City Council on 2022-02-01 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
Meeting Time: 02-01-22 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-02-01 6:00 PM -
VIRTUAL MEETING
02-01-22
18:00
65 34 10 13 7
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 2022-02-01 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
02-01-22 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.13. 22-3664 APPROVE AMENDMENT #5 TO FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. FA.P00F3502 BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY (METRO) FOR THE REDONDO BEACH BICYCLE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT, AWARDED
THROUGH THE METRO 2009 CALL FOR PROJECTS
4 3 0 1
L.1. 21-3509 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EXTENSION OF
INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3226-21 AMENDING THE
REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 5, TO PROVIDE OBECTIVE STANDARDS FOR SENATE BILL 9 (SB9)
BY PROVIDING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS
AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 9 (SB9)
PROCEDURES:
1. Open public hearing and take testimony;
2. Close public hearing and deliberate; and
3. Introduce the following ordinance to extend Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 3226-21:
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY AN EXTENSION OF INTERIM URGENCY
ORDINANCE NO. 3226-21 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REDONDO BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 5, TO PROVIDE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) BY PROVIDING
REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT
PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9)
2 1 1 0
L.2. 22-3579 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
REVISED CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CONFIRMING
CERTIFICATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2202-003, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY'S 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
INCORPORATING RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT (HCD) AND CITING THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
DOCUMENTATION, INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROCEDURES:
1. Open public hearing;
2. Take testimony from staff and all interested parties, and deliberate;
3. Close public hearing;
4. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC-2202-003
12 2 1 6
N.1. 22-3604 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
CERTIFICATION OF AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
CANNABIS REGULATION, ADOPT ORDINANCE, CALL AN ELECTION,
OR ORDER A REPORT
10 1 8 0
P.1. 22-3608 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL OF
CHRIS VOISEY FROM THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
6 3 3 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 H.13. 22-3664 APPROVE AMENDMENT #5 TO FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. FA.P00F3502
BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY (METRO) FOR THE REDONDO BEACH BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT, AWARDED THROUGH THE METRO 2009 CALL FOR PROJECTS
Overall Sentiment
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 7:01pm 02-01-22
These are the types of improvements our community needs, by moving in this direction of placing these bike lanes, you bring added value to the community. Take further steps to provide how you can improve on this, highlighted bike lanes are great, but designated and protected from traffic bike lanes are better, similarly to how they are down by the harbor. if it means a road diet, by all means, as long as it reduces the GHG emissions for our community. Making our communities safer for bicycle riders is a good move, but we can certainly protect our riders from ongoing traffic with designated protected bikelanes.
Lara Duke
Location:
Submitted At: 6:47pm 02-01-22
Thank you for any improvements to designate bike lanes, no matter what class of bike lanes. Every little bit will help. Hardscape actual lanes are ideal, but painted lanes are a big help.
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 5:25pm 02-01-22
Thank-you for finally beginning to implement the 2011 SBBMP. However, I want to point out that, in the intervening decade, the vehicle fleet has become much larger, heavier and deadlier. The 85% rule has also increased the vehicle speeds outside of peak commute hours. The bike lanes that you are implementing are all Class 2 (paint) and Class 3 (sharrows). None of them will protect me from cars and trucks.
I ask you to put in meaningful protection; on-road bike lanes should all be class 4 protected bike lanes. If we are to shift a substantial number of local trips out of cars--which we must for climate change, pollution, safety, public health, to save money on road maintenance or car ownership, to reduce parking competition--then we must give people safe ways to get around without a car. We should be able to safely walk and roll uncarred after dark, when the sun is low, and when bars close. Paint will not protect us from deadly vehicles, but steel bollards and concrete will.
Brianna Egan
Location:
Submitted At: 2:38pm 02-01-22
It's good to see the city moving forward on funding and building more bike lanes in the city. After reviewing the documents in this item and the previous January 2021 item, I noticed that the bike lanes will all be Class 2 (painted) or 3 (sharrows). Paint is not adequate protection for bicyclists from cars. Best practices for bike lanes that encourage use and mode shift are to add bollards and barriers that physically separate bike lanes from cars, such as Class 4 designs (https://bikesiliconvalley.org/bikeway-design/). Is there any way that these bike lane projects can be amended to include physical barriers such as bollards, posts, or even planters and curbs? Perhaps reduce the number of signs ($51,625) and instead install posts and bollards? Signs won't save lives like physical protection would.
