BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 4, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Grace Peng
To: CityClerk
Subject: 122-126 PCH
Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:30:58 PM
Attachments: 122-126 PCH.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Please send this letter to the Planning Commission, City Council, Mayor, and city planning staff.
thank-you,
Grace Peng
24 January, 2025
Honorable Jim Light
Mayor, Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Re: 122 and 126 Pacific Coast Highway
Dear Honorable Mayor Light, City Council Members, Planning Commission Members, and Staff, City Ventures proposes to build 43 homes on the combined lots of 122-126 Pacific Coast Highway. They propose 40 market rate and 3 low income homes. 5 will contain elevators and be accessible for the mobility impaired.
Redondo Beach (RB) must approve this project without delay. RB promised California Housing & Community Development (HCD) in its 6th Cycle Housing Element that housing at 30 du/ac is permitted at 126 PCH and at 17.5 du/ac at 122 PCH. State Density Bonus law allows developers to build more homes as long as a certain percentage of the bonus homes is set aside for those on lower incomes.
With regards to design on the project, all units will be 3-story townhomes with a garage taking up the majority of the ground level area. The common outdoor space of this project will be almost entirely taken up by driveways accessing private garages. Given RB’s parking mandates, the builder had little choice in making the ground level mostly garages and driveways to access the garages.
The city must follow state housing laws and its own housing element in reviewing this project.
RB’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (6CHE), adopted July 11, 2022, says on page 113, “By-right means that the City review must not require conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval.” RB cannot renege now or else will run afoul of SB-167 The Housing Accountability Act, which applies to developments with at least two-thirds of its area being residential, and complies with local zoning code Had RB not included those parcels in its Sites Inventory (Appendix B of 6CHE), housing would still be allowed there because of SB-4, but only 100% affordable housing. While putting these sites in the Sites Inventory avoided the need to upzone elsewhere in the city to meet the Lower Income RHNA, it also enables churches to sell their parcels included in the Sites Inventory to the highest bidder, including for-profit housing developers wishing to build market-rate homes.
It is entirely legal and conforms with the submitted 6CHE Sites Inventory.
Note that because RB’s 6th Cycle Housing Element’s Sites Inventory (Appendix B) claims 12 Lower Income homes on 126 N PCH, and this project will net only three Low Income (LI) homes, the city must rezone elsewhere for the 9 Lower Income homes not being built on this site. The city’s buffer of lower income sites already falls short of the recommended amount; this project will make the shortage more severe. Failure to upzone elsewhere jeopardizes the compliance of RB’s 6th Cycle Housing Element under RHNA.
With this project, RB will have 43 new homes, welcome 43 new families to the community and several dozen new students to schools struggling with declining enrollments. This is a cause for celebration, not mourning. Economist Evan Mast has shown that, through moving chains, 100 Market Rate homes will free up ~45-70 affordable homes elsewhere within 3 years1. In other words, the families moving into these new homes will vacate their previous homes for someone else to live in–expanding choices and affordability for people in the South Bay.
Recent fires in Los Angeles County have destroyed thousands of homes. Every home is urgently needed. We are playing a cruel game of musical chairs as people compete for too few homes.
Those with bigger budgets outbid those with slightly lower means, and so on until people with the least means wind up living on the streets. We have a chance here to do our part to help our region heal.
Back to the parking issue: Most jurisdictions reduce or eliminate costly minimum parking mandates on deed-restricted lower income homes. Redondo Beach requires the same number (2+) parking spaces for all homes, regardless of size, affordability level and location. This development is well-served by local transit being within 1 block of Metro 232 and Beach Cities Transit 102 and within 2 blocks of BCT 109, Torrance Transit 3, 7 and 13, and LADOT 438. Fast and frequent transit frees up families from needing to rely on cars and can make one-car or car-free lifestyles possible.
Redondo Beach is highly unusual in requiring the same number of parking spaces for a studio apartment as for a mansion. Furthermore, the city does not relax the parking mandate for low-income homes or for areas served by transit. This is a constraint on development for smaller, more affordable homes. On page 117 of RB’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, RB wrote:
Parking Requirements: The City requires two parking spaces per unit regardless of unit size. This parking requirement can potentially discourage the development of small units. The City will address the parking requirements as part of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element update. The City will amend the parking standards to reduce the burden on multi-family residential development, including adjusting the number and type of parking spaces required.
The developer asked for a small (2 parking stall) variance. Redondo Beach failed to enact parking reform before the October 2024 deadline. Thus, a variance is still required.
State density bonus law also states that, for the level of affordability and number of affordable units this project will provide, the developers are entitled to one concession. They have asked for the parking concession. Failure to grant it would violate the Housing Accountability Act. 1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119021000656#preview-section-snippets If the variance is not granted, the developer could justifiably take RB to court to obtain the parking mandate reduction. Not only would litigation be costly to the city, but it could cause HCD to deem RB’s 6CHE out of compliance with state housing law. Then developers can build up to 35 homes/acre, anywhere within RB under AB 1893.
