 100% OF SOMEONE'S TIME, WE KNOW WE GOT A PROBLEM. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH MAKES SENSE AND FITS IN WITH THE TIME THEY HAVE AVAILABLE.

IF THEY HAVE ONLY 50% OF THE TIME ALLOCATED, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT THAT PLANNER IS SPENDING 50% OF THEIR TIME ON THESE APPLICATIONS? SOMETIMES IT'S YES. THEN WHAT ELSE ARE THEY DOING? WELL, THEY'RE WORKING ON ADVANCED PLANNING. THEY'RE WORKING AT THE COUNTER. THEY'RE WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, EMAIL SUPPORT. SO IT'S LOOKING AT EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY'S DOING, NOT JUST THOSE THINGS THAT ARE EITHER BEING CHARGED A FEE OR COULD BE CHARGED A FEE.

WE THEN DEVELOPED A FULLY ALLOCATED HOURLY RATE FOR EVERY POSITION.

SO WE LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL SALARIES THAT EMPLOYEES WERE MAKING. WE LOOKED AT THE FRINGE BENEFITS THAT THEY WERE MAKING.

WE APPLIED THAT GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES FROM THE CITY BUDGET.

WE LOOKED AT CITYWIDE OVERHEAD FROM THE CITY COST ALLOCATION PLAN.

AND THEN WE ALSO CALCULATED A DEPARTMENTAL OVERHEAD AS PART OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF FOR THE CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT BEING PROVIDED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, ALL THOSE ADDED UP TOGETHER GIVES US OUR BILLING RATE FOR EVERY POSITION, A FULLY ALLOCATED HOURLY RATE.

WE MATCH THAT UP WITH THAT TIME DETAIL. NOW WE KNOW WHAT ALL THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT SERVICES COST.

WE THEN WENT BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT TO EACH DIVISION, SAID HERE ARE THE COSTS, HERE'S THE CURRENT FEE,

[02:05:05]

SO WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY SUPPORTED VERSUS PERSONAL CHOICE SERVICES, COMMUNITY SUPPORTED SERVICES, OR WHAT I CALL TAX SUPPORTED SERVICES TYPICALLY BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

THINGS LIKE POLICE AND FIRE AND STREETS AND PARKS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

ALSO THE ADVANCED PLANNING FUNCTION. THEN THERE'S PERSONAL CHOICE SERVICES, WHAT I CALL FEE SERVICES.

THE CUSTOMER'S IDENTIFIABLE. THE SERVICE IS MEASURABLE.

IMPORTANTLY, IT BENEFITS AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP AND NOT THE LARGER COMMUNITY.

YOU CAN STILL DECIDE TO SUBSIDIZE THESE SERVICES BASED ON WHATEVER REASONS YOU FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE.

SO OBVIOUSLY, THE PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES THAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE TONIGHT, WHAT WE CONSIDER PERSONAL CHOICE OR FEE SERVICES.

SO ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS, I'M KIND OF A PICTURE PERSON IS YOU LOOK AT THESE CIRCLES THERE AND WE LOOK AT THE BIG YELLOW CIRCLE IN THE UPPER RIGHT.

TAXES ARE THERE TO SUPPORT THE CIRCLE BELOW IT.

COMMUNITY SUPPORTED SERVICES. FEES AND CHARGES, THE BLUE CIRCLE ARE THERE TO SUPPORT PERSONAL CHOICE SERVICES, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FEES DO NOT COVER THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT SERVICE, SERVICE IS BEING PROVIDED.

THE COSTS ARE OCCURRING. THE QUESTION IS WHERE IS THAT FUNDING COMING FROM? WELL, THE ONLY PLACE IT CAN COME FROM, WHICH IS TAXES.

SO FOR EACH OF THESE COMMUNITY SUPPORTED SERVICES.

THERE ARE ABOUT $1.2 MILLION IN SUBSIDIES FROM COMMUNITIES, FROM TAXES, TO SUPPORT CURRENT FEE SERVICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED TODAY BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE COSTS ARE OCCURRING.

QUESTION NOW IS WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THESE SERVICES, THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SERVICE OR THE TAXPAYER? IF THE TAXPAYER IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, THERE'S LESS MONEY FOR COMMUNITY SUPPORTED SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE AND FIRE AND STREETS AND PARKS.

SO THE REPORT, IF I WALK YOU THROUGH JUST HOW THE REPORT IS STRUCTURED, THERE'S A NUMBER OF PAGES OF TEXT IN THE BEGINNING, BASICALLY WALKING THROUGH A LOT OF WHAT I'VE JUST SAID, SELF EXPLANATORY TEXT.

THEN THERE'S A SUMMARY SCHEDULE AFTER THAT, WHERE FOR EACH SERVICE WE'VE IDENTIFIED WHAT ARE THE TOTAL COSTS? WHAT ARE THE TOTAL REVENUES BASED ON THE CURRENT FEES? AND THEREFORE WHAT'S EITHER THE SUBSIDY OR IN SOME CASES, THE CURRENT FEE IS HIGHER THAN THE COST.

AND YOU NEED TO LOWER THAT FEE IN THAT THERE'S AN OVERAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE LOWER.

SO WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO DO ON THE FEES THAT WE'RE ASKING TO INCREASE THE FEES THAT WE'RE ASKING TO DECREASE, YOU HAVE TO LOWER THOSE BECAUSE NOW WE'VE SHOWN THAT THE COST EXCEEDS THE FEES, EXCEED THE COST REASONABLY BORN.

SO ON EACH OF THESE THERE'S AN S NUMBER. SO IN THIS FIRST ONE HERE WE HAVE S001 MINOR ADMIN DESIGN REVIEW.

THE TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES THAT THAT THE FEE IS CURRENTLY BRINGING IN IS ABOUT 97 $98,000.

THE CURRENT COST ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR ALL THE APPLICATIONS BEING THAT ARE MINOR ADMIN DESIGN REVIEWS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR 132,000, THEREFORE A SUBSIDY OF 34,000 CURRENTLY. THEN IF YOU GO TO APPENDIX A WHERE WE HAVE THOSE SAME S NUMBERS AND HERE WE SEE S001, THAT MINOR ADMIN DESIGN REVIEW WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT FEES AND THE PROPOSED FEES SIDE BY SIDE.

AND THEN FOR EACH OF THESE IN APPENDIX B, WHICH FORMS THE BULK OF THE REPORT, FOR EACH SERVICE, EACH S NUMBER, THERE'LL BE THESE TWO MATCHING PAGES WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICE, WHAT THE CURRENT FEE IS, WHAT THE PROPOSED FEE IS, HOW MUCH IT'S CURRENTLY BEING SUBSIDIZED.

AND THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND PAGE, WHO'S INVOLVED IN PROVIDING THAT SERVICE? HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT? HOW MANY OF THESE ARE YOU DOING A YEAR AND WHAT'S THAT FULLY ALLOCATED COST, BOTH ON A PER UNIT BASIS AND TOTAL OR ANNUAL BASIS.

IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION ON THAT. HOW DO YOU GET THE UNIT TIME? I DID THIS FOR AS A FEDERAL CONTRACTOR AND OUR TIME SHEETS HAD TO BACK UP WHAT WE USED AS OUR UNIT COST, OUR UNIT ALLOCATION FOR TIME. MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR TIME SHEETS AREN'T THAT GRANULAR TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

RIGHT. AND THEY NEVER WILL BE, NOR FRANKLY, SHOULD THEY BE.

BECAUSE I'VE COME ACROSS CITIES WHERE THEY DO TRY AND TRACK IT AT THE PROJECT LEVEL.

AND WHEN I WENT TO, WELL, YOU CAN'T USE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT PERSON'S NEW AND YOU CAN'T USE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PERSON'S SLOW, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND WE GO THROUGH HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT.

AND WE SPENT MANY HOURS WITH STAFF AND REALLY WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH WITH ME GOING THROUGH HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT ON THIS APPLICATION YOU TAKE IN THE APPLICATION, WHO'S DOING THAT? OKAY, THAT'S TEN MINUTES OF THIS PERSON.

THEN IT GETS ROUTED TO THE PROJECT PLANNER. THEN THEY DO THEIR INITIAL REVIEW.

[02:10:01]

AND THEN IT GOES TO. AND SO WE DID THAT STEP BY STEP FOR EACH OF THESE APPLICATIONS TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT.

AND THEN AGAIN, WE PUT IT INTO THE KIND OF THE SOFTWARE.

HOW MANY OF THESE ARE YOU DOING? WE ADD THAT UP AND WE LOOK AT THAT TOTAL TIME AS AS A KIND OF A CHECK FACTOR TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, WE'VE ALLOCATED OUT 75% OF THIS PERSON DOING THESE THINGS.

ARE WE IN THE RIGHT BALLPARK? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE FROM YOU? WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, MARC? OH, YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO CONFIRM WHAT ERIC WAS STATING.

IT IS A REALLY METICULOUS PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH ALL THE STEPS.

I DO FEEL THAT THESE ESTIMATES ARE ON THE CONSERVATIVE END.

WE WENT THROUGH AND KIND OF REALITY CHECKED IT MULTIPLE TIMES.

WE'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS. SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THE NUMBERS ARE CONSERVATIVE IN TERMS OF THE TIME IT TAKES AT EACH ONE OF THESE STEPS.

THESE ARE AVERAGES THAT WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE APPLICATION.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO. AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR WHAT'S TYPICAL.

SO I ALWAYS TELL STAFF, IGNORE THE ONES THAT ARE PERFECT AND IGNORE THE ONES THAT YOU REALLY REMEMBER BECAUSE THEY WENT OFF THE RAILS.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT MIDDLE BIG MIDDLE PART OF THE BELL CURVE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW MUCH TIME IS BEING SPENT ON APPLICATIONS.

THERE WAS A SIDE BENEFIT TO THIS PROCESS ALSO, BECAUSE IT GOT US TO LOOK AT OUR OWN INTERNAL PROCESSES, AND WE ACTUALLY MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THOSE THAT HAVE HELPED IMPROVE EFFICIENCY IN PLANNING.

SO WHILE IT WAS A LITTLE A BIT OF A GRIND TO GO THROUGH EVERY STEP, THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS IN ADDITION TO THIS FEE STUDY.

WHEN I DID THAT, THAT WOULD BE CALLED WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS CALLED TLR.

THAT LOOKS ABOUT RIGHT WHERE TIME CARDS PROVIDE FIRM EVIDENCE, AND YOU CAN AVERAGE ACROSS MULTIPLE WORKERS AND MULTIPLE PROJECTS, RIGHT? TO DERIVE A REALISTIC AND SUPPORTABLE NUMBER.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS JUST GUESSTIMATES BY DIRECTOR.

IT'S I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THAT. I WOULD SAY THIS IS THIS IS SURVEY, SURVEY INTERVIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL STAFF TO DETERMINE AVERAGE TIME SPENT. YEAH. BUT IT'S WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO REPORT TO YOU, NOT WHAT'S RECORDED IN ACTUALLY.

PART OF IT ALSO IS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. SO EVERY CITY'S SERVICES ARE DIFFERENT, BUT DIFFERENT STEPS TAKE TYPICAL AMOUNTS OF TIME.

SO IF I'M HEARING, GOSH, WE'RE SPENDING TWO HOURS ON THE THE INITIAL REVIEW FOR A MINOR ADMIN DESIGN REVIEW.

OH REALLY? WHY, WHY? AND SO SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GET ASKED THAT WHY QUESTION.

IT'S LIKE, OH YEAH, REALLY? WHEN WE. YEAH. IT'S NOT.

OR SOMETIMES WHEN ASKED THAT WHY QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS, WHICH I WASN'T AWARE OF FOR THIS CITY. AND SO IT'S THOSE TYPES OF WHY QUESTIONS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE THAT WE TRY.

AND WHEN IT'S AN OUTSOURCED SERVICE, YOU JUST APPLY WHAT WE PAY THE.

TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S TYPICALLY FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE, IT'S GOING TO BE OUTSOURCED.

YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN FOR FOR BILLING AND SAFETY, OF COURSE, THIS BILLING SAFETY IS A LOT DIFFERENT IN HOW THEY THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE AND HOW THEY'RE CHARGED FOR.

WE'RE WE'RE TRANSITIONING FROM A VALUATION BASED NEW CONSTRUCTION FEES PERMIT SYSTEM TO A SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED AND TYPE OF, OF, OF CONSTRUCTION. TRYING TO BE A LITTLE MORE FAIR.

IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT EITHER ONE IS LEGAL AND EITHER ONE IS FINE AS LONG AS YOU COST IT OUT.

BUT WE'RE FINDING THAT FRANKLY, MORE AFFLUENT COMMUNITIES WHERE THE COST OF BUILDING IS HIGHER, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THAT TAKES MORE INSPECTION TIME.

SO THINK OF, YOU KNOW, MARBLE COUNTERTOPS THAT ARE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY MORE TIME TO INSPECT.

SO THAT CAN DRIVE THE COST OF VALUATION UP WHILE NOT NECESSARILY DRIVING UP THE TIME YOU SPEND PLAN CHECKING OR INSPECTING.

SO WE TRANSITIONED TO MORE OF A SQUARE FOOTAGE SYSTEM THAT SHOULDN'T THAT, THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT ISSUE.

TRYING TO AGAIN, MAKE IT MORE FAIR. YEAH. AND I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE WITH VALUATION IS IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

AND THE APPLICANTS WILL GIVE YOU A VALUE THAT WILL AFFECT THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE.

THIS IS MORE OF A STANDARDIZED WAY OF APPLYING IT AND IT'S ACTUALLY MORE OF THE NORM IN MOST CITIES.

I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT WE NOTED THAT HERMOSA AND MANHATTAN ARE USING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SYSTEM.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY COMMON. AND THERE'S A ICC TABLE THAT WAS ATTACHED.

THAT'S INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL THAT PROVIDES STANDARDS FOR IT.

SO THAT'S THE REPORT. OUR GOAL WAS, AGAIN, TO PROVIDE THE FULL COST FOR THE VARIOUS SERVICES BEING PROVIDED TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.

WE'VE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF TO MAKE FEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EVERY SERVICE THAT AGAIN, WE FEEL IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT COULD WOULD WORK AT THE COUNTER ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS, BUT IT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHICH SERVICES SHOULD BE CHARGED THE FULL COST AND WHICH SERVICES SHOULD BE SUBSIDIZED WITH TAX DOLLARS.

[02:15:01]

AND I JUST WANTED TO WRAP THIS UP BY TOUCHING ON A FEW PARTICULARS ABOUT THE FEE STUDY.

THERE WERE A FEW PLANNING FEES THAT WE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IN MY OPINION, WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE FULL THE ACTUAL COST, THE APPLICATION FEE ENDS UP BEING SOMEWHAT HIGH.

IN PARTICULAR FOR SOME OF THE BUSINESS RELATED APPLICATIONS LIKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.

SO STAFF DID HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT FOR THOSE.

IF WE ARE TO ADJUST THE FEE, THAT IT BE AT 50% OF WHAT RCS HAD RECOMMENDED SO THERE WOULD BE A A PARTIAL SUBSIDY.

AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE TABLE SHOWS WHAT THE CURRENT FEE IS FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ONES.

THE PROPOSED AND WHAT THE REDUCTION WOULD BE AS STAFF RECOMMENDS IT WAS BRINGING.

BRINGS IT CLOSER IN LINE TO WHAT'S EXISTING. SOME ARE STILL A LITTLE BIT HIGHER SUCH AS THE APPEAL, THAT'S I THINK THAT'S FIVE TIMES A LITTLE OVER FIVE TIMES AS MUCH.

THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO SUBSIDIZE SOME OF THESE FURTHER.

BUT HAVING GONE THROUGH EVERY SINGLE PLANNING FEE AND LOOKING AT THE BEFORE AND AFTER, THESE WERE THE ONES THAT REALLY STOOD OUT AS JUMPING THE MOST DRAMATICALLY.

AND THE COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER SUBSIDIZING THE REMAINDER OF THEM.

AND WE CAN GO INTO FURTHER DETAIL TO THIS MEETING OR A FOLLOWING MEETING.

WE'RE FAIRLY IN LINE WITH WHAT THE CURRENT FEES ARE.

AND AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, THE REVENUE FOR THE DEPARTMENTS AVERAGED ABOUT 4.1 MILLION, THE EXPENSES AROUND 4.9, THAT'S CLOSE TO THAT 1 MILLION GAP THAT ERIC HAD MENTIONED.

I WILL NOTE THAT THIS FISCAL YEAR HAS BEEN A BIT OF AN ANOMALY, AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO FULLY FACTOR IT IN BECAUSE IT'S NOT COMPLETED.

BUT WE'VE OUTSOURCED MORE PLAN CHECKS THAT'S DRIVEN UP THE, THE COST, THE EXPENSES.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN MORE ACTIVITY WHICH HAS DRIVEN UP THE REVENUE AS WELL.

SO THIS IS REALLY BASED ON SEVERAL OF THE PRIOR YEARS, NOT SO MUCH THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN A BIT OF AN ANOMALY ON BOTH AREAS.

AND WITH THESE PROPOSED FEE UPDATES AS MENTIONED BY ERIC, IT WOULD GENERATE APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION OR POTENTIALLY A LITTLE MORE IN ANNUAL REVENUE.

IT WOULD HELP HELP CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN, THE REVENUE AND THE EXPENSES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND IT COULD ALSO HELP SUPPORT FUTURE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH ENHANCED SERVICE DELIVERY, SUCH AS THE OUTSOURCING OF THE BUILDING PLAN CHECKS, WHICH WE'VE HAD GOOD SUCCESS WITH. AND THEN I DID WANT TO NOTE, AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT WITH RCS, THERE WAS A SECOND PART OF IT WHERE THEY, THE CONTRACT HAS THEM EVALUATING OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

AND IT WAS TO DO A NEXUS STUDY ON THOSE IMPACT FEES.

WE ONLY HAVE THREE AS IT STANDS NOW. ONE IS THE QUIMBY FEE, WHICH IS $25,000 PER NEW SUBDIVIDED UNIT.

WE HAVE THE PUBLIC ART FEE, WHICH IS 1% OF THE PROJECT VALUATION.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE VERY NOMINAL PARKS AND RECREATION FEE, WHICH IS $430 WHICH REALLY PALES IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER TWO.

SO MANY OF THE OTHER CITIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA AND LOCALLY ARE EVALUATING THEIR IMPACT FEES IN LIGHT OF MANY OF THESE STATE HOUSING MANDATES, LOOKING AT WAYS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COSTS BEING BORNE BY THE CITY FOR THESE HOUSING PROJECTS.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER DIRECTING US TO BRING THAT AGREEMENT BACK WITH RCS.

SO WE LOOK AT EXPANDING THE SCOPE BEYOND EVALUATING THE EXISTING FEES THAT WE HAVE, BUT LOOKING AT POTENTIAL NEW IMPACT FEES AND MAYBE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE EXISTING FEES, BECAUSE PART OF WHAT THEY DO IS EVALUATE THE LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY OF THOSE.

AND IT WOULD HELP TO BE ABLE, ESPECIALLY AS WE GET MORE HOUSING PROJECTS, TO JUSTIFY WHAT OUR RATE IS FOR THE QUIMBY FEE OR THE ART IN LIEU OR THOSE ARE REALLY THE TWO MAIN ONES. SO WITH THAT, THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE REPORTS, PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE FEE STUDY AND THE PROPOSED FEE UPDATES THAT WERE COVERED IN ERIC'S PRESENTATION, AND THEN ALSO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE AGREEMENT FOR AN UPDATED IMPACT FEE STUDY.

AND WITH THAT, WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

OKAY. CAN YOU GO BACK ONE? SO I TOTALLY SUPPORT THIS.

WHEN I WAS AT US MAYORS CONFERENCE, MULTIPLE CITIES THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA COMMENTED THAT THEY'RE DOING NEXUS STUDIES OR THEY'VE ALREADY DONE NEXUS STUDIES TO RECOUP SOME OF THE IMPACT THAT THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY HAD NO SAY OVER HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BALANCE REZONING. SO, AND I KNOW BEVERLY HILLS IS A BIG ONE ON THAT.

[02:20:02]

SO I, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS. I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT OUR CURRENT FEES TO SEE THAT THEY'RE IN LINE, BUT ALSO LOOK FOR OTHER AREAS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IMPACT ON ROADWAYS AND, AND OTHER OTHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE CAN'T BALANCE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY SAY IN THE IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I TOTALLY SUPPORT THAT. IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE I FORGET WHAT YOU CALLED IT, BUT THE FEES THAT YOU REDUCED, I MEAN, ALREADY OUR, OUR PROCESS AND OUR FEES FOR APPEALING ARE TOUGHER WITHIN OUR CITY THAN IT IS TO GO TO COASTAL COMMISSION.

AND I KNOW THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, FROM HAVING DONE BOTH BEFORE I WAS IN THIS, IN THIS POSITION WE'RE TOUGHER PROCESS WISE AND WE'RE ALSO MORE EXPENSIVE. FAR EASIER FOR ME TO APPEAL TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION THAN THIS.

I DON'T WANT RESIDENTS WHO HAVE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH THE DECISION DOWN LOWER TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO APPEAL A DECISION.

IT JUST DOESN'T IT SEEMS ANTI DEMOCRATIC. WHEN YOU PUT THIS KIND OF LEVEL OF FEE ON, ON, ON AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF PEOPLE TO APPEAL SOMETHING. IT SHOULD BE MAYOR. I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S. WELL, IT WAS 450 WHEN I DID IT. NOW IT'S 550.

YEAH. THIS IS ONE PROCESS FEES FOR APPEAL. THIS IS THIS IS PRECISELY WHY MARC'S RAISED THIS IN THIS SLIDE.

THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS IT'S VERY TRADITIONAL FOR CITIES TO SUBSIDIZE THE PROCESS.

THE PROCESS IS EXPENSIVE, AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY. AND YOU CAN IMAGINE, AS YOU SEE HERE, THE COST OF THIS SERVICE IS QUITE HIGH.

STAFF REPORTS, CLERKS TIME, ATTORNEY'S TIME. AND THERE'S A LOT INVOLVED WITH APPEALS, BUT IT IS EFFECTIVELY OUR LOCAL DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

AND THIS IS, THIS IS A COMMON AREA FOR TAX SUBSIDY APPEAL.

THIS IS PEANUTS. BUT FOR A RESIDENT TO SIT THERE AND SAY, I DISAGREE WITH THIS.

THIS IS THIS IS ONEROUS. THE ONLY CHALLENGE IS I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO. I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T EITHER. YEAH.

SAYING THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS FROM THE TWO SIDES ONE IT'S EASY, THE OTHER IT'S MORE DIFFICULT.

THE OTHER THING WAS WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THE FEES, YOU KNOW, I WAS SHOCKED, YOU KNOW, ON THE ON, LIKE THE YOU REPLACE A WATER HEATER WITH A LIKE WATER HEATER.

AND IT'S 151 BUCKS. I MEAN, THE WATER HEATER ISN'T MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

AND IT'S THREE CONNECTIONS. YOU KNOW, WATER IN, HOT WATER OUT AND A GAS AND WE'RE CHARGING 106.

I THINK ALL THAT'S GOING TO DO IS FORCE PEOPLE TO DO IT UNDER THE TABLE.

I MEAN, THAT'S A MAJOR PERCENT OF THE COST OF A WATER HEATER FOR THREE DIFFERENT CONNECTIONS.

AND I COULD SEE IF WE'RE GOING FROM A TANK WATER HEATER TO TANKLESS BECAUSE THAT'S DIFFERENT SIZE, YOU KNOW, NATURAL GAS LINES, IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF EXHAUST SITUATION.

BUT TO JUST SIT THERE AND REPLACE LIKE FOR LIKE THAT SEEMS ONEROUS.

WELL, THE COST OF A WATER HEATER, RIGHT? NO, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

I THINK THAT'S THE, THE DIFFERENCE HERE, RIGHT? IS IT'S NOT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TYPE OF REPLACEMENT.

SO IF YOU COME IN WITH A TANKLESS WATER HEATER OR YOU COME IN WITH AN UPSIZED WATER HEATER AND YOU NEED YOU NEED NEW UTILITY LOAD TO SUPPORT IT.

THERE'S A REASON YOU WOULD HAVE A PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

IF YOU'RE REPLACING YOUR OLD 75 GALLON TANK WITH A NEW 75 GALLON TANK.

AND, AND TO YOUR POINT, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS CUTTING AND REINSERTING.

IT MAY SEEM A LITTLE BIT SILLY, BUT THAT'S NOT THIS DOESN'T REALLY DIFFERENTIATE IN THAT STRUCTURE.

BUT WE COULD DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS WE COULD.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO DISTINGUISH. I THINK WE COULD GO THROUGH THIS AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE MORE MINOR ONES AND MAKE SURE IT'S A MORE MODEST ADJUSTMENT, MAYBE A PERCENTAGE. WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION MARK IS COULD WE ACTUALLY HAVE DISTINGUISHING FEES FOR WATER HEATERS BY TYPE OF UNIT THEN ARE WE JUST ARE WE DISCOURAGING RESIDENTS TO UPGRADE TO THE UPGRADE TO A MORE EFFICIENT.

ET CETERA. THAT'S THEIR OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.

WELL, AND THE BUILDING CODE IS THE PLUMBING CODE IS CHANGING.

SO WHEN YOU'RE REPLACING THE TANKS ARE ALL GOING AWAY.

AND NOW HEAT PUMPS ARE WHAT'S COMING IN. SO IF YOU'RE BUILDING NEW CONSTRUCTION, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING A HEAT PUMP.

BUT EVENTUALLY TANKS ARE ALL GOING AWAY AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE ELECTRIC AT THIS AT A CERTAIN POINT.

SO. DEFEATED THAT BILL. IT'S, IT'S IN THE BUILDING CODE.

THERE WAS A BILL THAT FORCED ALL NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES TO BE PHASED OUT BY 2030, AND THAT GOT DEFEATED.

BUT THE BUILDING CODE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BILL. PLUMBING AND THE BUILDING CODE STILL APPLY.

AND THAT'S STATE CODE. SO INCLUDING ENERGY. SO HEAT PUMPS AT 220 VERSUS.

YEAH, THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I MEAN, RIGHT. NEWER, I STILL THINK WE COULD SAY LIKE FOR LIKE VERSUS IF IT'S A CHANGE, THEN IT'S MORE AND SAME WITH YOUR ROOF. IF YOU'VE GOT YOUR ROOF DESIGNED AND ALL STRUCTURED FOR THE WEIGHT YOU HAVE ON IT AND YOU'RE NOT CHANGING WHAT'S GOING ON THE ROOF,

[02:25:05]

YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT ROOF CAN SUPPORT THE WEIGHT.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING FROM SHINGLES TO SHINGLES.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS IF THERE'S NOT A PERMIT REQUIREMENT, THEN THERE'S NO KNOWN INSPECTION REQUIREMENT.

I DIDN'T SAY THERE SHOULD BE NO PERMIT. I'M SAYING THE COST SHOULD BE DIFFERENT.

NOW THAT'S THAT'S INCONSEQUENTIAL TO A REROOF.

SO I WOULDN'T ARGUE THAT ONE. BUT SOME OF THESE SEEM AWFUL HIGH.

AND I THINK WE'LL JUST ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO UNDER, FLY BELOW THE RADAR AND HOPE AND LIKELY NOT GET CAUGHT.

AND WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME OF THAT TODAY.

WELL, I KNOW YOU HAVE IT TODAY BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW YOU NEED A PERMIT TO REPLACE YOUR WATER HEATER LIKE FOR LIKE.

YEAH, THERE'S PEOPLE HERE THAT HAVE DONE THAT. NOT UNTIL I SAW THIS REPORT.

ANYWAY, YEAH, WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TONIGHT IS THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY.

I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY ROOM FOR REFINEMENTS OR ADJUSTMENTS.

I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE ARE GOING UP QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY, EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT ON THOSE PARTICULAR PLANNING ONES, STAFF DID MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT, THAT IT'S TOO HIGH.

I THINK ON THE BUILDING ONES, AS YOU SEE FROM THIS TABLE, IT'S NOT IN MOST CASES, NOT DRASTIC INCREASES, BUT IN SOME LIKE THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT, COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT THAT'S DOUBLING.

AND I KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL, WE WANT TO LOOK TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESS.

SO THESE ARE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY. WE'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK.

I WILL SAY MAYOR ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE APPEAL FEE.

I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS EXERCISE WITH TWO OTHER CITIES AND CITY COUNCILS.

AND IN BOTH CASES, THOSE COUNCILS ALSO HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED THE APPEAL FEE.

THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE PROCESS AND PUTTING IT AT TOO HIGH OF A LEVEL.

SO IT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A GENERAL THEME WITH THE APPEAL FEE THAT THEY USUALLY COMES IN HIGH IS QUITE A BIT OF WORK, BUT THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT WANT TO BAR A RESIDENT OR SOMEBODY FROM APPEALING.

SO THIS GIVES US TIME TO GO THROUGH IT AND BE READY WHEN IT COMES UP FOR THE BUDGET ON THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE.

SO WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? YEAH, I MEAN SOME OF THIS GENERAL FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL NOW.

I MEAN, IF MORE OF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THESE FEES, THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME AS WE PROCEED.

YOU KNOW, A GOAL HERE, OF COURSE, AS WE EVALUATE THIS IS TO CONSIDER LOWERING OUR SUBSIDY TO THE DEPARTMENT SERVICES SO WE CAN IMPROVE OUR GENERAL FUND POSITION. OKAY. SO THAT'S PART OF WHY WE'RE DOING THIS AND TO ALSO ENSURE THAT THERE IS CLEAR NEXUS AND THAT WE ARE NOT INAPPROPRIATELY CHARGING FEES FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF SERVICE. SO APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY FEEDBACK TODAY IS WELCOMED. BARRING THAT FEEDBACK, WE WOULD LIKELY PROCEED WITH OUR OWN RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE IS IN THE 26-27 BUDGET PROPOSAL. THE MORE YOU INSIGHT YOU CAN ALL GIVE, I THINK THE EASIER THAT PROCESS BECOMES.

SO SUMMARIZING AND I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING SO LONG.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE NEXUS STUDY TO LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT FEES MORE THAN WHAT WE'VE GOT TODAY TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT. SO OUR CURRENT THREE PLUS PLUS OTHER.

YEAH. AND AND SUBSIDIZING HEAVILY THE, I WOULDN'T RAISE THE AMOUNT TO DO AN APPEAL ON EITHER OF THE, THE NUMBERS. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. I HAD A QUESTION JUST IN TERMS, YOU MENTIONED THAT OTHER CITIES LIKE MANHATTAN AND HERMOSA ARE BASED ON A SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS. HOW DO THESE LET'S JUST SAY THE PROPOSED 50% REDUCTION ON THOSE FEES, HOW DO THOSE FEES COMPARE WITH OTHER CITIES? ARE THEY IN LINE SIMILAR OR. OH, FOR THE PLANNING FEES, THE PLANNING ENTITLEMENT.

SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT PAGE THAT HAD THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED.

YEAH, THE PLANNING FEES ARE A LITTLE TRICKIER JUST BECAUSE EVERY CITY KIND OF DEFINES IT DIFFERENTLY.

SO EVERY CITY HAS A NON RESIDENTIAL CUP. A LOT OF CITIES DON'T EVEN BREAK OUT THEIR RESIDENTIAL VERSUS NONRESIDENTIAL, AND THOSE THAT DO HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS AS TO WHAT THEY REQUIRE.

SO IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING PLANNING FEES ACROSS CITIES.

OKAY. BUT WITH THE BUILDING CODE, IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE ALL CITIES APPLY UNIFORM A STANDARD CODE.

SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR ACROSS THE BOARD. THE PLANNING PROCESS IS REALLY UNIQUE TO THE JURISDICTION.

OKAY. SO IT'S HARD TO COMPARE. YEAH. WHICH AS YOU SAW FROM THE EARLIER CHARTS IS A MUCH SMALLER OVERALL REVENUE CATEGORY FOR US.

THE HIGH PREPONDERANCE OF OUR REVENUE GENERATED COMES THROUGH BUILDING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOT IT. I FORGOT ONE QUESTION.

[02:30:01]

MOST OF THE PLANNING INVOLVES STAFF REPORTS AND REVIEW TIME AND MEETINGS.

NOT SO MUCH THE THE HANDLING AND PROCESSING OF IT THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY SEEING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROCESS IS THROUGH THE OUTSOURCING OF THE BUILDING PLAN CHECKS.

AND WE'RE MEETING THESE TARGETS. WE'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THE, THE TWO WEEK TURNAROUND TIME BY QUITE A BIT.

SO. SHOULD YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT? WELL, WE LOOKED AT FOR THIS STUDY WAS THE COST BORNE BY THIS. WELL, WE DID LOOK AT THE CLERICAL PROCESSING TIME FOR EACH OF THESE.

SO WE DID LOOK AT HOW MUCH TIME IT'S SPENDING THEM NOW.

AND SO I DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THAT INCLUDED CHANGES BECAUSE OF THE NEW SYSTEM, BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY HOW MUCH TIME HAS BEEN SPENT.

NOW. WHEN IT COMES TO THE OUTSOURCING THAT. SO THAT'S BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE FEES THAT WE WOULD BE COLLECTING.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAYING THE CONSULTANTS. SO THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY GO UP TO AN EXTENT.

SO I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED ONE.

SORRY. MAYBE I'M NOT BEING CLEAR. I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THE INTERVIEWS, RIGHT. WAS IWORK FULLY FUNCTIONING AT THAT TIME OR WAS IT STILL IN DEVELOPMENT? AND IS IT. IT WAS FULLY FUNCTIONAL. SO I WORK WAS NOW GETTING OUR OUTSOURCING ISN'T NECESSARILY INCORPORATED INTO THIS, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S ACCELERATING OUR TIME. WELL, THAT'S BUT THAT'S THAT'S DIFFERENT FOR DETERMINING FEE STRUCTURE.

RIGHT? YEAH. WELL WE'RE NOT DETERMINING JUST TO BE CLEAR.

DIFFICULT CONTRACT PROCESS DOESN'T. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THAT.

OKAY. FEES. FEES ARE GENERATED BY CONTRACT COSTS.

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU DIRECTOR WIENER, FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

FIRST QUESTION RELATIVE TO BUSINESSES IS, IS THERE ANYTHING FROM AN INTERNAL STANDPOINT THAT WE CAN DO TO CUT OUR COSTS OF PROVIDING THESE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC EITHER? AND BY THE WAY, HOW HAS USING OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS HELPED OR HURT US IN THE EFFORT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC? I, I GUESS ON THE FIRST ONE, WHEN IT COMES TO CUTTING COSTS, I'LL JUST, AND I'LL ANSWER THE SECOND PART OF THAT AFTER.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE PLANNING SIDE OF THINGS, I THINK THERE IS IN THE SENSE THAT A LOT OF BUSINESS USES REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE ARE FAIRLY EXPENSIVE. IF WE MADE MORE USES PERMIT BY RIGHT OR ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, WHICH WE DO PLAN ON BRINGING AN ITEM TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

I THINK THAT WILL REDUCE THE OVERALL COST TO BUSINESS.

ON THE BUILDING SIDE, IT'S REALLY JUST KIND OF BASED ON SET RATES THAT WE CAN SET.

I THINK IT'S STILL REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT RATE IS GOING TO BE AND HOW MUCH OF AN ADJUSTMENT WE HAVE, I THINK IT'S STILL A GOOD PRACTICE TO BASE IT ON SQUARE FOOTAGE.

IT GETS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED WITH REGARDS TO OUTSOURCING OF THE BUILDING PLAN CHECKS, I WOULD SAY THAT HAS INCREASED THE, THE COST, THE EXPENSE TO THE DEPARTMENT.

IT'S BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEEPER BENCH OF STAFF INDIVIDUALS REVIEWING THESE PLANS.

WE'RE TURNING THEM AROUND FASTER. WE'RE GETTING, IT'S PAID FOR BY OR IT'S COVERED BY THE FEES.

RIGHT. BUT WE'RE GETTING A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THAT IS.

I THINK THAT'S A POINT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. THE CON, WHEN WE OUTSOURCE PLAN CHECK, THE FEE IS ALREADY THE FEE.

WHAT WE'VE AGREED IS TO PAY 60% EFFECTIVELY OF THAT FEE TO THE CONTRACTOR.

SO THAT PROCESS ISN'T DRIVING OUR FEE STRUCTURE.

WHAT THE CONTRACT BENCH IS DOING IS ALLOWING US TO PRODUCE AND, AND PROCESS MUCH MORE, WORK MUCH MORE QUICKLY.

WE'RE ACTUALLY TAKING A BIT OF A HAIRCUT IN REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE SHARING SOME OF OUR REVENUE WITH THE CONTRACTOR IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE PERFORMANCE FOR OUR APPLICANTS.

SO WHEN WE ARE INCREASING THE PERMITTING FEES AND ARE WE GOING TO KICK 60% OF THAT NEW INCREASE RATE TO THESE CONTRACTORS? OR ARE WE GOING TO PAY THEM THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT THAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON COLLECTING ON THEM? UNDER OUR CURRENT AGREEMENT STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD RECEIVE THE 60% OF THE NEW RATE.

NOW, AS WE NEGOTIATE NEW AGREEMENTS, MAYBE LONGER TERM AGREEMENTS, AND PERHAPS CONSIDER THAT RECONSIDER THAT WE COULD MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IF THAT IS THE SORT OF INDUSTRY STANDARD, I WOULD SAY. OKAY, I GET THAT.

AND MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN'T GET IT TO 50 OVER 50, BUT MAYBE 55, 45.

BUT I MEAN, THEY AGREED TO DO THIS WORK FOR US.

THEY'RE CLAMORING AT ICA TO DO THIS WORK FOR US.

[02:35:02]

SO YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD NEGOTIATE IT AND TRY TO BE AS, AS TOUGH AS POSSIBLE TO KEEP AS MUCH DOLLARS HERE AS POSSIBLE.

RIGHT. AND WE MAY EVENTUALLY HAVE TO DEPENDING ON WORK FLOW, WE MAY HAVE TO RECALIBRATE HOW MUCH WE OUTSOURCE AND HOW MUCH WE RETAIN IN-HOUSE.

SO WE EARN HIGHER FEES TO COVER COSTS. IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S NOT A, IT'S A VARIABLE GAME BASED ON PRODUCT.

BUT YOU HAVE INCREASED EFFICIENCY IN TURNAROUND, RIGHT? BASED ON. EXCEPTIONALLY. OKAY. SO I DON'T WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT.

ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. JOHNSON, IS HOW WOULD YOU DO A NEXUS STUDY AS TO THE PUBLIC ART FEE? BECAUSE WE HAD FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT $1 MILLION IN THE BANK FOR PUBLIC ART, AND THEN WE FINALLY ALLOCATED IT.

I DON'T THINK WE'VE SPENT $1 MILLION, BUT WE'RE SPENDING IT.

WE'RE TRYING TO PROLIFERATE IT, SO WE'LL HAVE GREAT USE OF IT. BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT? I IT'S MY PARTNER THAT WILL BE DOING THE NEXUS STUDY, THE IMPACT FEES, HE'S THE IMPACT FEE EXPERT. BUT I KNOW HE FEELS THAT PUBLIC ART, IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH A DEFENDABLE NEXUS.

SO THEN DO WE HIRE YOU TO DO THAT? WELL, WE WOULD WE WOULD HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AS TO IS IT REALLY AN IMPACT FEE OR IS IT AN, AN IN LIEU FEE THAT'S NEGOTIATED WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE CLIENT? BECAUSE WHAT IS THE IMPACT? WHAT IS THE, THE DEFICIENCY IN THE CURRENT COMMUNITY IN ITS ART IN PUBLIC PLACES? SO THOSE WOULD BE THE DISCUSSIONS WE WOULD HAVE WITH STAFF AND, AND.

ALTERNATIVELY, WE JUST CONTINUE TO COLLECT IT UNTIL AND UNTIL, UNLESS SOMEBODY CHALLENGES IT. AND THEN WE DEFEND THE CHALLENGE IF IT COMES UP.

RIGHT. YEAH. AND I THINK THE PURPOSE FOR THE FEE, RIGHT WHEN WE ESTABLISHED IT WAS IT IS AN IN LIEU FEE, RIGHT? THE CONDITION IS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC ART AS AS AN OBLIGATION OF YOUR ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON YOUR OWN, YOU CAN SIMPLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE CITY'S PUBLIC ART FEE.

THAT'S THAT IS CURRENTLY THE STRUCTURE OF IT.

AND THEN AS TO QUIMBY, JUST TRYING TO SORRY, TRYING TO MOVE ALONG.

I APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE. AS TO QUIMBY. WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, ALTA VISTA PARK.

WE'RE INVESTING. WE'RE GO. I THINK THE GOAL IS $1.2 MILLION FOR PICKLEBALL COURTS AND THE LIKE, BUT WE'VE ONLY INVESTED $400 TOWARDS THAT KIND OF FUND.

SO WITH THAT, WILL THAT TAKE PROJECTS THAT WE NEED TO FUND INTO CONSIDERATION? THE NEXUS STUDY? TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S THE IMPACT IS BECAUSE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT.

YOU CAN'T MAKE UP FOR CURRENT DEFICIENCIES ON THE BACK OF NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT'S, IT'S ONLY ONLY THEIR IMPACT THAT THEY'RE FUNDING.

ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD APPROVE AND I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO IT TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE RECOVERING THE FULL COST OF OUR SERVICES. WHERE YOU INDICATED TO PROPOSE A FEE REDUCTION OF 50% TO HAVE A FEE REDUCTION OF 50% EXCEPT FOR AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPEAL REDUCED THAT TO A FEE OF $600 EACH.

WHICH IS JUST A SLIGHT TWEAK FROM WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW.

AND I'LL SAY THAT I'M NOT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT IF A DEVELOPER BUILDING HOUSING GETS WRONGFULLY DENIED BY OUR PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT THE PERSON DOESN'T JUST SAY, WOW, THIS IS A MULTI THOUSAND DOLLAR FEE TO, TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND GET WHAT I DESERVE TO HAVE UNDER THE LAW, UNDER STATE LAW. AND SO THEREFORE, I'M JUST GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THEY PROBABLY HAVE TO EXHAUST THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, I THINK WE'D HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A CD IF SOMEBODY GOT DENIED AND DID NOT APPEAL.

SO I THINK WE WANT TO KEEP THE BARRIERS TO APPEAL LOW.

WOULD YOU TAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT WHERE ALMOST AS IF IF SOMEONE APPEALS BUT THEY'RE DENIED THEIR APPEAL, THEY'D LOSE THEIR APPEAL THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY A HIGHER FEE OR PAY THE PROPOSED FEE.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN OR WE CAN'T. WE CAN'T DO THAT. I DON'T THINK SO.

YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, THOUGH. IT'S NOT ALWAYS THAT BLACK AND WHITE EITHER.

AND I'D SUPPORT I'D SUPPORT AUTHORIZING STAFF TO EXPLORE ALL THOSE NEXUS STUDIES AND AND PURSUE A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY. CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? IS THERE I MEAN, THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE NEXUS STUDIES.

