City Council on 2022-07-05 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 07-05-22 16:30
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-07-05 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
07-05-22
16:30
56 8 2 5 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 2022-07-05 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 07-05-22 16:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
J.1. 22-4396 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 4 1 2 0 L.1. 22-4256 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
REVISED CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CONFIRMING
CERTIFICATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2207-048, 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-2207-048
4 1 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 J.1. 22-4396 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Sondra Segall
Location:
Submitted At: 7:30pm 07-05-22
How can Councilmember and self-nominated mayor pro-tem Nils Nehrenheim serve on the committee to evaluate moving our Fire Department to LA County, when Nehrenheim receives a good chunk of his income from LA County Fire? This is a clear conflict of interest, which is right in line with the fact that moving to LA County makes no sense for Redondo Beach.
Moving to LA County would mean downgrading our Class 1 Fire Department, because LA County has no Class 1 divisions.
As is clear in the report, moving to LA County would mean an additional burden on our fire fighter paramedics, with all of the benefit going to the county.
Would you pay Deloitte tens of thousands of dollars to evaluate whether or not your company should pay tens of millions of dollars to Deloitte? Because that's exactly what you did when you voted to pay LACounty Fire to continue building a proposal.
Recuse yourself, Nils Nehrenheim! You are in a clear conflict of interest.
Maggie Healy
Location:
Submitted At: 6:50pm 07-05-22
Hello, my name is Pat Healy, I’m a 40 year resident of Redondo Beach. Last Sunday July 3rd, the United States marked the celebration of Disobedience Day and since I support the Women’s March – Redondo Beach, I celebrated Disobedience Day by participating in the “Bans Off Our Bodies” Rally right in front of the Redondo Beach City Council Chambers. It was a very organized peaceful rally with many high-spirited and very passionate speakers. The subject that I wish to discuss this evening: is democratic values.
Now, believe it or not, the Redondo Beach City Council did adopt Rules of Conduct for Council Meetings. I am a firm believer in this experiment in self-governance as in “We the People” so I will be following the Rules of Conduct even though this City council has no intention of following its own Rules of Conduct.
City Council; according to the Rules of Conduct I do not wish to be impertinent, slanderous, or profane in my remarks. I also do not intend to be boisterous, threatening, or offensive in my remarks. I hold a genuine concern that the presiding officer, the Mayor Pro Temporare, is an impostor: a fraud being perpetrated against our democratic processes, and democratic values and hardly “All-Inclusive.” To make an exception after decades of precedent, as retribution for petty personal differences is not good governance, it is bad leadership, and undermines democratic representation. District 5 does not deserve to be harmed for something that they didn’t do. I call upon City Council to correct this injustice and reinstate District 5 City Councilmember Laura Emdee as Mayor Pro Temporare.
Erin Al-Awar
Location:
Submitted At: 6:16pm 07-05-22
Writing this comment to continue to keep at the forefront the staffing issues with respect to the Redondo Beach After School Playground Program administered by Redondo Beach Recreation Department. Due to limited childcare options through the school district, parents are in desperate need to have this program up and running at full capacity, as it was before COVID. Since COVID, the program is limited to 30 students per elementary school site (while the school sites have hundreds of children attending). When asked why the limited number of students, the Recreation Department has cited staffing challenges as the main reason they can’t ramp back up.
While I fully understand that many industries have been experiencing staffing issues since COVID, there needs to be a more concerted effort to market this employment opportunity both within and outside our community. Also, I know many parents who would be happy to pay more for this program if it meant raising the employee salary to attract more talent. The waiting list for this program at our school site (Jefferson) is over 50 people, and I am sure it is similar (or higher) at the other school sites. That means 50+ parents per school site who are scrambling and struggling to figure out who will watch their kids after school. It seems like other local districts and cities have figured out after school care, and respectfully, Redondo Beach seems to be well behind the curve in this area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 1:05am 07-05-22
Non-Agenda Item Comment subject to the Brown Act
In its May 2017 public meeting, BCHD acknowledged the damage that its proposed Healthy Living Campus would inflict on surrounding residents. BCHD was planning to nearly triple the size of its existing 300,000 sqft buildings to 800,000 sqft or more. BCHD committed in a presentation for the surrounding neighborhoods to buffer the neighbors with surface parking and landscape, and to build the "core" of the project in the center of the site.
By June 2019, BCHD was proposing a 60-foot tall "spaceship" or "walled city" design that encircled the site and was built along all four edges. This was far from what BCHD committed to in 2017. Over 1200 local residents signed a petition to reduce the size and height of the proposed concrete compound. In June of 2020, BCHD provided a new design that was 76-feet tall on the north and east with an 8-10 story parking ramp above Prospect & Diamond. Again there was neighborhood outcry against the project, but BCHD allowed only three business days for public comment and approved the project .
The local neighborhoods felt cheated and lied to by BCHD, especially when BCHD released a 103-foot tall version of its 800,000 sqft project in March 2021. From 2017 to 2021, BCHD had ignored its commitment to buffer the local neighborhoods from its high rise construction, and BCHD increased the height from 60-feet to 103-feet.
BCHD also removed 160,000 sqft of underground parking, and proposed an 8-10 story parking ramp looming over the local neighborhoods.
Between 1,200 and 1,500 residents have made formal comments to BCHD objecting to another 50-100 years of noise, privacy invasion, toxic vehicle emissions, and out-of-scale construction in our residential neighborhoods.
BCHD not only ignored the neighbors, but proposed to build bigger and taller buildings. StopBCHD.com is a neighborhood quality of life website. Go there to get an accurate view of how BCHD has ignored the neighbors and how BCHDs current 110-foot above Beryl & Flagler streets compound will destroy neighbor character, property values, safety, and health for generations to come.
