J.1- Blue Folder.pdf — Redondo Beach City Council, July 11, 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
JULY 11, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk
Subject: "Stuff" for tonight"s city council meeting
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 2:03:32 PM
Attachments: TrainsouthofAfinalMod.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Please put the charts in blue folder/pinkfolder/receive and file whatever it is called.

I am going to talk about these tonight under non-agenda items.

Thank you
Holly Osborne
Diagrams between Artesia and Grant
The mess of pipelines and embankments in Redondo
(after 1 diagram of set-up in Lawndale)
10 Inglewood Avenue
North
South
170th
Condon Avenue ONE WAY
75 ft
Lawndale residences
Lawndale residences
Lawndale residences,
Single Family homes
Built in 1980’s
Manhattan Beach Blvd.
166th
Lawndale residences
Fig. 1 Lawndale cartoon map showing basic layout of ROW and dimensions 50 ft (Continues to school; then Hawthorne Blvd to exit)
162nd
Condon Ave

METRO ROW
R.R Bridge
Lawndale residences
100 ft
25 ft
Ruxton Lane
North
Grant
75 ft
Redondo Strip mall
Artesia Blvd.

Built in 1980’s
Redondo residences
Fig. 2. Redondo ROW layout south of Artesia to Grant, showing dimensions 50 ft Condon Ave

METRO ROW
Redondo residences
100 ft
25 ft
R.R Bridge
191 units
(Built 2007)
Lawndale Great Room Cafe 75 ft
Lawndale residences,
Single Family homes
Built in 1980’s 25 ft
R.R Bridge
50 ft
Inglewood Ave
Ruxton Lane
North
Grant
Redondo Strip mall
Artesia Blvd.

Built in 1980’s
Redondo residences
Fig. 3 Redondo layout REDONE, showing the embankment, and the pipeline locations 50 ft Condon Ave
METRO ROW R.R Bridge
J
25 ft
R.R Bridge
191 units
(Built 2007)
28-29 ft wide embank.*
(repairs to erosion done
In February)
Lawndale Great Room Cafe
30 ft
30 ft
27 units
(Built 2007)
18 units
(2000)
(11’ from wall)
Pipeline Markers: (x)

WEST SIDE OF TRACK
●Torrance Logistics
●Shell (west side)
●Sink hole/damage
(from Shell repair of
pipeline)

EAST SIDE OF TRACK
●Shell (east side)
●Crimson (knocked over) C
X X 33 ft from track center 40 ft from center
X 25 ft from track center x 29 ft from center
75 ft
20 ft wide embankment*
x 21-22 ft from track center) x C 100 ft
x
*Note: Houses on
east side are 15-
20 ft lower than
the train, at the
bottom of a steep
embankment.
9 ft 50 ft
CURRENT Conditions
• I have just shown the
same Shell pipeline on the
eastern edge. Position is
the X; pipeline runs into
the paper. (Crimson
pipeline not shown)
• Depth below surface is not
indicated
• “Flat part” of ROW is only
about 80 ft wide here.

FUTURE Conditions
• Metro plans to put in light
rail, see next page.
• Pipeline will have to be
moved as well.

Shell (22 ft from Track center, current)
Modified to show current conditions
X
9 ft 50 ft
CHANGES REQUIRED;
*Fill in embankment
*Build huge massive wall
*Bury the pipe deeper; mere
steps from (or into) people’s
back yards.

This could cause damage to
foundations, just as it did on
the western side of the ROW,
back in 2020 when a pipeline
was repaired. (Refer back to
big red dot a few pages back.)
x Shell (22 ft from Track center, current)
x Shell (40+ft from Track center; moved; and buried deeper.) From: Grace Peng
To: CityClerk
Subject: Re: Letter to mayor and city council about Inclusionary zoning Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 2:07:59 PM
Attachments: Inclusionary Zoning.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Eleanor,
I fixed the letter and added a footnote to where I found the fee information.

Can you put the updated letter in the blue folder for the meeting? The link to the updated Google doc remains the same.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZImrU-8sV2tOXHa9Gej3Vom62WKYJIHcDEO9GPra1A/edit? usp=sharing
thanks,
Grace
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 2:02 PM Grace Peng <[email protected]> wrote:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZZImrU8sV2tOXHa9Gej3Vom62WKYJIHcDEO9GPra1A/edit?usp=sharing 27 June 2023
Honorable Bill Brand
Mayor, Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Re: Inclusionary Zoning
Dear Honorable Mayor Brand, City Council Members, and Staff, A new SB 35 determination letter was released today and the rules for Redondo Beach just shifted again.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/sb35-determination -summary.pdf
We are not making sufficient progress towards our RHNA housing targets. Instead of projects with at least 20% low income housing being allowed by-right, 10% is the new threshold. Every delay in developing housing is costing us our local control to determine where and what type of housing we want in our city.

I saw with dismay in the RBCC meeting agenda for June 20, 2023, we are authorizing more money again to amend an inclusionary housing (IZ) ordinance that will be layered on top of state housing laws. How much money have we spent on consultants to determine the allowable percentage of IZ under current conditions? We started out with a target of 20%, then lowered it to 15% because HCD was exercising extra scrutiny to cities that imposed higher than 15%. Then interest rates and rents changed, and we paid consultants more money to come up with 9%.

