Richard Montgomery

In 2017, they expressed concern about the feasibility of the 2018 implementation timeline [2], and questioned whether CDBG funds could be redirected to transit projects due to limited discretionary funds [3]. In 2018, they asked about timelines for specific infrastructure projects like Liberty Village paving and Marine Avenue resurfacing [5]. In 2022, they supported retaining the testing fund for employee peace of mind [10], defended the budget citing past recession resilience [12], and stressed the need to address a $1.1M unfunded pension liability [16]. In 2024, they expressed concerns about hiring timelines and workforce shortages [15].

Over time: They shifted from questioning CDBG fund allocation in 2017 [3] to emphasizing the need to address pension liabilities in 2024 [16].

Richard Montgomery supported traffic safety improvements, including directing a traffic engineer to assess intersections and consider stop signs [4], and advocated for alternative traffic calming measures due to concerns about unwarranted stop signs [10]. He supported bicycle mobility initiatives, such as sharrows for school route connectivity [3], and proposed widening sidewalks to enhance separation between pedestrians and cyclists [2]. On parking issues, he opposed the disparity between on-street and lot meter rates, proposing equitable $1.50 rates for both [9], and supported reconditioned meters for cost savings and street control [12]. Additionally, he proposed modern meters with solar power and adjustable rates to manage parking [11].

Over time: Montgomery shifted from opposing parking rate disparities and proposing equitable rates in 2018 [9] to supporting reconditioned meters for cost savings and street control in 2018 [12], and later to proposing modern meters with solar power and adjustable rates in 2019 [11].

In 2021, they expressed concerns about traffic impacts and the need for community engagement regarding the Airfield and Terminal Modernization Project [8]. They also urged collaboration with neighboring cities to address regional issues stemming from LAX expansion, such as traffic, noise, and pollution [7].

In 2017, they emphasized Manhattan Beach's leadership in climate action since 2007 and the urgency to meet the December 17th deadline for joining the CCA [1][2]. In 2018, they supported including a 20-gallon can in the RFP for waste management evaluation and suggested a six-month trial period for the Sustainability Task Force [3][4]. In 2019, they opposed transitioning to 100% renewable energy for city facilities due to cost concerns and questioned the toxicity of proposed organic pesticides [5][6]. In 2022, they supported increasing groundwater pumping for water conservation and questioned long-term pumping capacity [7][8].

Over time: They shifted from supporting short-term sustainability initiatives in 2018 [4] to opposing long-term renewable energy commitments in 2019 [5].

In 2017, they emphasized that staff time should be considered a fiscal implication in the adoption of an annual stormwater service fee [3]. In 2019, they supported a federal grant approval related to stormwater, describing it as a win-win for the city and Public Works due to its cost efficiency [5]. In 2022, they supported a water rate increase, highlighting the need for proactive infrastructure investment and maintenance [6]. In 2024, they celebrated the results of a storm drain measure election and credited staff and residents [7].

Over time: They shifted from emphasizing fiscal implications of stormwater service fees in 2017 [3] to supporting infrastructure investment and federal grant approvals by 2019 and 2022 [5][6].

In 2018, they questioned the declaration of a shelter crisis and the size of the task force [1], and later emphasized the city's right to opt out of conflicting requirements [2]. In 2020, they supported regional coordination and the importance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for reducing homelessness [3]. In 2021, they supported future discussion on shelter beds [4], but opposed state mandates like SB 9/10 due to density constraints [5]. In 2022, they blamed the state for stripping local control over housing policies [6], and supported the South Bay Regional Housing Trust for local control and policy engagement [7].

Over time: They shifted from emphasizing the city's right to opt out of conflicting requirements [2] to supporting regional coordination and local control through initiatives like the South Bay Regional Housing Trust [3][7].

Richard Montgomery supported permanent art installations over temporary projects in 2017 [1], and later supported the Catalina Classic Statue Project in 2021, emphasizing community support and opposing micromanagement of the design [4]. In 2018, they opposed delaying the Red House preservation project, stressing the urgency of its preservation [3]. They also expressed neutral positions on several arts-related projects, including the Art Center Mural Project [5], the Design and Funding for the Plaque [6], and the Historical Accuracy of Surfboard Shop Plaque [7].

Over time: From 2017 to 2021, Montgomery shifted from supporting permanent art installations [1] to supporting a specific statue project while emphasizing community input [4].

In 2018, they emphasized practical enforcement mechanisms for short-term rentals [2]. In 2019, they stated that stricter enforcement and registration requirements were necessary [3], and proposed adding a code enforcement officer for weekend coverage to address short-term rental issues [4].

Over time: From 2018 to 2019, they shifted from emphasizing practical enforcement mechanisms to advocating for stricter enforcement and registration requirements [2][3].

In 2020, Richard Montgomery proposed extending outdoor dining permits until county restrictions are lifted, taking a neutral position [2]. In 2021, he supported extending dining decks through September to provide certainty for businesses [3]. By 2024, he opposed new outdoor dining projects, warning against rushing into initiatives without understanding costs and risks, citing past failures [5].

Over time: Richard Montgomery shifted from supporting outdoor dining program extensions in 2021 [3] to opposing new projects by 2024 [5].

In March 2021, they opposed ending enforcement due to ongoing pandemic risks [2]. In April 2021, they supported the Ambassador program’s value for public safety [3]. In September 2021, they advocated for mandatory vaccination to protect public safety and taxpayers [4]. In December 2022, they supported proper notice in rescinding emergency orders [5].

Over time: They shifted from opposing the end of enforcement in March 2021 [2] to supporting the rescission of emergency orders with proper notice in December 2022 [5].

In 2021, they rejected a hardship exemption for a tobacco retailer, citing violations of the vaping ban and lack of evidence for the request [4].

In 2018, they expressed opposition to the Bike Repair Station Installation Project due to concerns about maintenance and equipment durability in coastal conditions [1]. In 2018, they emphasized the need for a reserve fund during discussions about Manhattan Village Field Replacement and Partnerships [2]. In 2021, they praised grant funding and community involvement in the design of Paliwag Park Playground Replacement [3]. In 2024, they opposed the Big Pool Modernization Study and Funding Options due to concerns about the cost-benefit of renovating the 1950s building [4].

In 2021, they opposed using the word 'apology' in relation to Bruce's Beach due to litigation risks [1]. In 2022, they supported keeping Bruce's Beach open for events with proper guidelines [2]. They also expressed a preference for Option 1 with modifications to preserve open space for the Bruce's Beach Monument [3].

In 2017, Richard Montgomery supported demolishing and rebuilding Fire Station 2 as part of a renovation and replacement effort [1]. In 2018, he noted a significant reduction in complaints and praised Edison's responsiveness regarding electric grid upgrades and reliability [2]. In 2019, he supported moving forward with the second phase of a fire department feasibility study following a letter of support from the fire union [3].