City Council on 2022-02-08 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
Meeting Time: 02-08-22 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-02-08 6:00 PM -
VIRTUAL MEETING
02-08-22
18:00
54 9 3 3 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 2022-02-08 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
02-08-22 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
E. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS AND
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
1 0 1 0
J.1. 22-3689 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 2 0 0 0 L.1. 22-3707 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 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
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
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. Reconvene 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
5 2 2 0
N.1. 22-3714 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY'S
THREE-YEAR GOALS AND SIX-MONTH OBJECTIVES AS DISCUSSED
AT THE JANUARY 25 AND JANUARY 27, 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING
SESSIONS
APPROVE THE CITY'S THREE-YEAR GOALS AND SIX-MONTH
OBJECTIVES
1 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 E. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:55pm 02-08-22
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: Where will public notice be posted of BCHD CUP submission To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>, Christian Anthony Horvath <[email protected]>, Christian Horvath – Redondo Beach District 3 Council Member <[email protected]>, Zein Obagi <[email protected]>, Laura Emdee <[email protected]> To: Owners of BCHD (HB, RB, MB) City Councils
To: Impacted City of Torrance City Council
Please see below. BCHD has an established practice of withholding City discussions from stakeholders, owners, and even its own Community Working Group in the past. BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach must disclose the BCHD CUP discussions and paperwork in full. As two public agencies, neither should feel comfortable blindsiding taxpayers with secret discussions and negotiations. They are both taxpayer funded and taxpayers deserve full transparency. The Public Records Act does not compel non-disclosure and should not be used as a red herring.
From 2019 to 2020 to 2021, BCHD increased the planned height of their commercial development from 60-feet to 75-feet to 103-feet. During the same time it eliminated 160,000 sqft of underground parking in favor of an above ground, 8-10 story ramp.
Further in June of 2020, BCHD allowed the public only 3 business days to review, analyze and comment on a never before seen plan that it subsequently approved during the window from June 12, 2020 6PM (released on a Friday night) to June 17, 2020 (Wednesday Board meeting). BCHD has a clear practice of circumventing the public's ability to be fully informed and the City of Redondo Beach must not be complicit. More examples are provided in the communication below.
Mark Nelson
BCHD Community Working Group member
3+ year BCHD volunteer
The City site cuts off comments after 2200 characters - the rest of this was submitted to the City clerk for the record.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 22-3689 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 6:16pm 02-08-22
Thank you for removing Chris Voisey from the GPAC. ANY resident with a $100,000.00+, UNPAID court judgment against them should NOT represent or serve Redondo Beach in ANY capacity.
The majority City Council amended our laws to reflect that anyone matching this benchmark should not be in a position to influence the City on City matters. But two Council Members did not vote to comply; Laura Emdee and Christian Horvath.
To suggest, as Emdee did, that a court judgment is “pending” because it’s being “appealed” is laughable. Emdee seemed to declare that losing in court, twice, is meaningless or somehow vacates an official court judgment. Not so. Using that logic, convicted murderers appealing court judgments would be roaming the streets freely.
Not so long ago, these same two Council Members refused to consider removing an appointed Planning Commissioner for HIS conduct. The commissioner apparently confronted and threatened the Mayor at a public event, in front of others, with words to the effect of “You know what happens to people like you where I come from!” One of the witnesses to that threat was so shaken she went to the City Council, for the first time ever, to beseech the Council to address it. Emdee and Horvath refused.
But conversely, for the last 5 years, Emdee and Horvath have cited their own, un-vetted basis for disqualifying appointees to various commissions. None of their “reasons” consisted of any City standards barring people from serving on city groups. Yet over and over, they used interpretations of “social media” behavior and other selfopinionated reasons for precluding people from appointment. Without basis, without City-sanctioned measurement, they voted to deny appointments of those who didn’t share THEIR views. Here they have a black and white barometer, and chose to ignore it.
