City Council on 2022-08-02 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 08-02-22 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2022-08-02 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
08-02-22
18:00
65 9 0 4 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 2022-08-02 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 08-02-22 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.8. 22-4431 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICES,
FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $184,744.80, FOR THE TERM
AUGUST 02, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2023
1 0 0 1
J.1. 22-4560 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 6 0 2 0 L. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 0 1 0
N.1. 22-4499 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
ALONG ARTESIA BOULEVARD
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT OPTION AND AUTHORIZE THE DESIGN AND
COMPLETION OF CONSRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR IMPLEMTATION
OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ALONG ARTESIA BOULEVARD
1 0 1 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.8. 22-4431 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICES, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $184,744.80, FOR THE TERM AUGUST 02, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2023
Overall Sentiment
Paige Kaluderovic
Location:
Submitted At: 2:47pm 08-02-22
As a resident located east of Inglewood, I cannot understand why members of the council did not find it obviously necessary to have a crossing guard at the intersection of Inglewood & Ralston, where countless elementary and middle school kids cross. It's disheartening to know that the safety of our kids is not worth $19,000. If the response to this is, the budget didn't allow for it, then I would like a member of the council to speak intelligently on how more than $250,000 was found for this upcoming special election, when a significantly cheaper option was available. Where will this unexpected money for the special election come from? Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 22-4560 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 7:25pm 08-02-22
Here's what I want to write:
Today I was threatened by Steve Collin, who is an attorney to the mayor and who is a member of the cities historical commission. First, threatening to sue me for verbalizing what happened on July 19 as well as weeks before that regarding the mayor pro tem is a violation of my rights and I take this threat very seriously. Especially when he is representing the "leader" of our city. He is committing misconduct by using his position to threaten and silence a citizen.
Second, Mayor Brand, and council persons Nerenheim, Lowenstein and Obagi you are all committing waste and abuse of our cities financial resources by voting on a non-agenda item to have a special election on October 19 which will cost us $290,000 instead of waiting for it to be put on the November 8 ballot which would only cost us about $34,000. To me, this is very corrupt politics. And this is the correct word. As defined, corrupt means "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain." You have all decided to ask in a matter for your own personal gain by wasting $290,000 for a special election so that you can keep Obagi in office by creating voter confusion. Further, you are giving the cannabis people exactly what they want. By not waiting until March to put forth a cannabis initiative that the council can work on, you’re putting forth a Cannabis peoples initiative which will force us to have three or more dispensaries in Redondo Beach versus the two that the initiative the council can put together for the March vote would do. Essentially, you're damaging the city and citizens of Redondo in order to keep your tenuous control.
Mark Hansen
Location:
Submitted At: 7:04pm 08-02-22
Mayor, City Council, and City Manager,
Our local "Waterfront Education" program has received a 30-day notice to vacate from the current location at AES.
In August 2019, the City Council approved a lease amendment with the current leaseholder of the Joe's Crab Shack location, which includes a termination option that may be exercised, requiring the vacation of the premises with a 60-day notice. For the right to terminate the agreement the City paid a termination fee of $750,000.
At the Harbor Commission meeting in April, the commission sent a recommendation to the City Council that Joe’s Crab Shack should be preserved for an educational opportunity, and they would like to consider the Waterfront Education program, White Sea Bass, and other local programs.
At the commission’s meeting in May, the commission passed recommendations to the City Council, which included activating the site now as an educational facility, with existing interested educational institutions.
Staff's Administrative Report for that meeting highlighted that the City is in the middle of a planning effort to enhance public amenities within the waterfront. One specific element of the amenities plan is to create an educational facility.
At your City Council meeting on June 7, several council members emphasized the importance of integrating our local education programs into the new educational facility.
I recommend that tonight, the City Council agendize, at your next available meeting, a discussion to exercise the Termination Option at Joe's Crab Shack, and expedite the relocation of "Waterfront Education" to that site.
