City Council on 2022-06-07 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 06-07-22 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-06-07 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
06-07-22
18:00
88 4 1 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 2022-06-07 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 06-07-22 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
F.9. 22-4307 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING
LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
Name of case:
Luke Carlson, et al v City of Redondo Beach, et al.
Case Number: 2:20-cv-00259-ODW-SS
1 1 0 0
J.1. 22-4247 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 1 0 0 0 L.1. 22-4238 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 PROPOSED BUDGET, FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET RESPONSE
REPORTS
a. Reconvene Public Hearing, take testimony;
b. Continue Public Hearing to June 14, 2022; and
c. Receive and file Budget Response Reports.
1 0 1 0
N.1. 22-4280 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A
WATERFRONT EDUCATION FACILITY AND PROGRAMMING
CONCEPT TITLED OCEAN ENCOUNTER
APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO
PREPARE DRAFT PLANS, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE
FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS
1 0 0 1
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 F.9. 22-4307 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
Name of case:
Luke Carlson, et al v City of Redondo Beach, et al.
Case Number: 2:20-cv-00259-ODW-SS
Overall Sentiment
James Crawford
Location:
Submitted At: 6:03pm 06-07-22
I read a story in social media about a costly mistake the city council may be making regarding agenda item F9 on tonight’s city council agenda.
I ask that the council not appeal the latest judge’s denial to dismiss as seen in the in the recent 27-page scathing ruling from the judge. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/districtcourts/california/cacdce/2:2020cv00259/769455/98/.
Anyone reading this ruling can see RBPD is in big trouble and it’s not a matter of winning or losing but how many millions the family will be paid. It should be noted the firm the city attorney has selected is famous as they just lost a $85 Million-dollar wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriffs in Santee California (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/san-diego-jury-awards-85m-death-man-arrest-83494703.) The council has three choices before it tonight:
1. Appeal the latest ruling that will amount to only delaying the case by years and rack up millions more in legal expenses we will have to pay until we ultimately lose in court. This defense will be by the same firm that just lost an $85 Million dollar lawsuit.
2. Let the case go to trial as scheduled in August of this year.
3. Work on a settlement with the family so they and our city can move on.
Option 1 should be avoided as it only benefits City Attorney Webb and outgoing police Chief Keith Kauffmann.
The millions that will eventually be paid to the family for the RBPD’s actions will not hit the books for years after both leave their positions. That way they get off Scot-free, pass the blame on to the new Police Chief, and city council in office when the judgement is paid. As the years drag on, we will also accumulate millions more in more legal expenses.
Options 2 or 3 make the most sense as they will not forestall the inevitable.
It will be in the best option for both the city and family that has been the victim in this tragedy.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 22-4247 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
James Crawford
Location:
Submitted At: 6:06pm 06-07-22
Mayor and CounciI, read a story in social media about a costly mistake the city council may be making regarding agenda item F9 on tonight’s city council agenda.
I ask that the council not appeal the latest judge’s denial to dismiss as seen in the in the recent 27-page scathing ruling from the judge. (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/districtcourts/california/cacdce/2:2020cv00259/769455/98/.) Anyone reading this ruling can see RBPD is in big trouble and it’s not a matter of winning or losing but how many millions the family will be paid. It should be noted the firm the city attorney has selected is famous as they just lost a $85 Million-dollar wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriffs in Santee California (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/san-diego-jury-awards-85m-death-man-arrest-83494703.) The council has three choices before it tonight:
1. Appeal the latest ruling that will amount to only delaying the case by years and rack up millions more in legal expenses we will have to pay until we ultimately lose in court. This defense will be by the same firm that just lost an $85 Million dollar lawsuit.
2. Let the case go to trial as scheduled in August of this year.
3. Work on a settlement with the family so they and our city can move on.
Option 1 should be avoided as it only benefits City Attorney Webb and outgoing police Chief Keith Kauffmann.
The millions that will eventually be paid to the family for the RBPD’s actions will not hit the books for years after both leave their positions. That way they get off Scot-free, pass the blame on to the new Police Chief, and city council in office when the judgement is paid. As the years drag on, we will also accumulate millions more in more legal expenses.
Options 2 or 3 make the most sense as they will not forestall the inevitable.
It will be in the best option for both the city and family that has been the victim in this tragedy.
Agenda Item: eComments for L.1. 22-4238 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
PROPOSED BUDGET, FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET RESPONSE REPORTS a. Reconvene Public Hearing, take testimony;
b. Continue Public Hearing to June 14, 2022; and
c. Receive and file Budget Response Reports.
Overall Sentiment
Caleb Chrzan
Location:
Submitted At: 9:02pm 06-07-22
Please consider the removal of funding for DP-4. We and several of our immediate neighbors are very much in opposition to paying $25k to a firm that specializes in the administration of municipal short-term rental programs.
We have lived next door to two homes that had short-term rentals. With the closeness of properties it is negatively impactful in a number of ways. When folks come visit for a few days or a week on vacation they are on "vacation" hours with partying and loudness that are very problematic to families next door, adults and teens who need to wake up and go to work the next day, kids with early bedtimes (and of course windows open since no A/C). They often have shown disregard for community rules with dogs, noise ordinances, blocking driveways etc. I realize the potential TOT is enticing but not work quality of life to the residents. Please don't fund DP-4.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 22-4280 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A WATERFRONT EDUCATION
FACILITY AND PROGRAMMING CONCEPT TITLED OCEAN ENCOUNTER
APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE DRAFT PLANS, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER
APPLICABLE FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTS
Overall Sentiment
Laura Zahn
Location:
Submitted At: 3:16pm 06-03-22
Does anyone SEA LAB??? Did any of you actually go on a “tour” of the Sea Lab? IT was awful! It was dark and dingy. Most of the Teen Staff was ambivalent, some were flat-out rude. The sea-bass tanks were seldom available for public viewing. The Feed-the-Fish ( you had to buy the food) “Encounter” did not have any where near enough access area to actually SEE the food you tossed to the fish being eaten. I took my mother in her-wheelchair which was NOT a good experience at all. The inside area (dark/damp/dingy) had exhibits to see and or read about but the exhibit size was small, the pathway/walkway area was VERY narrow. Too narrow for anyone to pass a person in a wheelchair. I tried to make sure that “mom” was not blocking anyone trying to go through this narrow walkway but it was really too narrow to try to be polite to allow anyone to pass by us. There was also a DRUM- activity going on in another room. The NOISE level was inexcusable. Whoever ran that DRUM group, just let kids BEAT the drums AS HARD AS THEY COULD. The DRUM organizers possibly thought that beating drums HARD and LOUD served as “Therapy” for the kids BUT for those of us in close proximity due to it being held at the same venue, IT was unacceptable! The items /gifts to buy were way overpriced and of poor quality. Hopefully the OCEAN ENCOUNTER will offer a more VISIT worthy experience for ALL user groups.