Please grant the parking variance without delay and avoid litigation. In return I would ask only that the developer leave a minimum 10 foot wide multi-use path on the Pacific Coast Highway frontage of the project to help students walking or rolling to Parras MS and RUHS to reach their destinations safely.
In closing, I want to reiterate that every home today helps keep someone in our region from falling into homelessness. Please approve this project without delay.
Thank you,
Grace Peng, PhD
Natural Resources Director, League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities Redondo Beach Resident and former RUHS mom
Katie Hofsommer
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
DATED: January 7, 2025
TO: City of Redondo Beach Mayor and City Council
MESSAGE:
My name is Katie Hofsommer and I am a Redondo Beach resident. The city needs to update some of its laws to reflect how we live today. Redondo Beach was once filled with one-story single-family homes; our city created a fence law back then to adhere to the type of neighborhood that residents from 50 years ago wanted. This city has gone through major changes since then and the majority of homes are now multiple dwellings on a single lot that are 2 and 3 stories tall.
Current Redondo Beach residents want to add privacy to their land with privacy hedges and trees. These trees provide not only privacy but create a sound barrier, provide shade from the hot sun in the summer, create a beautiful backdrop that makes you forget what a congested city you live in, and freshen our air. Why do we have an outdated law on the books that can randomly punish someone who has taken the time and spent money on making our neighborhood better?
In the last five years only one resident has been cited for violating this outdated law even though there are hedges and trees in violation on every street in Redondo Beach. The city is wasting its resources forcing a homeowner to chop down well established, healthy, low water trees that were planted over 12 years ago. The city prosecutor has charged this resident with a misdemeanor crime over something that all the surrounding neighbors want to keep. The trees in question would not be allowed to be removed or topped if they were on city property. The city has a law that a public tree cannot be removed unless in poor health, causing harm to infrastructure, or is a safety hazard. 5-11.04Public trees—Non-development requests to remove. (a) Non-development related requests shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and reviewed by the urban forestry manager. The criteria for approval shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) if the tree is in poor health due to age or disease and cannot be restored; (2) if the tree has grown to a point that it has caused or is causing damage to public infrastructure, which includes, but is not limited to, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways and utilities; (3) if the tree presents a safety hazard that cannot be mitigated.
(b) Requests associated with: (1) view obstruction; (2) the age of a tree or (3) maintenance demands shall not be considered.
(c) Upon approval of a non-development related request for removal of a tree, the City shall remove the tree and replace it with a twenty-four (24″) inch box tree. The City shall post notices 15 days prior to removing the tree. (§ 1, Ord. 3251 c.s., eff. March 16, 2023)
So why can the city go to a private property and demand the removal of trees when the trees are causing no issues?
The city prosecutor will not negotiate and allow some of the trees to stay and some to go. They will not allow this resident to do anything other than cut the trees in the front yard down to 42-inches, and 6-feet in the back. Cutting a mature tree, with a 10-inch trunk diameter, down to these heights is outrageous. If it doesn’t kill the tree it will certainly look awful to have a row of tree stumps. Do we want a city full of tree stumps? Because that is where this is heading.
The Redondo Beach City Council and Mayor need to do better by the citizens of Redondo Beach. I am appalled at how you have all treated Andre LeRoux. In fact, when he went to our mayor, the mayor laughed in his face and said, “Ha ha, you got caught.” How is that the way to run a city? We should not be pitting neighbors against each other and instead have a clear law that is actually followed by everyone. Keep fence height restrictions the same but leave plants and trees alone. Beautifying our neighborhoods is something that should be encouraged and not made criminal.
I signed a petition on GreenRedondo.com which currently has 244 signatures. Help property owners by changing and updating the outdated laws, drop this criminal lawsuit against a life-long Redondo Beach resident, and prevent any future prosecutions of residents planting trees.
Sincerely,
Katie Hofsommer
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
February 4, 2025
To: City of Redondo Beach City Council
Subject: Outdated Anti-Tree Ordinance
My name is Andre Leroux and I am a lifetime resident of Redondo Beach.
Did you know that privacy hedges are illegal in Redondo Beach? According to a fence ordinance the side and rear yards should be a maximum of 6 feet and the front yard is even shorter at 42 inches. The city is currently prosecuting me with a misdemeanor for hedges I planted over 12 years ago.
They are healthy and well maintained. Both neighbors on the other side of the hedge want them to stay.
After meeting and speaking with the fire department last night, at the District 5 “Meet and Welcome Home the Heroes of Redondo Beach Fire and Police!” meeting, they stated Redondo Beach has two primary threats, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Because Redondo Beach is basically a “concrete jungle”, there are no fire dangers, especially wild fire dangers. They stated Palos Verdes would be the nearest to us to experience any type of wild fire threats. What does that mean to people having green, lush hedges and trees? It means that having hedges, privacy screens, and trees does not promote any fire dangers as the city prosecutor as eluded to on the record in court last week. This was a false claim argument.
