Jan 20, 2026 City Council

[4:30 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION - ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING]

[00:00:19]

MAYOR LIGHT? HERE. DO WE HAVE ANY BLUE FOLDER ITEMS FOR CLOSED SESSION? NONE FOR CLOSED SESSION. OKAY. THERE'S NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE.

IS ANYONE ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS? WE HAVE NO ECOMMENTS AND NO ATTENDEES ON ZOOM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COULD YOU READ OFF WHAT WE'LL BE COVERING IN CLOSED SESSION, PLEASE?

[F. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION]

FOR F.1 THE PROPERTIES ARE PORTIONS OF THE REDONDO BEACH MARINA PARKING LOT IN SEASIDE LAGOON (PORTIONS OF APN NUMBERS 7503-029-900 AND 7503-029-903). PORTIONS OF HARBOR DRIVE, PACIFIC AVENUE, CATALINA AVENUE, GERTRUDA AVENUE, HERONDO STREET, AND ESPLANADE. FOR F.2, THE PROPERTIES ARE PORTIONS OF THE REDONDO BEACH MARINA PARKING LOT AND SEASIDE LAGOON 239 AND 245 NORTH HARBOR DRIVE (PORTIONS OF APN NUMBERS 7503-029-900 AND 7503-029-903).

ITEM F.3 IS UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION.

THE NAME OF THE CASE IS SILAS DETTELBACH BY GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BERNA DETTELBACH, INDIVIDUALLY AND SPENCER DETTELBACH, INDIVIDUALLY VERSUS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE.

CASE NO. 24TRCV01457. AND ITEM FOUR IS UNDER THE TITLE CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND LABOR NEGOTIATOR.

THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION IS REDONDO BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, POLICE MANAGEMENT UNIT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND CITY MANAGER WITZANSKY WILL BE SPEAKING TO EACH OF THESE ITEMS, PLEASE.

THANKS, MAYOR. YES. TONIGHT MYSELF, CITY ATTORNEY JOY FORD, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CHERYL PARK FOR ALL ITEMS. AND THEN FOR ITEM F.1, WE WILL BE JOINED BY ELIZABETH HAUSE.

FOR ITEM F.2 WE WILL HAVE ELIZABETH AS WELL AS JANE CHUNG, OUR ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

ELIZABETH BEING OUR COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR. FOR ITEM F.3 AND F.4 WE WILL HAVE DIANE STRICKFADEN, OUR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. AND THEN FOR ITEM F.3, WE WILL HAVE DANA MCCUNE, OUR OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL AS WELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION.

MOVE TO RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION. SECOND. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL FOR? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES 4-0 WITH 1 ABSENTEE.

WE WILL BE COMING BACK ON OR ABOUT 6:00 TO OPEN SESSION AND TO REPORT OUT ON ANY ACTIONS THAT ARE REPORTABLE DURING CLOSED SESSION.

THANK YOU. I CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE'RE RETURNING BACK FROM CLOSED SESSION.

COULD I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER? PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT? HERE. MAYOR LIGHT? HERE. CITY MANAGER WITZANSKY, ANYTHING REPORTABLE FROM CLOSED SESSION? NO ITEMS THIS EVENING OTHER THAN JANE CHUNG JOINED US FOR ITEM F.3 AND F.4, NOT JUST THE ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO, YEAH, RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION.

SO MOVED. SECOND. ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING.

SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, I AM CALLING TO ORDER THE 6 P.M. OPEN SESSION.

[A. CALL TO ORDER]

OKAY, THANK YOU. AND NOW, LET US ALL STAND FOR THE SALUTE TO THE FLAG AND REMAIN STANDING AFTERWARD FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE.

I'D LIKE TO CALL UP AURORA, WHO'S GOING TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE TODAY? AURORA, THE FLOOR IS ALL YOURS. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS AURORA. I AM A SECOND GRADER AT BIRNEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

MY FAVORITE SUBJECT IN SCHOOL IS MATH. I LOVE THE PIER AND REDONDO BEACH.

[00:05:01]

READY? BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

AND PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT INVOCATION.

OKAY. PLEASE BE SEATED. AURORA, GREAT JOB. COME ON UP.

WELL DONE. I LOVE THE PIER, TOO. WAY TO USE THAT OUTDOOR VOICE.

35. YEAH. SHE'S DOING EVERYBODY.

AND THE WHOLE AUDIENCE TO. GO OVER HERE. KIND OF WANT A PICTURE WITH THEM.

THANK YOU ALL. ONE. TWO. THREE. ONE. TWO. THREE.

COOL. OKAY. GREAT JOB. OKAY. WELL DONE AURORA.

OKAY, THAT BRINGS US DOWN TO ITEM D PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND AB 1234 TRAVEL EXPENSE REPORTS.

[D. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/ AB 1234 TRAVEL EXPENSE REPORTS]

GOOD EVENING, TONIGHT WE ARE PROUD TO RECOGNIZE AN EXTRAORDINARY ACHIEVEMENT BY THE REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL BOYS CROSS COUNTRY TEAM, AN ACHIEVEMENT THAT HAS MADE SCHOOL HISTORY AND BROUGHT GREAT PRIDE TO OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

MAY I CALL UP COACH BOB LEETCH? THANKS FOR JOINING ME. THE TEAM CAPTURED THE CALIFORNIA STATE CROSS COUNTRY DIVISION 1 CHAMPIONSHIP, EARNING THE FIRST STATE CROSS COUNTRY TITLE IN REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY.

THE CHAMPIONSHIP RACE WAS HELD AT THE LEGENDARY WOODWARD PARK COURSE IN FRESNO, A VENUE KNOWN STATEWIDE FOR HOSTING THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF COMPETITION. NOT ONLY DID THE SEAHAWKS WIN THE STATE TITLE, THEY DID SO IN REMARKABLE FASHION, POSTING THE SIXTH FASTEST TEAM TIME IN DIVISION ONE STATE MEET HISTORY.

THEIR PERFORMANCE ALSO SET A NEW BENCHMARK FOR THE SOUTH BAY, AS THEY RECORDED THE FASTEST TEAM TIME EVER, BREAKING THEIR OWN PREVIOUS RECORD BY AN INCREDIBLE ONE MINUTE 19 SECONDS.

AS A RESULT OF THEIR STATE CHAMPIONSHIP, THE TEAM QUALIFIED FOR THE NIKE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, EARNING ONE OF ONLY 22 INVITATIONS NATIONWIDE OUT OF MORE THAN 33,000 HIGH SCHOOL CROSS COUNTRY TEAMS. AT THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS THE BOYS PLACED 13TH OVERALL AND FINISHED AS THE HIGHEST RANKED TEAM FROM CALIFORNIA, A TREMENDOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT ON A NATIONAL STAGE.

THIS MARKED THE FIRST TIME THE REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL BOYS CROSS COUNTRY TEAM PROGRAM QUALIFIED FOR THE NIKE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS BUILDING ON A PROUD TRADITION THAT INCLUDES THE GIRLS TEAM'S NATIONAL APPEARANCE IN 2012.

WHAT MAKES THIS ACHIEVEMENT EVEN MORE IMPRESSIVE IS THE JOURNEY.

AFTER FINISHING THIRD AT THE STATE MEET LAST YEAR THESE STUDENT ATHLETES RETURNED STRONGER, MORE FOCUSED AND DETERMINED TO REACH THE TOP.

THIS SUCCESS REFLECTS NOT ONLY ATHLETIC EXCELLENCE BUT ALSO DISCIPLINE, TEAMWORK, PERSEVERANCE AND OUTSTANDING COACHING.

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING REDONDO BEACH WITH SUCH DISTINCTION, SPORTSMANSHIP AND PRIDE.

IT IS AN HONOR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MYSELF AND THE CITIZENS OF REDONDO, TO PRESENT THESE CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO THE REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL BOYS CROSS COUNTRY TEAM FOR THEIR HISTORIC STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AND OUTSTANDING NATIONAL PERFORMANCE.

WHAT WE JUST FOUND OUT IS THAT IT IS FINALS WEEK AT REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL, AND ONLY TWO OF THE TEAM MEMBERS ARE AVAILABLE TONIGHT.

ALL THE REST ARE STUDYING, SO I WILL BE MENTIONING THE TEAMMATES WHO AREN'T IN ATTENDANCE.

BUT FIRST LET ME CALL UP GAVIN HASSON

[00:10:05]

AND FINALLY ONE FOR THE COACH, BOB LEETCH. YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY, BOB? YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT SPORT, AND WE'RE IN A VERY, VERY COMPETITIVE AREA.

I'M A LONG-TIME RESIDENT. I MOVED HERE IN 1966 DOWN ON AVENUE B WITH MY SINGLE MOM.

I WENT K-12 IN THE REDONDO SCHOOL SYSTEM, GRADUATED FROM REDONDO HIGH.

WE OWN A HOME IN REDONDO, AND BOTH MY KIDS HAVE COME UP THROUGH THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

MY BOY, WHO'S SITTING IN THE BACK IS A SENIOR AND WE HAVE A DAUGHTER IN EIGHTH GRADE.

I LOVE THIS CITY. I LOVE THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT.

THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT DESERVES TO HAVE THE GREATEST TRACK TEAM IN CROSS COUNTRY TEAM IN THE COUNTRY.

WE ALREADY ATTEND THE FINEST HIGH SCHOOL IN THE STATE.

WE HAVE THIS GREAT LEADERSHIP. I VOTED FOR YOU, JIM.

THANK YOU. AND IT'S A SPECIAL COMMUNITY. THESE BOYS HAVE WORKED VERY HARD.

I KIND OF TABULATED IT A LITTLE BIT. JUST IN THIS SEASON, DURING THE SUMMER, THE VARSITY BOYS TEAM WORKED TOGETHER TO COMPILE 1600 MILES RUNNING, 10,800 PUSH UPS, 12,000 SIT UPS AND MAINTAINED A HIGHER A GPA OF 4.0 OR HIGHER ALONG THE WAY. WOW. WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION, AND TO BE ABLE TO PULL IT TOGETHER AND TO COMPETE AND WIN THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIPS AT THE DIVISION 1 LEVEL, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST DIVISION IN THE STATE. AND THEY DO THIS WITH ALL THE TEAMS IN ATTENDANCE.

IT'S NOT LIKE A BRACKET SPORT WHERE EVERYONE KIND OF PLAYS WHO THEY HAPPEN TO PLAY ALONG THE WAY.

WE ALWAYS GO, WE'LL ALWAYS GO AGAINST THE TOP TEAMS. SO THIS GROUP HAS BEEN AMAZING. THEN THEY WENT UP TO THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, WHICH WAS AMAZING AS WELL.

SO TO WIN THAT, OUR FIRST STATE CHAMPIONSHIP, WE'RE VERY PROUD OF.

WE'VE BEEN TO THE STATE MEET SEVERAL TIMES. WE WERE ON THE PODIUM EIGHT TIMES, BUT TO WIN IT IS REALLY SPECIAL AND IT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE HARD WORK OF THESE KIDS AND THEIR AMAZING FAMILIES AND THE SUPPORT THEY PROVIDE IN THIS AMAZING CITY.

PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK ME, WHY ARE YOUR KIDS SO FAST? AND I JUST TELL THEM IT'S THE WATER THAT COMES OUT OF THE FAUCET, SO EVERYTHING'S JUST BETTER HERE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE GREATEST TRAINING ENVIRONMENT TO GO WITH THE GREATEST SCHOOLS. WE HAVE GREAT SUPPORT.

JOY LYNN IS HERE FROM REDONDO AS WELL, ONE OF OUR PRINCIPALS.

SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE THAT SUPPORT AS WELL. SO WITH THAT WE HAVE TWO OF OUR ATHLETES HERE MARIO MONTOYA, WHO IS THE FASTEST SOPHOMORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE.

HE'S A SOPHOMORE. HE'S OUR NUMBER ONE MAN THIS YEAR.

AND GAVIN HASSON, WHO HAD AN AMAZING STATE MEET AND I THINK WAS ONE OF THE KEY PIECES THAT SCORED FOR US AS WELL AND ALSO HAPPENS TO BE OUR TEAM CAPTAIN. SO JUST A GREAT GROUP OF PEOPLE.

AND WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF THE SUPPORT WE GET FROM THE COMMUNITY LIVING HERE MY WHOLE LIFE, I HEAR IT FROM SO MANY PEOPLE THAT I'VE GROWN UP WITH AND THE FAMILIES THAT TALK TO US ALL THE TIME ABOUT HOW THEY ARE THRILLED TO SEE THE KIDS JUST RUNNING AROUND, EXERCISING ON THE ROAD TRAINING, LOOKING FORWARD TO MEETING THE NEW POLICE CHIEF AND ALL THE SUPPORT WE GET WITH THEM ON THE ROADS.

YEAH, IT'S RIGHT THERE, I KNOW. SO WITH THAT WE JUST APPRECIATE ALL THE SUPPORT FROM THE CITY, FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ARE AMAZING ADMINISTRATION AND OUR FAMILIES.

SO THANK YOU, JIM, FOR HAVING US. AND WE'RE REALLY PROUD TO BE RECOGNIZED LIKE THIS.

AND THANKS FOR BRINGING HOME A CHAMPIONSHIP. LET ME READ THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. MATEO SANCHEZ, DESMOND VAUGHN, MATEO FIGUEROA. MICHAEL BILLIRIS.

DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? AND LOGAN GARCIA. SO LET'S GIVE ONE ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR THE WHOLE TEAM.

THANK YOU. DID YOU GUYS WANT TO HOLD THE TROPHY? OKAY, NOW I HAD WE HAD BILL WOULD COME AND DO A START A COUPLE OF WEEKS FOR US.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU COME ON OVER AND FIRE UP THAT STARTER PISTOL FOR US.

GET US GOING. WE GO. ONE, TWO, THREE. ONE. TWO.

THREE. HOLD IT. ONE MORE LIKE THIS. HELP ME PICK THIS UP.

A LITTLE BIT. COME LEFT PAGE SEAHAWKS. CAN I HAVE A.

[00:15:03]

NO, WAY TO GO COACH. AND GREAT SPEECH. GREAT TO SEE YOU GUYS.

ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU DON'T. YOU WANT TO SEE THAT NEXT YEAR TOO.

WE WILL. A LOT OF WINNING LEFT IN THESE BOYS.

HELLO, I'M ELEANOR MANZANO, YOUR CITY CLERK. THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE PARTS OF MY JOB, SO I'M GOING TO SWEAR IN THE NEW POLICE CHIEF, STEPHEN SPRENGEL. SO IF YOU CAN PLEASE COME UP.

STATE YOUR NAME. I, STEPHEN SPRENGEL. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR.

THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND. THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE.

THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE. TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY. THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY.

WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION. WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION.

OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. OR PURPOSE OF EVASION.

AND THAT I WILL WELL. AND THAT I WILL WELL. AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE.

AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE. THE DUTIES UPON. THE DUTIES UPON.

WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER. WHICH I'M ABOUT TO ENTER. CONGRATULATIONS, NEW POLICE CHIEF. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

SPEECH, SPEECH! I NEED A BADGE. OH, OKAY. HOLD ON REAL QUICK.

WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO RESET THIS A LITTLE BIT HERE. SO WE WANT TO WELCOME STEVE OFFICIALLY.

HE'S BEEN ON THE JOB NOW FOR ABOUT A MONTH. JUST FOR THE RECORD, HERE. SO TODAY WAS CEREMONIAL.

WE'RE GOING TO BE BRIEF. WE'VE GOT A LOT TO GET TO TONIGHT. BUT STEVE BRINGS INCREDIBLE ENERGY TO THIS POSITION.

AND I THINK WHAT'S MOST EXCITING IS STEVE IS ANOTHER HOMEGROWN CHIEF FOR US.

WE'VE BEEN FORTUNATE TO HAVE A SERIES OF CHIEFS THAT HAVE DEEP TIES TO THE COMMUNITY, BOTH REDONDO BEACH AND THE SOUTH BAY.

AND STEVE CONTINUES THAT TRADITION THAT HAS SERVED US INCREDIBLY WELL.

STEVE, GREAT ENERGY, GREAT POSITIVITY. AND HE BRINGS INCREDIBLE INTEGRITY TO THE JOB AND AND JUST EXCELLENT JUDGMENT AND PERSONALITY.

SO HIS POSITIVITY, HIS PERSONALITY WILL CONTINUE THE GREAT WORK OF FORMER CHIEF JOE HOFFMAN.

AND REALLY, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN SUCH GREAT POSITION TO CONTINUE TO BUILD ON THAT PRIOR SUCCESS.

WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND STAFF. WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE LINE OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS AND AN INCREDIBLE CIVILIAN TEAM BEHIND HIM.

AND AND STEVE, WITH ALL OF THAT SUPPORT, IS GOING TO DO A TREMENDOUS JOB FOR REDONDO BEACH.

SO WE'RE PROUD OF YOU AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO GREAT. THANKS, STEVE. SO YOU'VE GOT A GUEST HERE TODAY THAT'S GOING TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR PINNING. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. DAD AND NICOLE, CAN YOU COME UP? THIS IS MY WIFE NICOLE OF 28 YEARS, AND MY FATHER, LARRY SPRENGEL, WHO IS A RETIRED LIEUTENANT FROM HERE.

OKAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU ALL.

SO WE GET A PICTURE. I GOT A FEW WORDS FIRST.

I PROMISE TO BE BRIEF. NO. MAYOR CITY COUNCIL.

MIKE AND JOY AND CITY MANAGEMENT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND ALL THE SUPPORT THAT YOU'VE GIVEN ME.

A COUPLE SPECIAL THANK YOUS. YOU JUST MET MY WIFE, NICOLE, BUT MY SON MICHAEL.

WITHOUT THEIR LOVE AND SUPPORT, THIS WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE.

I COME FROM A FAMILY OF CIVIL SERVICE. MY DAD RETIRED FROM HERE AFTER 30 YEARS.

MY MOM'S A RETIRED NURSE. MY OLDER BROTHER, DAVE, HE RETIRED AS A CAPTAIN FROM LA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

HE'S IN THE BACK THERE. AND THEN I GOT A TWIN BROTHER WHO GOT IN THE OTHER LINE WHO'S A LA COUNTY FIRE CHIEF.

[00:20:03]

THIS IS AMAZING TO SEE ALL THE SUPPORT. A COUPLE SPECIAL THANK YOUS.

ONE TO JEFF MENDENCE, CAPTAIN MENDENCE, KIRSTEN AND THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE.

EVERYBODY'S BEEN FANTASTIC THROUGH THIS TRANSITION, AND WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT AND DEDICATION TO THE ORGANIZATION, IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE. BUT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

WE'RE GOING FAST, AND IT'S BEEN GREAT. I TOO LOVE THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.

IT'S AN AMAZING PLACE TO LIVE. GREAT PLACE TO WORK.

I THINK WE HAVE ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL COASTLINES IN THE WORLD.

AND TO BE PART OF THAT AND TO BE HERE HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTELY AMAZING CAREER.

AND I'VE ENJOYED EVERY BIT OF IT. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, I'M SO PROUD OF THEM. AND I'M SUPER EXCITED TO BE THEIR CHIEF, WORK ALONGSIDE OF THEM AND CONTINUE FORWARD.

SO THANKS, EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE. AND WE GOT WORK TO DO.

ARE YOU TRYING TO GET AWAY WITHOUT A PICTURE. GREAT JOB.

WOW. COME ON UP, EVERYBODY. MOM AND DAD.

FATHERS. BRING EVERYBODY UP EVERYBODY. THAT'S CLOSE TO CELEBRITY AS WE GET IN REDONDO BEACH.

THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. THREE. TWO. ONE. THREE.

TWO. ONE. GOOD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT CHIEF.

THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE.

WE'LL WAIT A MOMENT FOR THE CHAMBER TO CLEAR AND QUIET DOWN.

THERE'S A MICROPHONE. NO, THEY HAD THE MIC. YOU GUYS HAVE THE MIC.

JUST TEST, TEST, TEST. WHERE'S THE MICROPHONE? TEST. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU GUYS HAVE THE HANDHELD? IS IT OFF? TEST. TEST. OKAY. NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

YEAH. WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. CHECK. CHECK.

CHECK. CHECK. ON THE BROADCAST. OKAY, I'M GOING TO GET GOING WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE ANNOUNCEMENTS. AND AB 1234 TRAVEL EXPENSE REPORTS.

I DO HAVE A TRIP COMING UP NEXT WEEK. I'M GOING TO THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE, US MAYOR'S CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, DC, SO I'LL BE OUT OF TOWN TUESDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

LET'S SEE ON FRIDAY LAST WEEK, I HAD THE HONOR OF SPEAKING IN FRONT OF 80 KIDS AT PARRAS MIDDLE SCHOOL.

THAT WAS A THAT WAS A FUN OCCASION. GOT PEPPERED WITH LOTS OF QUESTIONS.

REAL COGENT ONES LIKE WHAT CAR DO I DRIVE? BUT IT WAS IT WAS A VERY FUN EXPERIENCE.

I GOT TO ATTEND THE IN-N-OUT CAR CRUISE THIS WEEKEND.

I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE OTHERS TALK TO THAT, SO I WON'T BELABOR IT. ALSO, THE MLK CELEBRATION AT CALIFORNIA SURF CLUB.

HAD A MEETING LAST WEEK WITH CAL CITIES, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SUPPORT OUR LEGISLATION, OUR TWO BILLS, OR ONE BILL, I GUESS IT'S GOING TO BE, GOING UP TO SACRAMENTO TO HELP US OUT WITH THE HOUSING SITUATION.

AND THEN FOR EVERYBODY AND I'M SURE COUNCIL, THERE'S OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WILL FOOT STOMP THIS.

SO I WON'T BELABOR IT, BUT WE'VE GOT THE METRO C LINE MEETING, EXTENSION MEETING THURSDAY.

SO I'LL LET YOU GUYS GIVE THE DETAILS ON THAT.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

I HAVE NOTHING THIS EVENING TO REPORT. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE OUR JOINT DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR MEETING WITH BCHD AND CEO TOM BAKALY ON.

THE MIC. SORRY. JOINT NORTH REDONDO MEETING THIS SATURDAY, 9 A.M., AT THE NORTH REDONDO BRANCH LIBRARY.

[00:25:08]

NOW, WHAT I ASK IS I KNOW THAT FROM WHEN I'VE BEEN WALKING AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN NORTH REDONDO, I MET MANY PEOPLE WHO STOOD UP FOR RESCUING OUR WATERFRONT BACK IN THE DAY.

EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO WATERFRONT IN NORTH REDONDO.

WELL, NOW NORTH REDONDO NEEDS YOUR HELP. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG THE ROAD NEED YOUR HELP TO FILL THE BUS.

WE CURRENTLY STILL HAVE ABOUT 20 SEATS AVAILABLE ON THE BUS.

THAT'S LEAVING AT 7:20 A.M. FROM THE REDONDO BEACH TRANSIT CENTER.

AND YOU CAN SIGN UP AT REDONDO.ORG/METROBUS. IS THAT RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. AND WE NEED YOU. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO TRAIN THREATENING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE NEED YOU UP IN NORTH REDONDO GOING WITH US TO DOWNTOWN BECAUSE WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO WIN THIS AND GET THE TRAIN DOWN HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD.

THANKS TO OUR HEROIC SUPERVISOR, HOLLY MITCHELL, WHO HAS MADE A MOTION, A WRITTEN MOTION TO ALIGN THE TRAIN DOWN HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS. IT'S A HUGE, PIVOTAL MOMENT FOR REDONDO BEACH.

IT'S A HUGE, PIVOTAL MOMENT FOR THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA THAT STANDS TO GET MANY MORE VISITORS FROM THIS.

AND I ASK YOU TO JOIN US. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. THE TWO ITEMS I HAD ZEIN EXPRESS.

BUT I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE DECIDING DAY ON THURSDAY.

SO IF YOU CAN DONATE YOUR DAY, IT REALLY DOES SPEAK VOLUMES ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT WE ARE UNITED IN THIS.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A SLAM DUNK AND WE REALLY NEED THE SUPPORT.

SO THURSDAY, 720 AT THE REDONDO BEACH TRANSIT CENTER, THERE WILL BE A BUS.

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO DRIVE. I HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE.

THANK YOU. WEAR RED. WEAR RED. OR JUST SHOW UP, BOTH ARE GOOD.

COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU WANT TO PULL YOUR MIC TOWARDS YOU? OH, SORRY.

THANK YOU. THIS WEEKEND I ATTENDED THE IN AND OUT CAR SHOW THAT THEY HAD AT SEASIDE LAGOON AND AT THE PARK NORTH PARKING LOT DOWN AT THE PIER.

IT WAS HELD BY THEIR FOUNDATION, WHICH IS CALLED SLAVE TO FREEDOM AND FIGHTS AGAINST ADDICTION AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

AND THEY HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL WEEKEND AT THIS EVENT AND RAISED OVER $600,000.

THEY POSTED ON THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA. SO THEY HAD A GREAT WEEKEND IN REDONDO BEACH, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THEM COMING BACK NEXT YEAR.

ON MONDAY, I ALSO ATTENDED THE MLK CELEBRATION AT THE CALIFORNIA SURF CLUB HOSTED BY GOODY GOODLOE.

IT WAS A GREAT EVENT WITH SEVERAL SPEAKERS AND SEVERAL GREAT MUSICIANS WHO PLAYED FOR US.

AND THEN ALSO ON MONDAY. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF RECOGNITION TO SEVERAL CLASSES.

CLASS OF 28 AND 29, AND POSSIBLY THE OTHERS. I DIDN'T SEE THEIR POST, BUT WHO DID A BEACH CLEANUP IN CELEBRATION OF MLK DAY.

THEY TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY AS A DAY OF SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY, TO PICK UP TRASH AROUND THE WATERFRONT AND MAKE OUR COMMUNITY A LOOK A LITTLE NICER.

AND WITH THAT, I WANTED TO ANNOUNCE THAT LATER THIS SPRING, I'LL BE PLANNING A PIER CLEANUP WITH A COUPLE OF THE BUSINESSES DOWN AT THE WATERFRONT.

BUT THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED THE EXACT DATE AND TIME.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. I HAD A STATUS MEETING ON THE AVENUE A RAMP WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM LA COUNTY, ALONG WITH THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER, LAST WEEK.

THE SCHEDULE REALLY HAS NOT CHANGED OFFICIALLY, ACCORDING TO EVERYTHING ON THE WEBSITE, BUT THE COUNTY DID PROMISE TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ACCELERATE IT. THEY'RE DEALING WITH COASTAL COMMISSION AND CEQA, A PROCESS THAT COULD TAKE 18 MONTHS, AND THERE'S NOT A LOT THAT CAN BE ACCELERATED ON THAT.

THE COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND WE'VE MADE SOME CHANGES, WE THINK THAT THAT PART OF THE PROCESS SHOULD GO SMOOTHLY.

THERE'S A FACILITY AT THE BASE OF THE RAMP THAT THE COUNTY DID SOME WORK ON THAT WASN'T PERMITTED AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS MAKING THE COUNTY CLEAN UP SOME OF THAT PERMITTING. PLAN CHECK IS SCHEDULED FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE SHORTENED.

AND ONCE APPROVED, IT GOES TO THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS FOR APPROVAL, THEN FOR BID, THEN FOR CONSTRUCTION.

AND THAT PROCESS COULD BE 18 MONTHS. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE ENTITLEMENTS IN THE SPRING OF 2026, PLAN CHECK IN THE SUMMER OF 2026, BIDDING IN THE WINTER OF 2026, AND CONSTRUCTION 2027 THROUGH 2028.

IT'S A LONG TIME COMING. IT'S GONE VERY SLOWLY.

THE COUNTY DEFINITELY HAS HEARD US IN THE FACT THAT IT'S TAKEN.

IT WAS 2021 WHEN THIS GOT SHUT DOWN AND THEY DEFINITELY HEARD OUR FRUSTRATION, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A BIT MORE VISIBILITY NOW.

[00:30:04]

WE APPROVED AN APPROXIMATE 20% REDUCTION IN RATES.

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS DOESN'T MEAN BIG LOWER BILLS.

THE CPUC, IMPOSED A $24 BASE SERVICE CHARGE AND AN INCREASE TO THE SCE DELIVERY RATES THAT TOOK EFFECT IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. SO OUR YOUR RATES IF YOU'RE WITH CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE, WHICH OVER 95% OF US ARE IN REDONDO WILL BE COMPETITIVE WITH SCE, PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE IF YOU'RE GOING FOR THE FULL GREEN. BE PRETTY COMPETITIVE IF YOU'RE ON THE LEAN.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CONTACT CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE ON THEIR WEBSITE CLEANPOWERALLIANCE.ORG/CONTACTUS.

THERE'S A PHONE NUMBER THERE, DURING WORK HOURS, IT'S USUALLY 30 TO 45 SECONDS BEFORE YOU'RE TALKING TO A PERSON.

I ALSO ATTENDED THE CRUISE INTO FREEDOM SHOW LAST WEEK.

I DROVE MY 1966 CORVETTE AND OUR CRUISE. THEY WENT ON A CRUISE.

THEY TOOK ABOUT 140 CARS ON A CRUISE, TOURING THE BEST OF SOUTH REDONDO.

WE STARTED AT THE HARBOR PAST REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL, WENT THROUGH SOME OTHER CITY TO THE WEST OF US OR THE EAST OF US, THEN CRUISED DOWN THE ESPLANADE BEFORE RETURNING BACK TO THE HARBOR.

AND THEN FINALLY I WILL BE ATTENDING THE CALIFORNIA CITIES MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY WEDNESDAY THROUGH FRIDAY LATER THIS WEEK. SO I'LL HAVE SOME TRAVEL EXPENSES TO GO ALONG WITH THAT.

I WILL ALSO PART OF OUR HOUSING COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE ADVOCATING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE LOCAL CONTROL AND HELP WITH PREVENTING BUILDER'S REMEDY PROJECTS AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH REGARDS TO HOUSING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADD ON THAT MEETING WE HAD WITH THE COUNTY, WE ALSO BROUGHT UP THE POOR CONDITION OF THE OTHER RAMPS GOING DOWN TO THE BEACH.

AND THEY, I THINK, OWE US A PLAN. AND THEY SAID THEY HAVE ONE.

I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET. I'VE NOT SEEN IT YET.

OKAY. WITH THAT. LET'S SEE. WE'LL GO DOWN TO ITEM E, APPROVING THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA.

[E. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA]

IF WE MIGHT PLEASE PULL UP P.1, SHOULD BE A SHORT DISCUSSION.

CAN WE PULL IT UP TO AHEAD OF CONSENT, PLEASE? MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT. SECOND. OKAY, MOTION A SECOND.

ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA? OKAY, SO WE WILL PULL UP P.1 TO RIGHT AFTER BLUE FOLDER ITEMS, ITEM G.

LET'S SEE. ITEM G, BLUE FOLDER ITEMS, ADDITIONAL BACKUP MATERIALS.

[G. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS - ADDITIONAL BACK UP MATERIALS]

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, P.1. THERE'S TWO ITEMS, APPROVED LETTER TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY METRO REGARDING THE CITY'S SUPPORT OF THE HAWTHORNE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED C LINE EXTENSIONS TO TORRANCE PROJECT.

C LINE PROJECT AMENDED LETTER OF SUPPORT AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE BLUE FOLDER.

ITEMS. SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY. MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL FOR? AYE. OKAY. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIES.

SO NOW, PER WHAT WE JUST APPROVED, WILL BE JUMPING TO ITEM P.1 ON YOUR AGENDA.

[P.1. APPROVE LETTER TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) REGARDING THE CITY’S SUPPORT OF THE HAWTHORNE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE PROPOSED C LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE PROJECT]

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, I THINK YOU HAVE THE FLOOR ON THIS ONE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC AND I WORKED ON THIS LETTER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR MAKING HERSELF AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL SO AVAILABLE TO US IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS AS WE'VE TRIED TO GET REDONDO BEACH INFLUENCE TO ITS STRONGEST POINT, TO TRY TO AFFECT THIS DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE DOWN HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD.

AT THIS TIME, WE'VE UNDERSTOOD THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NOT ONLY ARE WE AGAINST THE ROW, BUT THAT WE'RE IN FAVOR OF THE HAWTHORNE ALIGNMENT BECAUSE WE SEE IT AS THE BEST OPTION, AND THAT WE'LL BE WILLING STRONG PARTNERS IN ADVANCING THE HAWTHORNE ALIGNMENT BECAUSE IT DOES COST MORE MONEY. AND TO THAT END, WE'VE CRAFTED THIS LETTER TO DEMONSTRATE AND SHARE THAT WILL HELP EXPEDITE ANY

[00:35:07]

THAT WILL WORK WITH CALTRANS. AND WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT TO TO GET THE RELINQUISHMENT OF HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD, WHERE IT IS IN OUR JURISDICTION, TO THE CITY.

THAT WILL WORK WITH OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES ON EXPEDITING PERMITS FOR THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT, AND THAT WILL LOBBY FOR FUNDING FROM THE STATE AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS FOR THE C LINE EXTENSION TO BE BUILT OR THE K LINE EXTENSION TO BE BUILT. IN ADDITION, WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS BY TORRANCE, AND, ABOUT BUSINESS INTERRUPTION AND LOSS OF BUSINESS WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS ONGOING.

I THINK THOSE ARE A LITTLE OVERHYPED, BUT NONETHELESS, WE'LL WE WANT TO EXPRESS THAT WE'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF EXPANDING BUSINESS INTERRUPTION FUNDS TO COVER ANY LOSSES TO BUSINESSES DURING CONSTRUCTION.

AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PURSUING FUNDS FOR FIRST AND LAST MILE IMPROVEMENTS TO GET PEOPLE EXPEDIENTLY TO THAT STOP ON HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD AND ARTESIA BOULEVARD.

AND SO WE'VE DRAFTED THIS LETTER, AND HOPEFULLY ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS EXCEPT FOR COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT, ARE WILLING TO, AND THE MAYOR WILL SIGN ON TO IT.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT. OKAY. I DO WANT TO ADD IN ON TOP OF THE SAVING OUR RESIDENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT THAT THEY'D GET FROM A RIGHT OF WAY OPTION. IS THAT THE CALTRANS HIS OWN NUMBERS SHOW RIDERSHIP GOES UP BY ABOUT A MILLION RIDES PER YEAR BY GOING DOWN HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD. SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS A ONCE IN A LIFETIME INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BE THERE FOR MORE FOR MULTIPLE GENERATIONS.

AND TO ME, WE SHOULD BE BUILDING IT TO MAXIMIZE RIDERSHIP, NOT TO GO FASTER OR NOT TO GET CONSTRUCTION FASTER OR TO GET IT A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER. SO WITH THAT. NO, I WOULD JUST REITERATE ALL THE POINTS THAT YOU MADE.

I MEAN THERE'S BEEN TALK ABOUT US NOT WANTING THE EXTENSION, I THINK, TO ALL THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT. IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT FOR OUR RESIDENTS. WE WANT TRANSIT IN THE AREA AND WE WANT IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

WE WANT IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE AND WHERE BUSINESSES ARE, AND THAT'S HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD. SO I'M EXCITED FOR THURSDAY AND I HOPE THE RIGHT DECISION IS MADE. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. YEAH. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

AT THE CLEAN POWER ALLIANCE BOARD MEETING. SUPERVISOR HORVATH IS ON THAT BOARD, SO I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO HER AS WELL.

I PRETTY MUCH IN A LITTLE BIT LESS TIME SINCE I DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME SAID MOST OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI SAID.

I EMPHASIZED TO HER THAT WHEN PEOPLE COME AND ARE ARGUING AGAINST THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEY'RE ARGUING FOR HAWTHORNE THAT NOBODY IS OPPOSED TO THE METRO.

SO SHE DEFINITELY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE REDONDO RESIDENTS, HAWTHORNE RESIDENTS, LAWNDALE RESIDENTS, LOMIDA RESIDENTS THAT MIGHT BE COMING AND SAYING, WE DON'T WANT THE LOCALLY PREFERRED OPTION, DO WANT TRANSIT. SHE UNDERSTOOD THAT. SHE, I LET HER KNOW THAT WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION FUND MONEY AND OTHER THINGS.

I'M HOPING THAT THAT MESSAGE GOT THROUGH TO HER, SINCE I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE ON THURSDAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS LETTER.

AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT THERE'S A RESIDENT OF LAWNDALE WHO'S BEEN GOING AROUND INTERVIEWING BUSINESSES NEXT TO WHERE THE METRO STOP WOULD BE ON HAWTHORNE, AND HE'S GOTTEN SUPPORT FOR THE HAWTHORNE ALIGNMENT FROM SIZZLER, BIG FIVE.

