City Council on 2023-01-17 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 01-17-23 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2023-01-17 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
01-17-23
18:00
85 35 10 18 2
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 2023-01-17 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 01-17-23 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
D.1. 22-5317 MAYOR'S COMMENDATION TO 2022 CITY EMPLOYEE
OF THE YEAR CITY ENGINEER ANDREW WINJE
1 0 0 0
D.2. 23-5368 MAYOR'S PRESENTATION OF THE KEY TO THE CITY TO CITY EMPLOYEE JOE MOORE FOR HIS 37 YEARS OF SERVICE
1 0 0 0
H.24. 23-5399 REGRETFULLY ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF
COMMISSIONER DAN J COMMIATO FROM THE HISTORICAL
COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO POST THE
VACANCY
1 0 0 0
J.1. 23-5355 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 1 0 1 0 L.1. 22-5189 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED USER FEE
AMENDMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-009, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
DEPARTMENT USER FEES
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-110, A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE TEMPLATE SINGLE BICYCLE
STORAGE PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TRANSIT
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY
PROCEDURES:
a. Open Public Hearing, take testimony; and
b. Close Public Hearing; and
c. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC- 2301-009
d. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC- 2301-110
1 0 0 1
N.1. 23-5416 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE DRAFT
TREE ORDINANCE FOR REGULATION OF TREES ON PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC PROPERTY AND DIRECTION ON ANY MODIFICATIONS OR
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE
BEFORE IT IS INTRODUCED FOR FIRST READING
29 10 17 1
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
N.2. 23-5379 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE
IMMEDIATE DEMOLITION OF THE SPORT FISHING PIER DUE TO ITS
DETERIORATING CONDITION WHICH HAS BEEN EXACERBATED BY
RECENT STORMS
APPROVE THE SUBMITTAL OF REQUIRED EMERGENCY
DEMOLITION REGULATORY PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND
NOTIFICATIONS, INCLUDING US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
COASTAL COMMISSION, AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD PERMITS AND THE PAYMENT OF FEES
ADOPT BY 4/5THS VOTE AND TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC2301-111, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR
2022-2023 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO REALLOCATE $400,000 OF
TIDELANDS FUNDS FROM THE RELOCATION OF BOAT LAUNCH,
JOB NO. 70170, $275,000 FROM PURCHASE ORDER # 3712 WITH MOFFATT AND NICHOLS, $200,000 OF TIDELANDS FUNDS FROM
SEA LEVEL RISE MASTER PLANNING, JOB NO. 70850, AND $50,000 OF TIDELANDS FUNDS FROM HARBOR DREDGING, JOB NO. 70660
TO THE PIER STRUCTURE REPAIR PROJECT, JOB NO. 70350
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, UPON RECOMMEDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER, TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
PROJECT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JILK HEAVY
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,163,000
WITH NO CHANGE IN TERM TO PERFORM COMPLETE DEMOLITION
OF THE SPORT FISHING PIER
1 0 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 D.1. 22-5317 MAYOR'S COMMENDATION TO 2022 CITY EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR CITY
ENGINEER ANDREW WINJE
Overall Sentiment
Lisa Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 3:10am 01-15-23
Congratulations Andrew Winje on this special commendation! What a well deserved honor.
Agenda Item: eComments for D.2. 23-5368 MAYOR'S PRESENTATION OF THE KEY TO THE CITY TO CITY EMPLOYEE JOE MOORE FOR HIS 37 YEARS OF SERVICE
Overall Sentiment
Lisa Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 3:11am 01-15-23
Happy Retirement Joe!
Agenda Item: eComments for H.24. 23-5399 REGRETFULLY ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER DAN J
COMMIATO FROM THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO POST THE VACANCY Overall Sentiment
Lisa Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 3:14am 01-15-23
thanks for your service
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 23-5355 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:23pm 01-16-23
Non-agenda Item Comment: Along with 100s of other residents, I am concerned that BCHD is yet again blindsiding the public as it works in the shadows with Redondo Beach Planning to propose PMB LLCs 100% privately developed/owned/operated project on Redondo Beach publicly owned and zoned land. From 2019 to 2020 to 2021 to 2022 BCHD blindsided the public by increasing the height of its proposed project from 60-feet to 76-feet to 103-feet to 107.5-feet in public filings (EIR NOP, BCHD BoD Meeting, Draft EIR, Pre-CUP filing, respectively.)
Both the City of Redondo Beach and BCHD have an obligation to pre-disclose the details of the proposal to the residents of Redondo Beach that will bear the damages from nearly 100 years of this private project.