This law is on the books but it is dormant and never enforced until there is a disgruntled neighbor who reports you. After doing some research, I have discovered that over 30% of properties in Redondo Beach are estimated to be affected by this ordinance. Massive enforcement of this ordinance will cause the City of Redondo Beach to lose over 30% of their mature trees. NOT great for a Tree City USA recipient.
I have been trying to reach the city and there has been zero response from anyone.
The only response I received from the city is a heavy prosecution from your legal department against my trees I planted over 12 years ago. Prior to planting the trees, I contacted your planning department and they stated there were no issues with my plan. These are very well established, mature, low water, and wellmaintained trees which all directly affected neighbors want to keep.
There have been zero private properties with this violation in the last 5 years. I am the only private resident being prosecuted for this unenforced law. This was discovered through a public records search and proves it is not being enforced.
Selective enforcement of the law allows for biases in policing, leading to potential abuse of power and corruption. It contributes to a breakdown of trust between law enforcement and communities, undermining public safety. This practice threatens the equitable treatment of all individuals under the law.
As you should know many Redondo Beach residents have similar trees and could also be charged with a misdemeanor after years of enjoying the benefits of having trees give privacy, shade, beauty, and so much more. You probably have trees such as this in your neighborhood including possibly your neighbor, if you live in Redondo Beach.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
I currently have 245 signatures on a petition to change and update this ordinance.
You can find this petition on change.org or the website I created for this called GreenRedondo.com. The direct link to the petition is: https://chng.it/ghRjNxfL4J I have taken over 2000 photos of other homes in Redondo Beach violating this same ordinance. You can find a small sampling of photos on GreenRedondo.com.
To be clear, after speaking with my neighbors, these neighbors do NOT want the trees cut. They are happy with them. These are the trees separating our properties and the two directly affected neighbors do NOT want my trees cut.
My neighbors do not want these trees cut, I do not want these trees cut, and yet your city is prosecuting me hard and wants to possibly JAIL ME FOR 6 MONTHS.
These laws need to be changed and updated to how the city has changed, being denser, and how we all want privacy from our neighbors.
There are new properties being built with landscaping being planted and permits signed off by your city inspectors. After speaking with the realtors, they stated the purpose of these trees to grow into each other and provide privacy. I would be extremely upset spending $2.4M on a home and then finding out the planted trees, Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
approved by your city upon final inspection, would need to be cut. This is an extremely messed-up and outdated ordinance.
The city has created extremely high-density neighborhoods and they are just becoming denser. The way we use our properties is completely different than we did even 20 years ago. We all want privacy from the ever-encroaching houses.
Plus, the added benefit is environmental, providing shade, and the aesthetic beauty of landscaping increasing our property values.
If you have hedges or trees on your property, this CAN happen to you! Again, there are over 30% of properties in Redondo Beach which are directly affected. This is WHY it is imperative we act now to save our trees! We need to act now as a city and as residents to save these trees by updating these outdated anti-tree ordinances.
Let’s save these beautiful trees and update these laws to prevent anyone else from going through this criminal prosecution as I have.
Criminal prosecution, with the possibility of jailtime, just because I planted trees is outrageous!
• Criminal prosecution on a completely unenforced ordinance. • If this ordinance is unenforced, it should be removed from the books to prevent residents from these harsh ambiguous laws.
If you have hedges like this, you should never be prosecuted. People planting trees should be commended.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
In the current ordinance, illegal hedges in Redondo Beach are:
1. Front Yard: over 42 inches tall (36 inches if you are on the corner lots)
2. Rear and Side yards: over 6 feet
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
These illegal hedges are throughout Redondo Beach in all districts. These are a few examples.
We need to save our trees.
Sign our petition HERE
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This is at the corner of North Broadway and Carnelian Street. Yes, this is a corner lot on public property. This is our Redondo Beach City Hall. Google maps view. It appears the wall construction was intended to follow the ordinance but they grew a tall hedge. It is 140 feet long on the Carnelian side alone. It is taller than 6 feet even…as referenced by the man walking on the sidewalk. This is an illegal hedge per the ordinance.
Current ordinance states the side setback hedge cannot be over 6 feet. This hedge is significantly higher than that and an illegal hedge. Our anti-tree laws need to change.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This beautiful hedge is providing privacy for these residents. They are certainly over 6 feet tall and illegal. These anti-tree ordinances must be updated.
This beautiful hedge is providing privacy for these residents. They are certainly over 6 feet tall and illegal. These antitree ordinances must be updated to save these trees. Sign our petition.
This beautiful front hedge is providing privacy for these residents. They are certainly over 42 inches tall and illegal.
These anti-tree ordinances must be updated to save these trees. Sign our petition.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Corner lot with 2 violations. The corner plants are higher than 36 inches and the driveway hedge is taller than 42 inches. Currently illegal under this ordinance.
