City Council on 2023-04-18 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 04-18-23 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2023-04-18 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
04-18-23
18:00
79 5 1 3 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 2023-04-18 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 04-18-23 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.3. 23-5876 APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
A. DECEMBER 20, 2022 ADJOURNED & REGULAR MEETING
B. JANUARY 3, 2023 ADJOURNED & REGULAR MEETING
C. JANUARY 17, 2023 SPECIAL MEETING
D. JANUARY 17, 2023 ADJOURNED & REGULAR MEETING
1 0 0 0
J.1. 23-5863 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 1 1 0 0 N.4. 23-5914 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
SAFETY MEASURES FOR BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS AT THE PIER
2 0 2 0
N.5. 23-5874 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROGRAMS
AND GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE EXPANSION
OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
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.3. 23-5876 APPROVE THE FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
A. DECEMBER 20, 2022 ADJOURNED & REGULAR MEETING
B. JANUARY 3, 2023 ADJOURNED & REGULAR MEETING
C. JANUARY 17, 2023 SPECIAL MEETING
D. JANUARY 17, 2023 ADJOURNED & REGULAR MEETING
Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 11:40am 04-17-23
BCHD continues to misrepresent the Allcove program to the public. BCHD's contract with allcove is for service in an area of 1.4 million persons, of which, less than 9% is the District's taxpayer-owners. Allcove is yet another move by BCHD to violate the voter's approval for formation of a district for the benefits of "residents who reside" in the District. The three cities that own BCHD should vigorously oppose BCHD's continued use of taxpayer funds, assets, buildings and staff for NON-RESIDENT benefits. The proposed HLC is a supermajority nonresident benefit. Per BCHD's own consultant review, 80% of the assisted living is for non-residents. Per the SPA8 contact for allcove, 91% of the benefit is for non-residents. Per the National PACE Association data, 95% of the PACE facility will be for non-residents. As a reminder, although BCHD did not keep track of Covid testing residency, the County provided data that 84% of the BCHD covid tests were for non-residents. BCHD lost over $2M during covid from servicing non-residents, and the $2.3M of non-reimbursed funding effectively became a property tax revenue transfer from District taxpayers to non-residents.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 23-5863 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Farah Kreutz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:51pm 04-18-23
I am writing to request the city fly the pro-life flag at City Hall during the month of October, which is dedicated to celebrating the value of human life. As a member of the community, and a member of the RB Pro Life Movement and of ProLifeRedondo I believe that it is important to recognize the importance of protecting the lives of the unborn and indeed of every human being, no matter the condition and circumstances, and to show support for those who are working to build a culture of life. This is why, with other pro life residents, we have organized the unincorporated association ProLifeRedondo and are asking you to fly our flag. The pro-life movement seeks to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. We believe that every life has value and should be protected from the womb to the tomb. The month of October is a time when many organizations and communities across the country come together to raise awareness about the value of life and the importance of protecting it.
Of course we do not expect or ask that the City necessarily shares our values. We are asking that you allow our exercise of the right to private speech by flying our flag, the same way you are doing with other communities in our city; for example in the month of June the city will allow the LGBTQ community to fly the Pride Flag. This exercise of private speech is protected under the First Amendment and must be respected under Shurtleff vs.
Boston. In 2022 the US Supreme Court ruled that the City of Boston violated the Freedom of Speech protected by the 1st Amendment by refusing to allow community members to raise a "Christian flag"at city allow after allowing other groups to raise other non-religious flags (Shurtleff v. Boston). The same way as Boston, you have created a "public forum" by allowing other community members to raise their flag at city hall, instead of flying just government flags.This is our lawful right to raise our flags and refusing to do so, per the Supreme Court, would be unlawful discrimination and a violation of the 1st Amendment. We're confident that you won't discriminate & urge lawfully to approve our request and to take action to fly the pro-life flag in fall.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.4. 23-5914 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SAFETY MEASURES FOR
BIKES AND PEDESTRIANS AT THE PIER
Overall Sentiment
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 9:10pm 04-18-23
I urge you to adopt the very reasonable plan proposed by Jim Light (Harbor Commissioner) and Jim Hannon (President of SBBC).