WE ACTUALLY PAINT N POUR WROTE A LETTER IN FAVOR OF THE HAWTHORNE ALIGNMENT.

AUTOZONE, HARBOR FREIGHT, DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN, TURNER SPORTING GOODS, ROUND TABLE PIZZA, PETSMART, COLLECTOR LEGION, HAWAIIAN BARBECUE, WORLD OF DINOSAURS.

SO ALL THOSE BUSINESSES AT THE GALLERIA ARE JUST DYING FOR THE PATRONS AND PEDESTRIANS THAT WOULD COME OFF THE METRO AND COME TO THE MALL.

AND THE GALLERIA. AND THE GALLERIA ITSELF, RIGHT.

SO YOU MADE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY.

BEFORE WE VOTE, DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? OF COURSE, I'M NIKI NEGRETE-MITCHELL, DISTRICT THREE.

AND I'M A RIGHT OF WAY STAKEHOLDER, AND I JUST I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING SO CONSISTENT.

I CAN SAY THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL YOU'RE SICK OF HEARING IT.

BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONSISTENCY AND THE I'M SUPER PROUD THAT REDONDO BEACH IS THE CITY IN THIS REGION WHO WAS INNOVATIVE AND SMART, COMING ACROSS IN A VERY PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION. AND IT'S JUST BEEN, YOU KNOW, REALLY, REALLY JUST A PLEASURE TO HAVE

[00:40:01]

AND THAT'S BEEN LIKE A NO BRAINER. WE'VE ALL BEEN SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO HELP THOSE BUSINESSES.

AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE IN TORRANCE, BUT FOR SOME REASON, THEY'RE JUST.

ANYWAY, I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE. I'M GOING TO TALK SOME MORE ABOUT THIS LATER. THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS LETTER.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I JUST NEEDED TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THIS, AND SO DOES MY HUSBAND.

HE WANTED ME TO SAY HELLO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEM P.1? YES. HI, MICKEY. HI, MICKEY JOHNSON. I SERVE AS THE VOLUNTEER PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH REDONDO BEACH BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.

AND WE ALSO SUPPORT THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT.

IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS, AND IT'S GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE LETTER. AND THANK YOU.

YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? ITEM P.1. ANYONE ONLINE? WE HAVE NO SPEAKER CARDS.

THERE'S FOUR ATTENDEES. NO HANDS RAISED ON ZOOM.

WE HAVE TWO ECOMMENTS, TWO IN SUPPORT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO I WILL CALL THE VOTE. ALL FOR? AYE. ALL AGAINST? OKAY. SO THAT'S 4 TO 0 TO SUBMIT THE LETTER AS WRITTEN.

AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT ABSTAINING. THAT'S THE BLUE FOLDER SENT BY.

RECUSING HIMSELF, I'M SORRY. THAT'S A BLUE FOLDER LETTER.

ALL RIGHT. COOL. THANK YOU. OKAY. CAN WE GET COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT BACK? I THINK HE MAY BE HEARING. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO GET HIM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR THAT. SURE. OKAY, NOW, GOING BACK TO THE REGULAR SCHEDULE AGENDA HERE.

NEXT, WE'RE ON ITEM H, THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THERE ARE 15 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR TODAY.

[H. CONSENT CALENDAR]

SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY, BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK TO ITEMS, ANY OF THE ITEMS? H.1 TO H.15. I DO HAVE ONE CARD FROM JIM MUELLER ON ITEM H.9.

THANK YOU COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING. THE CONTRACT WITH EVANS IS AN ON CALL CONTRACT, MEANING PUBLIC WORKS CAN PROCURE THESE SERVICES WITH NO MORE THAN A PHONE CALL. NO QUESTION. THIS IS CONVENIENT TO GET THE JOB DONE.

BUT AS IF TO MULTIPLY THE POTENTIAL FOR OVERSPENDING, THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS OFTEN USED TO GET COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE MULTIYEAR EXTENSIONS OF SOLE SOURCED CONTRACTS, AND FOR LARGE AMOUNTS, THERE IS LITTLE QUESTIONING OF INDIVIDUAL CALENDAR ITEMS. THIS PARTICULAR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS FOR $100,000 WITH DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES IS TYPICAL.

IT CALLS FOR A CONTRACT INITIATED IN 2024 TO BE EXTENDED UNTIL 2028.

A SURVEY OF LOCAL ECONOMY REVEALS MANY CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRMS CAPABLE OF DOING THIS WORK.

I CAN FIND NO WRITTEN SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION FOR REFRAINING FROM A NEW RFP FOR THESE SERVICES.

IT'S NOT ONLY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT MAKES THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT WORTH A CLOSER LOOK BY THE COUNCIL.

YOUR BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMISSION IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION OF CHANGE ORDERS ON CIP CONTRACTS.

IT SEEMS THE CHANGE ORDER TOTALS AS A PERCENT OF ENGINEERING ESTIMATES FOR PROJECTS IS QUITE HIGH.

THIS MAKES THE BUDGETS FOR CIP PROJECTS LOOK SHAKY SINCE THERE SEEM TO BE CONSISTENT OVERRUNS.

THIS USE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR TO EXTEND SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT IS WORTH A CLOSE LOOK, AS ARE ALL THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES.

SINCE THE GUIDELINES WERE LAST UPDATED IN 2011, ABOUT 16 YEARS AGO.

I ASK THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THIS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM AND DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE AN RFP FOR THESE SERVICES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE ITEMS? H.1 THROUGH H.15. ANYONE ONLINE. WE HAVE FOUR ATTENDEES.

NO HANDS RAISED. WE HAVE TWO ECOMMENTS FOR H EIGHT ON OPPOSE.

H NINE ON OPPOSE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, I WILL CALL THE VOTE. ALL FOR? AYE.

ANYBODY AGAINST? OKAY. SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS. ITEMS H.1 THROUGH H.15 ARE APPROVED.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO READ OFF A COUPLE OF THE.

H.11, ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2601-004.

[00:45:05]

CC-2601-005. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET MODIFICATION TO APPROPRIATE $43,872, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOBACCO GRANT PROGRAM AWARD FUNDS TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL GRANTS FUNDS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THERE ARE IF WE JUMP DOWN TO ITEM I, THERE ARE NO EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. SO WE'LL GO TO ITEM J, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

[J. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS]

AND I DO HAVE SOME WRITTEN REQUESTS. SO WITH THAT LET'S SEE, THE FIRST TWO ARE EUGENE SOLOMON AND THEN MARIA LARISA YASOL. GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

EUGENE J. SOLOMON REDONDO BEACH HERE SPEAKING TO YOU TONIGHT AS A RESIDENT.

RECENTLY, THERE WAS A REFERRAL TO STAFF FOR THE IDEA OF PLACING AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT TERM LIMIT INCREASES FOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. IT SEEMS THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A HISTORY WITH THIS, A RECENT HISTORY WITH THIS BEING VERY UNPOPULAR WE ARE REVISITING THIS AGAIN.

IT WAS IN 2014 WHERE YOU HAD MEASURES BE AND CM THAT WERE BOTH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE MAYOR AND FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

MEASURE CM WAS DEFEATED 66.67% TO 33%. AND MEASURE BE WAS DEFEATED, THAT WAS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE WAS DEFEATED 64% TO 35%.

THAT MEASURE, BE DID NOT EVEN HAVE AN OPPOSITION WRITTEN TO THE MEASURE.

THIS WAS DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND NOT FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL FOR ACTION.

IT WAS THEN DISCUSSED AGAIN BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO GO TO THE JANUARY OF 2024 MEETING WHERE YOU HAD THEN-CITY ATTORNEY, MR. WEBB EXPLAINED IN GREAT DETAIL THE UNPOPULARITY OF THIS IDEA AND THE DIFFERENT ITERATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

WHY AT THIS TIME WHERE WE HAVE FISCAL RESTRAINTS AND WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE GREATER PRIORITY, I WOULD THINK, WITHIN THE CITY DO THIS FOR THE JUNE AGENDA.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S A SOUND IDEA.

IT'S BEEN VERY UNPOPULAR. IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO YOU BY CHARTER REVIEW.

IT WAS SOUNDLY DEFEATED IN 2014. SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS ARE THAT THERE'S A BRAIN DRAIN.

SHOULD YOU ONLY HAVE EIGHT YEARS ON THE COUNCIL? WELL, YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE SCHOOL BOARD WITH GREAT EXPERIENCE.

MR. BEHRENDT, MR. WALLER, MR. CASTLE SERVED ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, SERVED BUDGET AND FINANCE.

SERVED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MAYOR LIGHT SERVED ON MANY DIFFERENT ROLES IN THE GPAC, THE HARBOR COMMISSION. YOU SHOULD WITHIN EIGHT YEARS BE ABLE TO GET YOUR PRIORITIES DONE.

AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO PERHAPS DIDN'T HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE, YOU HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. THEY HAVE WERE SMART, CAPABLE PEOPLE PICKED IT UP, HIT THE GROUND RUNNING AND LEARNED AND HAVE BEEN A GREAT RESULT FOR OUR CITY. SAME THING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD.

I'LL QUOTE MAYOR ASPEL AT THE TIME, WHICH HE SAYS, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE EMPERORS MAYOR STEVE ASPEL SAID IN JULY, ONCE SOMEONE IS MAYOR FOR LIFE, I THINK IT STIFLES NEW IDEAS AND STIFLES YOUNG PEOPLE.

A LOT OF YOU WOULDN'T BE SITTING THERE RIGHT NOW IF WE HAD 12 YEAR TERM LIMITS EXPRESSING THESE IDEAS.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO EXTEND TERM LIMITS OR PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. O MARIA LARISA YASOL AND THEN HOLLY OSBORNE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR LIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

[00:50:07]

COMMUNITIES SUCH AS SANTA MONICA, SANTA BARBARA, LAGUNA BEACH, MONTEREY, SAN CLEMENTE, AND CARMEL BY THE SEA. WHERE'S MARK? PRIORITIZE PRESERVING CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES OF HISTORIC GATEWAYS.

CARMEL, IN PARTICULAR, INTENTIONALLY AVOIDS MODERN LOGOS AND STANDARDIZED BRANDING ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN ORDER TO PROTECT AUTHENTICITY AND SENSE OF PLACE. KING HARBOR IS NOT ONLY SIGNIFICANT TO REDONDO BEACH.

THAT SIGN FOR GENERATIONS, RESIDENTS OF HERMOSA BEACH, MANHATTAN BEACH, LAWNDALE, HAWTHORNE, CARSON, TORRANCE, YOU NAME IT HAVE PASSED BENEATH THE SIGN AS PART OF THEIR SHARED COASTAL HISTORY FOR WORK, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY LIFE.

AS NEIGHBORING CITIES, THEY RECOGNIZED THE SIGN AS A REGIONAL LANDMARK, AND THEY WILL SENSE THE LOSS IF ITS HISTORIC CHARACTER IS ALTERED.

PLEASE DON'T DIMINISH OUR CULTURE. THESE CITIES EMPHASIZE REHABILITATION OVER REDESIGN SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE CAN BE ADDRESSED WITHOUT CHANGING HISTORIC ARTWORK, SCALE OR IDENTITY. ONCE ALTERED, THE PUBLIC'S HISTORIC CONNECTION CANNOT BE RESTORED. I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO TREAT THE KING HARBOR SIGN AS A HISTORIC PUBLIC ASSET AND PRESERVE ITS ORIGINAL CHARACTER IN THE INTEREST OF THE BROADER COASTAL COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC TRUST.

THANK YOU. NO CLAPPING. IF YOU NEED TO SHOW SUPPORT, PLEASE GO LIKE THIS.

AND IF YOU WANT TO SHOW YOU DON'T SUPPORT, THUMBS DOWN.

I APPRECIATE YOU COMPLYING WITH THAT. HOLLY OSBORNE AND THEN JIM MUELLER.

IS HOLLY HERE? YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK. OKAY. SO THEN JIM MUELLER AND THEN DOCTOR ANDY LESSER.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN COUNCIL. OUR COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH A REGULAR WEEKLY FARMER'S MARKET ON ARTESIA BOULEVARD AT ARTESIA BOULEVARD IS PROGRESSING VERY NICELY WITH ALL THE ORGANIZING TASKS NEEDED TO MAKE THE FARMER'S MARKET NOT ONLY A REGULAR SUCCESS, BUT A CONTINUING CONTRIBUTOR TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND THE COMMUNITY IN NORTH REDONDO.

AND MR. MAYOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND REFERENCE TO SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS.

WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER OUR SPONSORING LEVELS RIGHT NOW.

PUBLIC SUPPORT CONTINUES TO BE VERY STRONG. WE HAVE OVER 1400 SIGNATURES ON OUR PETITION, AND WE HAVE SET OUR SPONSOR LEVELS AND HAVE AT LEAST TWO SERIOUSLY INTERESTED, AND OTHERS ARE CONSIDERING SUPPORT.

SO AGAIN, THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

THANK YOU. DOCTOR ANDY LESSER AND THEN NIKI NEGRETE-MITCHELL.

GOOD EVENING, ANDY LESSER, RESIDENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH BLOCK CAPTAIN.

ORIGINALLY CAME DOWN JUST TO CONGRATULATE OUR NEW CHIEF STEVE SPRENGEL.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, SOMETHING HAPPENED TODAY, AND I'D LIKE TO SEND KUDOS TO OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

THEY'RE BUILDING A MEGA HOUSE UP THE BLOCK FROM ME ON GERTRUDA AVENUE AND A CEMENT TRUCK DUMPED A BUNCH OF CEMENT ON PEARL STREET.

[00:55:05]

AND THE GUY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DID IT, BUT HE DIDN'T LEAVE TO GO CORRECT IT.

SO I CALLED PUBLIC WORKS. AND WHEN I SAID PEOPLE WERE DRIVING OVER IT.

I SPOKE TO CAT IN PUBLIC WORKS, AND SHE SENT A WORKER NAMED STEVE OVER IMMEDIATELY TO START SHOVELING THE CEMENT OUT OF THE STREET.

AND THEN THE COMPANY WHO WAS CALLED BY PUBLIC WORKS.

HEY, YOU GOT TO CLEAN THIS UP, CAME AND THEY DID A HOSE AND A SWEEP DOWN.

SO WITHOUT PUBLIC WORKS PARTICIPATION AND HELP THAT STUFF WOULD HAVE DRIED ON PEARL STREET.

AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO GET IT UP.

SECOND, POLICE DEPARTMENT, I WANT TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS PEOPLE IN DISPATCH.

I WENT TO BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT LAST WEDNESDAY AT THE GYM.

CLOSING TIMES 8. I WENT TO SMART AND FINAL, DROVE SOUTH ON THE HIGHWAY, AND I HAD ONLY GONE TWO BLOCKS WHEN I SAW DRIVER GOING REAL SLOW AND THE NUMBER ONE LANE KEPT DRIFTING OUT OF LANE. I CALLED 911 TOLD DISPATCH, I THINK THIS IS A DUI.

I FOLLOWED HIM. OF COURSE THEY SAY DON'T FOLLOW.

I SAY, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO RUN ANY RED LIGHTS, BUT THIS GUY IS GOING TO HIT SOMEBODY.

AND WHEN I APPROACH PROSPECT AVENUE ON TORRANCE BOULEVARD, I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN TORRANCE DISPATCHER IMMEDIATELY SAID, DON'T HANG UP. I WILL CONTACT TORRANCE DISPATCH AND SEND YOU OVER TO THEM.

LONG STORY SHORT, I FOLLOWED THE GUY ALL THE WAY TO SEPULVEDA AND MAPLE.

HE HAD ALMOST HIT THREE CARS BY THAT TIME, AND TORRANCE PD LIT HIM UP AND HANDCUFFED HIM AND TOOK HIM TO JAIL FOR DUI.

SO COMMUNICATIONS HANDLED THE CALL SEAMLESSLY.

AND MY NEXT AND LAST KUDO IS FOR CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER.

I KNOW CAPTAIN MENDENCE, I KNOW STEVE SPRENGEL.

I'VE KNOWN THEM BOTH FOR A LONG TIME. TWO GREAT GUYS, TWO GREAT POLICEMEN.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ONLY GET TO PICK ONE AS CHIEF.

SO BOTH GREAT GUYS. SO TOUGH CHOICE. I DON'T ENVY YOU.

AND THANK YOU. GOOD NIGHT. THAT'S ALL. ON THE CITY MANAGER.

NIKI NEGRETE-MITCHELL AND THEN DESIREE GALASSI.

HI AGAIN, NIKI NEGRETE-MITCHELL. WHAT AM I, DISTRICT THREE, REDONDO BEACH, RIGHT OF WAY STAKEHOLDER.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH MEETING I'M AT RIGHT NOW. OH, MAN.

SO THIS MOTION BY SUPERVISOR MITCHELL AND TIM SANDOVAL AND JACKIE DUPONT-WALKER.

I LEARNED ABOUT IT FRIDAY EVENING WHEN I WAS EATING DINNER.

FOR SOME REASON, I DON'T LIKE TO CHECK MY PHONE, BUT IT GOT TEXTED TO ME.

I HAD MY HUSBAND READ IT. HE BROKE DOWN IN TEARS.

I WAS LIKE, HALLELUJAH. WE NEVER. I MEAN, IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE, BUT WE KIND OF, LIKE, NEVER EXPECTED IT.

IT'S AMAZING. IT HAS ALL OF OUR TALKING POINTS IN IT.

SHE'S BEEN LISTENING THIS WHOLE TIME. AND SO I GOT A CALL YESTERDAY FROM HER TRANSPORTATION DEPUTY, MANNY, AND HE SENT ME THIS ACTION ALERT STAND UP THURSDAY TO SUPPORT THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT.

AND GOOD AFTERNOON, RESIDENTS AND CONSTITUENTS.

WE NEED YOUR HELP AT THE LA METRO BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING NEXT THURSDAY, JANUARY 22ND.

THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT FOR THE SOUTH BAY, AND WE MUST MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT FOR THE LA METRO C LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE.

WHAT IS HAPPENING? LA METRO IS MOVING CLOSER TO A DECISION ON THE ALIGNMENT FOR THE C LINE EXTENSION ONCE IN A GENERATION INVESTMENT THAT WILL SHAPE REGIONAL MOBILITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT HAS EMERGED AS THE BEST OPTION SERVES THE GREATEST NUMBER OF RIDERS DELIVERS THE HIGHEST PROJECTED RIDERSHIP, PROVIDES A LOWER COST PER TRIP, MAKES IT MOST EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, KEEPS TRAINS OUT OF RESIDENTIAL BACKYARDS, PROTECTS NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE, AND ENHANCES RESIDENTS SAFETY BOTH DURING CONSTRUCTION AND ONCE THE LINE IS IN OPERATION. CONNECTS THE RAIL LINE DIRECTLY TO AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS CORRIDOR WHERE TRANSIT ACCESS CAN STRENGTHEN EXISTING BUSINESSES, ATTRACT NEW INVESTMENT, INCREASE FOOT TRAFFIC, AND SUPPORT LONG TERM ECONOMIC VITALITY.

THE HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT RESPECTS WHAT LOCAL RESIDENTS WANT AND MEANS CHOOSING AN ALIGNMENT THAT REFLECTS YEARS OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND CLEARLY STATED

[01:00:07]

AND THIS JUST I'M BLOWN AWAY THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING ALL THIS TIME.

FIVE YEARS, KILLING MYSELF AND THIS IS MY REWARD.

BUT WE NEED EVERYBODY TO SHOW UP. PLEASE. TRANSIT CENTER, REDONDO BEACH TRANSIT CENTER ON KINGSDALE.

I'M SORRY. 7:20 A.M.. 7:20 AT THE PARKING LOT OF THE TRANSIT CENTER.

THE UPPER PARKING LOT. LET'S SEE DESIREE GALASSI AND THEN MONTSERRAT RUIZ SALVAT.

GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I WANT TO APPEAL TO YOU TO RECONSIDER THE ACTION YOU'VE TAKEN TO REPLACE THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES OF THE KING HARBOR SIGN.

ADDRESSING ITS NECESSARY SAFETY ISSUES IS A GIVEN, AS WELL AS ADDRESSING THE ESTHETIC INTEGRITY THAT INDICATES WE HAVE A FLOURISHING CITY.

IN THE PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR LANDMARK PROPERTIES, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION REQUIRES THAT ELEMENTS DETERIORATED BEYOND REPAIR MUST BE REPLACED, LIKE FOR LIKE IN COLOR, MATERIALS AND DESIGN.

INTERESTINGLY, THE TWO LIKENESSES, WHICH HAVE SINCE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL IMAGE AT THE CENTER OF THE KING HARBOR SIGN, IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT A SIMILAR PRESERVATION PROCESS WAS APPLIED HERE.

IT APPEARS AN INTENTIONAL ACT TO PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SIGN.

THE CITY FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DO EACH TIME THE SIGN WAS RENOVATED.

AND IF WE ALSO CONSIDER THE STANDARD REGARDING ACQUIRED HISTORY, THESE SIMILAR LIKENESSES OVER TIME MAKE THE CURRENT IMAGE UNDENIABLY HISTORIC. THIS BODY INDICATED THAT IT WOULD PURSUE LANDMARK DESIGNATION AFTER THE FACT.

WHY AFTER AND NOT NOW? SINCE THE CITY WOULD STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT HISTORICAL PHOTOS OF THE SIGN AFTER THE FACT.

HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE SUDDEN DEPARTURE WITH HOW THIS CITY HAS HANDLED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE IMAGE AND LETTERING FONT BEFORE? THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SAILS ARE INACCURATE, OR WHETHER WE LIKE OR DON'T LIKE THE IMAGE, IS A WEAK ARGUMENT FOR REPLACING AN IMAGE WITH A GRAPHIC RATHER THAN SOMETHING WHICH MOST CLOSELY APPROXIMATES THE ORIGINAL 1967 SIGN'S IMAGE.

WHY CHANGE THE LETTERING, WHICH IS EVOCATIVE OF A BYGONE ERA? I AM CONCERNED. STRIPPING THE SIGN OF THESE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES PUTS A SIGN AT RISK FOR BEING DENIED LANDMARK DESIGNATION.

WE WOULD LOSE THE ABILITY TO QUALIFY FOR GRANTS AND THE REVENUE GENERATING POTENTIAL OF A LANDMARK AND BRAGGING RIGHTS.

THERE ARE OTHER CRITICAL ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THE SIGN'S IMPORTANCE, LIKE CULTURE OR IMPACT OF RARITY. THE SANTA MONICA PIER SIGN IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF A PRESERVED HISTORIC LANDMARK.

SO I'M ASKING, WILL ONE OF YOU CONSIDER MAKING A MOTION TO RESCIND PRIOR MOTION SO WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION ON HOW BEST TO SAVE THIS HISTORIC RESOURCE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MONTSERRAT RUIZ SALVAT AND THEN MICKEY JOHNSON.

AND THAT'S THE LAST CARD I HAVE. COME ON UP. GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE. MY NAME IS MONTSERRAT SALVAT, I'M A RESIDENT OF REDONDO FOR 15 YEARS.

I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TWO ISSUES TO YOUR ATTENTION, YOUR AWARENESS.

THE FIRST ONE IS A PARKING PROBLEM. I UNDERSTAND THAT MANHATTAN BEACH HAS ESTABLISHED METERED PARKING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE.

BETWEEN WHERE THE ESPLANADE STARTS OVER IN CATALINA ALL THE WAY TO NOB HILL, WHICH HAS METERED PARKING, IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO FIND A PARKING SPACE WHEN WE GET HOME.

BEACH TRAFFIC, WORKERS, MAINTENANCE. SO I WAS WONDERING IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A TWO HOUR MAXIMUM PARKING ON ESPLANADE. FOR, AND THEN IT WOULD BE, EXCEPT FOR RESIDENTS.

A SECOND PROBLEM I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THE NOISE PROBLEM.

I UNDERSTAND REDONDO BEACH HAS DECIBEL SLOTS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE BEING ENFORCED.

[01:05:02]

IT'S REALLY, REALLY LOUD. AGAIN, IT'S NOT BEING ENFORCED.

MY HUSBAND HAS A HEART CONDITION. I'M SURE THEIR ELDERLY RESIDENTS ON ESPLANADE.

AND IT'S REALLY. IT'S REALLY STRESSFUL. IT DOESN'T HELP WITH THE BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, STREETS THAT WE HAVE IN REDONDO TO HAVE THESE NOISES, WHICH ARE HAS A VERY TERRIBLE NOISE IMPACT FOR ALL OF US.

SO THIS EXHAUSTS AND CARS AND MOTORCYCLES CANNOT BE LEGAL.

BUT AGAIN, WHAT IS THE ENFORCEMENT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY CAN DO ANYTHING. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. MICKEY JOHNSON, AND THAT'S THE LAST CARD I HAVE.

GOOD EVENING. MICKEY JOHNSON. I SERVE AS THE VOLUNTEER PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH REDONDO BEACH BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.

TONIGHT, I'M HERE TO SHARE SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT'S HAPPENING AT SPRINGFEST THIS YEAR.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, SPRINGFEST IS NOW IN ITS 44TH YEAR AND IS THE CITY'S SIGNATURE FAMILY EVENT.

BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, NRBBA IS LAUNCHING A PROTOTYPE PROGRAM THAT INTEGRATES HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DIRECTLY INTO THE PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF SPRINGFEST. THIS INNOVATIVE IDEA WAS CONCEIVED AND LED BY ROBIN GARFIELD, WHO MANY OF YOU KNOW AS THE HEART AND ENGINE BEHIND TODAY'S SPRINGFEST.

ROBIN'S ORIGINAL VISION WAS SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL.

CREATE A SPRING FEST INTERNSHIP WHERE STUDENTS COULD EARN COMMUNITY SERVICE HOURS, LEARN REAL WORLD SKILLS, AND STRENGTHEN THEIR RESUMES AND COLLEGE APPLICATIONS.

AS SHE DEVELOPED THE IDEA ALONGSIDE REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL PERSONAL FINANCE AND BUSINESS TEACHER MR. SOOHOO, IT EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING EVEN BIGGER.

PROJECT SPRINGFEST IS NOW A FULL GRADED CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE INVOLVING 175 STUDENTS.

THESE STUDENTS WERE CHALLENGED TO THINK LIKE REAL MARKETERS AND EVENT PRODUCERS.

THEY ANALYZED SPRING FEST HISTORY AND DATA AND DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO DRIVE ATTENDANCE AND REVENUE ACROSS AREAS SUCH AS PUBLIC RELATIONS, SOCIAL MEDIA, GRASSROOTS MARKETING, ENTERTAINMENT, FOOD AND BEVERAGE, SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT, AND LOCAL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION.

NRBBA MEMBERS WENT INTO CLASSROOMS MULTIPLE TIMES TO MENTOR AND COACH STUDENTS.

THE IDEAS WERE THEN PRESENTED SHARK TANK STYLE, AND THE STRONGEST CONCEPTS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED LIVE DURING SPRINGFEST THIS APRIL.

I WON'T SPOIL ALL THE SURPRISES, BUT NEON NIGHT IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES.

THIS IS TRULY A COMMUNITY WIDE EVENT. LAWNDALE HIGH SCHOOL'S, ACADEMY OF CINEMATIC ARTS AND MUSIC AND RECORDING ARTS PATHWAY STUDENTS WILL ALSO RECEIVE CREDIT AND REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE IN STAGE PRODUCTION, LIVE EVENT MANAGEMENT, AUDIO VISUAL OPERATIONS, AND ENTERTAINMENT COORDINATION OF THE BEACH LIFE ENTERTAINMENT STAGE.

IN ADDITION, NRBBA HAS 19 STUDENT INTERNS FROM REDONDO UNION, MIRACOSTA, BISHOP MONTGOMERY, AND LAWNDALE HIGH SCHOOL. NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT ROBIN'S DEEP COMMITMENT TO MENTORING YOUNG PEOPLE AND HER WILLINGNESS TO TEST A BOLD, FIRST OF ITS KIND MODEL. THROUGH HER LEADERSHIP, SPRINGFEST HAS GROWN INTO ONE OF THE LARGEST FAMILY EVENTS IN THE SOUTH BAY.

THIS PROGRAM PERFECTLY REFLECTS NRBBA MISSION.

TOGETHER WE CELEBRATE OUR COMMUNITY AND FUEL THE LOCAL ECONOMY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU APRIL 16TH THROUGH 19TH.

THANK YOU. AND I APPLAUD ANY EFFORT TO BRING OUR SCHOOL KIDS INTO ACTIVITIES LIKE THIS.

SORRY, PAUL. WAYNE CRAIG, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.

OVER THE HOLIDAYS, I HAD AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION WITH MY BROTHER IN LAW. AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, MY BROTHER WAS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IN TORRANCE FOR ABOUT 12 YEARS FOR THREE TERMS, THAT WAS BEFORE THEY HAD TERM LIMITS.

AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE IN THE EARLY 90S, HE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH JANE HARMAN THE US CONGRESSPERSON, WHO ACTUALLY HE WAS AN ADVISOR ON TRANSPORTATION ISSUES FOR HER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

AND I WAS TALKING TO HIM. HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WAY BACK WHEN I WAS A ADVISOR, BACK THEN, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HAWTHORNE RAIL LINE OPTION AT THAT TIME, AND I SAID, REALLY? WELL, WHAT DID YOU COME UP WITH? HE SAID, WELL, WE WE LOOKED AT THE RIGHT OF WAY AND WE LOOKED AT THE HAWTHORNE ROUTE AND WE CONCLUDED THE HAWTHORNE ROUTE WAS THE BEST LOCATION.

SO SOMETHING TO MAYBE MENTION TO YOUR FELLOW ELECTEDS IS THAT THIS IS NOT A NEW IDEA.

IT'S BEEN FLOATED AROUND FOR PROBABLY OVER 30 YEARS, AND BACK THEN THEY CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WE'RE COMING TO RIGHT NOW.

SO IT SHOULD BE PRETTY APPARENT THAT THIS IS THE BEST ROUTE TO GO THAT'LL INCREASE RIDERSHIP AND ALL THE THINGS WE'VE MENTIONED.

[01:10:04]

WE GOT TO GET THEM TO APPROVE IT. IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE CAN JUMP UP AND DOWN.

BUT NOT UNTIL THEN. ANYWAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS? I HAVE A RECEIVE AND FILE. MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.

SECOND. ALL FOR? AYE. IT'S JUST THE WRITTEN VERSION OF WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.

PAUL MOSES, DISTRICT TWO. THE CITY UNDERTOOK A DISCRETIONARY ACTION WHEN IT VOTED TO APPROVE THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE KING HARBOR GATEWAY SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT.

THE DISCRETIONARY ACTION TRIGGERED THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE CITY CONDUCTED ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT, NOR CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15060.

THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF CEQA IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PROJECT, OR ANY CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTS UPLOADED TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR THE HEARINGS CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 4TH AND DECEMBER 9TH. THE CITY HAS ALSO NOT PREPARED OR FILED A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR THE PROJECT.

MOREOVER, THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SEEN WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. IN FACT, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE SIGN WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC AND ESTHETIC RESOURCES.

THIS IS BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO CEQA GUIDELINES, THE PROJECT WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY HISTORICAL RESOURCE. A SUBSTANTIVE ADVERSE CHANGE IS DEFINED IN CEQA GUIDELINES AS PHYSICAL DEMOLITION, DESTRUCTION, RELOCATION, OR ALTERATION OF THE RESOURCE AND ITS IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS, SUCH THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HISTORICAL RESOURCE WOULD BE MATERIALLY IMPAIRED. SEE CEQA GUIDELINES 15604 OR 605.

THE CITY IS SUBJECT TO LITIGATION EXPOSURE IF IT DOES NOT RESCIND ITS ACTION AND COMPLY WITH CEQA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS AT THIS TIME? ANYONE ONLINE? WE HAVE DARRYL BOYD. GO AHEAD.

DARRYL. DARRYL BOYD DISTRICT THREE. SO THEY'RE SUDDENLY BIG QUESTIONS ABOUT FIREWORKS.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF FIREWORKS WERE STILL ILLEGAL FOR REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS, BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO HAVE A FIREWORKS SHOW IN MY BACKYARD ON MY BIRTHDAY THIS YEAR.

IF A NONRESIDENT ELITIST BUSINESS OWNER IN THE REDONDO BEACH MARINA CAN HAVE THE PRIVILEGE ON NEW YEAR'S EVE, SURELY A 38 YEAR TAX PAYING REDONDO BEACH RESIDENT CAN HAVE THE SAME PRIVILEGE ON HIS BIRTHDAY.

SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS JIM? RUB ELBOWS WITH THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AND MAYBE YOU'LL GAIN FAVORABILITY.

MAYBE GET WHAT YOU WANT. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE RESIDENTS HOW FIREWORKS PRIVILEGES WORK FOR NONRESIDENT ELITIST BUSINESS OWNERS OVER US LOWLY REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS. PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO US.

OH, AND WHEN YOU TALK TO LA COUNTY ABOUT BOAT RAMPS.

JIM, DID YOU ALSO TALK TO THEM ABOUT DOMINGUEZ PARK.

DECIBEL LEVELS AND ENFORCEMENT, WHICH WAS JUST DISCUSSED ABOUT.

IT'S VERY INTERESTING. SOUNDS LIKE THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE AT 500 TO 600 NORTH PROSPECT AVENUE, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ENFORCEMENT UP HERE, AND DON'T CLAP IN SUPPORT OF LEAVING THE KING HARBOR SIGN ALONE.

DID YOU HEAR, COMRADE JIM? DON'T CLAP. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE. WE HAVE NANCY SKIBA. GO AHEAD. NANCY.

GOOD EVENING, NANCY SKIBA, DISTRICT FOUR. AND I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE AND THANK JIM MUELLER AND HIS GROUP FOR WORKING SO HARD TO BRING US THIS WONDERFUL FARMERS MARKET TO NORTH REDONDO AND THE ARTESIA AREA.

ALSO, THANK YOU TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN TRYING TO GET THIS DONE.

AND LASTLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY HOPE WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME MORE CLASSIC CAR SHOWS AND CRUISES HERE AT REDONDO BEACH IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NO ONE ELSE.

AND THERE'S NO ECOMMENTS. OKAY, SO WE WILL NOW JUMP DOWN TO ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION.

[N. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION]

[01:15:02]

THANK YOU. MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MARC WIENER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

I LEARNED GERMAN GROWING UP. I'M FROM PENNSYLVANIA, DUTCH COUNTRY, AND THE E AT THE END IS A WIENER, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SOMEDAY I'LL GET THIS RIGHT.

E VERSUS EI. AND I'M JOINED BY MY PLANNING MANAGER, SEAN SCULLY.

BEFORE I TURN IT TO HIM FOR THE PRESENTATION, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM.

SO AS THE COUNCIL IS AWARE, WE'RE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF LOOKING TO ADOPT THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT.

WE'VE BROKEN UP SOME OF THE MORE MEATY TOPICS INTO SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION ITEMS. A FEW WEEKS AGO, WE DISCUSSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION BECAUSE THAT'S ADDRESSED IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT.

PRIOR TO THAT, WE HAD DISCUSSED ARTESIA AND AVIATION.

TONIGHT WE'RE DISCUSSING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, BUT THE FOCUS IS ON THE FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWANCES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE ELEMENTS, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.

THAT'S THE FOCUS OF TONIGHT'S MEETING. WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT THE BALANCE OF THE GENERAL PLAN-LAND USE ELEMENT WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR POTENTIAL FINAL REVIEW IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO SEAN SCULLY FOR THE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MARK. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

SEAN SCULLY, PLANNING MANAGER. SO THANKS FOR THE INTRODUCTION, MARK.

WE'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THE BACKGROUND. IT'S 2016 IS WHEN WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.

THE LAND USE ELEMENT, OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT.

AND THEN FAST FORWARD TO MAY 8TH, 2021 THE CITY COUNCIL MET AND DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED PROPOSED LAND USES AND FAR DESIGNATIONS FOR ALL THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OR ALL THE DIFFERENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.

AND AT THAT TIME THEY DIRECTED THE FAR TO BE SET AT 0.75 FOR ALL PI SITES, INCLUDING THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SITE AND 1.25 FOR CITY HALL IN THE ANNEX. AND THEN SKIP AHEAD, OCTOBER 2024.

SO THE END OF LAST 2024 WE PRESENTED THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME AND THE NOVEMBER MEETINGS IT WAS DETERMINED TO BIFURCATE THE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE AND MOVE AHEAD WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION. AND THOSE ITEMS WERE ADOPTED AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS CERTIFIED.

SO BACK IN END OF 2024, THIS IS JUST A MAP THAT SHOWS ALL THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THOSE, BUT THEY WERE ALL RESIDENTIAL CHANGES FOR THE PROPOSED HOUSING SITES OR FOR THE ADOPTED HOUSING SITES FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL CHANGES THAT OCCURRED AT THAT TIME.