Let’s stop this madness and stop spending money that we badly need for other things. If we keep going down this path of demanding more money to develop new housing, we will have to keep paying consultants to update the percentage and the per square foot IZ in-lieu fee every year or every time market changes occur. Redondo Beach’s proposed IZ provides no benefits to developers such as streamlining, height increases, parking minimum decreases or density bonuses. Developers will use the state density bonuses and the IZ percentages instead.

So let’s stop developing an IZ ordinance that no one will use.

I appeal to you not to fall for the sunk cost fallacy
1 . Just because we already spent money on
something, doesn’t mean we need to pursue it forever. We can just recognize that we studied something, learned it won’t work, and then moved on.

The consultant doing the economic feasibility studies told RBCC that having a local IZ ordinance gives us more local control than the state IZ rules. We pride ourselves as an independent city so 1 https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy that sounds good to us. But, they are hardly a disinterested observer. They have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform these analyses. If we pass a local IZ ordinance, we sign up for their annual update, providing a continuing revenue stream for their firm. Let’s not fall for their manipulative salesmanship.

I have read our city’s Housing Elements and correspondence with HCD. We promised we would pursue a number of things to reduce impediments to housing developments and have not made much progress. For instance, we are still requiring 2.25-2.5 parking stalls for each studio apartment–an exceptionally high number. HCD also noted that we have exceptionally high development and impact fees of $29,612 per multi-family net new home vs $18,902 for single-family new homes
2 . Laying on even more fees will invite the scrutiny of HCD and jeopardize our conditional compliance status.

If we lose our conditional compliance determination on our Housing Element, we expose ourselves to the risk of Builder’s Remedy towers all over the city. Voters will not be pleased.

I urge you to stop pursuing a city-specific IZ ordinance. A local IZ ordinance will have unintended consequences. Let developers choose whether they want to build at the existing density that we zoned for, or to use a state-wide density bonus. If we layer on our own IZ ordinance, this will increase developer (and future residents’) costs, forcing developers into using a state density bonus program. This will result in higher densities than we had planned in areas we never intended to be higher density.

Let’s use our money and energy wisely, to improve our city for current and future residents.

Thank-you,
Grace Peng, PhD
2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/redondo-beach-6th-adopted071122.pdf Section 6: Fees and other Exactions on page 64
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; Letters; [email protected]; TRAO News Subject: BCHD Bike Path Spending (both reimbursed and planned/contracted) is EGREGIOUSLY BEYOND BENCHMARKS Date: Friday, June 30, 2023 3:03:33 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

LA County Board of Supervisors Public Comment
Metro Board Public Comment
South Bay Cities COG Board Public Comment
Redondo, Manhattan, Hermosa Beach City Councils Public Comment BCHD's now locked in minimum costs for its Redondo Beach bike path segment are 3.5-times the cost of a new, single freeway lane in the California Policy Institute study and 17-times the cost of the highest cost bike project in the UNC Chapel Hill study. The benchmark costs used from the studies were DOUBLED in order to assure they would cover current costs.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE - BCHD's EXPENDITURES ON 400-FEET COULD PAY FOR MILES OF BIKE PATH DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH BAY. BCHD's COSTS ARE OUTRAGEOUS AND INCLUDE COSTS OF DEFERRED LAND MAINTENANCE, RETAINING WALLS, AND $400,000+ IN BCHD EXECUTIVE PAY, OVERHEADS AND CONSULTANTS.

BCHD Bike Lane Project Spending (as of 12/31/22)
Executive pay, overheads, consultants $404,868.43
BCHD Bike Lane Contracted Expense (as of 6/30/23)
Contract $1,011,603.36
BCHD Bike Lane Unknown Overheads for Continued Administration Categories of expenses expected: executive pay, overheads, staff, consultants, outside legal Approximate Size of Project
400-feet total
250-feet on paved, 4 lane, divided Redondo Beach Diamond St. 150-feet on paved, unmaintained, 2 lane Redondo Beach Flagler Alley Cost per foot > $3,500 (per foot)
Cost per inch > $290 (per inch)
Cost Benchmarking of BCHD Bike Lane
Benchmarks are provided from UNC Chapel Hill study of bike lane projects and California Policy Institute costs of adding a single (one lane) freeway lane to an existing freeway. All costs EXCEPT those of BCHD were used at 200% (that is the costs of UNC and CPI were DOUBLED)

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat
Subject: California Public Records Act Request 6/26/23
Date: Monday, June 26, 2023 10:38:13 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

CPRA Request to:

Beach Cities Health District
SBCCOG
Metro
Provide all documents demonstrating that Beach Cities Health District's proposed $1.4M to $1.8M expenditure on 400-feet of bike path utilizing the paved culdesac of Diamond Street and paved path of Flagler Alley is a cost-effective use of taxpayer funding. BCHD's specific range of costs is $290 to $450 PER INCH of bike path.
cc: Torrance and Redondo Beach City Councils and Public Works Directors for awareness cc: BCHD Board
From: Bruce Steele
To: Metro Board; LA County Board of Supervisors; BCHD Board; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cc:; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; Letters; [email protected]; TRAO News
Cc: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail); South Bay Bicycle Coalition Plus Subject: Develop The Flagler Bike Path
Date: Monday, July 3, 2023 3:42:09 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I lived in Redondo Beach and West Torrance for over over 30 years and used the Flagler path between Diamond and Flagler Lane to go to and from the beach and North Redondo Beach. I was not the only one to use that corridor. School children, walkers, elderly, mothers with baby carriages, and cyclists frequently used that path to go both North and South. During that time, I saw homeless encampments, feces, heaps of trash, gang graffiti, and a drug syringe. I was also bitten by a transient's dog. I was informed by a neighbor whose house was just below the alley that it has been used as a frequent hangout with loud partying.

