City Council on 2022-01-11 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
Meeting Time: 01-11-22 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-01-11 6:00 PM -
VIRTUAL MEETING
01-11-22
18:00
61 9 2 4 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2022-01-11 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
01-11-22 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
J. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS 1 0 1 0
N.1. 22-3555 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S 6TH CYCLE (2021-
2029) ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT SUBMITTAL FOR STATE
CERTIFICATION
4 0 2 0
N.3. 22-3519 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION PERTAINING TO A
POSSIBLE CHARTER/ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR VOTERS TO
APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE VOTING
METHOD TO REPLACE SEPARATE OR DELAYED RUNOFF
ELECTIONS (AKA INSTANT RUNOFF) FOR CITY ELECTIVE OFFICES 2 1 1 0
P.1. 22-3560 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN FUTURE PUBLIC MEETINGS VIA
TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT
2 1 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for J. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:50am 01-11-22
City finance director Jennifer Paul is a BCHD board approved committee member. BCHD will have a nearly $500M commercial development project pending at the City of Redondo in the next month or so. Ms. Paul is conflicted and cannot participate in any analysis, decisions, or briefings regarding BCHD in any matter at the City of Redondo Beach. The City is further disadvantaging surrounding residents by failing to dismiss Chair Biro from the GPAC, as Mr. Biro is the primary $300,000 no-bid contract advocate for BCHD at the City, and Mr. Biro, like Ms. Paul, is a sitting, BCHD board approved committee member. Over 1,200 surrounding residents oppose the 100+ foot tall, 800,000 sqft, Staples Center sized expansion of BCHD. This is very likely the largest commercial development project in Redondo Beach, and is approximately 3-times the height and twice the square feet of the voted rejected CenterCal mall by the sea project - however - the BCHD is completely landlocked by residential 30-foot height neighborhoods.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 22-3555 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE CITY'S 6TH CYCLE (2021-2029) ADOPTED HOUSING
ELEMENT SUBMITTAL FOR STATE CERTIFICATION
Overall Sentiment
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 7:12pm 01-11-22
Dear Mayor and City Council,
You have blatantly disregarded, chastised, ignored, and poorly misrepresented nearly 500 comments of Redondo residents who have asked you to equally spread the housing RHNA throughout ALL of Redondo. Yes, you colluded with specific misguided representations and chose to ignore what has been reported as fact by both HCD and SCAQMD about affordability and health concerns of potential future residents.
You say this is not an issue about race, yet housing affordability is in fact a racially equitable issue. Generational wealth no longer looks like the single-family exclusionary zoning, unfortunately, because this generation statistically makes less than past generations. Multi-generational housing exists, yet with the current restrictions, Council looks to seclude housing restrictions, independent and multigenerational housing cannot exist. If you don't want to consider housing on the AES site, be more Pro active. about considering lifting and expanding the height limits to provide more available housing units.
Please consider expanding your idea of what "equitable housing looks like" so that you can tell future generations you at least considered their well-being with support for housing shared across ALL of Redondo.
Sheila Lamb
Location:
Submitted At: 4:51pm 01-11-22
Dear Mayor and Council Members
Now that HCD has rejected the RB housing element, it is important that sufficient time is taken to identify appropriate new locations for the RHNA housing allocation. With careful deliberations, housing sites will be found. However, Redondo Beach residents have been clear in the past and continue to be clear in the present that the AES power plant site is off limits for housing development. The AES power plant site, like our national parks, is a gem that must be preserved for our grandchildren and their children. Its restoration as a park and wildlife sanctuary in the middle of an urban is priceless. Redondo Beach must be remembered as a community that recognizes the long term value of the natural environment over the short term capitulation to financial investors.
Sheila W. Lamb
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 10:35am 01-11-22
I continue to be very concerned that BCHD plans to develop commercial $12,500 per month assisted living (unaffordable) that per the BCHD MDS study is 80%+ for non-residents of the 3 beach cities and 90%+ for nonresidents of Redondo Beach. From an objective perspective, BCHD 100 foot tall, 800,000 sqft campus expansion in direct opposition to the 1200+ surrounding neighbors, adjacent residential zoning and compatibility.
Alisa Beeli
Location:
Submitted At: 8:56pm 01-10-22
Dear Mayor Brand and Council Members Nehrenheim, Loewenstein and Obagi:
We told you, repeatedly, that your housing plan was unfair. We voiced concerns about the negative impact your plan would have on our neighborhood, our traffic, our schools and our safety. We pleaded with you to consider equitable distribution of new housing across the entire city. We asked you respectfully to hear us.
You did not listen. Even worse, at times you mocked us. You incorrectly said we didn't understand environmental concerns, density calculations or progress. You chastised us for being proud of our neighborhood and wanting to preserve it. You removed Planning Commissioners who appeared to agree with us. For speaking my mind, you accused me of trolling.
Where you failed us, thankfully the State of California heard us. You could have saved a lot of time, effort and resources if you would have listened to us in the beginning. Will you hear us now, or will we risk the consequences of non-compliance? Please do the right thing, for ALL of Redondo Beach. Work with the entire Council to develop a plan that's equitable for our whole city.
Thank you,
Alisa Beeli, District 5
Agenda Item: eComments for N.3. 22-3519 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION PERTAINING TO A POSSIBLE
CHARTER/ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR VOTERS TO APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE VOTING
METHOD TO REPLACE SEPARATE OR DELAYED RUNOFF ELECTIONS (AKA INSTANT RUNOFF) FOR CITY ELECTIVE
OFFICES
Overall Sentiment
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 7:55pm 01-11-22
Ranked choice and preference and approval voting have been in wide use in the past. The Roman Senate thumbs up/down is approval voting. There are many voting methods and they all have strengths and weaknesses.
However, experts agree that plurality (aka first past the post) is the worse system. I recommend the excellent voting methods educational website by the League of Women Voters of Boulder County https://lwvbc.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=629866&module_id=301984 Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 7:22pm 01-11-22
If we are choosing to amend the charter or ordinance in favor of a new voting implementation., We should also consider adding an amendment to increase the number of years an individual should be allowed to live in the city for more than 5 years before running for council. We need a real representation of residents who have lived in our community longer than 3 months to a year.
Agenda Item: eComments for P.1. 22-3560 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN
FUTURE PUBLIC MEETINGS VIA TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 9:04pm 01-11-22
If, in the future, public participation is also allowed at a City Council meeting from remote locations or via Zoom, who gets first preference to speak? The people attending in person? Those who register via Zoom? Alternating between the two? Remember, the Mayor and Council can speak as often as they like on an agenda item and for longer periods of time. However, Public Participation Non-Agenda Items has been limited to 30 minutes. Since remote Council meetings have been taking place, public participants on Zoom have been given first preference.
To expand to public attendance remotely likely has to have a separate set of rules. Definitely something to think about from several vantage points. If public participation does become allowed remotely, perhaps eComments should no longer be read at City Council meetings.
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 9:04pm 01-11-22
I travel often to DC and Sacramento. I think it would be helpful to have more access to particpate.