The bike lane on Harbor Drive is an ideal example of this: It's a very popular and successful bikeway because it has physical protection and signaling that keep bicyclists safe. You can see a wide range of ages of people enjoying this bike lane. When people feel safer they choose to bike. When people don't feel safe they resort to driving. We have to make bike riding safe to reduce VMT and emissions throughout the city, and to reduce collisions and road deaths. Separated bike facilities are associated with lower fatalities and lower injuries for everyone on the road (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourselfseparated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/).
The planned projects for Catalina Ave, Prospect Ave, Palos Verdes Blvd, Knob Hill, and Camino Real would be ideal places to implement Class 4 bikeway designs and would better facilitate people to travel to schools, restaurants, workplaces, and homes via bike. Hopefully some changes can be made to the project.
Agenda Item: eComments for L.1. 21-3509 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EXTENSION OF INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3226-21 AMENDING THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 5, TO PROVIDE OBECTIVE STANDARDS FOR SENATE BILL 9 (SB9) BY PROVIDING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 9 (SB9)
PROCEDURES:
1. Open public hearing and take testimony;
2. Close public hearing and deliberate; and
3. Introduce the following ordinance to extend Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 3226-21:
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY AN EXTENSION OF INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 3226-21 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 1, 2, AND 5, TO PROVIDE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) BY PROVIDING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 7:17pm 02-01-22
Thank you for challenging SB9 at the State level and getting input from the Planning Commission. Equitable and affordable housing for all will not be achieved by removing local zoning controls. Legislating a one-size-fits-all solution is neither fair nor equitable. It doesn't take into consideration the very real household incomes that might still prohibit some from living well within any neighborhood they choose. Why would anyone assume that local control is tantamount to keeping people out of the neighborhood or not allowing people a fair shot to realize their dreams? As it stands, SB9 is a dream for those with deep pockets only. Nothing in the bill has any language that housing must be affordable. Please continue to fight SB9. It's the only way to ensure we have local control over housing zoning, and ensure there's a percentage for affordable housing, as the City has been requiring for new housing developments. SB9 does nothing to deter the rising costs of homes, rental prices or market rates. We have never been nor will we ever be a one-size-fits-all society, nor should we be.
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:45pm 02-01-22
an objective standard if you choose to challenge this bill SB9 is to say that the bill should include affordable housing in its amended clause. However, by ignoring/ challenging this law to provide split units, you also are putting equitable opportunity for fair housing equally at risk, housing for those who can build granny flats, those to build adu units for subsidizing their incomes, opportunities for housing for single and young teachers to live where they also work, or even college students who want to move here to attend nearby community colleges or universities. Why lose out on this potential to diversify your community because you want to keep the status quo of generational wealth in single-family housing. Generational wealth doesn't look like what you prescribe to any longer.
While I support the efforts to having local control of our zoning as it pertains to our cities, I do not prescribe to this method of challenging the state in its ability to provide some solution to a housing market. A neighbor had been remodeling all through the pandemic, and when asked if he would build an adu unit, he said both the cost and the process of doing so would take too long and be too expensive. Closing the gap in the ability to have this split on his lot opens the opportunity of ease for others as well, lowering the cost and inability while serving the existing demand for wanting to do build these units. I ask why then challenge this? is your vision for how you see status quo generational wealth and "beach Life" more important than a diverse community who is able to afford to live where they work? to the Mayor, there have been many times you have personally told me, "I was able to pick myself up by my boots straps and worked hard to earn my house," I commend you for doing so, but all of my friends can't do that, they have all inherited their priorities here in Redondo, and they aren't all single-family houses either. we shouldn't have to be the cog of equitable housing because we don't like the way it messes with our aesthetics of how a beach town "should" look.
Agenda Item: eComments for L.2. 22-3579 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN CONFIRMING CERTIFICATION OF AN
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2202-003, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY'S 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
INCORPORATING RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT (HCD) AND CITING THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
DOCUMENTATION, INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROCEDURES:
1. Open public hearing;
2. Take testimony from staff and all interested parties, and deliberate;
3. Close public hearing;
4. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC-2202-003
Overall Sentiment
Candace Nafissi
Location:
Submitted At: 9:01pm 02-01-22
I join the majority of the residents who voted down high density housing at the AES site, note once, not twice, not three times, but four times. In addition, the AES site is zoned for a park and open space but currently has an industrial use permit for the operation of the power plant. Residents need to understand this site is NOT zoned for housing and therefore to change the zoning of the AES site you must go a public vote of which has been voted down 5 times.