Only 9% to a mere 3% of the project's 110-foot height and 300,000 sqft privately owned building will service residents of Redondo Beach. The overwhelming supermajority of damages will be caused by servicing private parties from outside the District, in direct opposition to the District's Superior Court filing that the District's benefits are for the "resident who reside" in the "District".
Agenda Item: eComments for L.1. 22-5189 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED USER FEE AMENDMENTS FOR THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-009, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT USER FEES ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-110, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE TEMPLATE SINGLE BICYCLE STORAGE PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
TRANSIT MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY PROCEDURES:
a. Open Public Hearing, take testimony; and
b. Close Public Hearing; and
c. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC- 2301-009
d. Adopt by title only Resolution No. CC- 2301-110
Overall Sentiment
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 1:19pm 01-17-23
I support installation of secure bike lockers at transit stops, including this one. But, I think we should listen to Metro staff. They find that long-term bike lockers are unused 90% of the time. They are moving into the direction of day-used lockers where users pay each time they use it. This way, the same number of lockers can serve many more users.
Let's make the lockers day use. Let's also add free bike racks in an area where there will be foot traffic and eye/ears watching over the bikes.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 23-5416 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE DRAFT TREE ORDINANCE FOR
REGULATION OF TREES ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AND DIRECTION ON ANY MODIFICATIONS OR ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE IT IS INTRODUCED FOR FIRST READING Overall Sentiment
Kathleen Jacecko
Location:
Submitted At: 8:32pm 01-17-23
I strongly support the Redondo Beach tree ordinance.
I live in North Redondo, where very bad planning has left us with pathetically few trees. Because the city saw fit to leave very little - and in many places no - space for public trees, it’s private trees or nothing for us. As a property owner myself, I believe in owners’ rights, but more than that, I believe in trees. It’s pretty fundamental: trees = life.
But also shade, beauty, and habitat.
One more thing: what you call “topping” or “Lion’s tailing,” I call hat racking. Call it what you want, it’s a disgusting practice that should be stopped. I’ve been to many places in my life, and from what I can tell, no other people in the world like to butcher trees like Angelinos do. It’s an affront to nature, and it should stop.
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 8:31pm 01-17-23
I oppose ANY limits on tree removal or tree species specification by the City of Redondo Beach on private, residential property.
Kiersten Lo
Location:
Submitted At: 6:47pm 01-17-23
Re the tree ordinance and the $15k fine for tree removal without a permit. Propose a lower fee for homeowners and a significantly higher fee for developers?
Liz Marcon
Location:
Submitted At: 6:36pm 01-17-23
I wish that I could go to this meeting and be there in person but I cannot as I have a Redondo Beach class to attend tonight. (Plus I already gave up 2 hours of my time for your ridiculously timed (and unnecessary) 3pm meeting earlier today in regards to Horvath.) Anyway, although I love trees, vegetation, gardens, flowers, etc (as you would see with our beautiful yards), I am absolutely opposed to this ordinance and the overreach of the city as it stands with private property portions of this. This is an invasion of the Private Property Rights of homeowners. As a homeowner, the city should not be dictating to homeowners on what to do with the trees on their own property. There are many reasons why trees may be removed or changed on our own properties such as root problems that may be invasive with plumbing, pipes, etc. Also trees can be invasive to my neighbors and their yards. Trees may also need to be replaced due to overgrowth. Or you may want to exchange trees out for more sustainable vegetation that can be just as lovely but use less water and resources. Please reject this Tree Ordinance. Homeowners should not be penalized nor have to pay fees/penalties. Thank you.
Sandra Fasen
Location:
Submitted At: 3:22pm 01-17-23
i strongly oppose the Redondo Beach Tree Ordinance. Trees are great and we should continue to plant, however, the infringement on private property owners seems punitive and unnecessary. Please do not support this ordinance. Why should the city have any say on what grows or doesn't grow on private property? Jim Montgomery
Location:
Submitted At: 1:53pm 01-17-23
I support this ordinance. It is time for Redondo Beach to join the many surrounding South Bay cities that already have one in place. Please vote to adopt this ordinance to protect and expand our shared urban forest, for all of the positive benefits stated.
There is a major benefit not mentioned in the ordinance that will also occur if "Favored Tree" preferentially means choosing local Southern California native trees, of which there are many species to choose. We will restore native habitat for local wildlife that have evolved with, and depend upon, native trees. This will benefit all life, including we humans, who depend upon functioning ecosystems for survival. Non-native trees that may be able to grow in Southern California often do not provide suitable habitat for native wildlife. Please take this into account when deciding which "Favored Trees" are on the city's list and preferentially plant those over non-native trees as much as possible.