One can be friends with someone while holding them accountable. THAT would have been the honest thing for Emdee and Horvath to do. Remember, they DID ask Voisey to resign. But let’s be really clear. Emdee and Horvath aren’t interested in honesty, integrity, or election results if those get in the way of their agenda! Wayne Craig
Location:
Submitted At: 5:12pm 02-08-22
At the City Council meeting last week something extraordinary happened. After publicly saying for months the Catalyst Cannabis Company people were “bad for Redondo”, it was disclosed Council Member Emdee decided to recently spend hours with them on the phone.
In a revealing exchange, one of the principals from Catalyst stated council member Emdee may have spent up to 2 hours on the phone to chat or as Emdee said “Get to know them”. Redondo Beach residents are shaking their heads asking what plausible reason could Emdee have to waste time with people she said had unified the city council against them?
With a sordid documented public record here is what people across the city are asking about Emdee’s recent actions:
Is she working a side deal for financial support for a negative hit campaign to fulfill her dream of clawing back power?
Is it another plan to undermine all the good things the council has achieved this past year? Others are saying this is a pathetic plan to install another empty suit like the former council member from D4 who rubber stamped everything Emdee told him to do without question.
As residents have stated time after time it appears Emdee wants to remain in power no matter what it costs Redondo Beach residents.
The prior 6 embarrassing years in office Emdee (along with Christian Horvath) have had in power, all they have done is cost the city more than $20 Million dollars and prevented any revitalization in our harbor for at least 5 years. All because they signed an agreement to pave the way for an illegal mall rejected by the California Coastal Commission, Redondo Beach Residents, creating multiple lawsuits we are still dealing with in court.
With so much money at stake with the cannabis people, we will have to wait and see if Emdee worked out a nasty deal to undermine her opponents, while putting the city at risk again.
Agenda Item: eComments for L.1. 22-3707 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 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 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION 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. Reconvene 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
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 7:24pm 02-08-22
The 3 beach cities should restructure the BCHD into a minimum cost distributor of property tax revenues only.
The site should be reclaimed and used for housing. Unlike BCHD, the City could reasonably develop the area at 30 feet instead 100 feet tall. Further, the City could provide ample setbacks instead of building on the perimeters - thereby maximally damaging the surrounding neighborhoods. Residential housing, with ample setbacks and low heights would be a much welcomed reprieved from the BCHD Staples-sized development.
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 7:13pm 02-08-22
Submit the HCD plan agreed to by the Council majority. It’s smart urban planning. You’ve addressed the questions and concerns of the HCD. Those up in arms don’t seem to understand the bigger picture: RHNA numbers are an ALLOCATION, not a MANDATE to build all. Some key points:
1) The power plant site does NOT fit the criteria for new housing to be in close proximity to metro transportation hubs.
2) Voters have 4 TIMES rejected zoning the power plant site for housing. 3) There is more land mass available in the 3 NORTH Redondo districts than in the 2 southern districts. 4) South Redondo has an abundance of multi-story, multi-unit housing; far greater than exists in North Redondo as illustrated last week by Council Members Loewenstein and Nehrenheim. “Fair and equitable” would actually be for North Redondo to finally build to the same housing density as South Redondo. 5) The 50-acre power plant site is NOT DELIVERABLE for this RHNA cycle. The land owner reneged on an agreement to sell the City 25 acres for a park when he found out he could pocket millions to extend the power plant operation. He lobbied the State Water Board to do just that for an additional two years and will likely be considered for another extension beyond 2023. To position overlay housing zoning at this site, at this time, is not only unreliable, but an attempt to OVERTURN election results. Further, the California Coastal Commission has determined 6 acres of the site to be restored as Wetlands. The property would need YEARS of remediation, after the power plant ceases operation. Remediation HAS NOT STARTED. 6) Pustilnikov purchased a 50-acre property zoned for open space, with a CUP to operate a power plant. He reversed his intent to sell 25 acres of the property to Redondo for a park when the State identified the power plant to possibly be extended beyond its original sunset date. He lobbied hard for that last year, while simultaneously imploring the State to overlay housing on his property. But in the interim, if the State deemed it necessary to have 50-acre pig farms in suburban cities and would offer millions for them, no doubt he’d be lobbying for THAT instead.
