J.1- Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, February 7, 2023

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
FEBRUARY 7, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

Sydney & Jonathan Arfin
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
RE: Support Scholb Premium Ales, Inc – Lease of Space on the Internaonal Boardwalk Vacated by King Harbor Brewing Co.

Dear Mayor Brand and Councilmembers:

As a proud local twenty year resident, II respecully request your support for our local Scholb Premium Ales brewery to be selected for the lease of space at the recently vacated King Harbor Brewing Co. site on the Internaonal Boardwalk.

Although we mourn the loss of our beloved King Harbor brewery, we strongly support the connuity of local and reputable representaon from our South Bay cra beer industry, especially at our Boardwalk.

Scholb Premium Ales is a small, family owned and operated brewery by Redondo Beach resident Jason Kolb. He and his wife Allison have lived in Redondo Beach for 15 years and have children at Adams Middle School and Redondo Union High School.

Aside from running their small business, both Jason and Allison are familiar faces in the community. Whether it’s a school-related event or a neighborhood block party, you will see them serving and supporng in some capacity.

We’re not only lucky to have them as our neighbors, but for bringing such a well-respected cra brewery to our community. Scholb Brewery is labeled by many as the Gem in the South Bay.

They have made their space a welcoming place for beer connoisseurs to families and friends to gather. My family and I have been regulars since they opened in 2016 and it is truly our “Cheers” – where everybody knows your name.

You may already be familiar with Scholb beers because they are already collaborang with other Boardwalk businesses like the Slip Bar & Eatery and Kincaids providing diverse and quality opons at our Redondo Beach pier. It is beyond excing to imagine that they may have their own taproom there for Redondo Beach residents to enjoy with their families.

I again ask for your posive consideraon and support for bringing our local Scholb brewery to the real Gem of the Beach Cies.

Sincerely,
Sydney & Jonathan Arfi

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: The single most offensive developer statement I"ve ever read - Made by BCHD Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 6:36:36 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From Bakaly in the ER
“Let’s reserve judgment until everyone sees what it is exactly we are applying for,” Bakaly said.

As a developer with much more experience than BCHD, I'm shocked that any executive could make this statement. Never have I ever brought forward a design that wasn't fully vetted in public first. BCHD arrogance and flawed process to retreat into the shadows and drop new designs into public without vetting is unheard of.

Clearly, BCHD continues its plan to jam through its project and cut out the public from the process. Hence the reason the public is forced to take drastic measures to preserve its rights. cc: Public Comment Redondo Beach City Council
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Michael Webb
Cc: Sheila Lamb; Gale Hazeltine; Gwenn Godek; Scott Berhrendt; Douglas Boswell; Robert Gaddis; Matthew Hinsley Subject: BCHD Project and Use of BCHD-Paid Consultants
Date: Sunday, January 29, 2023 5:10:07 PM
Attachments: 913243 Brandy s - repsonsive record (1).pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

City Council
City Attorney
Planning Commission
Planning Department Staff
Subject: Transparency in BCHD/PMB LLC and City of Redondo Beach Processes It appears from the correspondence attached that the residents of the District are again being shut out of the BCHD/PMB LLC privately developed, owned, and operated development process. BCHD's advocacy consultant is in communications with the Planning Director prior to any formal submittal by BCHD/PMB LLC on the project. As a result, the public is willfully being blinded from activity of two public agencies, the City and BCHD.

No use of the BCHD-paid consultants should be allowed until BCHD has FORMALLY filed a CUP and request for evaluation under PCDR. Any use prior to then must be publicly noticed for public participation. Any other action denies Redondo Beach residents and the District taxpayers their due process.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years.

Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info
Subject: Letter to the Editor/Sandbox - What a difference four years makes Date: Friday, February 3, 2023 8:28:51 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

As BCHD gleefully noted in its February 2nd email, I complimented BCHD 4 years ago on their public outreach in a 3 page comment filed on behalf of the surrounding neighborhoods in January of 2019. The BCHD PR-spin statement that they published was only the first sentence of the comment - the offering of honey to BCHD (as it were) in an otherwise educational note highlighting BCHD's project and procedure shortcomings. Because BCHD has never developed a project nor conducted a CEQA EIR, the rest of the 3 pages were discussions of BCHD's missing information to the Community Working Group (CWG) and neighbors. It was also a discussion of CEQA, an obligation that the District shirked on both the 510 and 520 North Prospect Commercial Office Buildings when it asked the City of Redondo, an experienced agency, to conduct the analysis on behalf of the inexperienced Hospital District.