THERE IS HOW MUCH IS IT? WILL THAT COME BACK FOR OUR APPROVAL? AND YES, IT WOULD. WE'RE TO THE POINT THAT'S DOWN BELOW.

HERE WE WE HAVE GENERALLY ANTICIPATED PROVIDING NEXUS FOR OUR CURRENT FEES.

THAT'S KIND OF IN THE CONTRACT STRUCTURE THAT WAS PRE-NEGOTIATED.

THERE IS GOING TO NEED TO BE AN AMENDMENT. IF WE START EXPLORING NEW FEES, WE'LL HAVE TO PROBABLY DEFINE A SCOPE.

HOW MANY NEW FEES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? KIND OF WHAT GENERAL AREA.

SO WE'LL NEED SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH THAT. AND WE'LL NEED TO COME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT WITH RCS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE.

[02:40:05]

SPEAKING WITH ERIC TO AMEND IT WOULD LIKELY BE 50,000 TOTAL.

SO 20 WOULD NOT QUITE DOUBLE THE COST WE DO. WE HAVE IT IN OUR, I THINK THE ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION WAS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THE 30,000 AMENDMENT.

SO I, THE ANSWER IS YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL FOR ME.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AM I CORRECT THIS WAS A ONE FISCAL YEAR STUDY OF OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT? IT WAS FISCAL YEAR 24-25. IT'S A SNAPSHOT IN TIME.

WE DID UPDATE THE 25-26 SALARY AND BENEFIT COST.

BUT THE, THE NUMBER OF EVENTS OR WHATEVER IT WAS.

YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF, WE DO LOOK HISTORICALLY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO LOOK PROSPECTIVELY.

SO WE ASKED STAFF, YOU KNOW, YOU DID TEN OF THESE LAST YEAR, BUT IF THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY DONE TEN THIS YEAR.

SO WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE MORE LIKE 20. WE WILL UPDATE THAT TO TO REFLECT WHAT THE TRENDS ARE SHOWING FOR THIS COMING, THIS CURRENT AND LOOKING FORWARD. BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE FEE IMPACTS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE SAYING WE WANT TO CHANGE THE FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU, IF YOU GO TO THE PLANNING, THE PLANNING FEES THERE IS ONE. SO THE TOTAL IMPACT OF INCREASING THAT PLANNING FEE FOR BOTH OF THOSE IS LESS THAN $10,000 OUT OF THE 1.2 MILLION WE'RE TRYING TO RECOVER.

SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO OUR BOTTOM LINE BY CHANGING, YOU KNOW, GOING TO THE FULL IMPACT, THE 50% LEAVING IT AS IT IS.

I'D BE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING, LEAVING IT AS IT IS JUST BECAUSE OF AN EQUITY STANDPOINT.

BUT ALSO IT'S A RARE EVENT. IT'S ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR.

SO I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, REALLY WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON THE THINGS THAT ARE 10% IMPACTS, 20% IMPACTS THE BIG THINGS AND GIVING US AN EASIER TABLE TO LOOK AT THAT LOOKS AT THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T THE EASY I, I COULD GET SOME OF IT, BUT NOT ALL OF IT FROM LOOKING AT THOSE. I'D JUST BE HESITANT IN SAYING, WELL, THIS IS THE COST AND THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND FIND OUT THAT WE ARE 200% MORE EXPENSIVE THAN EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE AREA, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FEE INCREASES ARE STILL REASONABLE.

AND THE THE DEVELOPER IMPACT FEES WE'VE GOT INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, WHETHER IT BE SEWER, ROADS, WHATEVER WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT WHEN THE STATE COMES IN AND SAYS YOU NEED TO ADD ANOTHER 2700 HOUSES, HOW DO WE SUPPORT THAT? SO I THINK IT DEFINITELY MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THAT THERE.

WITH A STUDY THAT'S BEEN BACKED UP THAT'S DEFENSIBLE LEGALLY.

AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE FULL FEE, PARTIAL FEE, WHATEVER AT THAT POINT.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO SEE THAT COMING BACK. I WILL SAY ONE COMMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONCERN ABOUT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH OTHER CITIES BY MOVING TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION, I THINK WE WILL NATURALLY BE MORE IN LINE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.

THERE'LL BE MORE CONSISTENCY, AT LEAST ACROSS THE BEACH CITIES.

THAT WOULD BE IN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. MAKES SO MUCH MORE SENSE THAN THAN VALUE.

LIKE YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE MARBLE COUNTERTOPS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ASK US, WELL, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO MAKE AN APP? IT'S LIKE, WELL, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO BUILD A HOUSE? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT. SO BASING THAT ON, ON THE COSTS, YOU HAVE PEOPLE FUDGING THE NUMBERS AND SAYING, OH YEAH, WE'RE USING THE CHEAP STUFF AND MAYBE THEY DON'T.

YEAH, I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE A THAT YOU NEEDED A PULL PERMIT FOR A, FOR A WATER HEATER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE KNEW THAT. I'VE REPLACED, I'VE REPLACED LOTS OF WATER HEATERS OVER THE YEARS, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THEM WAS AS PART OF A BIGGER CONSTRUCTION.

SO I BET YOU MY CONTRACTOR DID PULL A PERMIT FOR IT WHEN THEY DID THAT.

BUT, THAT'S SUCH A SMALL ONE AS WELL THAT I'M NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT.

THAT LITTLE THING. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE ROOF PERMIT ISN'T LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURE OF THE ROOF.

IT'S MORE MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING AND, YOU KNOW, GETTING PETE TUCKER UP ON THE ROOF AND HAVING HIM LOOK AT STUFF AND HOW MANY BOARDS DID THEY REPLACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I PAID ONE OF THOSE LAST YEAR, WENT THROUGH ALL THAT AND I CAN SEE THE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REASONABLE,

[02:45:05]

YOU KNOW, NO BIG DEAL ON THAT. BUT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS THAT WILL COME BACK AS PART OF THE PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE.

BUT THIS IS HELPFUL DIRECTION. WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN WE CAN ARGUE THAT PROVIDE DIRECTION.

BUT YEAH. PROVIDING DIRECTION. I'M GOOD WITH THE MOTION AS AS PRODUCED.

THAT'S IT FOR ME. OKAY. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR DOING THIS.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME IN THE WORKS, AND I KNOW THAT, YEAH, A LOT ON YOUR PLATE AND YOU GOT AROUND TO IT AND I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB.

I APPRECIATED THE METHODOLOGY. IT'S IMPERFECT, BUT IT'S SOUND.

AND YOU KNOW, ARGUABLY PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO THANKS FOR WALKING US THROUGH THAT. I ALSO APPRECIATED THAT SOME OF THESE FEES WENT UP AND A NUMBER OF THEM WENT DOWN.

SO IT WAS A BALANCED APPROACH. I THOUGHT IT STRUCK THE RIGHT TONE OF REASONABLENESS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT TONIGHT.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S REVENUE THAT IS EARNED BY THE CITY AND IT WILL HELP FROM A FISCAL PERSPECTIVE.

YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER I SAW WAS $1 MILLION AND THAT'S MONEY THAT WE NEED.

AND I SEE OUR TREASURER'S HERE TONIGHT AND HE'S ALL OVER THIS THING.

AND THEN IT KIND OF BECOMES A LITTLE BIT LIKE A RUBIK'S CUBE. YOU KNOW, OUR SQUEEZING THE BALLOON WHERE IF YOU BRING THIS CHARGE DOWN AND THEN THAT ONE HAS TO COME UP. AND I DO THINK YOU'VE STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCE THERE.

AND I'M RELUCTANT TO GET IN THERE. AND NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT WE GET IN THERE TONIGHT OR LATER AND START TRYING TO PICK APART EACH AND EVERY FEE.

AND THAT THAT COULD JUST BE MAYBE TOO MUCH TO TRY TO DO.

YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE MAYOR WAS IRKED A LITTLE BIT WHEN I SAW THE, THE ROOFING PERMIT FEES AND THE WATER HEATER FEES.

AND THAT WAS MY INITIAL REACTION. AND THEN KIND OF THINKING THROUGH IT A LITTLE BIT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR A PERMIT, IT'S SOMETIMES SIGHT UNSEEN.

YOU KNOW, THE FIRST TIME THERE, YOU CAN'T ANTICIPATE THAT THIS IS JUST A CLEAN LIKE FOR LIKE SUBSTITUTION OR ON THE ROOFING ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT THINGS. AND YOU KNOW, ONE THING I'VE COME TO APPRECIATE IN MY TIME HERE AT THE CITY IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A HIGH QUALITY TEAM.

WE HAVE A HIGH QUALITY TEAM. AND THERE'S EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, EXPENSES FOR STAFF THAT WE'VE APPROVED AND, AND OTHER EXPENSES. SO YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY A RESIDENT, AS WE ALL ARE WHO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EXEMPTING OURSELVES, WE WOULD BE PAYING THESE FEES. SO WITH THAT, I'M, I'M PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

YOU KNOW, THERE IS ONE ITEM I DO FEEL QUITE STRONGLY ABOUT AND I THINK THE MAYOR ARTICULATED IT WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI AND OTHERS IS THE APPELLATE FEE. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ONE AREA MAYBE WE SHOULD SUBSIDIZE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC NUMBER IS.

IT'S PROBABLY THAT. ESPECIALLY TO COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER'S POINT, IF IT'S NOT A HUGE CHUNK OF THAT REVENUE THAT WE'RE RELYING UPON.

IF WE HAVE A SITUATION LATER WHERE FOR WHATEVER REASON, THESE START COMING IN FAST AND FURIOUS AND MAYBE THAT COULD HAPPEN.

PERHAPS WE CAN MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT. I'M OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER NUMBER THE THE FOLKS UP HERE ARE IN FAVOR OF FOR THOSE APPEAL FEES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FOR CITY COUNCIL.

AND I'M OKAY IF, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE MORE, IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT A LITTLE LOWER FOR THE REASONS THAT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY LASTLY ON THE IMPACT FEES, I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT WHAT EVERYONE HAS ALREADY SAID.

I'M IN FAVOR OF DOING THOSE STUDIES. THERE'S A COST TO IT, BUT I THINK IT'S PRUDENT ON BOTH CATEGORIES, EXISTING FEES THAT WE HAVE NEXUS, AS WELL AS EXPLORING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND JUST LOOKING AT IT AND AND INFORMING OURSELVES. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE REASONS, I SUPPORT WHAT I BELIEVE IS COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI MOTION AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

I JUST NEED A SECOND. YEAH, YOU NEED A SECOND.

STILL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THERE IT IS. GOT A SECOND? AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE ONE THING. YOU KNOW, WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED THE NEXUS STUDIES FOR EACH OF OUR EXISTING FEES.

AND, OF COURSE, ANY NEW FEE. I WANT THE COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND THERE IS SOME RISK IN THIS EXERCISE.

[02:50:06]

ONCE WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE WILL NEED TO ADHERE TO THE CEILINGS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY.

WITH THAT IN MIND, DO YOU RECOMMEND WE KIND OF HOLD OFF FOR NOW AND SEE WHERE THINGS ARE AT? MAYBE FOLLOW THE PROGRESSION OF A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE THAT'S BEING IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER CITIES, OR DO YOU RECOMMEND WE NONETHELESS GO FORWARD AT THIS TIME? I YEAH, FOR OUR EXISTING. I THINK THE REALITY IS IF WE WERE TO LEAVE IT ALONE, WE ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE.

SO THERE'S RISK AND THERE'S RISK IN BOTH SCENARIOS.

AND WE FEEL ULTIMATELY THE NEXUS FEE IS THE BEST WAY TO SUBSTANTIATE WHATEVER VALUE IS APPROPRIATE.

AND IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY, WHETHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND I WOULD RATHER US NOT BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE LATER. JUST ON THE PURE BASIS THAT WE HAVEN'T TAKEN THE TIME TO CREATE THE NEXUS, SO I'D RECOMMEND IT, BUT I DO WITH. I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, THE FEE CAN BE AS HIGH AS $37,000. IT, IT MAY COME BACK AND SAY THE FEE SHOULD BE $23,480.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. COULD BE ANY NUMBER.

AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. DO YOU HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI MOTION FIRMLY IN MIND? WOULD YOU LIKE A NO, NO. I THINK IT'S IT'S CLEAR.

OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING IF WE WENT THROUGH AND ACTUALLY ALLOCATED THE COST OF ACQUIRING NEW PARKLAND, THAT QUIMBY FEE IS GOING TO GO DOWN. NO, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT.

I MEAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE THOUGHTS I'VE HAD. BUT IT WAS AS IT WAS.

AS MENTIONED, IT'S IT'S THE IMPACT THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS ON THE CITY.

IT'S IT, IT WOULD EXACERBATE THE CURRENT SITUATION, BUT IT CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO MAKE UP MAKE UP FOR.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. I STILL THINK GOING TO YOU KNOW, PRICE OF LAND AROUND HERE IS VERY EXPENSIVE.

AND WE NEED MORE OPEN SPACE. THAT'S CLEAR. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS? NO CARDS. NO CARDS. WAYNE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WHILE IT'S CERTAINLY TEMPTING TO RECOUP SOME COSTS THAT I KNOW THE CITY DOESN'T INCUR.

FOR EXAMPLE, NEW CONSTRUCTION. WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING A 40 OR 49 UNIT COMPLEX, IT DOES PUT A BIG IMPACT ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO REMEMBER A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS WHERE THEY'RE BEING WHERE THEY'RE BEING PUT UP. THE SEWER LINES AND WATER CONNECTIONS WEREN'T DESIGNED FOR THAT. SO IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY, A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY TO KEEP THAT IN OPERATION.

AND GUESS WHO GETS STUCK WITH THE BILL FOR THAT? THE CITY. SO I UNDERSTAND IT'S TEMPTING TO RECOUP SOME OF THOSE COSTS, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. THIS COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RAISED FEES ACROSS THE BOARD ON PARKING TWICE.

YOU'VE ALSO INCREASED FEES ACROSS THE CITY SUBSTANTIALLY.

AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, IF I RUN FOR ELECTION, I MIGHT NOT WANT TO TELL THAT TO THE PUBLIC OR HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.

BUT ONE THING I DID WANT TO SAY IN THE FEES I DID, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE MAYOR.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE APPEAL COST.

IF YOU PUT THAT TOO HIGH, YOU'RE GOING TO GET, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM.

AND AS WE SAW PERSONALLY, THE THERE WAS ENOUGH IMPEDIMENTS IN THAT PROCESS TO MAKE IT GO THROUGH.

WHEN I TURNED THE PAPERWORK AND IT WAS FOR JIM LIGHT AND THEY WERE.

I WAS BEING COMPELLED TO ACTUALLY PRESENT THE APPEAL ON BEHALF OF JIM, WHICH DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL BACK IN THAT TIME.

BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THE FEE SCHEDULE WHICH I THAT I THOUGHT WERE A LITTLE UNUSUAL. IF YOU'RE DOING A SINGLE FAMILY ADDITION, IT WENT FROM $5,600 TO 14,459. THAT'S A BIG JUMP.

THAT'S A LOT. COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS.

NOW, THIS IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION GET PROJECTS THAT COME UP WHERE TENANTS ARE PUTTING OUT A LOT OF MONEY TO TRY TO GET IT OPEN, A NEW BUSINESS. AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT FROM 6700 TO 12,887, THAT'S A BIG IMPACT AS WELL. SO I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT TOO HIGH.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE AN IMPEDIMENT. AND THE OTHER ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP WITH REGARD TO YOU KNOW, IF A PROJECT IS DENIED, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY TIME RECENTLY THAT'S HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED, I THINK VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THAT CAME THROUGH BECAUSE OF THAT DENIAL, WE GOT A BETTER PROJECT.

WE GOT 24 MORE PARKING SPACES, WE GOT A MORE SAFER RAMP THAT CAME INTO THE BUILDING, AND THAT IMPROVED THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO THAT WAS IMPORTANT. AND I'M GLAD THAT THE DEVELOPER SAW THAT THAT WAS THE NEED TO DO THAT.

AND I THANK THE COUNCIL FOR MAKING ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

SO, YOU KNOW JUST SOME CONSIDERATIONS. AGAIN, IF YOU LACK THE THE, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU SERVE TOO HARD, THEY MAY PUSH BACK AT SOME POINT. AND YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT RAISING IT TOO HIGH.

[02:55:02]

ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE. ANYONE ONLINE? NO ONE ONLINE AND NO ECOMMENTS.

OKAY. WITH THAT, I'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. GOING TO ITEM N.2. THIS IS HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING.

YES. THIS WILL BE OUR MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW.

THIS WILL BE LED OFF BY STEPHANIE, OUR FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM JESSE REYES, OUR CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER AS WELL. STATUS OF OUR CIP.

AND THEN I WILL IDENTIFY A FEW WHAT WE'RE CALLING COST CONSIDERATIONS.

SEEKING SOME GENERAL EARLY INPUT ON THOSE MATTERS AS WE HEAD INTO THE 26-27 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHILE WE GET SITUATED HERE WE WILL BE PULLING UP A POWERPOINT.

AND WITH THAT, STEPHANIE, WHY DON'T YOU KICK IT OFF? ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

STEPHANIE MEYER, FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT OUR MID-YEAR REPORT.

JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR PRESENTATION. WE'LL START OFF WITH OUR ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE, WALK THROUGH OUR RECOMMENDED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE CHANGES, DISCUSS PROPOSED DECISION PACKAGES, REVIEW OUR CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS UPDATE. WE'LL PRESENT SOME 26-27 COST SAVINGS IDEAS FOR YOUR INPUT, REVIEW BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT AND END WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU.

SO GOING BACK TO SEVERAL WEEKS AGO WHEN WE LOOKED AT OUR 24-25 YEAR END BALANCE, WE ESTIMATED STARTING THE YEAR ENDING THAT YEAR, STARTING THIS YEAR WITH ABOUT 3.15 MILLION BALANCE.

WE'LL ADD IN, ADDING IN OUR ADOPTED BUDGET AND THE APPROPRIATIONS THAT COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THROUGH DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR, GETS US TO OUR STARTING BALANCE BEFORE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THIS EVENING, WHICH REMAINS AT ABOUT 3.15 MILLION.

SO OUR TOTAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR YOU THIS EVENING ARE ABOUT 3.4 MILLION.

WE HAVE SOME OFFSETS IN TAXES AND OUR LEASE RENTAL, OFFSET BY INCREASES TO CHARGES FOR SERVICE AND SOME ONE TIME REVENUES.

AND I'LL GO THROUGH IT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IN LATER SLIDES.

ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING ABOUT $7.7 MILLION INCREASE TO EXPENDITURES.

SIMILAR TO THE REVENUE SIDE, THE INCREASES HERE ARE LARGELY IN SEVERAL CATEGORIES.

THESE REFLECT OUR INTERNAL SERVICES INCREASE IN AND CONTRACTS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

WE ALSO HAVE A $2.3 MILLION INCREASE REPRESENTING ANTICIPATED PAYMENTS TO OUR LENDER HEALTH AUTHORITY FUNDED RESERVE RELATED TO OUR HOTEL SITE SPECIFIC TAX AGREEMENT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON OUR REVENUES.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROXIMATELY $600,000 REDUCTION TO OUR TOTAL TAX CATEGORY.

THIS INCLUDES INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAX AND PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX, OFFSET BY SOME REDUCTIONS THAT WE HAD FORESHADOWED FOR YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO WITH CARRYOVER.

IN PARTICULAR FOR OUR SALES TAX IN TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, THESE ARE TRENDS THAT ARE THE REDUCTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE SEEING STATEWIDE AND KIND OF IN THE REGION. THERE'S SOME SENSE THAT THAT ESPECIALLY FOR TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, OUR HOTEL SECTOR MAY BE HIT A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

BUT OVERALL, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REGION IN OTHER REVENUE.

WE HAVE SOME PROPOSED INCREASES. THESE ARE PRIMARILY IN DEVELOPMENT FEES.

AS THE COUNCIL HAS HEARD BEFORE, WE HAVE UNANTICIPATED FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY THIS YEAR.

SO WE ANTICIPATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THAT.

WE ALSO HAVE HIGHER THAN EXPECTED AMBULANCE FEES, PARKING METER REVENUE.

AND THIS IS SLIGHTLY OFFSET BY SOME ANTICIPATED DECREASES TO OUR RENTAL REVENUE.

WE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR SOME ONE TIME UNANTICIPATED PAYMENTS HERE.

AND THEN FINALLY, WE'RE RECOMMENDING A $1.4 MILLION INCREASE FOR THE CITY'S ANNUAL OVERHEAD COSTS.

THIS ITEM IS OFFSET BY EXPENSE TO THE GENERAL FUND.

SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A NET ZERO. AND THE INCREASE IS ABOUT 9%.

AND IT LARGELY REFLECTS PERSONNEL AND GENERAL OPERATING COSTS.

ON THE SPENDING SIDE, WE HAVE TWO MAJOR CATEGORIES OF ITEMS TO LOOK AT.

ONE, AS I MENTIONED IS OUR PAYMENT TO THE CITY'S AUTHORITY FUNDED RESERVE.

[03:00:01]

AND THEY ALSO HAD SOME HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED EXPENSES FOR BRAND REQUIRED REFRESH.

BOTH OF THESE MEAN THAT WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE RETAINING FURTHER TOT FROM THOSE PROPERTIES THIS YEAR.

IN INTERNAL. YES. GO AHEAD. SO I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT.

AND ALL OF THE TOT IS SOFTER THAN WE ANTICIPATED, BUT ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES, THE MARINE AVENUE PROPERTIES, WE'RE BACK TO WHERE THEY'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING ANY TOT TO THE GENERAL FUND, IT'S ALL GOING INTO THAT SEPARATE RESERVE ACCOUNT.