Redondo Beach can be part of the solution towards addressing rapidly collapsing wildlife populations by adopting this ordinance. I recommend watching "The Vanishing Wild", a recent 60 Minutes episode that describes this global emergency, where we have lost almost 70% of wildlife populations worldwide since 1970. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/earth-mass-extinction-60-minutes-2023-01-01/ We humans have created this collapse and we humans can help reverse it by putting in public policy like this ordinance. Please vote yes.
Michael Sachs
Location:
Submitted At: 1:24pm 01-17-23
The city should promote tree planting and tree retention but not force a property owner to do so.
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 1:13pm 01-17-23
This ordinance is an unnecessary distraction. We should maintain and expand tree canopy on city-owned property. We don't need an ordinance to do that.
But, we should not infringe on private property rights or impede maintenance of utilities. SCE, CalWater and LA County Sanitation should not need to apply and wait for permits just to do routine maintenance that keeps us all safe and comfortable.
Jeff Edwards
Location:
Submitted At: 12:27pm 01-17-23
We most definitely NEED this kind of tree ordinance in Redondo Beach. Our trees are currently suffering mightily from neglect under our current oversight mechanism, and the situation threatens to worsen in light of the rampant over-development we are seeing in the city. Trees are a "canary in the coal mine", i.e. early indicators environmental health. The provide SO many good things to our environment and standard of living. We need MORE trees, BIGGER trees, HEALTHIER trees. If nothing else, lets KEEP the trees we have and protect and nurture them.
Lisa Youngworth
Location:
Submitted At: 10:41am 01-17-23
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Please ADOPT THE TREE ORDINANCE FOR REDONDO BEACH! Trees are important to our communities, they:
{ improve quality of life;
{ are noise deafening;
{ provide important habitat to urban wildlife;
{ their presence reduces the speed of traffic, and;
{ as our planet warms, trees will be integral in keeping our cities cool and livable; Right now in Redondo Beach, we need a path towards establishing and sustaining a healthy urban tree canopy.
We residents implore the Redondo Beach city council to adopt a tree ordinance. This is a great thing and will create a path forward. Not only for us, but for future generations. Thank you for your consideration.
April Telles
Location:
Submitted At: 8:47am 01-17-23
I fully support adoption of this Tree Protection Ordinance for Redondo Beach. It has been a long time in coming and is necessary to help keep us all cooler as our future temperatures continue to rise. A healthy tree canopy will benefit humans and wildlife alike and help preserve precious water and air quality. This ordinance as written may not be perfect, but it can always be amended in the future. We don't have the luxury of delaying implementation.
I would ask that you not water this ordinance down by removing the residential tree aspect. We need an effective ordinance to cover both city owned and privately owned trees. I am so excited about this Tree Protection Ordinance and hope it can be used as model in the near future for other local cities like Torrance and El Segundo.
I have witnessed tree hacking by our local cities and neighbors for many years and look forward to when this will no longer be the case. Thank You from the bottom of my heart.
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 8:29am 01-17-23
The Council Majority seems to not be paying any attention to the weather reports or climate change as of late.
With many trees across the southland having fallen due to tree rot and high winds, it would be negligent of this council majority to impose such an ordinace reflecting a punitive action, and frankly an overreach of private citizen's lands. An example of the damage this ordinace will incur; My neighbor has a house with many pine trees on their lot, Just two weeks ago our HOA has had to pay for the removal of one of these trees that has fallen on the roof of one of our properties. Becuase this was an emergency job, this cost us upwards of $3,000,which we paid. Our neighbor doesn't trim his trees as regularly as he used to, and neither did they have the finances to do so with assisting the removal of this tree. Now this neighbor is choosing to move, allowing for his lot of land to be developed and rezoned with yet another 3 on the lot. This ordinance is bad public policy and is punitive in nature, instead the city council majority should offer a service to residents who have trees on their lot that need maintaining to which they can charge a small amount, instead of forcing a permit action for maintenance or removal.
Brianna Rindge
Location:
Submitted At: 10:13pm 01-16-23
I was surprised to learn that Redondo Beach does not have a tree preservation ordinance. Many other cities have one to beautify the city, serve as a traffic calming measure, improve air quality, provide shade and reduce the heat island effect, and reduce erosion as has been of concern in recent weather. As a Redondo Beach resident I love driving, walking, and biking the tree-lined streets of Catalina Ave and Knob Hill and look forward to a future with more tree-lined streets with varying species.