I'm certain that BCHD will be happy to provide you with my full 3 page comment from the January 2019 Board meeting filed on behalf of other CWG members and neighbors.

My, my what a difference 4 years makes in the neighborhood perception of BCHD.

Since June of 2019, BCHD has increased the height of the project that sits on a 30-foot hill above Redondo Beach and Torrance homes from 90-feet above Beryl & Flagler (June 2019) to 106-feet (June 2020) to 133-feet (March 2021) to 107.5-feet (February 2022) to 113-feet in their email on February 2nd. Never have any comments to BCHD suggested that the building should be TALLER or BIGGER. But the facts are, BCHD has ignored the comments of the public since its "Great Wall of Redondo" design and gone BIGGER.

Also since June of 2019, BCHD has increased the amount and size of above ground buildings in the project that is about 800,000 square feet in total, larger than every home in Beryl Heights added together. BCHD removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp to the plan at Prospect & Diamond. At the same time, BCHD made a small square footage reduction in the size of the assisted living units that are targeted for 80% non-residents of the District according to BCHD's MDS consultant.

As an expert witness and proponent for billions of dollars in large projects across my career, I have never seen a developer claim to reduce the size of a project while they actually increased the height and moved space from underground (out of sight, out of mind) to tall buildings on the perimeter of a building site. In 2017, BCHD showed the CWG and surrounding neighbors a Healthy Living Campus Approach that buffered the residential neighborhoods from BCHD's 800,000 square foot compound using surface parking and greenspace. Hindsight being 20/20, that appears to have been a ruse to lure the neighbors in complacency. The neighbors were then bombarded by a 300,000 square foot building along Beryl & Flagler and a 10-story parking structure at Prospect & Diamond. Unethical at best.

BCHD is planning to hide the final project design from the public until it files at the City of Redondo in 3-6 months (or maybe on St. Pat's Day according to a BCHD memo to the City).

Either way, how can a publicly formed and funded agency like BCHD believe that cutting its own taxpayer-owners out of the process is moral or ethical? This is what happens when BCHD leases our public land for 95 years for a project that is 100% developed, owned and operated by a commercial developer with 0% BCHD ownership.

Mark Nelson for StopBCHD.com
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer on the CWG
cc: Public Comment, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance City Councils and Planning Commissions
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Tyler Evains; Garth Meyer; info; Communications; Noel Chun; [email protected]; Michelle Bholat; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl Subject: Re: UPDATED OIG AUDIT/CLAWBACK REQUEST Re: Request for OIG Investigation of BCHD "Bike Path" Project Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:14:13 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To be very clear, Metro failed in its due diligence when it granted funding to BCHD for work in Torrance - a city not within BCHD jurisdiction. BCHD had no letter of authority from Torrance, nor did BCHD have apparent authority to operate in Torrance and commandeer right of way in Torrance.

If BCHD misrepresented its right to operate in Torrance, then it falsified its application.

No matter what, BCHD had no authority to spend District funds on work in Torrance, whether planning, drawings, consultants or other expenditures.

Please provide me with the OIG report on this "mess".

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 7:42 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:

It has been learned that BCHD plans to reroute the bike path around Torrance, because BCHD never had the permission of Torrance to use its property. As a result, this is an update for the OIG to prepare a clawback proposal for BCHD to repay all costs and overheads associated with planning or other activities on Flagler or Flagler Alley in Torrance.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:24 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:

Metro has granted BCHD in Redondo Beach approximately $2M for grading, road widening, addition of a collector lane from the BCHD proposed facility, and bike path in the City of Torrance. Torrance is not within the LALAFCO sphere of influence (SOI) of BCHD. Further, BCHD had no approval to move forward in Torrance yet it has made plans for nonbike path related fundamental traffic flows within Torrance using grant funds.

According to BCHD and Metro Public Records Act Requests, the BCHD project has expended $298,892.59 of its $1,833,877.00 budget for the project with no City approvals from either Redondo Beach (in BCHD SOI) or Torrance (outside BCHD SOI).