YES. OKAY. WELL, I THINK MORE I THINK MORE SPECIFICALLY NOW WITH OUR CURRENT AUDITORS REQUEST, WE ARE RECEIVING TOT BUT WE NOW HAVE THIS ASSOCIATED EXPENSE BACK TO THE AUTHORITY FUNDED RESERVE.

SO THE NET IMPACT THIS YEAR IS ROUGHLY ZERO. IT'S SLIGHTLY.

WE HAD, WE HAD WE COLLECTED A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AT THE START OF THE YEAR THAT WE HAVE RETAINED FROM THEM, WHICH IS GREAT.

BUT YEAH, WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE RETAINING ANY OF THE REVENUE.

SO WE'LL RECORD IT AS REVENUE, BUT WE'LL HAVE AN OFFSETTING EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THIS $2.3 MILLION EXPENDITURE CHANGE.

SO THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT'S AFFECTING OUR BUDGET AT MID-YEAR THIS YEAR IS WE NOW HAVE TO BOOK THAT AS AN EXPENSE PER CLAS RECOMMENDATIONS.

OUR PRIOR AUDITOR WANTED US TO NET THE IMPACT.

SO OUR TOT LOOKED ARTIFICIALLY SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT WAS A NET PROJECTION.

NOW YOU'LL SEE FULL GROSS RECEIPTS OFFSET BY AN EXPENDITURE TRANSFER OUT IN THE EVENT THAT THEY'RE DRAWING ON THE AFR, WHICH THEY ARE DOING THIS YEAR. AS STEPHANIE POINTED OUT, DUE TO THE THE TWO ISSUES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. I WILL SAY THOUGH, ON A POSITIVE NOTE, THE CURRENT PROJECTION AND THE REFRESHES ARE NOW LARGELY COMPLETE. THAT THAT IS NOW IN THE REAR VIEW.

THE CURRENT PROJECTION IS THAT WE WILL SEE NEXT FISCAL YEAR WE SHOULD NOT BE IMPAIRED IN THIS WAY, ASSUMING THE MARKET DOESN'T DO ANYTHING WORSE THAN IT ALREADY IS, RIGHT? I MEAN, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET TO BUDGET TIME FOR NEXT YEAR.

WE'LL ACCOUNT FOR IT THEN. WELL, I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS THAT EVERY YEAR WE ALMOST GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE SHOULD START RECEIVING.

BUT THEN THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS AND WE NEVER ACTUALLY SEE A NET PAYMENT.

SO BECAUSE OF THE REFRESH OF, YOU KNOW, THEIR PIP AND EVERYTHING ELSE SO.

WELL, AND THEY'RE DONE WITH THEIR REFRESHES OF PIPS. THERE'S A, THERE'S A, WE HAVE DONE A LONG LITANY OF AUDITING OF THEIR PROCESS.

THEY'VE COMPLETED THREE BRAND REFRESHES OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

AND OF COURSE, POST COVID, THEY COMPLETELY DEPLETED THE FUND, WHICH PUT US IN A $3 MILLION HOLE.

SO THEIR THEIR CONCERNS NOW ARE ARE LARGELY DUE TO JUST GENERALLY WEAKER DEMAND IN THE AREA.

THAT'S NOT ALLOWING THEM TO GET OVER THAT HUMP.

OKAY. THEIR FORECAST FOR NEXT YEAR IS, IS MUCH BETTER.

BUT WE HAVE, STEPHANIE AND I ARE AT A POINT NOW WHERE WE ARE FAR MORE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INCORPORATING THAT CASH FLOW INTO OUR PROJECTIONS UNTIL WE SEE IT AND CAN BELIEVE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO OUR NEXT LARGE ITEM ARE, IS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY'S INTERNAL SERVICES AT ABOUT 2.9 MILLION. THIS IS LED BY A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO OUR SELF-INSURANCE FUND.

THIS REFLECTS OUR WORKER'S COMPENSATION PREMIUMS AND CLAIMS. WE LOOK AT ABOUT A FIVE YEAR AVERAGE AND THIS NUMBER REFLECTS A LITTLE BIT OF CATCH UP FROM 23-24 BECAUSE WE COMPLETED OUR AUDIT QUITE LATE. SO I EXPECT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WHILE I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COSTS ARE GOING TO DECREASE, I EXPECT THEM TO LEVEL OFF. SO WE WOULDN'T SEE KIND OF THIS, THIS LARGE INCREASE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS YEAR.

WE HAVE A SMALLER INCREASE TO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE.

THIS REFLECTS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD ANTICIPATED WHICH IS TO CATCH UP WITH SOME PRIOR YEAR ACCELERATED VEHICLE PURCHASES.

AND IN OTHER AREAS, WE'RE PRIMARILY SEEING JUST REGULAR OPERATIONAL INCREASES RELATED TO PERSONNEL COSTS.

AND FINALLY, AT THIS POINT IN THE YEAR, WE LOOK AT OUR ESTIMATED JUST SPENDING PROGRESS THE AREA THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO PROJECT IS SALARIES BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

WE SHOULD HAVE FAIRLY CONSISTENT SPENDING. SO WE ESTIMATE ABOUT $2.4 MILLION IN SALARY SAVINGS THIS YEAR.

THIS PRIMARILY REFLECTS BUDGET METHODOLOGY CHANGES THAT WE MADE FOR THIS CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AND JUST KIND OF REGULAR STAFFING TURNOVER.

THIS IS JUST A VIEW OF THE ENTIRE CITY COST FOR INTERNAL SERVICES.

THE $2.9 MILLION IS THE GENERAL FUND SHARE. BUT THE OTHER FUNDS CONTRIBUTE AS WELL.

[03:05:01]

AND OUR NEXT HIGHEST OVERALL NUMBER IS THE CITY OVERHEAD.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S LARGELY JUST OUR, OUR ONGOING OPERATIONAL PERSONNEL COSTS.

WELL, I WOULD SAY THERE'S ANOTHER DELTA THERE TOO.

THE OVERHEAD FIGURE IS, IS LARGELY DEPENDENT ON OUR INTERNAL OVERHEAD DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL SERVICES, HUMAN RESOURCES, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ETCETERA.

THERE. IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORIC AVERAGES, THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT WAS RUNNING EXTREMELY LEAN IN PRIOR YEARS.

WE ARE NOW CAUGHT UP ON STAFFING. SAME IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ETCETERA.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE FORMULA, YOU'LL SEE IT'S BASED ON ACTUALS.

YOU'LL SEE SIGNIFICANT YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASES WHEN YOU HAVE FULL STAFFING, WHEREAS YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD PARTIAL STAFFING IN THE PRIOR YEAR, THAT'S NOW SHOWING THAT BIG DELTA. SO THIS IS, THIS IS NOT UNANTICIPATED GIVEN OUR TRENDING OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

AND NEXT WE HAVE SOME DECISION PACKAGES. JUST KEEPING IN MIND THE GENERAL FISCAL SITUATION, WE HAVE VERY LIMITED GENERAL FUND DECISION PACKAGES AND BOTH ARE FULLY OFFSET.

THE FIRST IS TO JUST RECOGNIZE THE ACTUAL FORMAT OF OUR PARAMEDIC ASSESSMENT FEE CONTRACT.

WE HAD ANTICIPATED PAYING THAT THE FEES KIND OF OUT OF THE REVENUE, AGAIN, NETTING FROM THE CITY REVENUE.

THAT'S NOT HOW WE'RE DOING IT. SO WE ARE PROPOSING A CHANGE THAT INCREASES BOTH REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SO WE CAN ACTUALLY PAY THE CONTRACT.

THAT PROGRAM HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE AUGUST, AND WE'VE TRACKED IT VERY CLOSELY.

WE'VE SHOWN VERY CONSISTENT REVENUE THE PAST FEW MONTHS AND WE ANTICIPATE FULLY MEETING OUR BUDGET IN THAT AREA.

WE ALSO HAVE RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR OUR CONTRACT BUILDING PLAN REVIEW.

THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ITEM THAT WE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.

AGAIN, RELATED TO CONTRACTING OUT PLANS AND THAT REQUIRING LARGE KIND OF ONE TIME PAYMENTS THAT ARE MORE THAN OFFSET BY REVENUES.

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING ANOTHER $950,000 INCREASE.

THOSE, THE EXPENDITURE INCREASE, WE WILL SEGREGATE THAT FROM OTHER COSTS SO THAT THE ONLY THING WE CHARGE, THE ONLY EXPENSES WE CHARGE, THERE WILL BE MORE THAN OFFSET BY THOSE REVENUES.

AND OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING THAT WE DON'T SPEND WOULD RETURN TO FUND BALANCE.

AND WE WON'T CONTINUE THAT MOVING FORWARD. FOR OTHER FUNDS, WE PRIMARILY HAVE ADJUSTMENTS RELATED TO EXTERNAL FUNDING.

WE HAVE OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 25-26 PROGRAM.

THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THOSE ITEMS. WE HAVE SOME PROPOSITION 68 GRANT FUNDING FOR PARKS.

WE HAVE SOME SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURE A FUNDS FOR OUR VETERANS PARK LIBRARY PROJECT, WHERE THE COUNTY AWARDED US IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE HAD ESTIMATED IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET. AND FINALLY, WE'RE ASKING TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING FROM THE JOHN PARSONS FUNDS FOR THE LGBTQ STATUE.

WE ARE PROPOSING STAFFING REORGANIZATIONS IN IT AND PUBLIC WORKS.

BOTH OF THOSE ARE FULLY OFFSET. I T BY REDUCTIONS TO CONTRACTUAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS WITH OVERALL ADJUSTMENTS TO TO THEIR STAFFING. WE HAVE A REGULAR REFUSE RATE ADJUSTMENT.

WE ALWAYS PROPOSE THIS AT MID-YEAR BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA AVAILABLE EARLIER.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS OFFSET BY REVENUE. AND FINALLY, WE HAVE TWO VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND PURCHASES.

ONE IS AN ADVANCE PURCHASE FOR A BACKHOE, WHICH IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THAT VEHICLE.

AND THEN WE'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR A FUEL ISLAND.

THIS IS IN ADDITION TO EXISTING FUNDING AND IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.

AND OUR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR BOTH OF THESE PURCHASES.

BEFORE WE LEAVE THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE STAFFING REORG.

ARE WE ACTUALLY REORGANIZING? YEAH, WE'RE REORGANIZING PERSONNEL BUT WITHIN EXISTING RESOURCES.

SO WE'RE NOT IT'S NOT A NET IMPACT. IT'S A CHANGE IN PERSONNEL STRUCTURE.

SO IN THE CASE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WE'RE TAKING A SERIES OF POSITIONS AND IN SOME CASES MODIFYING THEIR SPAN OF CONTROL BOTH UP AND DOWN. IN THE SAME, IN THE CASE OF THE IT DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A VACANCY IN IT, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REPOSITION AS IN A MORE OF A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY. WE USED TO HAVE A SUPERVISORY POSITION.

WE, WE UNDERFILLED THAT YEARS AGO. WE'D LIKE TO RESTORE THAT SO WE CAN CREATE A LITTLE MORE SUPPORT IN THE DEPARTMENT, BUT WE'RE FINDING OTHER AREAS IN THE DEPARTMENT TO CUT TO OFFSET THAT COST.

SO WHAT'S KEY ABOUT BOTH OF THESE REORGS IS THAT THEY ARE COST NEUTRAL OR SAVINGS OR CREATE SAVINGS TO THE GENERAL FUND.

[03:10:08]

THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND PURCHASES. SO YEAH, WHAT WE'RE AS STEPHANIE, I UNDERSTAND.

YEAH. BACKHOE. THE FUEL. THE FUEL. ARE WE FIXING OUR CURRENT? YES. WE NEED TO REPAIR OUR CURRENT FUEL LINE.

SO WE'RE NOT GETTING A NEW ONE. NO, IT'S A REPAIR OF OUR CURRENT FUEL LINE.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE LONGER THE FUEL ISLAND IS DOWN, THE MORE OFFSITE THE FUEL PURCHASE.WE HAVE TO MAKE, WHICH IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR BULK ITEM EXPENDITURE.

OKAY. SO FOR THE GENERAL FUND, INCLUDING ALL OF OUR RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS AND THE DECISION PACKAGES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE ARE OFFSETTING WE ANTICIPATE ENDING THE FISCAL YEAR WITH ABOUT $1.27 MILLION IN AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE.

WE DO NOT RECOMMEND TAKING ANY ADDITIONAL ACTION AT THIS TIME.

THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A STARTING POINT FOR OUR 26-27 BUDGET PREPARATION AND JUST THINKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE NEEDS THERE.

AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JESSIE TO DISCUSS OUR CIP UPDATE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL JESSE REYES, CIP MANAGER, GIVING YOU A BRIEF BRIEF OVERVIEW OF OUR CIP UP TO DATE, MIDWAY THROUGH THE YEAR. NEXT SLIDE. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE 108 PROJECTS IN THE CIP.

STILL A VERY ROBUST PROGRAM. WE REDUCED THAT NUMBER SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WHERE WE WERE AT A HIGH OF 130 PROJECTS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

AS YOU'LL SEE, STREET CATEGORY CONTINUES TO BE THE LARGEST CATEGORY.

IT'S 41 PROJECTS, LARGELY DRIVEN BY FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES IN THESE AREAS, ESPECIALLY METRO GRANTS.

TO DATE, WE'VE COMPLETED OR SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED 21 PROJECTS.

AND FOR CLARITY, A PROJECT THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE MEANS IT HASN'T BEEN FORMALLY ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE BY COUNCIL.

THERE'S STILL SOME PUNCH LIST ITEMS THAT ARE BEING WORKED THROUGH, BUT ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A CURRENT YEAR PROJECT SUMMARY.

YOU SEE THE SECOND COLUMN THERE SHOWING AS OF 3-11-2026, AND THE THIRD COLUMN PROJECTING THROUGH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

IN TERMS OF ACTIVITY, IT'S ANOTHER VERY ACTIVE YEAR, SIMILAR TO THE LAST LAST FEW YEARS, WHICH I'LL ILLUSTRATE IN A FOLLOWING SLIDE.

ATTACHED TO THIS ITEM ALSO WAS A BREAKDOWN OF WHICH PROJECTS ARE IN PRE-DESIGN OR DESIGN, WHICH ONES ARE IN PROCUREMENT, WHICH ONES ARE IN CONSTRUCTION AND WHICH ONES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. SO THAT WAS ATTACHED TO TO THIS ITEM TONIGHT.

I'LL ALSO NOTE ONE MORE. YEAH. IT'S OKAY. THERE WAS EIGHT NEW PROJECTS THAT WERE ADDED TO THE TO THE CIP IN THIS LAST FISCAL YEAR.

THIS IS FISCAL YEAR 2026 CIP FUND TYPE AND TOTALS.

THE $75.6 MILLION OF TOTAL BUDGETED FISCAL YEAR 2026 INCLUDES A CARRYOVERS, WHICH WERE 45.3 MILLION AND NET APPROPRIATIONS OF 30.3 MILLION, WHICH GIVES US THE TOTAL OF $75.6 MILLION IN BUDGETED CIP PER PER FUND. SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS, AS YOU'LL NOTICE HERE IS GRANTS, ACCOUNT FOR ROUGHLY 49% OF THAT TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT AT $37 MILLION. SO WE REALLY LOOK AT OUTSIDE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY, TO TRY TO MOVE SOME OF OUR PROJECTS FORWARD.

SOME OF THE ON THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN IS THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES AS OF AS OF LAST WEEK.

KIND OF THE HIGHLIGHTS ON PROJECTS THEY'RE NOT ON HERE, BUT JUST SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN KIND OF THE DRIVERS THIS YEAR.

WE HAD THE HERONDO PCH OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS, WILDERNESS PARK, RESIDENTIAL REHAB, ARTESIA AVIATION, RIGHT TURN LANE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE. DON'T GO THROUGH AVIATION ARTESIA THIS WEEK.

YOU'LL GET LOCKED UP THERE IN TRAFFIC. THURSDAY GOING TO BE CLOSED.

YEAH. THERE YOU GO. KINGSDALE RESURFACING, ARTESIA SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, NORTH REDONDO BEACH BIKEWAY EXTENSION, WHICH WE HAD OUR GRAND OPENING. GRANT AVENUE RESURFACING, PHASE ONE, WHICH WAS COMPLETED, SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES, REHAB THROUGHOUT, SPOT REPAIRS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND OUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMMUNICATION NETWORK PHASE TWO, WHICH IS IN DESIGN. NEXT SLIDE. BEFORE YOU LEAVE THAT, HOW COME THERE'S SO MUCH BUDGETED FOR TIDELANDS AND UPLANDS, BUT SO LITTLE EXPENDED? THIS IS MAINLY THE SEASIDE LAGOON GRANT THAT WE THAT WE RECEIVED.

THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE A LARGE EXPENDITURE.

THERE WAS 10 MILLION, WASN'T IT? WE ADDED A MILLION FOR SOMEWHERE ELSE AT SOME POINT.

WHERE IS THAT? YOU ALSO HAVE. WE HAVE THE ENCUMBRANCE, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE MOONSTONE PARK PROJECT IN THAT 2.6 MILLION.

[03:15:08]

SO WE HAVE MONEY NOW FOR MOONSTONE. WELL, WE HAVE WE HAVE SET MONEY ASIDE THAT MAY NOT CURRENTLY FULLY BE AVAILABLE TO USE FOR THAT PURPOSE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT 2.7 MILLION IN THE TITLE.

I BELIEVE 2.4 OF THAT IS MOONSTONE PARK. YES.

THE GRANT. THE 2.1 TOTAL IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF THAT IS THE IS THE MOONSTONE PARK.

YEAH. SO THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN SPENT IN GRANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEASIDE LAGOON DESIGN DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE IN THE GRANTS CATEGORY.

CORRECT. YES. NEXT SLIDE. SO FINALLY, THIS IS THE FINAL SLIDE FOR FOR KIND OF THE CIP UPDATE.

IT'S KIND OF A FIVE YEAR HISTORY SNAPSHOT OF THE OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF THE PROGRAM.

KEY THING TO NOTE IS KIND OF A STEADY OUTPUT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, EXCEPT FOR 21-22, WHICH WAS A UNIQUE YEAR BECAUSE OF COVID.

WE HAD SOME STAFFING ISSUES DURING THAT YEAR.

ASIDE FROM THAT YEAR, WE'VE HAD A FAIRLY CONSISTENT OUTPUT OVER THE LAST 3 OR 4 YEARS.

CIP REMAINS ROBUST. SOME LEVEL ACTIVITY AND ROUGHLY 65 PROJECTS.

WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT STAFFING, THIS IS PROBABLY THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF OUTPUT WE CAN PROVIDE WITH OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF STAFFING.

AND WHILE THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES ARE TRENDING DOWNWARD FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, ESTIMATING ROUGHLY $15 MILLION, THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS BEING WORKED ON AND COMPLETED REMAIN RELATIVELY THE SAME AT A PRETTY, A PRETTY GOOD OUTPUT. AND I WOULD ADD, JESSE, THIS IS A YEAR WHERE WE'RE ENTERING MORE PROJECTS INTO DESIGN, RIGHT? THERE ARE SOME YEARS WHERE ON A CYCLICAL BASIS, WE'LL HAVE PROJECTS, MORE PROJECTS IN PROCUREMENT AND IN CONSTRUCTION, AND WE'LL SEE MORE COMPLETED. AND IN SOME YEARS WE'LL SEE MORE IN EARLY STAGES OF DESIGN.

WE'RE IN THAT STAGE NOW. CORRECT. AND STAFFING DOWN.

LET ME ASK. THAT WAS NO. 21-22 IS WHEN WE HAD STAFFING.

STAFFING. STAFFING IS NOT DOWN IN ENGINEERING CURRENTLY.

I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, STEPHANIE. OKAY.

AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR PROPOSED COST REDUCTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS.

YEAH, I'M GOING TO COVER THESE SLIDES. SO REALLY WHAT THESE ARE IS TO INTRODUCE KIND OF THREE DIFFERENT TOPICS THAT WE'RE MONITORING AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE 26-27 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH CROSSING GUARDS, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST WE SPEND A 550, ROUGHLY $1,000 A YEAR STAFFING 27 DIFFERENT CROSSING GUARD LOCATIONS.

ONE OF THE FRUSTRATING ELEMENTS OF THAT PROGRAM CURRENTLY IS THAT WE'RE ONLY ABLE TO STAFF INTERNALLY 22 OF THE 27 LOCATIONS.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS SLIDE, FIVE OF THE LOCATIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED BY OUR OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR RUN US AT ABOUT A 50% PREMIUM ON A PER LOCATION BASIS. SO IN AN IDEAL WORLD, WE WOULD FIND A WAY TO EFFICIENTLY ADJUST OUR STAFFING TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THAT CONTRACT PROGRAM GOING FORWARD AND, AND FIND WAYS TO REDUCE THE OVERALL COST OF THIS PROGRAM.

THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK AND THOUGHT PUT INTO EVALUATING THE VARIOUS CROSSING GUARD LOCATIONS THAT WE, THAT WE CURRENTLY SUPPORT IN OUR CITY, IN ADDITION TO THREE MORE RECENTLY REQUESTED LOCATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.

WE HEARD ABOUT ONE OF THOSE EARLIER TONIGHT. I WOULD TELL YOU UNEQUIVOCALLY RIGHT NOW THAT I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT WE STAFF 30 CROSSING GUARD LOCATIONS IN THE 2026-27 BUDGET. IN AN IDEAL WORLD, WE WOULD STAFF 22 OR FEWER.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE VARIOUS METRICS THAT HAVE THAT HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THE REPORT THERE, THERE'S GOOD CAUSE TO, TO CREATE DIFFERENT TIERING FOR LOCATIONS THAT HAVE GREATER NEED THAN OTHERS.

WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION TONIGHT.

WHAT I'M LOOKING TO DO REALLY IS AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC IS JUST ELEVATE THE CONVERSATION, SHARE THE DATA THAT'S BEEN PREPARED BY OUR STAFF AND IN CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDER IT AND, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SOME GENERAL INPUT, IF YOU WOULD, ON WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE US INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET GOING FORWARD, ASSUMING FUNDING IS AVAILABLE TO US. IF WE HAD IF SUDDENLY WE HAVE REALLY STRONG REVENUES, TOT IS FORECASTED UP AND WE'VE GOT FULL PERFORMANCE COMING OUT OF MARINE, THE EDDIE IS ONLINE DOWN AT THE NEW THE NEW LEGADO DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE'VE GOT SUBSTANTIVE STRUCTURAL REVENUES COMING ON BOARD 27-28, PERHAPS THIS BECOMES A BIT OF A MOOT POINT.

I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT BEING THE CASE. I THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO AT LEAST SKINNY DOWN TO 22 LOCATIONS AND MAYBE FEWER.

SO ANY INPUT AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS THE OVERALL MAP OF OUR CURRENT LOCATIONS.

THERE WAS THE METRICS ASSOCIATED WITH NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, VEHICLE TRAVEL, YOU KNOW,

[03:20:05]

THAT MATERIAL IS, IS ATTACHED TO THE REPORT. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH IT TONIGHT.

MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN PREPARING THAT.

AND MAY WANT TO COMMENT ON IT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD IS THAT WE TRY TO FIND A WAY TO REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOCATIONS TO, TO 22 OR FEWER IN 27, 28. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

ANOTHER BIG ISSUE THAT WE'VE BEEN MONITORING AND WE THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON THIS EVENING IS OUR LEVEL OF EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.

WE WE CURRENTLY PAY 1.7 MILLION A YEAR IN OVERALL PREMIUM COSTS FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE.

1 MILLION OF THAT $1.7 MILLION IS SPECIFIC TO EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE.

WE HAVE $234 MILLION OF ASSESSED STRUCTURES IN OUR PORTFOLIO.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE NATURE OF THE EARTHQUAKE PROGRAM, ONLY $100 MILLION WOULD BE PAID OUT IN A SINGLE EVENT.

AND THAT GETS FURTHER WATERED DOWN BY THE FACT THAT WE WOULD SHARE THAT POTENTIAL PAYOUT WITH AT LEAST TWO NEIGHBORING CITIES THAT ARE ALSO IN OUR CURRENT PREMIUM COVERAGE AREA. AND DIANE CAN SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THIS, BUT I BELIEVE MANHATTAN BEACH AND THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE ARE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THAT SAME PRO RATA SHARE OF $100 MILLION PAYOUT. SO RIGHT THERE, YOU LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, WE'RE ENSURING $234 MILLION OF ASSETS, BUT AT BEST WE WOULD RECEIVE $100 MILLION AND WOULD LIKELY AT BEST RECEIVE A THIRD OF THAT 100 MILLION.

IF THERE WERE A SIGNIFICANT EVENT, IT'S SILLY FOR US TO HAVE THAT BROADER LEVEL OF COVERAGE IF WE'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE PAYOUT AT THAT LEVEL.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE STRONGLY RECOMMENDING, THAT IS WE CONSIDER REDUCING THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES COVERED IN THE PLAN AT MINIMUM, CERTAINLY TO SOMETHING LESS THAN 100 MILLION.

AND WE MAY WANT TO REDUCE IT TO SOMETHING EVEN SUBSTANTIVELY LESS THAN THAT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT MANHATTAN BEACH AND HAWTHORNE WOULD SHARE IN THE IMPACT.

OR CONSIDER DOING WHAT MANY CITIES DO, WHICH IS PROVIDE NO COVERAGE AT ALL.

AND IN FACT, WHILE WE CAN'T SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT OUR OUR PREMIUM AGENT, OUR INSURANCE AGENT, THAT REPRESENTATIVE THAT WE DEAL WITH WOULD WOULD SAY THIS PUBLICLY, WE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY EMBARRASS HIM, HE HAS PRIVATELY SHARED WITH DIANE THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND WE NOT HAVE EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE. SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS IN THE ATTACHMENT.

THE SPANNING FROM JUST REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES COVERED TO SAVE A HALF $1 MILLION TO SIMPLY ELIMINATING THE COVERAGE.

IT'S IN IT'S ENTIRETY GOING FORWARD AND SAVING US $1 MILLION NEXT FISCAL YEAR IN PREMIUM COST.

THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL BENEFIT TO US.

AND AS I SAID, OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST AND SOUTH TORRANCE DOESN'T PROVIDE EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE.

THEY HAVE NO EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE AS A POLICY.

SO WE CAN GET INTO THOSE SPECIFICS. WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CHARTS IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THE INDIVIDUAL VALUATIONS BY PROPERTY AND TALK IT THROUGH.

BUT AT MINIMUM, I'M STRONGLY RECOMMENDING WE REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSETS COVERED TO UNDER $100 MILLION, THEREBY SAVING A HALF $1 MILLION IN PREMIUM COSTS NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

THE REASON I'M WRITING THIS NOW IS WE NEED TO MAKE THIS DECISION IN MARCH IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE EFFECTIVE AS PART OF THE 26-27 BUDGET.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON THE INSURANCE CATEGORY THAT WE'RE FURTHER EXPLORING AND WE DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON TONIGHT, BUT WE'LL WANT TO ACT ON PERHAPS GOING INTO THE 26-27 DISCUSSION.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN SIR SELF-INSURED RETENTION LEVEL OF A HALF $1 MILLION THAT FACTORS INTO OUR OVERALL GENERAL LIABILITY COSTS.

WE ARE EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR US FISCALLY TO CONSIDER INCREASING THAT SIR TO SOMETHING GREATER THAN HALF $1 MILLION, PERHAPS AS MUCH AS $1 MILLION. THE ESTIMATE RIGHT NOW IS THAT IT COULD SAVE US AN ADDITIONAL $700,000 ON OUR GENERAL LIABILITY PREMIUM COVERAGE COSTS.

THERE'S SOME RISK ASSESSMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT.

HOW OFTEN ARE WE EFFECTIVELY PIERCING THAT SIR VEIL OF A HALF $1 MILLION.

AS IN THE COUNCIL KNOWS, AS WE HAVE SOME OF THESE CLOSED SESSION CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, WHERE THOSE VULNERABILITIES MIGHT EXIST. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE EVALUATING.

THIS DECISION IS ON A CALENDAR BASIS, MEANING WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WHAT OUR COVERAGES ARE FOR THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR.

WE'LL NEED TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO PRISM AND OUR REP ON THE 2027 PREMIUM COSTS SOMETIME NEXT FALL OR EARLIER IF WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.

SO AGAIN, DAYLIGHTING THIS TO LET YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONTINUING TO EVALUATE THIS AND WE'RE LOOKING AT PERHAPS THE COST BENEFIT OF MAKING A CHANGE.

ANOTHER FINAL AREA ASSOCIATED WITH INSURANCE IS OUR CURRENT PROPERTY DAMAGE.

OUTSIDE THE EARTHQUAKE CATEGORY, WE HAVE A DEDUCTIBLE OF $50,000.

IN MY 20 YEARS HERE, I CAN'T RECALL US EVER MAKING A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM FOR INSURANCE FOR ONE OF OUR OWN FACILITIES.

[03:25:08]

HAVE WE HAD ROOF LEAKS THAT HAVE CREATED DAMAGE? CANNOT RECALL A SCENARIO WHERE WE'VE EVER CALLED UP OUR INSURANCE PROVIDER AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU TO WRITE US A CHECK BECAUSE THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ROOF LEAKED LAST NIGHT, IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED. SO WHY WE HAVE A $50,000 DEDUCTIBLE? I'M SURE IT WAS A PROBABLY A FAIRLY COMMON NUMBER BACK IN THE DAY.

ANOTHER AREA WHERE I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. NOW, DOES THAT REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE OUR PREMIUM COSTS? EARLY INDICATIONS ARE NO MAYBE MORE OF A MARGINAL SAVINGS CATEGORY, BUT AGAIN, ON AN ACTUARIAL BASIS DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A CLAIM. AND REALLY THE ONLY SCENARIO WHERE YOU THINK YOU WOULD PROBABLY PULL THE TRIGGER ON THAT KIND OF A CLAIM IS IF YOU HAD A KITCHEN FIRE, AN ENTIRE BUILDING BURNED DOWN AS A RESULT OF A KITCHEN FIRE, AN ELECTRICAL, ELECTRICAL FIRE, OR SOMETHING MORE MORE ISOLATED, BUT EXTREME IN NATURE AND NOT SOMETHING KNOCK ON WOOD THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH.

LAST TIME WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT EVENT OF THAT KIND WAS IN THE LATE 80S ON THE PIER, WHEN I THINK IT WAS CATTLEMAN'S THAT BURNED DOWN DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL FIRE.

SO THAT WAS REALLY KIND OF THE LAST MAJOR EVENT WE COULD THINK OF WHERE WE LIKELY MADE A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM.

AGAIN, THOSE CAN WAIT THOSE, WHEREAS THE EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE, BECAUSE IT'S BACKED BY THE CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE AUTHORITY, IS SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE DECISION ON.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. LAST CATEGORY, JUST THAT WE CONTINUE TO MONITOR WHERE WE'RE AT WITH OUR CURRENT UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY.

CURRENT PROJECTIONS ARE ACTUALLY HAVE IMPROVED OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS.

YOU MIGHT RECALL, WE HAD THAT NEGATIVE SWING A FEW YEARS AGO WITH PERS PERFORMANCE.

SUDDENLY WE WENT FROM HAVING NO UAL TO, TO NOW HAVING A FORECASTED $60 MILLION UAL.

THEY'VE HAD TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF BETTER THAN EXPECTED RETURNS, INCLUDING ONE REALLY GOOD YEAR, AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON PACE FOR ANOTHER POSITIVE YEAR THIS YEAR.

THAT WOULD TREND US TO THIS LEVEL OF FUNDING GOING FORWARD, INCLUDING ONCE WE MAKE NEXT JULY'S PAYMENT, PERHAPS A SUPERFUND STATUS ON THE MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORY AND THEREFORE LOWERING OUR PREMIUM PAYMENT, OUR USUAL PAYMENT IN THE 27-28 YEAR FROM WHAT IS CURRENTLY FOUR PLUS MILLION DOLLARS TO SOMETHING AROUND 3 MILLION.

SO WE'RE WE'RE TRACKING THIS. IT'S CURRENTLY POSITIVE, BUT THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, GLOBAL EVENTS, WARS, THINGS LIKE THAT CAN SUDDENLY AFFECT MARKETS.

AND SUDDENLY PERS GOES FROM BEING, YOU KNOW, SHOWING A 7.7% RETURN YEAR TO SUDDENLY SOMETHING FAR LESS THAN THEIR, THEIR 6.8% DISCOUNT RATE, WHICH CAN THEN TURN THIS NEGATIVE.

SO WE'RE TRACKING IT AND IT'S VALIDATING THAT WE HAVE ISOLATED THIS AS KIND OF A STANDALONE PAYMENT AS OPPOSED TO TREATING IT AS A RECURRING EXPENDITURE.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IT. SO STEPHANIE, YOU WANT TO COVER THE COMMISSION'S INPUT? SURE. SO WE PRESENTED THIS INFORMATION TO OUR BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION LAST THURSDAY EVENING.

THE COMMENTS THEY WANTED TO SHARE WITH THE COUNCIL REALLY CENTERED AROUND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AS A STRONG PRIORITY FOR THE CITY.

ALSO JUST IN RECOGNITION, ESPECIALLY OF THE CHANGES TO OUR REVENUES, THEY STRONGLY RECOMMENDED WE PLAN FOR MULTIPLE SCENARIOS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR 26-27 BUDGET, INCLUDING POTENTIAL FURTHER EROSION OF OUR MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES.

NEXT STEPS. WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN EXACTLY TWO MONTHS, ALTHOUGH IT WON'T BE A COUNCIL MEETING DATE ON THE 16TH, BUT THAT'S WHEN WE'LL BE PRESENTING OUR 26-27 BUDGET TO THE COUNCIL AND LEADS US TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

RECEIVE AND FILE THIS REPORT, RECEIVE AND FILE PRESENTATION ON THE CAPITAL PROJECTS, PROVIDE DIRECTION ON OUR 26-27 COST SAVINGS AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 25-26.

WE'LL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'VE GOT DIANE HERE FROM HUMAN RESOURCES CAN HELP WITH THE INSURANCE QUESTIONS WE'VE GOT.

I BELIEVE BRIAN LONG IS IN THE AUDIENCE. WE'VE GOT RYAN LOO ON THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SIDE.

JANE WAS A PART OF THE CROSSING GUARD DISCUSSIONS.

THEY'RE HAPPY TO OPINE ON ANY ANY QUESTIONS THERE AS ALONG WITH OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO HAVE PROPOSED DECISION PACKAGES.

SO WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. THAT WAS A LOT. THANKS FOR THE REPORT. I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT WOULD BE IN THE THE BUDGET, THE BUDGET MODIFICATION FOR MID-YEAR, JUST THE DECISION PACKAGES.

YEAH. THAT THE DECISION. YEAH. THAT AND SOME OF THE ADJUSTMENTS TO TRANSFER INSURANCE.

THE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S WHEN WE NEED TO GIVE US INPUT.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE 25-26 BUDGET. THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE THE 26-27 BUDGET.

AND WE NEED TO DECIDE THAT TONIGHT OR IS THAT SOMETHING?

[03:30:02]

WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THIS MONTH.

YOU CAN GIVE ME JUST GENERAL DIRECTION. HEY. LOWER IT TO WHATEVER AND WE CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

IF YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE ISOLATING THOSE FACILITIES TONIGHT.

IF THE COUNCIL IN ITS ENTIRETY IS COMFORTABLE WITH NO EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE GOING FORWARD, THIS THIS FISCAL YEAR, AND THIS ISN'T A PERMANENT DECISION BY BY, BY THE WAY, THIS IS A YEAR OVER YEAR CALCULATION.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE TO OUR REP AS WELL.

AND THE REST OF THE COST SAVINGS ARE FOR LATER.

DO THOSE HAVE TO BE DECIDED? NO, THOSE DON'T HAVE TO BE DECIDED. THAT'S TRIAL BALLOONING. SO IT HELPS AS WE PREPARE THE NEXT BUDGET BECAUSE THE MORE INPUT I GET ON THAT NOW, THE LESS INTENSE A CROSSING GUARD DISCUSSION IS IN MAY AND JUNE.

RIGHT? IF WE CAN FORESHADOW SOME OF THOSE CHANGES. WITH RESPECT TO THE CROSSING GUARDS, THAT'S LATER. THAT'S RIGHT? YEAH. THIS WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS THAT WE HAVE CROSSING GUARD LOCATIONS.

THIS. THESE WOULD BE AFFECTING DECISIONS FOR THE 26-27 SCHOOL YEAR.

WE HAVE TO DECIDE THAT TONIGHT. CORRECT. BUT IF WE HEARD TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT THERE'S FOLKS WHO LIKED IT FROM FORD AND AVIATION, CAN WE MOVE A CROSSING GUARD FROM ONE TO ANOTHER WITHOUT AFFECTING THE BUDGET? YOU COULD REDIRECT OR REALLOCATE AN EXISTING LOCATION.

WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND LET FOLKS KNOW WHERE AND EXACTLY WHY THAT'S OCCURRING.

AND THE WAY THIS WAS AGENDIZED COULD WE MAKE THAT DECISION TONIGHT? YOUR DIRECTION YOU WOULD BE GIVING. IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.

WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING IS EFFECTIVELY GIVING DIRECTION ON REALLOCATING EXISTING RESOURCES.

ARE WE AGENDIZED PROPERLY TO MAKE THAT? YOU ARE, BECAUSE IT'S ULTIMATELY MY DECISION TO RELOCATE THE CROSSING.

I GOT IT, OKAY. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE CITY TREASURER WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY? GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

EUGENE J. SOLOMON REDONDO BEACH, CITY TREASURER.

I SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEAVING THE DECISION PACKAGES AND THE 1.2 MILLION AS UNALLOCATED TO THIS TIME.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE? WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE, I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON DIRECTOR STRICKFADEN TOES, COMMERCIAL EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE IS LABELED AS DIC EARTHQUAKE, ITS DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS.

EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE, YOU'RE ALREADY IN A DILUTION OF RESOURCES.

AS THE CITY MANAGER TESTIFIED TO, WITH THE $100 MILLION, YOU'VE GOT THREE PARTICIPATING DILUTING YOUR LIMITS.

I WOULD SAY THAT ONE CONSIDERATION WOULD BE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE, BECAUSE IT'S DIC DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS, YOU CAN CALL IT OR CONSIDER IT AS DIFFERENCE IN COVERAGES.

IF THERE IS AN EARTHQUAKE AND THEN THERE IS DAMAGE TO A BUILDING WHERE A FIRE BEGINS AND THE FIRE DAMAGES THE BUILDING, THAT IS A COVERED PERIL OF FIRE. THAT IS NOT EARTHQUAKE.

THE EFFICIENT CAUSATION OF THAT DAMAGE IS FIRE.

IF THERE IS A PIPE THAT BURSTS, THE WATER DAMAGES THE STRUCTURE.

THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THAT DAMAGE IS THE WATER, NOT THE EARTHQUAKE.

IF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE SEISMIC EVENT, AND IT HAS TO BE AN IDENTIFIABLE SEISMIC EVENT, AND IT'S STRICTLY DAMAGE FROM THAT SEISMIC EVENT, THAT IS EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE.

SO YOU'RE ABLE TO CONSIDER THOSE LIKELIHOODS AS YOU DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK YOU'RE FAR MORE LIKELY TO HAVE AN EVENT THAT DAMAGES A STRUCTURE, AND THE EFFICIENT CAUSATION OF THAT DAMAGE IS ONE OF THE RESULTING THINGS FIRE, WATER DAMAGE, EXPLOSION. YOU'VE SEEN NUMEROUS LARGE SEISMIC EVENTS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

YOU LOOK AT OAKLAND, YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE VALLEY.

USUALLY THOSE DAMAGES ARE A RESULT OF FIRE AFTER THE FACT.

WHEN IT COMES TO DEDUCTIBLES, IF I COULD TOUCH ON THAT FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.

I KNOW YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE.

I LOOK AT IT AS AN ROI. WHAT IS THE PREMIUM SAVINGS? IF YOU CHANGE YOUR DEDUCTIBLE FROM 50,000 TO 100,000? IF YOU CHANGE YOUR DEDUCTIBLE. EXCUSE ME. SELF-INSURED RETENTION, WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A DEDUCTIBLE.

IF YOU CHANGE YOUR SIR FROM 50,000 TO 100,000 WITH A RESULTING PREMIUM SAVINGS OF $2,000, WELL, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO GO OUT X NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE YOU RECOVER THAT COST SAVINGS.

SO IT'S NOT ALWAYS BENEFICIAL MAYBE TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP UP.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT WHAT YOUR COST SAVINGS IS FOR THAT SIR.

AND SIRS ARE TREATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN A STRAIGHT DEDUCTIBLE.

USUALLY THE SIR, AS YOU KNOW, IS ABSORBED BY THE CITY.

THE COST BASIS IS ABSORBED BY THE CITY. THE INSURANCE COMPANY OFTEN, THOUGH, WILL ASK THAT THEIR FIRM OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE HIRED EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE

[03:35:04]

SO SOMETIMES YOU WANT TO GET OUT FROM UNDER THAT SIR, FASTER THAN NOT.

SO THAT'S A CONSIDERATION. IT'S USUALLY ON THAT.

YOU MEAN HAVE A LOWER SIR SO THAT THEY'RE ON THE HOOK OR.

HAVE A LOWER SIR SO THAT YOUR, YOUR COUNCIL, YOU'RE USING THEIR COUNCIL LESS AS IT WERE, IF YOU DON'T CARE FOR THEIR COUNCIL.

SO YOU, YOU CAN GET COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE A $250,000 SIR AND NOW YOU'VE SPENT $300,000, THEN YOU'RE ENTIRELY RELIANT ON THEIR ACCOUNTS, AREN'T YOU? WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE INITIAL CLAIM, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN APPROVED FIRM THAT THEY HAVE THAT IS SPENT, THAT IS YOUR BILLING ON THAT RATE. AND YOU MAY NOT THAT MAY NOT BE THE MOST EFFICIENT RATE OR IT MAY NOT BE THE MOST EFFICIENT COUNCIL.

SO THE SOONER YOU GET OUT. FROM UNDER THAT RIGHT NOW ON OUR STUFF THAT'S BELOW THE SIR, CITY ATTORNEY FOR IT, I THINK I MEAN, I'LL LET YOU ANSWER THIS FURTHER, BUT WE ARE THUS FAR WITH PRISM, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PRISM HAS ALLOWED US TO HAVE A LOT OF AUTONOMY OVER THE DECISIONS UNDER THE $500,000 LIMIT, AND IN SOME CASES ACTUALLY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON OUR ATTORNEYS CARRYING THE MATTER BEYOND THE LIMIT, EVEN WHILE PRISM THEN PAYING THE BILLS.

BECAUSE PRISM HAS BEEN A GOOD PARTNER. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.

I DO THINK THOUGH, PRISM THEN, PRISM WOULD BE LESS INTERESTED IF OUR SIR WAS HYPOTHETICALLY $1 MILLION.