This is a very important part of the South Bay Bicycle Plan that, when completed, will enhance the convenience and safety of non-motorized travel in this area. And, just as important, it will clean up what has been a very unsightly and frequently hazardous path that is owned but almost forgotten by both Redondo Beach and Torrance.

Those who oppose this development are only focused on the BCHD Healthy Living Campus. They don't care about the current condition of this path or the dangers it presents to its users.

I urge those who really care about the safety of the citizens of the South Bay to work to develop this important part of the South Bay Bicycle Plan. The cost is more than justified by the enhancement to this path.

Bruce Steele
Palos Verdes Peninsula
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Robert W. Lundy
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: Documentation to the Public Record
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2023 7:05:05 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

According to LAFCO, as asserted by a commissioner (the chair) and affirmed by the executive officer (Novak), BCHD as a special district is fully allowed to conduct a residency test for services provision. Period, full stop.

The transcript and meeting audio of relevance are at the link below. https://youtu.be/7VTp-ySHpC0?t=4182
Public Comment: City Counsels of Torrance and Redondo Beach From: Frank Briganti
To: Melissa Villa
Subject: Fwd: UPDATE on BCHD"s $1.4M, 400-foot long Bike Lanes Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 11:58:54 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: July 3, 2023 at 8:00:11 AM PDT
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: UPDATE on BCHD's $1.4M, 400-foot long Bike Lanes Short story - BCHD is adding 400 feet of bike lanes from Prospect & Diamond, down past 6 houses on Diamond and stopping at the Torrance City limit in the alley. That's 250-feet on Diamond (4 lane paved) and 150-feet in the alley (paved). At $3500 per foot, BCHD is spending AT LEAST 17-times the cost of a typical HIGH COST bike lane. See below for more details. If you want to send comments about BCHD lack of fiscal discipline, send them to [email protected] with a cc to [email protected]

IF YOU WANT - YOU CAN AUTOMATICALLY SEND ANOTE BY FOLLOWNG THIS LINK AND COMPLETING THE FORMhttps://forms.gle/GEXbub5RSAj3k68F7
We cannot trust BCHD to build out a $500M, 800,000 sqft "campus". They can't do a block of bike lane cost-effectively! To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jacki Bacharach <[email protected]>, Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>, Garth Meyer <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Letters <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, TRAO News <[email protected]>
LA County Board of Supervisors Public Comment
Metro Board Public Comment
South Bay Cities COG Board Public Comment
Redondo, Manhattan, Hermosa Beach City Councils Public Comment BCHD's now locked in minimum costs for its Redondo Beach bike path segment are 3.5-times the cost of a new, single freeway lane in the California Policy Institute study and 17-times the cost of the highest cost bike project in the UNC Chapel Hill study. The benchmark costs used from the studies were DOUBLED in order to assure they would cover current costs.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Zein Obagi; Scott Berhrendt; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Webb; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Measure M Administration is Fatally Flawed - BCHD Bike Path Project Must Be Halted Date: Saturday, June 24, 2023 4:17:09 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

SBCOG, Metro, LA County Boards:

There is a fundamental flaw in Measure M administration. BCHD in Redondo Beach represented to Metro that it had authority on behalf of Redondo Beach and Torrance to develop a bike path from Prospect Ave (RB) to Beryl St (RB), by way of Diamond St (RB)., Flagler Alley (T&RB), and Flagler St (T). Less than 400-feet of the project is in Redondo Beach. The remaining more than 800-feet is in Torrance.

DUE DILIGENCE FAILURE #1 - NO AUTHORITY
BCHD had no authority to represent Torrance. Despite that, Metro conducted no due diligence and granted BCHD $1.8M in Measure M funding to develop 1200-feet of bike path using existing paved roads and alleys.

DUE DILIGENCE FAILURE #2 - NO COST BENCHMARKING
Neither Metro nor COG conducted any due diligence on cost. According to a UNC Chapel Hill study, the most costly bike path implementation in its survey was approximately $500,000 for a full mile. That is roughly $100 per foot. Based on BCHD's representation, it sought $1500 per foot for its development ON EXISTING ROADS.

DUE DILIGENCE FAILURE #3 - NO MONITORING OF BCHD CONTRACTING Once BCHD admitted it was without authority to operate in Torrance, the project was downsized to under 400-feet. Following an RFQ, we now know that BCHD will spend between $1.4M and $2.2M on 400-feet of Diamond St. and Flagler Alley (RB). That results in a unit cost between $3500 and $5000 per foot. The true malfeasance is recognized when BCHD's unit cost to provide bike lanes beginning with paved road and alley is $300 to $450 PER INCH. BCHD plans to award the contract on June 28th 2023, despite the fact that it is spending 2/3rds of the funding on 1/2rd of the project; despite that it is 35X to 50X the cost of construction as measured by the UNC study; and despite that BCHD is ignoring the representations that it made to Metro to acquire funding.

COG has failed to conduct even cursory oversight of cost analysis, despite the fact that Metro claims no ownership to the project of COG that Metro funded. Metro is only the funder. If both COG and Metro ignore oversight of Measure M funds, then taxpayers are being denied the oversight that was required in the law.