A cursory review of the invoice support from BCHD demonstrates that it is mostly BCHD dumping its overheads for executives and contract labor, as well as wasted time on design that was completed by BCHD without authority of either City.

I request a financial and process audit of this ill-fated project by BCHD.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Note: I have attached a recent BCHD billing to Metro to provide documentation of BCHD expenditures and also accounting numbers needed for an investigation.

CC: Public Comment Torrance & Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, Planning Commission CC: LALAFCO Commissioners
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Tyler Evains; Garth Meyer; info; Communications; Noel Chun; [email protected]; Michelle Bholat; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl Subject: UPDATED OIG AUDIT/CLAWBACK REQUEST Re: Request for OIG Investigation of BCHD "Bike Path" Project Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:43:05 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:24 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:

Further, BCHD had no approval to move forward in Torrance yet it has made plans for nonbike path related fundamental traffic flows within Torrance using grant funds.

I request a financial and process audit of this ill-fated project by BCHD.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Note: I have attached a recent BCHD billing to Metro to provide documentation of BCHD expenditures and also accounting numbers needed for an investigation.

CC: Public Comment Torrance & Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, Planning Commission CC: LALAFCO Commissioners
From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk; City Clerk
Subject: BCHDs property development plan
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:27:49 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

I ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process. Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60-feet (6/2019) to 76-feet (6/2020) to 103-feet (3/2021) and to 107.5-feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge. The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30-feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

BCHD’s advertising campaign cleverly claims to have downsized the project, yet it is now both taller and has more above ground square feet than it did in June 2019 despite public outrage to reduce the size since June 2019.

I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95-year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
1 From: CityClerk
Subject: FW: J-1 Public Participation. Planning Department and Commission ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Barbara Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:42 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Michael Webb <[email protected]>; Brandy Forbes <[email protected]> Subject: J‐1 Public Participation. Planning Department and Commission CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear City Leaders,
As some of you know, Jack and I spent forty years in Palos Verdes before downsizing to Redondo. I had occasion to attend many city meetings and remember very well that all the cities on the Peninsula were very protective of the beauty and ambience in that community.

They were HARD on developers that came before them with building plans. The cities had very high standards for easements, setbacks, light pollution, and many other things. I remember past Councilman Peter Weber demanding that the city “get its pound of flesh” from the developer whose project was being considered. It sounded a little medieval to me, but I knew what he meant was that every proposed project had to give back generous easements, parkland, and other amenities in order to be approved.

This must be our position, as well.

It was very disturbing to watch the Catalina project developer come in like a Boy Scout and then have his attorney go for our jugular, threatening to sue.

We owe them nothing.

My suggestion:

Write into city laws and the building application that the developer will act in the best interests of the city, the citizens, and of the environment in his plans or there will be no permits.

Any threats of litigation will result in automatic denial of the project.

We need to change our relationships with developers.

They will only build what’s good for the community from now on.

That goes for the AES Sea Lab property, as well.

Barbara Epstein
Sent from my iPad

2 I ask the Torrance City Council to diligently work to defend the interests of property owners under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance by actively opposing any and all BCHD or City of Redondo Beach activity that would be inconsistent with the rights that residents would have if the project were in Torrance.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
3 Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

2 overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance
Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 3 ends

3.8 Geology and Soils
January 2023
> ODE: 50% probability of exceedance in 100 years, design return period of 150 years. > MDE: 4% probability of exceedance in 100 years, design return period of 2,500 years.

Seismic design of aerial and surface structures is based on site-specific ODE and MDE horizontal ground surface 5% damped acceleration response spectra developed using the USGS Unified Hazard Tool (USGS, 2022). Based on the Metro SSDC, acceleration response spectrum (ARS) for rail transit structures should not result in less performance capability than that required by Caltrans ARS. The Metro SSDC also considers seismic design based on Caltrans SDC (Caltrans, 2019) for rail transit structures. The seismic design of surface structures and aboveground structures not subject to rail transit loading should comply with the requirements of the CBC and the site-specific ODE and MDE horizontal ground motions per Metro’s SSDC (2017).

SSDC outlined in the MRDC Section 5 appendix (Metro, 2017) provides seismic design for ground and embankment stability. The appendix recommends the seismic stability and potential permanent deformation of sloping ground or embankments supporting aerial guideway and bridges along proposed alignments be investigated. The appendix also provides guidance for liquefaction studies to assess the potential for liquefaction. Both are discussed as project features in Section 3.8-2.5.