This was taken at the Department of Beaches and Harbors warehouse. All those properties do not want to see this parking lot and want their privacy. These are all illegal per the current antitree ordinances. We need to change this…sign the petition and support our cause.
This hedge is located on a newer construction property. Per the current ordinance, this is located in the front set back and higher than 42 inches. This is an illegal hedge.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This property is located adjacent to Dive & Surf. This hedge is located on their side setback which, per the ordinance, would need to be no taller than 6 feet. This is an illegal hedge.
This is a huge hedge 200 feet long within the front setback. Current ordinance states it should be maximum 42 inches tall. This is significantly taller and currently illegal. We need the change these laws. Sign the petition.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Side setback hedges taller than 6 feet currently illegal. Corner hedge being grown currently over 36 inches. These trees look beautiful and currently illegal under the current ordinance. Sign the petition to save these trees.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall and side setback taller than 6 feet. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall and side setback taller than 6 feet. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Side hedges over 6 feet tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Side hedges over 6 feet tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Side hedges over 6 feet tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Side/rear setback taller than 6 feet and currently illegal. Let’s save these trees.
Newer construction with amazing front hedge…but because this is over 42 inches in the front setback, currently illegal. We need to change these anti-tree laws.
Front hedges over 42 inches tall. These are illegal. Let’s change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This wall is certainly over 6 feet and currently illegal per the ordinance.
Driveway and front yard hedges for privacy. Looks amazing but currently illegal because they are over 42 inches.
These hedges are in front of a condo complex in their front setback. They are over 42 inches tall and illegal.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This nice hedge is providing a sound, and noise barrier. This is illegal since over 6 feet, side set back. Sign petition to update these ordinances.
This hedge is located at the new hotels off Marine. Illegal hedge over 6 feet.
This hedge is separating and providing privacy between these two properties. Obviously over 6 feet and currently illegal.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Side setback hedge taller than 6 feet. This is currently illegal under this ordinance. Let’s get together and fight these outdated anti-tree laws and save our trees.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This hedge provides the privacy. These hedges are over 6 feet and currently illegal. We need to change these outdated, dormant laws.
Sign Petition
This hedge is illegal and certainly over 6 feet. We need to change these outdated ordinances.
Sign the petition.
This privacy hedge is amazing and, unfortunately, over 6 feet, per current law. These outdated ordinances need to change.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Driving down Manhattan Beach Boulevard, you can see a series of people planting hedges for privacy, and to reduce noise. This is the rear setback of the property and hedge is taller than 6 feet and currently illegal. These laws need to change.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Another illegal hedge. This is a wonderful hedge and currently illegal because the hedge is taller than the 6 foot side/rear setback. We need to change these outdated laws. Sign the petition.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
This hedge is over their fence and over 6 feet thus illegal. Help us change this outdated ordinances.
This is the front of an apartment building. These hedges are in the front setback and taller than 42 inches and illegal.
Newer construction and this is their rear yard hedge. Taller than 6 feet and illegal.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Beautiful privacy hedge currently illegal in Redondo Beach. We need to update these ordinances.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Front setback hedge taller than 42 inches and currently illegal under this ordinance.
Rear setback privacy hedge, currently illegal in Redondo Beach. Sign petition to keep these trees.
Tall hedge on rear and side setbacks of the property taller than 6 feet. Currently illegal per this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Tall hedge on rear and side setbacks of the property taller than 6 feet. Currently illegal per this ordinance.
This tree must be saved. Per this ordinance, this tree creates a barrier in the front setback and should be a maximum of 42 inches. These laws need to be updated.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Yes, all of this is illegal per the current ordinance. This is so beautiful and must be saved! Let’s change this ordinance. Sign the petition.
Hedge taller than 6 feet and currently illegal.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Properties behind Bamboo Thai with hedges taller than 6 feet. Currently illegal under this ordinance.
Rear of Grocery Outlet. These people wanted privacy and have a hedge taller than 6 feet in their rear setback. Currently illegal with the current ordinance. Sign the petition to update these antitree laws.
Hedge located in front setback taller than 42 inches. Currently illegal per the ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Hedge taller than 42 inches within the front setback and currently illegal.
Hedge located in rear and side setback taller than 6 feet. Currently illegal.
Newer construction believe in privacy hedges. This hedge is illegal per the current ordinance.
Help us change the laws by signing the petition.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Newer construction with driveway hedge taller than 42 inches currently illegal.
Newer construction with hedge taller than 42 inches in their front setback. This is currently illegal per the ordinance.
Wall topper higher than 6 feet and hedge in front setback taller than 36-inches (corner lot).
Currently illegal per the ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Newer construction with hedge taller than 6 feet side setback. Currently illegal. Sign the petition to change these anti-tree laws.
Newer construction with hedge taller than 42 inches in front setback.
Newer construction with hedge taller than 42 inches in front setback.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Newer construction with hedges taller than 42 inches in front setback. Currently illegal in Redondo Beach.