At a minimum, this project needs to be stopped until taxpayer interests are represented. A better outcome would be to cancel the BCHD agreement, force repayment from BCHD of the approximately $500K it has been reimbursed after misrepresenting the project; and use proper diligence methods to determine what deferred maintenance and other non-bike path costs are being rolled into a cost that is 35X to 50X above reasonable.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
cc: Torrance and Redondo Beach Counsels, Inspectors General From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: RDG Update
Subject: Public Comment - Lack of Public Information on Revised RDGs Date: Monday, July 3, 2023 10:43:48 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

As of July 3, 2023, there has been no update online regarding the RDGs since approximately May 18, 2023. Please require an update be published.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Letter to the LA Times
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2023 12:33:02 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Redondo Beach City Council and Public Works Department:

Beach Cities Health District plans to convert 400-feet of road and alley into bike lanes. The problem is that BCHD plans to spend at least $1.4M in Measure M (half cent sales tax) on that 400-feet.

That’s $290 per inch. The South Bay needs over 200 miles of bike path that would cost over $3 trillion using BCHD’s project cost as a metric. How did this happen? One reason is that neither Metro that funded the project with Measure M funds, nor South Bay Cities Council of Governments that approved the project, conducted any cost-effectiveness analysis.

None.

Measure M’s sales tax collects $1 billion per year. Do none of the projects have any valid cost analysis or oversight like the BCHD $290 per inch project? Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach, CA
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Opposition to RDG Revision as Drafted by Staff - City Council Meeting 7-11-23 Date: Monday, July 10, 2023 11:51:06 AM
Attachments: RDG Comments for Planning Commission (6-5-23).pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 9:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment - RDG Revision - For inclusion as public comment in Agenda Packet for Distribution
To: <[email protected]>
Please provide updates to the draft RDGs and the schedule of time and place for any future hearings.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 2:00 PM
Subject: Public Comment - RDG Revision - For inclusion as public comment in Agenda Packet for Distribution
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, Sheila Lamb <[email protected]>, Gale Hazeltine <[email protected]>, Gwenn Godek <[email protected]>, Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>, Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>, Matthew Hinsley <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Planning Redondo <[email protected]>
Public Comment for City Council and Planning Commission The attached PDF of comments is provided well in advance of the meeting in order to be included as public comment in the Agenda Packet. In short, the many individual RDGs that were discarded due to lack of quantification must be returned to the document in their prior property owner and residence protective manner from the prior RDGs. That cannot simply be cast to the void with the assumption that somehow protections of residential property owners will not be seriously degraded.

Mark Nelson
Retired VP and Planning Director
Expert Witness

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Opposition to RDG Revision as Drafted by Staff - City Council Meeting 7-11-23 Date: Monday, July 10, 2023 11:51:06 AM
Attachments: RDG Comments for Planning Commission (6-5-23).pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 9:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment - RDG Revision - For inclusion as public comment in Agenda Packet for Distribution
To: <[email protected]>
Please provide updates to the draft RDGs and the schedule of time and place for any future hearings.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 2:00 PM
Subject: Public Comment - RDG Revision - For inclusion as public comment in Agenda Packet for Distribution
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, Sheila Lamb <[email protected]>, Gale Hazeltine <[email protected]>, Gwenn Godek <[email protected]>, Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>, Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>, Matthew Hinsley <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Planning Redondo <[email protected]>
Public Comment for City Council and Planning Commission The attached PDF of comments is provided well in advance of the meeting in order to be included as public comment in the Agenda Packet. In short, the many individual RDGs that were discarded due to lack of quantification must be returned to the document in their prior property owner and residence protective manner from the prior RDGs. That cannot simply be cast to the void with the assumption that somehow protections of residential property owners will not be seriously degraded.

Mark Nelson
Retired VP and Planning Director
Expert Witness

REVISED RDGS FAIL TO PROTECT EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS
For 20 years, the ResidenƟal Design Guidelines (RDGS) have served to protect exisƟng neighborhoods from excessive residenƟal and mulƟ-family development. The current revision fails to provide the same protecƟons.

REVISED RDGS MUST INCLUDE SUBJECTIVE LANGUAGE WHERE OBJECTIVE QUANTIFICATION HAS FAILED
The conclusion that those valuable subjecƟve guidelines that failed to be translated into numbers or otherwise so-called “objecƟve” criteria were thrown away is an error. In the case of currently discarded criteria, they must conƟnue to be included as subjecƟve to allow the Planning Commission, City Council and property owners the right that they deserve to protect neighborhoods. The current implementaƟon is a failure.

STRONG PROPERTY OWNER PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCARDED
Planning states "Guidelines in the 2003 Design Guidelines that cannot be translated into ObjecƟve Standards have been removed and the ObjecƟve ResidenƟal Standards apply." Basically, Planning admits that it simply removed the RDGs that were subjecƟve but funcƟoned effecƟvely for 20 years when it failed to translate those guidelines into objecƟve standards.

The Planning Department has taken the easiest, yet worst performing path for property owners as it aƩempts to update the prior RDGs. Planning is aƩempƟng to develop so-called "objecƟve" guidelines from subjecƟve criteria when convenient. Public comments have been made to use descripƟve staƟsƟcs, staƟsƟcal distribuƟons, and other objecƟve measures to assure compaƟbility, common character protecƟon, mass, volume, view block, among other damaging aƩributes, are avoided in new construcƟon or significant modificaƟons. However, those suggesƟons were discarded and instead that which was too difficult was jeƫsoned instead of being retained as subjecƟve.