County of Los Angeles
The County of Los Angeles General Plan contains goals and policies that focus on geology, soils, and seismicity, described in Table 3.8-1below.

Table 3.8-1. County of Los Angeles – Relevant Regulations Departments/General Plans Description
County of Los Angeles General Plan
County of Los Angeles General
Plan – Chapter 12 Safety Element
The purpose of the safety element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, and economic damage resulting from natural and man-made hazards. The California Government Code requires that the General Plan address “the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; and subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards.”
Source: County of Los Angeles 2015b; 2021

3.8-1.3 Local Regulations
The local jurisdictions, departments, and documents that regulate and oversee issues related to geology, soils, and seismicity within the RSA are listed below. There are no specific regulations or guidelines regarding paleontological resources in the Cities of Hawthorne, Lawndale, Redondo Beach, or Torrance.

City of Lawndale
The City of Lawndale Departments and General Plan contains goals and policies that focus on geology, soils, and seismicity, described in Table 3.8-2 below.

C Line (Green) Extension to Torrance
Draft Environmental Impact Report

Page 3 ends

3.8 Geology and Soils
January 2023
Table 3.8-2. City of Lawndale – Relevant Regulations
Departments/General Plans Description
City of Lawndale General Plan Safety Element
City of Lawndale
General Plan – Safety
Element
The Safety Element describes the natural and human-induced health and safety hazards that exist within the City of Lawndale and the measures to be taken to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation. The Safety Element establishes preventative and responsive policies and programs to mitigate the potential impacts associated with hazards that may affect the City of Lawndale.

Source: City of Lawndale, 2015
City of Redondo Beach
The City of Redondo Beach General Plan contains goals and policies that focus on geology, soils, and seismicity, described in Table 3.8-3 below.

Table 3.8-3. City of Redondo Beach – Relevant Regulations Departments/General Plans Description
City of Redondo Beach General Plan
City of Redondo Beach General
Plan
The General Plan is a comprehensive planning document that serves as “the officially adopted statement of local policy regarding each individual community’s development.” The preparation and adoption of a “comprehensive, long-term general plan for physical development of the county or city” is mandated, by California Government Code, Section 65300, for all cities and counties within the State of California.

Source: City of Redondo Beach, 1993c
City of Torrance
The City of Torrance General Plan contains goals and policies that focus on geology, soils, and seismicity, described in Table 3.8-4 below.

Table 3.8-4. City of Torrance – Relevant Regulations
Departments/General Plans Description
City of Torrance General Plan
City of Torrance
General Plan – Chapter
4 Safety Element
The Safety Element sets forth policies designed to minimize threats from natural and human-caused hazards.

Source: City of Torrance, 2010f

3.8-2 Methodology

3.8-2.1 Geology and Soils
The methodology for assessing impacts involves examining the Proposed Project for known geologic hazards. This includes a review of published maps, professional publications, and technical reports pertaining to the geology, soils, and seismicity of the RSA. The analysis focuses on the potential of the Proposed Project to increase the risk of personal injury, loss of life, and damage to property as a result of existing geologic conditions in the RSA. If stations or structures are located within or directly adjacent 1 From: joyce field
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:39 PM
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Categories: Melissa
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and 2 overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and 2 overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and 2 overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
3 [15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
Joyce Field 19703 Tomlee Ave. Torrance
1 Vickie Kroneberger
From: Aileen Pavlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:32 PM
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Categories: Melissa
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:12 AM
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public ‐ not the Developers To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
This is a public comment from Aileen Pavlin. I strongly agree with the comments below. Please stop BCHD!!! ******NOTE FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AT STOPBCHD.COM******
EMAIL 2/2 ‐ you should have received Email 1/2 about an hour ago explaining the situation We realize that your time is precious and that we don't have BCHD's $10M taxpayer funded budget for advertising and letters and $300,000+ annual management salaries like BCHD does. You are welcome to write your own comment letter and use all or part of the letter below as you like.

However, in the interest of time and in recognition of the complex issues, we hope that you are able to find time TODAY to support your friends and neighbors by forwarding this email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Please include a very short note in your forward, such as "Public Comment from John Doe". That will be sufficient to make it a valid comment.