Sign Petition
Front setback hedge appears to be higher than 42 inches. This hedge is illegal. We need to change this ordinance.
Front setback hedge appears to be higher than 42 inches. This hedge is illegal. We need to change this ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Newer construction and hedges taller than 42 inches in the front setback.
Newer construction with front hedges. Since these are in the front setback, they need to be a maximum of 42 inches.
Another illegal hedge at a newer construction.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Sign Petition
Breakwater Village have several illegal hedges. These are higher than 6 feet and currently illegal. We need to change these dormant, anti-tree laws to save these trees.
Another illegal hedge at a newer construction.
Newer construction with hedges located on side setback taller than 6 feet. These are currently illegal per the ordinance.
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Newly remodel and you can see there is a new hedge planted. The intention is for this to become a privacy hedge. These are currently at 6 feet over the 42 inch front setback and illegal.
New construction on 190th with a series of trees. The intent to to be a hedge but at this point, the height of the wall is at 42 inches in this front setback. How did this pass inspection? I would love to see a hedge here so these new residents can have the sound isolation from 190th and the privacy they deserve. Let’s change these laws by signing the petition and contacting our representatives.
Sign Petition
Andre Leroux
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
https://GreenRedondo.com
Newly built and on the market. The contractors of new construction builds in Redondo Beach are acknowledging the importance of privacy hedges. This picture was taken of a new build with an asking price of $2.4M. Speaking with the realtor, they stated the intended purpose is to grow into a hedge for privacy from the other house < 5 feet away.
Sign Petition
From: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk
Subject: Blue Folder item for Non Agenda items from H. Osborne, No. 1 Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:08:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Good evening, Mr Mayor, City Council and Staff. Holly Osborne, District 5.
Metro has started mentioning red lining at almost every P and P meeting after May 2024. They do not want to further negatively affect areas that have been redlined in the past. Please note Lawndale is solid red.
Here is the map again, Lawndale is outlined in black, andthe two proposed Green Line paths are sketched.The city of Lawndale prefers the solid line route down Hawthorne Blvd, a commercial area, rather than the dashed line in the ROW, which goes through residences. Shouldn't Lawndale, the most impacted city, have a strong say as to which route is selected? Not going down the ROW will preserve the most green space in their city, so important in this era of climate change.
When this comes up again, please choose the Hawthorne route for the Green Line. .
Thank you.
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important From: PSharpless
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:35 PM
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comments Before City Council, February 4, 2025 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
City Clerk Manzano,
Please accept this email and circulate it to the City Council members and submit it into the public record for the City Council meeting tonight.
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Redondo Beach, Ordinance 2583 is codified in Municipal Code Title 3, Chapter 6, Section 3-6.06 and regulates the parking position in a space, requiring vehicles to park with the front of the vehicle facing into the curb or barrier line where parking meters are installed.
The City Charter does not enumerate the design and application for uniform traffic control devices; the Legislature delegated this authority to the Department of Transportation. General laws, not the City Charter, regulate such matters. Moreover, only authorized and appropriate signs necessary to properly indicate and carry out the provisions of Municipal Code 3-6.06 are permitted. The signs placed in various locations throughout the City are unauthorized and inappropriate since they do not comply with the standards promulgated by the Department.
I have a grievance with the City and object to it enacting an unconstitutional and unlawful ordinance that fails to comply with the broad plenary authorities granted to it by the Legislature. In order to better the municipal affairs in Redondo Beach, I expect the City Council to repeal Municipal Code 3-
6.06 and remove the public nuisance signs for the reasons set forth below:
I. City Charter
The Official Charter for the Government of the City of Redondo Beach governs municipal affairs in conflict with general laws, and matters not covered by general laws. The home rule doctrine is only applicable when a putative conflict between a state statute and a charter city measure presents an actual conflict. Here, there is no such conflict because Municipal Code 3-6.06 is not in conflict with general laws. Even when a putative conflict is present, there is always a counterpoint of statewide concern as a conceptual limitation on the scope of municipal affairs, and thus on the supremacy of charter city measures over conflicting legislative enactments. City charters are not always paramount to general state laws, even as to some purely municipal affairs.
Article IV grants power for the city to make and enforce all rules and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and in the Constitution of the State of California.
Article V establishes a Council-Manager form of government; Section 5.1(b) explains the purpose is to provide for the exercise of administrative powers by competent, experienced personnel trained in municipal affairs.
Article IX establishes the Legislative Department; Section 9.5 provides for citizen participation and no citizen shall be denied the right, personally or through counsel, to present grievances or offer suggestions for the betterment of municipal affairs.
Article XI provides the powers and duties of elective officers; Section 11.2(f) requires the City Attorney to prepare any and all proposed ordinances or resolutions for the city and amendments thereto.
Article XII creates the office of the City Manager; Section 12.3 provides the powers and duties and requires the City Manager shall be the chief administrative officer and the head of the administrative branch of the City government. The City Manager shall be responsible directly to the City Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City.
