City Council on 2026-07-21 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 07-21-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2026-07-21 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
07-21-26
18:00
68 23 14 4 2
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 2026-07-21 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 07-21-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
G.1. 26-0854 For Blue Folder Documents Approved at the City Council Meeting
1 0 1 0
H.16. 26-0841 RECEIVE AND FILE A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO
SENATE BILL 799, WHICH, IF APPROVED BY THE STATE, WOULD
BROADEN THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST'S POWERS
AND UPDATE ITS BOARD STRUCTURE
1 0 1 0
J.1. 26-0858 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 1 0 1 0 N.1. 26-0848 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING
MODIFICATION TO THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO HEDGE-RELATED ORDINANCES
19 14 1 2
N.2. 26-0853 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE
PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY'S CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM,
INCLUDING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
1 0 0 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 G.1. 26-0854 For Blue Folder Documents Approved at the City Council Meeting Overall Sentiment
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 4:20pm 07-21-26
BCHD is being spot upzoned by the City of Redondo Beach following litigation threats. BCHD is not a Redondo Beach agency. It is a regional agency that services 19 cities in LA County. 100% of the damages caused by BCHD accrue to Torrance and Redondo Beach residents while the benefits to same are 1/100th or less.
Clearly, P-CF Kensington is being damaged by BCHD's spot upzoning for Sunrise. BCHD CEO testified at Council that Sunrise REQUIRED FAR 1.25 OR IT WOULD PULL OUT FROM ITS BCHD DEAL. Sunrise should not be provided with a spot upzoning benefit over Kensington. Further, EVERY OTHER P-CF must be upzoned to FAR 1.25 for equity to the TAXPAYERS of REDONDO BEACH. We the taxpayers are disadvantaged with the need for another Article 27 election if the City damages us via spot upzoning of BCHD.
Agenda Item: eComments for H.16. 26-0841 RECEIVE AND FILE A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO SENATE BILL 799, WHICH, IF
APPROVED BY THE STATE, WOULD BROADEN THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL HOUSING TRUST'S POWERS AND UPDATE ITS
BOARD STRUCTURE
Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 10:14am 07-21-26
District 3 Council Member Paige Kaluderovic seems to have more time for things outside of her scope and expertise and outside of her own city than she does for her own constituents and Residents of District 3. The Beryl Heights section of District 3 gets completely ignored by her. Kaluderovic seems to be gaining a lot of power over real estate related issues including development within Redondo Beach and also outside of our city and with Jim Light's blessing. Kaluderovic has no apparent background in the real estate industry and carries no real estate licensing. She has become deeply involved in things that she was not elected for. We need more public oversight on what is going on with these affordable housing and homeless programs. And we need the District 3 Council Member to start doing her job for her constituents and all Residents of District 3.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 26-0858 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 4:21pm 07-21-26
BCHD is being spot upzoned by the City of Redondo Beach following litigation threats. BCHD is not a Redondo Beach agency. It is a regional agency that services 19 cities in LA County. 100% of the damages caused by BCHD accrue to Torrance and Redondo Beach residents while the benefits to same are 1/100th or less.
Clearly, P-CF Kensington is being damaged by BCHD's spot upzoning for Sunrise. BCHD CEO testified at Council that Sunrise REQUIRED FAR 1.25 OR IT WOULD PULL OUT FROM ITS BCHD DEAL. Sunrise should not be provided with a spot upzoning benefit over Kensington. Further, EVERY OTHER P-CF must be upzoned to FAR 1.25 for equity to the TAXPAYERS of REDONDO BEACH. We the taxpayers are disadvantaged with the need for another Article 27 election if the City damages us via spot upzoning of BCHD.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 26-0848 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING MODIFICATION TO THE
REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO HEDGE-RELATED ORDINANCES Overall Sentiment
Payton Berger
Location:
Submitted At: 4:59pm 07-21-26
I strongly support these proposed changes. Requiring complaints to come from bona fide, materially affected neighbors will help prevent the complaint process from being misused, while allowing the City to continue addressing legitimate safety concerns and code violations fairly.
The recent influx of hedge complaints appears to have been driven by a very small number of individuals (or individual) rather than reflecting widespread neighborhood concerns. These proposed changes will help ensure that City resources are focused on legitimate public safety issues instead of minor or subjective disputes, ultimately saving time, taxpayer dollars, and unnecessary frustration for residents.
Thank you for taking our opinions into consideration!
William Errett
Location:
Submitted At: 4:57pm 07-21-26
Thank you to the city staff and city council for addressing this issue. I support the proposed changes.
