BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 8, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
As you know, I represent what was once the most overlooked and highly impacted communities along the old Harbor ROW. What’s changed about that is I’ve managed to get some attention from significant Metro players to point out the obvious, which is that there are hundreds of Redondo households that were being swept under the carpet and we will not take this Greenline narrative of “Metro will do what Metro wants to do” lying down. We have managed to DEBUNK old talking points of “well Metro owns the ROW”, “well transit center..”, “Uhh, full funded..”, “budget..”, etc.
But I already went over all of those talking points here in chambers back on Aug 2. I mainly want to thank Mayor pro tem Nehrenheim for bringing up the fact that we NEED our City of Redondo Beach commissions to participate in this and conduct our our own studies on the alternatives. I can’t stress how crucial a THOROUGH study on the ROW, done by those who are on these commissions to serve our city and protect us from potential disaster is.
Case in point: Why are we as a city not shouting from the rooftops about the egregious danger brought to the townhome complex by ROUTINE gas pipeline maintenance on the ROW? Two years ago an irreparable sinkhole happened under the townhome infrastructure which damaged the separating wall and the outdoor space of two units. One cannot even use their front door and can only enter their home through their garage. Two years later this is still NOT FIXED.
Was this the result of insufficient studies done before that development? What would happen to the rest of those developments when 5+ years of heavy construction begins, let alone 192 passing trains per day after that?
That’s the big one, and we should ALL be aware and concerned! There are a number of other things to look at but it seems the only ones thinking about it are those of us who live out here.
Among us there are folks who are retired engineers, and just as important are the homeowners who are sweating out the integrity of their properties and we are calling on our Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission and Public Works department to step up because they care about the critical reality of what this project brings to our city. We need studies done and reports to present to Metro and the Metro Board of Directors… AS A CITY. Thank you!
1 From: Tim Ozenne
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 10:43 AM
To: CityClerk; City Clerk; [email protected]; Pat Furey Cc: Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Proposed Bike Path Permitting in Torrance Attachments: Bike Path Comment Rev(TOO).pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
To: Torrance Mayor, Council, Traffic Commission, Planning Commission and Redondo Beach Planning Commission
Dear Mayor, Council, and Commissioners:
Attached please find written comments regarding Beach Cities Health District's proposal to the Torrance Planning Commission for a bike lane. We understand this is Agenda Item 7A to be considered at the commission's meeting on November 7.
As these comments show, we are both opposed to the proposal as it is now configured. Although we do not plan to attend tonight's commission meeting, we hope our opposition can be noted in meeting records and that the written comments will be put in the record.
Thank you,
Tim and Gini Ozenne
Linda Drive
Torrance
BCHD Bicycle Path Proposal to Torrance Traffic Commission As a 44-year resident of the neighborhood immediately east of the project, and one whose home is only about 1000 feet from the project, I oppose the BCHD Bike Path along Flagler Lane as currently proposed.
As far as I am concerned, the proposal is really intended to obtain changes in Torrance that mostly benefit BCHD’s development plan with no substantial links to bicycle safety and clear losses to many Torrance residents. Here I discuss some problems with the proposal and l urge the Traffic Commission and the city of Torrance to reject the proposal as currently configured.
I appreciate that the Torrance Traffic Commission is currently soliciting public input on this project along Flagler Lane and Flagler Alley in Torrance even though many details of the proposal remain unclear.
Presumably, the situation will be clarified before Torrance accepts, rejects, or negotiates changes to the proposal. Further, although one can try to separate the bike path proposal from other issues regarding BCHD’s property development scheme, in fact the two are closely intertwined. Please consider the section below on “Bike Path: Part of the BCHD Real Estate Development.” Before getting to the details, let me point out that this matter requires full consideration by Torrance officials, possibly including the City Council. What we have here is (1) a single property owner in Redondo Beach seeking (2) to use land in Torrance for its own financial gain while imposing costs on Torrance homeowners and voters. This is true even though the proposed project does not touch any BCHD property. This is not a case of simply approving or disapproving a permit application from a Torrance property owner to alter the owner’s own land. I urge Torrance officials to refuse to harm Torrance residents in order to assist a lone Redondo Beach landowner.
If, however, Torrance officials conclude that the bike path proposal is in the best interests of Torrance and this neighborhood, I urge you to negotiate with Redondo Beach and BCHD so that the cities design and construct the facilities; BCHD should transfer funds it has for this project to these two cities. It’s city property that would be used, and BCHD should have no role at all beyond funding.
The BCHD Bike Path Application
Torrance owns the entire “right-of-way” (R-O-W) for Flagler Lane south from the intersection with Beryl St. to north of Towers St. The R-O-W is fully 80 feet wide from east to west at least from Beryl St. to the intersection at Towers St. As one moves south of Towers, the Flagler Lane R-O-W narrows and to vanishes about 300 feet south of the Towers St. centerline. Here, the path is conventionally referred to as Flagler Alley. It has a sidewalk on the east but with just 8 or 10 feet of pavement for bike or such.