Heather St. Rock
Location:
Submitted At: 6:49pm 01-16-23
Monday, January 16, 2023
5:58 PM
While I am in favor of trees, understanding their importance to the environment and our ecosystems, I believe any ordinances should be qualified with protective language for property owners, particularly in our beach cities where we pay a very high cost for ocean view property yet have no view ordinances protecting those views we pay for. I propose that any new trees planted should be indigenous and drought tolerant, and do not grow to heights beyond 30 feet, just as homes cannot be built higher than 30 feet. There are plenty of tree species that fall in this category. There are far too many very tall trees that are not maintained or trimmed properly. Owners and renters refuse to trim or cut back due to cost and they become overgrown and become eyesores or fire hazards. Once a tree has been planted by a developer (with no thought to future issues) they walk away, and the property owner is left to deal with what is there. Let's put the rules and responsibilities, and fines, on the developers to ensure that when trees are put in as part of landscaping, they are indigenous and drought tolerant, and are smaller tree species that grow less than 30 feet. The idea of fining property owners for tree removal is not fair, whereas fining a builder (assuming these rules were in place) would be fair and would help ensure that residents would not want or need to remove them. Please incorporate these concerns and boundaries into any tree related ordinance.
Alisa Beeli
Location:
Submitted At: 5:34pm 01-16-23
While maintaining and growing our tree canopy is admirable, this proposed ordinance is an overreach on private property owners in Redondo Beach. It not only serves to control the removal of heritage trees on private property, but the pruning and foliage reduction as well. The fines, permit process/fees and additional costs for replacement trees all will create a financial burden on homeowners that seems excessive and punitive. Also who is to monitor the pruning and maintenance of trees on private property? Are we to expect neighbors to report on neighbors? If the private property portion of this ordinance is approved, I sadly expect to see many heritage trees removed before it goes into effect. Many homeowners will not stand for this excessive overreach by our local government.
Thank you.
Amy Josefek
Location:
Submitted At: 4:25pm 01-16-23
The opening statement of this draft ordinance states that tree protection is necessary for the health and welfare of the City. That's all well and good, but what's also true and incredibly important is that it is also for the health and welfare of its residents.
There’s a vast amount of evidence about how a tree canopy will actually lower the heat of the neighborhoods in which they live; in light of the terrible reality of our warming trends, it’s imperative that everything possible that can be done, is done to mitigate this issue.
There's a significant temperature difference in communities in which there are a large number of established trees, versus those that haven't prioritized having them. Being able to lower the temperature of a hot climate (more and more what Southern California is and will be in the coming years) by 10-15 degrees is hugely significant to all its inhabitants. Just think how much better it is to live in a cooler, shaded area, as opposed to being forced to have air conditioning running for weeks or months at a time.
I applaud the Redondo Beach residents who've worked long and hard to get to this point. There's obviously a great amount of effort (and knowledge) that has gone into this document.
Even if it has to be tweaked in small ways, please honor the concept and importance of creating and maintaining a healthy tree canopy in Redondo Beach. Not only will this benefit all residents and visitors, but I also hope it can prove to be a great blueprint to other cities as to what they should be doing for their current and future residents.
Thank you very much.
Amy Josefek
Alma Aguilar
Location:
Submitted At: 3:45pm 01-16-23
I strongly oppose the tree ordinance. It is an infringement on property owners rights to make decisions on what is best for their properties. Trees are important to the environment, however an ordinance is a bad approach.
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 3:35pm 01-16-23
This is a gross overreach on property owners rights. The city can add trees to street dividers, parks and other green areas. It’s ridiculous to threaten homeowners with fines, tell people that they must keep a tree, or replace it with another tree if they remove one.
Kim Wong
Location:
Submitted At: 1:56pm 01-16-23
What!? I have to get a permit and pay thousands of dollars to the city just to remove those spider-infested evergreens in my own yard? My kids put them in over the years when they were tiny Charlie Brown Christmas trees. The tree ordinance on private property is a terrible idea! David Waldner
Location:
Submitted At: 1:20pm 01-16-23
I am writing to voice my opposition to the creation of a city tree ordinance as it is currently proposed for the following reasons:
Regulating trees located in front, rear and side yard setbacks on private property is unnecessary local government overreach into private property rights, and any fines or regulations regarding trees on private property should not be the focus of the City Council.
Trees on public property have been “top trimmed” in the Beryl Heights neighborhood for at least 40 years that I am aware of to preserve the residents’ views of the ocean and city. No adverse health impacts to the trees or shade benefits have occurred as the result of this trimming. I see no need to include this in any ordinance.
I urge you to not approve this ordinance and to send it back to staff for revision.
Pam Spear
Location:
Submitted At: 12:58pm 01-16-23
I am opposed to this ordinance as it stands with private property portions of this. This is an invasion of the property rights of homeowners. As a homeowner, I don't want the city to tell what I can or can't do to a tree that is on my property.
