You Deserve The Truth
Four years ago my opponent, Candace Nafissi, spread misinformation and lies in her unsuccessful attempt to win the election. You saw through her deceit. This time around she continues to evade a genuine discussion of complex issues that you deserve.
By removing context from financial numbers and intentionally misrepresenting policy decisions, she attempts to convince you that I’m fiscally irresponsible and personally benefiting from developers.
Be assured, I have NO financial ties to development. Every decision I make comes after careful examination and fact gathering so we can protect our quality of life and safeguard the future of our city.
Municipal problem solving demands long hours of diligent research, cooperative council members, respectful disagreement, and compromise. I will remain focused on real world solutions to complex issues and getting things done that benefit our entire community.
Don’t be FOOLED by Nafissi. There’s a reason why so many current South Bay elected officials endorse my re-election. Because we work collaboratively to get things done… not sling mud.
I am happy to discuss my votes or perspective on any issue with you. Please feel free to contact me anytime or read below for examples.
Here are some of the things I have read online or in mailers. As mentioned above – they misrepresent financial and policy decisions that require more complex discussions to answer factually:
Voted to extend terms up to additional 18 months without a vote of the residents – FALSE
For a detailed explanation read this.
Working for his self interest and not the residents – FALSE
Christian’s record and responsiveness to residents tells a different story. Visit the Testimonials page to see what actual District 3 residents have to say.
Approved a 99 year lease to give away our waterfront – FALSE
Center Cal does not yet have a lease. They have an ALPIF – which is an agreement to lease. A lease cannot be given until there is a final approved project. Since that doesn’t exist now, we are simply 3 years away from the ALPIF expiring.
Failed to enact Campaign Finance reform – FALSE
On his motion, Christian and the council passed Campaign Finance reform in 2016. It subsequently lost support at the Ordinance 1st reading. His 2016 motion was recently modified slightly and has passed 1st and 2nd reading. It went into effect February 7, 2019.
Voted to continue the $700,000+ giveaway to the Chamber of Commerce – FALSE
Christian’s budget motion removed Visitor Bureau funding via the Transit Occupancy Tax and created a new hotel self-taxed Independent Tourism District. The same motion also discontinued an annual contract with the Chamber that provided specific annual services to the city for $67K. The two South Redondo representatives voted NO on this budget motion.
Ignored resident’s concerns about flooding in the district – FALSE
Christian and the Public Works staff addressed this issue for Steinhart lane including adding specific funding to the Budget. We are also looking at further green street roadway and infiltration improvements.
Electioneered on School grounds related to Measure C – FALSE
Christian held a community meeting to discuss Measure C where arguments for and against were presented. Contact RBUSD Superintendent Dr. Keller at: Skeller@rbusd.org for an official correction.
Lobbied Coastal Commission to approve Waterfront – FALSE
Christian met with Commission staff as a resident, not in his capacity as an elected official, to gain a better understanding of their overall concerns.
Lobbied to oppose Measure C after passage – FALSE
The entire City Council has supported the will of the people with Measure C since its passage just it it supported the prior will of the people, Measure G.
Voted for building 600 Condos on the power plant property – Misleading
Christian voted as a resident on a Ballot Measure in March of 2015. This was not an item before City Council once Christian was elected. Since 2016, Christian has served on the AES Subcommittee with Mayor Brand and Councilmember Loewenstein, and communicated to AES and their potential buyer(s) that the District 3 residents have no appetite for residential at the site. Feel free to ask the other sub-committee members as they have clearly heard Christian express this multiple times.
Voted to give $860K and $769K of taxpayer money for Chamber of Commerce slush fund – FALSE & Misleading
The Chamber of Commerce does not have a slush fund. The Visitors Bureau was a separate and distinct financial entity administered by the Chamber of Commerce. Both entities had a 3 year contract with the City of Redondo Beach when Christian was elected. The monies allocated to the Visitors Bureau came from the Transit Occupancy Tax which was paid by visitors staying in local hotels. This is also known as a Bed Tax. While the vast majority of TOT goes into the General Fund, roughly 10% of that went to the Visitors Bureau to finance annual marketing budgets in order to attract tourists / visitors. It should be noted that this arrangement was created by a past City Council of whom two of it’s members endorse Christian’s opponent. This was an annual allocation that grew substantially in recent years due to a handful of new hotels being built.
One of the first things Christian recognized, upon being elected and going through the first budget, was that this would need to be renegotiated / changed when the contract(s) came up for renewal. The two payments listed above were for the final two years of the contract. In 2017, on Christian’s budget motion, the Council dissolved the Visitor’s Bureau, discontinued the separate Chamber contract, and set in motion the creation of a new Hotelier-run marketing solution common in many other cities called a Tourism District.
The two South Redondo representatives voted NO on this budget motion.