Thank you for your continued support, and together we will continue to work to save our local neighborhoods and refocus BCHD.
******THANK YOU!*******
By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:
2 I ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60‐foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process. Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60‐feet (6/2019) to 76‐feet (6/2020) to 103‐feet (3/2021) and to 107.5‐feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8‐10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge. The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30‐feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95‐year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB‐BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110‐feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.
3 RBMC 10‐2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1]  NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10‐2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[2]  “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3]  “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[4]  “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5]  “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30‐foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6]  “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7]  “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8]  “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]     “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10]  “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11]  “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12]  “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13]  “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14]  “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15]  ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16]  “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17]  “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19]  “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
4 1
From: William Shanney
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 2:21 PM
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; Stop BCHD
Subject: BCHD Development Comments
Categories: Melissa
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment from William and Vivian Shanney
To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and 2 overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

2 By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

2 Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

RBMC 10‐2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1]  NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10‐2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[2]  “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3]  “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[4]  “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5]  “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30‐foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6]  “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7]  “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8]  “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]     “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10]  “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11]  “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12]  “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13]  “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14]  “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
3 Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

Marcia and Carl Gehrt
19935 Redbeam Ave.

Torrance, Ca 90503

Marcia and Carl Gehrt
19935 Redbeam Ave.

Torrance, Ca 90503

2 However, in the interest of time and in recognition of the complex issues, we hope that you are able to find time TODAY to support your friends and neighbors by forwarding this email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Please include a very short note in your forward, such as "Public Comment from John Doe". That will be sufficient to make it a valid comment.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60‐foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60‐feet (6/2019) to 76‐feet (6/2020) to 103‐feet (3/2021) and to 107.5‐feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8‐10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge.

The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30‐feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The recent hearing by the Redondo Beach City Council to overturn its Planning Department’s approval of the Catalina Avenue development shows the Department’s strong bias to support commercial developers – not the Public. It’s disappointing that the Redondo Beach City Council had to appeal and overturn its own Planning Department’s poor decision. But thankfully, the Council sided with the Public and did correct the injustice proposed by Planning. 3 I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95‐year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

RBMC 10‐2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1]  NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10‐2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[2]  “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3]  “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[4]  “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5]  “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30‐foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
4 [6]  “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD” [7]  “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8]  “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]     “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10]  “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.”
[11]  “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12]  “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13]  “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14]  “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”
TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15]  ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [16]  “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[17]  “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19]  “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.” 1 From: Abbes Khan <
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:02 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD Is Not Exempt From Laws and Municipal Codes CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95‐year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

I ask the Torrance City Council to diligently work to defend the interests of property owners under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance by actively opposing any and all BCHD or City of Redondo Beach activity that would be inconsistent with the rights that residents would have if the project were in Torrance. 2 Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

Respectfully,
Abbes G Khani
Torrance resident, Impacted by BCHD lawlessness
Sent from my iPhone

2 I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95‐year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

Sincerely,
William Kelley, 510 Harkness Ln, Redondo Beach 90278

RBMC 10‐2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1]  NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10‐2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[2]  “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3]  “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[4]  “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5]  “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30‐foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6]  “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7]  “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8]  “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
3 RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]     “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10]  “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11]  “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12]  “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13]  “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14]  “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

Sincerely,
William Kelley, 510 Harkness Ln, Redondo Beach 90278

RBMC 10‐2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1]  NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10‐2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[2]  “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3]  “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10‐2.2502 includes the following:
[4]  “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5]  “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30‐foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible. [6]  “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7]  “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8]  “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
3 RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]     “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10]  “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11]  “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12]  “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13]  “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14]  “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15]  ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16]  “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17]  “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19]  “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
1 From: Paul Lieberman <
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 11:44 AM
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Stop the BCHD project
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Gentlemen,
From my address you can understand the visual and traffic intrusion of the proposed project.

Dr. Paul Lieberman, President
Lieberman Research Associates (LRA)
19815 Mildred Avenue
Torrance, CA 90503‐1121
310.371.2198
[email protected]

2 increased the height from 60‐feet (6/2019) to 76‐feet (6/2020) to 103‐feet (3/2021) and to 107.5‐feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8‐10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge.

The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30‐feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95‐year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

Sent from my iPhone

Redondo Beach City CouncilFebruary 7, 2023

Redondo Beach City Council
February 7, 2023