As a long time home owner in Redondo Beach, I fully support establishing a complaint process that identifies "bona fide" issues that city resources and time should address only adds efficiency to city's daily operations. The city's limited resources should focus on resolving important issues faced by the city and its residents. A process that keeps all residents on equal footing should be encouraged and safeguards should be put in place to protect all residents from individuals that feel inclined to take advantage of the city's complaint process.
As for the ordinances regarding hedge heights, I fully appreciate the need to encourage public safety as it relates to sightlines for pedestrians and other street traffic. However, the establishment of an Administrative Design Review process that will take into account location of the property and upholding the "spirit of the law" to support safety would be a welcome addition. We all know that green space and trees are a limited resource in our city and should be preserved when not contributing to visibility concerns. A review process would assist in discerning between the two.
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 4:34pm 07-21-26
The City routinely plants hedgerows along streets close to intersections, thereby blinding right turning drivers from oncoming traffic. Obviously the City itself sees no issue with 6-foot hedges at corners and intersections.
This is simply another City action like spot upzoning BCHD where the residents-be-damned and City will do whatever it pleases. The rules MUST APPLY TO ALL. Make them CLEAR so that you don't need a "hedge jury".
Douglas Sieker
Location:
Submitted At: 3:57pm 07-21-26
In addition to the existing five feet from the sidewalk visibility requirement as it pertains to the front setback that has an adjacent driveway, we also suggest that a visibility requirement be established and maintained between trees planted in said front setback as to insure open, adequate and safe lines of sight at all times, as well as having it be demonstrably verifiable and proven by any adversely impacted neighbor, that they are able or not, to egress from their driveway in a visibly safe and unobstructed manner.
Lisa Wessel
Location: 90278, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 3:16pm 07-21-26
Dear City Council,
I am concerned that a small number of residents are misusing the city’s complaint system to repeatedly target specific neighbors, wasting staff time and taxpayer resources.
For example, privacy hedges are being cited at individual homes even though similar hedges exist throughout the neighborhood. Selective enforcement of a common condition feels less like code compliance and more like harassment.
Please consider safeguards that require credible evidence, review patterns of repeated complaints, and ensure neighborhood-wide consistency before taking action against one property.
Residents should be able to report legitimate concerns, but the system should not be used as a tool to target neighbors.
Respectfully,
Lisa Wessel
Redondo Beach Resident
Jihyun Lee
Location:
Submitted At: 3:10pm 07-21-26
I am in complete support of the proposed changes. All complaints should be screened and reviewed. Green hedges are not a public hazard and present no safety issues. Establishing a bona fide complainant standard is just common sense.
Katelyn Segnere
Location:
Submitted At: 2:57pm 07-21-26
I support the proposed amendments so that there will be a better process for real complaints that have justified concerns. I fully agree with and support the Administrative Design Review so that special cases will be considered.
Laura MacMorran
Location:
Submitted At: 2:03pm 07-21-26
Please weight this matter very carefully. Providing clear sightlines should be the primary focus of the discussion. This issue is technical, not subjective; any prioritizing other concerns risks pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists' safety. Many technical papers are written about sightlines and pedestrian safety. A brief illustrated piece by an engineering consulting firm can be read online at https://www.jsheld.com/uploads/PedestrianConsideration-and-Line-of-Sight.pdf Redondo's front yard setback height standards are in-line with many jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions do more to ensure visibility around driveways and corners, and require perimeter barriers to have a minimum open percentage.
Carmen Santana
Location:
Submitted At: 1:45pm 07-21-26
I am in support of the proposed amendments to the Hedge rules in Redondo Beach.
My main concern is that complaints should be screened and reviewed. Establishing a "bona fide complainant" standard ensures that limited city enforcement resources are reserved for resolving genuine neighborhood issues in which public safety is at risk. Code enforcement should prioritize hazards (such as obstructed lines of sight for drivers or blocked public rights-of-way) rather than catering to individual aesthetic preferences or subjective opinions on how a neighborhood should look. A bona fide complaint requirement prevents individuals who are completely unaffected by a property from weaponizing city resources and creating an unwelcoming atmosphere among neighbors.
Haley Howe
Location:
Submitted At: 12:56pm 07-21-26
I support these revisions because they help ensure that only legitimate, well-supported hedge height complaints move forward. Homeowners should be protected from having to defend against complaints that lack sufficient merit. A clearer screening process also helps the City use its time and resources more efficiently by focusing on cases that truly warrant review.