PRISM IS NOT ENGAGING WITH US UNTIL NOW SUDDENLY WE'RE IN THE HALF A MILLION PLUS RANGE, WHEREAS NOW THEY MIGHT.

EUGENE'S POINT THEY MIGHT BE SHADOWING US AT THE 3 TO $500 RANGE BECAUSE THEY MAY SUDDENLY BE ON THE VERGE.

IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FROM THE OTHERS.

FOR THE OTHER RESPONSIBILITY, I GUESS IN TERMS OF THIS IS MORE OF A BALANCE SHEET QUESTION THAN THE BUDGET QUESTION.

BUT IN TERMS OF OUR INVESTABLE CASH AND THE CONTRIBUTION THAT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A NUMBER OF CIP PROJECTS AND GET MONEY TIED UP IN ANTICIPATION OF GRANT FUNDING, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD BE GETTING MORE CASH BACK THAT'S BEEN TIED UP IN THOSE SORT OF PROJECTS.

CIP, BUT HAVE YOU SEEN ANY INCREASE IN OUR CASH, INVESTABLE CASH AT THIS POINT? THIS QUARTER WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN OUR INVESTABLE CASH FROM PREVIOUS QUARTERS.

WE'VE SEEN LESS OF A REDUCTION. WE FUNDED A LOT OF OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

AND I KNOW MR. REYES AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR HAVE BEEN WORKING ON WITH OUR TEAM ON TRACKING SOME OF THOSE EXPENDITURES.

SO WE'RE SEEING A LITTLE BIT LESS OF A DRAIN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE WE'RE IN THE DESIGN PROCESS, AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, RATHER THAN TOWARDS THE END OF THE COMPLETION PROCESS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO I AM INCLINED TO GO WITH NO EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.

AND DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, I HAD A LONG DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THAT, AND TO SUM IT UP, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S OUR WHAT'S OUR MOST VULNERABLE STRUCTURE IN THE CITY? IT'S THE PARKING STRUCTURE. WELL, OKAY.

IF WE HAVE A BAD EARTHQUAKE THAT ESSENTIALLY PUTS THE PARKING STRUCTURE OFFLINE BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER SEISMICALLY SAFE TO USE IT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIG HIT TO THE CITY. BUT IF THAT IS THE CASE AND IT REQUIRES A $100 MILLION REPAIR, THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT THE POT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US UNDER THE UNDER THE EARTHQUAKE POLICY IS ABOUT $100 MILLION, AND EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE, WE HAD A BAD EARTHQUAKE. EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE PULLING OUT THAT POT. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ENOUGH MONEY TO REBUILD THE, THE, THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND GET IT ONLINE QUICKLY. SO IT'S A CALCULATED ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK.

I DON'T CARRY EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE AT HOME. AND FOR THE REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND AN EARTHQUAKE, HOPEFULLY. AND WE'RE REBUILDING SEVERAL IMPORTANT STRUCTURES IN THE CITY.

SO THOSE SHOULD BE SEISMICALLY SOUND. A COUPLE ITEMS ON THE, AND I WOULD FAVOR, I SUPPOSE INCREASING THE, BASED ON MY TIME IN FIVE YEARS, I THINK WE'VE GONE BEYOND THE SIR TWICE SO FAR.

ON TWO CASES. SO AND THOSE ARE PUBLIC BUT DON'T NEED TO MENTION THEM.

AND SO IT'S NOT THAT FREQUENT THAT WE DO GO BEYOND $500,000.

SO I'D BE POTENTIALLY INTERESTED IN MOVING UP TO $1 MILLION OR $750,000 IF IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN IMMEDIATE COST SAVINGS.

FOR WHAT? FOR THE SIR. SIR. OKAY. I DID WANT TO, ON THE DECISION PACKAGES, DECISION PACKAGE ONE, I'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS AND EXPERIENCED MYSELF THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS YOU GET THE 911, YOU GET THE NINE EXCELLENT 911 SERVICE FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

YOU GET THE BILL, YOU CALL, YOU SAY, HEY, I HAVE INSURANCE.

[03:40:02]

IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL POLICY, THE INSURANCE USUALLY COVERS IT.

IF IT'S NOT, IT WON'T COVER IT. THEY BILL THE INSURANCE.

THE INSURANCE THEN SENDS YOU A STATEMENT SAYING WE NEED THE TAX ID OF THE ENTITY.

WHITMAN'S NOT SENDING THE TAX ID. YOU CALL WHITMAN.

WHITMAN. THEY NEED THE TAX ID, WHITMAN SAYS, OH, WE DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

WE CAN'T SEND A SECOND CLAIM TO THEM. AND SO AND THEN THEY'RE LIKE, YOU NEED TO CALL BACK THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

THAT'S A PAIN. SO WE JUST NEED TO HAVE WHITMAN INCLUDE THE CITY'S TAX ID ON THE INITIAL BILL IT SENDS TO INSURERS, PLEASE. YEAH, SURE. I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A DECISION.

YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE THAT I THINK IN EXCHANGE ON THAT, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING I SHARED WITH FIRE. AND I BELIEVE WE'RE WORKING TO CORRECT THAT, THAT ISSUE GOING FORWARD. COOL, COOL. AND ON THE CROSSING GUARDS I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ADDING ANY MORE CROSSING GUARDS.

I DO THE SINGLE MOST. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE THING I'M MOST PROUD OF IN MY TERM ON COUNCIL OR ONE OF THE THINGS I'M MOST PROUD OF IS ADDING STREET SAFETY IN MY DISTRICT WITH STOP SIGNS, YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING ON GRANT AVENUE.

THANK YOU, JESSE. AND AND COUNCIL AND WHAT WE'VE DONE ON ARTESIA BOULEVARD WITH THE LEFT TURN POCKETS AT RINDGE AND THE LIKE, SO THE, THIS CROSSING GUARD IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

AND LET ME, LET ME PULL UP IF YOU CAN LIGHT UP 2.B, PLEASE.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. LAURA, IF YOU LIGHT UP.

2.B, PLEASE. B. OR NOT TO BE. HERE IS HOW. YOU DO IT.

DO I NEED TO REPLUG? OKAY. TRY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

SOMETHING'S HAPPENING. HERE'S AN OFFICIAL MAP.

IT DIDN'T COME FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S WEBSITE, BUT I THINK IT'S ACCURATE. OF JEFFERSON JEFFERSON'S AREA DISTRICT.

AND YOU CAN SEE THESE STREETS IN THE GOLDEN HILLS ARE FEEDING INTO JEFFERSON, INCLUDING YEAH.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO CROSS HERE. AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A GIRL WHO SPOKE WHO WAS SIX YEARS OLD. THEY KIDS THAT AGE DO NOT WANT TO WALK A BLOCK UP TO GRAND AVENUE.

AND THEY'D LIKE TO WALK JUST STRAIGHT DOWN TO HERE AND BIKE.

AND THE REPORT SAYS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS, BUT THERE'S ABOUT 33 BIKERS ON A GIVEN MORNING.

SO I DO GO TO JEFFERSON PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY OR 50% OF THE DAYS DROP OFF MY DAUGHTER.

AND HERE'S WHERE I'D LIKE TO REMOVE THE CROSSING GUARD AND MOVE THE CROSSING GUARD TO OUR TO OUR AVIATION AND FORD.

IT'S AT HAVEMEYER AND FLAGLER AND HERE'S WHY FIRST.

IT'S REALLY A THREE WAY STOP RATHER THAN A FOUR WAY STOP.

AND YOU'VE GOT THESE CARS GOING IN OR YOU'VE GOT A PARKING LOT OVER HERE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THERE ARE KIDS AROUND. THIS IS CDC RIGHT HERE.

IT'S, IT'S AN ALL WAY STOP. EVERYBODY'S STOPPING THEIR KIDS CROSSING.

A LOT OF PARENTS WILL DRIVE THIS WAY TO GET TO JEFFERSON BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET ON THE RIGHT SIDE WHEN THEY COME PULL UP TO DROP OFF.

THERE'S NO PARKING ON THE LEFT SIDE HERE. SO THEY'LL CIRCLE AROUND LIKE I DO OVER HERE, IT'S REALLY CONTROLLED.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE CROSSING, BUT IT'S CONTROLLED AND IT'S QUIET.

IT'S NOTHING LIKE IT IS ON AVIATION AND FORD, WHICH HAS ACCIDENTS ON THE REGULAR.

I GET MESSAGES WHEN THERE ARE ACCIDENTS ON AVIATION AND FORD.

SO WE REALLY DO NEED TO HEED WHAT THE PUBLIC IS SAYING WHEN THEY SAY THEY WANT A CROSSING GUARD THERE.

WHY I LIKE MAKING THAT CHANGE. NOW, BESIDES IT BEING BUDGET NEUTRAL IS IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE BLOWBACK FROM MOVING PEOPLE, MOVING CROSSING GUARDS, THEN ONE, IT CAN REST ON ME, AND TWO, IT'S A TEMPORARY THING FOR 54 DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR UNTIL WE COME BACK DURING BUDGET TIME. AND WE HEAR, YOU KNOW, WE DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THESE, THESE ISSUES.

BUT I WOULD, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD SUPPORT ME IN THIS EFFORT TO HEED THE PUBLIC'S CRIES FOR HELP AND SAFETY.

THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU. CAN I ASK THEN? YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT CHANGE NOW? YES, NOW. WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO ALLOWING SOME PERIOD OF TIME TO NOTICE? LIKE THE SCHOOL HAS A NEWSLETTER SAYING. YEAH, SURE.

YOU KNOW, TWO WEEKS FROM NOW WE'RE GOING TO. TWO WEEKS, TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.

BUT JUST THEM, THEM HEARING FROM US THAT WE'VE HEARD THEM, WE'RE TAKING ACTION ON THEM.

THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY. YES. AND THIS IS THIS IS A PILOT AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF IT WORKS.

BOTH, YOU KNOW, ADDING A NEW MOVING, MOVING A PERSON AND TAKING THEM AWAY FROM THIS LOCATION.

[03:45:02]

DO WE HAVE TO ADD THE DP, THE TAX ID? NO, NO, THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY, WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THAT ON.

WE JUST MOVE THE CROSSING GUARD WITH NOTICE FROM HAVEMEYER AND FLAGLER TO FORD AND AVIATION.

YES. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI ACTUALLY COVERED A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTIRELY CUT EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.

YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL WASN'T AS EXCITED ABOUT THAT, AT LEAST WE SHOULD STRONGLY CUT IT.

IF THERE'S AN EARTHQUAKE BAD ENOUGH IN LOS ANGELES TO TAKE OUT THE PARKING GARAGE, PROBABLY OUR MOST DELICATE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE, DEFINITELY THE WHOLE CITY, THERE'S GOING TO BE STUFF EVERYWHERE.

AND THAT INSURANCE MONEY IS GOING TO BE HARD TO COME BY.

IT'S THE PROBLEM WITH EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE IN CALIFORNIA. YOU PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR NOT MUCH COVERAGE.

AS COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI DOES, I DON'T HAVE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE ON MY HOUSE EITHER.

JUST JUST IT DOESN'T MAKE FISCAL SENSE TO HAVE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE IN GENERAL.

CITIES ARE DIFFERENT. SO IF THERE IS A STRUCTURE OR A LIMITED NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO COVER, I'D BE OKAY WITH THAT. BUT. SAVING MONEY ON THE SIR BY INCREASING THAT DEDUCTIBLE FROM 500,000 TO 1 MILLION MAKES SENSE.

MY ONLY QUESTION ON THE CROSSING GUARDS. I KNOW THERE'S A SUBCOMMITTEE ON CROSSING GUARDS.

IS AVIATION AND FORD THE MOST NEEDED OF ALL OF THOSE? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THREE THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. IS THAT ONE OR ARE THERE OTHERS THAT ARE HIGHER PRIORITY? I THINK WE'VE DONE ANALYSIS AND MAYBE TRAFFIC ENGINEER MR. LIU COULD. YEAH. RYAN CAN SPEAK TO IT. I WOULD POINT YOU FIRST TO THE ATTACHMENT AND I SUPPOSE WE COULD HAVE STEPHANIE PULL IT UP THERE.

THERE'S AN ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS KIND OF THE NUMBER OF BIKES, PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES AT EACH OF THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

WE'LL HAVE TO ZOOM IN ON THIS A LITTLE BIT. IT'S KIND OF TOUGH TO READ. IT'S AN ATTACHMENT TO YOUR SLIDE BIKE PATH.

SO THE BOTTOM THREE. OH THIS DOESN'T HAVE THE BOTTOM THREE.

THERE THEY ARE. SO THE BOTTOM THREE ARE THE REQUESTED NEW LOCATIONS.

THE TOP ONE THERE BEING AVIATION AND FORD SO YOU'VE GOT 47 BIKE CROSSINGS A DAY, 29 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE COMPARATIVE DATA TO THE OTHER LOCATIONS THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY EXPLORED, INCLUDING ARTESIA AND THE BIKE PATH AND INGLEWOOD AND GRANT.

SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THOSE ALL STACK UP.

OBVIOUSLY FUNNELING TO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS. THAT'S THE OTHER REALITY.

JEFFERSON HAS A HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL GUARDS.

SO MOVING ONE FROM JEFFERSON TO SOMEWHERE ELSE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN PERHAPS MOVING, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FEWER LOCATIONS AT SOME OF THE OTHER SITES.

SO THERE'S DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THERE, BUT THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE METRIC I THINK, THAT RYAN PUT TOGETHER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

ANYTHING ELSE, RYAN, YOU WANT TO. I THINK ONE OF THE ONE OF THE DIFFICULT THINGS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF INTERSECTIONS AROUND THE CITY WHERE CHILDREN ARE CROSSING THEM.

CAN YOU WHAT? IT'S A PDF, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO.

YEAH. APOLOGIES. YEAH. BUT YEAH, THAT DOESN'T ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT.

YEAH. JUST ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN SEE THE WHOLE THING.

YEAH. I THINK, I THINK ONE THING WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THIS IS JUST A COMPARISON OF THREE INTERSECTIONS THAT DON'T HAVE A GUARD CURRENTLY.

THERE COULD BE OTHER INTERSECTIONS THAT THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT MAY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING.

PERHAPS AVIATION ARTESIA OR ARTESIA RINDGE. IT'S HARD TO, TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS JUST BASED ON THE, THE INPUT THAT WAS GIVEN. BUT YOU KNOW, WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT AVIATION AND FORD IS A SMALLER INTERSECTION THAN INGLEWOOD AND GRANT.

JUST A LOT LESS LANES. AND I CAN'T RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD PUT A GUARD AT ONE LOCATION OVER THE OTHER, BUT THESE, THESE ARE THE OBJECTIVE FACTS THAT WE HAVE WITH US RIGHT NOW.

AND MAYBE, RYAN, EXPLAIN WHY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LANES APPROACHING AS A HIGHER NUMBER IS A CONCERN VERSUS FEWER LANES.

AND JUXTAPOSE THAT AGAINST VEHICLES AND PEDS.

I MEAN, THERE'S A REASON THAT DATA HAS BEEN CAPTURED, RIGHT? YES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, AT INGLEWOOD AND GRANT THERE'S MULTIPLE TURN LANES, THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION. GRANT IS MUCH WIDER THAN FORD.

AVIATION AND INGLEWOOD ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER, BUT AS YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LANES,

[03:50:06]

AND SO WHEN YOU INCREASE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE THE INTERSECTION, THE MORE LANES TO LOOK AT THAT COULD INCREASE THE RISK FOR A CONFLICT TO OCCUR.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS HEAT MAP OF THE TOTAL APPROACH LANES, THOSE INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE CLOSELY AROUND JEFFERSON SCHOOL.

THERE ARE ALL THOSE ALWAYS STOPS, AS COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI MENTIONED, SINGLE LANE STREETS, LOWER SPEED ENVIRONMENTS, LESS COMPLEXITY FOR A FOR A PEDESTRIAN TO, TO NAVIGATE COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, HIGHER NUMBER OF VEHICLES, HIGHER NUMBER OF APPROACH LANES IS MORE COMPLEXITY FOR, FOR OUR STUDENTS. BUT I THINK IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT THE HAVEMEYER FLAGLER INTERSECTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI MENTIONED IS ON THE SORT OF BASED ON THAT, THOSE STATISTICS DEFINITELY ON THE LIGHTER SIDE OF NEED.

IS THAT FAIR? RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. SO, SO ALL REALLY ALL FOUR CROSSING GUARDS AROUND JEFFERSON BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL NARROW, ONE LANE STREETS WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE ALWAYS STOPS.

THEY HAVE A LOT LESS COMPLEXITY THAN CROSSING AVIATION AND FORD.

ONE BENEFIT WE DO HAVE AT AVIATION AND FORD IS IN THE PAST YEAR, WE DID IMPLEMENT THE FOUR SECOND HEAD START FOR THE PEDESTRIANS.

SO IF YOU'RE CROSSING AVIATION YOU DO HAVE THAT HEAD START AVAILABLE.

AND THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ALL OF THESE INTERSECTIONS, I KNOW THAT THESE ARE A LOT OF INTERSECTIONS. AND TO DO AN ANALYSIS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE COULD CHANGE AT THESE INTERSECTIONS IS A HEAVY LIFT.

AND I THINK IDENTIFYING THOSE THAT THAT WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES, WHETHER THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A RAISED MEDIAN OR SOMETHING DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION, THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR THAT.

YES. I COULD SPEAK TO SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY. SO FOR EXAMPLE, AT INGLEWOOD AND GRANT, WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THIS FORM, THE MAP PROJECT AND THE MOBILITY HUB WE'RE GOING TO PUT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

THE INTERSECTION WILL RECEIVE COMPREHENSIVE UPGRADES, CURB EXTENSIONS, AND MEASURES TO REDUCE SPEEDS IN THAT INTERSECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS CAN CROSS IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

SINCE WE ARE ALSO EXTENDING THE NORTH REDONDO BIKE PATH DOWN THAT AREA, SO I EXPECT THAT ONCE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS COME ONLINE AND THEY ARE FUNDED THROUGH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, THAT IT SHOULD IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND LOWER THE SPEEDS AT THAT INTERSECTION, HOPEFULLY ADDRESSING MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT RESIDENTS HAVE AT THAT INTERSECTION.

SPECIFIC TO ARTESIA AND THE NORTH REDONDO BIKE PATH, WE'VE HEARD REQUESTS TO CHANGE THE TIMING.

WE'VE INCREASED THE WALK TIME ON THAT. WE WE ADDED THE COUNTDOWN TIMERS SO THAT PEDESTRIANS KNOW HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT ON THE ON THE SIGNAL.

WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR CURB EXTENSIONS AT THE INTERSECTION.

THAT WOULD BE AN EASY PROJECT, BUT WE NEED THE FUNDING TO REBUILD THOSE RAMPS AND MODIFY THE SIGNAL.

BUT YOU KNOW, THERE THERE ARE GOOD IDEAS FOR THAT INTERSECTION.

WE JUST AREN'T AREN'T CURRENTLY FUNDED FOR THAT.

OR IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD EXPLORE WITH OUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND IN THE FUTURE.

IF I MAY COMMENT ON THAT. YOU KNOW THAT WE ALSO FUNDED THE ARTISTIC CROSSWALK FOR THAT INTERSECTION, WHICH HOPEFULLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN CONSULTED AT ALL ON THAT, BUT MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN THAT BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS INCREASE THE PREVALENCE AND THE VISIBILITY OF THAT CROSSWALK. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO WHAT'S POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR FOR CROSSWALK VISIBILITY.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DISCOURSE OUT THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN OTHER STATES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE ANYTHING DECORATIVE FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A CROSSING GUARD SCULPTURE THERE.

A SCARECROW CROSSING THERE. IT'S FINE. YEAH. AND I THINK FOR AVIATION AND FORD THAT'S A MORE DIFFICULT INTERSECTION TO FIND SOLUTIONS FOR GIVEN THE LIMITED RIGHT OF WAY. YOU ASKED FOR A BRR TO EVALUATE THE PARKING.

IF THE PARKING IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, THERE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS WE CAN DO TO THAT INTERSECTION TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY THERE, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME PRETTY SEVERE TRADE OFFS.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS FOR THAT RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS WHY I PREDICT THAT ARTESIA, NRBB AND INGLEWOOD AND GRANT, WE HAVE A CLEAR PATH TO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS AT THOSE TWO LOCATIONS.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I'LL JUST SAY, LOOK, THESE OTHER INTERSECTIONS, I WOULD LOVE TO GET CROSSING GUARDS THERE, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A START. FIRST THEY'RE CLAMORING THE HARDEST AND THE YOUNGEST AT AVIATION AND FORD.

AND TWO, THERE ARE ACCIDENTS THAT I, THAT I SEE THERE AND THAT CONTINUE TO OCCUR THERE.

AND THREE, IT'S AN EXPERIMENT, RIGHT? LET'S SEE WHAT IT'S LIKE WHEN WE MOVE A CROSSING GUARD FROM A,

[03:55:04]

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BIKE PATH OR SOMETHING ELSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE IMPORTANT IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ONE SOMEWHERE.

SO THAT'S IT FOR MY COMMENTS. SO EARLIER YOU HAD DISCUSSED MAYBE TWO INTERSECTIONS YOU WOULD REMOVE CROSSING GUARDS FROM.

COULD WE FILL ALL THREE OF THE BOTTOM ONES? BECAUSE ALL OF THEM, WHEN I LOOK AT THOSE, ALL THOSE LOOK BAD.

YEAH. BUT IF WE'RE DOING TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CHANGES, MAYBE WE WANT TO SEE WHERE THEY GO.

OKAY. ON THAT. OKAY. LET'S SEE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT, I THINK.