The state, let me emphasize, the state has shared specific criteria for new housing that the proposed units should be located near close access to regional mass transit or a freeway. District 1 and 2, don’t exactly check off that box of being near a freeway or mass transit access point.
For anyone to say our city wants housing on the AES site simply isn’t paying attention to several recent elections.
To consider the AES site would be completely ignoring the previous elections of the voters of Redondo Beach.
The housing plan has not been rejected by the state. The state has requested clarification for the cities submitted proposal.
Residents must understand our high density housing challenges stem from years’ current and previous Councilmembers who pushed for increased density every chance they could. Two of which are currently sitting on that council today.
I am supportive of considering equitable allocation of the housing number BUT please take into consideration current density. The ranking of the density population in the city is District 4, District 1, District 2, District 3 and then 5. All 5 districts should hold their fair share of housing based on what they currently have. In addition, I hope that you are also considering adding additional schools to accommodate the increase of housing.
Residents work hard to reside here. Some have had the blessing of inheriting homes and others like myself have worked their entire career to live here.
Thank you for your consideration for mentioned matters.
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 9:00pm 02-01-22
For decades, the TWO districts in South Redondo Beach have experienced more housing development and density, in a smaller land area than the THREE districts comprising North Redondo Beach. It’s time for the Northern THREE districts of the City to receive their fair and equitable share of new housing distribution to satisfy the RHNA allocations for this cycle.
Voters in Redondo Beach have 4 TIMES rejected the 50-acre power plant site being re-zoned from open space to housing and development. North Redondo resident Dr. Peng writing to the State, asserting the City and the Mayor won’t allow housing at the power plant site is egregiously incorrect. RESIDENTS DON’T WANT HOUSING there. Ms. Peng should familiarize herself with the recent voting history of this City, as well as City Charter Article XXVII requiring a vote of the people to change zoning. Peng and Emdee should explain why their minority stance should override election results.
To truly be “fair and equitable” with RHNA allocations in Redondo Beach as required in this cycle, it's important to understand the southern part of the City has more than absorbed its share of additional housing in the recent past. This majority Council, along with City Staff, has done an excellent job addressing the State’s questions and concerns, and is working toward a plan that also ensures it could be 100% deliverable WITHIN this RHNA cycle (should all landowners decide to develop accordingly).
Note to Council Members Emdee and Horvath … you already cost taxpayers over $20 million going against the majority of the people. You lost your City Council majority last year because of your actions. Now you want to overturn the voter majority, yet again, by falsely crying foul in the name of “fairness?” What is wrong with you two? The voting majority in Redondo Beach wants the power plant property to remain as open space. We elected representation to work WITH us, not to work for developers, special-interest groups, or to overturn election results. Congratulations are in order to THIS majority Council for working very, very hard with City Staff to satisfy both the RHNA objectives and the voting majority in Redondo.
Deirdre Brand
Location:
Submitted At: 8:35pm 02-01-22
It's astonishing to me that a City Council would even consider turning the AES site into a housing development.
To be able to restore acres and acres of natural lands along the California Coast into natural parks, wetlands, and other public facilities would be an incredible opportunity. This site is a rare jewel among an otherwise ravaged coast. This would put Redondo Beach on the map. People would come from near and far to visit the park by the sea. It would be open for public uses instead of being reserved for private residential development. The park will be enjoyed by you, your children and your grandchildren. A housing development can't do that. As density continues to increase, the most valuable asset of all will be open space. Thing big Redondo. The birds will thank you and the future will thank you.
Wayne Craig
Location:
Submitted At: 7:55pm 02-01-22
Misinformation is again being spread for political theater.
HCD did not outright reject and decertify the plan for Redondo Beach, or because it was unfair to District 5 as has been
reported - these are false statements.
All HCD asks is clarification and narrative, and if needed some revisions.
If we were to spread out the housing across the city as some have proposed let’s first look at the population density by
council district. If a fair and equal distribution is required that means we should first be looking at the least densely
populated districts. From highest population density to lowest they are District 4, 1, 2, 3 and finally 5. Why don’t those in District 5 step up for a change?
Many in Redondo feel this is another effort by two termed out council members to help their developer centric friends
build thousands of “unaffordable condos” at the AES site.
The reality is the AES site is the worst location for development:
5 city wide elections rejected putting housing at the AES site.