II. California Constitution Article XI, Section 5
In 1968, as part of the general overhaul of the state Constitution, the California Constitution Revision Commission recommended a new Article XI, Section 5; the voters approved revisions at the June 1970 special election. In respect to other matters not enumerated in city charters, they shall be subject to general laws.
III. Municipal Code 3-6.06 Violates the Due Process Clause Enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
When a governmental interest touches on a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is required and the state bears the burden of establishing that it has a compelling interest justifying the regulation, that such regulation is necessary to further the state’s purpose or interest, and the regulation is imposed in the least restrictive manner. The City does not have a compelling interest to regulate head in parking everywhere a parking meter is installed, including in Lot 13 where the ordinance is improperly enforced.
IV. Municipal Code 3-6.06 is Unlawful
The City is abusing its broad plenary authority when violating its obligations to comply with the safeguard provisions codified in Vehicle Code 21113(b) and (c), and in Vehicle Code 21351.
The City is enforcing an inapplicable ordinance after failing to provide adequate notice with the use of authorized and appropriate signs necessary to properly indicate and carryout the provisions of Municipal Code 3-6.06.
The City is arbitrarily installing signs to regulate Municipal Code 3-6.06 in some locations but not others.
The signs installed by city employees to regulate Municipal Code 3-6.06 do not conform to the standards promulgated by the Department of Transportation for parking in a particular manner.
The signs installed by city employees to regulate Municipal Code 3-6.06 are unofficial signs containing a red legend and border purporting to prohibit parking at some or all times, but with words ‘head in only’ to imitate a permissive parking sign, and resembling a regulation requiring vehicles to park in a particular manner; these unlawful signs are prohibited, a public nuisance, and require removal.
Ensuring the City of Redondo Beach follows the proper procedure for enforcing Vehicle Code parking violations is a matter of public right, and all citizens have an interest in having the laws executed and the duty in question properly enforced. Please take the necessary and appropriate actions to protect our community from the collection of civil enforcement penalties under the false pretense inapplicable ordinances are enforceable violations.
I’m always available for questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick Sharpless
From: Grace Peng
To: CityClerk
Cc: Ryan Liu; Andrew Winje; Teri Neustaedter; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi Subject: Letter about Grant Ave
Date: Friday, January 24, 2025 10:38:06 AM
Attachments: MacKay Bumpouts.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Can you please share this letter with the City Council, and the Public Works and Public Safety commissions and departments?
I am a fan of the big improvements at MacKay/Grant and the minor changes at Rindge/Grant. I hope to see it at more intersections.
thank-you,
Grace Peng,
Natural Resources Director, League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities 15 January 2025
Andrew Winje
Public Works
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Re: Bump outs at Grant & MacKay – Ensuring Public Safety Dear Mr Winje,
I want to thank you and your entire department, especially Ryan Liu, for the positive changes I experience every time I move through and along Grant Ave.
I used to have to haul my heavy eBike up on the sidewalk to push a button to get a green light to cross Grant. Now, the cameras at Rindge and MacKay see me and change the light for me with the same priority whether I am driving a car or riding a bike. I can stay on the road and position myself in the direction I am travelling. This keeps me safer because motorists can see my intent.
When I was on the sidewalk previously, with my bike positioned diagonally down the curb ramp, motorists had to guess at my intended direction.
The cameras that detect cyclists at Grant/MacKay and Grant/Rindge are a big improvement. I hope we can get them at Grant/Aviation and Grant/Kingsdale soon. The buttons to cross Aviation and Kingsdale are 36’ and 56’ respectively from the lane to go straight on the bike.
Grant and Aviation (above) shows a 36’ distance between the button to get a green light to cross Aviation and the lane to go straight. Grant at Kingsdale (below) has a 56’ distance between the button and the lane to go straight. This is a hardship even when my eBike panniers are not full of groceries.
I also appreciate the safety of the bump outs at Grant/MacKay. Previously, when I was on westbound Grant, motorists turning right/northbound on MacKay would position their vehicles in the bike lane to bypass the cars waiting for a green light to go straight. With the bump outs, drivers turning right cannot bypass cars stopped at the red light on Grant by dangerously encroaching on the bike lane. This has been a huge safety improvement for me when I return home from grocery shopping on my laden and heavy eBike. I do wish that the curbs on the bump outs are painted in reflective paint in a bright color. That would improve visibility for everyone.
Bump outs also shorten the crossing distances, which helps children, the elderly and wheelchair and walker users cross wide Grant Ave more easily and safely. People outside of cars are most vulnerable in intersections. Shortening crossings reduces exposure to the risk of being run over by an impatient, distracted or impaired driver.With the playing fields, senior and teen centers and playground at Perry Park, it’s especially important to shorten the crossing of Grant at MacKay.
The bump outs even help motorists. A shorter crossing for pedestrians can also reduce the time of the pedestrian light cycle. The light will turn green for motorists on Grant faster due to the bump outs. The bump outs work better for all modes by reducing spatial and temporal conflicts between modes.