SO THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THAT'S THE BLUEPRINT FOR FUTURE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.

IT CONTAINS ALL THE POLICIES FOR LAND USE DECISIONS.

AGAIN, AS MARC MENTIONED, THAT WILL BE A FUTURE MEETING THAT WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL POLICIES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT.

IT ALSO SETS ALL THE FAR ALLOWANCES FOR ALL THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE CITY.

SO TONIGHT, THE PROPOSED FAR CHANGE AREAS ARE FOR ALL THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OR LAND USE AREAS, AS WELL AS OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL SPECIAL POLICY AREAS.

SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH SOME OF THESE BEFORE. OBVIOUSLY ARTESIA AND AVIATION CORRIDOR, THE AACAP AREA, THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS NORTH OF MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD.

THOSE ARE I-1 AND I-3 DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. AND THEN THE LARGER COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTERS ALONG PCH.

AND THEN OF COURSE, ALL THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES CITYWIDE.

SO FIRST I'LL WALK THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL CHANGE AREAS.

THAT'S THE AACAP AND THE PCH AREAS. YOU'LL SEE ON THE LEFT PART OF THE SLIDE THAT'S THE AACAP CHANGE AREA.

THOSE ARE THE SPECIAL POLICY AREAS TWO AND THREE.

AND THE INCREASE IN FAR'S THAT IN THE AACAP AREAS FROM 0.6 TO 1.5.

PCH NORTH, THE CHANGE AREA IS SPA 5A. THE FAR INCREASE IN THOSE RED AREAS, THE C-4 AREAS, PROPOSED TO BE C-4 IS FROM 0.5 TO 1.0.

[01:20:07]

THE FAR IT INCREASES FROM 0.5 TO 1.0. AND THEN THE INDUSTRIAL CHANGES.

YEAH. YES. SO THE RED ARE THE CHANGES OR THE BLUE? THE RED ARE THE CHANGES. I'LL GO THROUGH THE BLUE ARE ALL THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES, YES. THE INDUSTRIAL CHANGES ARE THE LIGHT PURPLE AND DARK PURPLE.

THE I-1 AND I-3, AND THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE FOR FAR INCREASES FROM 0.7 TO 0.1.

1.1. EXCUSE ME, 0.7 TO 1.0. AND THEN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL THESE ARE THE CITY'S EXISTING GENERAL PLAN. NOW, THE REASON WE'RE DOING THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES OR WE'RE ACTUALLY IDENTIFYING THE FAR. FOR THOSE FOR THE PI DESIGNATION, WHICH CURRENTLY THE GENERAL PLAN DOES NOT HAVE AN FAR DESIGNATION FOR THE PI DESIGNATION.

AND THERE'S SOME LAW THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO? AND THERE IS THERE'S STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT EVERY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION HAS TO IDENTIFY EITHER ITS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OR ITS BUILDING INTENSITY.

AND IN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, WE USE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR BUILDING INTENSITY.

FOR COMMERCIAL AREAS. FOR NONRESIDENTIAL. RIGHT.

SO SOME PI ZONES TO IDENTIFY A FAR, IN SOME OF OUR ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATIONS ACTUALLY HAVE AN FAR, EVEN THOUGH THE GENERAL PLAN DOESN'T.

SO THE CITY HALL PROPERTY ACTUALLY HAS AN FAR CURRENTLY FOR THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 1.25.

THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS ALL THE SE TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS THAT HAS AN FAR CURRENTLY FOR THE ZONING OF 0.1 AND THEN THE P-PRO ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE CITY'S PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ZONE THAT HAS AN FAR 0.25.

AND THEN ALL THE OTHER PI ZONES DO NOT HAVE AN IDENTIFIED FAR.

THE SCHOOL, FOR THE SCHOOL FACILITY ZONE, THE COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONE AND THE RIVIERA VILLAGE PARKING ZONE.

AND THEN THIS EXHIBIT OVER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SLIDE IS JUST A FAR ILLUSTRATION THAT JUST SHOWS HOW FARS ARE CALCULATED. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THAT SLIDE FOR THE PUBLIC ZONES THAT HAVE A FAR CAP THAT'S IN OUR ZONING CODE, OUR MUNICIPAL CODE NONE OF THE FARS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO BE.

SO THIS IS THE MAP OF THE CITY AND IT SHOWS UP BETTER ON THAT SCREEN UP THERE, BUT IT'S THE LIGHT BLUE AREAS. THOSE ARE ALL THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATIONS, AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE DO NOT HAVE AN FAR, SO THEY ARE GETTING CHANGED TO EITHER A 0.75 OR A 1.25.

THE PROPOSED FARS. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE IN THE HATCHED BLUE AREA, THAT'S THE CIVIC CENTER LOCATION AND THE CITY ANNEX LOCATION, AND THAT'S PROPOSED FOR 1.25. ONE COMMENT ON THAT, THE FACILITY THAT IS NOW THE KENSINGTON THAT'S RCFE NOW INSTEAD OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL, ISN'T IT? FOR WHICH, FOR KENSINGTON? YEAH. WHICH IS RIGHT NOW SHOWING AS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL ON THIS MAP.

IT, PCF IS ACTUALLY THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. YES. SO AS PART OF ALL THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, FAR ANALYSIS THAT WE CONDUCTED OVER TIME. WE'VE DONE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, AND THIS TABLE, THIS IS LIFTED DIRECTLY OUT OF YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT, AND IT JUST SHOWS SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THERE, EXISTING BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, FIRST, THE EXISTING PROPERTY AREA, THEN THE EXISTING BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WHAT THE EXISTING FAR IS FOR THESE PROPERTIES.

AND THEN WHAT A 0.75 FAR LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND A 1.25 IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND THESE WERE THE PROPERTIES THAT GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION THROUGH HEARINGS LAST YEAR OR IN 2024 WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.

[01:25:07]

WE'VE GOT A SLIDE HERE THAT JUST BREAKS DOWN THE CURRENT FAR FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THAT PROPERTY IS 0.58. THE EXISTING BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT PROPERTY AREAS ABOUT 432,000FT². THE EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR AREA IS ABOUT 250,000FT².

AND AS PART OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS TO SEE IF WHAT ADDITIONAL FAR COULD BE ACCOMMODATED AT THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SITE. THE ACTUALLY, THE CERTIFIED EIR ANALYZED APPROXIMATELY 0.85 TO UP TO 1.0, BUT WE KNEW THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS WITH BEACH CITIES HEALTH.

HEALTH DISTRICT, THEY WERE LOOKING AT 1.25. SO COUNCIL DIRECTED US TO ANALYZE, STAFF TO ANALYZE THAT.

AND AN ADDENDUM WAS CERTIFIED ON DECEMBER 3RD, 2024 THAT STUDIES UP TO A 1.2 FAR.

EXCUSE ME, 1.25 FAR. SO EXAMPLES OF FAR CALCULATIONS FOR THAT SITE IN TERMS OF BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH A 0.75, ABOUT 325,000FT². 1.0 WOULD EQUAL 432,000FT².

1.25 ABOUT 540,000FT². SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO SET THE FAR FOR THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT PROPERTY BETWEEN A 1.0 AND A 1.25, AND THAT'S COVERED WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.

THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT, THAT WAS CONFUSING IN THE STAFF REPORT. OKAY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE ADVOCATING. OKAY, ASK A QUESTION ON THAT.

SURE. IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THAT DECEMBER 3RD, 2024, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL PEIR THAT APPROVES AN OPTION OF BUT DOES NOT COMMIT THE CITY TO APPROVING UP TO A 1.25 FAR CAP.

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO, YOU KNOW, SET A MAXIMUM LIMIT AT ONE AND MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO GET UP TO 1.25, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? TO CONTROL, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE SIZING SCALE THAT HAVE BEEN OF CONCERN TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ACTUALLY DESIGNATE IT WITH A 1.0 AND THEN HAVE SOME ALLOWANCE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH DISCRETION TO ACTUALLY INCREASE THAT.

SO YOU'D HAVE TO DESIGNATE AT 1.25 AND THEN. AND THEN THEY COULD GO UP TO THAT.

THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO CAVEAT IT. SO I THINK THE WAY THAT COULD WORK IS THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD ESTABLISH THE MAX OF 1.25, AND THEN THE ZONING CODE WOULD HAVE A 1.0 AS THE BASELINE, AND THE ADDITIONAL 0.25 WOULD BE DISCRETIONARY AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN STANDARDS, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OPTION FOR THIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I GUESS WHILE WE'RE STILL ON THAT POINT, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF THEM COMING TO YOU FOR A VARIANCE TO THE ZONING, IF IT WERE, YOU KNOW, 0.75, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY COULD COME BACK TO YOU WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PROJECT THAT'S 1.25. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE? OH, WELL, WITH THE FRAMEWORK I JUST MENTIONED THAT.

WOULDN'T IT BE A VARIANCE? IT WOULD BE AN ALLOWANCE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CRITERIA OR STANDARDS IN TERMS OF A VARIANCE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DEVIATION FROM THE ZONING ALLOWANCE.

TYPICALLY THOSE WOULD NOT BE ISSUED FOR ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A BUILDING.

IT'S TO GET RELIEF FROM SETBACKS OR SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT IS CHALLENGING ON THAT PARTICULAR SITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.

CONCERNING THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.

SO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO AMEND THE FAR FOR THE PUBLIC INSTITUTION LAND USES FROM 0.75 TO 0.5 FOR ALL PROPERTIES EXCEPT CITY HALL, THE ANNEX SITE ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PCH AND VINCENT STREET, AND ALL THE CITY FIRE AND POLICE STATION PROPERTIES, WHICH WOULD HAVE A FAR OF 1.25.

THEY ALSO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY U LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM THE AES

[01:30:09]

ALSO, THEY'RE RECOMMENDING AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE ON THREE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIELDS AND BLACKTOP, ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FIELDS, AND THE FORMER FRANKLIN SCHOOL SITE.

NOW, THESE ARE ALL THESE ARE ALL OWNED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS REQUESTED THAT THESE HAVE THAT SAME PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATION INSTEAD OF AN OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION.

IF USED UNDER THE SURPLUS LAND ACT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ON THOSE LANDS, THEN BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT HIGHER FAR? ON WHICH SIDE, THE FRANKLIN? FRANKLIN, LINCOLN, ALTAVISTA.

THEY WOULD HAVE THE, THEY WOULD CHANGE FROM AN OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION FOR THOSE AREAS OF THE SCHOOL TO THE PI, WHICH WOULD, THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED NOW BE A 0.75.

AND WITH THAT 0.75, IF THAT PROPERTY WAS EVER CONVERTED UNDER THE SURPLUS LANDS ACT OR OTHER THING, KENSINGTON, WOULD THAT SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT ON THAT LAND BE ABLE TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE 0.75 FAR? THEY WOULD THERE COULD BE THOUGH. HOWEVER, THROUGH THE PROCESS AND AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION, THAT COULD CHANGE THAT DENSITY OR THAT BUILDING INTENSITY.

BUT AS IT STANDS WITH THE PI, PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSED DESIGNATION, THEY WOULD HAVE A 0.75.

IF IT STAYS AND IT SEEMS MORE IN CHARACTER FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IF IT, IF THESE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES ARE IDENTIFIED AS THE LINCOLN SCHOOL FIELDS AND THE ALTA VISTA SCHOOL FIELDS.

IF THAT STAYED, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THIS, AS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, AND IT WOULD MAINTAIN A 0.2 FAR. CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON THAT, IF I MIGHT ASK TO BUILD ON WHAT YOU WERE ASKING, DID YOU HAVE AN ANSWER BEFORE YOU? YEAH. SEAN WAS CORRECT ON THAT. I DID WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THEY WERE ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED FROM STAFF TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE FIRST ONE, THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE THE AES SITE IS IN FLUX.

WE WERE, WE CONFERRED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND FELT IT WOULD BE BEST TO JUST RETAIN THE CURRENT DESIGNATION FOR THAT SITE.

WITH REGARDS TO THE SCHOOL ONE, THIS CAME UP DURING THE MEETINGS WE HAD WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

CURRENT DESIGNATION OF U OR NO. LEAVE IT ALONE.

LEAVE THAT DESIGNATION ALONE. UNTOUCHED. UNCHANGED.

THE CURRENT DESIGNATION OF P AS OPPOSED TO U, WHICH IS WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENTS.

SO THIS IS BASICALLY RETAINING STATUS QUO ON THAT.

AND WITH REGARD TO THE SCHOOL, WHICH IS SCHOOL SITES WHICH ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL, WHICH ONLY ALLOW SCHOOL AND GOVERNMENT TYPE ACTIVITIES, IT'S LIMITED.

THE SCHOOL DID RAISE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR ABILITY UNDER THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT NEW FACILITIES OR BE OR BUILD THINGS THAT WOULD SERVE THE SCHOOL ON THOSE PROPERTIES. WE DID INVESTIGATE THAT.

AND PURSUANT TO STATE LAW THE SCHOOLS, THEY WOULD TRUMP LOCAL ZONING AS IT PERTAINS TO EDUCATION AND DOING PROJECTS FOR THAT PURPOSE. WITH REGARDS TO THESE BEING CONVERTED TO HOUSING SITES, THOSE ARE NOT OFFERED THE SAME PROTECTION FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE LAW IN TERMS OF OVERRIDING ZONING.

SO AND I THINK IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING ELSE ON THESE HOUSING SITES OTHER THAN SCHOOL OR WHATEVER IS ALLOWED UNDER PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL IT MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD FURTHER INVESTIGATE BECAUSE IT DOES IT'S AFFECTED BY STATE LAWS SUCH AS THE SURPLUS LAND ACT. AND THERE'S.

OTHER. WHICH IT WHICH WOULD ALSO LIKELY ENSUE ARTICLE 27 VOTE, RIGHT.

THERE'S AN THERE'S A GENERAL SENSE THAT IF THE PI ZONE REMAINS IN PLACE AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WERE TO DECLARE A PARTICULAR SITE SURPLUS AND THEN PROCEED WITH A KENSINGTON TYPE PROJECT, MUCH LIKE KENSINGTON, IT WOULD FOLLOW AN ARTICLE 27 VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE PROJECT,

[01:35:07]

SO WE DON'T SEE THE PI ZONE IN ITSELF AS BEING NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR HOUSING PER SE, OR SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE USE IN THAT RESPECT. SO WE DON'T THINK THAT THE CAPS PLACED ON THAT PI WOULD NECESSARILY BE RELEVANT FOR A FUTURE PROJECT LIKE THAT.

THANK YOU. AND SO JUST. IF I MAY, MAYOR, QUICKLY.

SO MARK, TO YOUR POINT ARE YOU SAYING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS INDICATED THAT THEY DON'T THINK THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE FARS? NO, THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE DESIGNATION BE MAINTAINED AS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL, WHICH IS THAT BECAUSE WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT IS TO CONVERT THE DESIGNATION OF THESE PROPERTIES TO OPEN SPACE.

AND THE SCHOOL'S CONCERN IS BY DOING THAT, THAT WOULD LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO EXPAND THE SCHOOL OR BUILD NEW FACILITIES THERE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE EXPRESSLY NOT ALLOWED IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION, BUT ARE ALLOWED IN THE CURRENT DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL.

SO TO BE CLEAR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE MAINTAIN THE DESIGNATION OF PI IN THE SCHOOL ZONE AREAS AS AN ACCOMMODATION TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

THEY SAY THAT THEY MAY AT SOME POINT BUILD SCHOOL FACILITIES THERE AND POINT TO WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

THE CAP WILL BE IT WILL BE IRRELEVANT FOR SCHOOL BUILDING.

SO IT REGARDLESS OF HOW WE ULTIMATELY DESIGNATE THE OPEN SPACE OR PI ZONES, THE FLOOR AREA RATIO CAP WILL NOT APPLY IN THE EVENT THAT THEY'RE BUILDING A SCHOOL RELATED FACILITY. GYMS. SCHOOL CAMPUSES. IT WOULD APPLY IN THE EVENT OF WHAT? IF IT WERE BUILDING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT, THE FRIENDSHIP FOUNDATION CAMPUS OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES MIGHT APPLY.

YEAH. BUT IF IT'S SCHOOL RELATED, IT'S NOT. THE CAP ENDS UP BEING SOMEWHAT IRRELEVANT.

GOT IT. GO AHEAD, MAYOR. DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S ZONED FOR OPEN SPACE OR FOR SITE.

THE ZONING MAY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE RELEVANCE FOR THEM THAN THE THAN THE FAR CAP.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO STATE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO THEY EVER CAME UP WITH SOMETHING WE COULD ALWAYS SWITCH IT THEN, RIGHT.

WHAT. IF THEY IF THEY WANTED TO TAKE OVER A PARK FOR A SCHOOL BUILDING, WE COULD ALWAYS REZONE IT THEN.

WE COULD SWITCH IT BACK AGAIN. BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS WOULD BE ADJUSTING.

ALL OF THIS WOULD BE ADJUSTING CURRENTLY PI ZONED TO OPEN SPACE AS INITIALLY DRAFTED.

USED FOR OPEN SPACE, SO CORRECT. IN SOME INSTANCES EXCLUSIVELY, IN SOME INSTANCES CO-MINGLED RIGHT.

WHERE IT'S CO-MINGLED. SO THE SO MAYBE WE SHOULD COVER WHERE THE OS WOULD APPLY ON THE MAP.

SO WE'RE NOT SPEAKING IN HYPOTHETICALS. YEAH.

LET ME SEE IF I'VE GOT A MAP. LET'S SEE. DO YOU STILL.

YEAH. JUST MINOR. YEAH. SO THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, SKIPPING AHEAD TO THE MINOR CHANGES IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE.

SO THESE ARE ALL THE CHANGES THAT AREN'T MAJOR CHANGES IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE.

AND I'LL GO BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE. BUT IF YOU LOOK.

LET'S SEE, WE DON'T HAVE A BLOW UP OF EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO HERE IS THE ALTA VISTA PLAYGROUNDS, FIELDS THAT THEY HAVE.

IT'S NOT THE SCHOOL FACILITY SITE. AND SO THAT WAS, THE INTENTION WAS TO CHANGE IT TO AN OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION.

RIGHT. BUT NOW WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AT THE REQUEST OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, IT'S OWNED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOT BY THE CITY. WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THAT HAVE A PI DESIGNATION SIMILAR TO WHAT THEIR SCHOOL FACILITIES PROPERTY WOULD HAVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

YEAH, AND I GUESS MY CONCERN ABOUT ALL OF THAT IS IT'S CURRENTLY FIELD SPACE FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY AT THE SCHOOL.

I MEAN, THINK ABOUT LINCOLN. THAT'S A HUGE BASEBALL AND SOCCER FIELD AREA.

AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THAT CONVERTED TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN OPEN SPACE.

THINK ABOUT ALTA VISTA FIELDS. I WAS THERE ON SUNDAY.

I, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE CITY'S.

HEY, GO AHEAD AND CONVERT THIS FROM WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, GIVES ME A LITTLE DISCOMFORT.

WE SERVE THE SAME RESIDENTS, ULTIMATELY, AND I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THOSE RESIDENTS WHO ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS.

SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF KEEPING IT OPEN SPACE. LET'S KEEP THOSE FIELDS FOR THE KIDS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ISSUES, AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS PROBABLY KNOW A LITTLE BIT TOO.

SO I WANT TO WAIT AND HEAR ABOUT THAT. THOSE ARE MY INITIAL CONCERNS.

OKAY. IF I MAY. YEAH. YEAH, AND I WAS GOING TO SAY WE CAN PROVIDE SOME FOLLOW UP ANALYSIS ON THIS AT THE NEXT DISCUSSION OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT,

[01:40:09]

I THINK IF THE CONCERN IS THAT THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO EXPAND THEIR FACILITY OR ADD A SOME TYPE OF, YOU KNOW RECREATIONAL USE FOR THE SCHOOL. THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT UNDER THE STATE LAW, REGARDLESS OF THE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING.

THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO SEE THAT.

SORRY I WASN'T ABLE TO CONNECT WITH YOU IN MORE DETAIL BEFORE TONIGHT'S MEETING, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THE PICTURE HERE. THAT GREEN SPOT AT ALTA VISTA THAT LOOKS.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT'S CITY PROPERTY. IT'S THE STUFF ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S THE SCHOOL PROPERTY.

THAT'S JULIA. STUFF WEST OF JULIA'S CITY OWNED.

STUFF EAST OF JULIA, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. JULIA IS GREEN.

IT SHOWS EAST OF JULIA'S WHITE. OH, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

I BELIEVE THE MAYOR'S CORRECT THERE. THIS IS.

THE ALTA VISTA PROPERTY IS. THAT LOOKS LIKE CITY PARKS NOT, THAT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY PARK SITE, NOT THE ACTUAL SCHOOL ZONE. LET'S SEE. YOU KNOW, THIS MIGHT SHOW.

YEAH, WE NEED TO COME BACK WITH A BLOW UP OF EACH ONE OF THESE AREAS.

YEAH. YEAH, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY THE SCHOOL SITES THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED BY THAT.

YEAH. I THINK MAYBE A BETTER A BETTER EXAMPLE IS.

FRANKLIN THERE? YEAH. FRANKLIN, THE ANDERSON.

ANDERSON PARK AND THAT HALF THAT BALL FIELD AND THEN AVIATION I THINK IS A BETTER EXAMPLE.

THAT'S A SCHOOL OWNED PROPERTY NORTH OF MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD.

SEAN ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TOP LEFT. THAT SCHOOL OWNED PROPERTY CURRENTLY PI THAT ONE CERTAINLY WE TREAT AS PARK AND OPEN SPACE AND THAT ONE HAS BUILDINGS ON IT. RIGHT. THERE'S A GYM THERE AND OTHER THINGS.

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. YEAH. OKAY. GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

SO QUESTION JUST FOR CLARITY, I'M JUST MAYBE NOT TOTALLY GETTING THIS.

WE'RE OBVIOUSLY AT A DEFICIT OF OPEN SPACE AND REDONDO BEACH.

AND SO IF WE TRY TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE EVERYWHERE IT IS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ON SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT REGARDLESS BECAUSE THEY'RE REGULATED BY STATE LAW.

SO WHY WOULD THEY WANT US TO CONVERT IT TO PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL RATHER THAN PRESERVE IT AS OPEN SPACE IF IT'S NOT REALLY APPLICABLE TO THEM? I THOUGHT IT WAS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL. NOW IT'S NOT.

IT'S TO AVOID IT GOING TO EXCLUSIVE DESIGNATION AS OPEN SPACE, CORRECT? THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. SO WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO KEEP IT AS PUBLIC INSTITUTION KNOWING AND, NOT HAVE IT CONVERTED TO OPEN SPACE WHEN IT DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO THEM? HAVE THEY ARTICULATED THAT TO YOU? THEY EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT IT, ABOUT MAKING THE WHAT'S ON THE SITE AND HOW IT'S USED.

NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S IN THE GENERAL PLAN.

BUT THAT SAID, IT MAY BE BEST IF WE KIND OF TABLE THIS COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATION.

THEY COULD YOU KNOW, APPEAR AT THE MEETING AND EXPLAIN BECAUSE THEY, THEY DID ATTEND VARIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND SUBMITTED LETTERS STATING THEIR REASONING, BUT IT WAS A WHILE BACK, SO WE PROBABLY HAVE TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER INTO THE HISTORY OF THAT.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK SOME OF THE CONFUSION WITH THIS IS THE ZONING MAP DOESN'T MATCH THE GENERAL PLAN MAP RIGHT NOW.

AND IF WE DO WHAT YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING, IT STILL WON'T MATCH.

SO BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, AT ALTA VISTA, THE ACTUAL SCHOOL SITE WHERE THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS, IS P-SF AND THE WHOLE REST OF IT IS P-PRO, PARKS AND RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULDN'T MAKE IT MATCH.

YEAH, AND JUST TO BE. THE UNDERLYING ZONING. TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY TWO ZONING MAPS.

THERE'S THE GENERAL PLAN ONE WHICH HAS THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THEN THE ACTUAL ZONING MAP.

MOST OF THE SITES ARE IN HARMONY, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE IN CONFLICT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ARE PLANNING ON CHANGING THE ZONING MAP, BUT.

YEAH. IT'S A LITTLE BROADER THE WAY THEY'RE IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN IN TERMS OF THE PURPOSE.

AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SEPARATE DESIGNATION.

BUT AT THE NEXT MEETING, IF THE COUNCIL WISHES, WE COULD BRING THE ZONING MAP WITH THE LAND USE MAP AND TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DISCREPANCIES. I THINK THE CONFUSION IS THAT NOW WE'RE INTRODUCING OS IN THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH WASN'T THERE BEFORE. AND WHERE DO WE OVERLAY THAT ONTO WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS FORMERLY JUST PI,

[01:45:02]

YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. YES, YES. THE INTENTION WAS TO CREATE A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION THAT BETTER MATCHED WHAT THE ZONING DESIGNATION WAS, LET'S SAY ON A PARK. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING A PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATION ON A PARK, THE PROPOSAL WAS AN OPEN SPACE.

YEAH, YEAH. BUT I THOUGHT THE INTENT WAS ALSO TO CAPTURE THAT FOR THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE PARKS WE HAD, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT WERE NOT SCHOOL, SO. AND IT IS AND WHERE WE HAVE THE CONFLICT IS THAT THESE SCHOOL LOCATIONS.

YEAH. THAT'S WHAT YEAH. YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING. OKAY, OKAY.

SORRY. SORRY FOR BELABORING THAT. ONE QUICK QUESTION, IF I MAY, MAYOR.

GENERALLY. SURE. HOW OFTEN DO WE DO A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OR ARE WE OBLIGATED TO DO A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE? OR WHEN CAN WE BE EXPECTED NEXT TO DO A GENERAL PLAN UPDATE? SO THE LAST ONE WAS 1992. CORRECT. THERE'S NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT.

HOWEVER, IT'S RECOMMENDED BY STATE THAT IT'S UPDATED EVERY 20 YEARS OR SO.

THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS THAT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF EVERY EIGHT YEARS.

OKAY. SO ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT IS, JUST THINK ABOUT THE WHAT THE STATE IS DOING WITH OUR CITIES AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO THE DENSITY THAT'S BEING ADDED TO OUR CITIES AND WHAT KIND OF INSTITUTIONS WE MIGHT NEED, BUILDINGS WE MIGHT NEED ON OUR POLICE STATIONS, FIRE DEPARTMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR RESPONDING TO ALL THOSE NEW RESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO BE IN OUR CITIES AGAINST OUR WILL. THAT'S ALL. A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TOPIC, BUT YEAH.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE PI FAR.

YEP. OKAY. LET'S GO BACK TO, SORRY FOR THAT. ONE DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE THERE.

THAT'S GOOD. GOOD QUESTIONS WE NEED WE NEED. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. WE'RE BACK DISCUSSING ALL THESE TOPICS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME. OKAY, SO WE THOSE WERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PI.

AND THEN THE OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION'S OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.

SO AMEND THE FAR FOR THE C-4 DESIGNATED PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.

AND THOSE WERE THE TWO LOCATIONS IN NORTH CENTRAL AT THE SHOPPING CENTERS RIGHT NEXT TO CITY HALL, AS WELL AS A BLOCK BETWEEN RUBY AND PEARL DOWN SOUTH OF TORRANCE BOULEVARD.

AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS TO AMEND THOSE PROPOSED C-4 DESIGNATIONS ALONG THOSE LOCATIONS FROM A 1.0 TO A 0.5, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE A NO CHANGE. THEY'RE CURRENTLY ALL ZONED C-2 WITH A 0.5 FAR.

AND THEN WITHIN THE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR PROJECTS INCLUDING BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED MINIMUM FAR BE RAISED FROM 0.35 TO 0.4.

AND ON THAT ONE I JUST WANT TO. COMMERCIAL FAR.

THE COMMERCIAL FAR, YES. OKAY, NO COMMENT. AND SO THE LAST COUPLE OF SLIDES BEFORE THE RECOMMENDATION SLIDES ARE ABOUT THE, ABOUT ARTICLE 27 AND THE MAJOR CHANGES IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE AND OF THE PROPOSED FAR AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COUNCIL TONIGHT.

THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS REQUIRE AN ARTICLE 27 VOTE.

SO THOSE ARE DEEMED TO BE A MAJOR CHANGE IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE.

AND THOSE ARE THE INCREASE FROM 0.6 TO 1.5 FOR THE AACAP, THE INCREASE FROM 0.7 TO 1.0 FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS NORTH OF MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD, THE CHANGE FROM C-2 TO C-4, WHICH IS A 0.5 TO 1.0 FOR THE SHOPPING CENTERS IN NORTH PCH AND THAT AREA IN CENTRAL PCH. AND THAT'S, THOSE ARE SPECIAL POLICY AREAS.

AND THEN THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN FAR 0.75 OR 1.25 FOR THE PROPOSED PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LOCATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CITY HALL PROPERTY, WHICH CURRENTLY HAS A ZONING OF 1.25.

SO CITY HALL PROPERTY ISN'T SUBJECT TO THE MAJOR CHANGE IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE BASED ON ITS ALREADY HAVING A ZONING DESIGNATION OF 1.25.

COULD I ASK A QUICK QUESTION BEFORE HE GOES VERY QUICK? SEAN ON THE SECOND BULLET POINT. INCREASING THE I-1 AND I-3 DESIGNATIONS NORTH OF MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD.

WILL YOU DISCUSS HOW YOU CAME UP WITH THAT 1.0 NUMBER OR HOW THAT NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT? IS IT ADEQUATE? THAT'S OUR KIND OF TECH DISTRICT, NORTHROP GRUMMAN, ETC..

SO AT SOME POINT, IF YOU DIDN'T PLAN TO IF YOU COULD DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT.

[01:50:04]

IT'S UP TO THE MAYOR. GO AHEAD. YEAH. SO THAT CAME FROM THE ORIGINAL, THAT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK THAT THE COUNCIL DID BACK IN 2021. THEY HAD IDENTIFIED AN INTENTION TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY FOR THE NORTHROP GRUMMAN AREA IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOR JOB POTENTIAL JOB GROWTH, AND TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND THE INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIES IN THAT AREA.

OKAY. AND WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THAT LATELY AS WELL.

IS 1.0 ADEQUATE? WHEN WE LOOK OUT OVER THE NEXT, TO COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI POINT, 30 YEARS, IS IT. WILL IT SUFFICE TO ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL GROWTH IN THAT AREA? DO YOU HAVE, IF YOU'VE LOOKED INTO THAT. WE DID HEAR FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN AT THE TIME OF THE CHANGE, AND THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED TO IT. THEY COULDN'T DIVULGE ANY GROWTH PLANS THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF.

BUT THEY, DIDN'T REQUEST IT INITIALLY, BUT THEY WERE, THEY SEEMED TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT ONCE THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BACK IN 2021.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE NEW AEROSPACE CORPORATION COMPANY THAT'S COMING IN IN THAT AREA IS THAT, DID THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES? WHAT WAS IT CALLED? IMPULSE. IMPULSE.

WITHIN EXISTING FOOTPRINT. THEY'RE NOT SAYING, HEY, WE NEED MORE OR ANYTHING.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT, THOUGH. I THINK AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, BEFORE WE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, MAYBE SOME OUTREACH TO UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, I KNOW THEY JUST WON A BIG CONTRACT.

WE HAVE A BIG PUSH WITH GOLDEN DOME AND AEROSPACE IN GENERAL.

SO I THINK BEFORE WE COMMIT TO THIS AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT, MAYBE WE NEED TO.

WELL, ONE THING TO CAUTION, IF WE WERE TO DO ANYTHING BEYOND THE ONE WE GOT, WE WOULD HAVE TO STUDY.

YEAH. YEAH I UNDERSTAND. I JUST, YOU KNOW. THAT'S A 18 MONTH EFFORT.

LOOKING ICE CREAM CONE. SO AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD SAY AT AS MUCH AS PLACE, WORK AND LOVE WHEN WE COME BACK WITH CEQA ADDENDUM.

IF WE WOULD RECOMMEND WE PROCEED WITH THE ONE AND THEN COME BACK WITH SUBSEQUENT ACTION LATER AT ANOTHER DATE.

DON'T SEE THAT BEING SUPER CONTROVERSIAL DOWN THE ROAD.

THAT MAKES SENSE. SO I DISAGREE WITH THE LAST BULLET THAT THE MINOR CHANGE IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A VOTE, HAVING, I THINK. WELL, BILL AND I WERE THE AUTHORS.

BILL'S NOT HERE ANYMORE. WE COULD BRING IN FRANK ANGEL, BUT WHEN WE WROTE THAT THERE'S A CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CLAUSE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT WHEN YOU BUNDLE THE MINOR CHANGES WITH ALL OTHER CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE LAST, I FORGET HOW I THINK IT'S FIVE YEARS THAT IT HAS TO BE, IF THAT TRIGGERS AN INCREASE, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TREAT IT AS THOUGH IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE IN LAND USE.

AND IT'S BASED ON, IF THERE'S ANY CHANGE, IT'S BASED OFF OF AS BUILT.

NOT WHAT IT WAS ZONED TO, WHAT IT IS ZONED OR PROPOSED TO BE ZONED, ITS FROM AS BUILT TO THE FUTURE.

AND SO SINCE WE'RE PROPOSING ALL THESE IN PARALLEL, THEN THEY ARE ALL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.

AND IF SINCE THEY'RE ALREADY TRIGGERING THE MAJOR VOTE, ALL OF THESE HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT VOTE.

YEAH, WE DON'T DISAGREE, BUT THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THAT AREN'T LISTED HERE, THEY'RE ALL NAME CHANGES. SO IT'S LIKE A IT'S A CHANGE IN C-2 TO C-N, AND THE FAR IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

THE FAR IS NOT, DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S THE AS BUILT.

I THINK WE'RE JUST, I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING IN MOST OF THOSE INSTANCES WE'RE RELABELING THE NO.

THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

TO THE GENERAL PLAN OR THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

CORRECT. IT'S MORE A TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM THAN.

IS THERE ANYWHERE WHERE WE GET TO SEE ALL THE OTHER CHANGES? SURE.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I DON'T NEED TO SEE IT TONIGHT.

SURE. YES, YES. WE CAN ITEMIZE THOSE. AND. CAN WE GO BACK, REALLY QUICK? YEAH, SURE. I JUST WANT TO NOTE ON THE FOURTH BULLETS.

SO WE DID THE ADDENDUM TO THE EIR THAT ONLY STUDIED UP TO 1.25 AT THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH PROPERTY.

THE REST OF THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL THAT WERE SET AT 0.75 IN THE ORIGINAL LAND USE ELEMENT DRAFT WOULD BE CAPPED AT THAT UNLESS WE UPDATE THE EIR, BUT. WOULD BE CAPPED AT 0.75? THE POINT BEING THAT WE DIDN'T STUDY BEYOND 0.75 FOR THE OTHER PI ZONES.

CORRECT. INCLUDING THE CIVIC CENTER AND. THE CIVIC CENTER, ANNEX AND BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT WERE STUDIED AT 1.25.

OKAY. IF WE CHANGE CUMULATIVELY IN THE 0.75, WAS THE CAP FOR THE BALANCE OF THE.

[01:55:05]

EIR. IT IS. YES, YES. AND THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF ALL OF THE PI AT THOSE, THOSE LEVELS.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE, JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

ON THE STUDY, WE STUDIED UP TO 1.25 FOR BEACH CITIES, BUT WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? 0.5? 0.5? YES. OKAY. WOULDN'T THAT, I MEAN, WE'RE LESS THAN WHAT'S THERE TODAY, ISN'T THAT A? WE WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT WE SET IT AT 0.5. YOU WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT? NO. OKAY. FOR THAT VERY QUESTION, YOU WERE JUST ABOUT TO ASK.

OKAY, OKAY. I DIDN'T ASK IT. OKAY. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. SORRY. FIRE STATION 2 IS PART OF THE 0.75 PI? IT WOULD BE. WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK TO THAT TABLE SEAN, THAT SHOWS THE BREAKDOWN.

SO WE HAVE WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ADEQUATE COVERAGE AT 0.75 AT OUR TWO FIRE STATION LOCATIONS.

THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE SORT OF SHOWS THAT TABLE.

SO WE COULD DOUBLE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WE'RE GOOD AT 0.75. SAME WITH FIRE STATION ONE? YES. NO, FIRE STATION ONE YOU COULD GO UP BY 50%.

YEAH. WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE MORE THAN, AND REMEMBER, WE'RE FUNDED.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER, BUT WE'RE FUNDED FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WE'RE NOT INCREASING SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY, THANKS.