The California Water Board extended power operation for at least 2 more years - and possibly even more years after
that.
The land is contaminated requiring years of remediation before its safe and certified for housing.
The AES site is naturally a lake; it’s wetlands, and it has been for tens of thousands of years. The California Coastal Commission has mandated an approximately 6-acre natural salt lake and wetland buffers be restored to the site.
State-dictated criteria for new housing is that it must be located with close, easy access to regional mass transit and
transportation arteries (that means: “freeway access points and light-rail stations”). The AES site is nowhere near such transportation arteries.
The last point is the state won’t believe increasing the overlay housing zoning to this area would result in any “affordable
housing” built at all, or in the next cycle. This means it won’t be accepted to satisfy the state requirements. It’s just a
game of smoke and mirrors.
To those behind this deceptive campaign - stop pushing these falsehoods.
The plan presented is workable with only a few minor changes. Let’s make them and move on.
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:23pm 02-01-22
I find it comical and frankly disrespectful to residents who you claim to represent in your best interest in your district when it was clear from the start that you've chosen to absorb the housing density into one of the densest portions of the city. You have not only wasted your own time but also taxpayer money to have to go through this process twice. It would behoove the council to consider what the residents have asked for the first time instead of ignoring what they have mentioned, spread the housing equally across all 5 council districts. At the very least make it balanced to where the south and the north have a level of equitable housing that meets the demand and the requirements. This also coincides with your previous agenda item. By ignoring the housing requirement here and also further disabling your development without splitting lots elsewhere, where do you suppose to put the housing you are required to place? I understand that you have a vision for the AES site, and some residents aren't keen on placing housing there also, maybe its time you start considering building upwards if you can't seem to make the more educated decisions on where else to place the housing, this isn't DC where there is a substantial height requirement for buildings. However, by your standards, the zoning limits this ability to provide enough housing in the desired places for all residents. Stop forcing the housing density in NRB, our schools can no longer handle them and you claim it makes it more efficient for traffic due to its corridors is not a good enough reason with provided evidence. Since it seems the council is stuck with difficult ideas on where to place housing, or even to properly adhere to the requirements, and listen to what the residents actually want or have asked for, it might be time to look elsewhere for solutions or elsewhere for new council members. Consider this make it more equitable by building upwards, or make it so that you aren't thwarting the requirements of the previous agenda item and spread the housing across all districts.
Lara Duke
Location:
Submitted At: 6:05pm 02-01-22
Hundreds and hundreds of units of residential at the AES site? This has been voted down enough times that you'd think the residents' point has been made. And yet here we are again.
Thank goodness for Measure DD, which requires the Redondo residents' vote if any public zone is to go to residential use. I'm still mystified how this isn't applying to the BCHD huge project. It should be, as it's in a public zone, just like the AES site, but that's another matter.
The zone AES sits on, is P-GP, Public – Generating Plant. You'd think that means that nothing but a power plant is allowed to go there, but that's not true. A quick read of your Redondo Beach Municipal Code shows what it's also zoned for. Parks, parkettes, open space, recreational facilities and coastal bluffs. These are all flat out allowed right now on this zone.
Save money on yet another ballot measure that will just show all over again that the public doesn't want housing on this property, and leave the zone alone. Furthermore, respect the zone and do what it was intended for—other than a power plant, open space. And as it turns out, we really need that open space. We should follow through on returning part of it to the natural wetlands habitat that it once was and can be again. Since the zoning allows recreational facilities too—that could mean pickleball courts, a skate park, an outdoor amphitheater, or any number of things in our imaginations to make this area beautiful and inviting to draw in the public.
For those who think this is a north/south issue, it's not. All five districts should field their fair share of housing requirments, as they can and as it makes sense, and we should all be fighting these state requirements when they are unreasonable. Aside from the density issue, in this case, it doesn't make sense to build a thousand homes on the water, blocking views, snarling traffic, and impeding access to the recreational public uses that the coastline is supposed to provide.
Dawn Esser
Location:
Submitted At: 5:59pm 02-01-22
I and the majority of Redondo Beach residents oppose putting high density housing on the AES Power Plant site.