Michael Beckman
Location:
Submitted At: 12:14pm 07-21-26
I want to thank the Council for ordering this review. I also want to thank the city employees who conducted such a thorough review.
I have two comments. First, the proposed ordinance is silent on the status of existing complaints. As to these, I suggest that all complaints filed by someone who would not qualify as a “bona fide” complainant under the proposed ordinance be dismissed. This would put all homeowners on an equal footing when the ordinance goes into effect.
Second, the proposed ordinance maintains the presumption in the current ordinance that any hedge exceeding the height limits must be trimmed regardless of whether or not it creates a public safety hazard, subject to a homeowner obtaining a waiver from the Community Development Director by proving it does not create a hazard.
While this presumption might be valid as to properties adjacent to street intersections, it is not valid as to other properties. Nor does it comport with the spirit of Redondo Beach being designated a “Tree City USA” by the Arbor Foundation.
Accordingly, I propose that the revised ordinance create the presumption that a hedge of any height on a property not adjacent to an intersection is legal, unless the Director proves it constitutes a public safety hazard. In addition to being a more fair and just ordinance, I believe it will save the city money on enforcement efforts, as those would primarily focus on properties adjacent to intersections.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Michael Evan Beckman
Anastasia Parker
Location:
Submitted At: 10:51am 07-21-26
I support the proposed changes to create a more legitimate complaint and enforcement process. As a new homeowner in Redondo Beach, I find it alarming that laws are being enforced based on one individual's repeated complaints rather than a real investigation. I believe in codes that keep our neighborhoods safe—but enforcement has to rest on objective facts, not one resident's subjective grievances. I urge you to support these changes. terry gasparovic
Location:
Submitted At: 10:16am 07-21-26
Tonight you’re going to hear reasons for and against this ordinance. Some people want more privacy, more usable space, and a greener Redondo. Others want reasonable greenery, open yards, and more sunlight.
But let’s not forget the health aspects of this ordinance and how important it is to keep fresh air flowing through our neighborhoods.
Our backyards are becoming more like boxes. We have homes approaching 30 feet tall, multiple structures on many of our lots, and large additions. The open space between these structures is becoming more limited. That open space between our homes is important because it allows air to move through our yards and neighborhoods.
This isn’t just a theoretical concern. Laguna Beach specifically recognizes in its hedge ordinance that hedges can "screen winds" and that vegetation can have unintended harmful effects on neighboring properties. They considered wind and neighboring impacts important enough to recognize them in their ordinance. When natural airflow is restricted, air quality can become a very real issue because pollutants cannot disperse as easily.
I understand the desire to give homeowners flexibility, especially when no one is currently complaining. But no complaint today doesn’t mean there won’t be a problem tomorrow. Conditions change, and not all neighborhoods are alike. In some neighborhoods, air quality can be a real concern.
Once a 10- or 15-foot wall of dense vegetation has been allowed to grow between properties, it may be very difficult to address the problem later if conditions change.
Privacy and greenery are important, but so are airflow, air quality, and the health and safety of our neighborhoods. I hope that as you consider changing this ordinance, you don’t eliminate reasonable standards that help preserve the little open airspace we still have between our homes.
A greener Redondo should also mean a Redondo where we can feel the ocean breeze and breathe clean air.
Terry Gasparovic
Kaitlyn Thein
Location:
Submitted At: 10:04am 07-21-26
I support the proposed revisions as they create a more balanced and practical process while still protecting neighborhood safety and character.
First, requiring that a complainant be directly impacted—such as an immediate neighboring property owner—helps ensure that complaints come from individuals who are genuinely affected rather than from those with no meaningful connection to the property. This creates a fairer process and allows the City to focus its resources on legitimate concerns.
Second, I support an Administrative Review Committee that can approve reasonable landscaping exceptions when there is no safety concern. Every property is unique, and this provides the flexibility to accommodate sitespecific circumstances without compromising public safety or the intent of the City’s landscaping standards.
Together, these changes strike an appropriate balance between accountability, flexibility, and common sense. I encourage the Council to support the proposed amendments. eric saneholtz
Location: 90278, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 9:41am 07-21-26
I support the proposed changes to establish a bona fide complaint process.
The City's own public code enforcement data demonstrates a highly disproportionate number of hedge-related complaints concentrated in one area of the City. That pattern alone suggests the complaint process should include reasonable safeguards to ensure it is being used as intended and not driven by a single source or a small number of repeat complainants.
