City Council on 2025-08-12 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 08-12-25 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2025-08-12 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
08-12-25
18:00
50 6 1 4 1
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2025-08-12 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 08-12-25 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
N.1. 25-1137 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE
INSTALLATION OF PICKLEBALL COURTS AT ALTA VISTA PARK AND
APPROVAL OF A CEQA EXEMPTION DECLARATION FOR THE
PROJECT
1 0 0 1
N.2. 25-1013 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR
CROSSING GUARD SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$138,158 AND THE TERM AUGUST 5, 2025 TO JUNE 30, 2026
2 0 2 0
N.3. 25-1106 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE HIRING
OF A CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY ON
THE CITY'S COMMERCIAL RETAIL CANNABIS REGULATORY
PROGRAM AND THE POTENTIAL SOLICITATION OF COMMERCIAL
RETAIL CANNABIS PERMIT APPLICATIONS
3 1 2 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 N.1. 25-1137 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE INSTALLATION OF PICKLEBALL
COURTS AT ALTA VISTA PARK AND APPROVAL OF A CEQA EXEMPTION DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:19pm 08-12-25
As I noted in a more extensive comment by email, Leq is a lousy measure of intermittent noises like the "pop" of a pickleball. Average noise (logarithmic like the earthquake magnitudes) is misleading. It makes NO SENSE to average noise across time and claim that 4 hours of nasty hard plastic ball striking is irrelevant on average across 24 hours.
Anyone want to average in a single 1000 over 250 blood pressure pulse? It won't be significant on a 24 hour "Leq type" basis to your BP. But you will be quite the biohazard cleanup issue. Exact same concept.
How again does spreading the noise across more than it occurs in make sense? There has been much written and there are many examples of neighborhood noise objections from pickleball. As one example, see, https://productiveparks.com/solutions-noisy-pickleball-courts It should also come as no surprise that there are studies of the devaluation impacts of pickleball on surrounding neighbors and now lawyers who specialize in pickleball litigation. https://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/fun-athome/a62612906/is-pickleball-ruining-your-quiet-neighborhoood/ Depending on the neighbors appetite for noise and conflict, don't be surprised if they lawyer up for a nuisance claim. Why Are Your Pickleball Courts Receiving Complaints from Neighbors? We'll see how it goes and whether of not averaging the sound away is the right move.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 25-1013 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FOR CROSSING GUARD SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $138,158 AND THE TERM AUGUST 5, 2025 TO JUNE 30, 2026
Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:23pm 08-12-25
Wasn't the City supposed to get funding from RBUSD? That's what I recall from the exhaustive budget discussions.
Also, I see that Rutan law firm has been retained by the District. The City asked for what it's about to get. The RBUSD deserves a FAR 1.25 for all its property and it can develop related projects - JUST LIKE BCHD - using private equity. Only the City believed it could upzone BCHD without this occuring.
Jessica Gonzales
Location:
Submitted At: 10:01am 08-11-25
Before you vote to throw more city money at school crossing guards, I urge you to read the attached article.
The School District clearly isn’t hurting for cash — they’ve just allocated at least $400,000 to hire law firms, including Rutan & Tucker, the same outfit representing the AES power plant owner who’s suing our city. Given their track record, it’s not hard to guess they’ll use these lawyers to pressure or sue the city if you refuse their demands to upzone property.
Why are you letting residents foot the entire bill for crossing guards and school resource officers while the District spends freely on attorneys? It’s time to stop enabling them and start demanding they share these costs.
After more than a year of ineffective closed-door meetings with the school district, your progress on this issue has been nonexistent. The public deserves action — not excuses.
Here's the link you should be reading.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid06pdmQF4L4ihttRjnsVbWugkSxPkTvhWRxx7oPwwni bVJx6PXSNsJFLfEbtvbgKesl&id=100077096753719
Agenda Item: eComments for N.3. 25-1106 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE HIRING OF A CONSULTANT TO
CONDUCT A PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY ON THE CITY'S COMMERCIAL RETAIL CANNABIS REGULATORY PROGRAM AND THE
POTENTIAL SOLICITATION OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL CANNABIS PERMIT APPLICATIONS Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:57pm 08-12-25
It's a YES or NO. Read the proposal, NO EXTRA EXPLANATIONS. REGISTERED VOTERS ONLY - NO NONRESIDENTS/NO NON-VOTERS. Only voters approved the tax.
Maricela Guillermo
Location:
Submitted At: 5:12pm 08-12-25
I STRONGLY urge you to protect public trust by allowing voters to decide this matter at the ballot box. If a survey is conducted, it is imperative that it be designed and implemented in a fair and impartial way. The money saved by not hiring consultants could be used for much-needed neighborhood projects. I also question how the city found the funds for this proposal—and what the urgency is?
Rather than spending public funds on a consultant, this matter should be placed on the ballot for the residents of Redondo Beach to decide during the next city election. This approach ensures transparency, builds community trust, and guarantees that the WILL of the people is directly reflected in the outcome.
Should the Council proceed with a survey, I request that it include at least 500 residents or more instead of 400, to better capture the diverse perspectives of our community.
It is essential that the survey questions be developed by independent, NEUTRAL parties—not by individuals or Council members who have already publicly supported allowing cannabis dispensaries in the city. This will help ensure the results are credible, unbiased, and accepted by residents regardless of their stance.
Thanks for your consideration.
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 1:57pm 08-12-25
I voted yes on Prop 64 because I wanted to lessen the legal and financial impact for youth in possession of small amounts of marijuana.
See the section "Impacts on Juvenile Court"
https://courts.ca.gov/programs-initiatives/criminal-justice-services/proposition-64-adult-use-marijuana-act My yes vote on Prop 64 in no way means I want recreational cannabis shops in my city. Hawthorne has multiple cannabis dispensaries and RB residents can take Metro 210 from the RB bus center to them. (You don't want people to imbibe and drive, do you?) Some dispensaries also offer home delivery. I don't smell any evidence of a lack of access to cannabis in Redondo Beach.
We don't need to pay survey consultants. Let's save our money for something that we need, such as park maintenance and safer street crossings for all ages, all modes of travel.