IS YOUR HAND STILL UP? NO, IT'S NOT. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. HAD A FEW ITEMS. NOT IMMEDIATELY TO CROSSING GUARDS MAYBE GET BACK TO YOU SOON.

OH. THANK YOU. STAY CLOSE. OH, SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE EXCUSED HIM.

THANKS. THAT'S FINE. ON THE CITY MANAGER. ON THE SIR.

DO YOU NEED A DECISION ON THAT? NO, NO, NO, I'M JUST FORESHADOWING THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO EXPLORE THAT WE DON'T YET HAVE CREDIBLE ESTIMATES BECAUSE IT'S SO EARLY IN THE PREMIUM YEAR. WE DON'T HAVE CREDIBLE ESTIMATES YET ON WHAT THIS WOULD DO TO AFFECT THE 2027 PREMIUM COSTS.

SO WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR REP TO BETTER DETERMINE WHAT ADJUSTMENTS COULD BE MADE AND HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY LOWER OUR PREMIUM COSTS BEGINNING 2027 CALENDAR YEAR.

AND WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DO A RISK ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE USE OF THE? YES, YES, THAT'S PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WILL FOLLOW THE METRIC.

AND YES, HOW MANY TIMES WE'VE ACTUALLY, SIR, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO ANECDOTAL REFERENCING, BUT ACTUAL ACTUAL NUMBERS. AND THEN WHERE WE MAY BE TRENDING TODAY, RIGHT.

OUR SIR LIMITS, INFLATIONARY COSTS, LEGAL SERVICES AREN'T GETTING CHEAPER, ETC..

SO WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO THE HALF $1 MILLION MARK MORE OFTEN THAN WE USED TO.

AND HOW THAT MAY IMPACT THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO RETAIN THEIR OWN COUNCIL THAT CAN SOMETIMES BE SIGNIFICANT.

WE SPENT TIME HANDPICKING COUNCIL AND YOU'LL LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF THAT.

YES, YES. ON THE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE ISSUE, DIRECTOR STRICKFADEN IS HERE.

DOES SHE HAVE AN OPINION AND INSIGHT ON THAT? IT'S A PRETTY WEIGHTY ISSUE. IT IS. JUST FOR REFERENCE, WE HAVE MULTIPLE LINES OF INSURANCE THAT WE HAVE A REGULAR ALL RISK PROPERTY INSURANCE, WHICH ALL CITY FACILITIES ARE COVERED BY.

IT'S FOR ALL RISKS. THERE'S 120 TOTAL FACILITIES ON THE PROPERTY INSURANCE.

AND THAT COVERS YOU FOR TERRORISM, FLOODS, INCLUDING WAVE WASH, FIRES, BOILER AND MACHINERY AND THE LIST GOES ON.

WITH THAT WE ALSO HAVE 40 CITY FACILITIES LISTED SEPARATELY ON EARTHQUAKE SHOCK.

SO JUST LIKE EUGENE WAS SAYING, IT'S ONLY FOR THE ACTUAL SHOCK.

IT'S NOT FOR THE TSUNAMI THAT COMES. IT'S NOT FOR THE FIRE THAT STARTS AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE.

OF THOSE 40 FACILITIES, THEY'RE CHARGING US $1 MILLION.

AND WE JUST RECEIVED THIS FP BOND. SO OUR BROKER SAYS, AND THIS IS WHAT HE TOLD ME PRIVATELY, IF WE MOST CITIES EITHER DON'T CARRY ANY EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE OR THEY ONLY INSURE THE VERY MOST CRITICAL FACILITIES.

SO WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IF WE DIDN'T HAVE FP, WE WOULD WANT TO MAYBE WHITTLE DOWN THE LIST TO JUST BEING THE FIRE STATIONS, POLICE STATIONS, CITY HALL. HOWEVER, THE COMPLICATES THINGS BECAUSE WE HAVE FUNDING TO REPLACE THOSE.

IN ANY CASE, SO WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER JUST GETTING RID OF THE WHOLE THING.

HOWEVER, THERE'S THE PARKING STRUCTURE. IF WE JUST REDUCE IT TO REVENUE PRODUCING ITEMS LIKE THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK, THE THREE PARKING STRUCTURES AT THE PIER. WE COULD PROBABLY SAVE, YOU KNOW, $700,000 AND STILL BE COVERED.

SO. SO IT'S A WEIGHTY DECISION. YEAH. IT IS. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WHAT, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE PRUDENT APPROACH? AND, AND, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE PULL INSURANCE COVERAGE ON EVERYTHING AND THEN THERE'S A SLIGHT TREMOR TO THE CITY MANAGER'S POINT, YOU KNOW, GOD FORBID THE PARKING STRUCTURE GOES DOWN, BUT THE REST OF THE COUNTY IS FINE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF BE SHRUGGING OUR SHOULDERS LIKE, OH, WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE HAD EARTHQUAKE.

SO WITH THOSE KIND OF VARIABLES IN MIND, WHAT, WHAT IS A SOUND DECISION HERE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE? WELL, FEEL FREE TO SHARE. I MEAN, DIANE'S HONEST, DIANE'S INITIAL REACTION TO THIS IS WE SHOULD ELIMINATE COVERAGE AT THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURE. I MEAN, THE ONE THAT'S PRIVATELY BEEN A LITTLE MORE HESITANT WITH THAT BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S VULNERABILITY.

[04:00:02]

AND WE, WE WOULD, WE WOULD NEED TO SPEND TIME TO.

AND KEEP IN MIND THAT'S CURRENTLY GOT A VALUATION OF, I THINK UNDER $50 MILLION.

CORRECT, DIANE? IN OUR PREMIUM COVERAGE, IT'S VALUED AT $44 MILLION.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD. THE LIKELIHOOD OF IT BEING REBUILT AT $44 MILLION IS NIL.

SO WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE BORROWING BONDING FOR THE DELTA ANYWAY.

SO YEAH, IF WE HAD, THE ONE SCENARIO THAT WE THOUGHT THROUGH, THAT WOULD BE REALLY FRUSTRATING IF WE WERE TO ELIMINATE ALL THE COVERAGE.

IS THE SCENARIO WHERE THE PALOS VERDES FAULT ERUPTS.

WE GET HIT HARDER THAN PERHAPS THE REST OF THE SOUTHLAND.

SUDDENLY IT'S ONLY OUR PEER STRUCTURE THAT'S COLLAPSED, AND WE COULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY GONE AFTER THAT $44 MILLION PRETTY WELL UNFETTERED.

THAT'S THE ONE IN MY HEAD THAT I'M THINKING, GOD, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE STRONGLY KICKING OURSELVES IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR.

BUT THERE IS FAR MORE LIKELIHOOD THAT AN EVENT LIKE THAT WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES DRAWING ON COVERAGE, AND WE MAY NOT GET ANYTHING BECAUSE SUDDENLY THE CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE AUTHORITY IS NO LONGER ABLE TO MAKE ANY PAYMENTS, AND EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR HAND OUT FOR FEMA MONEY.

SO AND WE COULD VERY WELL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA MONEY IN A SCENARIO LIKE THAT.

WE HAVE A COASTAL ASSET, IT'S PUBLIC PARKING, ETC..

SO THERE ARE OTHER PERHAPS PLACES TO TURN. THIS IS NOT A WE HAVE CONTINUED TO DO THE EASY THING, WHICH IS SPEND MORE MONEY ON INSURANCE THAN WE PROBABLY SHOULD.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT CHOICE. I THINK YOU CAN SAFELY SAY THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES WITH MEASURE FP FUNDED.

I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD BE INCLUDING IN COVERAGE GOING FORWARD.

MOST OF OUR NEWER COMMUNITY CENTERS, MODERNIZED STRUCTURES.

IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THE NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY IS GOING TO COLLAPSE IN AN EARTHQUAKE EVENT.

IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT THAT THE MAIN LIBRARY IS GOING TO COLLAPSE IN AN EARTHQUAKE EVENT.

AND IN FACT, CANDIDLY, EVEN THOUGH CITY HALL IS QUITE OLD AND HAS SOME MASONRY CONCRETE IN IT, IT'S WITHSTOOD ALL SEISMIC ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST 70 YEARS OR SO.

AND IF IT WERE TO FALL, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T COLLAPSE.

IT PROBABLY JUST HAS DISTRESS IN CERTAIN AREAS.

IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT SEEMS VERY SILLY FOR US TO SPEND $1 MILLION ON PREMIUM.

SO I MEAN, FOR ME, IF WE'RE UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT GOING THE WHOLE WAY AND DOING THE TORRANCE THING AND DOING WHAT MOST OTHER CITIES DO, WHICH IS HAVE NO COVERAGE I THINK YOU GIVE US DIRECTION TO JUST PICK THE MOST VULNERABLE BUILDINGS AND THEN WE MAKE A CUT.

AND THEN PERHAPS WE REEVALUATE IF WE WANT TO GO THE FULL, THE FULL.

I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD MONTY, BUT THE FULL MONTY NEXT YEAR.

SO THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. THIS ISN'T AN EASY ONE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING A GROUP DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

YES. THANK YOU. I DO THINK IT'S TIMELY AND I THINK WE NEED TO WE NEED TO MAKE, AT MINIMUM, WE MAKE A REDUCTION TONIGHT IF NOT A FULL ELIMINATION.

OKAY. AND SO WITH RESPECT TO THE REVENUE GENERATING PROPERTIES OF THE DISTRICT, LIKE THE PARKING STRUCTURE, IS THERE ANY OTHER INSURANCE THAT WOULD COVER US IN THE EVENT OF A BUSINESS OPERATION, IN THE EVENT OF AN EARTHQUAKE? OR IS IT IF YOU DON'T HAVE EARTHQUAKE COVERAGE, THERE'S NO COVERAGE AT ALL DUE TO A LOSS OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS FROM WHICH WE'D BE DEPRIVED OF REVENUE OTHERWISE RECEIVED? MANY LOSS OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROPERTY ALL RISK COVERAGE.

IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE COVERED FOR EARTHQUAKE SHOCK. SO IF THE SHOCK CAUSES THE PARKING STRUCTURE TO COLLAPSE, IT'S GOING TO TAKE THREE YEARS TO REBUILD. I THINK AT BEST.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY FOR THE RESULTING ACTIVITY.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER COVERAGE, LOSS OF BUSINESSES AND THAT KIND OF THING THROUGH THE GENERAL PROPERTY INSURANCE.

WOULD THAT BE COVERED EVEN IF THE OCCURRENCE WAS AN EARTHQUAKE? THAT MEANING THE LOSS OF THE REVENUE FROM PARKING STRUCTURE OPERATIONS IF THE OCCURRENCE WAS DUE TO AN EARTHQUAKE.

WE DO HAVE, THERE ARE SOME EXCLUSIONS, BUT WE DO HAVE LOSS OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS.

WE HAVE LOSS OF ABILITY TO REPAY BONDS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THE PROPERTY INSURANCE.

I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EVALUATED BY OUR OUR BROKER.

BUT JUST PLEASE KNOW THAT THERE'S 100 MILLION TOTAL LIMITS.

AND IN PRISM, IT'S MOSTLY COUNTIES AND THEY PUT ALL OF THESE PUBLIC AGENCIES INTO GROUPS.

SO THERE'S, THEY CALL THEM TOWERS. THERE'S TOWERS ONE THROUGH NINE AND EIGHT OF THESE TOWERS THAT ARE GROUPED FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ARE COUNTIES ONLY.

AND THEN TOWER SIX IS ALL THE, THE CITIES. SO WE'RE ALL IN.

WE'RE WITH BAKERSFIELD AND BALDWIN PARK AND UNFORTUNATELY, MANHATTAN BEACH AND HAWTHORNE.

SO IF THERE'S AN EARTHQUAKE, IT'S MOST LIKELY TO AFFECT THOSE OF US THAT ARE RIGHT HERE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS PRICED BASED ON DISTANCE FROM THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY FAULT THAT THEY SAY WOULD PRODUCE AN 8.0 OR

[04:05:01]

AND WE'RE VERY FAR FROM THAT. THANK YOU. IF WE REDUCE IF THE CITY WERE TO REDUCE ITS EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE COVERAGE, WOULD IT THEN BE UNLIKELY IN THE FUTURE THAT AN INSURER WOULD INCREASE IT? IF A YEAR FROM NOW WE SAID, OKAY, WE CHANGED OUR MIND.

WE WANT EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE AT THAT POINT, WOULD WE BE LOCKED OUT? I WOULD HAVE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

OKAY. AND WE DO HAVE INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AT THE TIME, MEANING RIGHT NOW.

YET A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE TONIGHT. THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNCIL TO GIVE DIRECTION.

SO WE HAVE TIME TO WORK WITH OUR BROKER AND GIVE THEM A FINAL DETERMINATION.

BUT IT'S GOT TO BE RELATIVELY SOON. SO YOU KNOW, IF, IF THERE'S DISCOMFORT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO, WE CAN FOLLOW UP ON SOME THINGS, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE US AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. YES. AFTER TONIGHT.

WITH THAT. OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THE PROPERTY INSURANCE RUNS FROM MARCH TO MARCH, SO WE'D HAVE TO MAKE OUR DECISION BEFORE THE END OF MARCH, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T PAY TILL JULY, THE PROGRAM STARTS IN MARCH, STARTS IN MARCH 31ST.

SO WE HAVE A TIME CRUNCH. SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS PERHAPS.

SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, IS IT MOST PRUDENT TO DO A PARTIAL REDUCTION IN THE INSURANCE COVERAGE TO SPECIFIC STRUCTURES OF THE CITY SINCE WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION NOW? OR IS IT BETTER TO DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO PULL EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE ENTIRELY FROM EVERY STRUCTURE OF THE CITY? BASED ON THE LIMITED INFORMATION WE HAVE RIGHT NOW? YEAH, I. I'M OKAY WITH GOING TO ZERO. I AM.

IF THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE WE SIMPLY CONTINUE TO ENSURE THE PARKING STRUCTURE, THAT'D BE THE ONE ASSET THAT WE CONTINUE TO ENSURE.

AND ANY IDEA WHAT, JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, I DID NOT LIST ABSOLUTELY EVERY ITEM ON HERE.

I DID NOT LIST THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK SHOPS BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK ANYONE WOULD WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING.

THAT'S NOT EVEN IN PLAY. SO WE DID LIST THE PARKING STRUCTURE BECAUSE THE BROKER SAID TO ME, THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD GET RID OF. YEAH, I HOWEVER, I FIND THAT ONE.

SO MORE OF A STRUGGLE WENT DOWN AND REMOVED EVERYTHING.

BUT FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURE, WE WOULD STILL ALSO HAVE THE SHOPS THAT WE OWN.

SO THOSE ARE STILL ON THERE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T LISTED IN THIS REPORT.

RIGHT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE TWO THINGS COVERED.

WE WOULD HAVE TWO THINGS COVERED AT THAT POINT. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE. WELL, UNLESS WE GAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO NOT INCLUDE THEM. CORRECT. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE GO AHEAD. THE STRUCTURE HAS THE EFFECT OF OF, IT HAS WEIGHT, IT'S OLD, IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE DESTABILIZED AND DAMAGED IN A SHOCK EVENT DIFFERENTLY THAN A PIER, THE BOARDWALK.

NOT ALL OF THEM COULD EXPERIENCE LIQUEFACTION. I MEAN, ANYTHING ON THE WATERFRONT COULD HAVE SEISMIC DAMAGE AS A RESULT.

IN FACT, I THINK IN. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS LOMA PRIETA, ONE OF THEM.

SEASIDE LAGOON HAD SIGNIFICANT LIQUEFACTION. WE ULTIMATELY HAD FEMA MONEY.

YEAH, MAYBE IT WAS THE NORTHRIDGE QUAKE WHERE WE ACTUALLY RESTORED THE LAGOON USING FEMA FUNDS.

I THINK I THINK THE YACHT CLUB MIGHT HAVE EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT LIQUEFACTION AT THAT TIME. SO THE WATERFRONT IS VULNERABLE TO A SEISMIC EVENT TO SOME DEGREE.

THE QUESTION IS IF IF THAT HAS CATASTROPHIC CASUALTY.

BECAUSE REMEMBER, THIS PROGRAM IS STILL BACKED BY THE CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE AUTHORITY, CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO, ALONG WITH LLOYD'S OF LONDON AND ABOUT TEN OTHER.

SO YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL, AGAIN, IF IT'S NOT ISOLATED TO REDONDO BEACH TO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO COVERAGE.

THAT'S THE OTHER RISK HERE. SO THE ONE TO ME THAT I COULD JUST KEEPS TURNING IN MY MIND THAT POTENTIALLY HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS THE STRUCTURE.

BUT IT'S $165,000 A YEAR IN PREMIUM ALONE FOR THAT ASSET, FOR THAT, FOR THAT ONE ASSET.

OKAY. AND THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST THE MAIN STRUCTURE, NOT THE OTHER TWO, THAT NOT THE PLAZA STRUCTURE, NOT THE, THE SOUTH OR THE NORTH STRUCTURE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S THE SOUTH STRUCTURE. AND SO THE BOTTOM LINE, OBVIOUS RISK IS IF WE GO TO ZERO AND THERE'S A SEISMIC EVENT REALLY OF ANY KIND, NONE OF OUR STRUCTURES WOULD BE COVERED. THE UPSIDE, IF YOU WILL, IS, WELL, YOU'RE NOT PAYING A PREMIUM ON THAT AND MAYBE YOU DON'T GET THE MONEY ANYWAY. IS THAT THE DECISION POINT? THAT IS THE DECISION AND THE AND THE AND THE SAVINGS AND PREMIUM IS $1 MILLION A YEAR.

OKAY. SO YOU COULD DO A LOT WITH $1 MILLION A YEAR.

SO THAT'S WHAT BOTH OF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING? YES.

RECOMMENDING WITH SOME TREPIDATION. YES. OKAY.

[04:10:04]

AND WE'RE GOING TO SPLIT 100 MILLION WITH TWO OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE MILES AWAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR COMING UP AND SPEAKING TO THAT.

SURE. AND THEN LASTLY ON THE CROSSING GUARDS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE DO TONIGHT.

OH HE'S BACK. HE'LL COME IF YOU'D LIKE. COME ON UP.

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE DO TONIGHT ON THAT, WILL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC TO MYSELF TO MEET WITH YOUR STAFF TO DISCUSS AND PICK UP AND HOPEFULLY FINALIZE SOME TYPE OF SUGGESTIONS? ABSOLOUTELY. YEAH. LOVE FOR THE. WHAT? YES. LOVE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO HELP.

HELP ME MAKE SUGGESTIONS. REDUCTIONS TO 22 WILL BE UP TO THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR WILL HAVE THE POTENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES THAT COULD IMPROVE.

WELL, YOU HAVE TO GET TO THAT. ON THAT ISSUE, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED FUNDING.

SO THE ANSWER IS YES. SO WE CAN MEET AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN MEET SOON ON THAT.

SOON ANY, WELL, BUDGET DEVELOPMENT WILL BE MADE IN THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS, I THINK.

OKAY. AND THEN ON RYAN HAD MADE THE POINT ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SOME OF THESE INTERSECTIONS.

WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING. IS THERE FUNDING? WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION NOW ON ON HOW TO DO THAT SEQUENTIALLY? YEAH. WHAT DO WE DO? I DO BELIEVE MOST OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SOME OF OUR MORE RELIABLE AND FREQUENTLY OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SOURCES.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EFFECTIVELY PAYING FOR TO EXTEND THE NORTH REDONDO BEACH BIKE PATH.

THAT'S, TONIGHT, THERE'S A FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR STUDIES OF THESE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS, COMPLETE STREET TYPE ACTIVITIES ON REDONDO BEACH AVENUE.

SO I THINK WHAT RYAN DESCRIBED IS SOMETHING WE COULD PUT INTO THE MEASURE M OR OTHER ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Q, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO DEVELOP. AND MAYBE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PART OF MY POINT AND PROBABLY THE MAYOR'S POINT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE FACTOR THAT INTO DECISIONS ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS IF WE KNOW, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS FUNDING, THERE'S GOING TO BE THESE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON ARTESIA IN THE NORTH REDONDO BEACH BIKE PATH WITHIN, YOU KNOW, OVER THE SUMMER. THAT MEANS MAYBE IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE.

A CONCERN GOING FORWARD. YEAH, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY, IF NOT ADD IT TO THE ANALYSIS, WE COULD CERTAINLY PREPARE A BUDGET RESPONSE REPORT THAT SPEAKS TO HOW WE COULD POTENTIALLY FUND THOSE SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS.

AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT FUNDING THAT WE CONTROL, AND IT'S LARGELY SPOKEN FOR, BUT WE'LL ASSESS THAT AS PART OF OUR CIP PRESENTATION FOR 26-27 AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE LAST POINT ON ALL OF THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE CROSSING GUARDS LIABILITY ISSUES, THE SORT OF SHOCK OF THE MISSING CROSSING GUARD.

WHAT, AND WE KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME LOOKING INTO THAT.

MAYBE FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHAT WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE BUFFER TIME BETWEEN CROSSING GUARD GONE AT THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION, WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT IS WHERE IT IS, BUT HOW MUCH TIME IS NEEDED AND THEN YOU'VE GOT AN EXTRA MAYBE WEEK OF SPRING BREAK. WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? IS IT, HEY, WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR.

IS IT MAYBE WE DO THIS. WHAT? BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOW UP.

WHERE'S MY CROSSING GUARD? I'M CROSSING THE STREET.

GOD FORBID. IT'S NOT REALLY A MATTER OF TIME RATHER THAN THE PROCESS OF WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH US IN NOTICING PARENTS. IF IF THEY'RE WILLING TO CONTACT THE PARENTS OF THAT SCHOOL THAT THIS CHANGE IS GOING TO BE MADE. THEN THE TIME, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES TO DO THAT IS THE TIME THAT IT TAKES.

