Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Noise Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press city for records, enforcement and traffic-calming on North Prospect Avenue
Summary
Multiple residents urged the commission and city officials to respond to long-running noise, safety and maintenance concerns on North Prospect Avenue, alleging delayed public-records responses and insufficient enforcement. Residents requested clarity on a reported $200,000 budget for median improvements and said recent plantings provided little of
During public comment at the Redondo Beach Public Works and Sustainability Commission meeting, residents urged the city to address longstanding noise, traffic safety and maintenance problems on North Prospect Avenue and nearby blocks.
Daryl Boyd, who identified himself as a resident of the 500–600 block of North Prospect Avenue, said he and neighbors had repeatedly asked for public records and follow-up about a median "beautification" project and had received no response. Boyd said Council member Kaludarovich previously told residents there was more than $200,000 budgeted for improvements but that city staff had not provided details on how much was actually budgeted or how the money was spent. "We've asked to know how much was spent on the so called beautification project on the North Prospect Avenue median…We were given no chance for input," Boyd said.
Boyd also alleged the city had not complied with public-records response timelines under the California Public Records Act and provided noise measurements from one evening between 5 and 6 p.m.: about 55 decibels for standing traffic, 65–70 decibels for moving traffic and 80–85 decibels for motorcycles. He called for immediate action and said residents had repeatedly requested traffic enforcement and noise enforcement across the city.
Boyd expressed concern about possible preferential treatment, saying Mayor Light lived near one project area and suggested that resident requests elsewhere had been ignored. He asked city officials to prioritize relief for residents on North Prospect Avenue and to provide a clear plan.
Other commenters at the meeting raised similar quality-of-life issues. Daryl Boyd returned later in public comment to restate that calls for enforcement and record requests had been repeatedly deflected and asked the mayor and council to deliver a remedy. The meeting record also shows two e-comments on the topic (one opposed, one in support). The commission did not take formal action on the North Prospect comments during the meeting.
The comments requested specific follow-ups that were not recorded as directed actions by the commission at this meeting: a detailed accounting of any funds allocated to North Prospect median work, records of traffic accidents and injuries over the past 10 years at specified locations, and clearer responses to public-records requests. The speaker named a specific block (500–600 North Prospect Avenue) and requested that the mayor or staff schedule a walk-through with residents; the meeting record shows the commission did not commit to those steps during the session.
No formal vote or direction by the commission was recorded on these public comments during the meeting.