Fraternally,
Mark Hansen
King Harbor Boater
Advisory Committee, Waterfront Education
310-601-0710
Maggie Healy
Location:
Submitted At: 7:02pm 08-02-22
On July 19, Mayor Brand, Councilmembers Obagi, Lowenstein and Nehrenheim, all violated the Brown Act in a way that forced your will on the people of Redondo Beach. In a rush to undermine the expressed wishes of District 4 residents to hold an election to recall councilmember Obagi, you decided, without proper notice to the people, that the recall should be held on a random Wednesday in October and combined with the Cannabis initiative that was already scheduled for March. You all said you knew better than District 4 residents what was good for them. You all said you were protecting the City from outside monied interests. In reality, you were protecting your own political interests by keeping a crony on Council.
And when you failed to take the advice of the City Clerk, and you failed to heed the advice of the City Attorney, you undermined the will of all Redondo Beach voters who overwhelmingly elected these officials to their offices.
Again, you failed to receive resident input when you decided to spend an extra $250,000 just to have this election in a way that suits your agenda. Where will that funding come from? Given your recent actions on his behalf, it seems Obagi is going to need to pay you back, so District 4 will pay.
Today, the Mayor’s attorney, Stevan Colin, was on facebook threatening a District 4 resident who dared to post something critical of the Mayor’s recent actions with a suit. He said he’d be watching her to see if she appeared at the meeting tonight so he could sue her if she defamed anyone. Mayor Brand must realize how despicable that kind of resident intimidation is. Does he care? It violates our first amendment rights of free speech! Mayor Brand, and councilmembers, if you don’t want to be called corrupt by the people, then stop doing things that appear corrupt, before it’s too late.
Before its too late, correct your lapse of judgment and place the Cannabis initiative back on the March 2023 ballot, as was decided at the February 1 council meeting this year, with public input. Place the Recall Election on the November 8 election as intended by the voters of District 4 and as recommended by the City Clerk and City Attorney.
Thank you.
Lisa Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 6:48pm 08-02-22
Since Mayor Brand and Councilmembers Nehrenheim, Loewenstein, and Obagi Jr. seem hellbent on playing politics and making up rules to suit them, perhaps now is a great time to remind them who they serve...the PEOPLE of City of Redondo Beach, NOT themselves. As outlined in The Ralph M. Brown Act. " The people of the State of California do not yield their sovereignty (power) to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is good for them not to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that THEY MAY RETAIN control over the instruments they have created".
The Brown Act was enacted in 1953 to guarantee the public's right to attend and participate, in holding public officials accountable for their actions and allowing public to participate in the decision making process. My public comment tonight is to call yoour attention to what I believe to be a substantial violation of Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution. I'm no lawyer, but the rules state in order to be compliant you must follow them. On July 19th, at the eleventh hour, Councilmember Nehrenheim presented a resolution to hold a special election on Oct. 19th (different from the Nov. 8 language on N.1). the motion was supported by Councilman Loewenstein, yielding a 3-0 vote including Councilmember Obagi weighing in cahoots with the South Redondo representatives.
Despite caution from City Clerk, Attorney, and Councilmembers Horvath and Emdee, the action to cost $270K a mere 3 weeks prior to statewide election prevailed.
The Brown Act affords citizens the legal remedy to correct wrongs with a Demand to Cure and Correct.
1. Properly agendize this item for full transparency, allowing the public participation to redress the ilegality by providing the public opportunity to comment, which was disallowed As provided by Section 54960.1, you have 30 days to cure your action. If you fail to cure or correct, citizens are entitled to seek action. Stop play No politics and wasting our money.
Lisa Rodriguez
Sondra Segall
Location:
Submitted At: 6:42pm 08-02-22
There’s a flagrant Brown Act violation in the completely inappropriate scheduling of an election! The city council previously voted 5-0 to schedule the cannabis retailer’s initiative next March, with the stated reason that it would allow time for the public to see the city’s own cannabis ordinance in action, so that voters would deem the initiative unnecessary.
The council just passed its own cannabis ordinance July 19th, 4-0 with Obagi recusing. Obagi recused because he has clients in the cannabis industry.
