City Council on 2022-04-05 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
Meeting Time: 04-05-22 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-04-05 6:00 PM -
VIRTUAL MEETING
04-05-22
18:00
74 10 4 1 1
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 2022-04-05 6:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING
04-05-22 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
G.1. 22-3880 For Blue Folder Documents Approved at the City Council Meeting
1 0 0 0
J.1. 22-3882 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 3 2 0 0 M.1. 22-3884 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES
1 0 0 0
N.2. 22-3849 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REPORT
REGARDING UPDATES TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS
1 1 0 0
N.3. 22-3771 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE
RECONSIDERATION OF THE SELECTION OF 100% RENEWABLE
CLEAN ENERGY AS THE DEFAULT RATE FOR ALL CLEAN POWER
ALLIANCE ENERGY ACCOUNTS IN THE CITY
3 0 1 1
P.1. 22-3935 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH CITY CHARTER REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
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 G.1. 22-3880 For Blue Folder Documents Approved at the City Council Meeting Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:41pm 04-05-22
I see no where to comment on the proposed action on the tree ordinance. My comment is that the ordinance needs to fully consider how to count trees. For example, a line of view block trees, such as Cypresses, should be 1 tree and not 3 or 5 or whatever the actual count is. In fact, I believe we should step back further, and literally have a list of named trees that count as removed, vs. other junk and view block trees. This ordinance will be yet another - the devil is in the details action. But we need to be detailed NOW, not in appeals court.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 22-3882 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52pm 04-05-22
There were a number of surrounding residents of BCHD that have made, and will continue to make, comments to the City Council in search of PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of all filings and communications between the City and BCHD during the processing of BCHDs CUP, PCDR, and RDGs. In June of 2020, BCHD provided the public with a never before seen design of its project on a Friday night at 6PM. That disclosure was illegible due to being provided as a cut and paste into Powerpoint and then a conversion to PDF. Three business days later, the BCHD board approved the design, having allowed the public with roughly 72 hours to read, analyze and comment on multiple documents. The surrounding public has no faith in BCHDs disclosure. The surrounding public will continue to make the case to the Council to FULLY DISCLOSE all communications between the City and BCHD in a timely fashion - and that disclosure should be by the City, not the project developer - BCHD.
BCHDs project is inconsistent, incompatible, fails to respect the terrain, and fails to protect property values.
Hiding the discussion will only make the situation even worse.
Niki Negrete-Mitchell
Location:
Submitted At: 2:40pm 04-05-22
I love Redondo. I made this my hometown over 40 years ago and I've lived in EACH of the 5 districts. I care very much about our future. I represent a much larger # of No. Redondo households than I realized. The true #, only counting those that line the ROW from Artesia to 190th is actually 483, not something to ignore, & that doesn't even count homes 2 doors west or east of Firmona, Ruxton or Condon.
I got Metro's attention. I persuaded them to come back to Redondo to walk with us through our overlooked neighborhood on April 11 to learn about our community directly from us. I conveyed they need to be shown how their ROW plans cannot possibly work. It's our chance to demonstrate it would be a huge irreversible mistake to try and squeeze 2 more tracks onto the ROW making it 3 tracks total, including jet fuel freight that would be moved 7-10’ closer to our household infrastructure, just 23' away from our back wall! Then passengers ride with jet fuel tankers and share a street crossing! It's wrong, it would create a safety hazard of colossal proportions for us residents and passengers, especially considering the large number of derailments lately. It would forever drastically change the landscape of our city. Don’t let them do it.
Please, no more ambivilent position of neutrality. Stop the narrative "Metro will do what Metro wants to do".
Imagine the UPGRADE to the commerce sector by bringing the Elevated rail to The Galleria. It’s the only positive way forward.
I listen to Metro Board meetings. where other communities get what they want in terms of reimagining rail plans in their area. They ask, like we did when we asked them to study Haw2e. They gave Metro coordinated push back.
Advocates called in to their mtgs, Mayors and council members called in from towns along the Santa Ana line and got their tunnel. Little Tokyo was spared at grade rail through their community and got their subway. Significant! Please write to Metro, call in, reiterate what’s best for our city. Let them know we’re serious about getting this done correctly. We only get one chance. We’ve been informing residents of our 4/11 walk. Please join us. Details are in your .org inboxes. Thanks!
Nicole Strong
Location:
Submitted At: 3:06pm 04-04-22
Kaitlyn Greaney and I would like to request a non-agenda item to discuss and propose changes at Czuleger Park Kaitlyn will speak.