It is also worth considering the City's own traffic safety data. The Redondo Beach Police Department's annual collision statistics identify the leading primary collision factors as right-of-way violations, improper turning, and other driver behaviors, with the highest concentration of collisions occurring at major intersections and arterial roadways. The City's published collision data identifies driver behavior—not landscaping—as the leading cause of collisions.
As the City evaluates code enforcement priorities, it is appropriate to ask whether enforcement efforts and complaint-driven resources are aligned with documented public safety risks. A bona fide complaint system that requires an identified complainant with a legitimate connection to the issue—such as an adjacent property owner, resident, or someone reporting a documented public safety concern—would improve fairness, transparency, and public confidence while still allowing the City to address legitimate code violations.
This proposal is not about eliminating code enforcement. It is about ensuring that the complaint process reflects genuine community concerns, uses City resources efficiently, and balances enforcement with accountability. I respectfully encourage the Council to support these reforms.
GLENN SUAREZ
Location:
Submitted At: 9:26am 07-21-26
I support the proposed amendments to the City's hedge ordinance.
The revisions create a practical balance by distinguishing technical height limits from actual safety concerns. The bona fide complainant requirement is an important safeguard. Recent complaint-driven enforcement demonstrated how easily the current system could be misused by a single individual, resulting in irreversible damage to mature landscaping before broader policy issues could be addressed. Requiring standing ensures City resources are directed toward legitimate neighborhood concerns.
I encourage the Council to dismiss any outstanding complaints initiated under prior guidance that would not meet the new bona fide complainant criteria, ensuring residents are not penalized under a system the Council is now revising.
The Administrative Design Review process appropriately recognizes the benefits of mature landscaping, including privacy, neighborhood character, traffic calming, and urban canopy preservation, while maintaining the City's ability to address genuine safety hazards.
I also encourage the City to base visibility standards on objective, documented collision data and demonstrated risks rather than speculation. These amendments strike the right balance between public safety, property rights, and good governance.
I urge the Council to adopt them.
Cory Sufnar
Location: 90278, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 7:29am 07-21-26
To the Redondo Beach City Council and staff,
I'm raising a serious concern about misuse of the city's code enforcement complaint system by a small number of residents filing repeated, selectively-targeted complaints against neighbors. This wastes city time and money that should go toward real community needs.
A clear example: complaints have been filed over front-setback privacy hedges, yet nearly half the homes in our neighborhood have hedges meeting the same criteria. When enforcement is triggered against one household while the identical condition exists unaddressed up and down the street, this isn't about code compliance, it's one resident using the system to target a specific neighbor.
Are we going to let one individual control the narrative and dictate how city resources are spent, simply by filing complaint after complaint against a chosen target, while the same "violation" sits ignored everywhere else? That's not code enforcement, it's harassment enabled by an unaccountable process. Every hour staff spends on a cherry-picked complaint is an hour not spent on real safety and code issues affecting the whole community.
I'm asking the city to consider:
Consistency checks: before acting, verify whether a cited condition is common in the surrounding area; widespread conditions should trigger a proactive area-wide review, not a one-off action against a single household.
A substantiation threshold: requiring real evidence before a formal investigation opens.
A repeat-complainant review: patterns of complaints targeting the same neighbor(s) should trigger scrutiny of the complainant, not automatic re-investigation.
A mechanism to limit serial filers: a higher evidentiary bar, or in documented extreme cases, restrictions on further submissions.
Public cost transparency: periodic reporting on staff time/dollars spent on complaints closed as unfounded or inconsistently applied.
Residents deserve the right to report real problems: not a license to weaponize the system against a chosen neighbor while ignoring the same condition everywhere else. Please review current policy and add real safeguards.
Respectfully,
Cory Sufnar
Redondo Beach Resident - 30 yrs
Erika Haberlen
Location:
Submitted At: 9:11pm 07-20-26
Residents should have legitimate standing for complaints to be investigated or enforced Jo Dresner
Location:
Submitted At: 9:02pm 07-20-26
The proposed bona fide complainant and good-faith provisions are important. Complaint-driven enforcement should focus on neighbors who are genuinely affected and legitimate public safety concerns. Otherwise, valuable City resources are diverted from the issues that truly matter. I also strongly support an Administrative Design Review process so homeowners can work cooperatively with the City when mature landscaping does not create legitimate safety concerns.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 26-0853 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED POLICY
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY'S CROSSING GUARD PROGRAM, INCLUDING
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS
Overall Sentiment
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 4:27pm 07-21-26
The City should not be paying for crossing guards. They are the responsibility of RBUSD. Stop giving away taxes intended for the broadest measure of taxpayer and resident. RBUSD can pitch its own tax increase to voters as needed.