City Council on 2025-12-09 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 12-09-25 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2025-12-09 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
12-09-25
18:00
64 8 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 2025-12-09 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 12-09-25 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
N.1. 25-1621 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
FINAL DESIGN OF THE KING HARBOR GATEWAY SIGN
REPLACEMENT
4 0 3 0
N.3. 25-1648 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
PRACTICES AND POLICIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY'S TREE
CANOPY
4 1 1 1
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. 25-1621 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING FINAL DESIGN OF THE KING
HARBOR GATEWAY SIGN REPLACEMENT
Overall Sentiment
Maricela Guillermo
Location:
Submitted At: 7:17pm 12-09-25
Option 2 is by far the best among the options.
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 3:24pm 12-09-25
Wake up City Council and start listening to Residents and your constituents! sw lee
Location:
Submitted At: 3:48pm 12-08-25
While I understand the importance of aligning with the City’s new branding, I believe it is equally important to honor the traditions and history that make Redondo Beach such a beloved community.
The King Harbor sign is more than just a marker—it is a symbol of home. It welcomes visitors with pride and reassures residents that they have arrived in the city they love. For many of us, it carries memories and meaning that cannot be replaced. It is iconic, woven into the identity of Redondo Beach, and preserving it would ensure that future generations continue to feel the same sense of belonging and connection.
If an updated version of the sign is needed, I hope it will be minimal, keeping the integrity of the historic sign, paying homage to tradition and keeping it the icon of the City we all know an love. Please keep as much of the design the same, unless there is desire to "go retro" to versions past with a hint of new branding. Honor the voices of the community.
Thank you.
David Waldner
Location:
Submitted At: 10:17am 12-06-25
Do not change the font or center design of this iconic sign. Over 1600 people have signed a petition on change.org opposing the redesign of the sign. Obviously, wording below the main arch needs revision, but that's it !!
Agenda Item: eComments for N.3. 25-1648 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PRACTICES AND POLICIES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY'S TREE CANOPY
Overall Sentiment
Barbara Epstein
Location:
Submitted At: 7:37pm 12-09-25
I support a city tree policy that maximizes the number of canopy trees in the city.
There are infinite reasons why trees are important in a city, therefore this tree ordinance protects them as valued entities.
Thanking the city for their work on this issue.
Maricela Guillermo
Location:
Submitted At: 7:10pm 12-09-25
We request that the City adopt a clear policy to prevent utility boxes from being placed in our parkways — and to correct the mistakes of the past that have prevented us from planting trees because these boxes, and the cables running beneath them, now sit in the middle of our public parkways.
Parkways are not empty strips of land. They are an essential part of our city’s green infrastructure. This is where we plant trees that cool our neighborhoods, capture stormwater, and create the shaded, walkable streets that residents and visitors want and deserve. When a utility cabinet is installed in the center of a parkway, that space becomes permanently unavailable for planting. As a result, we lose an entire generation of street trees — not just today, but for decades.
Unfortunately, past approvals have allowed oversized utility boxes to be placed without considering the long-term impacts on our streetscape. These installations may have blocked tree-planting zones and created visual clutter.
The City needs to acknowledge that this system is not working, and we need to fix it.
Asking the City to take 4 simple actions:
1. adopt a policy or ordinance that prohibits new utility boxes in parkways, especially in areas where they would eliminate tree-planting opportunities.
2. direct utility companies to use alternative locations — such as alleys, commercial or industrial setbacks, underground vaults where feasible, or easements on private property — instead of our community green space.
3. develop a plan to address existing problem locations. Even if we can’t move every box, we can prioritize highvalue corridors where tree canopy has been lost and negotiate with utilities to relocate equipment or reduce their impacts over time.
4. commit to public notification. The City should notify residents before approving any new utility equipment in front of their homes or in neighborhood parkways.
This is a solvable problem. Other cities have successfully established these rules, and utilities have adapted. We simply need to protect our limited public space and make tree canopy a priority again.
Our parkways should be for people and for trees — not for metal boxes. Thank you! David Grethen
Location:
Submitted At: 3:53pm 12-08-25
It is mentioned in the Staff report that portions of the DRAFT 2023 Tree Protection Ordinance related to protections for Private Trees were ultimately removed for the approved ordinance. It should also be noted that the following proposed section related to Parkway/Public Trees apparently was also excluded from the approved ordinance. That section reads as follows:
Section 5-11.08 – Public Trees – Sale of Property
In the event of the sale of a property, owner of the property shall be required to plant a 24-inch box public tree in the adjacent parkway, in accordance with applicable City codes and permitting requirements, if the City identifies an appropriate vacant space.
Perhaps Council deemed that this section would be simiarly burdensome on property owners as would have been the Private Trees legislation. Nevertheless it may be worth reconsidering legislation like this if Parkway locations and Public Trees provide the only realistic solutions to increase or maintain canopy.
David Waldner
Location:
Submitted At: 10:14am 12-06-25
Any "Tree Ordinance" should not include references to the regulation of trees on private property. This attempted overreach has been tried before and is not acceptable.