OKAY, ALL RIGHT. THAT'S. AND THESE ARE THE LOCATIONS MAPPED OF THE MAJOR CHANGES IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE. SO IT SHOWS ALL THE C-N IN THE AACAP AREA, THE C-4 ALONG PCH, AND THEN THE INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS NORTH OF MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD AND THEN THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.

THOSE QUALIFY AS BOTH CITY HALL, THE ANNEX, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER PROPOSED PI DESIGNATIONS.

THOSE ALL FALL UNDER A MAJOR CHANGE IN ALLOWABLE LAND USE.

ALTHOUGH CITY HALL IS NOT CHANGING. OH, YEAH, EXCEPT FOR CITY HALL, WHICH HAS A 1.25 ZONING.

SO THE RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION IS TO SET THE FAR CAP FOR THE PI ZONES AND THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SITE.

AND THIS IS A LIST OF ALL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE 1.25 FOR CITY HALL AND THE ANNEX THE 1.0 AND 1.2.

AND BETWEEN 1.0 AND 1.25 FOR EXCUSE ME, BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT.

AND THEN SETTING THE FAR AT 0.75 FOR ALL OTHER PI PROPERTIES.

AND THEN SET THE FAR CAP FOR THE I-1 AND I-3 DESIGNATIONS NORTH OF MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD ALONG FROM THE POINT SEVEN TO THE 1.0, AND THEN CHANGE THE C-2 TO C-4.

INCREASE THE FAR FROM 0.5 TO 1.0 IN THOSE AREAS IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP IN PCH NORTH AND PCH CENTRAL, AND THEN MAINTAIN THE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION TO P FOR THE AES SITE AND THE SCE TRANSMISSION EASEMENTS, AND THEN AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM THE OPEN SPACE TO PI AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OWNED PROPERTIES, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, BUT WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME WORK ON THAT.

ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THIS BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSED FROM THE STAFF REPORT.

WHAT, AND I FORGET ON THE PREVIOUS TABLE. WHAT'S THE BUILD OUT FAR OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SITES, ON AVERAGE? IS IT? THEY'RE NOT APPROACHING 0.5, ARE THEY? NO, THEY'RE VERY LOW HERE. I'LL JUMP BACK. I THINK LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE A.

DO I HAVE THAT TABLE IN THE ONE OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORTS.

YOU JUST BRING UP THE ATTACHMENTS. OH, YEAH. THE STAFF REPORT.

DO YOU HAVE THAT AVAILABLE? I DO, BUT I CAN'T.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT'S AT? BUT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING 0.75 FOR CONSISTENCY OR BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS BACK IN 2021.

THE CONSISTENCY. CONSISTENCY. YES. CONSISTENCY.

YEAH THAT'S A THAT'S A LOT OF GROWTH. I MEAN I KNOW IT DOESN'T THEY DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY IT.

BUT 0.75 ON IF YOU PUT IT ACROSS ALL SCHOOL PROPERTY THAT'S THE BIGGEST IMPACT OF ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE DOWN AROUND 0.25. THEY'RE IN THE 0.2 TO LOW 0.3.

YEAH THEY'RE VERY. THEY'RE IN THE 0.2, LOW 0.3.

YEAH. SO IF WE PUT IT AT OPEN SPACE AT POINT TWO THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE NOW.

[02:00:08]

OPTION ONE IS TO ADOPT THE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE AND CONDUCT A SPECIAL ELECTION IN LATE SUMMER 2026.

SO KEEPING ALL THESE REMAINING ITEMS TOGETHER AND MOVING THEM TO A SPECIAL ELECTION IN LATE SUMMER 2026.

AND THAT'S STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEN OPTION TWO IS TO BIFURCATE THE LAND USE ELEMENT, UPDATE AND BREAK OUT THE AACAP FAR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, FOR A JUST A DECISION ON MARCH 3RD, AND THEN A SPECIAL ELECTION IN JUNE 2026, AND THEN COUNCIL APPROVES THE BALANCE OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT FOR CHANGES.

YOU KNOW, ON THAT LATE SUMMER 2026 TIMETABLE.

AND JUST TO PUT A FINE POINT ON THAT, THE CONCERN WITH THAT, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO GET THE AACAP DONE.

AND WE'VE HEARD THAT AND WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BE EXPEDITIOUS ABOUT IT.

WE DID TEE UP FEHR & PEERS TO POTENTIALLY CONDUCT THE ARTICLE 27 RELATED ANALYSIS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR US TO ACCELERATE AND POSSIBLY HOST THAT ELECTION IN JUNE. THE PROBLEM WE FACE IS WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD TWO ELECTIONS RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE SET $280,000 ASIDE FOR A SINGLE CITY RUN SPECIAL ELECTION, WHICH WE CAN CONDUCT ADEQUATELY THIS SUMMER AT THAT EXPENSE.

FOR US TO CONSOLIDATE THE ELECTION INTO JUNE WITH THE COUNTY WOULD BE $307,000.

IT WOULD COST MORE THAN WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN THE BUDGET, AND THEN WE WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SECONDARY ACTIONS ON THE REMAINING REMAINDER OF THE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS. SO WE'D EFFECTIVELY HAVE TWO ELECTIONS. THAT'S THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THE INABILITY FOR US TO ACTUALLY FUND TWO ELECTIONS AND THEREFORE BIFURCATE THESE TWO ACTIONS. MAYOR. DOES THAT COST INCLUDE THE PUBLICATION OF THE OF THE MEASURE DD, ARTICLE 27 DATA FOR TWO ELECTIONS VERSUS ONE? WELL, THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL INCREMENTAL COSTS TO STUDY IT SEPARATELY THAT IS ANOTHER COST FACTOR.

TO PUBLISH THAT AND SEND IT TO. WE WOULD HAVE TWO SEPARATE PUBLISHINGS.

WE WOULD HAVE TWO SEPARATE ARTICLE 27 ANALYZES.

IT'S NOT AN ENTIRELY DUPLICATIVE EFFORT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE STUDY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OTHER ACTIONS.

BUT YES, THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL INCREMENTAL COST IN THAT RESPECT AS WELL.

AND THERE'S SOME POTENTIAL CONFUSION AMONGST THE PUBLIC BECAUSE I JUST VOTED ON THIS.

AND THEN WHEN WE SAY LATE, LATE SUMMER, WE'RE TALKING AUGUST, RIGHT? RIGHT, THAT'S OUR GOAL. SO TWO MONTHS LATER. YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT'S CLEANER.

I KNOW THERE'S SOME DISAPPOINTMENT IN WANTING TO GET AACAP DONE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SOME BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS.

YEAH. A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS, IF I MAY, MAYOR. YES. WHAT IS APPROXIMATELY THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE OF HAVING TO DO THE TWO ARTICLE 27 ANALYZES, IF YOU BIFURCATE OUT THE AACAP. MARK, ANY SENSE THAT YOU GUYS SPOKE TO FEHR & PEERS ON THIS? IT COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 20 TO 30,000 TO RUN TWO SEPARATE ANALYZES.

AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S TWO REASONS WHY WE'RE LIKELY NOT GOING TO BIFURCATE, AND YOU'RE NOT RECOMMENDING WE BIFURCATE AACAP FOR JUNE ELECTION. ONE, WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING SET ASIDE FOR THAT.

SO, AND IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO CONSOLIDATE AND DO ALL THE ARTICLE 27 AT A LATER DATE TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, MAYBE THAT'S AUGUST. YEAH, HOPEFULLY AUGUST. WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT AUGUST.

ALL RIGHT. SEPTEMBER WOULD BE THE OUT DATE. SEPTEMBER THE OUT DATE.

AND THEN SECONDLY, TO THE MAYOR'S POINT YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE THE ARTICLE 27 ANALYSIS AND WORKUP FOR AACAP THAT'S NOT COMPLETE.

AND THAT'S NOT JUST FEHR & PEERS, I PRESUMABLY DIRECTOR WIENER WOULD BE INVOLVED.

STAFF IS VERY INVOLVED IN HELPING. IT'S NOT JUST FEHR & PEERS IS PLACE WORKS AS WELL.

OKAY. AND THEN WITH THE GUIDANCE FROM MARC AND SEAN AND THEIR TEAM IT'S AN INTENSIVE EFFORT.

IT'S AN INTENSIVE EFFORT. AND PRESUMABLY WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT, NOT RUSH IT.

SO I THINK I SPEAK FOR AT LEAST MYSELF THAT. YEAH, WE WANT AACAP NOW.

WE WANT AACAP YESTERDAY. RIGHT. BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO DO A JUNE ELECTION ON IT, AND IT MAY BE A BIT OF A CRUNCH TO TRY TO GET IT DONE, RIGHT, PLUS THE INCREMENTAL COST, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION IN JUNE, A BALLOT IN JUNE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

CORRECT. OKAY. IF SOMETHING CHANGES AND SOMEHOW IT BECOMES FISCALLY FEASIBLE TO DO THIS IN JUNE, I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN. AND IF WE GET A BREAK IN TIME FOR MARC AND OTHERS TO DO THE ARTICLE 27 ANALYSIS,

[02:05:06]

LIKE I MEAN WE DID SORT OF TEE THEM UP DIRECT AND THEY'RE ON STANDBY FOR THIS VERY QUESTION.

WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO HAVE THEM HIT GO AND GO QUICKLY TOMORROW.

OKAY. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED.

WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. AND IN FACT THIS ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO BACK UP FROM THE 30 DAY CYCLE FOR THE MARCH 3RD CALL FOR ELECTION FOR JUNE MEANS THAT THAT ANALYSIS DROPS EFFECTIVELY FEBRUARY 1ST. YOU KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT BASICALLY TWO WEEKS TO DO THAT.

SO A LITTLE UNDER THAT. AND I SEE OUR CITY CLERK SHAKING HER HEAD.

SHE'S KNOWLEDGEABLE. SHE KNOWS. SO THAT'S AN ISSUE TOO.

WE GOT TO GET IT UP. ALL RIGHT, AT THIS POINT, BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND EVERYTHING I'M HEARING, I'M NOT SEEING A JUNE ELECTION HAPPENING ON AACAP, BUT OUR HEARING IS NOT OVER, SO I'LL STAY TUNED.

YEAH, WE DID PUSH BACK ON ONE THING. I THINK FEHR & PEERS THOUGHT THEY'D HAVE TO DO A VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS, WHICH IS A LENGTHIER YEAH, ANALYSIS. BUT ARTICLE 27 DOESN'T JUST THAT THAT'S A CEQA REQUIREMENT.

YEAH, THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, THE VMT ANALYSIS CALLS FOR VERY, I'M LEARNING AND FRUSTRATINGLY SO VERY INTENSIVE AI BASED MODELING THAT NOW IS OCCURRING THESE DAYS AND EFFECTIVELY PLUGGING SOME OF THESE POLICY POSITIONS INTO A COMPUTER, AND IT'S MARINATING FOR LIKE SIX WEEKS. AND THEN OUT COMES THE DATA.

IT'S A LITTLE TERRIFYING IN SOME RESPECTS, BUT THAT'S THE CURRENT CULTURE OF THAT COTTAGE INDUSTRY, THE CONSULTING COTTAGE INDUSTRY. SO THE LOS IS A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT IT IS STILL PRETTY INTENSIVE EFFORT.

SO I WE FEEL BETTER, BUT. IT'S NOT A SIX WEEK SIMULATION RUN.

IT'S NOT A SIX WEEK SIMULATION, IT'S MUCH LESS THAN THAT. BUT WE FEEL WE FEEL A LOT BETTER ABOUT A SUMMER ARTICLE 27 EXCLUSIVE DISCUSSION ELECTION.

WE FEEL BETTER ABOUT THAT ANALYSIS AND GETTING THAT DONE. OKAY, COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. JUST JUMPING BACK TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AND WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING FOR THE BCHD FAR.

OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS I'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY NUMEROUS RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN AND AROUND THE HOSPITAL CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE OF PROPOSED PROJECTS THERE. AND EVEN THIS WEEK I'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF EMAILS FROM THEM AS WELL, TALKING ABOUT THE LOWER FAR THAT WAS RECOMMENDED.

SOMETHING CLOSER TO WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

SO HOW DID STAFF GET TO 1.0 TO 1.25? IS BASED ON THE PROJECT THAT BEACH CITIES HEALTH IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT WHICH SERVES THE COMMUNITY.

I WILL SAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS IN PART DUE TO SOME OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED DURING THE HEARING PROCESS.

WE HAD MULTIPLE HEARINGS ON THIS. BUT REALLY THAT FAR LIMIT IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE OR HAVE IN THE WORKS AND HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS ON AND WE ANTICIPATE WILL BE COMING FORWARD SOON.

AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT, COUNCILMAN MUCH LIKE THE CHALLENGES WE FACED ON ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND SOME OF OUR COMMERCIAL AREAS, WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCENTIVIZE REVITALIZATION REINVESTMENT, I THINK THE HEALTH DISTRICT IS FACING THAT CHALLENGE AS WELL.

WE'RE CERTAINLY SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY AROUND THAT PROPERTY.

WE THINK A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS ARE BEST ADDRESSED THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, THE SPECIFIC PROJECT APPLICATION AND REVIEW.

BUT FOR THE SAME REASON THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FAR CAP CHANGES IN ARTESIA AND IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES, IT'S TO PROVIDE FOR VIGOR AND REINVESTMENT IN OUR WHAT HAVE BECOME VERY TIRED PROPERTIES.

AND I THINK THAT SAME LOGIC APPLIES TO THE HEALTH DISTRICT AS IT DOES OUR KEY COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS.

SO THE GOAL HOPEFULLY WITH THAT PROJECT IS IT CREATES A COMMUNITY SERVING COMMERCIAL RESOURCE THAT'S ATTRACTIVE, HEALTHY, VIBRANT AND CONTEMPORARY, AND THEY FIND A WAY TO DO IT IN AS A FASHION AS POSSIBLE.

IF WE WERE TO ARTIFICIALLY LOWER THAT FAR CAP, IT WOULD BE A BIG CHALLENGE FOR THEM TO DO THAT.

OKAY. OKAY, COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. THANK YOU.

ACTUALLY, ANSWERING COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT QUESTION.

I LOOKED AT THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON THE SCHOOL SITES HERE.

I'M SEEING 0.22, 0.30, 0.32, 0.21. SO I THINK 0.32 IS THE HIGHEST, MAYBE 0.35 ON ONE OF THE SCHOOL SITES.

BIRNEY AND SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE KIND OF SMALL.

THE BIGGER PROPERTIES, LIKE THE HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS WILL BE LOWER.

[02:10:02]

JUST STATUS QUO, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.

I THINK IT'S EASIER TO LEAVE THINGS BE IN THAT CASE.

WITH REGARDS TO YOU KNOW, LOWERING THE FAR TOO MUCH LOWER, IT'S, I GET THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY HALL WERE ALREADY 1.25, BUT TO SAY, WELL, HEY, YOU KNOW, THE ANNEX, WE ALSO WANT TO BE 1.25, BUT ALL YOU OTHER PEOPLE, YOU WANT TO BE SMALLER.

THAT SEEMS WEIRD. SEEMS WEIRD TO ME THAT WE WOULD MAKE OUR OWN ZONING.

BE SO MUCH MORE PERMISSIBLE WHILE TELLING OTHER PROPERTIES THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

SO WHATEVER WE WOULD CHOOSE FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT FOR THE OTHER PI TYPE PLACES I THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE TO BE AS UNIFORM AS POSSIBLE WHETHER THAT'S 0.75, 1.0, 1.25. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T STUDY ANYTHING LARGER THAN 0.75 THAT BECOMES AN ADDED COST.

AND THAT'S AN ISSUE. I WASN'T. SIGNIFICANT TIME.

WE WEREN'T. YEAH, IT WAS DIFFERENT. IT WAS A DIFFERENT COUNCIL WHEN THEY DIRECTED YOU TO DO THAT. SO IT'S YOU KNOW, IF I WAS THERE I WOULD HAVE SAID, HEY, LOOK, LET'S TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME AND AT LEAST FIND OUT WHAT THAT IS.

WITH THE REALITIES OF TIME AND BUDGET AND ALL THAT.

I COULD SEE HAVING THE 0.75 REMAIN AT THE OTHERS, EVEN THOUGH PERSONALLY I THINK IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE HIGHER JUST BECAUSE TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME MAKES SENSE. FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT I'VE SEEN THEM BE A VERY GOOD PARTNER TO THE SCHOOLS.

A LOT OF SERVICES FOR OUR SENIORS. THEY HELP SENIORS REMAIN IN PLACE WITH THE SERVICES THEY HAVE.

THEY'VE GOT THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY LIVING. THEY'VE SUPPORTED ALLCOVE IN THEIR FACILITY, GIVING THEM THAT EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH A HIGHER FAR DOES MAKE SENSE TO ME. OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, A LOT OF EMAILS, A LOT OF PHONE CALLS. AND I WOULD SAY IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO 50/50 FROM WHAT I'M HEARING MYSELF OF SUPPORT VERSUS OPPOSITION.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE I CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A GROUNDSWELL OF PEOPLE THAT ALL FEEL ONE WAY VERSUS THE OTHER.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE HALF THE PEOPLE PISSED OFF, NO MATTER WHAT DECISION WE MAKE ON THE FAR.

AND SO AT THAT POINT, I WOULD GO WITH MY PERSONAL THOUGHT TO GO ON THE HIGHER SIDE THAN THE LOWER SIDE.

AND ON THAT, ULTIMATELY, IF THAT DOES HAPPEN, IT'S STILL GOT TO GO THROUGH ARTICLE 27.

FOLKS STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IT.

THIS IS JUST PUTTING THAT OPPORTUNITY OUT THERE WHATEVER WE DECIDE.

GIVE THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY. AND THERE MAY BE AS YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE AS HAS DISCUSSED, SEVERAL BALLOT MEASURE QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ARTICLE 27 ACTION.

I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL. SO YEAH, LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY, PERHAPS, MAYBE NOT.

WELL, WE'LL TALK THROUGH THIS. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TABLE YOU HAD FOR THE PI ZONES? SO, OUR CITY HALL, WHERE'S THAT ONE? .58. 415 DIAMOND.

WE'RE AT 0.63 ALREADY. YEP. AND 0.75 TAKES US UP TO 217,932.

WELL REMEMBER WE'RE ALREADY DESIGNATED AT 1.25 IN THE ZONING CODE.

BUT I THOUGHT YOU WERE ADVOCATING MAKING IT ALL THE SAME.

SEE, THAT'S I THINK IS THE DIFFERENCE IS THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE GENERAL PLAN ZONING.

SO THERE'S DIFFERENT, THERE'S ALREADY DIFFERENT DENSITIES ALLOWED.

YEAH, WE'RE ALREADY SET AT 1.25 FOR THE ANNEX SITE AND CIVIC CENTER.

UNDER GENERAL PLAN OR UNDER THE UNDERLYING ZONING? THE ZONING CODE. YES. THE UNDERLYING ZONING. UNDER THE ZONING CODE. PCE. AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO PAINT THIS WITH ONE BROAD PAINTBRUSH WHERE ALL PIS ARE THE SAME. SO I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE FAIRNESS PRINCIPLE, BUT I THINK SOME OF THIS HAS BEEN EVOLVED FROM UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS, AND I THINK IT'S FAIRLY. I DO THINK IT'S FAIRLY SAFE TO SAY THAT THE CIVIC CENTER IS A UNIQUE APPARATUS.

I MEAN, IT'S YOU HAVE ONE CIVIC CENTER. I THINK IT'S FAIR FOR US TO ISOLATE AND TREAT THE ZONING AND THE CAPS FOR OUR CAMPUS HERE DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER SITES. WE SERVE MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS. STAFF HAVE GROWN.

AND WE DON'T SERVE A, WE DON'T SERVE A SINGLE FUNCTION. WE SERVE MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS AT THIS LOCATION.

YEP. OKAY. AND WHEN DID THE LIBRARY GET BUILT?

[02:15:04]

OKAY. I DO, I SEE WE HAVE WAYNE CRAIG IN THE AUDIENCE.

CAN YOU REPRESENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INPUTS OR DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

OH, WELL, LET'S GET THE NEW. LET'S GET THE CHAIR OUT.

WHERE'S THE. I THOUGHT YOU'RE THE CHAIR. I'M THE CHAIR.

SO YOU WOULD SPEAK INDIVIDUALLY? I MEAN, NOBODY SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, SO.

WE DON'T WANT YOU TO ARM WRESTLE. JUST, CAN YOU GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS? JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE BEFORE WE.

OKAY, SO OUR PERSPECTIVE WAS THAT THE EXISTING THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THERE, RIGHT? WHETHER IT'S THE SCHOOL OR BCHD. AND WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T FEEL AND THINK THAT THERE WAS A NEED FOR INCREASING THE INTENSITY AT THE TIME.

ALSO PROJECTIONS FOR GROWTH FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS, VERY LOW, IF NOT NON-EXISTENT RIGHT NOW STATEWIDE AND COUNTYWIDE.

SO WE DIDN'T PERCEIVE THAT THERE WAS A NEED FOR INTENSIFYING.

WE DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE GROWTH AND THAT WE ALSO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE, RIGHT? THE FACT THAT THESE SPACES ARE BEING USED, THESE OPEN SPACES ARE BEING USED FOR SPORTS, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D LIKE TO.

YEAH, BASICALLY, AND THEN THE IDEA WAS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAW RIGHT NOW, BCHD IS A 0.58.

CERTAINLY IF THEY WANTED TO GO LARGER THAN THAT, THEY COULD JUST LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD. AND WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAD A SAY IN THAT AND TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME OPEN SPACE, IN THE EVENT ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WANTED TO PROMOTE A LARGER DEVELOPMENT ON THE, ON THEIR EXISTING LAND. BY NOT ALLOWING THAT, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING THAT VOTE AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC.

IF WE BURIED IT WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN, THE PUBLIC PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT SEPARATELY.

IT WOULD BE AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITION. RIGHT.

SO THE IDEA WAS BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AT .58 NOW.

THEY COULD CERTAINLY APPLY FOR A LARGER PROJECT JUST LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD. NOTHING HOLDS THAT BACK. IT JUST HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROPER REVIEW PROCESS AND A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEY WILL ENSURE THE PUBLIC WOULD ALL HAVE A SAY IN WHAT WHAT IS GOING TO BE BEING DEVELOPED IN ALL THE PROJECTS.

HAVING HEARD THE RATIONALE, THE CITY, ON CITY STAFF ON WHY WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE SITE, ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? I KNOW YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE COMMISSION, BUT YOU TWO PERSONALLY.

WELL, I THINK WE WERE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THAT, ONLY BECAUSE IT WASN'T GOING TO BE IN PLAY FOR PROBABLY QUITE SOME TIME.

MAYBE IT'S STILL IN LITIGATION. IT'S IT'S A ZONE CURRENTLY IS FOR PARKLAND WITH POWER GENERATION.

YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT MAY BECOME AN IMPORTANT DESIGNATION.

WE MAY HAVE TO CHANGE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT WASN'T REALLY ON THE TABLE. WE WERE DISCOURAGED FROM LOOKING AT IT.

YEAH, WE WERE BASICALLY THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE GPAC, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. HOW ABOUT THE LAST ONE YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING AT, YOU THINK LIKE ALTA VISTA PARK SHOULD BE ZONED TO THE PI? WELL, I THINK THERE WAS A AND HEARING THAT EXPLANATION I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MISS LAMB, THAT THERE WERE SOME PROPERTY THAT IN THE MAP WAS INCORRECTLY CATEGORIZED AS OPEN FIELD THAT DID BELONG TO THE SCHOOL, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE WERE CHANGING THE DESIGNATION THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD COME BACK AND SAID, I THINK IT WAS AT ANDERSON PARK. THERE'S A SECTION THERE THAT WAS ACTUALLY SAYING IT WAS PART OF THE CITY, BUT IT WASN'T. IT WAS ACTUALLY A SCHOOL DISTRICT LAND. AND SO WE HAD TO CHANGE THAT AROUND.

AND THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION REALLY CAME FROM ON THAT. SO IS MORE FINE THAN WHAT IS SPECIFIED HERE IS MORE SURGICAL.

THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. IF YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING DIFFERENT, OR I THINK THAT THERE WAS A KIND OF A QUANDARY ABOUT THAT, IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF TO GO WITH THE PI.

I THINK THAT JUST AS COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT BROUGHT IT UP.

I THINK WE WERE CONFLICTED ABOUT IT, AND THAT THOSE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ARE PRECIOUS, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THEM DECREASED. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS CURRENTLY,

[02:20:07]

SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO PRESERVE THESE SPACES WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

YEAH. OKAY. THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? ACTUALLY I DO ACTUALLY.

HOLD UP, HOLD UP. WAIT. SORRY. ONE MORE. YEAH.

ON THE SCHOOL SIDE, THE OPEN SPACE PARK, WHATEVER.

IS IT SPECIFICALLY THE CURRENT OPEN FIELDS, OR IS IT THE FULL SCHOOL SITES, LIKE THE FORMER FRANKLIN SCHOOL SITE IS HALF OF THAT IS THE FRIENDSHIP FOUNDATION, AND HALF OF THAT IS PARK. ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE WHOLE SITE SAYING IT SHOULD BE OPEN SPACE OR.

IT WAS THE PARTS OF IT, I THOUGHT IT WAS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

BECAUSE, LIKE SPECIFICALLY I REMEMBER, AGAIN, THIS WAS GOING BACK TO WHAT THE 2024.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ANDERSON PARK SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THERE'S A PARK, THERE'S AN OPEN FIELD AND THERE'S A SCHOOL.

AND I KNOW THAT FOR SOME REASON THE MAP HAD IT REVERSED.

SO WHAT WAS THE CITY PROPERTY WAS, IN FACT, THE SCHOOLS.

AND SO THERE WAS LIKE SOME MISTAKE IN THE MAP, AND THAT WAS CORRECTED, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND MR. SCULLY COULD PROBABLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT WAS WHERE THAT WAS.

IN ALTA VISTA I ASKED THE QUESTION TO I SAID, WELL, IS THE BUILDING THAT'S CURRENTLY THE CLUBHOUSE OR IS THAT STILL THE CITY PROPERTY? BECAUSE WHEN THAT LAND WAS CREATED, IT WAS ACTUALLY LIKE A SUMP AT ONE POINT WAS FILLED IN.

AND THEN AS PART OF THE BUILD OUT OF THAT, THE CITY RETAINED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ONE SECTION WHERE THE TENNIS COURTS AND WHERE THE WHERE THE PARK BUILDING IS NOW.

AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WOULD STILL REMAIN THE SAME.

AND WE WERE TOLD THAT WAS THE CASE. YEAH, AND I THINK STAFF NEEDS TO FIX SOME OF THE SCHOOL MAPS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH. BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS WEST. WELL, I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE OF THE SCHOOLS, NOT THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES, BECAUSE THAT IS CORRECT.

FOR ME, IT'S LIKE BIG DIFFERENCE TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE WHOLE SCHOOL 0.2 VERSUS THE PARK.

YEAH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT. WELL, THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE SCHOOL PROPERTY ITSELF.

WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER AS IT CURRENTLY IS. AND THAT'S WHY THAT WASN'T PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. BECAUSE THE CODE, AS LONG AS THEY BUILD AND IT'S FOR SCHOOL RELATED, WHATEVER, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

RIGHT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS BRING BACK SOME MORE DETAILED MAPS.

SO WE CAN SPECIFICALLY GO THROUGH WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNATED, WHAT WAS AT LEAST INITIALLY CONCEPTUALIZED AND PROPOSED, AND THEN WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME.

THERE WAS MORE CONTEXT TO THIS TIME PERIOD WHEN THIS REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE DISTRICT.

THERE WE WERE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAGE.

THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT FAIRNESS IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS, CONSISTENCY, AND SOME OTHER ELEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED AT THE TIME.

SO THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF CONTEXT, I THINK, WHEN THIS WAS BEING CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE REALLY REVISITED SINCE THEN.

BUT I THINK WITH OUR NEXT STAFF REPORT, WE CAN DRILL ONTO THIS.

SO YOU'VE GOT A MORE SPECIFIC IDEA OF EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS AS THEY SIT TODAY.

WHEN YOU DO IT, YOU ALSO BRING BACK THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

IS THAT. RIGHT, SO YOU CAN SEE. CLARIFY. YEAH, A LOT OF THIS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? STAFF PRESENTATION OVER? YES, IT IS.

GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CAN WE HEAR FROM MR. BAKALY, IF YOU'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT BCHD.

I JUST WANT, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON SATURDAY AT OUR MEETING, BUT I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT PLAN IS AT BCHD, AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT IF YOU WANT TO TELL US AND YOU KNOW, ARGUE IN SUPPORT OF THE FAR LIMIT THAT YOU WANT.

HI, TOM BAKALY, BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE. I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE COMMENTS RIGHT DURING.

SHOULD I MAKE MY COMMENTS NOW? YEAH. WE'RE NO WE'RE ASKING YOU QUESTIONS.

SO THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IS WHAT ARE OUR PLANS FOR THE.

FOR THE SITE. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND MOVING FORWARD.

SO WE HAVE SELECTED A PREFERRED DEVELOPER. THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT.

IT'S CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAR VENTURES, THEY ARE HERE.

THEY ARE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE EIR THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE.

IT'S ALSO UNDER THE 1.25. THAT WAS A STIPULATION THAT WE MADE WHEN WE WENT OUT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL.

[02:25:05]

AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT HERE TONIGHT IS TREATING SQUARE FOOTAGE AS AN INTENSITY OF USE, WHICH IT'S NOT, BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW ALL SQUARE FOOT IS NOT CREATED EQUAL, RIGHT.

THAT SOME HAVE MORE INTENSITY OF USE AND IMPACTS THAN OTHERS.

AND SO WE'RE GOING FROM A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING USE, HIGH TRAFFIC, HIGH IMPACTS TO LOWER IMPACTS WITH RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR THE ELDERLY. AND SO THAT REQUIRES MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING. AND SO I THINK AS YOU CONSIDER THIS AND THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL.

YES, THE FAR IS HIGHER THAN THE OTHER TWO, BUT IT PROVIDES MORE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, CREATES MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DELIVER WELLNESS PROGRAMS, HEALTH PROGRAMS, AND TO CREATE A BETTER CAMPUS, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CURRENTLY OUR PREFERRED DEVELOPER.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING. WHAT'S THE PROPOSED FAR THAT YOU NEED FOR THAT PROJECT? SO THAT FAR IS APPROXIMATELY 1, SLIGHTLY UNDER 1.

AGAIN, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE UNIFORM OF 1.25, AND MAYBE I CAN GET INTO THAT WHEN I MAKE MY COMMENTS.

BUT WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, THAT WAS PUBLICLY DISCLOSED OF WHAT THAT FAR IS, AND SO IT IS SLIGHTLY UNDER 1.0.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A PROPOSED DIFFERENT MEASURE OF INTENSITY THAN FAR? WELL, WE DID SUGGEST THAT IN OUR LETTER THAT WE SENT TO YOU WE SUGGESTED THAT THAT COULD BE COVERED BY HEIGHT OR SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE MORE ROOM TO MOVE. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE STRUGGLING WITH IS YOU'RE HARD CODING THESE THINGS INTO YOUR GENERAL PLAN THAT REQUIRE A VOTE.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF HE WENT WITH MORE GENERAL PARAMETERS AND THEN USED WHAT'S BEEN WORKING GREAT.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IN OUR CASE, WE'RE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE SCHOOLS ARE NOT. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT DISPARITY THERE.

BUT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING WITH HEIGHT OR COVERAGE, BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE IS NO FAR CAP ON OUR PROPERTY.

THERE IS NO HEIGHT CAP ON OUR PROPERTY. AND SO YOU COULD COME IN WITH SOME OF THOSE MORE GENERAL PARAMETERS AND THEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF IMPACTS THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE NOW.

SO I WOULD ARGUE MAYBE GO A LITTLE MORE GENERAL AND THEN USE THE PROCESS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I MAKE A COMMENT. YES YOU MAY.

THANKS, MAYOR. SO ACTUALLY MR. BAKALY'S COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN INSOFAR AS IN MY EXPERIENCE AT BCHD, IF I GO THERE FOR MY CHILD'S CHECKUP AT THE PEDIATRICIAN, MY WIFE AND I DRIVE IN A TRIP, WE MAKE A TRIP, WE GO INTO A LITTLE ROOM, SMALL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WE SIT THERE, WE SPEND HALF AN HOUR THERE, WE LEAVE.

WE'VE JUST DONE TWO TRIPS, AND THAT'S ONE PATIENT ROOM IN A CLINIC WITH MANY PATIENT ROOMS. AND IMAGINE HOW MANY OTHER PARENTS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME TRIP, AND HOW MANY CARS ARE GOING IN AND OUT.

YOU CONVERT THAT TO AN ELDERLY CARE FACILITY.

I'VE NEVER BEEN I'VE NEVER SPENT MUCH TIME AT ONE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE RUN, BUT I IMAGINE THE ELDERS WHO RESIDE THERE AREN'T LEAVING EVEN NECESSARILY TWICE A DAY.

MAYBE SOME OF THEM HAVE CARS. MAYBE THEY DON'T, I'M NOT SURE.

THE PEOPLE WHO CARE FOR THEM PROBABLY SHOW UP FOR, YOU KNOW, THREE SHIFTS IN A GIVEN DAY, EIGHT-HOUR SHIFTS. SO I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT ONE IS THE ELDERLY CARE FACILITY IS GENERATING AS MUCH TRAFFIC AS THE CURRENT MEDICAL USES. WITH THAT SAID, I AM HIGHLY SENSITIVE AND HAVE HEARD OVER FOUR PLUS YEARS ON COUNCIL TO THE SIZE AND MASSING ON THE PROPERTY. TO THE EXTENT SOMETHING BECOMES VERY TALL.

AND PEOPLE ARE TERRIFIED OF THAT, CONSIDERING THAT THE PROPERTY ITSELF SITS ABOVE GRADE TO SOME OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR FROM THE COUNCIL? YOU WERE LOOKING JUST FOR OPTION 1 OR 2. THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TONIGHT? WELL, THAT'S A VERY FUNDAMENTAL DECISION, BUT ALSO DIRECTION ON THESE MATTERS AS YOU ARE PREPARED TO GIVE IT, RIGHT. WE CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK AND CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION IF WE TAKE THE NON-BIFURCATED ELECTION ROUTE AND BRING EVERYTHING BACK.

DO YOU NEED A VOTE ON THE NON-BIFURCATION, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION? WELL WE'RE GOING TO NEED SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE CORPORATE BODY HERE BEFORE THE END OF THE EVENING. CAN WE DO IT IN MULTIPLE MOTIONS IF YOU LIKE.

SURE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SINCE THIS IS COMPLEX, DO YOU GUYS WANT TO HEAR PUBLIC FIRST BEFORE WE MAKE MOTIONS,

[02:30:04]

SORRY. GO AHEAD. IF WE DO, I MEAN, NOW WE'RE GETTING WE'RE GETTING TO THE FALL TO DO A SPECIAL ELECTION.

AND THAT WOULD BE A CITY ELECTION AT A COST OF SOME $350,000.

WHAT IS IT, 280 IF WE DO IT OURSELVES? OKAY, 280.

NOW, IF WE JUST GO WITH THE NOVEMBER STATEWIDE ELECTION, HOW MUCH IS THAT? IT'S CHEAPER. SAVING OF $50,000. OKAY. THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. SO DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR DO YOU WANT TO HEAR THE PUBLIC? THE PUBLIC. I'M OPEN TO HEARING THE PUBLIC. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION, WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS TO DO.

I THINK IN ORDER TO LET THE PUBLIC TUNE THEIR COMMENTS TO WHAT WE'RE INTENDING TO DO, IF WE CAN, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU GUYS ARE READY TO MAKE ONE.

WELL, WORK BACKWARDS WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE.

YEAH. SO I MEAN I SENSE THERE'S SOME AGREEMENT ON OPTION.

TWO. NOT BIFURCATING THE ELECTION. AND WE COULD TALK THROUGH THIS I, UNLESS WE HEAR SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE NOT BIFURCATING THE WAY TO GO.

AND THEN WE'LL MAYBE GET SOME FURTHER INPUT ON WHEN SPECIFICALLY WE WILL HAVE THAT ELECTION BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S, AS YOU'VE STATED, A LOT OF MOVING PARTS IN THE ARTICLE, 27 WORK'S GOT TO BE DONE AND YOU NEED DIRECTION ON WHAT TO DO.