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:39pm 02-08-22
Please stop telling the public lies about the housing issue. please stop wasting the public's tax dollars, please just stop wasting time on these issues and personal attacks of residents and maybe actually get something done for once. Like following the guidelines and the request of the public, to spread the housing evenly amongst all districts. None of us like that we have to comply with added housing in cities already impacted, but until you find a more equitable way of distributing housing then why not just do as the public has asked, spread the housing requirements across all 5 districts.
Every time this issue gets glossed over, why is that because it is about a strategic equitable divide. NRB has always been seen as the less affluent stepchild of the south bay, so when this issue comes up time and time again, it is clear what the motives of the council in the south and their allies are attempting to do, keeping the dividing line of affordability or access on one side of that line. Not only are Inglewood and Hawthorne in fact traffic corridors from the north of the south bay to the south, but so are PCH and the green line all the way down Rindge and onto Prospect, these are all travel routes that are designated travel centers of the so-called traffic centers you continue to forget exist, hence why housing can and should be accessible from all points of the aforementioned.
Wayne Craig
Location:
Submitted At: 5:25pm 02-08-22
I want to thank the council for coming up with a Draft Housing Element that accurately reflects the requirements of HCD. This contrasts with the misguided proposals made by Council Members Emdee and Horvath, along with a few residents to place high density housing in the most densely populated areas of the city and the farthest distance from any transportation hub.
The final proposed plan also matches what Redondo Beach Resident have voted for in at least 5 city wide elections. Simply put we want open space not high-density housing to be built at the AES site.
Hopefully HCD will see this Draft Housing Element makes the most sense and unlike the few letters, written by persons cherry picking data to match their flawed conclusions to place housing elsewhere, we can now move forward.
Thank you again city staff and city council for putting this together. susan andrade
Location:
Submitted At: 5:09pm 02-08-22
Once again we have an opportunity to evenly distribute the housing required for our city and a majority of council continues to push all the low income housing to the north redondo side into two conjested areas of the city.
Requirement suggest it to be near transit and highways. Redondo has a busing system that goes through the city which includes the south and PCH is a highway. Placing some of this housing in the southside would help to eliviate some of the crushing numbers you will inflict on this area as the infrustructure can not support it and our schools will be overwhelmed. To claim that it is the school boards problem is nothing but a scapegoat for an ill thought out plan. I understand that their is traffic on PCH, guess what their is rush hour traffic right where your suggested housing would be as well. Not everyone takes the freeway to work, as myself and many of my neighbors work locally in torrance and south would be suitable for them as well. The low income housing would not need to be in the north to travel east down torrance blvd. Low income housing will be utilized by teachers and nurses and many others in service for the city and neighboring cities which would not require a freeway. The whole point of adding this housing is to have people in the service industries live more locally in order to reduce the freeway use. Having persons that work for the city, live in the city.
To push it all in one already low income area sends a message, intended or not, that you do not want them in south redondo. We need to be more inclusive. If you put all the weight on one corner of the city it will collapse.
Please do not overwhelm our neighborhood and flood us with housing and people that we would not be able to support and distribute the housing more evenly. If each corner takes come of the weight then it would only make the city stronger and able to accomidate what is being forced on us.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 22-3714 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY'S THREE-YEAR GOALS AND SIX-MONTH OBJECTIVES AS DISCUSSED AT THE JANUARY 25 AND JANUARY 27, 2022 STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSIONS
APPROVE THE CITY'S THREE-YEAR GOALS AND SIX-MONTH OBJECTIVES Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 8:44pm 02-08-22
Thank you Council Member Loewenstein for making a motion to accelerate this process regarding quotes/analysis from LA County Fire. This is not a RUSH; it's been discussed for several years and should have been moving forward. Council Member Emdee needs to stop categorizing this as something it's not. This is not a decision being made whatsoever to merge with LACoFD. It's accelerating the information gathering process ... the COMPLETE information gathering process, in a 100% transparent manner.