Today only part of the Torrance R-O-W property is paved north of Towers St. In fact, less than half of this land is paved. On the east side is a curb and sidewalk extending south to Towers Street; a concrete block wall here separates the Flagler right-of-way from private property immediately east. The paved roadway here is just about 33 feet wide and currently accommodates two-way vehicle traffic in this area. While there are no speed limit signs posted here, the presumptive limit is 25 m.p.h. as it is just north on Flagler Lane and just east of the Beryl St. intersection.
Second, BCHD has at times described the bike path as “protected.” It did so, for example, in the EIR unanimously adopted by the BCHD board. (See discussion below.) It is true that Flagler Alley is closed to vehicle traffic and is “protected” in that sense. But no part of Flagler Lane north of Towers street has any physical barriers separating bikes and cars now nor in the proposal.
Protected bicycle lanes or paths could easily require 7 feet in width in each direction. Current BCHD drawings show north and south unprotected, Class II paths just 5 feet wide. The street pavement here is about 35 feet wide. Excluding curbs and sidewalks, recent diagrams presented by BCHD show vehicle lanes plus bike lanes would require 48 feet near the Beryl/Flagler intersection, which means the paved part of the road has to be widened by 13 feet. Further south, as Flagler Lane approaches the intersection with Tower St., it narrows but the paved roadway now proposed would still require 35 feet.
Proposed Bike Lane: Part of the BCHD Real Estate Development? In any case, a major concern of local residents, apart from the bike path itself and how it will fit with Flagler Lane traffic, is what BCHD proposes for the hillside to the west of the existing pavement. This hillside belongs 100% to Torrance and is plainly part of the long-established Hillside Overlay Area, an area that includes many homes on east of Flagler Lane and all land up to the Torrance-Redondo border.
Today, the hillside includes many mature pine trees, a low concrete-block wall, and several wooden retaining wall on the slope. According to BCHD site plans published elsewhere, BCHD now proposes a seven-story residential building at the top of this slope, very near the eastern property line of the BCHD and overlooking several single-family homes just east along Tomlee Ave. in Torrance. The roof of this residential complex would be at least 135 feet above the land where these Torrance homes have stood for half a century.
According to Torrance Public Works,
The proposed bicycle path project would construct a two-lane bicycle path approximately 530 feet long along the Flagler Alley alignment from Towers Street to Diamond Street. The improvement would include: widening of the paved surface from 10 feet wide to 13 feet wide and repaving the full width; construction of a 5-foot-high retaining wall at the westerly side of the widened bicycle path to retain the embankment; installation of irrigation and landscaping; and installation of path lighting on 14-foot-high poles spaced at 75 feet. North of Towers Street, BCHD proposes to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter on the west side of Flagler Lane by narrowing the street by 4 feet, while not affecting the existing embankment in this area.
Bicycle lanes would be provided along the east and west curb lines for northbound and southbound cyclists. Additional work at the Flagler Lane/Beryl Street intersection is proposed to better align the south approach to the intersection. Plans and Renderings of the proposed project are provided as ATTACHMENTs D and E, respectively. Emphasis Added.
To the extent that the improvements have no connection to BCHD’s real estate development plan, it makes no sense to for Torrance and Redondo to turn over the bicycle project to BCHD.
One might question the motives of BCHD regarding the project. A key feature of the project is to widen Flagler Lane at the intersection with Beryl St. Why? It could be that BCHD intends to facilitate its development of the Flagler Lot on the NW corner. Here is what BCHD is planning.
NW Corner Building on Flagler Lot
This configuration plainly puts the building at the corner at about the level of Flagler Lane and would require both extensive regrading of Torrance property on the west side of Flagler Lane so as to match Flagler Lot grading after it is flattened and adding mature trees between the building and the new curb.
As with the above illustration, the next drawing from BCHD’s own site, and prepared by BCHD’s architectural firm, shows that the existing lot is sloped up from north to south (left to right in these illustrations). The rise is about ten feet. The heavy black line at the bottom of the drawing appears to be the foot of the building, but it would be above the Flagler Lane pavement. Thus, I request that Torrance Public Works prepare a complete analysis of what changes Torrance will undertake to accommodate the BCHD building plan.
