Survey shows majority of Redondo Beach voters oppose storefront cannabis; council receives report and will revisit with budget
February 11, 2026 | Redondo Beach City, Los Angeles County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Redondo Beach City Council received a public-opinion survey on allowing storefront retail cannabis in the city and voted unanimously to file the report and revisit the issue during the 2027-28 budget process.
Dr. Richard Bernard of FM3 presented results from a random sample of 504 registered voters interviewed Dec. 6 15. The survey has an overall margin of error of roughly +/-4 percentage points and included an approach that randomized the order of supportive and opposing messages to test persuasion effects. Dr. Bernard said baseline awareness was low: about 78% of respondents did not know whether selling cannabis products was legal in the city.
Findings summarized by Dr. Bernard included:
- A straight, uninformed question showed 52% opposed and 36% in favor of allowing storefront cannabis stores; 12% were undecided.
- After staff-provided regulatory information about location limits (no more than one store per ZIP code), independent product testing, security requirements and a 4.5% local tax on gross receipts, the split was 42% support and 47% oppose (11% undecided).
- After a sequence of randomized pro and con arguments, aggregate results shifted to 55% opposed, 38% support and 7% unsure; opposition arguments produced larger persuasion effects overall.
Council discussion reflected the split in priorities: some members, citing the survey and constituent contact, urged caution and opposed immediately opening permitting (Council member Waller, Council member Castle). Council member Abbaji argued that regulated stores could provide a modest revenue stream to help close budget gaps and support public-safety costs, and he supported issuing an RFP on a pilot basis if community sentiment changed.
Council moved to receive and file the FM3 survey report and asked staff to package the findings for the 2027-28 budget cycle; the motion passed 5-0. Staff said they are prepared to execute an RFI/RFP and the ordinance and licensing framework if council later directs that step.
Public commenters at the meeting voiced both positions: some residents urged the council to honor the survey and block cannabis stores; others said prohibition pushes demand onto an unregulated black market and recommended regulated access with strong safeguards. Staff and the pollster acknowledged the survey did not list every detailed regulation the council had discussed (for example, advertising/display limits) and that additional public education would change awareness levels.
The council will file the FM3 survey in the record and may revisit permitting or related revenue options during the next budget cycle.
Dr. Richard Bernard of FM3 presented results from a random sample of 504 registered voters interviewed Dec. 6 15. The survey has an overall margin of error of roughly +/-4 percentage points and included an approach that randomized the order of supportive and opposing messages to test persuasion effects. Dr. Bernard said baseline awareness was low: about 78% of respondents did not know whether selling cannabis products was legal in the city.
Findings summarized by Dr. Bernard included:
- A straight, uninformed question showed 52% opposed and 36% in favor of allowing storefront cannabis stores; 12% were undecided.
- After staff-provided regulatory information about location limits (no more than one store per ZIP code), independent product testing, security requirements and a 4.5% local tax on gross receipts, the split was 42% support and 47% oppose (11% undecided).
- After a sequence of randomized pro and con arguments, aggregate results shifted to 55% opposed, 38% support and 7% unsure; opposition arguments produced larger persuasion effects overall.
Council discussion reflected the split in priorities: some members, citing the survey and constituent contact, urged caution and opposed immediately opening permitting (Council member Waller, Council member Castle). Council member Abbaji argued that regulated stores could provide a modest revenue stream to help close budget gaps and support public-safety costs, and he supported issuing an RFP on a pilot basis if community sentiment changed.
Council moved to receive and file the FM3 survey report and asked staff to package the findings for the 2027-28 budget cycle; the motion passed 5-0. Staff said they are prepared to execute an RFI/RFP and the ordinance and licensing framework if council later directs that step.
Public commenters at the meeting voiced both positions: some residents urged the council to honor the survey and block cannabis stores; others said prohibition pushes demand onto an unregulated black market and recommended regulated access with strong safeguards. Staff and the pollster acknowledged the survey did not list every detailed regulation the council had discussed (for example, advertising/display limits) and that additional public education would change awareness levels.
The council will file the FM3 survey in the record and may revisit permitting or related revenue options during the next budget cycle.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
