City Council on 2023-08-15 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 08-15-23 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting Agenda Comments Support Oppose Neutral Time Items
City Council on 2023-08-15 6:00 PM - 08-15-23 90 9 0 5 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 18:00
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
Supporti0%)
Opposo(55%)
Neutral(22%)
* No Response(22%)
City Council on 2023-08-15 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 08-15-23 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
F.2. 23-6638 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING 1 0 0 0 LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
Name of case:
Yes in My Back Yard, a California nonprofit corporation; SONJA TRAUSS, an individual v. City of Redondo Beach; City Council of the City of Redondo Beach; City of Redondo Beach Department of Community Development, and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive
CNS Temporary No. E474013688
H.24. 23-6512 APPROVAL OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE 1 0 1 0
EASEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FOR
USE OF A PORTION OF DOMINGUEZ PARK TO PROVIDE FOR
FEDERALLY MANDATED PIPELINE INTEGRITY TESTING THROUGH
THE COMPANY'S EXISTING PIPELINE MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR AN INITIAL FEE PAID TO THE CITY OF $211,500 FOR THE TERM AUGUST 16, 2023 TO MAY 15, 2024 AND AN OPTION TO EXTEND
THE EASEMENT MONTHLY FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MONTHS FOR
AN ADDITIONAL FEE OF $47,000 PER MONTH FOR THE FIRST
THREE EXTENSIONS AND $70,500 PER MONTH FOR THE FINAL
THREE EXTENSIONS
J.1. 23-6610 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 0 1 L. PUBLIC HEARINGS 0 1
L.2. 23-6529 PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AN 1 0
INITIAL STUDY - NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO PARKING
REGULATIONS THAT SERVE TO IMPLEMENT AND MAKE
CONSISTENT THE ARTESIA & AVIATION CORRIDORS AREA PLAN
(AACAP) WITH THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ZONING
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3261-23, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO IMPLEMENT AND MAKE CONSISTENT THE
ARTESIA & AVIATION CORRIDORS AREA PLAN WITH THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING PARKING
REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF THE ASSOCIATED REQUIRED
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROCEDURES:
1. Open the public hearing, take testimony;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Introduction and first reading of Ordinance No. 3261-23 P.1. 23-6661 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF MAYOR 3 0 3 0
APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
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
Support(0%)
Oppose(55%)
Neutral (22%)
No Response 22%
Agenda Item: eComments for F.2. 23-6638 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:
Yes in My Back Yard, a California nonprofit corporation; SONJA TRAUSS, an individual v. City of Redondo Beach; City Council of the City of Redondo Beach; City of Redondo Beach Department of Community Development, and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive
CNS Temporary No. E474013688
Overall Sentiment
I Oppose (0%)
- Neutrali0%)
No Response(100%)
Nick Waranoff
Location:
Submitted At: 1:40pm 08-15-23
These cases involving the builders remedy should be coordinated with the state's lawsuit against Huntington Beach so that they are all heard together. See CP 404 and chapter 6 or chapter 7 of the California Rules of Court; https://www.courts.ca.gov/27922.htm#whatkinds
Agenda Item: eComments for H.24. 23-6512 APPROVAL OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EASEMENT WITH SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FOR USE OF A PORTION OF DOMINGUEZ PARK TO PROVIDE FOR FEDERALLY MANDATED
PIPELINE INTEGRITY TESTING THROUGH THE COMPANY'S EXISTING PIPELINE MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR AN INITIAL FEE PAID TO THE CITY OF $211,500 FOR THE TERM AUGUST 16, 2023 TO MAY 15, 2024 AND AN OPTION TO EXTEND THE EASEMENT MONTHLY FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MONTHS FOR AN ADDITIONAL FEE OF $47,000 PER MONTH FOR THE FIRST THREE EXTENSIONS AND $70,500 PER MONTH FOR THE FINAL THREE EXTENSIONS Overall Sentiment
Support(0%))
Oppose: 100%:
Neutral (0%)
No Response(0%)
Barbara Epstein
Location:
Submitted At: 6:13pm 08-15-23
I oppose leasing or selling public property for private commercial uses, especially public school and park lands.
I request the city adopts the policy of preserving and extending public lands, especially school and park lands, in the future.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 23-6610 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
# Supporti0%)
Oppose(0%)
• Neutral(100%)
9) No Response(0%)
Brandee Keith
Location:
Submitted At: 1:18pm 08-15-23
Hello. My name is Brandee Keith and I work with the Geographic Outreach team at South Coast Air Quality Management District. South Coast AQMD staff invites the public, especially members of communities living near petroleum refineries, to attend our upcoming Public Workshop for Proposed Amended Rule 1180 - Major Petroleum Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring (PAR 1180) and Proposed Rule 1180.1 - Other Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring (PR 1180.1).
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) has scheduled two Public Workshops, one of which will be held in the evening with Spanish translation available, to present and solicit information and suggestions from the public regarding Proposed Amended Rule 1180 - Major Petroleum Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring (PAR 1180) and Proposed Rule 1180.1 - Other Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring (PR 1180.1), which are scheduled for a Public Hearing before the South Coast AQMD Governing Board on November 3, 2023 (subject to change).
The meetings will be held on August 22, 2023, at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., PST. The 6 p.m. meeting will also include Spanish translation. For more information, please visit the Rule 1180 Rules Page or contact: Mojtaba Moghani, 909) 396-2527 or [email protected].
Agenda Item: eComments for L. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Overall Sentiment
Support(0%)
Oppose (50%)
Neutral(0%)
No Response(50%)
Barbara Epstein
Location:
Submitted At: 6:52pm 08-15-23
Please proceed very carefully in making these decisions.