The Marvin Braude bike trail is a vital transportation corridor for coastal commuters that connect RB to hundreds of thousands of jobs in the El Segundo/LAX job center, Silicon Beach and Culver City (via Ballona Creek). It is simply unreasonable to force people to dismount and push their bike 1000'. We would not force motorists to push their vehicles. The pier is not crowded during weekday commute hours. A 24x7x365 dismount requirement is overkill. Do you want to force bike commuters to drive their cars on PCH instead? The UK National Health Service found that 60% of people with mobility limitations find cycling easier/less painful than walking. This dismount zone becomes an ADA issue for people using bikes/trikes as assistive devices. If you force people to dismount in high-conflict zones for safety reasons, then you need to provide a safer alternative for those that cannot dismount. Chicane spacing should also be navigable for trikes and cargo trikes used by families carrying children.
Brianna Egan
Location:
Submitted At: 6:42pm 04-18-23
The Marvin Braude bike trail is a gem of bike and beach access along our coast. In addition to providing recreational use for locals and visitors, many people use the trail to commute via bicycle to jobs in El Segundo, Venice, Marina Del Rey, and Santa Monica. Redondo's portion of the bike trail provides a crucial connection to nearby beaches and reduces car traffic along surface streets. We should be incentivizing and encouraging the use of the bike trail for these uses, rather than actively discouraging it.
One question I have for council and staff is, what is your goal and what is the reason behind these measures for the bike trail? Has there been an increase in bike crashes or bike-pedestrian incidents? The informal understanding of bike users at the Redondo pier has been that people can ride their bikes continuously through the pier in the internal path, but must dismount at the South end where the trail joins with pedestrian areas. I have not heard of any documented increase in incidents.
Staff's recommendations to place chicanes and physical barriers within the parking lot portion of the pier, and the recent "Walk Bikes" signs and electronic signboards threatening fines all create an ugly, hostile environment to people on bikes. People still bike through Hermosa's chicanes, and their weaving through creates more hazards rather than reducing them. This is not what I want Redondo's bike path to be known for. I largely agree with Jim Hannon's and Jim Light's recommendation letter and their specific recommendations over the staff report. Better signage, green paint, clear crosswalk markings, and programmed lights, would enhance the path, provide better safety, and still maintain flow. Additionally, I would ask the city to look into installing an electronic bike counter at the path at the upper boardwalk area to quantify and measure the number of cyclists for data-gathering purposes.
We should be celebrating and enhancing our bike facilities, not undercutting and diminishing them.
Think DESIGN over fines, barriers, and policing. Thanks.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.5. 23-5874 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROGRAMS AND GRANT FUNDING
AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS Overall Sentiment
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 9:26pm 04-18-23
While I support installing EV charging infrastructure on existing parking lots, I am vehemently opposed to installing them curbside, especially on the Artesia Corridor. Curbside charging interferes with future installation of a bike lane. Hundreds of scientists have crunched the numbers and found that mode shift out of cars onto bikes/eBikes has 10x the decarbonization benefit of switching out ICE cars for EVs.
When City of LA installed curbside EV chargers on a street where bike lanes were also installed, the inevitable happened. A cyclist riding on the bike lane ran into the charger cord and tumbled over the handlebars. This was a very costly incident for the city. Do not install curb-side chargers! Our children suffer not just the burden of a hotter planet, but smaller and hotter playgrounds as well. We have already paved over several school playgrounds to add more parking lots. Please provide safe streets so that kids can walk or bike to school. Mayor Bill Brand comments often that we are a park-poor city. Don't pave over any of our precious park space for EV charging and parking.