Select an Agenda Item to Comment on.
Council should view salaries in conjunction with all related costs, including pensions, vacation/sick, medical insurance, comp time, cash-outs, buy-backs, early retirement, shadow credits, etc., and compare all the PRIVATE sector (which is paying these costs). Our pensions are unsustainable because they are excessive. So you need to adjust other components to adjust to sustainable--like no salary increases. Then consider that reserves are increased in proportion to these extra costs per policy.
Unnecessary corporatization of M.B., and will likely result in unsightly proliferation like the "Parks Make Life Better" signs. Takes away from the historical seal. Was told by the mayor this will all be free and would not use staff time. I interpret different.
Another change to something I thought was weird from inception.
I think the council has a lot of gall, and not leadership, in scheduling this matter this way. The January meeting outlined a good process going forward, and did not need pre-empted. I suggest you back off, continue a 100% ban, and join with other cities with a current 100% ban to see what is practical going forward, including Coastal Commission challenges. Then assemble some good factual material with appropriate alternatives, and present to the residents for guidance and cogent feedback.
This proposed ordinance is nothing but a thinly veiled bequest to Airbnb and other platforms that have demonstrated contempt for our existing ban and will create an even-greater regulatory nightmare. As council already knows well, opening the door to STR's regardless of restrictions within the "coastal zone" area will cede our authority to the Coastal Commission, which supports the proliferation of STR's. Serve your constituents and not special interests by enforcing the existing ban!
I served as resident representative on the Sepulveda working group and helped craft this change. As a resident that was involved in the struggle to make the Gelson's development project more palpable to our neighborhood, I wish this ordinance had been in effect earlier. I personally would have welcomed a boutique hotel in my neighborhood. That would have been a much bigger revenue contributor (food sales are tax exempt) to the City. The proposed increased height is modest, no canyon effect.
16-foot tall FLASHING speed signs and 16-foot tall FLASHING cross walk signs commonly seen on commercial corridors are inappropriate in tight residential neighborhood settings when less invasive alternative measures can achieve the safety required. The impacted residents were not given any opportunity for input before construction began.This is setting a bad precedent and is not in keeping with the "small town character" in the City of Manhattan Beach's Mission Statement.
The residents and City Council of Manhattan Beach have been misled as the City violates local, state and federal laws. The City has failed to comply with Safe Routes to School grant terms, the local municipal code, state laws, and federal laws. This failure, along with the failure to follow engineering principles and conduct traffic investigations has led to installation of the projects that are excessive and have resulted in waste of taxpayer funds exposing the City to liability. See attached
Hoping to send a separate e-mail to you. I saw the 29th St. installation 2 Sundays ago and immediately recognized it as out of scale and proportion. Later that day, neighbors Randy and Lissen Schnack stopped to bring this to my attention and express their concerns (i.e., "more than one complaint"). My home's side yard is along Blanche from 31st to 30th. Please consider replacing such signs with something more appropriate, the acceptance of which will be first vetted by the neighborhood.