Just because a task is difficult, doesn't mean it should be ignored. Furthermore, the obvious alternaƟve aŌer failing to develop objecƟve criteria is to leave the subjecƟve ones in force in order to protect other property owners from wholesale development chaos. There is ample Ɵme to replace them with objecƟve standards in the future when the work has been completed. For now, the exisƟng standards in those areas are far superior to NO STANDARDS as Planning has proposed. That approach has also been suggested in comments.

Planning has removed the strongest criteria in the mulƟfamily residenƟal and the results will allow developers, such as the Catalina project, to have their way with surrounding property. That is clearly not the intent of the RDGs, nor it is appropriate for the billions of dollars of exisƟng property to be degraded due to a lack of standards.

SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER SAFEGUARD RDGS THAT WERE CAST AWAY I understand the intent of moving from subjecƟve to objecƟve criteria. I am formally trained in engineering and quanƟtaƟve methods, so I prefer quanƟficaƟon when possible. At the same Ɵme, I recognize that the pornography standard was effecƟvely “I’ll know it when I see it” or “local standards” due to a lack of ability to quanƟfy it.

When faced with hard issues, such as, subjecƟve criteria requiring respect of the surrounding properƟes or avoidance of overwhelming scale, the authors apparently chose not to aƩempt to quanƟfy – and more problemaƟc – they simply abandoned the subjecƟve with no aƩempted objecƟve measure. The next page shows a number of those cases.

As a first step, the document should be redlined and all subjecƟve criteria that were not specifically quanƟfied should be returned into the RDGs. This document can then be circulated for comment and the team and public can work harder at quanƟfying.

Typical staƟsƟcal methods such as means, medians, variances, etc. can you used in many cases to quanƟfy scale, bulk, mass, etc. Respect is a term that is oŌen used in design, such as, respecƟng nearby neighborhoods and structures. Again, a set of characterisƟcs can be used staƟsƟcally such as mean volume, mean height, mean FAR, etc. to provide a semblance of objecƟveness.

Given the work product that is put forward, I recommend the Planning Commission reject it and send the team back to salvage the many places where subjecƟve consistency in character, respect, and scale were cast away with the subjecƟve guidelines unƟl such Ɵme objecƟve guidelines to PROTECT THE PUBLIC are completed.

Mark Nelson
ReƟred VP & Director of Planning for SCE and Subsidiaries Expert Witness
Experienced Developer

Below are prior comments on the draŌ that are sƟll relevant and acƟve. The final version that is proposed carried through with the “threat” of simply ignoring many, highly protecƟve RDGs.

I understand the intent of moving from subjecƟve to objecƟve criteria. I am formally trained in engineering and quanƟtaƟve methods, so I prefer quanƟficaƟon when possible. At the same Ɵme, I recognize that the pornography standard was effecƟvely “I’ll know it when I see it” or “local standards” due to a lack of ability to quanƟfy it.

I would require that all subjecƟve criteria that were “punted” remain in the subsequent document. They can be removed when they are quanƟfied, but unƟl that Ɵme, they need to remain in order to protect both the intent of the RDGs and the public’s very clear intent for protecƟon of character and consistency.

Given the work product that is put forward, I recommend the Planning Commission reject it and send the team back to salvage the many places where subjecƟve consistency in character, respect, and scale were cast away and re-enter them into the RDGs to protect property owners.

Mark Nelson
ReƟred VP & Director of Planning for SCE and Subsidiaries Expert Witness
Experienced Developer

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Jacki Bacharach
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nils Nehrenheim; Zein Obagi; Letters; [email protected]; Todd Loewenstein; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - Reckless use of Measure M Funding/Fiduciary Protection Failure of Taxpayers Date: Sunday, July 2, 2023 10:07:29 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

SBCCOG has no cost-effectiveness analysis, nor any other formal review that indicates the value of the 400-feet of bike path in Redondo Beach deserves taxpayer funding on $1.4M ($290+ per inch). Metro has responded that SBCCOG did not request any formal analysis, and as such, none exists.

Measure M funds are not to be wasted. SBCCOG has quite clearly shirked its responsibility to taxpayers by allowed 33% of a project to move forward with 70% of the funding. In fact, SBCCOG failed to determine if the original 1200-foot scope for $1.8M in funding was costeffective. BCHD's scheme, if applied to all 200-miles of South Bay Bike Path, would cost over $3B. That is 3 full years of Measure M funding. Clearly this segment of existing, operational path cannot be cost-effective. Based on other studies, $1.4M could complete 3 miles of bike path elsewhere in the South Bay.

How can SBCCOG be so reckless with taxpayer funding? Measure M funding must be shut down pending a full analysis and review of BCHD's misrepresentation to Metro and also SBCCOG's lack of fiduciary controls of taxpayer Measure M funding.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
June 22, 2023
To: SBCCOG Board of Directors
From: David Leger, Senior Project Manager
Re: Scope Reduction to Measure M Project MM4602.01

BACKGROUND
In a previous Call for Projects, the SBCCOG Board approved $1.8M in Measure M MSP funding for a Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) proposal for a bicycle lane connecting Flagler
Ln to Diamond St. The funding was approved for project design and construction. The unique location of the project included portions of both Redondo Beach and Torrance. Following completion of the design, the City of Redondo Beach informed BCHD they agreed to move forward with its section of the project. However, Torrance notified BCHD that it could not move
forward with its portion. BCHD and Redondo Beach wish to continue that portion of the project
and still determine it to provide a mobility benefit.