Nehrenheim should have recused. Nehrenheim took a $1,000 donation from South Cord Management (Elliot Lewis’s company) and he took another $1,000 donation from DUB Brother Management – both are cannabis companies.
Todd Loewenstein also took a $1,000 donation from South Cord Management. 7 months later, after receiving complaints, Loewenstein made a donation to charity in the same amount. And isn’t THAT a special position of privilege, to be able to have a company give you money that you can donate to the charity of your choice, and you gain all of the benefits of a big doner – all because you sit on City Council? All three should have recused themselves and all three voted last week to move up the cannabis industry’s initiative election from next March to this October, thereby short-circuiting the city’s cannabis ordinance.
It is a colossal waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars to schedule a special election just 20 days before the November 8th midterms.
No matter what they say, this clearly is designed to confuse voters and get something past the residents of Redondo Beach when no one is paying attention. Redondo Beach's election turn-out was 27.8% in our March 2, 2021 local election, compared to Redondo Beach's participation of 85.6% in the November 2021 state-wide general election.
And one more thing, how can Nehrenheim sit on a committee looking at outsourcing RBFD to LA County Fire, when Nehrenheim receives a significant portion of his income from LA County Fire? RECUSE, RECUSE, RECUSE! You are in conflict of interest!!! Elizandro Umana
Location:
Submitted At: 5:14pm 08-02-22
This morning I saw an extremely disturbing video showing discrimination and excessive force by police officers at Redondo Beach Pier. I cannot believe how she was treated and violated for having a dog on the pier. You can literally see other people (white people) in the video with dogs walking past the cops. It shouldn't matter who someone is, everyone is deserving of rights and respect. The victim of this police brutality is actually an example to many students in the Los Angeles Community College District, whom I work for. She is justice impacted, made her way to ELAC, transferred to UCLA, and attained multiple degrees there. While a student she was active in different spaces including UCLA underground scholars, who support other justice impacted/formerly incarcerated students excel in higher education. She is now in the process of taking her LSAT to enter law school. This situation hurts and the video is infuriating. I myself frequent the pier and I have never seen the countless white people on the bridge with theirs dogs ever get harassed, much less detained. These officers must be released of their employment as police officers for assaulting this woman of color.
Agenda Item: eComments for L. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Overall Sentiment
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 3:42pm 08-02-22
LI: I support transparency in government and public notification. However, I do not understand why, if it is good and desirable to notify neighbors of building projects in the coastal zone, it is not also good to notify neighbors in the inland areas. I believe that our laws should apply equally to all parts of the city. Change the notification policy for both, or not at all.
Sending notices to 300' instead of 100' is 9x the area, creating more development risk. This may suppress or slow development & violate the housing accountability act. With HCD evaluating our Housing Element right now, especially with respect to fairness between parts of our city, do we want to invite extra legal scrutiny? Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 22-4499 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING INTERSECTION
MODIFICATIONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ALONG ARTESIA BOULEVARD
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT OPTION AND AUTHORIZE THE DESIGN AND
COMPLETION OF CONSRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR IMPLEMTATION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ALONG ARTESIA
BOULEVARD
Overall Sentiment
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 5:42pm 08-02-22
Artesia Blvd in RB is on the CA high injury network. See the Active Transportation Program mapping tool to view pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured on this corridor. https://tims.berkeley.edu/tools/atp/ This staff report focuses on the convenience and safety of motorists in this corridor. I find the lack of consideration for pedestrians, transit riders and cyclists highly concerning. Improving safety for the uncarred need not even inconvenience motorists. For instance, reprogramming signals at Rindge and MacKay for pedestrian scrambles would temporally separate the uncarred from motorists in the intersection. This would greatly increase safety while increasing throughput for turning motorists. Felton is another intersection where someone recently was killed.
What is a human life worth?
Please instruct staff to install pedestrian scrambles at these high-injury/death intersections. This would be a lowcost alternative. There is no reason to delay adding pedestrian scrambles.