I understand that drivers are upset about having to wait a few extra seconds to make a right turn on red. I am grateful to you and Mr Liu for creating a culture of safety that puts the safety of those outside of cars above minor inconveniences for drivers.
I look forward to improvements at both the Aviation and Kingsdale ends of Grant Ave.
Grace Peng, PhD
Natural Resources Director, League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Darryl Boyd; Paige Kaluderovic
Subject: Public Comment 2/4/25 Non-Agenda Item RB City Council - 500-600 Block N. Prospect Ave. Soundwall Analysis Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:51:27 PM
Attachments: North Prospect Noise Wall Analysis (Feb 2025) 02012025.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Please file this analysis and report as a public comment for the non-agenda items of tonight's Council meeting. It is likely premature for me to call in and discuss tonight, however, it is an important issue to our neighborhood. As such, I am placing it into the record for future reference.
Synopsis: Using certified EIR noise results along with Metro soundwall standards, the residents and property owners of 500-600 N Prospect Ave have conducted an analysis of the consistency of a soundwall along Prospect with Metro published standards. A CPRA request for Redondo Beach Soundwall requirements has been submitted. Based on a thorough website search of Redondo.org and online documents, we do not expect that Redondo Beach has such a document available.
The analysis demonstrates consistency with Metro standards/requirements and moves for a formal soundwall analysis.We anticipate bringing it forward for discussion at a future date.
Thank you.
Mark Nelson
Property Owner
Expert Witness
Soundwall Analysis for
500-600 N Prospect Ave
Frontage Road
Prepared by Neighborhood Residents
For District 3 Councilmember Kaluderovic
Public Works Director Winje
February 2025
Questions to [email protected]
Recommendation to Proceed with a
Block Soundwall along the 500-600
Blocks of North Prospect Avenue
2 • Extensive review of available traffic and noise data was undertaken (see https://bit.ly/NoiseDamages for a National Institutes of Health studies on noise damages to health)
• Redondo Beach has no published soundwall criteria, therefore, Metro’s criteria were used (similar to adopting agency standards for a CEQA analysis) • Certified peer-reviewed FEIR results demonstrate that the noise to residents along the 500-600 blocks exceeds the Metro minimum for a sound wall • Internet search demonstrates that the expected maximum cost of the soundwall is less than half the cost per dwelling of Metro’s cap • We request that the City proceed validating the criteria and developing high confidence project costs in order to move forward with a Soundwall project
Key Benefits of Soundwalls
3 Sound walls provide significant benefits for neighborhoods by significantly reducing noise pollution from busy roads or highways, leading to a quieter and more peaceful living environment, which can improve residents' quality of life by reducing stress, improving sleep, and enhancing property values; essentially acting as a buffer between the community and traffic noise.
Key benefits of sound walls for neighborhoods:
• Noise reduction:
The primary benefit is the noticeable decrease in traffic noise, particularly for homes situated close to highways, significantly improving the sound quality within the neighborhood. • Improved sleep quality:
Lower noise levels can contribute to better sleep quality for residents, especially those disturbed by nighttime traffic.
• Reduced stress:
Constant traffic noise can be a significant stressor, and sound walls can help alleviate this by creating a calmer environment.
• Enhanced property value:
A quieter neighborhood due to sound walls can positively impact property values, making homes more attractive to potential buyers.
• Protection from health concerns:
Studies have linked excessive noise exposure to various health issues like hypertension and hearing impairment, which sound walls can help mitigate.
• Community well-being:
By creating a more peaceful living environment, sound walls can contribute to a stronger sense of community and overall quality of life.
Review and Analysis of 500-600 Block of
North Prospect Avenue Resident Noise Levels
from Street Noise
4 • This study and its recommendations relied on existing Noise and Traffic studies.
• BCHD’s Certified FEIR (9/2/2021) contained direct Leq measurements and Leq modeling of the 500-600 block of N. Prospect Ave noise levels as part of the BCHD Campus expansion EIR from 312,000 sqft to 793,520 sqft. • BCHD’s Certified FEIR has been reviewed by Rincon on behalf of the City. • BCHD’s Expansion Plan has been reviewed by Placeworks on behalf of the City.
• Placeworks Draft General Plan presents Ldn noise estimates as a noise contour map with no specific reference to the source work.
• Fehr & Peers conducted a 2024 traffic study for the City, however, it only included Prospect from Knob Hill to PCH.
• As a result, primary data for the analysis is from the peer-reviewed BCHD FEIR Extensive Search, Review, and Analysis of Existing Noise and Traffic Studies of North Prospect was undertaken in Support of the 500-600 Block of N. Prospect Ave.
5 • Data was extracted for use from CEQA SCH No. 2019060258 Certified FEIR Chapter 3.11 NOISE that has been peer reviewed by Rincon on behalf of the City of Redondo Beach.
• Data is Leq dBA measurement, consistent with the Redondo Beach Municipal Code RBMC 4-24.