Due to this reduction in scope, Metro staff is requesting the SBCCOG Board approve the project
scope modification. Following SBCCOG Board approval, Metro and BCHD will execute a funding agreement amendment memorializing the reduction in scope. As with all Measure M MSP projects, any unused funds would be returned to the program following completion of the
project close out process.

RECOMMENDATION
The SBCCOG Board of Directors approve the scope of work modification to MM4602.01 Attachment: BCHD Request Letter
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: BCHD"s Bike Path Propaganda (BCHD Distributed Talking Points) Date: Saturday, July 8, 2023 7:50:51 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD has distributed talking points on its excessive cost bike lane activity. They are reproduced below along with Factual Corrections. #1 A BCHD MISREPRESENTATION - BCHD Misrepresents the Project as The Alleyway. It is not. The majority of the project is on 4 lane, paved, Diamond Street in front of 5 houses. The only alleyway is in front of the 6th house.

Construction on the brand-new bike path will begin on Monday, 7/10. Just in case you get questions from the members, here are some talking points! One Voice: Bike Path – Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) will begin work on the Redondo Beach phase of the Diamond Street Bike Path project adjacent to its Prospect Avenue Campus on Monday, July 10.

The alleyway behind BCHD is within both the City of Torrance and the City of Redondo Beach. The City of Torrance has opted to not move forward with their portion of the project at this time, and the construction during this phase will only take place in Redondo Beach.
#2 A BCHD MISREPRESENTATION - Due to a lack of maintenance by the District - the hillside was allowed to slide down and cover the alley. BCHD should be 100% liable for its own failed maintenance and not stick it to Measure M taxpayers.

The Need – This narrow alleyway has long been used as a cut-through for pedestrians and cyclists, including many local students who commute to and from school via this route every day. But the path is in desperate need of revitalization. This project will make the path more usable, more beautiful and safer for pedestrians and cyclists alike. #3 BCHD MISREPRESENTATION - Diamond is a dead end culdesac with a total of 6 houses. NO COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS was completed by METRO or SBCCOG. There is no need for Class 1 development in a 100% protected alley or a dead end culdesac. BCHD is wasting Taxpayer Measure M funds.

What’s being done – This project will create a Class I bike path from Diamond Street to just south of Towers Street, at the border with the City of Torrance. The bike route will also utilize Class III sharrows (usedin situations where cyclists and drivers must coexist in the same lane) on the Diamond Street cul-de-sac ending at Prospect Ave.

But the project is much more than just a bike path, as it also includes:
· -A new retaining wall (DEFERRED MAINTENANCE OF THE DISTRICT) -Regrading of a hillside adjacent to the Class I bike path in Redondo Beach (HILLSIDE SLIDING ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT OVER DECADES OF

AVOIDED MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES)
-New pedestrian lighting (BCHD HAS HAD MANY COMPLAINTS DUE TO NON-DIRECTIONAL, HOME INVASIVE LIGHTING) -New pavement (DIAMOND IS A FULLY FUNCTIONAL 4-LANE PAVED STREET) -Bicycle video detection sensors at the traffic signal (NO COST EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED VS EXISTING BUTTONS) -New landscaping and trees in the Diamond Street median (FLAT OUT WASTE OF MEASURE M FUNDS - NO MOBILITY IMPACTS AS REQUIRED BY LAW)
#4 NO COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
The improvements that make a community more walkable and bikeable tend to be long-lasting. Sidewalks and bike lanes last for many years, improving the community’s livability well into the future.

No cost analysis by Metro, BCHD or SBCCOG demonstrates any net benefit of spending $1.4M to spiff up 400-feet. #5 BCHD BAIT & SWITCH - The Funding – This project is being funded with the help of a $1.83 million grant from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) through its Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Program (MSP) for the South BCHD proposed 1200-feet for $1.8M. BCHD then cut it down to 400-feet for $1.4M.

The 2011 Bike Plan shows the cost of all 40-miles of Redondo Beach bike path at $1.9M According to the Department of General Services (CA), the cost of construction has increased by 40%, making the total cost of the Redondo Beach segment only 6% of BCHD's CLAIMED COST.

Formal Complaint to Metro on Lack of Oversight
--
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: Communications; info; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Vanessa I. Poster; Monica.Suua; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; CityClerk; Ted Semaan
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Personnel Termination Actions Required at BCHD Date: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:29:03 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The employee(s) that determined that the City of Redondo Beach Beryl DRAINAGE project was equivalent economically as a benchmark to BCHD's proposed bike path project need(s) to be terminated for cause for deceiving the public. I will ship the BCHD PRR response to the State AG. BCHD's deceptions have gone too far.

BCHD project cost exceeds the inflation adjusted cost of the Class I bike lane in the South Bay Master Plan by 15X. BCHD needs to OWN that they are the highest cost provider imaginable and are consuming nearly 80% of the Measure M grant for a mere 33% of the project that was authorized by Metro. BCHD's initial "bid" for the Measure M funds was excessive at $1500 per foot. BCHD's current $3500 per foot for $1.4M for 400-feet is fully egregious.

Note to BCCs: In its response to a PRR for cost-effectiveness documents for the BCHD bike path, Metro and SBCCOG both responded that they have no documents demonstrating cost effectiveness. BCHD asserted that its project for a bike lane was economically equivalent to a SEWER trench and replacement along Beryl street that included a bike lane. BCHD's response appears clearly aimed at misleading the public instead of answering the CPRA request.