Mark Nelson
for StopBCHD.com
Agenda Item: eComments for L.1. 22-4256 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REVISED CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CONFIRMING CERTIFICATION OF
AN INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2207-048, 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-2207-048
Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 7:43pm 07-05-22
It’s disturbing to see residents defame others when they disagree. Slinging unfounded accusations smacks of smear tactics to malign the people with whom the voting majority in our City agrees. Regarding the Housing Element plan, the GPAC, comprising of more North Redondo residents than South Redondo residents agreed in large part with the City Council majority, as did the City Staff.
It is deplorable to label anyone as racist, chauvinistic, misogynistic, sexist, NIMBY, elitist, carpetbagger, exclusionary, etc. when they do not agree with you, have experiences you’re not familiar with, or because you didn’t vote for them. What people DON’T know can certainly hurt and result in a misinformed opinion. Doing homework is NECESSARY. It often shines a light on what was NOT petty at all, or not anything close to the mudslinging that has falsely manufactured a “North vs South” mob mentality.
Responsive comments on social media and discussion at public meetings containing verifiable data, references and links to documented, as well as established criteria for decision-making, is not bullying or harassment, as some like to claim. A Council Member NOT voting for what a person wants is not silencing anyone, nor does it mean YOU are right and THEY must be wrong. Declaring that others do not care about the impacts of issues that affect the ENTIRE City, both short and long term, displays only that people who engage in this behavior have no desire to embrace anything other than their own viewpoint, wishing to remain invested in hurling insults toward those who disagree. Attempting to further lump those with whom one disagrees into a category of “supporters” or “sycophants” of a person or group shows what that person’s real agenda is; discredit in any way those with an opinion different than yours.
And all that said, the Housing Element was FORCED on Redondo by the State of California. Our City is currently fighting that mandate as the numbers being forced on us are egregious. THAT is where everyone’s IRE belongs.
Please take a look at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com to help in that effort.
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 5:54pm 07-05-22
Continuing to put the majority of housing in North RB instead spreading it out more evenly continues to be irresponsible and infuriating to the residents of North Redondo.
Any space we have left in District 4 should be conserved and maintained as green space. The argument that housing should be close to freeways and transit makes zero sense when under that reasoning, there would be zero homes by the beach. Plus, our other resources such as stores and schools are negatively impacted with increased density. The responsible thing would br to spread out the housing more evenly. Before it was 2400 units that were to be allocated to the north and now 3100? Where South RB still is roughly 600? It’s absolutely ridiculous.
Because the majority of low income residents are minorities, it’s also a racist practice not to put any low income housing in South Redondo and keep it all in the north. The entire purpose of low income housing is to allow people opportunities to live in areas that they otherwise will not be able to. We need to adhere to the intentions of what low income housing is meant for.
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 5:54pm 07-05-22
Table H-43 makes it quite clear that the proposed HE does not Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. It puts 1,143 of the low income homes required by RHNA, over 90% of them, within the attendance boundaries of Title I school, Adams Middle School. Asking one school, which is already burdened by 50% more Title I children than Parras Middle School, is a violation of AFFH.
It's also a AFFH violation to place homes on the North Tech area, adjacent to one of the busiest freeway corridors in the country. Students would have to cross freeway ramps and train tracks just to get to school and parks.
HCD has already disallowed the only large low-income housing site in 90278, the FedEx site, as unfeasible. You have no proof that the owner wants to develop housing there, and be limited to only building low income homes.
Your report to HCD already shows that only 1-2% of net new homes is affordable in the HUD sense. You recognized that they market was not able to produce lower income homes and drafted a new inclusionary zoning ordinance with 20% IZ. How, then, can you justify that one site will produce 100% low income homes? The letter and spirit of AFFH requires us to serve the interests of new and old residents. Distribute the housing and school children equitably, to all schools in our city, especially ones that currently have a very small representation of Title I students.
Don't submit HEs that will be rejected. Get to work on a real and equitable Housing Element. susan andrade
Location:
Submitted At: 5:07pm 07-05-22
My Family has lived here for over 50 years. It is disheartening to see the city that we call home and loved, for so many years, treat its residents with such disregard.To condense over 3000+ in housing, in such a small radius of just one corner of the city, shows the lack of concern for the quality of life of the families who have spent decades making their homes, raising their children and plan their retirements.You have burdened my community to take on over 90% of the RHNA housing.Our infrastructure and schools can’t take the unsurmountable increase in residents to this small area. It will make our homes and surrounding community unbearable to live in.We invested not just our monies but our lives and the lives of our families into this city and we whole hardily expect our Mayor and city council to treat us as they would their neighbor.As we too “ARE” your neighbor.You have solely decided to sacrifice my community, when it could have easily been spread throughout both sides of Redondo.You have placed the RHNA housing, homeless shelter, transit center, Metro and talk of placing the Cannabis site here as well.We are not your dumping ground.Your community is not more precious than ours.We deserve better from our elected leaders than to be ridiculed and silenced when we ask to be treated fairly and equally.When myself and my community spoke up about all of these issues, we were bullied and harassed by a group supported by the Mayor.I can’t believe it is happening in my city.This is not,” Hands on politics”, it is elitism.The exclusionary tactics used by this group is appalling and I am embarrassed to call you my leaders.Please show more respect for yourselves and stop lowering the standards for good behavior.I grew up to “Do what is right”.So Do what is right and just for Redondo.I don’t care if you don’t like someone.IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. Hear us loud and clear.Spread out the housing equally as each neighbor hood is equally valuable to this city.I will not be silent and I hope my neighbors will not be either.I will continue to send these inequities to HCD and I encourage Redondo residents