It would be most beneficial for our city to have the Planning Commission and the City Council take time to consult together extensively before making this complicated decision. The public has very little understanding of the complexities in this decision.
Redondo Beach has suffered thoughtless overbuilding and poor land use decisions over the decades. We must proceed with caution at this time.
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:43pm 08-12-23
With respect to the proposed and flawed objective design standards, the 50+ local residents continue to oppose their approval. As noted in letters to the Council, Planning Commissioners, and Staff, the ODS fail to capture the intent, policy, or implementations of resident taxpayer protections. While the Council contends that the public was never conferred any rights by the "shoulds" in the prior RDGs, that is very shortsighted. The "shoulds" are frequently used in the process as guidance and in the worst case, as a lever to deny project approval. As a former developer, I have lost years and millions of dollars in litigation against cities to overturn what were defective decisions. In many other cases, I did not move to litigate due to legal advice and cost, and instead, provided concessions. The optionality value of "shoulds" is immense, and the City should not be flushing that taxpayer value down the toilet in an effort to meet an imaginary deadline. This information was repeatedly injected and ignored in the process. I suspect the Consultant was "full speed ahead" to collect their consulting fees.
Taxpayers/Property Owners/Voters deserve more than acquiescing to Developers. We deserve strong protections, even if the work is HARD. Difficult objective metrics were not even attempted. This option value was simply ignored.
Agenda Item: eComments for L.2. 23-6529 PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY - NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO PARKING REGULATIONS THAT SERVE TO
IMPLEMENT AND MAKE CONSISTENT THE ARTESIA & AVIATION CORRIDORS AREA PLAN (AACAP) WITH THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3261-23, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO IMPLEMENT AND MAKE CONSISTENT THE ARTESIA & AVIATION CORRIDORS AREA PLAN WITH
THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING PARKING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTION OF THE
ASSOCIATED REQUIRED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
PROCEDURES:
1. Open the public hearing, take testimony;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Introduction and first reading of Ordinance No. 3261-23 Overall Sentiment
Support(0%)
ME Oppose(0%)
# Neutrai(100%)
I No Response(0%)
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 10:55pm 08-15-23
As befits a city that declared a climate emergency, I urge our city to incorporate a concrete-protected bike lane on Artesia that will enable us to lower car parking demand. We should allow bike parking to replace car parking in our parking requirements. E.g. LA allows 2 bike spots to replace each car spot. Our parking study refers to mechanical lifts. 2-tiered bike parking is a lot cheaper than car lifts.
SBCCOG found that the Artesia corridor has the highest % of local support $ (within 1/2 mi) of any South Bay business area studied. Thus, this area would benefit the most from bike lanes to allow locals to enjoy our "main street" and support our local businesses.
http://southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/Land_Use-Sustainable_South_Bay_Strategy-09_08_09.pdf We have many horrible crashes on Artesia, particularly when the sun is in commuters' eyes. We need solid barriers between cars and pedestrians/cyclists/wheelchair users so that our community can get home safely any time of day or year.
Agenda Item: eComments for P.1. 23-6661 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF MAYOR APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Overall Sentiment
8l Support(0%)
• Oppose(100%
Neutral |0%)
No Response(0%
Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 6:30pm 08-15-23
While I commend the mayor for being able to source applicants for these roles. The council and mayor must ensure the best resolution for the entirety of the city without subjective bias. It is absolutely imperative to ensure the voices on any and all commissions are reflective of all of those that live in Redondo, and does not sway to one side or another. Consider the damage of previous actions those in leadership have previously taken by the removal of dedicated individuals who were well studied and independent in thought and opinion when it fell to decisions that would benefit the whole of Redondo. The status quo of the current trajectory of our leadership is questionable at best. I implore you to reconsider how you appoint those who claim to be dedicated and in service of all of Redondo regardless of personal opinion.
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 5:56pm 08-15-23
It has come to my attention that 2 current planning commissioners may be replaced tonight. The two who are being replaced, are independent thinkers and have brought up options for potential development which includes the AES site. As we know, Mayor Bill Brand has been very vocal and adamant about zero building on that site and making it purely a park. Though this is the Mayor's desire, it is still everyone's responsibility to hear everyone's opinions and thoughts, as not everyone may feel the way the Mayor does. By replacing 2 independent thinkers by 2 people who are aligned with how the Mayor thinks and wants things to go, it is squashing the voices of others who live in Redondo Beach. You have not been elected to be a dictatorship.
You all have a responsibility to ensure there is diversity in the commissions and committees so that a variety of ideas are brought forth to create what makes the most sense and is ultimately the best for the city. I'm asking you all to do the right thing, and ensure there is a diversity of people and independent thinking on the planning commission. That is what is best for Redondo Beach. If you love, Redondo, do the right thing.
Paul Moses
Location:
Submitted At: 9:11am 08-15-23
I strongly urge all Councilmembers to oppose the nomination of Wayne Craig to the Redondo Beach Planning Commission. Redondo residents want balance and fairness on the Planning Commission, qualities that this nominee is sorely lacking. This nominee has a history of public personal attacks on fellow Redondo residents which should disqualify him from nomination. It is a poor reflection of the Mayor's judgement to nominate him in the first place. This nominee lacks any real world experience for the position of Planning Commissioner. He was not qualified to be appointed to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), why is he qualified to be a Planning Commissioner?
This nominee has displayed troubling characteristics when engaged with fellow Redondo residents who oppose his extreme viewpoints. He has a long and public record of personal attacks on fellow Redondo residents.
Members of the Planning Commission cannot have such flaws.
The Planning Commission requires an open mind and an ability to understand complex development proposals.
This nominee has not demonstrated those abilities.
Councilmembers must exercise better judgement and oppose this crony nominee.