BCHD response:

The construction cost is in line with similar recent projects. BCHD also worked to keep cost in line including a value engineering that resulted in deleting one retaining wall at the hillside.

For cost comparison, the recent City of Redondo Beach Beryl Street Project that included a new bike path and similar street work was $2,104 per LF (per low bid), which is comparable to the District’s Diamond Street Bike Path cost of $2,248 per LF that was bid in a less favorable market and includes new 6-foot retaining walls and hillside improvements not included in the City’s Beryl Street project.

BCHD MISREPRESENTATION #1
The title of the Beryl solicitation was:
and the cost of the "bike path" work in the respondent's bid did not even rise to the level of a LINE ITEM.

BCHD MISREPRESENTATION #2
BCHD spent over $400K in BCHD overheads, employee charges, and consultant fees on the 400-foot project that is not reflected in BCHD's attempted comparison of $2248 per foot.

BCHD's overheads alone were $1000 per foot.

Full Redondo Beach contractor detail is
at https://www.redondo.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=40366 The work on Beryl St. is "similar" only that it is a street. It does not, for instance, include District deferred maintenance grading and retaining walls caused by failure to maintain Flagler Alley, for example. Nor is its sole focus a bike lane. In fact, the bike lane does not rise to a line item cost in any bid that I reviewed.

From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs Subject: Public Comments from Various Local Citizens - Require BCHD to be OPEN and PUBLIC in PRIVATE COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT
Date: Saturday, July 8, 2023 5:10:50 PM
Attachments: BCHD April 2023 Public Comments.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the residents listed at the end of this email to the Torrance, Redondo, Hermosa and Manhattan Beach Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions and City Attorneys:

Redondo Beach Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commission Torrance Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commission Manhattan Beach Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commission Hermosa Beach Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commission Subject: BCHD Expansion and Privatization of Public Land to PMB LLC Occurring in the Shadows

Bakaly/BCHD has stated:
"Let’s reserve judgment until everyone sees what it is exactly we are applying for,” Bakaly said.
“Similar to other projects that apply for a conditional use permit, the public will be able to access the plan when it is submitted to the City.” Bakaly and BCHD have forgotten that residents and taxpayers are the owners of BCHD and that BCHD is not a commercial developer of real estate. BCHD cannot hide in the shadows and blindside the public yet again. BCHD must disclose its plan for public comment prior to submitting any City application.

BCHD HAS A PATTERN OF BLINDSIDING THE STAKEHOLDERS AND

BETRAYING PRIOR COMMITMENTS
The events in the timeline below clearly demonstrate BCHD’s lack of cooperation with the stakeholders as BCHD continually blindsided the public with revised, promise-breaking plans.

BCHD MUST DEMONSTRATE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH TORRANCE AND

REDONDO BEACH CODES TO THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO SUBMITTING PERMIT

APPLICATIONS
BCHD’s massive project is adjacent to both Redondo Beach and Torrance neighborhoods and must comply with both sets of Municipal Codes. BCHD must provide the public with the proposed plans and detailed explanations of Municipal Code compliance prior to BCHD or PMB LLC submitting any plans to either City. BCHD must stop BLINDSIDING the public.

TMC 91.41.6 Planning and Design (Torrance Hillside Overlay, THO) Minimize Intrusion - “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.” Protect Property Values - “the design will not have a harmful impact upon the land value and investment of other properties in the vicinity.”
TMC 46.3.1 CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS
Limited Construction Days and Times and Noise – M/F 0700-1800, Sa 0900-1700, S – NONE TMC 46.7.2 NOISE LIMITS
Maximum Noise at Receptor – Ongoing noise is limited to 55dB day and 50dB night for Zone 4 RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
No Adverse Impacts - “will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties;” “no adverse effect on abutting property”
Lot Placement Must Yield No Impact - “for the proposed use … shall be adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use.”
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) Compatible With Neighborhood - “ensure compatibility … in the community;” “overall design shall be integrated and compatible with the neighborhood and shall strive to be in harmony with the scale and bulk of surrounding properties.” Protect Surrounding Property Values – “protect property values … of neighborhoods.” Respect the Elevated Site’s Impacts on Neighbors – “location of buildings and structures shall respect the natural terrain of the site.”
Not Impact Surrounding Property - “shall consider the impact … of the user in respect to circulation, parking, traffic, etc.”
Adhere to Intent of Residential Design Guidelines - “shall be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines.”
RB Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)
Must Improve Quality of Life of Surrounding Neighborhoods - “to improve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods …[t]hese design guidelines are intended to help accomplish this objective.”
Must be Compatible with Surrounding Property - “compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development; and preserve and contribute to the unique character of established
neighborhoods;” “goal of these design guidelines … overall intent of compatibility with the neighborhood;” “developments should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood;” “development should respect the development in the immediate area through the … avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions;” “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”
RBMC 4-24.503 Construction noise
Limited Construction Days and Times and Noise – M/F 0700-1800, Sa 0900-1700, S – NONE RBMC 4-24.301 Maximum permissible sound levels by land use categories Limited Operational Noise – Any BCHD noise is limited to NEVER EXCEED 65 dBA night and 70dBA day with further limits as follows:

Correction for time characteristics.

No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the City or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:

The noise standard of the receiving land use district for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus ten (10) dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus fifteen (15) dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus twenty (20) dB for any period of time.