RIGHT, THAT'S THE THING. THE KEY FOR US TO GET TO THE GROUPED ELECTION, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD CONSOLIDATED BECAUSE THAT'S A TERM OF OUR IN ELECTION LAW. BUT TO DO THE SINGULAR ELECTION FOR ARTICLE 27, WE'RE GOING TO NEED DIRECTION ON ALL OF THE MAJOR CHANGE ITEMS. SO THE LONGER IT TAKES US TO GET THAT DIRECTION, THE LONGER IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TO DO THE ANALYSIS.

AND THEN FURTHER, IF THERE'S AN EIR CHANGE. YEAH, THAT, IF, THERE IS NO FALL ELECTION, IF THERE'S AN EIR CHANGE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. AND UNDER THE OPTION OF DOING A SINGLE ELECTION FOR ALL OF THE ARTICLE 27 MATTERS FOR THE CITY CLERK AND CITY ATTORNEY, WE'RE ABLE TO SEPARATE OUT THE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS ON EACH OF THE ITEMS. SO WE HAVE AACAP THAT COULD BE A STANDALONE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT.

AND IF YOU NEED MORE TIME TO LOOK INTO IT, THAT'S FINE.

BUT THERE'S A LOT IN HERE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO HAVE SEPARATE QUESTIONS ON THAT BALLOT, IF PERMISSIBLE. I BELIEVE THE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THAT IS, YES, WE CAN.

AND WE, WHEN YOU GAVE ME ESTIMATES INITIALLY IT WAS UP TO FIVE BALLOT MEASURE RELATED QUESTIONS AT THAT $280,000 CITY RUN ELECTION.

YES. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. JUST SO LONG AS THOSE FIVE ARE ENCAPSULATED CAPPED BY THE ANALYSIS, THE DD ANALYSIS. YEAH, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE COVERAGE TO ALL FIVE FOR ALL FIVE.

YES. YEAH OKAY. OKAY, SO I THINK WE GOT OPTION ONE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. OPTION ONE WOULD BE, YEAH.

YEAH. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER. MOTION FOR.

WELL LET'S NOT GO THERE YET. LET'S GET EVERYTHING DOWN.

SO WE GOT OPTION ONE. ON THE FAR CAP FOR PI ZONES.

ANY CONSENSUS THERE? YOU KNOW, I THINK BRAD WALLER WAS PUTTING HIS FINGER ON THE ISSUE OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TOUGH ONE.

AND WE'LL HEAR FROM FOLKS THAT ARE HERE IF WE PUT IT AT 1.0, 1.25, ULTIMATELY THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO DECIDE ON IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT MAKING A FINAL DECISION.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY ON ANYTHING IN THAT RANGE OF 1.0 TO 1.25 FOR THE BCHD SITE. SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE INTO A 1.1. YEAH. SO WE COULD CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER.

OR WE CAN GO. YEAH. SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

I'M LOST ON WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE. YOU SAID BOTH THINGS.

WE'RE CONTEMPLATING. OKAY. CONTEMPLATING BETWEEN 1.0 AND 1.25.

I GOT A QUESTION. SORRY. MR. BAKALY, IF WE COULD BRING YOU BACK UP FOR A SECOND.

WHEN YOU SAY THE PROJECT PROPOSED BY YOUR PARTNER IS 1.0 OR SO, IS THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FA, THE FLOOR AREA OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE? OR IS THIS FOR A SWIPE OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY? THAT'S WHERE THE CAMPUS WOULD BE. SO THE ENTIRE CAMPUS WITH THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE AT 1.0.

OKAY. ARE YOU REQUESTING GREATER THAN 1.0? WE'RE REQUESTING UNIFORM OF 1.25 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER LARGE PROPERTY IN THE

[02:35:02]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COULD WE THEN PAIR A 1.25 FAR WITH ZONING LIMITATIONS ON INTENSITY AND DESIGN REVIEW, YOU KNOW, PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, ETC.? YES. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. IF WE DID, AND I SEEN YOU NOD YOUR HEAD YES, WHEN IT GOES TO A VOTE OF THE RESIDENTS, WILL IT JUST BE A 1.25 OR A 1.25 FAR SUBJECT TO THESE ZONING LIMITATIONS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. ON THE SECOND ONE, I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK.

BUT GOING BACK TO THE BASE QUESTION, YES, WE COULD HAVE THAT, THE CAP OF 1.25 IN THE GENERAL PLAN, WE CAN ADOPT ZONING STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE THAT THE PROJECT MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA IN TERMS OF SETBACK, NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS, THINGS LIKE THAT TO ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL MASSING.

THERE COULD BE A REFERENCE IN THE GENERAL PLAN TO CODIFYING THAT AS WELL.

SO IT CAN HAVE A CALL OUT IN THE GENERAL PLAN THAT THEY CAN ACHIEVE UP TO 1.25 FOR THAT ADDITIONAL THE CITY IS TO ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THAT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE HOW IT'S COUCHED ON THE ELECTION, I'M. I'LL DEFER. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR INTENT IS ON HOW ON WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING TOGETHER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

EVERYTHING TOGETHER ON THE BCHD ITEM THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.

SO YOU'RE ASKING, CAN YOU KEEP IT SEPARATE? COULD YOU INCLUDE WHEN YOU PUT THE FAR LIMIT, WHATEVER IT IS ON THE BALLOT, SAY, HEY, THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE TO LAND USE.

CAN YOU INCLUDE THAT IT'S ALL, IT'S A FAR LIMIT OF X, BUT IT'S SUBJECT TO THESE OTHER LIMITS, THESE SCALE AND SIZE LIMITATIONS, RIGHT. SO YOU WANT TO PUT THE SIZE LIMITS WITH THE FAR? RIGHT, HEIGHT LIMIT, FOR EXAMPLE.

IT CAN'T BE 60. IN 1 BALLOT MEASURE? I ACTUALLY HAVE A SUGGESTION ON THAT.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCES ARE SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 27 AS WELL.

SO WE COULD ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALSO BE WRAPPED INTO THAT.

SO SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE AACAP, HOW THE COUNCIL REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE AACAP WE COULD DO THE SAME FOR THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH PROPERTY. SO IT'S NOT JUST A BLANKET 1.25.

IT'S ALSO THESE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT GO WITH IT.

OKAY. OKAY. I LIKE THAT BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATE THE POINT MADE THAT INTENSITY ISN'T JUST BASED ON FLOOR AREA RATIO, FLOOR AREA, BUT ALSO BASED ON WHAT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND WE DID LOOK AT THE LETTER. WE TOOK IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND REVIEWED IT, THERE IS MERIT TO THAT.

WE THINK UNDER THE LAW WE COULD ADOPT A SIMILAR APPROACH.

FAR CAP, THOUGH, HAS BEEN HOW WE'VE STUDIED THIS ISSUE.

IT'S HOW WE CONDUCTED OUR ENVIRONMENTAL. IT'S HOW WE'VE TRADITIONALLY SET STANDARDS AND CAP STANDARDS IN OUR IN OUR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE.

SO TO DEVIATE FOR THAT FROM THAT, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE, WE FELT WASN'T, WOULDN'T WORK ON THE WHOLE, BUT CERTAINLY IDENTIFYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MIGHT HELP MITIGATE IMPACT AND CONCERNS.

WE CAN ABSOLUTELY BRING TO YOU AS PART OF A ZONING ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION.

ONE THING I DID WANT TO ASK IS, AS WE KNOW, BCHD IS IN DISTRICT THREE ADJACENT TO DISTRICT TWO, AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM THOSE DISTRICTS.

SO I DO WANT TO WITHHOLD FINAL JUDGMENT UNTIL I DO.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I THINK GOOD POINTS WERE MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING INTENSITY.

IS IT ADEQUATE FOR WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING? ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS IN 30 YEARS FROM NOW? AND ARE WE HANDCUFFING OUR FUTURE SELVES FOR ISSUES? I THINK THE PROPOSED OR WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING ABOUT A GENERAL PLAN, LISTING IT AT 1.25 WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THROUGH A ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE'RE JUST TALKING THROUGH THIS.

THAT WOULD ALL BE WRAPPED INTO ESSENTIALLY ONE QUESTION FOR THE RESIDENTS, WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM THE SECURITY OF THE INTENSITY OF THAT BUILDING. AND I THINK THAT'S A NICE COMPROMISE.

I THINK IT IT GIVES US TOOLS TO HEAR FROM RESIDENTS AND RESPOND TO ALL THE INTENSITY THAT'S NEEDED

[02:40:09]

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROPOSAL. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.

AND WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO GET TO WORK ON THAT. AND IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION COUNCIL JUST NOTE THAT DRAFTING THAT ORDINANCE, THAT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE AN EXERCISE THAT'S NOT LIKE, HEY, HERE WE GO, HERE'S THE TEMPLATE.

WE'VE GOT YOU COVERED. SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME, BUT I DON'T I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE LIKE CEQA ADDENDUM TIME.

IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE SOME STAFF TIME. YOU HAVE LITTLE HEARTBURN WITH IT.

I DON'T HAVE HEART. I LIKE THE IDEA FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT A LOT.

I HAVE A LITTLE HEARTBURN FOR ON THESE GUYS BEHALF AS TO THE LEVEL OF WORK THAT'S GOING TO ENSUE FOR US TO DO THAT.

BUT I DO THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE. AND UNDER THAT SCENARIO, IT WOULD BE A 1.0 FLOOR UP TO A 1.25 CAP SUBJECT.

I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I THINK THE CAP SET AT 1.25, SUBJECT TO THE THEN IDENTIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THERE'S NO FLOOR. YEAH, THERE'S NO FLOOR. IT WOULD BE A SINGLE CAP.

NO GUARANTEED 1.0. YOU COULD SAY AS OF RIGHT TO ONE POINT.

AS OF RIGHT 1.0. IF YOU WANT TO GO ABOVE 1.0, YOU COULD GO UP TO 1.25, SUBJECT TO THE.

I DON'T THINK WE WOULD DO I DON'T THINK WE NEED THE AS OF RIGHT. I THINK IT WOULD BE THE CAP WOULD BE 1.25, BUT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO WHAT X, Y, Z DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS ESTABLISHED STORY HEIGHTS.

OKAY, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. AND I THINK IT COULD GO EITHER WAY.

WHEN I ORIGINALLY REFERENCED IT, MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THE 1.0 WOULD BE BY RIGHT, IT'D STILL BE DISCRETIONARY, IT'D BE MORE, THERE WOULD BE MORE TOLERANCE FOR IT.

AND ANYTHING ABOVE THE 1.0 WOULD BE SUBJECT TO STRICTER CRITERIA, IF THEY LOOK TO EXCEED THAT FLOOR AREA AND ANY FUTURE PROJECT AT THE SITE. BUT WE COULD ALSO DO IT THE WAY THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED.

I THINK AS WE EXPLORE IT, WE CAN LOOK AT VARIOUS OPTIONS.

OKAY. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE, SECOND DISTRICT.

ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD TO? NO, I'M JUST DEBATING BECAUSE YOU KNOW, UNDER THEIR CURRENT PLANS THAT THEY'VE DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE UNDER THE 1.0 THRESHOLD. AND IT'S SIMILAR TO DIRECTOR WIENER IT, MAKING THAT EXTRA 2.5 ALMOST LIKE A BONUS IF THEY MEET CERTAIN THRESHOLDS AND DO 1.0 AS OF RIGHT.

SO THAT WAY IT SORT OF PROTECTS THEM, GIVES THEM SOME OPTIONS DOWN THE ROAD.

IF THEY HAVE SOME OTHER PROJECT IN THE FUTURE THAT COMES ALONG IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS.

BUT I MEAN, I LIKE THAT APPROACH, YOU KNOW. AND WE CAN LOOK INTO IT.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE CONFUSION, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU DON'T REALLY SET A FLOOR FOR A FLOOR AREA RATIO, RIGHT? YOU DON'T YOU DON'T YOU DON'T WANT TO SET A MINIMUM AS TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD.

YOU WANT TO SET A MAXIMUM AS TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD.

YEAH, MAXIMUM. AND THEN IF THEY MEET OTHER THRESHOLDS I THINK WHAT THE REALLY MINIMUM MAXIMUM AND THEN AN ALTERNATE MAXIMUM.

YEAH I GET IT. I THINK IF WE WANT TO GO DOWN THIS ROUTE, WE'LL DO SOME MORE RESEARCH TO SEE WHAT THOSE OPTIONS LOOK LIKE.

YEAH. OKAY, LET'S SEE EVERYBODY ANY ANYBODY AGAINST 1.25 FOR CITY HALL AND THE ANNEX? IT'S ALREADY BEEN STUDIED AND SAID THAT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE. OKAY, SO THAT SOUNDS A 1.25 FOR CITY HALL AND ANNEX.

WHAT ABOUT THE ALL THE OTHER, THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE? WELL, WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY HEAR BACK AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH MORE INFORMATION ON THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES AND THE OPEN SPACE.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT THOUGH. YOU HAD SAID THAT I MEAN, THE SCHOOL IS RUN BY THE STATE, RIGHT? LIKE THAT IS THE GOVERNING BODY FOR THAT.

SO WHETHER IT'S, WE SET A 0.75 OR WE SET A 0.2 IS IRRELEVANT, RIGHT? IT IS. I DON'T HAVE A SAY. IT IS AS IT RELATES TO SCHOOL RELATED DEVELOPMENT.

THE ONLY THING THAT WHERE IT WOULDN'T IS IF THEY DECIDED TO BUILD SOMETHING UNDER THE PI ZONE OR THE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION, HYPOTHETICALLY, DEPENDING ON WHAT WE CHOSE. OPEN SPACE BUILDING? YEAH, THE OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY CENTER THAT WASN'T FOR SCHOOL, BUT FOR THE COMMUNITY.

OR IF IT'S ON THE PI ZONE. AND THEY SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO PUT A, WE'RE GOING TO PUT FIRE STATION FIVE HERE, THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD, THAT'S WHEN THE CAP WOULD APPLY.

BUT IF THEY, IF IT'S, IF WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING IS SCHOOL RELATED, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY CONTROL.

OKAY. AND THAT, IF IT WEREN'T SCHOOL RELATED IT TRIGGERS MEASURE DD.

[02:45:01]

RIGHT. I.E. MEMORY CARE FACILITY OR SOMETHING ELSE.

AND IT HAS TO BE A CHANGE OF USE OR CHANGE OF ZONING THAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER ARTICLE 27 ON ITS OWN.

AND THEN THE ZONING DOESN'T EVEN MATTER BECAUSE WHATEVER THE NEW ZONING IS, IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S A NEW INTENSITY AT THAT POINT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD A LITTLE CAUTION.

I MEAN, IF IT'S WITH THE HOUSING MANDATES, YOU KNOW, THE FLOOR, THE WHATEVER THE FAR IS TODAY DOES HAVE SOME MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR THE BONUSES. YEAH, I WOULD SAY.

IF IT'S ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL. I MEAN THAT'S THE THING.

I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE. BUT A LOT OF THIS, YOU KNOW.

I DON'T THINK A PI CAP FOR FAR IS GOING TO NECESSARILY, IF THEY GO THROUGH A SURPLUS LAND ACT DISPOSITION, TURN PROPERTY INTO A HOUSING PROJECT. I DON'T THINK A PI FAR CAP IS GOING TO APPLY.

THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN TODAY. YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE PROBABLY TEN TIMES BEFORE THIS IS EVEN A. VERY FLUID, VERY FLUID. YEAH. I THINK I'M ABLE TO OUTTHINK THE STATE HERE.

I'M CERTAIN OF THAT. I THINK ON THE QUESTION OF THE 0.75, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO DEFER THAT UNTIL WE BRING BACK THE ANALYSIS ON THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES AND THE OPEN SPACE AND DO A DEEPER DIVE ON THAT.

THE OPEN SPACE WHERE THE KIDS USE FOR THE FIELDS AND KEEPING THAT WE HEARD ABOUT PRESERVING OPEN SPACE AND WE'RE PARK POOR.

I THINK THAT'S A PRUDENT PATH. DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WAIT TILL WE COME BACK AND HEAR MORE ON THE SCHOOLS? AND THEN OTHERWISE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR FAR .75 FOR OTHER PROPERTIES WERE GO ON THAT.

YEAH. YEAH, IT'D BE GOOD TO KNOW IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT AS IT RELATES TO OUR OTHER OUR PI PROPERTIES.

YEAH. ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THAT? OKAY. OKAY, THE FAR CAP FOR THE I-1 AND I-3.

I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EIR.

SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? THAT'S FINE. ANYBODY? I'M OKAY. I'M GOING TO LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE FURTHER WITH THE FOLKS OVER THERE.

AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, I'LL LET YOU KNOW. AND AES AS IS.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS RIGHT. YEAH. LEAVE AES ALONE.

YEAH I MEAN THAT SEEMS LIKE A NO BRAINER. FOR WITHIN PCH NORTH AND CENTRAL.

YEAH. ANY CONCERNS ON THE C-2 TO C-4? SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HADN'T DISCUSSED I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING ON COUNCIL.

BUT IS THIS PART OF, YOU KNOW, TO INDUCE THE SAME KIND OF REDEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HOPING TO INDUCE ON ARTESIA BOULEVARD? YES.

YES, IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT ALLOW FOR INTENSIFICATION AND REVITALIZE SOME OF THE SHOPPING CENTERS ALONG PCH.

GREAT. YES, ON THAT FOR ME. ANYBODY DIFFER? OKAY.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE I THINK WE JUST, AES AND SCE WERE GOOD WITH LEAVING THEM AS IS.

ON THE OS, THAT'S A COMEBACK. YEAH, WE'LL DRILL ON THAT.

SO WHAT I'VE GATHERED FROM THAT IS THE MOTION SHOULD BE FOR OPTION ONE, THE BCHD 1.25 WITH UNDERLYING ZONING LIMITS. YEP. IS THAT OKAY? GENERALLY SPEAKING.

YEAH, THAT'S IT. 1.25 CITY HALL AND ANNEX IS OKAY.

0.75 FOR THE OTHER PI ZONES, EXCEPT THE SCHOOL, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK ON.

WELL, EXCEPT IT SOUNDED LIKE, EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT HAD BEEN DESIGNATED OS, THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE.

EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO HAD BEEN DESIGNATED IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT AS OS.

SO WE GOT TO COME BACK WITH WHAT THOSE ARE. IT'S THE OPEN SPACE ONES.

YEAH. IT'S THE FIELD AND OPEN SPACE RELATED. I THINK THAT, I THINK THE PI ZONE FOR SCHOOL SITES IS ALSO 0.75, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ACTUAL SCHOOL FACILITY. YES, CORRECT.

SO BUT IF YOU WANT TO TABLE THAT UNTIL WE COME BACK WITH A WHOLE DESCRIPTION, THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. INDUSTRIAL ZONE, WE'RE GOOD WITH THE 0.7 TO 1.0.

LEAVE AES AND SCE ALONE, AND COME BACK WITH THE OS ZONING DISCUSSION.

AS WELL AS CHANGE THE C. C-2 TO C-4. C-2 TO C-4.

AND. OH YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, CHANGE C-2 TO C-4. YEAH.

AND 1.0 FAR. YEP. AND ON THE MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD I'LL DO AS I SAID.

I'LL DO SOME QUICK RESEARCH WITH THE PEOPLE OVER THERE, AND.

YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT YET? WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION.

I'M FINE WITH THE 0.1, I DON'T SEE THE DOWNSIDE.

IS THAT IT? SO MOVED. BEFORE WE DO, ON THE ANNEX, ON THE CITY MANAGER, TO BE CLEAR, THE ANNEX IS WHAT? IT'S THAT ENTIRE FOOTPRINT THAT'S UNDER LEASE CURRENTLY BY THE CITY? YEAH. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK. DO YOU WANT TO CALL UP THIS PROPERTY SITE? MAYBE GO BACK TO THAT TABLE? IT'S ABOUT HALF OF THAT.

IT'S THE ANNEX. 200 NORTH PCH THERE. SO IT'S, I THINK THE DRAWING IS CLEARER THAN THIS.

[02:50:07]

IT DOES INCLUDE THE AUDITORIUM AS WELL. AUDITORIUM.

YEAH. YEAH. BUT NOT THE AUDITORIUM. NOT THE STRUCTURE, BUT THE EXTERIOR GRASS AREA.

IT DOES INCLUDE THAT STRUCTURE AS WELL. THAT WHOLE SITE.

IT'S A SEPARATE PROPERTY. YEAH. WE NEED. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, THANKS FOR CLARIFYING AND CONFIRMING.

YEAH, 47,000FT². YEAH. THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S JUST THE ANNEX, I THINK.

WELL, THE AUDITORIUM IS ONLY ONE STORY, BUT IT'S PRETTY BIG.

DO YOU HAVE IT DEPICTED IN A GRAPHIC OR MAP? YOU KNOW NOT A DETAILED ONE THAT'S GOING TO GET US THE INFORMATION WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

WE COULD BUNDLE THAT IN WITH THE SCHOOL SITE AND JUST.

SO LET'S ADD TO THE MOTION TO COME BACK WITH THE ANNEX.

I DO THINK IT HAS TO INCLUDE THE AUDITORIUM. THE ANNEX IS NOT THAT BIG.

OKAY. YEAH, DEFINITELY THE AUDITORIUM. IT INCLUDES THE AUDITORIUM.

AND THE PARKING LOT CURRENTLY BEING USED? YEAH.

I BELIEVE SO. I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHERE THAT PL IS.

YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE READILY CONFIRMED NOW OR? SO I WOULD APPROVE IT, SUBJECT TO IT, INCLUDING THAT PARKING AREA AND THE GRASS AREA IN FRONT OF THE AUDITORIUM THAT THERE'S AN OPTION TO, UNDER THE CITY'S LEASE TO USE. OKAY. OKAY, I THINK IF WE DON'T LEASE THAT WHOLE PROPERTY.

NO, BUT WE REMEMBER WE'RE JUST SETTING ZONING HERE AND UNDERLYING ZONING.

SO THEY'RE, OUR CURRENT DESIGNATIONS MAY HAVE IT AS A SEPARATE STRUCTURE AND A SEPARATE SEPARATELY DESIGNATED AREA.

SO IT'S WHATEVER FOLLOWS THE MAP. SO I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A BAD ANSWER HERE.

THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE THOUGH I THINK INCLUDES THE AUDITORIUM, SO.

IT DOES. DOES IT INCLUDE THE PARKING AREA? THE ANNEX IS PART OF A LEASE.

IT MUST. YEAH, I BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE IT'S THE PARKING, THE GRASS AREA, THE ANNEX.

OKAY. AND THEN THE AUDITORIUM. THAT'S WHAT'S INCLUDED THEN? YEAH. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. OKAY. IF IT DOESN'T.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO REVISE AND BRING THAT BACK ON THAT.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE. SO THAT'S THE MOTION. AND SECOND.

I'LL SECOND, YEAH. OKAY A MOTION AND A SECOND.

BEFORE WE VOTE, LET'S HEAR. SO NOW THE PUBLIC, YOU'VE HEARD THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE CONFUSING. BUT WE'RE STATED THE MOTION.

SO IF YOU WANT TO TUNE YOUR COMMENTS TO THE MOTION THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD, IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL TO THE COUNCIL.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

I'LL GO BUY CARDS FIRST. MARIA LARISA YASOL FIRST, AND THEN MARY DRUMMER.

AND IF YOU COULD PRE-POSITION SO YOU'RE READY TO GO AS SOON AS THE SPEAKER IS DONE.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. SO YOU'RE KEEPING AN AES AS A PUBLIC, P, RIGHT? SO, NO HOUSING? I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEAK. SO BASICALLY I LIKE THE IDEA OF MAKING THIS A PUBLIC SPACE.

I HAVE A DREAM. I WANT AN OCEANOGRAPHY INTERNATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY INSTITUTE THAT SERVES THE ENTIRE WORLD. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, LET'S GET BACK TO EARTH.

AS YOU CONSIDER UPDATES TO THE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT AND BUILDING INTENSITY STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND NONRESIDENTIAL LAND, INCLUDING THE AES SITE.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR. OWNERSHIP HOUSING MUST BE EXPLICITLY REQUIRED IN THIS PLAN, IF IT'S GOING TO. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65583 REQUIRES CITIES TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING BY PLANNING FOR MEANINGFUL HOUSING CHOICE, AVOIDING CONCENTRATION, AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY. OWNERSHIP HOUSING IS ESSENTIAL TO THESE GOALS.

IT PROVIDES LONG TERM STABILITY, WEALTH BUILDING OPPORTUNITY AND LASTING COMMUNITY INVESTMENT.

PARTICULARLY IN THE COASTAL CITIES LIKE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, WHERE OWNERSHIP ACCESS HAS BEEN

[02:55:07]

AND I'M GLAD YOU GUYS ARE REALLY BEING SMART ABOUT THIS.

IF THESE SITES ARE USED TO SATISFY HOUSING ELEMENT OBLIGATIONS, THE CITY MUST NOT ELIMINATE OWNERSHIP BY POLICY DESIGN OR BY INTENSITY ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAKE OWNERSHIP IMPOSSIBLE.

THAT WOULD NARROW HOUSING CHOICE AND UNDERMINE FAIR HOUSING OBJECTIVES.

THE AES SITE IS A LANDMARK. I HOPE WE CAN ALL AGREE IN THAT ITS FUTURE SHOULD BE GUIDED BY CLEAR GENERAL PLAN POLICY THAT REQUIRES A MIX OF OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING, ENSURES PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PRESERVE. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP.

COMMUNITY STABILITY. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP.

THANK YOU. OKAY. MARY DRUMMER. OKAY. LOOKS LIKE SHE'S NOT HERE.

TOM BAKALY AND THEN YASH JHA. I'M NOT SURE IF I'M.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE READING THE WRITING ON HERE. YASH, HE'S WITH ALLCOVE.

YEAH, YEAH. PERFECT. HI, TOM BAKALY, BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT.

CHANGING GEARS A LITTLE BIT. SO I DO, SO WE DO SUPPORT THE MOTION WITH THE 1.25.

AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS A UNIFORM FLOOR AREA RATIO.

A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT IF THERE ARE NEW ZONING REQUIREMENTS OR THINGS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE GENERAL PLAN, AGAIN, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS. WE DON'T THINK THE GENERAL PLAN IS REALLY THE PLACE TO PUT THOSE SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS.

YOU DO HAVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.

SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS AS, AS THE UNDERLYING ZONING OR THE LAND MANAGEMENT CODE PROCESS, THEN GREAT. BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN WORKING YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, WE HAVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ON THE, ON THE SITE TODAY, AND THAT'S BEEN WORKING. I DO WANT TO ANSWER, WHY DO WE CARE, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THE HEALTH DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, SOME THAT HAVEN'T BEEN PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW WHY DO THEY CARE? DO THEY JUST WANT TO BUILD BUILDINGS AND PISS OFF THEIR NEIGHBORS, AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN THE HEALTH BUSINESS. YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO PROVIDE HEALTH SERVICES.

AND SO BY PROVIDING HEALTH SERVICES THROUGH OUR PROPERTY AND GENERATING REVENUE, THAT ALLOWS US TO DO PROGRAMS LIKE ALLCOVE AND OLDER ADULT SERVICES.

AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU HEAR FROM SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ABOUT, HEY, BE CAREFUL ABOUT TINKERING WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE HEALTH DISTRICT FOR 30, 40 YEARS HAS FUNDED ITS SERVICES. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE GET A LITTLE SENSITIVE ABOUT THIS.

SO WE DO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF 1.25. WE'RE LITERALLY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH A WITH THE DEVELOPER.

THEY'RE SITTING HERE AND HEARING THIS DISCUSSION. AND SO WE ARE YOU KNOW, NERVOUS ABOUT WHAT THE UNDERLYING RESTRICTIONS MIGHT BE ON THE ZONING SPECIFIC TO US.

THAT FEELS A LITTLE BIT LIKE TARGETING AGAIN.

AND SO WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT. SO WE DO SUPPORT THE 1.25 AND THEN WE WOULD HOPE THAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS WOULD GIVE THE PUBLIC THE CONFIDENCE THAT IT NEEDS TO APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN.

REMEMBER, OUR PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO DD, THAT'S BEEN DETERMINED BY THE CITY.

HOWEVER THE GENERAL PLAN IS AND SO WE JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.

SO IN CONCLUSION, WE SUPPORT THE MOTION WITH THE 1.25 AND JUST URGE CAUTION AND MAYBE MORE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATED TO HOW DO YOU PUT IN PLACE WHAT THIS UNDERLYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS MIGHT BE. THANK YOU.

OKAY. IF I MAY BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, I FEEL LIKE THE COUNCIL TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR EARLIER COMMENT.

WE WERE GOING TO A 1.25 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE STUDIED IN THE EIR.

SO WE'RE CLEAN FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. BUT YOU SAID THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO MEASURE INTENSITY OR DEFINE INTENSITY, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL HERE.

SO I FELT LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WHAT YOU ASKED FOR AND NOW.

WHAT WE WERE SAYING INSTEAD OF THE FAR, INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT THAT FIRM CAP.

WELL, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME BASIS FOR OUR EIR, RIGHT.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A FAR PERIOD, RIGHT? NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A FAR, NO.

YOU. NO, BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE STUDIED IT. THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW WE STUDIED. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN OUR BASIS IN SETTING OUR STANDARD.

THAT'S WHAT WOULD KEEP THAT PROCESS CONSISTENT FOR US.

WHAT TOM WAS SAYING IS TRUE, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SET YOUR DEVELOPMENT CAP OTHER THAN FAR.

[03:00:04]

THAT'S THE WHOLE CEQA. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.

OKAY. YASH AND THEN MARK NELSON. YOU ARE GETTING THAT PRONUNCIATION, RIGHT.

THANK YOU. GOOD. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS YASH JHA. I'M A SENIOR OVER AT MIRA COSTA HIGH SCHOOL.

I'M ALSO THE CO-CHAIR AND A PEER COUNSELOR OF THE YOUTH ADVISORY GROUP OVER AT ALLCOVE.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, I SERVE ON THE VOLUNTEER ADVISORY AND PROPERTIES COMMITTEE FOR THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT.

TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT COMPENSATED OR PAID BY THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT IN ANY WAY.

I'M MOSTLY HERE TODAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE SERVICES THAT THE HEALTH DISTRICT PROVIDES AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTS WHEN THOSE SERVICES ARE INACCESSIBLE. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY'S HEALTH IS BEING DEFINED BY A LOT OF DIFFERENT UNPRECEDENTED, TRADITIONALLY OVERLOOKED FACTORS. AND I OBSERVE ONE OF THOSE FACTORS EVERY DAY WHEN I GO TO SCHOOL.

YOU KNOW, I SEE STUDENTS WHO ARE CHRONICALLY OVERWHELMED, ANXIOUS, EXHAUSTED, SKIPPING MEALS, DRINKING TOO MANY ENERGY DRINKS STRUGGLING WITH HYGIENE, NUTRITION, YOU KNOW, CARRYING ALL OF THESE MENTAL HEALTH BURDENS FAR BEYOND WHAT ANY TEENAGER OR ANYBODY SHOULD NORMALIZE. AND I'VE CARRIED THOSE BURDENS MYSELF AT ONE POINT, REQUIRING INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT FOR THAT.

THIS IS SYSTEMIC AND IT'S WORSENING. AND IN MY VIEW, THE HEALTH DISTRICT IS THE ONLY AGENCY TANGIBLY FIGHTING THESE ISSUES ON A PUBLIC HEALTH FRONT. AT ALLCOVE, I'VE SEEN HUNDREDS OF BEACH CITIES STUDENTS RECEIVE EARLY MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT THAT PREVENTS ESCALATION TO EMERGENCY ROOMS, TO PSYCHIATRIC HOLDS, OR TO LONG TERM IMPAIRMENT.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THE LAST TEN DAYS THAT WE'VE BEEN OPERATING JUST THIS YEAR, WE'VE ALREADY FILLED OUT TWO SAFETY PLANS FOR TWO STUDENTS AT RISK OF HARM TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. I ALSO SPEAK AS AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN.

I'VE SEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS CRITICIZE, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT PUTTING THEMSELVES AT THE SAME LEVEL AS OUR FIRST RESPONDERS? I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS A FIRST RESPONDER, THE SERVICES THAT THE HEALTH DISTRICT PROVIDES ARE EXTREMELY CRUCIAL FROM PREVENTING EMERGENCIES FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER A STUDENT WALK INTO ALLCOVE THAN HAVING ME OR ANOTHER EMT RESPOND TO A SUICIDE ATTEMPT, OR TO A PANIC ATTACK, OR TO A FAMILY RELATIONAL PROBLEM.

SUICIDE, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF ALL THESE HEALTH ISSUES THAT ARE EMERGING DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS TWO POPULATIONS, YOUTH AND THE ELDERLY. THOSE ARE TWO POPULATIONS THAT THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT UNIQUELY TARGETS IN THEIR PREVENTION SERVICES IN ALLCOVE, IN THE WHOLE RANGE OF SERVICES WE OFFER, INCLUDING FITNESS, INCLUDING THE CHF, EVERYTHING.

IT IS FOR THESE REASONS AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS SOMEBODY OF THIS COMMUNITY, AS SOMEBODY WHO WILL INHERIT THIS COMMUNITY, THAT I BELIEVE THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE TO SUPPORT A UNIFORM FAR AT 1.25.

IN ANY CASE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR CONSIDERING THE REALITY OF MYSELF AND MY PEERS.

THANKS. DID YOU SAY YOU'RE A STUDENT AT MIRA COSTA? YEAH, I'M A SENIOR. WELL, PAT YOURSELF ON THE BACK.

THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST COGENT ARGUMENTS WE'VE HEARD, SO THANK YOU.

AND HE'S AN EMT. AND YEAH. OKAY, MARK NELSON.

YEAH, HE'S AN EMT. OKAY. THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST DISORGANIZED MEETINGS I'VE BEEN TO IN A LONG TIME.

THE FAR CHANGED, THE ACTUAL FAR BEACH CITIES CHANGED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED THERE. THERE'S A CERTIFIED EIR THAT SAYS IT'S 312,000FT².

NOW IT'S 250. OKAY, SO WE GOT WE GOT JUST A BUNCH OF GOBBLEDYGOOK HERE WHERE YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING.

AND APPROPRIATELY SO, YOU BETTER BRING US SOME MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE WHAT WE NEED.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON HERE FOR THE LAST YEAR, SINCE THE LAST TIME WE REALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS IN EARNEST, BUT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT. SO, YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST LOOK AT A FEW THINGS.

BEACH CITIES ISN'T THE SAME AS THE CITY BEACH CITY SERVICES A LARGE OUT OF OUT OF DISTRICT AUDIENCE.

OKAY. ALLCOVE IS 91% NONRESIDENT SERVICE AREA, IT'S 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE.

AND RIGHT NOW IT'S 50% SERVICING NON-DISTRICT PEOPLE.

BEACH CITIES OWN RESEARCH SHOWS THAT 80% OF THE RCFE WILL BE OUT OF DISTRICT PEOPLE.

ALL THESE EXTERNALITIES COME AND DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

OKAY, THEY DON'T DESTROY PV AND OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY CAN PAY 15K A MONTH TO LIVE IN THIS STUFF.

OKAY, SO IT'S JUST VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFERENT.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, VIRTUALLY NOTHING I INTENDED TO SAY I'M GOING TO SAY TONIGHT BECAUSE I'M HAVING TO REACT.

I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT BOTH THE ANNEX AND THE CIVIC CENTER HAVE 1.25 FARS ALREADY.

[03:05:07]

THEY DON'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A CHANGE.

SO THIS IS ONLY ABOUT BEACH CITIES THAT, THERE'S NO OTHER 1.25 CHANGES OCCURRING HERE.

ALL RIGHT. BY THE WAY, THE ANNEX IS P/SF, SO IT'S A SCHOOL FACILITY, RIGHT? SO THAT MEANS THAT ALL THE SCHOOL FACILITIES OUGHT TO REALLY GO UP TO 1.25.

I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF YOUR ARGUMENT HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT WE'VE STILL GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE GETTING SCREWED, NOT GETTING THE SAME SPECIAL TREATMENT BEACH CITIES IS.

AND AGAIN, WE DON'T NEED IT FOR THE CITY OF REDONDO BECAUSE THOSE TWO PARCELS ARE ALREADY 1.25.

THERE'S NO CHANGE THERE. YOUR THOUGHT THAT IT'S ABOUT 50/50 YES-NO IN THE COMMUNITY? WELL, THAT'S RIGHT IN TWO WAYS. ONE IS IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE STATS.

AND SECONDLY, MEASURE BC WENT DOWN IN FLAMES.

IT NEEDED THREE QUARTERS OR IT NEEDED TWO THIRDS, IT GOT LESS THAN 50%.

OKAY. SO 50 OVER 50, HALF THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT BEACH CITIES TO PURSUE THE PLAN IT WANTS.