Voted Yes for 115 apartments on PCH – Misleading
This refers to the Legado Project at PCH / Palos Verdes Blvd. Christian was the ONLY Councilmember to make a motion to deny the project. It did not receive a second… and that was, in hindsight, a blessing as it would have landed the city in an unwinnable litigation scenario.
Christian chose to support then Councilmember Brand’s motion to allow for 115 units as a compromise solution. Councilmembers Emdee and Ginsburg did not support the motion. Legado sued the city and after one year we settled with them. If you hear the Mayor use this as an example of Christian “supporting overdevelopment” remind him it was his motion.
Voted Yes for 52 Condos on PCH – True
This refers to the One South project which was recently completed. It is a mixed use development that replaced a tired and rundown commercial space.
Voted to buyout the Fun Factory lease unnecessarily for $9 Million – wasteful since Waterfront Project was killed by Coastal Commission – Misleading
There is a lot of hyperbole and misinformation being repeated regarding the the $9 million lease re-acquisition of Fisherman’s Cove (Fun Factory.) This re-acquisition was recently added into a refinancing of the prior 3 re-acquisitions completed as a result of the 2007 Harbor Asset Management Plan. The combined four will yield a lower debt service payment than we have today on the $23,665,000 spent in 2011, 2012 and 2014 to reacquire, also through financing, Pier Plaza, International Boardwalk and the Redondo Beach Marina. Those were all done by unanimous vote and without issue.
While $9 million was the negotiated price, it should be noted that it was actually a $21+ million savings from both the original over-inflated asking price, and the estimated potential litigation costs (as the city had 40+ years of pending claims with Fisherman’s Cove) which were settled as a result of the negotiations. Labeling this acquisition as unnecessary is interesting considering the city will ultimately need control of the leasehold in order to do any project or just simply rebuild the Pier Parking Structure.
It should be also be noted that the city is currently spending $1.5Million dollars a year to fix/band-aid the parking structure and will do so for the next 10-15 years until it will absolutely require replacement. Had a project come to fruition – or once any future project eventually happens, the city would no longer need to spend the $1.5 Million annually. This would allow for potential prepayments on the debt service bonds OR re-investment into other infrastructure needs within the Harbor area.
The Coastal Commission did not hold any hearings on the Waterfront Project – so therefore they did not “kill it.” The Project was pulled from Coastal Commission consideration by Center Cal. That action, in and of itself, rendered the project “dead.”
Voted to lease King Harbor for 99 years to a mall developer. He should have waited 35 days for the public to vote on it – now the developer is suing the city for $15 Million – Misleading
The Council did not vote to lease King Harbor in it’s entirety. The harbor is broken into many separate leaseholds, all on different long-term leases, as is common practice. This is referring to portions of the Pier and Marina area (including Basin 3) that ends at Seaside Lagoon / Portofino Way. Center Cal does not yet have a lease. They have an ALPIF – which is an agreement to lease. A lease cannot be given until there is a final approved project. Since that doesn’t exist now, we are simply 3 years away from the ALPIF expiring.
The process to get here took over 15 years and included a major downzoning of allowable net new development in the Harbor area from a potential 1.6 Million square feet to a maximum ceiling amount of 400K square feet. Shade Hotel and the Harbor Patrol building also fall within this capped amount. The city took the 400K amount and new zoning restrictions to a vote in November, 2010 as Measure G. It passed with 12,622 Yes votes to 11,422 no votes.
The city then sought out a Private Public Partnership to effectuate a revitalized waterfront. Many cities that require large infrastructure investments seek out a 3P or PPP scenario to ensure the burden is not fully carried by the General Fund or taxpayers through additional bonding measures. In this case, the scenario as laid out by previous city councils and city management assumed the private partner would shoulder the bulk of infrastructure costs estimated to be between $100 Million and $250 Million. The city ultimately was to cover $25 Million in infrastructure costs.
The term “mall” surfaced in 2010 by those fighting against Measure G. Well before a private partner was selected or a project was envisioned and presented. This term was used to create an idea of something like the Galleria invading the waterfront. Those who opposed Measure G have fought consistently for years and were already crafting a 3-tiered plan to kill a future project as early as 2015. This included drafting a ballot measure, planning to sue on the validity of an eventual Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and appealing any project to the Coastal Commission.
The city ultimately chose Center Cal Properties to be the private entity and a multi-year process ensued including public outreach in the early phases. When the Draft EIR was released, the city extended the public commenting period. It then took an additional 6 months to respond to the many voluminous comments as prepared by opponents. The Harbor Commission held 3 Public hearings over a 3-4 month period and ultimately approved a project. The project was appealed. The appeal was found meritless and further changes were made to the project by the council. Many of these delays or extensions of time and appeals pushed any final decisions related to voting on the ALPIF closer to the March, 2017 election day.
Measure C was circulated during the fall of 2016 and once the appeal was denied, the EIR lawsuit was filed as well as the appeal to Coastal Commission. Measure C was put on the ballot proposing stricter limits of the previous Measure G zoning and a whole variety of administrative actions that may not even be ultimately actionable. See the City Attorney’s impartial analysis of Measure C.