This was established when Measure B was voted down some years ago when AES proposed building 800 condos on this site. Residents are sickened and very upset with the high density zoning the State has passed with the SB laws and are signing the petition to bring zoning back to local municipalities in droves. The City's revenues are in sad shape because of all the residential building that has taken place in Redondo for over 30+ years versus commercial development that brings continued revenues into the city. Residential costs the city money since most of the property taxes go to the county and state. City expenses are increased with more residents for all the schools and services used. Commercial development should be the focus of this city for the future and for the AES site, not residential. I think it is very irresponsible for Councilmember Emdee and Horvath to say majority of the residents do not care about high density housing when it has been clear for years that is not the case. Also, very irresponsible to push for residential for the city's finances.
Ryan Shea
Location:
Submitted At: 4:25pm 02-01-22
If any amendments are considered to the Draft Housing Element it should not be to put high density housing on the AES Power Plant site. The residents of Redondo Beach have voted 4 times to reject high density housing on this site. The residents want open space/park, sports fields, community aquatic center, and other amenities. And for good reason: the intersection of 190th and PCH is a traffic choke point for daily commuters, as the intersection operates at a very poor level of service. Plus our schools are already overloaded in District 2 and Redondo doesn't have enough park space per capita. Low density housing, hotels, and office space are what the residents would support for the AES site if we got the open space and other amenities - not more high density housing like we already have up and down Catalina.
Fernando Garcia
Location:
Submitted At: 3:24pm 02-01-22
if Redondo Beach is required to add additional housing, it must add it evenly across the city. Overloading North Redondo with all of the increased housing units creates imbalance in the city and strains North Redondo's resources. North Redondo would exclusively shoulder the burdens of increased traffic, overcrowding in our elementary and Jr. High schools, and the decreased ability of our police and fire departments to address emergencies in North Redondo.
Distributing new housing evenly across all of Redondo Beach is the only sensible approach. The demand for new housing exists across the entire city; coastal areas have no less a role to play in addressing housing concerns than inland areas. Creating new housing in South Redondo would provide a path for anyone who works in South Redondo to live close to where they work; that need is as prevalent in South Redondo as it is in North Redondo.
Please take this opportunity to redistribute additional housing equitably; there is no good reason not to do so.
Brenda Garcia
Location:
Submitted At: 3:00pm 02-01-22
We have an opportunity to correct an earlier decision taken by the council to place the majority of the housing units in District 4 North Redondo. We need to move forward as a united city and look for areas that spread the responsibility for affordable housing equitably. Please use the opportunity to work together to identify areas throughout Redondo Beach (North and South) that will satisfy the state’s requirements.
Tonya McKenzie
Location:
Submitted At: 2:44pm 02-01-22
The Council is wasting time trying to cram the majority of housing in District 4 / North Redondo. The State will keep pushing back and it will continue to cause setbacks. To move things along, you need to be fair and spread it out through the city. Although we don't have a District 4 representative that actually listens and cares what the residents of the district want, it would be nice if the rest of the council would consider the concerns and desires of the residents most impacted. Don't just listen but take action in a way that shows that you can be leaders for the whole city, not just South Redondo.
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 2:04pm 02-01-22
I am asking the council to spread the required housing throughout all of Redondo Beach. District 4 is the most dense and previously it appeared that most of the housing was going to be dumped here. Having the majority of the housing in this district negatively impacts our schools, stores, traffic and everything else that makes the city a city. It was also rejected by the state, so now the council is forced to be fair.
Housing needs to be spread out through the entire city so we can all absorb this tremendous burden.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 22-3604 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF AN
INITIATIVE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CANNABIS REGULATION, ADOPT ORDINANCE, CALL AN ELECTION, OR ORDER A REPORT
Overall Sentiment
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:53pm 02-01-22
If you are going to approve this, have it be in a visible location that is highly regulated similarly to the MEDMEN locations. If you want business this is they way to capitalize on it. Hiding or tucking it away will only cause problems for those who are accessing this substance illegally. I say allow for it to be permitted, let it bring in the desperately needed revenue this city has so sorely lost out on, but the stores are responsible for their own security. I say order a report, follow Long Beach's lead, or Venice, or any other city out there that has an ordinace.
Dianne Staso
Location:
Submitted At: 6:52pm 02-01-22
We have two big high schools and several middle schools in the South Bay. Our kids should not be subjected to all the downsides of local pot shops - which there are many! Just look at the other comments posted below. I fear the most for our children, not only the high chance of many kids getting exposed and hooked on pot, but the people who go out to these pot shops and buy high THC cannabis and then DRIVE! There are many kids walking and riding their bikes all hours after school! Please- no pot shops in the South Bay! Matthew Thomas
Location:
Submitted At: 6:00pm 02-01-22
I oppose the City Council action to permit pot shops. The action will have the opposite effect of what is intended.