Elevation: Looking West from Flagler Lane at Beryl St
Meanwhile, south of Towers St., the “bike path” never touches BCHD property. It’s all Torrance or Redondo Beach city property, not BCHD. And, as currently proposed, the bike path plainly nears the “electric yard” now proposed by BCHD. That yard would include transformers, electric generators and substantial fuel storage, yet that yard was not nearly ignored in the adopted EIR other than to say the transformer noise would not be a problem. There is no mention in the EIR of the risks associated with fuel storage or the noise and air quality impacts of periodic testing of the generators; there is no information on how frequently such tests will be run nor how long such tests will run. Yet oddly, this facility would be positioned close to the homes of area residents who would get no benefits; all benefits go entirely to RCFE’s residents and the building’s owner and operator. Why? According to the plans submitted by BCHD to Torrance, “The proposal is just Class II bike lanes north of Towers Street. That is simply a 5’ bike lane against the curb separated from vehicular traffic by a 6” white painted line.” Since BCHD has often previously asserted the bike path would be “protected,” it is clear that BCHD is backing down. Possibly this is to justify approvals expected from Torrance? Possibly this is to get Torrance to agree to the bike path and issue permits to to BCHD to reshape land in Torrance to so as to enable BCHD’s extensive redevelopment adjacent to Flagler Lane? But previously, when BCHD unanimously approved its own Environmental Impact Report, that EIR said this:
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan indicates that additional bicycle facilities are planned throughout the study area, including Class II bicycle lanes on Beryl Street east of Flagler Lane and on West 190thStreet east of Beryl Street, as well as Class III bicycle facilities on 190thStreet west of Beryl Street. Additionally, separately from the proposed Project, BCHD is currently working with the City of Redondo Beach and the City of Torrance to plan a new protected (i.e., Class I) bicycle facility (BCHD Bike Path Project) along the eastern perimeter of the campus along Flagler Lane and Flagler Alley between the northern terminus of Flagler Alley and Beryl Street. [Page 747 of 1778]
Thus, if Torrance and Redondo take control of the bike path construction, they can ensure that the path is consistent with a new EIR for the project and that the electric yard will not harm Redondo and Torrance residents.
Additional Issues
Public Use Requirements
Before Torrance accommodates BCHD’s property development plan, it should consider that the Prospect Avenue property was obtained via eminent domain in 1957 in order to build and operate a hospital. The hospital failed and was closed several years ago, but BCHD has not followed Resolution of Necessity procedures in the law to establish any new public uses. Moreover, BCHD has specifically refused to explain why the law on restricting new uses of the land to public uses does not apply to it. Lack of Hillside Overlay Protection
The entire Flagler Lane right-of-way lies in the Torrance Hillside Overlay area, so any construction needs to preserve or enhance that overlay. Indeed, the homes just east of the area are also in the HOA and would face additional scrutiny for any changes that might impact the hillside. Will BCHD face the same scrutiny?
BCHD Failed to Consider Impacts on Torrance in Its EIR Although an EIR is supposed to inform local residents fully about proposed changes, including changes from new buildings, BCHD’s EIR did not inform residents how the large new buildings along the eastern property line will impact perceived sizes, effects on light and air or the privacy of nearby homes. The EIR does not mention that the RCFE is as close to Torrance homes as the law may allow. Torrance should insist that such impacts be fully explored prior to any agreement to allow the proposed bike lane. Again, this issue could be resolved by turning the project over to Torrance and Redondo. Lack of Explicit Health Benefits
Although BCHD regularly asserts it promotes health in the area, we can find no measures of how much spending $1.2 million or so on the bike path will improve safety. None! That is not surprising. BCHD also proposes to host a large private residential facility on its property but has absolutely no estimate of how doing so will improve the health of residents or anyone else. It points only to national journals that claim that abundant low-cost housing is good for older people, but the articles do not come close to finding health benefits for the proposed RCFE that might justify the impositions on local residents.
The failure of BCHD to quantify health benefit that might offset losses to nearby citizens should be considered by Torrance before it aids BCHD by approving the proposed bike path. Health District Principal Act Limits
The Health Care District Principal Act governing what powers BCHD has does not cover residential facilities. Of course, BCHD pretends otherwise, but any careful reading of the relevant statute and its references does not reveal a single mention of “residential facilities for the elderly” or other residential facilities. The law says quite literally that Health Districts may “[E]stablish, maintain, and operate, or provide assistance in the operation of, one or more health facilities...” But it continues as follows—in the same paragraph, to say “’Health care facilities,’ as used in this subdivision, means those facilities defined in subdivision (b) of Section 32000.1 and specifically includes freestanding chemical dependency recovery units. ‘Health facilities, as used in this subdivision, may also include those facilities defined in subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code.” Of course, BCHD just ignores this inconventient statutory limitation even though it includes more than 24 types of facilities--hospitals, nursing homes, adult day care, drug-treatment centers and so forth— explicitly authorized for special districts. The law does not even mention any sort of residential care facilities, directly or indirectly. The point here is that BCHD plans to injure Torrance residents though its development project even though it lacks statutory authority to establish the RCFE. Hopefully, Torrance will not facilitate BCHD’s development plan.
1 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:52 PM
To: CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - City Council and Planning Commissions - Torrance and Redondo Beach Categories: Melissa
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD's Bike Path Option 4 (bchd.blob.core.windows.net/docs/bzp/BCHD%20Bike%20Path%20Option%204.pdf) is unacceptable. The plan fails to provide any meaningful data on the amount of excavation, soil removal, backfill, or other basic required information for a construction project. Further, BCHD has no experience in road construction and unless BCHD will be 100% responsible for future maintenance, it should have no role in the project.
The City of Torrance and Redondo Beach should takeover the project in their respective cities and confiscate control of the Measure M funding.