Agenda Item: eComments for M.1. 22-3884 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:32pm 04-05-22
Adding a direct path to appeal process and notice requirement for administrative decisions seems to be the easiest path forward with the fewest changes required.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 22-3849 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REPORT REGARDING UPDATES TO
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS
Overall Sentiment
Wayne Craig
Location:
Submitted At: 5:45pm 04-05-22
On September 27,2021 I sent a letter formally requesting the Redondo Beach Police and City Attorney’s office investigate what appears to be a flagrant violation of the Redondo Beach Election ORDINANCE NO. 3184-18 as adopted on January 8, 2019. This ordinance sets limits on contributions for candidates running for Mayor as well as loans to campaigns. The current donation limit for Mayoral candidates is $2,500. I also request the City Attorney's office to prosecute when your investigation concurs with the violation of this ORDINANCE.
The most recent campaign filing made by Mayoral Candidate Chris Voisey on 8/1/21 (FPPC Form 460) indicates a clear violation of Redondo Beach campaign contribution limits. On Schedule C an undisclosed “third party” donor is listed as paying $5,856.76 of campaign expenses. Since $5,856.76 is greater than $2,500 the city limit was exceeded by $3,356.76 with this “third party”. This would appear to be a clear violation of the ordinance so no further investigation should be necessary to prosecute.
Since then NO action was taken.
My question is why do we have city campaign finance election ordinances when we do not enforce them? I have sent a copy of my original letter to the council for review.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.3. 22-3771 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE SELECTION OF 100% RENEWABLE CLEAN ENERGY AS THE DEFAULT RATE FOR ALL CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE ENERGY
ACCOUNTS IN THE CITY
Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 7:14pm 04-05-22
Perhaps being more proactive regarding CHOICE would be to better educate consumers about this process.
When the City made the choice to adopt CPA, most consumers weren't aware they could OPT OUT. The "explanation" of the choice(s) came from Southern California Edison, in FOUR languages, making the printing small and difficult to read. We must, as a City, do MUCH better in communicating changes such as this, and the mechanism from which people can CHOOSE their preferred method, before being "surprised." Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:37pm 04-05-22
So long as the City and the ESP provide a straight forward, no cost, non-time constrained path for customers to move to whatever level of service they choose, and so long as the ESP is required to notice the customers in the bill, I believe staying on 100% is ok. However, let's be clear, 100% is a fiction until the LAST customer is 100% statewide. Otherwise, entities like CPA overbuy in the daytime, and lean on the grid in swing hours, using out of state coal and gas. We always need a reality check on what 100% really means - UNTIL SUCH TIME as 100% means that 24/7/365 is carbon free without any accounting tricks.
Jim Montgomery
Location:
Submitted At: 11:24am 04-05-22
Greeting Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I oppose the reconsideration of the selection of 100% renewable clean energy as the default rate for all CPA energy accounts in the City of Redondo Beach.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that came out yesterday makes it clear we have run out of time to avoid the impacts of climate change, they are already upon us here in California; extreme drought, heat waves, wildfires, etc. But we can do our part by rapidly shifting our economy to renewable clean energy and you and the City of Redondo Beach can do your part by keeping the selection 100%.
Please read the following article before making your decision. Kicking the can down the road is no longer an option and it is now not only our children who will suffer the impacts of the climate crisis, it is all of us now. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/04/ipcc-report-now-or-never-if-world-stave-off-climatedisaster Some key findings from the report:
"The world can still hope to stave off the worst ravages of climate breakdown but only through a “now or never” dash to a low-carbon economy and society, scientists have said in what is in effect a final warning for governments on the climate.
Greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2025, and can be nearly halved this decade, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to give the world a chance of limiting future heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels."
Please be on the right side of history. We have ignored the science for too long, we can ignore it no longer.
Please keep the selection at 100%.
Sincerely,
Jim Montgomery
Agenda Item: eComments for P.1. 22-3935 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION TO ESTABLISH CITY CHARTER REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 8:51pm 04-05-22
The current Mayor and two of the five Council Members all have three years left of their respective, second terms in office. One of the current Council Members also has three years left on his current term which is his first term.
Only two of the current Council Members have one year remaining of their last terms in office. So, to say the Mayor and the Majority of the Council might not be around when this advisory committee provides its recommendations is not correct. Further, the Council has the ability to put a timeline on the different items of the Charter the committee will be tasked with reviewing. As City Attorney Webb opined, "Charter clean up" could be done first with input from current Commissions and City Staff. Simultaneously, a Charter Advisory Committee can be tasked with the "weightier" matters the Council wants reviewed. If Council consensus is reached, matters that need to placed on a ballot could be done while three of the current Council Members and the current Mayor are still in office. The suggestion by several on the Council tonight to bring this back in two weeks with more finite points for decision-making seems prudent. Also, the School Board isn't elected to decide City policy, just as the Mayor and Council aren't elected to decide School Board policy. The two entities are and should remain separate.