Permitting pot stores will not make the Lewis and Martin ballot initiative go away, but likely will help it pass.
The Lewis and Martin ballot measure is the highly deceptively named “Redondo Beach Cannabis Regulation and Safety Measure.” This complex 39-page document (which no voters will read), does exactly the opposite of that.
But many will vote FOR it, because they think that regulating our new cannabis stores (that they do not want) is a good idea.
The City Council should instead put together a very simple ballot measure for EVERY RB resident to vote on. Do we want pot shops or not? Let us decide. Write it in such a way that if the answer is “NO,” the Lewis and Martin ballot measure is overturned, should it pass. (California propositions are worded this way all the time.) Secondly, the RB action is not well thought out. Where are the common-sense regulations like we have on tobacco and alcohol? Such as banning candy flavored edibles, banning flavored vapes, the need for warning labels, THC content labeling and limitation, a prohibition on billboard advertising, a set aside of cannabis tax revenues for youth cannabis harm education and prevention, and a prohibition on “Joe Camel” style youthoriented branding and marketing.
How dare you put in pot stores without any of these guardrails in place? We fought hard for these on tobacco and alcohol and we need them on cannabis!
Barton Bright
Location:
Submitted At: 5:43pm 02-01-22
Please give EVERY Citizen in Redondo Beach the opportunity to vote on this.
Approving businesses that sell HIGH POTENCY THC FLAVORED VAPES AND CANNABIS CANDIES, which are VERY ATTRACTIVE TO MANY TEENS, is HARMFUL!
Barb Wilson
Location:
Submitted At: 5:08pm 02-01-22
Say no to high THC cannabis products. I live in a city that created an ordinance- such the one you are proposingunder the uninformed belief that cities will gain control over or revenue from cannabis. Law enforcement has the tools they need to enforce that which is banned or illegal. Once you allow the industry in, enforcement become much more complicated and expensive. Revenue from licensing and taxing will never cover the costs of enforcement or health department oversight. Revenues promised to education will not be consistent or improve instruction. Any potential gains that your esteemed body or the residents may think will come from embracing cannabis will never be enough to offset the loss to your beautiful, family friendly community. The voters do not have enough information to make a sound decision on this issue. No matter what the industry tells you, you won't be able to keep your youth safe from exposure. Educate yourselves about the new manufactured cannabis products with high THC content before you take this step.
Robin Moser
Location:
Submitted At: 4:47pm 02-01-22
I am a parent of 2 RB high school students and also a Physician Assistant. Both of these roles cause me to be extremely hesitant about the push to put physical pot shops in RB.
As a parent, I have lived near the pot shop that was shut down on Aviation and there were shady characters loitering nearby at all hours of the day. There will definitely be impaired driving near these new locations and it will make the area less safe for those walking by. I also fear our kids will not have an aversion to using drugs at a young age if they see stores encouraging it in their vicinity. As a physician assistant, I educate daily against lies people have been told that this is a completely safe product and most never even consider it might interact with their medication, affect their concentration or cause mental disease. Giving marijuana a bigger physical presence in our community will affect all of us in a negative manner.
RODGER ENGEBRETHSON
Location:
Submitted At: 3:52pm 02-01-22
I would expect that the City Council would ask their constituents for a vote on whether to allow Cannabis Shops in their city limits. In Colorado, one of the first states to allow Cannabis use, is conducting a study on the effects of High and Extra Potent THC products with the report to come out this summer. So that your citizens can be best informed you should wait for the study results and share them with your constituents. From my experience edibles and vapes are easily shared with youth. Consequences include suicides, hospital visits for paranoia and vomiting to name a few, and driving while high. And, our state does not yet have commensurate laws as we do with alcohol for enforcing THC highs. And, crime likely will increase with smash and grab robberies, loitering and vagrancy.
Why not make a more informed decision and wait while setting up a vote for say November? Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 2:15pm 02-01-22
I live very close to the smoke shop on Artesia and Phelan and from personal experience I can tell you that when they sell cannabis out of their “church” it attracts people who loiter, smoke outside, and behave in an unruly manner in the neighborhood. I oppose having any of these businesses near peoples homes, schools and anywhere that would negatively impact peoples day-to-day routines. carolyn petty
Location:
Submitted At: 1:43pm 02-01-22
As a property owner, I oppose the City Council taking action tonight on allowing Cannabis dispensaries into Redondo Beach. This is a serious decision and will create a vested right which cannot be unwound. I do not know why Councilmember Horvath is so determined to push forward so quickly but his pushing this so hard is quite concerning and is also questionable. What are his motives here and how does he benefit from this? There is no need to rush through something which is so serious and will have long lasting impacts on Redondo Beach.