THEIR CHECKBOOKS WERE WIDE OPEN THAT DAY, THEY APPROVED $600 MILLION IN BONDS, BUT TOLD BEACH CITIES NO TO A PIDDLY LITTLE 30 MILLION. SO I DON'T THINK THIS SUCKER'S COOKED YET, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD BE VOTING ON IT.

THANK YOU. THANKS. LET'S SEE. I HAVE GEOFF GILBERT AND THEN BOB PINZLER, AND THAT'S THE END OF MY CARDS.

SLOWEST MOTOR IN THE WORLD. THAT'S OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING THE FIRST ONE TO DO THAT.

I NEEDED THE TIME TO REORGANIZE TAKING WHAT MR. NELSON SAID. GEOFF GILBERT, REDONDO BEACH. NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT CAMPUS. I, AND ALL OF THE RESIDENTS ON MY BLOCK ON DIAMOND STREET OPPOSE ANY CHANGES TO THE FAR FOR THIS PROJECT. FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT.

1.25. SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT IF YOU GIVE A DEVELOPER A, YOU KNOW, 1 TO 1.25, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO WITH ONE.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO 1.25 OR MORE. OR MAYBE WE CAN CHANGE THE ZONING LAWS AND GET AROUND THIS AND THAT, WHICH IS WHAT FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, THESE PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO DO.

NOW, KEEP IN MIND, BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT IS A LOBBYIST FOR THE DEVELOPER, AND THEY'VE HAD NUMEROUS PEOPLE STEP UP WANTING TO DEVELOP ON THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT A BEACH CITIES, BCHD ACTUAL FUNCTIONING THING.

LONG AFTER BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT GOES AWAY.

IF THEY DO, THIS GROUP WILL STILL BE OPERATING THIS UNIT AND IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO BCHD, ALLCOVE OR THE GYM OR ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE THOSE CAN BE PUT IN VERY SEPARATE AREAS.

AGAIN, ALLCOVE A GOOD THING, BUT IT'S A COUNTY PROJECT.

IT'S NOT BCHD DIRECTLY. THEY OPERATE IT. THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO THE COUNTY.

SO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE ENTITY.

IT COULD BE HOME DEPOT THAT THEY WANT TO PUT THERE, BECAUSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS GET THE RENT MONEY TO OPERATE FOR THEIR FUTURE PROJECTS, WHICH I GUARANTEE YOU, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

THEY'RE KIND OF A THING IN MOTION. SO BEFORE YOU COMMIT TO 1.0, 1.25, I THINK YOU NEED TO SEE THE PROJECT.

THEY HAVE PISSED US OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID WE DON'T WANT TO, BUT THEY HAVE PISSED US OFF ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND THE SCOPE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEY'VE ARGUED AND THEY'VE LIED. WE'VE SEEN THE PICTURES, WE SAW THE VIDEOS, WE SAW ALL OF THIS, AND WE SAID, NO, THIS ISN'T RIGHT. IT'S HUGE.

AND THEY WANT TO DO THINGS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL SEVERELY HURT US AND THEY REALLY DON'T CARE.

I'VE BEEN TO MANY OF THE BOARD MEETINGS. I'VE HEARD HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE TALK AND IT'S LIKE TALK TO THIS.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. AND THEN THEY GO ON WITH THEIR NORMAL PROJECT.

THINK ABOUT THAT PLEASE. THANK YOU, BOB. AND THAT'S THE LAST CARD I HAVE.

[03:10:08]

IN THE 70S AND 80S, REDONDO BEACH SCHOOLS WERE EXPERIENCING RAPID DECLINES IN STUDENT POPULATIONS THAT LEFT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH SURPLUS PROPERTIES THAT HAD DECIDED TO REPURPOSE. ONE OF THOSE WAS IN NORTH REDONDO, THE DISTRICT DECIDED TO BUILD AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY FOR SENIORS, AND MAINTAIN A PORTION OF THE LAND FOR A PARK.

THE SENIOR LIVING BUILDING IS ONE OF THE MOST DENSELY POPULATED SITES IN NORTH REDONDO, BUT JUXTAPOSED WITH THE PARK, IT WAS CONSIDERED AN ACCEPTABLE USE ALTERNATIVE.

NOW, HOWEVER, YOU ARE PUTTING THE MECHANISM INTO PLACE TO ENABLE USE OF THAT PARK PORTION AT A DENSITY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY. THE SAME DENSITY COULD BE PERMITTED IN ALL SUCH PUBLIC LAND ACROSS THE CITY, THEREBY THREATENING ANY POSSIBLE USE OF THESE PRECIOUS AREAS FOR DESPERATELY NEEDED OPEN SPACE IN A PARK OR CITY.

YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN LATER CITY COUNCILS ARE ASSAILED BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE LACK OF PLACES FOR AIR AND SUN ARE AVAILABLE, THEY WILL PROBABLY LOOK AT EACH OTHER AND THINK, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? HOWEVER, BY THEN THE THE SENSE OF OUR BEACH COMMUNITY WILL HAVE BEEN LOST TO THE RAVAGES OF DENSITY.

ALL THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO IS WONDER WHO ALLOWED THIS GEM TO BE SO TARNISHED.

YOU HAVE A CHOICE. YES, THE RAPACIOUS SACRAMENTO LEGISLATORS, EAGER TO GARNER SUPPORT FROM THE BUILDING TRADES AND EMBS ARE RELENTLESS.

BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO COMMIT UNFORCED ERRORS.

AND THIS WOULD BE A BIG ONE, DON'T BE A SHILL FOR BCHD.

WE NEED OPEN SPACE. WE DO NOT NEED INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES TO ADD TO THIS RAPID, RAMPANT DENSIFICATION.

LUCKILY, THE VOTERS WILL GET TO SPEAK ON THESE ZONING CHANGES INDIVIDUALLY SINCE OUR CHARTER REQUIRES IT.

WHEN THAT TIME COMES, WE MUST SAY NO. WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS COUNCIL TO SET US ON THIS PATH TO LOSE REDONDO BEACH THE REDONDO BEACH WE KNOW AND LOVE. AND BY THE WAY, A VOTE IN AUGUST.

YOU WANT TO HAVE THE FEWEST PEOPLE SHOW UP. NOVEMBER IS THE TIME TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. COUNCIL. WAYNE CRAIG, RESIDENT OF DISTRICT ONE.

LET'S BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIOS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN.

POLICE AND FIRE PROVIDE FIRST RESPONDER EMERGENCY SERVICES AND CITY HALL RUNS THESE CRITICAL OPERATIONS.

BCHD AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DO NOT. NOW I HAVE THE PERSONAL CELL PHONE NUMBER OF TOM BAKALY AND NIKKI WESLEY IN MY PHONE.

BUT AT TWO IN THE MORNING. I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM FOR A BCHD OR A SCHOOL EMERGENCY.

IN REALITY, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND, THEY CALL POLICE AND FIRE, RIGHT? THAT DISTINCTION MATTERS. AND IT'S EXACTLY WHY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CLASSIFIED THESE ENTITIES DIFFERENT.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE CONTROVERSIAL, IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.

THE FAR NUMBER DID NOT COME OUT OF THIN AIR. THE STATE REQUIRES THAT WE ADOPT ONE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARRIVED AT A POINT A 0.5 FOR NON CITY INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY FOR ONE CRITICAL REASON, TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD. ABOVE THAT LEVEL, ANY FUTURE PROJECT PROPOSAL HAS TO COME TO A PUBLIC HEARING.

RAISE IT HIGHER AND THAT RIGHT DISAPPEARS. LET ME REPEAT.

IF YOU RAISE THE BAR SO HIGH, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO EVEN BE HEARD IN THIS INSTANCE.

NOW, BEARING AND ALSO BEARING A HIGHER FAR, THE GENERAL PLAN STRIPS RESIDENTS OF MEANINGFUL INPUT AND FORCES AN ALL OR NOTHING VOTE ON A CITYWIDE ELECTION.

THAT'S NOT PLANNING, THAT'S COERCION. AND IF YOU DO THAT, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN THE LEGISLATOR IN SACRAMENTO IMPOSING HOUSING MANDATES THAT TAKE AWAY LOCAL CONTROL. NOW, I SENT YOU GUYS IN THE BLUE FOLDER, SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT SOME OF THE SCHOOL PROPERTY WOULD LOOK LIKE IF YOU DID DO A 1.25.

IT'S SCARY. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. NOW, YOU SPEAK OFTEN AND RIGHTLY ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT THOSE RIGHTS DON'T BELONG TO INSTITUTIONS, BELONG ONLY TO INSTITUTIONS OR WELL FUNDED SPECIAL INTERESTS.

THEY BELONG TO THE 70,000 RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE.

THOSE SAME RESIDENTS MAY NOT HAVE BIG CAMPAIGN CHECKS AND PAID DOOR KNOCKERS, BUT THEY ARE YOUR CONSTITUENTS,

[03:15:05]

BOB PINZLER IS RIGHT, JUST AS WE QUESTIONED DECISIONS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL DECADES AGO, FUTURE RESIDENTS WILL ASK WHAT YOU DID AT THIS MOMENT.

NOTHING IN THE RECOMMENDED FAR PREVENTS DEVELOPMENT.

IT SIMPLY GUARANTEES TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND A A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THE CHOICE HERE IS REALLY CLEAR. STAND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE MADE A GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

STAND WITH THE PUBLIC INPUT AND STAND WITH THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU TOOK AN OATH TO REPRESENT.

DO NOT GIVE AWAY THE PUBLIC'S VOICE, BECAUSE ONCE IT'S GONE, WE WILL NEVER GET IT BACK.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? HEY, SHEILA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

BEFORE THE TIME STARTS, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE STUDENTS IN THE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE WHO HAVE FINALS ALL THIS WEEK, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. THEY'RE INTERESTED IN HAVING THEIR APPOINTMENT DOCUMENTS SIGNED.

YOU JUST NEED TO TALK TO THE CLERK. NO CLAPPING.

CAN THEY COME UP? TO THIS ITEM. YEAH. SO WE DON'T INTERRUPT.

YEP. OKAY. SO. CAN YOU RESTART THE CLOCK? THANK YOU.

I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE POINT OF CLARITY. OH, SHEILA LAMB, DISTRICT FOUR, 30 YEAR RESIDENT.

THE HEALTH DISTRICT IS REQUESTING THE UP ZONING IN ORDER TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR SERVICES THAT RESIDENTS HAVE CLEARLY CHOSEN NOT TO FUND. AS SHOWN BY THE FAILED BOND MEASURE. AND IT DOES MATTER HOW WE RESPOND TO THAT VOTE WHEN PUBLIC LAND IS PERMANENTLY UP ZONED TO COMPENSATE FOR A LACK OF PUBLIC SUPPORT.

IT RAISES A TRUST ISSUE. IT CAN FEEL LESS LIKE A LAND USE DECISION AND MORE LIKE A WAY AROUND A CLEAR EXPRESSION.

EXPRESSION OF PUBLIC WILL. I HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE ABOUT PUBLIC TRUST AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS.

IF THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS REVENUE GENERATION FOR SERVICES THAT HAVE NOT RECEIVED PUBLIC SUPPORT, I BELIEVE THAT PURPOSE SHOULD BE STATED PLAINLY AND WEIGHED CAREFULLY BEFORE PERMANENTLY ALTERING PUBLIC LAND IN A WAY THAT CANNOT EASILY BE UNDONE. CLARITY ABOUT PURPOSE IS ESSENTIAL IF WE WANT RESIDENTS TO FEEL HEARD RATHER THAN WORKED AROUND. HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS I'D LIKE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

THE CORE QUESTION HERE IS, ARE WE BEING ASKED TO CHANGE THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND IN ORDER TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR SERVICES THAT THE PUBLIC HAS EXPLICITLY CHOSEN NOT TO FUND? AND IF SO, IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE AND TRUSTWORTHY USE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY? TWO, CONSENT. DOES THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT THE OUTCOME OF THE PUBLIC VOTE OR DOES IT FUNCTIONALLY WORK AROUND IT? THREE, PURPOSE, ARE WE MAKING A LAND USE DECISION BASED ON COMMUNITY NEED, OR A FINANCIAL DECISION DRIVEN BY ADMINISTRATIVE SURVIVAL? PRECEDENT, IF THIS BECOMES OUR MODEL, WHAT KINDS OF FUTURE USES OF PUBLIC LAND BECOME EASIER AND WHICH BECOME HARDER TO DEFEND? AT A TIME WHEN THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY NATIONALLY, AND MANY PEOPLE ARE FEELING WARY OF INSTITUTIONS IN GENERAL.

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND BEING CLEAR, TRANSPARENT AND PRINCIPLED BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.

THE RESIDENTS HAVE CLEARLY SPOKEN THAT THEY DO NOT SUPPORT ADDITIONAL REVENUE GENERATION FOR THIS HEALTH DISTRICT.

PLEASE HONOR THE WISHES OF THE RESIDENTS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? THANKS FOR USING AGAIN. NOBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE.

ANYONE ONLINE. WE HAVE DARRYL BOYD. GO AHEAD DARYL.

START YOUR ENGINE. OR, IS HE NOT THERE? ARE YOU THERE, DARYL? DO YOU HAVE ANYONE ELSE ONLINE? WE'LL GO BACK.

YES, WE HAVE ANNE WILSON. I'M SORRY. ANNE WILSON.

OKAY. ANNE, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

[03:20:02]

THE STAFF'S RATIONALE THAT BCHD SHOULD HAVE THE SAME LEVEL AS FAR AS CITY HALL WAS BASED ON TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR SUPPOSED PROJECT.

IT SOUNDS VERY WEAK AND HALF BAKED. WHAT IS THE PROJECT? THAT'S THE $6 MILLION QUESTION. BCHD JUST MONTHS AGO SET OUT A REQUEST FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST, NOT EVEN AN RFP. THEY HAVE SHOWN ZERO PLANS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS HOW THE CEO CHARACTERIZED THE PROJECT TONIGHT IS NOT HOW IT HAS BEEN PORTRAYED IN BCHD BOARD MEETINGS.

BCHD BAKALY MENTIONS AN RCF WITH THE LESS TRAFFIC WAS STUDIED.

HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE BCHD PRESENTATION, THERE WILL BE A LARGE INDEPENDENT HOUSING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE WITH INHERENT TRAFFIC WHICH HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED BY THEIR EIR OR YOUR EIR.

THEY HAVE PLANNED TWO 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL BUILDINGS WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT WAS MENTIONED BEFOREHAND BY MR. OBAGI. THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE NEVER BEEN STUDIED.

THE GENERAL PLAN MOTION, I'M AFRAID, SOUNDS HALF BAKED.

THE RESIDENTS URGE YOU TO TAKE THE TIME AND CONSIDERATION NEEDED.

LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FINITE, SCARCE RESOURCE.

PUBLIC LAND IS THE BREATHING ROOM OF A CITY. IT'S THE SPACE THAT MAKES RESIDENTS FEEL THAT THEY ARE LIVING IN THE BEST PLACE POSSIBLE, WITHOUT THE FEELING OF BEING CONFINED BY HUGE CONCRETE STRUCTURES.

THAT SENSE OF OPENNESS IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES REDONDO BEACH SPECIAL.

PUBLIC LAND IS NOT A BLANK CANVAS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.

ONCE WE GIVE UP PUBLIC LAND TO THIS LEVEL OF MASSIVE, OUT OF SCALE DENSITY, WE CAN NEVER GET THAT OPEN SPACE BACK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE LAURA DUKE. GO AHEAD. LAURA? YOU THERE? LAURA? OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK. LET'S. IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE? LET ME TRY DARRYL BOYD. DARRYL? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. I DON'T THINK HE CAN HEAR US. WE CAN HEAR YOU WITH YOUR. I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH YOUR ZOOM.

BUT IF YOU CAN HEAR ME. THIS MEETING HAS BEEN A MESS.

DARRYL BOYD, DISTRICT 3, 500 TO 600 NORTH PROSPECT AVENUE.

RESIDENT, 32 YEARS. HOMEOWNER. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY AGAIN TO TOM BAKALY AND BCHD.

WE DON'T WANT WHAT YOU'RE SELLING, MR. BAKALY.

AND YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR, WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY PUTTING THE RESIDENTS AT 500 TO 600 NORTH PROSPECT AVENUE IN THE BOROUGH HEIGHTS COMMUNITY THROUGH ON A DAILY AND NIGHTLY BASIS. BCHD HAS BEEN A TERRIBLE NEIGHBOR FOR YEARS AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED NOW.

THE RESIDENTS OF REDONDO BEACH VOTED WITH MEASURE BC WE SAID NO TO YOU, TOM BAKALY, AND YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

THAT IS, THERE'S NOTHING MORE THAN A CREW OF CRONY CORPORATE PROFITEERS.

THEY AND YOU NEED TO RESPECT OUR WISHES. AND YOU AND THEY NEED TO BE STOPPED.

THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ESPECIALLY DISTRICT THREE COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC, NEEDS TO START STANDING UP FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND TAXPAYING RESIDENTS HERE.

YOU'VE BEEN ABSENT AND WE DON'T SEE YOUR SUPPORT PAIGE, OR YOU MAYOR LIGHT.

IS THIS THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT OR THE INNER CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT? WE SAID NO AND WE MEAN IT. NO TO TOM BAKALY. NO TO BCHD.

NO TO BCHD OVERDEVELOPMENT PROFITEERING SCHEME AT THE EXPENSE OF REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS AND THE RUIN OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.

NO TO ANYTHING ABOVE 0.5 OR 0.75 FAR.

[03:25:01]

LAURA, ARE YOU THERE? WE ALSO HAVE MARCY GUILLERMO.

GO AHEAD MARCY. YEAH. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MARCY GUILLERMO, DISTRICT ONE.

I'M REALLY SURPRISED HOW THE MEETING IS GOING TONIGHT.

I WOULD REQUEST STRONGLY THAT CITY COUNCIL TAKES THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A FAR OF 0.5 FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT AND SURPLUS SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES.

BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT PLANNED OVER DEVELOPMENT WITH 100% PRIVATE DEVELOPER SHOULD NOT BE SUPERSIZED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT IS A PUBLIC AGENCY, WHILE THE ARTESIA CORRIDOR IS A BUSINESS CORRIDOR, THEY DO NOT SHARE THE SAME GOALS. IF BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING HEALTH SERVICES, THEY SHOULD DEDICATE HALF OF THEIR EXISTING ACREAGE TO OPEN A SPACE FOR THESE CHILDREN, THESE ADOLESCENTS CAN PLAY, CAN WALK, CAN DO SOMETHING MORE HEALTHFUL FOR THEIR MINDS.

OUR CITY NEEDS MORE CANOPY TREES AND OPEN SPACE, AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH SHEILA LAMB, WAYNE CRAIG, BOB PINZLER'S COMMENTS. I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOU STUDY THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE.

TONIGHT WE ARE GOING TO REMEMBER THIS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, ANYONE ELSE? WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKERS, BUT WE HAVE 39 ECOMMENTS, 16 IN SUPPORT AND 22 IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. CAN WE TRY LAURA DUKE ONE MORE TIME? HER HAND IS NOT RAISED. OKAY. OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE MOTION IN FRONT OF US.

DOES ANYONE, AFTER HEARING PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WISH TO CHANGE THE MOTION OR ADD A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? OH. I'M OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

SURE. SO LOOK, I THINK THIS THIS DEBATE HAS MERIT ON BOTH SIDES, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS TO SAY, BUT SOMETHING YOU GUYS ARE GETTING WRONG, SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU SAY THAT MEASURE BC WAS VOTED DOWN 47%.

IS THAT WHAT THE RESIDENTS SAID IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET TO FUND BCHD.

AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHEN I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE. THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHY THEY SAID THEY VOTED FOR MEASURE FP.

THEY VOTED FOR MEASURE SD, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SUPPORT MEASURE BC BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT NEEDED TO GET ITS HOUSE IN ORDER AND FINANCE HIS OWN BUSINESS. THEY OBVIOUSLY NOT GETTING THAT BOND MONEY HAVE COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT WAY TO GET THE FINANCING THEY NEED.

THEY'VE GOT THIS HUGE PROPERTY. AS ANY ANYBODY RUNNING THE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS THAT HUGE PROPERTY WOULD DO, TRY TO MAKE ECONOMIC USE OF IT TO FUND THEIR SERVICES.

AND THERE ARE A TON OF PEOPLE IN THE THREE CITIES WHO HIGHLY VALUE THE SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE.

SO, AND THIS ISN'T THE END OF IT, EVEN IF COUNCIL GOES WITH A 1.25, 1.15, 1.0 FAR, IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE RESIDENTS NOW. I'VE HAD COFFEE WITH MR. BAKALY, AND I'VE HEARD FROM HIM AN APPRECIATION OF WHEN THEY ROLLED OUT THAT FIRST HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS. YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS JUST TOO BIG, AND THEY KIND OF SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT AND ANYTHING THEY'RE TRYING TO DO GOING FORWARD, I THINK THEY'VE LEARNED THAT LESSON.

I IMAGINE I HOPE THAT WHEN WE GET A, YOU KNOW, A VISION OF WHAT'S COMING NEXT ON THAT CAMPUS, IT'S GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET THIS PASSED IF THEY WANT THAT FAR LIMIT.

PEOPLE ARE SAYING, KEEP THE FAR LIMIT WHERE IT IS.

NO, THERE IS NO FAR LIMIT RIGHT NOW ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WE NEED TO SET ONE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S BALANCING THREATS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THIS PUBLIC ENTITY WITH THIS ON THIS BLOCK OF LAND WITH, YOU KNOW, DEMANDS OF CONCERNED, SOME CONCERNED RESIDENTS, AND SOME RESIDENTS WHO JUST HATE THE HEALTH DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR IT AND THEY THINK EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION IS TOO HIGH.

BUT THE HEALTH DISTRICT IS A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION, AND YOU CAN RUN FOR THE BOARD RATHER THAN SEND US A MILLION EMAILS,

[03:30:04]

IT'S OPEN TO ALL OF YOU. AND THE FINAL THING I WANT TO SAY IS THIS.

MY, I DO NOT WANT TO LIMIT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY THE PUBLIC.

IT'S OWNED BY RESIDENTS OF REDONDO BEACH, HERMOSA BEACH AND MANHATTAN BEACH.

IF WE LIMIT THIS TO A 0.7 FAR AND THEY CAN DO NOTHING PRODUCTIVE WITH THIS LAND AND THEY CAN'T FINANCE THEIR OPERATIONS, WHO HAVE WE HURT? WE'VE HURT THE TAXPAYERS WHO FUNDED THIS HEALTH DISTRICT.

WE'VE HURT OURSELVES BECAUSE WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE AN OPERATING HEALTH DISTRICT IN OUR COMMUNITY.

WE'VE GOT THIS HUGE SWATH OF LAND THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, AGING AND BECOMING MORE DILAPIDATED AND UNSAFE.

SAFE AND EARTHQUAKES, AND THEY CAN'T REPAIR THEMSELVES.

THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR CITY. THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR, FOR THE SOUTH BAY.

SO YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO BE IN BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICTS HANDS WHETHER THIS FAR LIMIT GETS PASSED.

BUT I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT BALANCE. PUTTING IT LANDING AT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1 AND 1.25 IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO LAND IT, WITH SOME LIMITATIONS ON INTENSITY TO PROTECT AGAINST SIZE AND MASSING.

THAT'S IT. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT. THANK YOU MAYOR.

SO, I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI JUST SAID, SO I WON'T REPEAT IT.

GOING BACK TO THE MOTION JUST TO CONFIRM ITS WANT FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, IT'S 1.0 FAR BY RIGHT UP TO 1.25, SUBJECT TO SOME, TO BE DEFINED CONDITIONS THAT ADDRESS WHAT WE JUST HEARD.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND IF YOU FACE ANY CHALLENGES IN CRAFTING THAT OR OF ANY KIND, WE'LL HEAR ABOUT IT. AND MAYBE WE NEED TO RECALIBRATE WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DO YOU THINK THAT'S DOABLE? YES. THE WAY I ENVISION IT IS BRINGING THE DRAFT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE AACAP STANDARDS.

THEN WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN BRING IT BACK FOR ADOPTION.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT DURING THAT PROCESS ON THE STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IS THAT TYPICAL TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THAT ITEM? IT IS. IT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING AMENDMENT AND THAT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT UNDER STATE LAW.

AND SO IF WE WERE TO DO A STRAIGHT 1.0 OR 1.25.

THAT WOULD NOT, WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS THAT WOULD NOT GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT WOULD NOT, BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THE GENERAL PLAN.

THEY HAD THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THE FAR. I DO THINK FOR THE STANDARDS THAT SEEK TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS, MINIMIZE MASS AND SCALE. I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE OVERLY ELABORATE.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE FAIRLY CONCISE AND JUST ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SOME CRITERIA, THAT IT'S DISCRETIONARY WHEN REVIEWING ANY FUTURE PROJECT AT THE AT THE SITE.

WELL, THANKS FOR ELABORATING ON THAT. AND TO THE CITY MANAGER, ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT PROCESS, ANYTHING YOU MAY WANT TO RECOMMEND DIFFERENTLY OR ADDITIONALLY? IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. YEAH. THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO ADD MONTHS.

MONTHS? I THINK AT LEAST TWO TO THE TIMELINE.

AND IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT THAT PROCESS COMPLETE BEFORE THE VOTE OR LEADING UP TO THE VOTE.

THE REALITY IS, I DON'T BELIEVE THE LAND USE PARAMETERS THAT WOULD SERVE TO PERHAPS LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 27.

SO YOU COULD PROCEED WITH THE CAP AND THEN CONTINUE AND MOVE THAT TO BALLOT, AND THEN WORK ON THOSE PARAMETERS BETWEEN NOW AND THE ACTUAL BALLOT CONSIDERATION. IF YOU WANTED TO ACCELERATE YOUR TIMELINE, BUT IF YOU WANT THOSE TWO TO BE LINKED TOGETHER, AND YOU WANT THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PART AND PARCEL TO THE BALLOT MEASURE ITSELF SO THOSE CONDITIONS ARE CLEAR, THEN WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE THE EXTRA TIME. OKAY.

AND MAYBE WE DO WANT IT TO BE PART OF THE BALLOT MEASURE FOR FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTER AND MAYBE FOR BEACH CITIES BENEFIT AND OTHERS WE MAY WANT IT TO BE PART. SO I THINK.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT CURRENTLY THERE IS NO CAP OF ANY KIND.

NO CAP OF ANY KIND. SO ANOTHER OPTION AND MAYBE THIS KIND OF REVISITING IT, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD INCLUDE THOSE STANDARDS IN THE GENERAL PLAN UNDER THE ALLOWANCE IN THE SECTION WHERE DISCUSSES FAR.

[03:35:03]

SO WE'LL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT IT. I THINK WHAT MIKE HAD REFERRED TO AS IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT'S BASED ON THE FAR.

SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PREPARE THIS IN TIME FOR THE ELECTION.

IT SHOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THE ARTICLE 27 REQUIRES.

BUT IT JUST DEPENDS IF YOU WANT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TO REFLECT THE REDUCED DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY BASED ON THOSE PARAMETERS, THEN IT WOULD. SO IT DEPENDS ON IT REALLY. IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO SET UP THE ARTICLE 27 BALLOT MEASURE.

YEAH. OKAY. IF WE WERE TO SAY HEY FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, JUST DO 1.15, WOULD THAT STILL ENTAIL THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND IMPACTS AND OTHER DELAYS, SO TO SPEAK? IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE SUBSEQUENT DELAY ASSOCIATED WITH STAFF DRAFTING AND THEN TAKING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION, THEN COMING BACK TO COUNCIL AND UPDATED ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE NEW STANDARDS.

IT WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE SORT OF ARTICLE 27 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 115 FAR CAP.

WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO THE 1.25.

SO WE HAVE WE HAVE THE ONE, TWO FIVE ANALYSIS UNDER CEQA RULES, WHICH STUDIES VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED AND OTHER THINGS ON A CUMULATIVE BASIS, THERE WILL NEED TO BE A SPECIFIC ARTICLE 27 RELATED ANALYSIS THAT I, THAT EFFECTIVELY IDENTIFIES THE IMPACTS OF THE ARTICLE 27 DECISIONS THAT YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING. WHETHER THAT'S 1.25, 1.15.

OR SOME COMBINATION OF FAR CAP AND NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SO.

THAT'S WORKING OUT. YEAH. THE EASIEST WAY TO PROCEED WITH ARTICLE 27 IS TO HAVE IT APPLY TO SIMPLY THE FAR CAP STANDARD.

WITH THE TRADITIONAL CUP PROCESS, IT'S ALWAYS APPLIED THAT THAT WOULD, THAT'S THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO DO IT.

HOWEVER, YOU THEN DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE GET TO BALLOT HOW THAT AFFECTS ARTICLE 27 IMPACTS.

SO IT'S A QUESTION OF EXPEDIENCY VERSUS ADDITIONAL DELIBERATION.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE NATURAL BYPRODUCT OF ALL THIS IS THE TIMING OF THE AACAP ELECTION AS WELL.

SO ANYTHING THAT WE DO TO DELAY THE FAR CAP DECISION ON THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT CAMPUS WOULD THEN IN TURN AFFECT THE TIMELINE FOR OUR AACAP CONSIDERATION. OKAY. AND SO EVEN IF WE DID A 1.15 FAR FOR BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO DO THAT. ARTICLE 27 ANALYSIS.

OH YEAH, WE HAVE TO DO ARTICLE 27 ON ANYTHING THAT'S SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 27 ACTION.

BUT THAT IS A MUCH EASIER, THAT'S A PROCESS THAT COULD BEGIN TOMORROW AS OPPOSED TO WE THEN HAVE TO WAIT FOR.

AND THAT'S THE CONCERN, WE JUST THAT. THAT'S THE CONCERN.

OKAY. SO THAT THAT'S KIND OF ON MY MIND. AND YOU KNOW, WE AS COUNCIL JUST WANT TO DO A STRAIGHT 1.1 OR 1.15.

AND I WAS ACTUALLY CONFUSED. I THOUGHT WE PICKED 1.25 AND THEN SAID WE'LL APPLY SOME STANDARDS TO THAT TO TRY TO LIMIT THE INTENSITY. I DIDN'T THINK I THOUGHT YOU HAD PROPOSED THE ONE.

OH, I THINK YOU CALLED IT A FLOOR BY RIGHT. AND THEN GOING TO 1.25, WHICH I DIDN'T THINK IS WHAT WE AGREED TO, IS THAT. DID I GET THAT WRONG? NO, NO. YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT.

OKAY. SO I THOUGHT WE PICKED THE 1.25 AND THEN SAID WE DEVELOP ZONING STANDARDS.

THAT WOULD. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. WE CAN GO EITHER WAY.

I MEAN, THE MORE TRADITIONAL MODEL WOULD BE SET MAX, AND THEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WOULD IT AFFECT FURTHER CONTROL AND BE SUBJECT TO AND AFFECT THE 1.25 MAX. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE'S MAYBE AN INTEREST IN MAKING CLEAR THAT THE TARGETS ONE, AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GO ABOVE THAT IS THROUGH OTHER SORT OF CONSTRAINTS.

SO IT'S A DIFFERENT WAY TO APPROACH IT. IT'S, A LITTLE ATYPICAL TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CODE CURRENTLY.

BUT IF THAT'S THE SLOWER PROCESS. ANYTHING THAT INCLUDES SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN A ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE THAT WOULD BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE BALLOT MEASURE IS GOING TO CREATE TIME DELAY.

YOU ARE SAYING WE CAN DO THAT? IT JUST MAY NOT BE TIED TO THE BALLOT MEASURE.

THAT'S THE THAT WOULD BE THE OPTION. YOU COULD SPLIT THAT.

IT JUST THEN ISN'T PART AND PARCEL TO THE VOTERS CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPACTS.

MY ANALYSIS FROM WHAT I KNOW OF DD IS IF WE SET THE 1.25, THAT'S A CAP.

YEP. AND SO THERE WE CAN DO ZONING ORDINANCES THAT DO STUFF THAT WOULD REDUCE THAT, BUT WE COULDN'T DO,

[03:40:06]

NOT YOUR WAY, BUT THE FLOOR TO, YOU KNOW, INCENTIVES OR WHATEVER IT IS.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE TALKING THROUGH IT. SO THE MOST STREAMLINED IS 1.25 AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WORK IN ZONING.

YEAH. YEAH. SO AND THEN IF YOU WANT THAT TO BE PART OF THE ARTICLE 27 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS, WE WOULD DELAY THAT ANALYSIS. THE ZONING PORTION.

THE ZONING PORTION. IF WE WANT TO SIMPLY RUN THAT IN PARALLEL.

IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ANALYSIS. NO, IT SHOULDN'T.

BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WANT TO PUT INTO THE BALLOT MEASURE, WHEN WE PUT IT INTO THE BALLOT, THAT WOULD BE DELAYED. BUT THOSE COULD RUN IN PARALLEL THEORETICALLY.

SO THE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS THE 1.25 WITH SOME ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT THE OTHERWISE DEFINE INTENSITY.

IT DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO CHANGE THAT? NO, NOT IF IT'S.

JUST THE SAME, NOT IF THAT IS THE MOST STREAMLINED AND EFFICIENT WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.

WELL, SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT THOSE LIMITS WITH THE BALLOT MEASURE OR NOT? AND IF NO, THEN THAT'S STREAMLINED, BECAUSE YOU CAN CHANGE THE ORDINANCE IN PARALLEL.

AS CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED. IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE PART OF THE BALLOT MEASURE PER ARTICLE 27? BUT IF YOU WANT IT A PART OF THE BALLOT MEASURE, THEN WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS ANALYSIS AND THAT WOULD DELAY IT.

OKAY. SO YEAH I'M DONE. IF THE VOTERS VOTE DOWN THE FAR LIMIT OF 1.251.15, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? ARE THEY SUBJECT TO NO FAR LIMITS? CORRECT, IT REVERTS BACK TO THE ZERO CAP. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND ALSO, IF THEY GET THE 1.25 FAR LIMIT AND THEY WANT TO BUILD A TEN-STORY TOWER WITH A BUNCH OF OPEN SPACE AROUND IT, CAN THEY DO THAT? IS THERE ANY HEIGHT LIMIT? CURRENTLY NO. OKAY. SO IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME ZONING REGULATIONS.

IT'S NOT, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

BUT I THINK THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES INTO EXISTENCE DOES NEED TO BE SUBJECT TO SOME SORT OF ZONING LIMITATION, SO. YOU COULD RUN THAT IN PARALLEL. WE CAN RUN IN PARALLEL.

IT COULD EVEN TRAIL. I MEAN, IT COULD COME AT ANY TIME.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I'M IN FAVOR OF TRAILING BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE POSTPONING AACAP AS IS.

SO THAT'S ME, BUT. MAY I ASK A QUESTION TO DIRECTOR WIENER? YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO DO ZONING, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS, YOU SAID WRITING THE STANDARDS INTO THE GENERAL PLAN IS A MORE STREAMLINED WAY OF DOING IT. DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S, SO THE LAND USE OR THE TABLE WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN IDENTIFIES THE FAR LIMITS.

THERE COULD BE SOME STANDARDS POTENTIALLY BUILT INTO THAT.

IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE SAME TEETH AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

IT COULD ALSO DIRECT THAT THERE BE FUTURE WORK ON THE ZONING CODE TO BETTER REGULATE THE INTENSITY OF THE BUILDINGS, SUCH AS HEIGHT LIMITS. DUPLICATE YOUR WORK, OR DO YOU RECOMMEND DOING THE ZONING, GOING DOWN THE ZONING ROUTE, OR. I THINK REGARDLESS, IT MAKES SENSE TO DO UPDATE THE ZONING CODE, RIGHT NOW, IT'S PRETTY OPEN ENDED IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE PROPERTIES.

I THINK WITH THIS FAR THERE SHOULD BE SOME PARAMETERS AROUND IT.

ORIGINALLY WE WERE LOOKING AT SUGGESTING IT TO TRY TO GET ON THE BALLOT.

SO IT WASN'T JUST A 1.25. IT WAS A 1.25, BUT HERE'S THE STANDARDS THAT GO WITH IT.

BUT THE CITY MANAGER IS CORRECT. THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE SOME TIME DELAYS.

WE COULD DO IT IN PARALLEL. AND IF IT COMES TOGETHER, MAYBE.

I GUESS WE HAVE TO CALL OR TRAIL. YEAH. TRAILING IN.

1.25. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE TO EVERYTHING THAT THE MAYOR HAD ALREADY READ OUT TO 1.25 ON THE BCHD SITE AND TRAIL ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ARE. AND JUST GIVE US DIRECTION TO DEVELOP ZONING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS TO APPLY TO THAT SITE AS AND WILL BRING THOSE TO YOU AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN, BUT NOT NECESSARILY AS A PREREQUISITE. TO NOT DELAY THIS.