BUT IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN WE, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO NOTICE THAT ENTIRE AREA, WHICH IS MORE MONEY, MORE TIME OR, OR HOWEVER WE WANT TO GO ABOUT DOING THAT.

ANY IDEAS AS TO WHAT THE MONEY WOULD BE IF WE HAD TO DO IT OURSELVES? THE NOTICE? I, I COULDN'T SAY. IT'S A TRADITIONAL NOTICING COST FOR US FOR A THOUSAND.

THOUSAND FOOT RADII, PROBABLY IN THE. IN THE 800 TO 1000 RANGE.

SO EACH POSTCARD WOULD BE ABOUT A DOLLAR TO MAIL OUT.

THOUSAND TOTAL. AT LEAST. YEAH. IS THAT FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE? I MEAN, IS IT, IDEALLY WE'D FIND A WAY NOT TO HAVE TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY.

IT'D BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT THROUGH ELECTRONIC MEANS.

AND I FEEL FAIRLY CONFIDENT WE CAN GET THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PROBABLY HELP US IN THAT THAT EFFORT.

THEY SEND ME ABOUT FIVE EMAILS EVERY WEEK, AT LEAST ONE FROM THE PRINCIPAL, TWO FROM THE TEACHER,

[04:15:05]

BUT I'LL SHARE THAT. YEAH, I THINK THE NOTICING WE PROBABLY CAN WORK COOPERATIVELY TO MANAGE.

BUT THE POINT ABOUT PERHAPS TARGETING A START DATE POST SPRING BREAK DOES.

I MEAN, THE TIMING WOULD RESONATE. I MEAN, TWO WEEKS GETS US RIGHT TO THE START OF SPRING BREAK EFFECTIVELY.

SO MAYBE THE 13TH. APRIL 13TH. MONDAY, APRIL 13TH IS THE APPROPRIATE TARGET FOR THE CHANGE IF THE COUNCIL IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

AND IF THE COUNCIL IS SUPPORTIVE. IS THERE A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT WE'LL EITHER GET THE DISTRICT TO TIMELY SEND OUT A NOTICE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WILL HAVE THE FUNDING AND THE ABILITY TO SEND OUT OUR OWN NOTICE.

AND IF SO, IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? WELL, WHATEVER NETWORK WAS USED TO BRING DOWN OUR 21 SPEAKERS TODAY, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO START WITH THAT. WE HAVE A DIRECT LINE.

THAT WAS PRETTY EFFECTIVE. BUT YEAH, I, I, I CAN CERTAINLY MAKE A CALL TOMORROW TO CONFIRM THAT, BUT YEAH, I, I FEEL OKAY ABOUT THE 13TH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BIG DEAL WITH THE MID-YEAR BUDGET AND THESE DECISIONS.

SO APPRECIATE CITY MANAGER HAVING YOUR ENTIRE STAFF HERE AND AT THE HIGH LEVEL.

AND THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS.

SURE. CAN I ASK YOU WHERE YOU STAND ON EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE? I HAVE TREPIDATION. YOU KNOW, HEARING FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR STRICKFADEN.

WE HAVE IMPERFECT INFORMATION. I'D BE OKAY GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO.

I'D BE OKAY RESERVING COVERAGE FOR SPECIFIC STRUCTURES.

THERE'S. YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME RISK. EITHER WAY, I'M OPEN.

OKAY. THANKS. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. THANK YOU.

REAL QUICK, I WOULD BE OPEN TO EXPLORING REDUCING THE SIR, INCREASING THE LIMIT.

I MEAN. YEAH. JUST ON THE SIR? YES. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY I FEEL SIMILARLY REGARDING EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE EITHER GOING TO ZERO OR LIMITING THOSE STRUCTURES.

SO EXPLORING THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED.

WHEN IT COMES TO CROSSING GUARDS, I WOULD SUPPORT A CHANGE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR. YES. YEAH. MR. LIU, MR. LIU, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AND SO THE THE INTERSECTION THAT WAS IDENTIFIED.

DOES THAT GIVE YOU HEARTBURN? I MEAN, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THOSE FOR CROSSING GUARDS AS BEING LOW RISK GENERALLY IN THE CRITERIA THAT WE'VE DETERMINED.

THE FOUR AROUND JEFFERSON? YES. AND THE ONE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED.

DOES IT DOESN'T HAVE A TWO WAY APPROACH OR TWO.

WHAT DID YOU CALL IT? IT'S A TWO LANE, IT'S TECHNICALLY A FOUR WAY STOP, RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT GOES INTO THE SCHOOL. YES. SO FLAGLER AND HAVEMEYER'S, COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI MENTIONED, THAT ONE DOES HAVE FOUR TOTAL APPROACH LANES.

IT'S A TWO WAY STREET INTERSECTING A TWO WAY STREET.

YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE AN INTERSECTION WITH AN EXISTING GUARD, HARKNESS AND CARLSON, THAT IS, I BELIEVE, TWO ONE WAY STREETS, AND THAT HAS JUST TWO APPROACH LANES.

SO IT'S EVEN SIMPLER. AND IT DOES HAVE A LOWER VEHICLE VOLUME AS EXPECTED.

SO I MEAN, YOU DRIVE IT DAILY, IT SEEMS WELL, OFTEN THROUGH THE WEEK.

AND THAT THE ONE THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED HAS A FOUR LANE APPROACH OR FOUR WAY APPROACH.

IT'S IT'S BUSY. THERE ARE CARS GOING FOR SURE.

AND THERE ARE KIDS CROSSING, BUT IT'S EVERY KID IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADULT.

THIS IS K THROUGH FIVE, RIGHT? AT LEAST THE TIME WHEN I'M GOING AT 8:00 IN THE MORNING OR 08:15 THE PARENTS ARE WALKING THEM.

SO MY OPINION, THE CROSSING GUARDS SURROUNDING JEFFERSON IS A LUXURY.

THE ONES THAT ARE ON THOSE, THE WHERE THOSE MAIN THOROUGH WAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, INGLEWOOD AND INGLEWOOD AND GRANT THE BIKE PATH AND ARTESIA, AVIATION FORD, THOSE ARE MORE NECESSITIES THAT PUT.

NO, I DON'T DISAGREE. I'M JUST SAYING YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THE, THE FOUR LANE APPROACH AS OPPOSED TO THE TWO LANE APPROACH THAT TRAFFIC ENGINEER LIU WAS SAYING WAS A LOWER RISK BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT WE CONSIDER.

YEAH. CARLSON AND HARKNESS IT HAS 14 DAILY BIKES, 102 PEDS, 490 VEHICLES AND TWO LANES.

WHERE IS ON THE MAP? COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI JUST ON THAT BECAUSE THAT IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE.

MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT WITH THAT MANY PEOPLE CROSSING IN FRONT OF FOUR LANES, THAT'S GOING TO BOG UP TRAFFIC,

[04:20:04]

OKAY, SO THE HARKNESS AND CARLSON ONE, WHILE I AGREE THAT IT'S LESS LANES THAT IS BUSY AND A LITTLE CRAZY BECAUSE YOU GOT CARS PULLING INTO PARK, CARS PULLING OUT AND, AND THEN PARENTS CROSSING FROM PEOPLE, PEOPLE CROSSING FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. SO. I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THE OTHER ONE IS LESS BUSY, BUT HOW ABOUT LOOKING AT THE, LOOKING AT THE DATA, HARKNESS AND CARLSON, I THINK CARLSON.

THAT ONE. THE CARLSON GOES AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

SO SO REALLY THE, THE TWO APPROACH LANES ARE ACTUALLY THE BOTH DIRECTIONS OF HARKNESS.

RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. BUT THE PARENTS ARE CROSSING ACROSS CARLSON AND HARKNESS, BUT LET'S SEE. NUMBER OF VEHICLES, TOTAL SPEEDS 102 VERSUS 74. SO YOU HAVE LESS PEDESTRIANS AT HAVEMEYER AND FLAGLER.

BUT YOU HAVE MORE BIKES AT HAVEMEYER AND FLAGLER.

AND MORE VEHICLES. AND MORE VEHICLES AT. WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND? YOU RECOMMEND MOVING THE PERSON FROM HARKNESS AND CARLSON OR? I THINK BASED ON THE DATA THAT'S IN FRONT OF US THAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT NUMBER OF CARS AND NUMBER OF APPROACH LANES THAT.

THAT'S. THOSE ARE THE TWO CATEGORIES THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, PRODUCE THE THAT ADD TO THE RISK SIDE OF THINGS RATHER THAN THE DEMAND.

IT GOES TO OUR, OUR POINT OF THAT. WE'VE EVALUATED THIS AND WE HAVE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE REVIEWING ALL THESE LOCATIONS ON.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL TAKE THAT AS A SUBSTITUTE.

I HAVEN'T REALLY MADE A MOTION, BUT BUT BUT AS A YES, LET'S DO IT.

AND ALSO JUST WILLINGNESS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.

ONE, I THINK WE CAN PARTICIPATE OR WE CAN PARTNER WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

I DON'T THINK NOTICING WILL BE AN ISSUE. I THINK WE CAN DO THAT TOGETHER WITH THE DISTRICT.

AND I THINK THIS BRINGS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DISCUSSION, THE LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REMAINING CROSSING GUARDS.

AND I WOULD WELCOME COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI TO POSSIBLY HOST A MEETING WITH ME AT JEFFERSON ABOUT THAT.

SURE. ABOUT THE CHANGE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO YOU'RE ON A SUBCOMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO CROSSING GUARDS, ISN'T THAT. WELL, I GUESS IT DEPENDS WHEN WE.

YEAH, THAT COMPLICATES THINGS. ABOUT THAT ONE CHANGE.

AND. I'VE LOOKED AT THE CITY ATTORNEY. IS THAT A BROWN ACT? YEAH. THAT ONE. SO SHE'S ON A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT LOOKS AT CROSSING GUARDS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT, AND SHE ATTENDED A MEETING WITH US. AFTER MAKING THE MOTION.

AND SCOTT CAN COME TALK TO ME ABOUT THE CROSSING GUARD MOVE.

YOU KNOW, WHAT MIGHT BE EASIER IS JUST GETTING RID OF ALL OF THESE LOCATIONS. ALL FIVE OF THEM THERE HAVE LOW METRICS.

WELL, FOR NEXT, I'LL I'LL RETRACT THAT. WELL, OKAY.

YEAH, BUT I DO THINK THE CARLSON INTERSECTION WOULD BE BETTER BASED ON THE, YOU KNOW, OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT WE'VE BEEN EVALUATING THEM ON.

IT'S A T INTERSECTION. YEAH. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FOR.

NO. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. RYAN. THANK YOU.

RYAN. GOOD RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. LET'S SEE.

ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. NO.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. OH. YOU DISAPPEARED.

YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. MAKE A MOTION. PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION TO ELIMINATE OUR EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE, EXPLORE INCREASING OUR SIR, APPROVE ALL THE DECISION PACKAGES, MAKE THE LINE ITEM CHANGES THAT ARE NECESSARY AND RELOCATE THE CROSSING GUARD FROM HARKNESS AND CARLSON TO AVIATION AND FORD. OKAY. WITH NOTICE WITH NOTICE.

BUT TO OCCUR THIS THIS SCHOOL YEAR, APRIL 13TH START.

IF. YEAH. WITH NOTIFICATION AND RECEIVE AND FILE THE PRESENTATION ON THE STATUS OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? APPRECIATE IT. NO SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM.

ANYBODY ONLINE? WE HAVE MARK NELSON. GO AHEAD.

MARK. YEAH. I HADN'T EXPECTED THIS TO BECOME A DISCUSSION ABOUT RISK MANAGEMENT TONIGHT, BUT THAT IS KIND OF WHAT IT TURNED INTO.

[04:25:02]

SO I GUESS I WOULD SUGGEST THAT MAYBE YOU APPLY A LITTLE BIT OF SCIENCE TO THIS.

AND THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE YOU A RANKING THAT'S DEFENSIBLE AND MAYBE GET YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OUT OF THE POLITICS OF THIS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS.

SPEAKING OF RISK MANAGEMENT, I DID SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME DOING EARTHQUAKE MANAGEMENT FOR SAN ONOFRE.

SO I CAN TELL YOU WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT THE SAN ANDREAS IS NOT YOUR PREDOMINANT RISK.

IT'S THE ROSE CANYON NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT, WHICH GOES ALL THE WAY FROM SAN DIEGO BAY TO OBVIOUSLY NEWPORT INGLEWOOD.

THAT HAS A FAR MORE A FAR HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF THROWING A 7.5, TEN MILES AWAY OR 15 MILES AWAY THAN THE SAN ANDREAS DOES, THROWING AN EIGHT BEING 50 MILES AWAY.

SO YOUR DAMAGE WILL OBVIOUSLY BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.

SO I'M NOT ADVOCATING, AGAIN THAT YOU DO OR DON'T ENSURE I DON'T I DON'T HAVE EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE BECAUSE I'M WITH THE MAJORITY OF EVERYONE I HEARD THERE THAT SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT WE NEED IT, IT WON'T PAY ANYWAY. BUT AGAIN, I THINK MAYBE EITHER YOUR INSURER OR YOUR RISK MANAGER NEEDS TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT HARDER, LOOK, ABOUT WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS.

AND I ALSO AGREE THE, THE PANCAKING OF THAT PARKING RAMP IS PROBABLY THE THE NUMBER ONE LIKELY EVENT.

IF YOU GET A LARGE EARTHQUAKE. SO BUT YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE CITY NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE RISK MANAGEMENT WORK IN A FORMAL QUANTITATIVE WAY. SO THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THERE'S NO ONE ON ZOOM AND NO ECOMMENTS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I WILL CALL THE VOTE THEN. ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. DO YOU HAVE TO READ THAT ONE? YES. ADOPT BY 4/5TH VOTE AND BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NUMBER 2603-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA MODIFYING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUMPING TO O, CITY MANAGER ITEMS.

[O. CITY MANAGER ITEMS]

AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE SOMETHING COME ACROSS MY DESK TODAY THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE A GOOD SORT OF INITIATOR OF THIS ACTIVITY.

AND WE'RE CREATING A PROCESS TO KIND OF MINE THIS INTERNALLY.

AND I WOULD KIND OF REPORT OUT TO ALL OF YOU ON A PERIODIC BASIS, MAYBE ONCE A MONTH, NOT EVERY NIGHT, BUT MAYBE WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING MEANINGFUL WE'RE SHARING. AND IF, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME AND IF OFFLINE, YOU TELL ME, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T REALLY WORTH OUR TIME. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT I GOT A LETTER TODAY FROM EDUARDO SANTA CRUZ.

HE'S THE PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT WORKING FOR NORTHROP GRUMMAN WITH SCDS CONSULTING DESIGN.

AND HE WROTE THIS LETTER TO MARC WIENER AND HE SAID, IT'S A LETTER OF APPRECIATION.

I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR THE CARE THAT WE RECEIVE FROM YOUR STAFF FOR THE NORTHROP GRUMMAN TF ONE PROJECT.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF, LED BY LORENA SOLIS, WERE ALL VERY HELPFUL IN HELPING US SOLVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO HELP THE PROJECT COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE, AND THAT HELPED LED TO PLAN APPROVAL FOR PERMIT ASSURANCE OR ISSUANCE.

LORENA WAS ABLE TO SHEPHERD THE PROJECT THROUGH THE PLAN, CHECK PROCESS AND ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, AND STEVE SHAUN GUIDED US TOWARDS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE ON THIS COMPLEX PROJECT.

DURING THE ENTIRE PROCESS, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF WERE COURTEOUS, PROFESSIONAL AND FRIENDLY QUALITIES THAT ARE OFTEN LACKING IN OTHER CITIES.

WE CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT WORKING WITH THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS REFRESHING.

THEREFORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR HELP ON VARIOUS PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. PLEASE CONVEY OUR WARMEST REGARDS TO YOUR STAFF FOR THEIR WORK AND ASSISTANCE.

YOU KNOW THAT'S ONE WORTH SHARING. TURN THAT OFF.

SO LORENA, STEVE, THE BUILDING TEAM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN SEEING MORE OF THIS.

[04:30:03]

ABSOLUTELY. I'LL FORWARD IT TO ALL OF YOU. BUT YEAH, AND THAT'S COMING STRAIGHT FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN'S REP. SO COOL.

VERY NICE. ANYWAY, THAT'S MY FIRST STAFF SHOUT OUT, SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY HEAR ME DO MORE PERIODICALLY.

SO ANYTHING ELSE? NO, JUST MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ADJOURN TONIGHT, WE ADJOURN AT 12:00 FOR CLOSED SESSION.

GOT IT. OKAY. REFERRALS TO STAFF. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER.

[Q. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REFERRALS TO STAFF]

THE ONE UP AT ANDERSON. YES. ANDERSON. YEAH. YEAH.

IF THERE ARE OTHER PLACES WHERE IT'S MORE OF A REPAIR PROJECT.

I WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF.

AND THEN SECONDLY, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A BRR.

SO WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT ONE'S NOT BRR.

THAT WAS A THAT'S JUST A REFERRAL. THAT'S A STAFF CUSTOMER SERVICE ITEM.

THERE'S NO COUNCIL ACTION ON THAT. SO. AND THEN THE BRR WOULD BE FOR THE CREATION OF A LET'S CALL IT SENIOR ANALYST POSITION FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE. FOR SPECIAL EVENTS, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LARGE EVENTS THAT ARE STARTING TO TAKE PLACE HERE IN THE CITY.

AND AS WE COME UP FOR OUR LOOKING TOWARD OUR BUDGET NEXT YEAR, I WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD ADD SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF TO FOCUS ON MANAGING THOSE LARGE PROJECTS. YEP, YEP. HAPPY TO DO THAT. I AGREE.

YOU DON'T NEED A SECOND FOR BRR. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. YES. I'M SORRY, I HAVE A FEW I'D LIKE TO HAVE A BRR FOR.

ENSENADA, ENSENADA PARKETTE. I HAD SENT AN EMAIL TO MIKE KLEIN ABOUT SOME POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE PARKETTE.

SO THAT WOULD DICTATE THE DETAILS OF THAT. YEAH.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO GET A BRR REGARDING HARBOR PATROL THE POSITIONS THAT WERE ADDED FROM THE BUDGET LAST YEAR.

I'D LIKE TO GET A REPORT REGARDING, YOU KNOW, ADDED VALUE, WHETHER IN THE FORM OF ENFORCEMENT, INCREASED ENFORCEMENT IN THE HARBOR OR OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT'S RESULTED IN THOSE ADDITIONS.

YEAH. HARBOR PATROL AND THERE WAS ONE POSITION ADDED THAT WAS THE DEPUTY.

YEAH, YEAH. HARBOR MASTER. I'D LIKE TO GET A BRR TO ADD.

IT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF THREE CONCRETE BENCHES AT HERITAGE SQUARE.

SIMILAR TO THE STYLE FROM FRANKLIN PARK. I WILL ASK STRICT THAT WITH, I HAVE AN EXTRA ONE AT FRANKLIN PARK THAT IS A LITTLE OUT OF PLACE.

IT WOULD BE THREE THAT YOU COULD TAKE THE ONE FROM FRANKLIN AND PUT IT IN.

TRANSFER ONE, BUY TWO MORE OR BUY THREE MORE.

OKAY. WELL, WE CAN GIVE YOU A PER BENCH COST PROBABLY.

YES. AND THIS IS AT HERITAGE COURT, HERITAGE SQUARE.

HERITAGE SQUARE AT DOMINGUEZ PARK. YEAH. YEAH I DO, I NEED A BRR FOR THE CURB EXTENSION FOR THE BIKE PATH AT ARTESIA OR WAS THAT PART OF DIRECTION FROM BEFORE.

WE'LL, NO, WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. WE'LL EVALUATE THAT AS PART OF THE PROCESS.

OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST BRR IS TO FOR THE STREET LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AS WELL AS TREE TRIMMING TO EVALUATE THE CONTRACTS TO DETERMINE OPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS. TO STREET LIGHTING, STREET LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT IS HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, SUBSIDIZED BY THE GENERAL FUND.

TO WHAT CASE CAN WE OPTIONS TO REDUCE THAT SO THAT WE'RE NOT SUBSIDIZING IT FROM OUR GENERAL FUND? WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? OKAY. BRR LAST YEAR TOO.

WE HAVE WE'VE HAD THE REDUCTION. WE'VE HAD THE REDUCTION IN A COUPLE A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID IT LAST YEAR. WE CAN PROVIDE YOU SOME OPTIONS THERE.

NOT GREAT, BUT WE'LL GET YOU WHAT. IT, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE, THE PROP 218 DISCUSSION, BUT IF WE WERE TO REDUCE WHAT WOULD OUR OPTIONS BE? RIGHT, RIGHT. FOR THAT? THE STREET LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT, AS WELL AS TREE TRIMMING CONTRACTS.

AND, AND THAT FLOWS INTO THAT TO SOME DEGREE.

YEAH. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. AND I HAVE NONE.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

[R. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION]

[04:35:02]

YEAH. I GOT IT. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. IS THAT ALL FOR? AYE ANYONE OPPOSED? NO. OPPOSED TO ADJOURNING? OKAY, SO WE ARE ADJOURNING TO CLOSED SESSION AT NOON ON MARCH 31ST. TUESDAY, MARCH 31ST, 2026. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE OPEN SESSION STARTING HERE AT 2 P.M., BUT THEN MOVING OVER TO THE LIBRARY TO DISCUSS STRATEGIC PLANNING.

OKAY. DID I GET IT RIGHT, MIKE? OKAY, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.