Oscar Pichardo
Location:
Submitted At: 9:46am 01-16-23
I'm flabbergasted.... I've read the proposed Redondo Beach Tree Protection Ordinance DRAFT three times and I fail to understand it.... an 18 page document of bureaucratic gobbledygook that will wind up in court... I still don't know what I can or cannot do in my own property, but do understand I have the "privilege" to pay the city $1000 if I would like to remove a dead tree from my property...
No wonder the city is going broke, wasting time, effort and resources on idiotic proposals to control the lives of the public.
An overreach and invasion of property rights by Bill Brand and his cohorts. That the city wants to plant more trees (this is a separate debate) is one thing. Dictating to property owners what to do is another matter.
There is also the issue of watering - we are in a drought and live in a desert - and maintenance. Who pays for the vast amount of water required to maintain the trees? For yearly pruning? For cleaning up the dead leaves? Cracks on the sidewalk? The city who does a miserable job of maintaining existing infrastructure? Or is the homeowner going to get stuck for the costs?
Linda Marr
Location:
Submitted At: 9:15am 01-16-23
I'm also in favor of more trees, but to infringe on private property rights seems like overstepping the city's authority. This is a slippery slope. Also, if the city feels like trees are so important, why did they remove that huge old tree in SR just to make room for traffic?
Steve Gerhardt
Location:
Submitted At: 9:30pm 01-15-23
I strongly support RB planting and marinating more trees, but any more not palm trees. Plant trees that sequester carbon and beautify our community. Thank you!!
Leslie Ogg
Location:
Submitted At: 10:49am 01-15-23
We need more trees and we need to protect the ones that are already planted. Our cities are only going to get hotter, and planting trees helps to mitigate the urban heat island effect. I don’t see a problem with requiring a new tree to be planted when an old one is removed. I also think owners should be fined for removing a tree without city approval. Once the tree is cut down it’s too late. I started to walk extensively in south Redondo during the pandemic and I have enjoyed seeing the variety of trees. I have also seen some beautiful trees cut down. Please pass a tree protection ordinance.
Lisa Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 3:05am 01-15-23
While trees are important to our community, I strongly oppose this ordinance as it infringes on Private Property Rights and creates a very dangerous slippery slope precedent. Please reject the adoption of the Tree Ordinance, there are better policies than this punitive one.
Jim Light
Location:
Submitted At: 10:00am 01-14-23
I fully support this ordinance. It is long overdue. It takes the best components of similar ordinances in other cities, so its elements are well proven already. Time to turn around the slow but continual loss of tree canopy in the City. Trees are essential to sustain urban wildlife, to curb urban heating, and to combat global warming.
Marie Puterbaugh
Location:
Submitted At: 4:38pm 01-13-23
Why would residents want to pay $1K and deal with permitting if they need to remove a tree? Brad Waller
Location:
Submitted At: 3:45pm 01-13-23
While I love the idea of protecting and improving the tree canopy, including all trees (including side and rear yards) and requiring residents to pay fees for permits and replacements seems excessive. I would support this if you made these changes. If not, I would ask for this to go back to staff or reject it.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 23-5379 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE IMMEDIATE DEMOLITION OF
THE SPORT FISHING PIER DUE TO ITS DETERIORATING CONDITION WHICH HAS BEEN EXACERBATED BY RECENT STORMS
APPROVE THE SUBMITTAL OF REQUIRED EMERGENCY DEMOLITION REGULATORY PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND
NOTIFICATIONS, INCLUDING US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL COMMISSION, AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD PERMITS AND THE PAYMENT OF FEES
ADOPT BY 4/5THS VOTE AND TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-111, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO REALLOCATE $400,000 OF TIDELANDS FUNDS FROM THE RELOCATION OF BOAT LAUNCH, JOB NO. 70170, $275,000 FROM PURCHASE ORDER # 3712 WITH MOFFATT AND NICHOLS, $200,000 OF TIDELANDS FUNDS FROM SEA LEVEL RISE MASTER PLANNING, JOB NO. 70850, AND $50,000 OF TIDELANDS FUNDS FROM HARBOR DREDGING, JOB NO. 70660 TO THE PIER STRUCTURE REPAIR PROJECT, JOB NO. 70350
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, UPON RECOMMEDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER, TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JILK HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,163,000
WITH NO CHANGE IN TERM TO PERFORM COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF THE SPORT FISHING PIER Overall Sentiment
Mark Hansen
Location:
Submitted At: 10:21pm 01-17-23
The Harbor Commission is always consulted during the Budget process. It would seem appropriate to consult them before reallocating almost one-million dollars in Harbor Funds.