I'LL SECOND THAT AS AMENDED, PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.

OKAY. OKAY, I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THAT IN THAT WE DO HAVE TO GET THE VOTERS TO PASS OR, YOU KNOW, NOT PASSING IT'S A BAD. AND THEN THERE'S NO ZONING.

YEAH. WHICH IS BAD FOR ALL OF US. ZONING BUT NO FAR LIMIT.

NO FAR. IT'S EVEN WORSE. RIGHT. YEAH. SO IT'S EVEN WORSE.

IT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY, SO THAT WE'VE BELABORED THIS QUITE A BIT, I'M GOING TO CALL THE VOTE.

ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION FOR SEVEN MINUTE BREAK. MOTION FOR MOTION FOR A SEVEN MINUTE BREAK.

AND A SECOND. ALL FOR? AYE. SORRY, STUDENTS.

[03:53:05]

[03:53:09]

AND SPECIFICALLY DECISIONS REGARDING THE RATE STRUCTURE THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED AND OTHER TOPICS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO MAKE US AWARE OF THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO YOU. WE HAVE TONIGHT, ANDREA DELAP WILL BE MAKING A PRESENTATION FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.

AND I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE MEMBERS.

LOOKS LIKE OUR ENTIRE AUDIENCE IS MEMBERS OF EITHER ATHENS OR HF & H.

AND I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR PATIENCE IN GETTING THIS FAR TONIGHT.

SO, WITH NO FURTHER ADO, I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANDY. AS ANDY SAID, I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION JUST A FEW SLIDES TO REMIND US OF THE TOPIC BEFORE US TONIGHT.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT, PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT WITH ATHENS SERVICES.

AND AFTER THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCIL FOR ANY COMMENTS.

QUESTIONS. AND AS ANDY SAID, WE HAVE ATHENS SERVICES REPRESENTATIVES, HF & H CONSULTANTS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.

SO AS YOU ALL KNOW ATHENS SERVICES IS THE CITY'S SOLID WASTE HAULER.

THE CITY HAS BEEN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ATHENS SERVICES SINCE 2011, WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS FIRST SIGNED.

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY IN YEAR SEVEN OF NINE OF A FIRST AMENDMENT THAT WAS SIGNED IN 2019.

SINCE THE SIGNING OF THAT FIRST AMENDMENT IN 2019, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS REGULATORY AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES IMPACTING HAULER SERVICES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY CLOSURE, VARIOUS LANDFILL CLOSURES IN THE REGION, INCREASES IN TIP FEES AT LANDFILLS ACROSS THE REGION, AND ALSO A NEED FOR ATHENS SERVICES TO COLLECT IN THREE STREAMS ACROSS ALL OF OUR

[03:55:08]

INITIALLY THAT SECOND AMENDMENT WAS TO RECOGNIZE THE CLOSURE OF SERRF, THAT TRANSFORMATION WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY WE MENTIONED, AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE ON DIVERSION RATES.

OKAY. THEN ATHENS CAME BACK TO THE CITY IN MARCH 2015 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WOULD BE CHANGES NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THREE STREAM COLLECTION ACROSS ALL OF OUR SERVICE CATEGORIES.

AND AT THE MAY 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, STAFF BROUGHT FORWARD A PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AT THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE KEY PROVISIONS THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR CHANGE, INCLUDING THE RATE STRUCTURE, ADJUSTMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL CATEGORIES, BUNDLED SERVICE, AND SOME OF THE OTHER TOPICS LISTED HERE AND ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR ADMIN REPORT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE PROPOSED CHANGES, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATES AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS LESS THAN FOUR UNITS ARE NOT IMPACTED BY ANY OF THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENTS.

SO AT THAT MEETING, CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT STAFF CONDUCT A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF A REVISED SECOND AMENDMENT, INCLUDING TO ENGAGE A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST IN THOSE EFFORTS.

COUNCIL. APPROVED A SCOPE OF WORK WITH HF & H CONSULTANTS IN JULY 2025, AND THAT SCOPE INCLUDED A REVIEW OF ATHENS DATA ILLUSTRATING INCREASED EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES.

PROPOSED RATE CHANGE JUSTIFICATION, AND A SURVEY OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES THAT WERE SELECTED.

SO THE FULL HF& H REPORT IS ATTACHED TO THIS EVENING'S ADMIN REPORT, BUT WE'LL HIGHLIGHT A FEW OF THE KEY AREAS.

ON THE RATE RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL. I WILL REMIND COUNCIL THAT THERE WERE TWO OPTIONS INCLUDED IN ATHENS PROPOSAL, OPTION ONE WAS TO INCREASE BY 13.5% THE RATES ACROSS MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.

AND THEN OPTION TWO WAS TO RECLASSIFY MULTIFAMILY UNITS FIVE PLUS AS COMMERCIAL.

IT'S, THE KEYNOTE HERE, HF & H FINDING WAS THAT REDONDO BEACH RATES IN OPTION TWO REMAIN AMONGST THE LOWEST WHEN THEY'RE COMPARED WITH OTHER REGIONAL CITIES IN, THAT WERE SURVEYED. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS OPTION TWO IS IT KEEPS THE REFUSE RATES FOR BOTH MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL AT THE LOWER END OF THE RATE RANGE ACROSS THE CITIES SURVEYED.

AND STREAMLINES THE PRICING STRUCTURE BY MOVING MULTIFAMILY UNITS INTO COMMERCIAL, WHICH BETTER ALIGNS DELIVERY COSTS AND SERVICE CATEGORIES.

BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, MAY I ASK A VERY QUICK QUESTION? YES.

KEY HF & H FINDING REDONDO BEACH RATES AN OPTION TO REMAIN AMONG THE LOWEST WHEN COMPARED WITH REGIONAL CITIES STUDIED.

AND YOU MAY GET INTO THIS. THAT'S A LITTLE CAVEATED THOSE RATES UNDER OPTION TWO FOR MULTIFAMILY, FIVE UNITS COULD GO UP AS HIGH AS 36% ON CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, RIGHT? YEAH, WE WERE WORKING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE RATE.

THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT RATES, WE PICKED A RATE TO STUDY AND FOLLOW THROUGH.

YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU MAYOR. ALSO SURVEYED OR STUDIED AS PART OF THE HF & H ANALYSIS, WAS THE COMPARABLE SERVICES ACQUIRED BY OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION.

IN THAT HF & H STUDY CARSON, GARDENA, HAWTHORNE, HERMOSA BEACH, INGLEWOOD, LAWNDALE, MANHATTAN BEACH WERE SURVEYED AND HF & H FOUND THAT REDONDO BEACH MEETS OR EXCEEDS SERVICE LEVELS IN ALL OF THE REVIEWED AREAS.

STAFF HAVE FOCUSED, AND THIS EVENING'S FOCUS IS ON THE RATE RESTRUCTURING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

THERE ARE OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TERMS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ADMIN REPORT, AND STAFF ARE LOOKING FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ON ANY PROVISIONS TONIGHT THAT

[04:00:04]

SO THAT IS REALLY THE END OF THIS EVENING'S PRESENTATION.

THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE SECOND AMENDMENT RATE CHANGES USING THE OPTION TWO STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE INPUT TO STAFF REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO OTHER TERMS, AND TO RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A DRAFT SECOND AMENDMENT AND A REQUEST TO INITIATE A PROPOSITION 218 PROCESS.

AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

YEAH. THANK YOU, ANDREA AND ANDY, AND TEAM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT INVOLVED WITH THIS.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I THINK IT'S BEEN VALIDATED THAT OUR CURRENT CONTRACT WITH ATHENS IS CONTINUES TO BE AMONG THE BEST IN THE IN THE BUSINESS AND THE INDUSTRY.

OUR FINAL ANALYSIS AND I WOULD SAY OUR BOTTOM LINE RECOMMENDATION HERE IS THAT A MOVE TO THIS OPTION TWO STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD MAKE OUR CONTRACT RATE STRUCTURE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE MAJORITY OF CITIES IN THE REGION IS THE OPTIMAL OUTCOME. AND AN EXTENDED AMENDMENT WITH ATHENS IS IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST LONG TERM TO MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY DELIVERY AND OPERATOR, AND TO ENSURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FROM AT OR BELOW MARKET RATES IN OUR KEY CATEGORIES.

NOW, THAT ISN'T TO SAY TO COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT POINT THAT THIS TRANSITION WON'T HAVE SOME IMPACTS ON SOME OF OUR PARTICULAR RATEPAYERS THAT WOULD BE MOVING FROM, SAY, THE 8 TO 10 UNIT MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE TO NOW THE COMMERCIAL MODEL.

AND I WOULD VERY MUCH ENCOURAGE ATHENS REPRESENTATIVES TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO THE PLAN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE IN PLACE TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE TRANSITIONS AND WHAT THEY THINK THEY CAN DO TO HELP MITIGATE THAT IMPACT. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, AN AMENDMENT WITH ATHENS IS REALLY GOING TO HELP SECURE OUR SERVICES INTO THE FUTURE AND PROTECT RATES FOR RESIDENTS LONG TERM.

THAT'S THE GOAL HERE. AND THAT'S REALLY OUR BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION AS WE'VE SPENT THE LAST 6 TO 8 MONTHS EVALUATING THIS THIS DRAFT AGREEMENT.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE STAND TODAY. SO WE'RE WE'RE STRONGLY RECOMMENDING THIS. WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO COME BACK WITH DRAFTING. AND TO ANDREA'S POINT, WE WOULD LIKE INPUT TONIGHT ON ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE OPTION TWO RATE STRUCTURE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE US FOCUS ON IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS.

AND IF THERE ARE ANY PARTICULAR POLICY ITEMS YOU'D LIKE US TO RUN TO GROUND AS WE COME BACK TO YOU WITH THAT PROPOSED FINAL DRAFT LANGUAGE.

OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD STAFF REPORT, APPRECIATE THE SUMMARY.

VERY COGENT AND UNDERSTANDABLE. COMPLEX ISSUE.

AND IT DID BREAK DOWN THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.

SOMEONE FROM ATHENS COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE TRANSITION THAT THE CITY MANAGER JUST TALKED ABOUT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS GARY CLIFFORD.

I'M THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF ATHENS SERVICES.

I HAD THE PLEASURE OF STARTING THIS CONTRACT WITH YOUR CITY MANAGER AND OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM MANY YEARS AGO.

TONIGHT WITH US IS CHRISTIAN WARNER, WHO IS OUR SENIOR EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE.

HE ALSO WAS HERE WHEN WE STARTED THE CONTRACT.

JOHN BIERLY, WHO'S THE EXECUTIVE THAT RUNS THIS AREA FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, AND SHARON SHAPIRO-FOX, WHO YOU ALL KNOW THAT HELPS AS A VICE PRESIDENT IN THE CITY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TRULY A HEARTFELT COMMUNITY PARTNER, NOT JUST A VENDOR. SO, CHRISTIAN, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP, WE COULD ADDRESS THAT.

WE'VE DONE THIS IN MANY CITIES, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT PARTICULARLY TO THAT QUESTION, CHRISTIAN CAN GET TO THE DETAILS. BUT IT IS OUR GOAL TO KNOW THAT SOME OF THE MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.

THERE'S WAYS TO MITIGATE A GOOD PORTION OF THAT WHERE IF SOMEONE HAS A, A FEW CONTAINERS THAT ARE WASTE CONTAINERS RIGHT NOW AND THEY HAVE A GREEN WASTE CONTAINER, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO HAVE A RECYCLING CONTAINER AND HAVE LESS WASTE CONTAINERS.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, SIMPLY THEY CAN DOWNSIZE THEIR WASTE CONTAINER AND SAVE SOME MONEY.

AND ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE RECYCLING AND GREEN MAY COST A LITTLE BIT MORE, WE CAN MITIGATE THAT RANGE OF INCREASE THAT GOES BETWEEN 13%, AR WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE IS, 30% OR 35% TO BRING THAT BACK DOWN.

THERE'S ALSO WAYS TO HELP PEOPLE IN OTHER WAYS TEAR THAT UP IF THEY NEED TO IF IT'S A HARDSHIP.

BUT AS I AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, AND CHRISTIAN WILL BE SPECIFIC, IT'S OUR GOAL.

I'M AN ELECTED OFFICIAL ALSO, AND IT'S OUR GOAL TO NOT HAVE PEOPLE COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH AN ISSUE.

SO WE WORK THOSE ISSUES OUT IN THE FIELD AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CUSTOMER AND THE CITY ARE BOTH TAKEN CARE OF WITH THAT NEW LOOK.

[04:05:07]

WE ALSO HAVE A VERY EXPERIENCED STAFF THAT WILL MONITOR THE BEHAVIORS AND DO AUDITS TO MAKE SURE THE RIGHT THING HAPPENS THERE SO THAT ALL OF THE CUSTOMERS AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WON'T BE AFFECTED.

THE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS WILL BE JUST AFFECTED IN A POSITIVE WAY, BEING ABLE TO DO MORE RECYCLING.

AND THEN THE MULTIFAMILY CUSTOMERS WILL WORK WITH THE MOST.

CHRISTIAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

I'M JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY ADD TO GARY'S COMMENTS THAT OUR RECYCLING COORDINATORS THAT GO OUT TO MEET WITH THE MULTIFAMILY ACCOUNTS DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AT A MINIMUM. WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE, THEY DO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE WASTE STREAM AT THAT ACCOUNT.

THEY RECOMMEND CHANGES TO REDUCE TRASH, TO INCREASE ORGANICS, AND INCREASE RECYCLING TO MITIGATE THEIR BILL.

THAT'S THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT WE DO IN ANY TRANSITION WHEN WE GO TO A THREE CONTAINER PROGRAM LIKE THIS.

THE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT JUST SOME STATS FOR YOU, WE DO WASTE CHARACTERIZATIONS SPECIFICALLY OF REDONDO BEACH WASTE.

AND WHAT WE FOUND IS ABOUT 70% OF THE TOTAL WASTE STREAM IS RECYCLABLE IN SOME WAY OR FASHION, WHETHER IT'S PAPER OR CARDBOARD, ORGANICS, METAL ANYTHING THAT'S RECYCLABLE THAT YOU KEEP OUT OF THE LANDFILL.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS ABOUT 30% SHOULD REALLY GO TO THE LANDFILL AND THAT'S IT.

THAT'S IF EVERYBODY HAND SORTS EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF TRASH BEFORE THEY PUT IT IN ONE OF THE THREE CONTAINERS.

SO WE KNOW WHAT IS WHAT IS MAKING UP THE TRASH.

WE KNOW WHAT'S POSSIBLE. AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE SHARE WITH PEOPLE AS WE WORK WITH THEM TO HELP THEM PUT THE RIGHT THING IN THE RIGHT BARRELS IN ORDER TO, AS GARY SAID, MITIGATE THEIR OVERALL BILL AND HELP THEM LOWER THEIR TRASH CONTAINER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, YOU GUYS BOTH HAVE YOUR HANDS UP.

ANY QUESTION OF ATHENS BEFORE WE SAT WITH THEM FOR OVER AN HOUR, I THINK AT MICHAEL'S LAST FRIDAY.

SO ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ATHENS? ACTUALLY I DO HAVE ONE ACTUALLY.

GO AHEAD. SORRY. SO ONE OF THE CONCERN THAT WE'VE HAD, WE'VE I'VE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HERE IN REDONDO BEACH IS ABOUT THE EXCLUSIVE ROLL OFF FOR TEN YEARS.

THEY FEEL LIKE THAT'S A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND MAYBE WE COULD.

AND THEY LOVE YOU GUYS, BY THE WAY. THEY'RE JUST WORRIED THAT A MONOPOLY IS GOING TO END UP END THEM UP WITH VERY HIGH FEES.

SO HOW CAN WE PROTECT AGAINST EXCESSIVE ROLL OFF FEES AND KEEP THEM, YOU KNOW FAIR AND EQUAL TO THE MEDIAN AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND THE LIKE.

THAT'S A VERY FAIR CONCERN. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

SO FIRST OF ALL, IN THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, ATHENS WOULD GO, IT WOULD BE THE EXCLUSIVE HAULER FOR ROLL OFF ACTIVITY.

HOWEVER, A CITY HAS TO GO THROUGH A FIVE YEAR PHASE OUT PROCESS OF PHASING OUT THE CURRENT ROLL OFF HAULERS THAT ARE THERE.

SO FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE, OF THOSE NEW TEN YEARS, EVERYONE STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO GO GET WHATEVER THEY WANT AND GO BID IT OUT TO THE DIFFERENT ROLL-OFF HAULERS. SO WE'RE REALLY ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF THIS PROPOSED TERM.

WITH THAT, WE CAN'T JUST SET A ROLL OFF RATE.

WE HAVE TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE CITY ON WHAT THAT STARTING ROLL OFF RATE IS GOING TO BE.

IT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, JUST LIKE ALL RATE SHEETS ARE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, AND THAT WOULD BE THE STARTING POINT. WE WOULD SIT WITH THE CITY AND PROBABLY SHOW WITH THE STAFF AND PROBABLY SHOW THEM ALL THE ROLL OFF RATES THAT WE CHARGE AND ALL OF OUR OTHER EXCLUSIVE CITIES TO GIVE THEM AN IDEA OF WHAT THE COSTS ARE AT THAT TIME, AND THEN GO FROM THERE.

EACH YEAR THEREAFTER THE CONTRACT ALREADY HAS A WRITTEN FORMULA FOR AN ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENT, WHICH MEANS THAT ROLL OFF RATE CAN ONLY BE ADJUSTED BY THE CONTRACT APPROVED ADJUSTMENT.

AND IS YOUR RATE IN THE ROLL OFF CITIES LESS OR MORE THAN YOUR RATE IN THE NON-EXCLUSIVE.

SORRY. YES, YOU'RE RATE IN THE EXCLUSIVE ROLE OFF CITIES LESS OR MORE THAN YOUR ROLE OFF RATE IN THE NON-EXCLUSIVE CITIES? BOTH. IT'S BOTH. OKAY. THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE HIGHER AND SOME THAT ARE LOWER.

SO WOULD IT BE FAIR THEN, TO MAYBE ASSIGN AT THIS TIME THAT YOUR ROLL OFF RATE SHOULD BE THE MEDIAN OR AVERAGE OF IN THAT LAST FIFTH YEAR, WHEN DURING THE WIND DOWN THE OTHER ROLL OFF PLAYERS IN THE OFFERING SERVICES IN THE CITY TIED TO THAT METRIC AT

[04:10:05]

YEAH. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA, ASSUMING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE STAFF BEFORE THIS COMES BACK TO YOU TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW SO THAT THERE'S NO SURPRISES IN FIVE YEARS.

RIGHT, OKAY. AND MAYBE WE CAN TALK WITH THEM ABOUT HERE ARE THE COSTS THAT THE ROLL OFF INDUSTRY IS SEEING.

AND THEN JUST ALLOW THEM TO BE ADJUSTED EACH YEAR OVER THESE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THEN WHEN WE GET TO THAT SIXTH YEAR, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE NUMBERS.

YEAH. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR? I DO NOT OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

I, COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT CAN GO FIRST. THANKS.

NO YOU'RE NOT. NO YOU'RE NOT. OH, NOW HE IS AFTER YOU.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I SEE WE HAVE OUR CONSULTANT HF & H WHO IS HERE TONIGHT, LAITH AND LINDSAY.

ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO ADD? THEY'VE. THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK. THEY PREPARED A REPORT.

YOU HAVE THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNCIL. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANYTHING OR ADVISE.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. OKAY.

YEAH. SO, A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO THIS FROM ATHENS, HF & H, AND CERTAINLY ANDY AND ANDREA, THERE'S A LOT IN HERE. AND I THINK, AS WAS MENTIONED AT THE VERY TOP, THIS IS THE BIGGEST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, BIGGEST AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY HAS WITH ANY VENDOR.

AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? YEAH. IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE AGREEMENT'S FEW AGREEMENTS THAT ACTUALLY TOUCHES EVERY PERSON IN OUR CITY, EVERY RESIDENT, EVERY BUSINESS WITH SOME LIMITATIONS.

BUT WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME. WE DEAL WITH IT ALL THE TIME.

ATHENS, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, AND I'VE EXPERIENCED, HAS DONE A GREAT JOB WITH THEIR SERVICES OVER THE YEARS.

YOU CAN HOPE PAST IS PROLOG, AS THEY SAY. YET WHEN THIS DEAL IS DONE, WHAT IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO IS A PIECE OF PAPER WITH TERMS ON IT. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WE HAVE BUSINESS PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT.

AND SO I FEEL CONFIDENT HAVING OUR TEAM, THE A TEAM, ANDY AND ANDREA HANDLE THE NEGOTIATIONS.

ARMS LENGTH WITH ATHENS TO GET A DEAL DONE. IF IT CAN BE DONE ON TERMS THAT ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO OUR CITY.

BUT THERE WAS TALK OF OPTION TWO, AND WE SAW IT IN THE AGENDA PACKET AS WELL.

OPTION TWO WHEREBY IF IT'S A MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE, MULTIFAMILY BUILDING OF FIVE OR MORE.

WOULD CONVERT TO THE COMMERCIAL RATE ESSENTIALLY, IF I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

AMONG THE TWO OPTIONS PRESENTED, THAT ONE SEEMS TO BE THE MORE REASONABLE APPROACH IN A FEW WAYS.

ONE, YEAH, IF YOU'RE FIVE UNITS OR MORE, YOU'RE ALREADY KIND OF HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A COMMERCIAL OPERATION.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU'VE GOT THOSE BINS, THE SO-CALLED THREE YARD BINS AND OTHER SERVICES THAT ARE MORE AKIN TO COMMERCIAL.

SO IF WE HAD TO PICK AN OPTION, THAT ONE SEEMS TO BE TO FIT THE BILL OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

AND THEN SECONDLY, MY UNDERSTANDING WORKING WITH THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI AND STAFF HF & H AND ATHENS IS JUST FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT, OPTION TWO SEEMS TO BE THE MOST STREAMLINED, EASIEST TO TRACK, EASIEST TO FOLLOW, AND EASIEST TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE SERVICES THAT WE'RE CONTRACTING FOR.

SO, YOU KNOW, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE BETWEEN OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO, OPTION TWO DOES SEEM LIKE SOMETHING I'D BE COMFORTABLE DIRECTING STAFF TO ENGAGE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH ATHENS FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS FOR THE SECOND PROPOSED AMENDED AGREEMENT, START THE 218 PROCESS AND GET THAT MOVING FORWARD.

THAT'S JUST THE BEGINNING, THOUGH. OPTION TWO IS THE FRAMEWORK OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT RATE STRUCTURE ARE WE GOING TO DO.

WE THEN HAVE 27 ITEMS, OKAY. 27 ITEMS, IT'S IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

WE HAVE A SUMMARY AS WELL. RATHER THAN GO POINT BY POINT BY POINT ON THESE, AND I'D LIKE TO COVER A FEW, IF I MAY. MAYOR, YOU GOT THE FLOOR. OKAY. I WOULD SAY AT A HIGH-LEVEL WHATEVER STAFF NEGOTIATES THE TOUCHSTONE NEEDS TO BE TO NEGOTIATE AND SECURE THE MOST RESIDENT AND BUSINESS FRIENDLY TERMS FOR OUR CITY THAT YOU CAN

[04:15:05]

BECAUSE AS I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI SAID YOU KNOW, TIMES COME AND GO, COUNCIL MEMBERS COME AND GO, BUSINESS REPS, YOU KNOW, SHARON WAS MENTIONED.

SHE'S DONE GREAT IN HER OUTREACH. BUT ALL THAT CHANGES AT THE END OF THE DAY WE NEED TERMS THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE SATISFIED WITH.

A FEW THINGS IF THAT DO COME TO MIND IS STARTING WITH COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI'S POINT, THE SO-CALLED EXCLUSIVE ROLL OFF RATES. AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI DID A GOOD JOB AS WELL AS ANDREA AND KIND OF EXPLAINING IT WHAT IS THAT.

SO IN OUR CITY, YOU SEE THESE CONTAINERS THAT HAVE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, UNDER OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ATHENS.

IT MAY NOT BE ATHENS AT ALL. SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE? AND SOMETHING I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT AS WELL IS HANDING OVER THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO RUN THAT BUSINESS IN OUR CITY TO 1 ENTITY.

I HEARD MONOPOLY STATED, NOW THAT'S A CONCERN.

AND WE HAVE A LOT OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. WE SEE THAT HAPPENING A LOT.

AND SO WE WANT TO SECURE AND ENSURE THAT WHATEVER RATES WE AGREE TO ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND REPRESENT GOOD MARKET RATES, SO THAT OUR BUILDING COMMUNITY, OUR BUSINESSES DON'T GET STUCK WITH THE BILL.

AND, YOU KNOW, HEY, I'VE GOT A ATHENS OR WHOMEVER IT MAY BE IS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THE RATES ARE SO HIGH THAT THE COST OF BUILDING THIS HOME AND MOVING OUT CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, IT'S RIDICULOUS.

SO WE'D HAVE TO LOCK THAT IN. WE'D HAVE TO, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BUILD IN A MECHANISM NOW WHERE OR AS THE PROCESS GOES FORWARD, WHERE IF WE WERE TO DO THIS EXCLUSIVE ROLL OFF WHEN WE GET TO THE END OF THE FIVE YEARS, IT'S NOT SURPRISE, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING IN PLACE, SO WE HAVE CONFIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT, HEY, THIS THIS WAS REASONABLE, THIS WAS FAIR, THIS WAS MARKET, THIS HASN'T BEEN MANIPULATED.

SO THAT'S THE EXCLUSIVE ROLL OFF. I ALSO SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS NOT TO THROW THE GALLERIA, THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA, INTO THE EXCLUSIVITY THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN HERE, THAT THAT MAKES SENSE. THEY'RE NOT. SOUTH BAY GALLERIA IS NOT CURRENTLY WITHIN OUR EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE THAT WE HAVE WITH ATHENS.

YOU KNOW, GALLERIA IS A BIG PLAYER. THEY WANT TO CHOOSE, PRESUMABLY, AND NEGOTIATE WITH WHOM THEY WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH AND HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT. THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON OVER THERE.

SO I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH STAFF THAT LET'S NOT HAMSTRING, LET'S NOT TIE UP THE SOUTH BAY GALLERIA.

LET'S NOT INCLUDE THEM AS PART OF THIS EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

AND I'M KIND OF VOCAL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE STAFF WAS PRETTY CLEAR ON THAT AS WELL.

AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH EVERYBODY, INCLUDING ATHENS, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE.

DO NOT ADD THE GALLERIA INTO THIS AGREEMENT. IN ANOTHER ITEM AND THIS ONE WAS KIND OF BIG. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE AND IT'S IN THE REPORT, THE WARNING NOTIFICATIONS THAT RESIDENTS AND OTHERS RECEIVE PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT OF FINES AND FEES AND HOPE FORBID, THE SUSPENSION OF SERVICE.

SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE A HOLIDAY PARTY AND YOU HAVE AN EXTRA BAG RIGHT OF, FROM FOR WHATEVER STREAM AND YOU PUT IT ON CURBSIDE, NOT INSIDE THE CONTAINER. ATHENS TYPICALLY WILL PICK IT UP, BUT AT A MINIMUM YOU GET A WARNING AND YOU MAY HAVE GOTTEN A WARNING. YOU MAY HAVE GOTTEN ONE OF THOSE RED OR PINK TAGS ON YOUR.

OKAY. HEY, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN THE CONTAINER.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A WARNING SYSTEM AND I THINK THAT'S WORKED WELL. IT'S HELPED ONE TO EDUCATE.

YOU KNOW IT AND, YOU KNOW, GIVE RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

HEY, I MADE A MISTAKE. IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

IT SEEMS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE WARNING SYSTEM IN, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO DO AS A LONGER AGREEMENT WITH ATHENS.

IT WOULD BE A REAL STICKER SHOCK, NO PUN INTENDED, FOR RESIDENTS TO WAKE UP AND SAY, OH MY GOSH, I JUST GOT BILLED 30, 35, 25, $50 BECAUSE I AN EXTRA BAG NEXT TO MY CONTAINER.

THAT HASN'T BEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST, OUR CURRENT AGREEMENT GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2011 HAS A WARNING NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT OF FEES OR SUSPENSION OF SERVICE IN HERE.

[04:20:04]

AFTER MAYBE WE HEAR MORE, WE COULD GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS. I KNOW THERE'S THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE ISSUE. IT'S A BUSINESS TERM.

WE NEED GOOD SECURITY ON THAT WHERE WE'RE NOT LEFT HOLDING THE BAG.

YOU'LL WORK AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK THROUGH THAT.

WE ALSO HEARD ABOUT IN THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT, AND WE KNOW UNDER OUR CURRENT AGREEMENT, WE HAVE CERTAIN BENEFITS AND SERVICES THAT WE RECEIVE.

YOU KNOW, WE'D WANT TO ENSURE WE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THOSE SERVICES OR LIKE, FOR, LIKE IN THE EVENT THERE'S AN ISSUE OF SOME TYPE WE WANT TO BE ON TOP OF THAT.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FROM A HIGH LEVEL.

THERE'S CERTAINLY A LOT MORE IN HERE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THIS SORT OF BIFURCATED PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE WE MAYBE APPROVE AN OPTION AND THEN TURN OVER WITH SOME DIRECTION, EXPRESSED CONCERNS FOR OUR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE ON AND CERTAINLY HEAR FROM ATHENS TONIGHT.

IF THERE'S ANYTHING FURTHER THEY WANT TO ADDRESS.

LAST ITEM UNDER WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE A TEN YEAR TERM AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S TWO YEARS LEFT.

SO BUT IT WOULD. SO YOU WOULD ADD 7 OR 810 YEAR TERM WITHIN THE CITY HAVING TWO FIVE YEAR OPTIONS IN THE CITY'S DISCRETION.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND IF ATHENS CONTINUES DOING THE GREAT SERVICES THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE AND PROVIDED, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM WITH GIVING THOSE OPTIONS IN THE OUT YEARS.

QUESTION TO CONSIDER AND MAYBE IT WON'T WORK, IS DO WE DO A SEVEN-YEAR TERM WITH, YOU KNOW, THREE FIVE-YEAR OPTIONS OR A FIVE-YEAR TERM WITH THREE FIVE-YEAR OPTIONS? IS THAT DOABLE? I KNOW ATHENS HAS, YOU KNOW, COST TO COVER.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ROLLING STOCK.

THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, DEPRECIATING ASSETS, THEY'VE GOT TRUCKS, ETCETERA, THAT MAYBE THEY WOULD WANT A LITTLE MORE CERTAINTY.

BUT I MENTIONED INSTEAD OF DOING A TEN YEAR CONTRACT WITH TWO, FIVE YEAR OPTIONS, CAN AND SHOULD WE DO A FIVE WITH THREE, FIVE YEARS OR SEVEN WITH THREE FIVE YEARS, SOMETHING WHERE STAFF HAS CONTROL TO EVALUATE AT A REASONABLE JUNCTURE IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE END UP HAVING A PROBLEM HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THAT AND KIND OF HAVE THE INCENTIVE FOR ATHENS TO CONTINUE TO DO THE, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST SAY IS THE GREAT WORK THEY'VE BEEN DOING HERE IN THE CITY SO THAT'S ANOTHER ITEM.

SO THAT'S REALLY ALL FOR NOW. MAYOR, THANKS FOR GIVING ME A LITTLE EXTENDED TIME TO GO THROUGH THIS.

AND THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS SUBJECT TO YOU KNOW, INPUT FROM OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ANYONE FROM ATHENS WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS ANY OF THAT.

THANK YOU, AND THANKS FOR DIGGING DEEP INTO THIS.

I KNOW YOU AND COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI DID A DEEP DIVE, SO I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. SURE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT I AGREE WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING HE JUST SAID, IF NOT EVERYTHING.

I WANTED TO SAY, ACTUALLY, I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SAY WELCOME TO REDONDO BEACH, WHERE OUR TRASH HAULER IS LOVED AND OUR HEALTH DISTRICT IS SUPER CONTROVERSIAL, SO. WE LOVE TRASH, WE HATE HEALTH. SO I AGREE ON POINT SIX.

JUST LOOKING AT THE LIST OF PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TERMS ON PAGE 623 AND 624 OF THE AGENDA PACKET.

ACTUALLY, I CAN DISPLAY THIS IF YOU'D LIKE. IF WE CAN TURN ON 2.B, PLEASE.

I DEFINITELY AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. THE REMOVAL OF THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES, ADJUSTMENT OF SERVICE.

I'D LIKE STAFF TO PUSH BACK ON THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON THE DIVERGENCE AS THE DIVERSION AMOUNT IS BEING CHANGED.

SO IF THAT'S THE LIMITATION OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ADJUSTMENT, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

BUT I DON'T WANT ANY OTHER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO TO LESSEN.

I THINK THAT'S ONE WAY WE KEEP ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT, OTHER FAILURES TO PERFORM.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE, BUT I ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO STAY ON TOP OF THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY MAINTAINS ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO HOLDING ATHENS ACCOUNTABLE.

NOT THAT THEY NEED. I MEAN, WE HAVE GREAT PERFORMANCE FROM ATHENS, RIGHT? AND I IMAGINE THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE STRONG CONTRACT TERMS. AND I'D LIKE THAT, THAT RELATIONSHIP TO STAY EXACTLY THE SAME.

SO I DON'T WANT TO LESSEN ANY OF THESE. GENERAL INDEMNIFICATION, HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE INDEMNIFICATION.

[04:25:05]

AND RELATIVE TO THE ROLE OF I THINK SO, SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE STAFF CAN WORK IN TO THE TO WHAT RATE WILL NEGOTIATE DOWN THE LINE IS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BOTH THE RATES OF ROLL OFF PROVIDERS AT THE AT THE TIME IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO ATHENS HAVING EXCLUSIVITY.

IN OUR CITY ALSO THE RATES OF OTHERS, YOU KNOW, IN ADJACENT CITIES OR ATHENS IN OTHER CITIES NEARBY CAN ALL FACTOR IN AND THEN HELP US REACH AN AVERAGE OR A MEDIAN, WHATEVER IS MOST APPROPRIATE AND CAN FACTOR IN.

BUT OTHERWISE I'M OKAY WITH THE EXCLUSIVITY ON THE GALLERIA.

YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T FOCUS TOO MUCH ON THAT. I FEEL LIKE THE GALLERY IS AT A PIVOTAL SPOT RIGHT NOW WHERE MAYBE YOU COULD JUST TELL US, YOU KNOW, NOW, WHY WOULD YOU RECOMMEND AGAINST PUTTING THE GALLERY INTO THE.

YEAH, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. THE GALLERIA, I MEAN, YOU WERE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS PATH A LITTLE BIT.

IT'S A BIT DELICATE RIGHT NOW WITH THE GALLERIA.

THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP IS OUT TO BID EFFECTIVELY FOR PERSPECTIVE NEW PARTNERS OR NEW BUILDERS, NEW DEVELOPERS, NEW OWNERS. THEY'RE VETTING, I THINK, VARIETY OF PROPOSALS THERE ARE A HANDFUL LEFT, I THINK, BUT EACH OF THEM PRESENT DIFFERENT CONCEPTS AND PROJECTS.

THERE MIGHT BE A MIXED VILLAGE TYPE PLAN THAT COMES FORWARD.

THERE COULD BE A BIG BOX RETAIL CONCEPT. THERE COULD BE EXECUTION OF THE ENTITLEMENT THAT WAS ALREADY PROVIDED.

SO EACH OF THOSE STRUCTURES ARE GOING TO REQUIRE DIFFERENT RESPONSES.

I THINK RIGHT NOW, FORCING THEM INTO OUR BOX WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW SORT OF WHAT STRATOSPHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN IN TERMS OF SERVICE AND TYPES AND NEEDS, I THINK IS JUST IT'S TOO EARLY FOR THAT.

MY HOPE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN ATHENS PRESENTS TO THEM SIMILAR CONTRACT TERMS AND PRICING, THAT THEY'LL JUMP ON IT, THAT ATHENS WILL BE THE PREFERRED HAULER. AND TYPICALLY, WHEN YOU KNOW, GARY AND CHRISTIAN GO IN A ROOM AND SHARON IN THE TEAM, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL LIKELY WIN THEM OVER.

SO I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TROUBLE. YOU KNOW, WITH THAT INTO THE FUTURE, I JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN PUSH THE GALLERIA AT THIS JUNCTURE ANY HARDER THAN THEY'RE ALREADY PUSHING THEMSELVES. SO I'D RATHER NOT ADD A NEW VARIABLE TO THEIR PROCESS.