• Data was measured and modeled specifically to measure levels on “receptors” (residents) of the 500-600 blocks of N. Prospect Ave. • Only baseline data is considered, not BCHD construction noise simulations
• Properties are residential sensitive receptors along N. Prospect Ave that pre-existed the increasing noise levels.
• Properties are only 50 to 100-feet from the soundwall, making it highly effective.
• The current noise level at peak period far exceeds he 67-dB level, both as Lmax 77 dBA to 85 dBA and as an average 69.5 dBA. • Cost-effectiveness is unknown, however, with no land cost acquisition, a 10-foot block soundwall for a single 40-foot dwelling frontage would be approximately $52,000 based on available cost estimates. That is less than 50% of the stated Metro maximum cost.
Adopting the Metro/Caltrans Criteria, 500-600 N. Prospect Ave meets all of the Criteria for Soundwall Development 9 Sources and Data
BCHD Certified FEIR -
https://bchd.blob.core.windows.net/docs/hlc/BCHD FEIR For%20Print 090221.pdf Fehr & Peers Traffic Study -
https://cms2.revize.com/revize/redondobeachca/HETrafficStudy.pdf Placeworks Draft RBGP -
https://cms2.revize.com/revize/redondobeachca/Land%20Use%20Analysis%20-%20nonHE%20Sites November2024 FINAL.pdf Metro Soundwall Criteria (used in analysis since Redondo Beach has no published criteria) - https://www.metro.net/about/highway-soundwalls/
Soundwall Cost Estimate
https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/protecting-environment/noise-walls-barriers
The City of Redondo Beach has an Engagement with its
General Plan Consultant, Placeworks, for work on the BCHD Development Plan and EIR. The City should have high
confidence in the BCHD FEIR.
12 Since the City of Redondo Beach has both Placeworks and Rincon evaluating the BCHD Certified FEIR, ResidentTaxpayers should assume that both consultants are either in agreement with BCHD Noise Work, or, that those Contractors have resolved all Objections
• Rincon does not appear to have any independent estimation or measurement of N.
Prospect Ave. noise levels. Rincon’s role looks to be only review. • Placeworks reports an Lnd noise level (SIC – incorrectly labeled in all Placeworks exhibits.
Should be Ldn) for N. Prospect Ave. in the General Plan Draft. Based on Placeworks graphics, it appears they assert 65 dB Ldn on the road and 60 dB Ldn at the homes (receptors).
• The official measurement methodology in the RBMC is Leq utilizing A-weighting which is consistent with BCHD Certified FEIR and not with Placeworks analysis or exhibits. 13 • The only Prospect Ave. analysis in the
study appears to be S. Prospect Ave.
from Knob Hill to PCH.
Based on Review of the Fehr and Peers Traffic Analysis, there is no Traffic or Noise Data or Analysis on the Segment from 190th to Knob Hill that competes with the BCHD FEIR
14 Request for Documents from Redondo Beach
15 View the PDF of peer-reviewed
research results on the
Damages of noise and traffic to
health with clickable links at
https://bit.ly/NoiseDamages
16 From: Sara Martin
To: CityClerk
Subject: Please add to CC Blue Folder for tonight’s meeting Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 2:12:19 PM
Attachments: Public Comment 2025 2 4 City Council Speech 271 Words.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Thank you.
Sara Martin
Public Comment 2025 2 4 City Council Speech
271 Words
Hello, I’m Sara Martin, a Redondo Beach resident.
This is my second speech on Good Governance, focusing on transparency, accountability, responsiveness to the public, and good faith. Those principles arise in us as individuals, attract like-minded people to groups, and are most powerfully exercised, or not, in every public governing body in this community, state and nation.
I had a different speech planned for tonight, but the harmful onslaught of unconstitutional and immoral actions of the Republican White House administration demanded another message. I speak as the daughter and daughterin-law of good men whose fellow WWII soldiers fought and died fighting fascism “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” --Abraham Lincoln
Public Comment 2025 2 4 City Council Speech
Imagine yourself among the listeners at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1863, as the 16th President of the United States spoke to all Americans. Notice your thoughts about how the spirit and intention still apply today at every level of our representative democracy. Consider your role in how plays out here, and in our nation’s capital. We the people, individually and collectively, according to our own character, priorities and actions, are responsible for the government we elect, and those who govern us are responsible to us.
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; Nils Nehrenheim; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein
Subject: Public Comment - City Councils and Boards - BCHD Steep District Taxpayer Subsidies to NON-RESIDENTS Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 1:24:33 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Beach cities health district is spending huge amounts of taxpayer funding (property taxes and taxpayer-owned asset revenues) on non-residents, while the District clearly demonstrated to the Superior Court that it was established for the benefit of "Residents who reside" within the District. We have a grave fiduciary failure at BCHD.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info Subject: Public Comment all City Councils in the District - FACT CHECK of BCHD Q&A Date: Saturday, January 25, 2025 4:35:00 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voterapproved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.