City Council on 2026-08-11 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 08-11-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2026-08-11 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
08-11-26
18:00
55 7 0 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 2026-08-11 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 08-11-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
E.1. 26-0926 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING
LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
Name of case:
City of Redondo Beach, a California Charter City; City of Carson, a California Charter City; City of Torrance, a California Charter City; City of Whittier, a California Charter City; City of Del Mar, a California Charter City v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as California Attorney General, State of California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
Case Number: 22STCP01143
1 0 0 1
H.5. 26-0958 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. CC-3314-26 AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 2 ZONING
AND LAND USE OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH AND TO IMPLEMENT THE UPDATE TO THE
CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT INCLUSIVE OF THE
LAND USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES. FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. CC-3315-26 AMENDING
TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 5 COASTAL LAND USE
PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE REDONDO BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AND TO IMPLEMENT
THE UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. FOR SECOND READING AND
ADOPTION
5 0 4 1
J.1. 26-0948 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 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 E.1. 26-0926 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - The Closed Session is authorized by the attorney-client privilege, Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
Name of case:
City of Redondo Beach, a California Charter City; City of Carson, a California Charter City; City of Torrance, a California Charter City; City of Whittier, a California Charter City; City of Del Mar, a California Charter City v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as California Attorney General, State of California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Case Number: 22STCP01143
Overall Sentiment
Pat Healy
Location:
Submitted At: 3:15pm 08-11-26
E.1 is an update on the Charter Cities’ SB 9 lawsuit against the State. The cities initially won in Superior Court, but the Court of Appeal reversed and returned the case for reconsideration after SB 450 amended the statutory provisions on which the trial court relied. The case remains active; the public docket shows no new post-remand merits briefing yet, and the next status conference is October 1, 2026.
Agenda Item: eComments for H.5. 26-0958 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. CC-3314-26 AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 2 ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH AND TO IMPLEMENT THE UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. CC-3315-26 AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 5 COASTAL
LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AND
TO IMPLEMENT THE UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION Overall Sentiment
Nainsi Skiba
Location:
Submitted At: 5:26pm 08-11-26
"If you are truly separating the BCHD vote, strike all language referencing BCHD and the 1.25 FAR from Ordinance CC-3314-26." As As Anneke Blair wrote, "If you've been following the BCHD / Sunrise Senior Living development saga on Prospect Avenue, you know residents have been fighting for a clean, separate vote on the project instead of having it buried inside the city-wide General Plan ballot measure." I oppose the 1.25 FAR and any greater than that.
Pat Healy
Location:
Submitted At: 3:12pm 08-11-26
I ask the Council to pull H.5 from the Consent Calendar for a brief public discussion.
These are major zoning ordinances that will guide development for years. The staff report identifies certain FAR increases along Artesia and Aviation Boulevards, and changes in commercial and industrial zones, as “Major Changes in Allowable Land Use.”
Before adoption, please clearly identify which text and map changes are subject to the November 3 vote, which provisions may take effect on the ordinary ordinance schedule, and how residents can compare the current and proposed zoning.
The ordinances themselves say that Article XXVII major changes do not take effect unless approved by a majority of voters. Coastal major changes also require California Coastal Commission approval. Please make that distinction clear for voters and residents.
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 10:11am 08-11-26
I OPPOSE H.5. 26-0958
STOP THE LIES! NO SPOT ZONING FOR BCHD!
Stop shilling for Tom Bakaly & Beach Cities Health District OVER DEVELOPMENT project.
This Mayor & City Council have rightfully earned the name "The Shady Bunch." Change my mind.
We need to see changes in the next election cycle & possibly RECALLS.
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 11:09am 08-10-26
Subject: OPPOSE RBCC ITEM H5 - NO FAR DEAL FOR BCHD
The Council has broken its promise to residents and voters. The Council included an unacceptable provision in the Ordinance in H5 that states the Council supports FAR 1.25 for BCHD. The Council told the public that it would NOT put BCHD or P-I land use in the General Plan for the Article 27 vote.
The "Whereas" regarding BCHD and its FAR 1.25 MUST BE REMOVED or we will have no recourse but to campaign against the general plan in the Article 27 vote this fall.
DO THE RIGHT THING - DELETE THE PREJUDICIAL BCHD LANGUAGE! Terry Evans
Location:
Submitted At: 10:23am 08-10-26
BCHD's FAR 1.25 spot upzoning has no place in the ordinance. The Council told the public that this would be dealt with at a later time and we expect the Council to keep its word. Remove it promptly.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 26-0948 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Bryan Stone
Location:
Submitted At: 2:32pm 08-11-26
Dear Mayor, Council,
I previously raised concerns about the City’s continuous Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. I am writing today with an update on developments in other California cities and a request for proactive discussion in a future City Council Meeting.
Several Southern California agencies have recently restricted or ended their use of Flock systems due to data ownership, privacy, and unauthorized sharing problems:
*The Los Angeles Police Department suspended its Flock contract in July 2026, citing serious concerns over data ownership, privacy, security, and sharing practices. Mayor Bass later called for a permanent end to the relationship.
*South Pasadena voted in March 2026 not to renew its Flock contracts after reports of data access issues involving federal immigration authorities and compliance with state law. *Oxnard suspended its Flock cameras after an audit found a nationwide query feature had been re-enabled without the department’s knowledge.
*Other California cities, including Mountain View and Santa Cruz, fully terminated their Flock contracts after discovering unauthorized access by federal and out-of-state agencies.
These problems raise important questions about who controls the data and whether continuous scanning of every vehicle and the tracking of ordinary residents and visitors who are not suspects in any crime is appropriate.
I respectfully ask the City Council to place an item on a future agenda to discuss what Redondo Beach will do to proactively address these issues.
Recommended discussion topics:
*Current data-sharing settings and audit results for the City’s Flock system *Whether continuous fixed ALPR networks that scan every passing vehicle should be phased out or more tightly limited
*Rules on facial recognition and AI analysis of the movements of ordinary people who have not been identified as suspects or persons of interest in a specific investigation *Requirements for public camera maps, audit logs, short default data retention, and independent review *Limiting any remaining use to investigations supported by a warrant (with a narrow emergency exception) Thank you for your consideration.