NOW, IF THEY'RE ADDED TO THIS EXCLUSIVE HAULER FRANCHISE THEN THAT WOULDN'T TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY, WOULD IT? OR IT WOULD. WELL, IT DEPENDS. I MEAN, THE ROLL OFF CONCEPT WOULDN'T IT TAKE EFFECT FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT BEING SUBJECT TO THE SERVICE MODELING WOULD BE MORE IMMEDIATE, WOULD BE IMMEDIATE WITH THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. CAN WE DELAY BOTH AS TO THE GALLERIA 4 OR 5 YEARS.

SO THE GALLERIA KICKS INTO THIS IN FIVE. GIVE THEM A DELAYED NOTIFICATION PERIOD I SUPPOSE.

SO EITHER DELAYED NOTIFICATION PERIOD OR DELAYED SERVICING BY ATHENS UNDER, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S FRANCHISE FOR FIVE YEARS SO THAT IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH ANY PRO FORMAS OR ANYTHING THAT'S OCCURRING RIGHT NOW, BUT.

JUST REMEMBER, THE LAST TIME WE WOULD HAVE SAID A PRO FORMA WAS WHEN WE ENTITLED THE PROJECT TO 2019, AND HERE WE ARE IN 2026 WITH A COMPLETELY NEW OWNERSHIP GROUP IN ROUND TWO FOR PROPOSALS.

SO, I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE EVEN A 4 OR 5 YEAR WINDOW IS SUFFICIENT.

OKAY. SO I THINK ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT WE COULD WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT AND LEAVE THAT OPEN POTENTIALLY TO THE FIVE YEAR JUST LIKE THE ROLL OFF.

AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY THE THE ONCE THEY FIGURE OUT THEIR IDENTITY COULD BENEFIT FROM THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

SO THAT'S A DISCUSSION. IT COULD STAY AS IT IS, OR WE COULD PROPOSE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, A FIVE YEAR LIKE THE ROLL OFF. SO MAYBE IT'S JUST A DECISION POINT WE CAN KICK OFF SORRY, DELAY FOR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW THAT THE COUNCIL CAN HAVE A DECISION POINT AT THAT TIME. WHATEVER COUNCIL IS UP HERE TO DECIDE TO INCLUDE GALLERIA OR NOT.

BUT SO THE GALLERIA DOESN'T STAY ON THE OUTSIDE, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BECOMING FOREVER, RIGHT? THAT'S REVENUE LOSS. WE COULD ALWAYS WE COULD ALWAYS AMEND THE AGREEMENT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.

AND IF, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IDEALLY YOU HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE THE GALLERIA HAS PRESENTED A SERVICE DELIVERY PACKAGE, AND ATHENS, GIVEN ITS EXCLUSIVITY THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, IS COMPETITIVE IN THAT RESPECT AND PROVIDES THEM THE SERVICES THEY MOST DESIRE.

BUT WE CAN REVISIT IT. WE CAN BUILD IN LANGUAGE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION FIVE YEARS, OR WE COULD JUST SIMPLY WAIT AND SEE WHAT OCCURS AND AMEND THE AGREEMENT AT THAT TIME.

ALL RIGHT, FAIR ENOUGH. THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

[04:30:03]

I'VE BEEN THROUGH LOTS OF THIS, AND IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN, BUT I HAVE BEEN HIT WITH THE.

OH, YOUR GREEN BIN WAS TOO HEAVY BECAUSE IT'S LIKE SOMETIMES IT GETS WET AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

AND I WOULD HATE TO GET FINED BECAUSE IT RAINED AND I PUT MY LEAVES IN THE BIN.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, I CAN'T WEIGH MY BIN MYSELF AND TELL HOW HEAVY IT IS.

SO GETTING A WARNING IS LIKE, OH, I NEED TO PAY ATTENTION THAT WHEN I'M PUTTING WHEN I'M PUTTING HEAVY STUFF IN THERE, THAT MAKES SENSE.

ODDLY ENOUGH, I ALSO GOT A WARNING FROM MY GREEN BIN WAS NOT FULL ENOUGH, WHICH I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT'S NOT LISTED IN HERE, SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT ONE.

WITH THE ROLL OFF EXCLUSIVITY, WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THAT IS WHAT I'LL CALL THE BANDIT ROLL OFF THAT WE'VE GOT IN THE CITY.

THE CITY, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HIRE A ROLL OFF.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO OFF, COME IN, TAKE A BUNCH OF TRASH IN THE ALLEY BEHIND MY OFFICE BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S DOING SOME CONSTRUCTION AND THEN DISAPPEAR, AND THE CITY PROBABLY DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. THE CITY IS NOT GETTING ANY PERCENTAGE OF IT.

WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE DIVERSION OF THE WASTE? SO I THINK HAVING THE ROLL OFF EXCLUSIVITY WORKS REALLY WELL.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF THAT SORT OF FIVE YEAR TRANSITION FOR GALLERIA AS WELL.

I THINK THAT SORT OF MAKES SENSE. INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM EXCLUSIVE NOW, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, YOU GOT THIS TIME TO FIGURE IT OUT.

HOPEFULLY THE GALLERIA WILL HAVE SOMETHING FIGURED OUT IN FIVE YEARS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THAT LONG ALREADY.

AND YEAH, THAT WAS IT FOR MY NOTES. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI.

ARE YOU STILL? NO, I'M STILL UP, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

ARE YOU A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE? I, UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS OR.

WELL, WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER KALUDEROVIC. YEAH. THAT'S. ABSOLUTELY.

WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ABOUT MICROPHONE.

OH. I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE WARNING NOTIFICATION SYSTEM.

I ASSUME THAT THAT'S A MECHANISM TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR.

DO YOU HAVE ANY HEARTBURN WITH WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO KEEP THAT IN? I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK.

IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE. AND THAT'S WHAT SHARON DOES FOR A LIVING.

AND WHETHER IT'S A COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER OR A RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I USED TO BE A POLICE OFFICER AND IT ALWAYS WASN'T A POSITIVE CONTACT, EVEN THOUGH I TRIED TO MAKE IT THAT WAY. IT'S ALWAYS A POSITIVE CONTACT.

SOMEBODY SAYS, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT. WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE, WHEN HOUSE A GOES TO BED, HOUSE B FILLS UP THE TRASH CAN AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT.

SO IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT WITH A CUSTOMER ABOUT THE BEHAVIORS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH TREATING THE EARTH WELL AND RECYCLING THINGS.

SO WE LIKE THE WARNING SYSTEM BECAUSE NOBODY'S SHOCKED BY IT.

AND I THINK IN A LOT OF CONTRACTORS, MORE THAN ONE WARNING.

SO IT'S A GOOD THING. WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION THOUGH.

I MEAN, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HEAR EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, AND WE'LL SIT DOWN AND USE THE BEST PRACTICE.

WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOMETHING THAT YOUR STAFF CONSIDERS TO BE THE BEST PRACTICES.

AND HOPEFULLY FOR US, THE WARNING IS STILL IN THERE.

IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO PEOPLE, AND WE'VE LEARNED QUITE A BIT.

AND I THINK THAT WE'VE I'VE PROBABLY HAVE 100 REDONDO BEACH IN MY CELL PHONE THAT CALLED ME.

AND DIRECTLY WHEN THEY GET THAT MESSAGE OR NOT AND SAY, HEY GARY, WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO? I WOULD DO WHATEVER SHARON SAYS. SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING THAT DISCUSSION.

YEAH. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. AND IF I CAN ASK YOU ONE OTHER ONE IN REGARD TO POINTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE PROPOSED TERMS, TEN YEARS PLUS FIVE YEARS, TWO, FIVE-YEAR OPTIONS TO ADJUST THAT.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU OR WHERE IS THE.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'VE MODELED THIS ON A TEN-YEAR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION TO MAXIMIZE YOUR RATE.

AND YOUR RATE IS IN ONE OF THE BEST RATES IN THE REGION.

AND WE APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GO LONGER.

SO WE'VE KIND OF WE'VE KIND OF BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF AND EVERYONE ELSE.

AND I THINK WE ENDED UP ON A TEN PLUS FIVE PLUS FIVE.

I THINK I ASKED FOR A 20-YEAR ROLLING TO START, AND IT WAS BROUGHT WAY BACK TO A 10.5 BY FIVE.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT TEN IS ABOUT THE LIMIT OF TAKING EQUIPMENT.

WHEN WE REPLACE A TRUCK, WE DON'T WANT LIKE FOUR YEARS LEFT AND THEN TO HAVE TO PUT THAT TRUCK SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WHEN I STARTED HERE, I FELL IN LOVE WITH REDONDO BEACH.

AND I'M HOPING WHEN I RETIRE, MY KIDS ARE DOWN HERE TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO GIVE MORE YEARS IN 2040.

[04:35:02]

AND I THINK IN THE INDUSTRY IT'S ABOUT THE MINIMUM.

AND THEN THE EXTRA FIVE YEARS ARE FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR.

AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, TOO, IS THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF THINGS IN YOUR CONTRACT THAT ARE BUILT IN WHERE IF WE DON'T DO A GOOD JOB, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TEN YEARS. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE IN THERE ALREADY.

AND IF WE DO SOMETHING INCORRIGIBLE, YOU CAN PULL US IN AND HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

SO I THINK YOU'RE PROTECTED EITHER WAY. BUT TEN IS KIND OF LIKE THE FLOOR FOR US.

OKAY, PERFECT. WELL, THOSE THOSE WERE JUST MY QUESTIONS.

I WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOU. OKAY LET ME WEIGH IN ON ONE THING, IF I MAY.

I DON'T THINK THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO SET A DATE FOR GALLERIA.

I THINK WE JUST RELY ON IF THEY WANT TO COME IN, AND IT'S IN BEST INTEREST OF BOTH PARTIES TO BE ADDED.

WE CAN, THE COUNCIL CAN ADDRESS IT AT ANY TIME.

I DON'T THINK SETTING AN ARBITRARY FIVE YEARS IS I MEAN, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT'S THE TIMELINE WHERE THIS IS GOING TO WORK OUT? YEAH. THEIR COMMENT TO THAT. NOT KNOWING WHAT THE GALLERIA WILL BE WHEN WE WANT TO START SERVICE PUT SOME QUESTIONS IN MY MIND ABOUT THE PROP 218 PROCEDURE. ARE WE SENDING THAT TO ONE ACCOUNT AND A PROTEST IS GOING TO WIN THE DAY? OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE MULTIFAMILY OUT THERE AND WHAT WILL THAT LOOK LIKE? SO I JUST THINK IT'S PROBABLY PREMATURE TO THINK ABOUT ADDING THEM RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE'RE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, SO I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU KNOW, A LOGICAL TIME TO ADD A CUSTOMER IS, IS WHEN YOU HAVE TO REBOOT THE PROP 218 PROCESS.

REMEMBER, THE PROP 218 PROCESS ONLY CAN COVER A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS.

SO YOU KNOW, IF THIS ALL PROCEEDS THE WAY, WE HOPE YOU KNOW WE'LL BE INITIATING A PROCESS THAT WILL SET RATES FOR THE SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE LOGICAL TIME TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS AND MAKE CHANGES IF THERE AREN'T ANY ADDITIONAL EXTRAORDINARY INDUSTRY CHANGES.

BUT I THINK WE CAN AMEND IF AND WHEN THE GALLERY HAS A DEFINED OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE, DEFINED PLAN, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

THANK YOU. ON THE ONE OF THE ITEMS FOR DIRECTOR WINJE, I UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE SOME DISCRETION ABOUT DECISION POINTS. IN THE CONTRACT WITH CERTAIN ITEMS. JUST BASED ON MY DISCUSSIONS WITH EVERYBODY, IT SEEMS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS THAT DISCRETION, THAT CONTROL, IF YOU WILL, OVER SOME OF THOSE ITEMS. AND IF YOU WANT TO MENTION 1 OR 2 OF THEM, I THINK IT MAY BE INSTRUCTIVE.

YEAH. I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO DISPUTES ABOUT THE SERVICE LEVELS OR SERVICE PACKAGE THAT MIGHT BE RECOMMENDED BY ATHENS AND MAYBE OR MAYBE NOT AGREED TO BY THE RESIDENT.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR STAFF, AND I DON'T RECALL IF IT'S THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE OR IF IT'S PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, BUT IT HAS FALLEN INTO THE LAP OF THE PERSON IN MY CHAIR.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAINTAIN THAT.

I THINK WE'LL ARGUE FOR THAT AND TIP IN MY HAND HERE WITH OUR NEGOTIATION.

BUT I DO THINK WE'D LIKE TO MAINTAIN SOME CONTROL OVER THAT.

I THINK THE IDEA OF BEST PRACTICE, I THINK THE IDEA OF SOME FLEXIBILITY COMING UP WITH STEPS THAT WORK FOR BOTH PARTIES, BUT ULTIMATELY FALLING BACK TO THE CITY IS KIND OF THE ARBITER OF ANY OF THOSE DISPUTES BETWEEN A CUSTOMER AND THE CONTRACTOR IS A GOOD IDEA. OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT, I HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE.

YEAH. OKAY. SO AND BEFORE I DO, I, I WANT TO LET OUR STAFF AND OUR CITY MANAGER KNOW THAT IF WE DO GO FORWARD WITH THE NEGOTIATION, YOU HAVE THE DIRECTION.

WE'LL HAVE THE DIRECTION TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES.

AND THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE, AT TIMES IN AN ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION, SOME DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS.

BUT REST ASSURED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO BACK UP OUR STAFF WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE THINGS.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE YOUR BACK AND YOU KNOW THAT GOING INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT DON'T BECAUSE WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU. I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY BE INVOLVED AS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE T'S ARE CROSSED, THE I'S ARE DOTTED. WE'RE PROTECTED. TO COVER EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED UP HERE ON THE DEFAULT, THE LEVEL OF SERVICES, STATE OF THE ART, AIR TIGHT, FAIR WITH AN EYE TOWARDS PROTECTING US.

OKAY, SO WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION TWO AND TO ENGAGE ATHENS IN NEGOTIATING THE ADDITIONAL TERMS OF THEIR

[04:40:05]

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO INCLUDE. INCLUDING EXCLUSIVE ROLL OFF.

YES. EXCLUDING GALLERIA. YES. EXCLUDING. AND THANKS FOR SAYING THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE GALLERIA FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED. AND THE WARNING VERSUS THE. WELL, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WE'RE ALL. YEAH. I THINK WE'RE CLEAR ON THE DIRECTION.

I THINK WE KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH, YOU KNOW, WHERE TO GO.

YOU CAN WATCH THIS AGAIN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE TO WATCH.

SO THAT'S IT, CITY MANAGER, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO KNOW? WE APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION. WE'RE EAGER TO GET THIS MOVING.

AND WE'LL WORK HARD ON THESE NEGOTIATIONS. TRY TO BE BACK HERE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

ATHENS ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS? AFFIRMATIVE. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU MADE THE SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY.

IS THERE ANY. THERE'S NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S NOT CITY STAFF OR ATHENS OR CONSULTANT LUKE.

ATTENDEES AND NO ECOMMENTS. OKAY. SO I WILL CALL THE VOTE, ALL FOR? AYE. THE HEALTH DISTRICT. ANYBODY AGAINST. OKAY.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. IT'S NOW 11:00.

OUR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR POLICY IS TO LOOK AT 10:30 OR AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE ANY ITEMS OR WHETHER WE WANT TO COMPLETE THE. WE HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION MAYOR ON ITEM N.3.

IF, BUT IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS, IT ISN'T TIME SENSITIVE, BUT EVERY EVERY WEEK WE DELAY THE RFP ISSUANCE.

WE JUST COUNCILWOMAN TO CONTINUE. KEEP GOING OKAY.

CONTINUE. OKAY, SO IT'S UNANIMOUS TO CONTINUE.

LET'S KEEP GOING. LET'S KEEP IT BRIEF EVERYONE.

YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. I'LL BE OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO N.3.

6.5 HOURS. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AGREEMENT ON WITH GRIFFIN TO EXTEND THE PHASE TWO AND TO APPROVE THE RFQS FOR THE FIRE STATIONS AND THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS AND POLICE ANNEX.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF IN THIS PRESENTATION.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT FOR THE AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN STRUCTURES AS WELL AS RFQ/P APPROVAL FOR MEASURE FP IMPLEMENTATION. GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW HERE AND GET INTO AN OVERVIEW OF MEASURE FP WAS APPROVED IN 2024.

AUTHORIZED 93% OR $93,350,000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS THAT WILL BE USED TO REPLACE FIRE STATIONS ONE AND TWO, THE MAIN POLICE STATION, AS WELL AS THE POLICE, AND RENOVATE THE POLICE ANNEX FACILITY.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS JULY 2025 IS WHEN WE APPROVED THE AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN AND THEN MOST RECENTLY IN DECEMBER.

IN 2025, WE HAD A MEASURE FP OVERVIEW AND UPDATE, WHERE COUNCIL APPROVED PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD AS THE PREFERRED PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD.

AND WE HAD DRAFT RFQ/PS AS WELL AS THE FORM DOCUMENT FROM THE DESIGN BUILD INSTITUTE OF AMERICA AND COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT STAFF RETURN WITH REVISED RFQ/P FOR BOTH PROJECTS FOR MEASURE FP, AS WELL AS UPDATED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

AND SO JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE'RE AT THE AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN THAT WE APPROVED LAST YEAR TOOK US THROUGH THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PHASE.

AND SO NOW WE'RE GETTING READY TO ENTER INTO PHASE ONE, WHICH IS OUR PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE, WHICH THEN IS FOLLOWED BY CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING AND CLOSEOUT. BUT THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE IS VERY INTEGRAL TO MEASURE FP IMPLEMENTATION.

AND IF WE ELECT TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH GRIFFIN, GRIFFIN FIRST AND FOREMOST WILL HELP THE CITY IN SELECTING THE PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD ENTITY OR ENTITIES. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE'LL HAVE ONE FIRM THAT CAN COMPLETE BOTH THE POLICE AND FIRE SIDES OF THE PROJECT, BUT WE MAY HAVE INDIVIDUAL FIRMS THAT DO IT SEPARATELY.

AND SO IN PHASE 1, GRIFFIN WILL BE HELPING US DEFINE THE SCOPE FOR THE MEASURE FP PROJECTS REFINE AND PROGRAM FORWARD.

AND THEN WE BASICALLY UNLEASH THAT PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD ENTITY TO DESIGN, ARCHITECT, ENGINEER THE PROJECTS, AND WE BASICALLY WORK WITH THEM BACK AND FORTH, REFINING THOSE PRELIMINARY DESIGNS, ESTABLISH BUDGETS SCHEDULES, IDENTIFY POTENTIAL RISKS, AND THEN DEVELOP THAT GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE THAT BASICALLY SERVES AS A JUMP OFF POINT TO START PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. AND SO TO HAVE GRIFFIN TO CONTINUE AS OUR PARTNER IN THIS PROCESS THE COST FOR THEIR SERVICES TO COMPLETE PHASE 1 IS AN ADDITIONAL $877,000 TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONTRACT, WHICH IS $150,000.

AND PHASE 1 COMPLETION GETTING TO THAT GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE IS ESTIMATED TO TAKE PLACE IN JUNE OF 2027.

[04:45:04]

AND WITH THE DRAFT CONTRACT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT FINAL BECAUSE ALL FIRMS THAT ARE RESPONDING WILL HAVE EXCLUSIONS, REQUESTS, NEGOTIATING TERMS, BUT IT WILL REALLY SERVE AS THE BASIS OF NEGOTIATION WITH THESE FIRMS THAT DO RESPOND.

AND BASICALLY WE WORK TO ENHANCE INSURANCE AND BONDING REQUIREMENTS, ALIGN WITH BEST PRACTICES ON THE MARKET.

WE HAVE A FEW RECENT PROJECTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE BASICALLY LOOKED AT HOW THEY ADAPTED THAT PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD TEMPLATE TO SUIT THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR ORGANIZATION'S NEEDS. AND WE TRIED TO WORK WITH THAT.

AND WE ALSO HAD A PRELIMINARY OUTSIDE COUNSEL REVIEW FROM RWG, FROM A PERSON WELL VERSED IN THE, YOU KNOW, PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION, THEY HELPED US FURTHER REFINED THAT LEGAL TEMPLATE OR THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTATION, THAT LEGAL TEMPLATE AS WELL. AND SO AT THIS TIME, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH GRIFFIN FOR PHASE ONE SERVICES. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY PHASE TWO WOULD BE NEGOTIATED LATER ON, AND WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO YOU FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

AND THEN ALSO THAT YOU APPROVE THE RFQ/P DOCUMENTS AND DRAFT CONTRACT FOR RELEASE TO THE MARKET, SO WE CAN START SOLICITING THOSE PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD ENTITIES TO COME IN AND REALLY HELP US MOVE FORWARD THROUGH PHASE 1 AND ADVANCE THE MEASURE FP PROJECTS EVEN FURTHER.

SO THAT'S THE END OF SCRIPTED COMMENTS THAT I HAVE.

WE DID PLAN ON HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GRIFFIN ON SITE.

HE HAS COME DOWN WITH THE FLU AND SO WAS UNABLE TO JOIN.

AND I THINK I THINK THAT WAS THE CORRECT MOVE.

HE MAY BE AVAILABLE ON ZOOM IF HE IS STILL STILL STILL WITH US THIS EVENING, BUT HOPEFULLY I CAN HANDLE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

BUT IF NOT, WE CAN WORK ON GETTING YOU THOSE ANSWERS.

SO THANK YOU AND OPEN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

AND IF I COULD, I'D LIKE TO THANK LUKE AND CHRISTINE, THE TEAM AND OUR GRIFFIN REPS FOR, I THINK BASED ON COUNCIL DIRECTION, WHICH I THINK WAS GREAT AT OUR LAST DISCUSSION IN ADVANCING THESE DOCUMENTS, I THINK WE'VE GOT BETTER TEMPLATES IN PLACE.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A BETTER DEFINED WORK. IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT AT THIS JUNCTURE.

AND THERE MAY BE SOME MORE TO DO, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE AT A GOOD, SOLID POINT HERE.

READY TO ADVANCE THESE DOCUMENTS, GET THE BALL ROLLING, AND WE CAN MAKE FINAL REVISIONS AS WE ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT.

SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, AND WE'RE READY TO GET MOVING.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THANKS FOR KEEPING IT BRIEF AND SUCCINCT.

GOOD REPORT OUT. I DID REVIEW THE RFQS AND THE DRAFT CONTRACT, AND THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT WE HAD LAST TIME.

I WOULD SAY THE RFQS AREN'T UP TO WHAT I WOULD DO, BUT I DON'T WANT PERFECT TO BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD ENOUGH.

I THINK THE IMPROVEMENTS CAUGHT MY MAIN CONCERN.

SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT. AND I THINK THE CONTRACT IS, HAS ENOUGH MEAT IN IT NOW THAT AND THERE WILL HAVE TO BE NEGOTIATION WITH WHOMEVER IS THE WINNER. SO I AM GOOD WITH THAT. LET'S SEE. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS.

AND I DO THINK WE HAVE A BETTER WORK PRODUCT AS A RESULT OF THAT.

AND AS A RESULT OF THE GREAT TEAM THAT OUR CITY MANAGER PUT TOGETHER.

CHRISTINE, I KNOW ANDY WINJE HAS HAD INPUT. WE HAVE JIM, JEFF IS HERE.

AND I KNOW THE REAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS PROCESS AS WELL.

ONE ITEM CITY MANAGER AND I SPOKE ABOUT IN THE MAYOR AS WELL FOR THE RFQ ON THE POLICE STATIONS, SO THE RENOVATION AND THE NEW HEADQUARTERS. CAN WE MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE LOCATION TO GIVE THE BIDDER, THE PROPOSER, SOME FLEXIBILITY AS TO WHERE TO PUT THE HEADQUARTERS? YES. MAYBE THEY KEEP THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPOT HERE YET WE HAVE THE ANNEX SITE.

WE HAVE SOME ROOM OVER THERE. IN OTHER WORDS, INSTEAD OF CONSTRAINING AND LIMITING, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS UNIQUE PROCESS IS TO SPUR CREATIVITY. AND HERE WHAT OPTIONS MAY BE.

SO WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION OF THE FACILITY, THE NEW HEADQUARTERS CAN WE BUILD THAT IN THAT FLEXIBILITY?

[04:50:08]

ASKING ABOUT POSSIBILITIES FOR INTEGRATION, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

WE ACTUALLY, AFTER HEARING FROM A FEW OF YOU IN DIFFERENT WAYS, WE SORT OF BRAINSTORMED PERHAPS AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE LANGUAGE HERE TO KIND OF MAKE CLEAR THAT WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO DO THAT. IT'S GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON, OR IF WE COULD PUT UP THE SCREEN HERE, I THINK LUKE'S PULLED UP THE DOCUMENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO WE WOULD PROPOSE THESE RED LINES.

SO IN THE ONCE YOU SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT, LUKE, JUST TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.

SO THIS IS IN THE POLICE FACILITY KIND OF KEY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AREA.

SO ONE OF THE CONCEPTS WE'VE HAD IN HERE HAS BEEN UNDER THIS B SECTION WHERE WE WANT TO WE WANT TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE CONSOLIDATION OF FUNCTIONALITY IN THE STATIONS AS BEST WE CAN, BUT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS TO WHERE WE DON'T SUDDENLY THINK, OH, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A UNIFIED COMMAND STRUCTURE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE BUILDING.

WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS. WE'VE GOT $45 MILLION.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT WORK, BUT WE WANT TO LEAN INTO THE COHESION AND COORDINATION AND THE CONSOLIDATION AS, YOU KNOW, AS FEASIBLE. AND WE'RE, SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED KIND OF WHERE WE WOULD DO THAT IN THIS.

SO WE'RE UPDATING THE TITLE TO REFLECT FEASIBLE CONSOLIDATION.

TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR PRIMARY GOAL IS TO HAVE AS MANY EFFICIENCIES IN THIS AS POSSIBLE.

WE'VE REFERENCED THAT BOTH THIS EFFICIENCY COULD OCCUR AT THE CIVIC CENTER AND OR ANNEX SITE.

AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT DOWN BELOW HERE, RESPONDENTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE SCOPE DISTRIBUTIONS BETWEEN THE LOCATIONS TO ULTIMATELY PROVIDE FOR US AS OPTIMAL AND INTEGRATED FACILITY OR FACILITIES AS POSSIBLE.

SO WE THINK THIS CAPTURES, I'VE HEARD A FEW DIFFERENT SENTIMENTS FROM YOU.

WE THINK THIS CAPTURES THE SPIRIT OF THAT AND ENGINEERS THE CONVERSATION AND FORCES OUR OUR POTENTIAL DESIGN FIRMS TO AT LEAST RUN THIS DOWN CONCEPTUALLY BEFORE WE COMMIT TO THE FINAL PLAN. SO IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE THINK THESE ARE GOOD ADDITIONS TO THE RFP GOING FORWARD.

ONE THE ONE ELEMENT I WOULD ADD TO THIS IS MAY MAY ALSO BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE.

YEAH I MEAN COST EFFECTIVE I THINK IS UP ABOVE.

WE TALK ABOUT OPERATIONAL. WELL I GUESS WE'D SAY COST SAVINGS EFFICIENCIES OR COST SAVINGS THERE TOO.

YEAH, YEAH THAT'S THE GOAL. SO WE THINK THESE ARE GOOD ADJUSTMENTS AND WE THINK THEY CAPTURE A COUPLE OF REMARKS.

I'VE HEARD FROM A FEW OF YOU ON THIS. SO IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT, WE WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE INCLUDE THIS WITH THE FINAL RFP THAT'S RELEASED.

OKAY, IF YOU COULD SCROLL DOWN, IF I MAY, MAYOR, CONTINUE.

YEAH, SCROLL DOWN TO 2.2 LOCATION. SHOULD THIS BE, DOES IT NEED TO BE REVISED ACCORDINGLY? WELL, I THINK WE REFERENCE THE TWO FACILITIES ELSEWHERE IN OUR PROGRAM SCOPE.

SO I THINK THE EFFICIENCY. IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE 2.2 STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS GOT TO BE AT 401 OR NOT. I THINK IT'S TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RENOVATING THE HEADQUARTERS, WE MEAN THE BUILDING THAT'S AT 401. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, I'M SORRY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REBUILDING, THE. PD HQ IS DEFINED AS THE BUILDING. THAT'S THE KEY.

I THINK THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE TWO STRUCTURES THAT THEY'RE HAVING.

IN ONE CASE REBUILD AND IN THE OTHER RENOVATE.

SO THIS IS, I THINK, IMPORTANT. YES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEFINE IT.

IT'S UNDER LOCATION. AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THE PROPOSER TO CHOOSE A LOCATION WHEN, IF FEASIBLE FOR ALL OR A PART OF SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE HEADQUARTERS TO BE ON THE ANNEX PROPERTY WHERE WE WE HAVE THE WE HAVE A LEASE THERE THAT COULD ALLOW US TO DO IT.

I WOULD WANT THIS 2.2 TO BE CONTRARY TO THAT.

IF IT IS, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU COULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT AND THINK ABOUT.

WE CAN, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE OKAY BECAUSE IT'S TRYING TO DESCRIBE THE EXISTING LOCATION, THE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE REPLACING. SO THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEM MATERIALLY.

BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD A CAVEAT TO THIS THAT SAYS THIS ISN'T MEANT TO IMPLY THAT THESE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGES ARE REPLACED IN THE LIKE FOR LIKE, AREA. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND YEAH, I THINK CERTAINLY THE SPIRIT IS IN THERE PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY WHERE COST FEASIBLE AND TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, TO ALLOW MAYBE FOR SOME KIND OF VALUE ADDED OPPORTUNITIES, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, HAVING A PREDOMINANT FACILITY, A HEADQUARTERS FACILITY AT THE ANNEX SITE, CONNECTED TO THE ANNEX, NEXT TO THE ANNEX, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, WE DON'T WANT TO CONSTRAIN BUT INSPIRE THAT CREATIVITY AND SEE,

[04:55:02]

IT COULD BE THAT IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO BRING SOME OF THE FUNCTIONALITY BACK OVER TO THE MAIN SITE AND, YOU KNOW, MOVE THINGS TO THE ANNEX THAT EXIST TODAY, SO THERE'S THAT COULD GO A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

AND IT AGAIN, IT COULD POSSIBLY I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY IN THIS BUILDING IF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT PRESCRIBING MAYBE MAINTAIN A PORTION OF THAT BUILDING, THE COMMUNICATION STRUCTURE, WHICH COULD FREE UP MORE BUILDING SPACE OR NOT.

BUT IT JUST SEEMS THERE'S WE'VE GOT KIND OF A BIG PALLET HERE THAT COULD BE WORKED ON, AND I PUT IT IN YOUR TRUSTED HANDS TO SEE THAT.

YEAH. AND I THINK THE KEY IS MAKING SURE THAT RESPONSIVE DESIGN FIRMS UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION HERE WITHIN AVAILABLE RESOURCES.

AND WE'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND MAKE CLEAR THAT WE'RE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS IF THEY'VE GOT THEM.

YOU'LL MAKE IT CLEAR TO THEM YOU'RE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS AND OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI, I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE.

I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION. WITH THIS NEXT PHASE, WE'LL PUSH INTO ALMOST $900,000 OF EXPENDITURES ON MEASURE FP.

AT WHAT POINT ARE WE GOING TO DO THE BOND OFFERING INSTEAD OF INVESTING OUR AVAILABLE? YEAH, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE'RE OKAY THROUGH THE BALANCE OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.

BASED ON WHAT WE SET ASIDE AND WILL LIKELY NEED TO SET A LITTLE BIT MORE ASIDE FOR THE START OF NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

I THINK TENTATIVELY, WE'RE LOOKING AT KIND OF A FALL OF THIS YEAR, WINTER OF THIS YEAR ISSUANCE.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, SPENDING THAT FULL $900,000 BY NEXT JUNE AND THEN PRESUMABLY PICKING UP THE NEXT TRANCHE, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AND PRE-ENGINEERING WORK WITH THE PDB, YOU KNOW, THE PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD FIRMS. AT THAT POINT WE DON'T WANT TO FRONT THE MONEY ANYMORE. WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE REAL CASH.

NOW, WHETHER WE DO THAT IN A TRANCHE OR TRANCHES, WE'LL EVALUATE THAT AS WE GET CLOSER.

BUT I DON'T THINK ANY I MEAN, I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NOTHING SOONER THAN THIS FALL WINTER.

YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WALLER. AS A FOLLOW UP TO COUNCIL MEMBER CASTLE'S QUESTION, AT WHAT POINT DO WE NEED TO START SETTING UP THE BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE? REALLY, WE'LL PROBABLY SET IT UP BEFORE WE ISSUE, BUT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT IN PLACE UNTIL THE BOND PROCEEDS ARE BEING SPENT.

I MEAN, THEIR WHOLE ROLE IS TO OVERSEE AND CONFIRM THAT EXPENDITURES CONFORM TO MEASURE FPS PARAMETERS.

BUT WE'LL, I THINK THAT STRUCTURAL WILL RUN IN PARALLEL TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE.

SO THIRD QUARTER THIS YEAR. YEAH, SECOND, THIRD QUARTER.

YEAH. WELL YEAH. THIRD OR FOURTH QUARTER OF THIS YEAR OF 26.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPEED OF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE A LITTLE BIT LATE IN GETTING THEM SEATED AND INFORMED AND READY.

WE'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING FROM, FROM OTHER EXAMPLES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER CITIES.

SO WE CAN BRING THAT BACK TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FRAMEWORK IN THAT TIME PERIOD.

SO THERE'LL BE PLENTY OF TIME BEFORE THE ISSUANCE. THREE OF THESE RECENTLY, SO THEY ALSO HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN SETTING THEM UP.

YEAH A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT YEAH. OKAY, THAT'S IT.

DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION.

YEAH. SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IT IS YOU WANT US TO.

LORD. HE'S GOING TO GO BACK UP HERE. SORRY. YOU COULD GO TO THE TITLE, TOO, I THINK, BUT.

THE, REALLY THE TWO POINTS ARE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED WITH GRIFFIN AND TO DIRECT THE RELEASE OF THE TWO RFPS, AS AMENDED. AS AMENDED. SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IF THERE'S NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, IS ANYONE ONLINE? THERE'S NO ONE ON. THERE'S NO ATTENDEES AND NO ECOMMENTS.

OKAY, I'LL CALL THE VOTE THEN. ALL FOR? AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, DOWN TO CITY MANAGER ITEMS. GIVEN THE LATENESS OF THE EVENING, I'LL PASS TONIGHT. SO.

OKAY. LET'S SEE, WE HAD P.1 ALREADY. SO REFERRALS TO STAFF.

[Q. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REFERRALS TO STAFF]

SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REVISIT THE SIGN AND SEE IF IT DIES ON THE FLOOR.

BUT JUST ONE THING OF NOTE. WE ARE BRINGING, THE CONTRACT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU.

SO IT. SO THE CONTRACT COMES BACK, PERHAPS THE WELL, THE CONTRACT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU.

[05:00:01]

AND TWO YEARS FROM NOW WE CAN CHANGE IT. BUT.

TO THAT POINT, THOUGH, WHEN THE CONTRACT COMES BACK, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IF IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE GIVING US THE PRICE FOR WHAT WE'VE DESIGNED, OR IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT? WELL, THE PRICE IT WOULD BE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE GRAPHIC WITH THE NEW GRAPHIC AND THE PAINTING AND REPAIR OF THE SIGN.

IF THERE WERE AT THAT POINT ANY DIRECTION TO ADJUST THAT SCOPE OF WORK, IT COULD BE PROVIDED.

BUT IT WOULDN'T. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD AFFECT COST OR NOT, SOMETHING WE CERTAINLY MAY HAVE THE ANSWER TO BEFOREHAND, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, BUT. OKAY. YEAH, WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK AS DIRECTED AT THIS POINT.

NOTHING FOR ME. SO IS THAT IT? YEAH. OKAY. NOTHING FOR ME.

OKAY. NOTHING FOR ME. COUNCIL MEMBER OBAGI. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED A REFERRAL FOR THIS, BUT BEFORE WE HAVE OUR NEXT STRATEGIC PLANNING, CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT FORM THAT TAKES.

THE SCOPE? YEAH. YEAH, WE CAN. COOL, THANKS. COUNCIL MEMBER BEHRENDT.

NONE, THANK YOU. AND I'VE GOT ONE. OKAY. WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ALL FOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO WE WILL BE ADJOURNING TO A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 3RD. CLOSED SESSION AT 4:30. OPEN SESSION AT 6 P.M..

RIGHT HERE IN CITY HALL. SO WE'RE OUT NEXT WEEK? YEAH, WE'RE OFF NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.