I do not see when the Steering Committee ever did a deep dive into the effects of high potency products, flavored products and edibles. High potency products can cause mental illness. Flavored products are appealing to minors. Edibles can be dangerous because the dosing is inconsistent and unclear to the user. Hence, oftentimes people encounter problems when they (for instance) eat a full cookie when they should only eat 1/4. I request that you send this back to the Steering Committee and have them gather information regarding all of the above, so you, as representatives, can see the full picture and impact of your decision. These shops should not be permitted to sell high potency products and any products that are appealing to children. You should mandate audits/checks on the products sold in these dispensaries - how would you even know if fentanyl is laced with any of these products without inspections and audits of their products? The answer is you would not. It is time for you to focus on what the real issue is. Any ordinance crafted by the city should have safety guardrails - not just physical safety, but safeguarding the health and well being of your residents. If the initiative has no limits on what can be sold in these establishments, you will never be able to change that (unless you did another ordinance which, in reality, never happen). Think through all of this NOW before it is too late.
Susan Graz
Location:
Submitted At: 1:32pm 02-01-22
The residents of Redondo Beach need to decide this and not be strong armed by the marijuana industry. We need to keep marijuana away from schools and daycares. Both Beach Cities Health District and Redondo Beach Unified School District oppose licensing pot shops. I have spoken to other parents and I know that I am not alone.
We do not want pot shops in Redondo Beach!
Agenda Item: eComments for P.1. 22-3608 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL OF CHRIS VOISEY FROM THE
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Overall Sentiment
Wayne Craig
Location:
Submitted At: 10:20pm 02-01-22
Despite what Mr. Voisey stated in commentary obviously prepared for him, his egregious actions, according to Redondo residents, demonstrate he isn’t qualified to serve on the GPAC.
In The Beach Reporter on 7/12/17 Voisey said:
“The connection sparked claims that CenterCal is behind the lawsuit, but Voisey and Travis disputed that assertion saying they are personally paying the legal costs. If they win, however, defendants would foot the legal bills.”
“I really believe in my heart that when the facts are all disclosed, we will prevail and I don't have to worry about Sutton's legal fees,” said Travis, a stay-at-home stock trader. Both said they are not members of the Chamber of Commerce and were not filing the lawsuit on anyone's behalf other than their own.
In testimony Under Oath in Court on 11/19/18 Voisey Stated (From Judgement and Statement of Decision signed by Judge Malcom Mackey Page 17)
Can’t recall what kind of documentation signed, we haven’t discussed any final number or anything. Have not paid any costs in association with the prosecution, deposition or filing fees. Did you sign a retainer agreement – “I don’t remember”. Voisey testified he did not know who was paying for the prosecution of the case.
Weeks after losing the lawsuit on 1/2/19 Voisey submitted a Sworn Statement which included:
I knew that I would be unable to afford the legal fees and costs associated with prosecuting a private attorney general lawsuit, and was pleased RBW (Redondo Beach Waterfront or CenterCal and Westport Capital) was willing to fund the litigation on my behalf.
Judge Malcom Mackey stated in the Final Judgement dated 4/3/19 “In light of the testimony and evidence at trial the Court finds the Plaintiffs, Arnette Travis and Chris Voisey, were shills for Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC and the instant lawsuit, paid for by and prosecuted by Redondo Beach Waterfront LLC, is a sham.
Residents across Redondo are saying Mr. Voisey is a public liar, and according to legal experts may have committed perjury under oath. The public feels Voisey is not fit to serve on the GPAC, or any other commission or committee representing Redondo Beach residents.
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 10:05pm 02-01-22
Mr. Voisey is incorrect with his comments. He sued people, lost in court, then lost on appeal. A total of 4 judges ruled against him. The defendants will NOT monetarily benefit from the judgment in Mr. Voisey's unsuccessful lawsuit. The judgment against Mr. Voisey and Ms. Travis is for ATTORNEY FEES ONLY, incurred due to the thinly-veiled SLAPP-suit action that Voisey and Travis fronted, funded by a disgruntled developer. Only the defendant's attorney's will recoup their money and their time. Not only would Brand or Nehrenheim (and the other two defendants) NOT benefit financially, but neither would gain back the hours of lost wages or time expended to defend themselves against this BIG DEVELOPER MONEY shame lawsuit fronted by court-declared shills Voisey and Travis. The judgment ordered is payable solely to the Defendant's attorneys.