The private partner is suing the city as a result of Measure C’s passage (Yes 9,229 No 6,925) which the courts ruled does not apply to the previously proposed Waterfront Project. The private partner could have chosen to work with the city and develop a smaller project – but they chose to unfortunately litigate as a way to recoup their costs / expenses over a multi-year period. A smaller project would / will naturally change any negotiated terms and most likely the amount of infrastructure investment that the city / taxpayers will have to absorb.
They city will either continue to work through the litigation or find a way to settle. I’m happy to discuss any of this in greater detail with anyone interested.
Voted No on Measure C – Misleading
Christian voted as a resident on a Ballot Measure in March of 2017. The City Council, including Christian, voted to put Measure C on the ballot and has done nothing to impede the process of validating Measure C. Christian has expressed concerns about specific and poorly worded language in Measure C related to potential administrative actions that may not be enforceable.
Voted to taint the Planning Commission by appointing a developer consultant – Misleading
The planning commissioner this refers to had already served for four years and was up for re-appointment. His day job is working for a Public Affairs firm. This firm has clients that include developers and/or large companies. None of these clients came before the Planning Commission with the exception of one previous client (Legado) which this commissioner had not worked on in his Public Affairs capacity. Regardless, out of an abundance of caution, he recused himself from the Legado Public Hearings in 2016.
City commissions are made up of residents from all walks of life and perspectives. They apply with the intention of wanting to serve their community in a volunteer capacity. The Mayor has made it clear that if you voted No on Measure C – he does not want you on a City Commission. An individual’s job or position on ballot measures should not be used as a litmus test to determine whether they can or should serve.
Voted to squander the opportunity for $2 Million worth of concessions and other modifications from the Galleria project – Misleading
Christian voted to close the Public Hearing in October for the Galleria Appeal, having heard all the testimony from those present. This did not preclude the City Council from continuing it’s deliberative process to a second meeting. A few things should be noted… how does Christian’s opponent and her supporters know what concessions or modifications we would’ve asked for or discussed? It is a broad assumption to make. One change would NOT have been included if Council had a discussion that night or continued to another night… the skate park. The Mayor refused to meet with QIC and did not do so until AFTER the Public Hearing was continued. So his idea of a skate park probably wouldn’t have happened. Christian spent time over 3 years meeting with the property owners about their potential project and the impacts on our community. Anyone is invited to talk to QIC directly about the many ideas and suggestions Christian made over the 3 years. The $2 Million dollar amount is actually $1 Million. The second million are monies that the property owner is required to pay as part of the city’s Public Art Fund requirements – which is roughly a $6 Million contribution. $1 Million of that will go towards art and /or related amenities along Artesia.
Voted for 300 apartments and 60% bigger Galleria, increasing car traffic 60%-80% – FALSE / Misleading
The City Council voted unanimously to approve all aspects of the Galleria. The Galleria is well within their property rights, existing zoning and the law to revitalize / expand their on-site footprint. Based on the maximum allowable office space component of 175K square feet, the actual total daily traffic counts in aggregate (for both incoming and outgoing car trips) would actually be a 24% increase in existing traffic counts.
Horvath’s votes cost you, the taxpayer: $29,216,000 – False / Misleading
While this sounds impressive and scary, it is misleading.
- the $9MM lease re-acquisition is financed along with previous re-acquisitions to have a lower debt service than we currently pay. This is like a mortgage if you will. The city pays monthly over a 30 year period. There are also no pre-payment penalties – so the city can lower it’s debt service if the council decides to. One has to wonder why the other 3 re-acquisitions that happened before Christian was on council are not being used in this argument.
- Center Cal owes reimbursement fees of roughly $1,033,000 for the EIR process. The city has not received full remittance as a result of litigation discussed above. Naturally, the city is still trying to ensure repayment occurs.
- As mentioned above, a lawsuit was filed by Jim Light / Building a Better Redondo against the city related to the Waterfront EIR. The city prevailed on 24 of 27 counts in the EIR case, and of the three the city did not prevail on, two became moot as a result of Measure C’s passage. Despite this information the judge awarded $683K to those who filed the lawsuit. Unfortunately, Councilmembers are not at liberty to discuss the council’s vote to appeal or why that decision was made. No monies have been paid.
- Center Cal, the city’s private partner also discussed above, is suing to recoup their investment costs for $15MM. The city is fighting back against this claim. No monies have been paid
- The city’s legal expenses as a result of Measure C to date are under $1 MM, not $3.5MM +. Many of those expenses were a result of the city being obligated to defend the inherent flaws written into Measure C – which again, the courts ruled had to be approved by the Coastal Commission just as the city attorney had opined. There will be additional costs as the authors of Measure C have chosen to appeal their loss.