Taxpayers are not being de-frauded by removing Voisey from the GPAC for his grossly misguided decision to front a lawsuit using the deep pockets of a developer who didn't get their way. The City has spent minimal time or efforts on this action to remove him from the GPAC; just fine-tuning the motion language and putting it on the agenda for City Council consideration.
As for Voisey’s “whataboutism,” it’s a poor attempt to deflect from his behavior. Not surprising, but consistent with his denial of facts about a case, adjudicated twice already, with the same result ruling against him and his coplaintiff. Additionally, since the Council has the full authority to appoint residents to Commissions and Committees, it should also have the full authority to remove appointments made, and especially for a committee such as the GPAC that was never intended to be seated for this long.
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 7:30pm 02-01-22
While, I do not know the intricacies of this case or situation, it troubles me as a commissioner. I applied like most commissioners, had the support of council members and received a friendly call from the Mayor. Yet, what I see here concerns me because this action provides the council the full authority to appoint and remove members of any commission, but on what basis still to be unfounded. It seems to me this is more of a personal and political attempt to keep the status quo. This harbors on what the US media has consistently called a "coup" in the middle east, particularly in Egypt, stating that these members of the council have given themselves full governing powers/ authorities, and that is dangerous. This says that the council and Mayor has the ability to target any public citizen for any reason. Did the council forget they work for the public, not the other way around? Candace Nafissi
Location:
Submitted At: 6:10pm 02-01-22
Thank you to the City of Redondo Beach for discussing the removal of Chris Voisey from the GPAC. As a GPAC member, I applaud the City on your efforts to ensure that the GPAC committee is comprised of honorable members of our community. Chris Voisey engaged in a "sham" lawsuit against two sitting members of the Council. The City should not be supporting GPAC members who sit on PUBLIC committees that have the intent to destroy elected officials personal lives by engaging in a "sham" lawsuit. Members of the GPAC should understand that they are a representative of the City; and as a member and the City should hold them accountable for actions they engage in both on and off the committee. In addition, I hope the Council continues to make a priority to complete a code of conduct for commissions, committees and engagement boards. The County has been doing this for years. I care about the quality of representatives in our city and I hope you do too.
I write today in full support of the removal of member Voisey.
Candace Nafissi, District 3
Chris Voisey
Location:
Submitted At: 6:07pm 02-01-22
I will point you to the letter submitted to Council by email earlier today that should be included in your folders.
The details shared by C/M Obagi are significantly flawed, and this whole topic is based on a personal disagreement that should not be carried out at the cost of the taxpayers. I respectfully request you remove this item or at least delay your discussion until after the verdict by the California Supreme Court as per any decisions on any Judgement. Orals should be in March and a decision soon after. What difference will a month be? The recommendations of the GPAC are not for several months anyhow.
I will also remind Mayor Brand and C/M Nehrenheim that discussions regarding anything to do with this judgment containing a monetary amount would benefit them financially. They should recuse themselves from any conversations regarding this or the case. Likewise, the allegations stated by Brand, Nehrenheim, and Obagi are entirely false. One could argue that they have perjured themselves in Redondo Beach City Council Meetings by saying I committed any crime. Not only have there been no charges against me, but there have also been no investigations or actual allegations by the court. Unlike Obagi's current case that goes in front of the State Bar should be enough to have him step down until resolved. i.e., ACTUAL charges were filed, documented and it appears new ones are forthcoming. The theatrical presentation was very consistent with claims made by past clients, as I understand too.
Last but not least, it is clear that you are discriminating against me. Has an official court record been requested? Nothing was included in tonight's agenda. The public deserves transparency and to prepare on the item adequately. You have no evidence shared. Have you done backgrounds on everyone else on the GPAC? Other Commissions? The City Council themselves?
Probably not. Item P.1. is just a personal vendetta that defrauds Redondo Beach's citizens of our valuable city resources and money!
Chris Voisey
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 3:03pm 02-01-22
The admin report has no information on why Chris Voisey is being considered for removal. Based on what I’m reading online, it sounds like it’s due to internal grievances from council members and the mayor. I highly oppose this council using their position of power to remove people that disagree with them! It’s unjust and should be unlawful.