STAKEHOLDER REQUEST
BCHD has stated publicly that it refuses to share any design activity and that the public will be required to receive the application after it is filed. As stakeholders, we request ALL information from BCHD provided to the Cities of Torrance and Redondo Beach be made public immediately and posted on a website to offset the secrecy of BCHD and PMB LLC from the taxpayers, residents, stakeholders, and ultimately owners of BCHD.

Thank you for your cooperation in this request for transparency in commercial building development.

Fred Fasen [email protected]
LEVY sizes_clamps_0k@icloud
Leon Levy sizes_clamps_0k@icloud
Robert Levy [email protected]
Thomas J. McGarry [email protected]
Glen H and Nancy N
Yokoe [email protected]
Mary Ruth Ewell [email protected]
Mary Ruth Ewell [email protected]
Tim Ozenne [email protected]
Bethany Johnson Bethany.johnson@roadru
Stephanie Ishioka [email protected]
Donna Miodovski [email protected]
Barbara Kiyokane [email protected]
Phil Kiyokane [email protected]
Dennis Michaud [email protected]
Marianne Teola [email protected]
Marcie Guillermo [email protected]
Marcio Nava [email protected]
PHILIP DE WOLFF [email protected]
Glen H and Nancy N
Yokoe [email protected]
Warren Croft [email protected]
maureen anderson maureenbythebeach@gm
Thomas [email protected]
Thomas McGarry [email protected]
Joyce Field [email protected]
Abbes G Khani [email protected]
Dalite Nava [email protected]
Maricela Guillermo [email protected]
Jeff Earnest [email protected]
Glen H and Nancy N
Yokoe [email protected]
Bunch, Judith [email protected]
Linda Feldman [email protected]
Denise Schneider [email protected]
--
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.

BCHD AND PMB LLC MUST STEP OUT OF THE SHADOWS
As a stakeholder of the BCHD expansion from the current 312,000 square feet to nearly 800,000 square feet, I am very concerned about BCHD and PMB LLC operating in the shadows out of public view. BCHD’s CEO Bakaly has stated on at least two occasions that the public will have no access, nor has any right to access, to the plans for Phase 1. Phase 1 is currently expected to be 113-feet above homes and 275,000 square feet along Beryl and Flagler streets. Bakaly/BCHD has stated:
"Let’s reserve judgment until everyone sees what it is exactly we are applying for,” Bakaly said. “Similar to other projects that apply for a conditional use permit, the public will be able to access the plan when it is submitted to the City.”
Bakaly and BCHD have forgotten that residents and taxpayers are the owners of BCHD and that BCHD is not a commercial developer of real estate. BCHD cannot hide in the shadows and blindside the public yet again. BCHD must disclose its plan for public comment prior to submitting any City application.

BCHD HAS A PATTERN OF BLINDSIDING THE STAKEHOLDERS AND BETRAYING PRIOR COMMITMENTS The events in the timeline below clearly demonstrate BCHD’s lack of cooperation with the stakeholders as BCHD continually blindsided the public with revised, promise-breaking plans.

BCHD MUST DEMONSTRATE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH TORRANCE AND REDONDO BEACH CODES TO

THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO SUBMITTING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BCHD’s massive project is adjacent to both Redondo Beach and Torrance neighborhoods and must comply with both sets of Municipal Codes. BCHD must provide the public with the proposed plans and detailed explanations of Municipal Code compliance prior to BCHD or PMB LLC submitting any plans to either City. BCHD must stop BLINDSIDING the public.

TMC 91.41.6 Planning and Design (Torrance Hillside Overlay, THO) Minimize Intrusion - “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.” Protect Property Values - “the design will not have a harmful impact upon the land value and investment of other properties in the vicinity.”
TMC 46.3.1 CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS
Limited Construction Days and Times and Noise – M/F 0700-1800, Sa 0900-1700, S – NONE TMC 46.7.2 NOISE LIMITS
Maximum Noise at Receptor – Ongoing noise is limited to 55dB day and 50dB night for Zone 4 RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
No Adverse Impacts - “will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties;” “no adverse effect on abutting property”
Lot Placement Must Yield No Impact - “for the proposed use … shall be adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use.”
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) Compatible With Neighborhood - “ensure compatibility … in the community;” “overall design shall be integrated and compatible with the neighborhood and shall strive to be in harmony with the scale and bulk of surrounding properties.”
Protect Surrounding Property Values – “protect property values … of neighborhoods.” Respect the Elevated Site’s Impacts on Neighbors – “location of buildings and structures shall respect the natural terrain of the site.”
Not Impact Surrounding Property - “shall consider the impact … of the user in respect to circulation, parking, traffic, etc.”
Adhere to Intent of Residential Design Guidelines - “shall be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines.”
RB Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)
Must Improve Quality of Life of Surrounding Neighborhoods - “to improve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods …[t]hese design guidelines are intended to help accomplish this objective.” Must be Compatible with Surrounding Property - “compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development; and preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods;” “goal of these design guidelines … overall intent of compatibility with the neighborhood;” “developments should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood;” “development should respect the development in the immediate area through the … avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions;” “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”
RBMC 4-24.503 Construction noise
Limited Construction Days and Times and Noise – M/F 0700-1800, Sa 0900-1700, S – NONE RBMC 4-24.301 Maximum permissible sound levels by land use categories Limited Operational Noise – Any BCHD noise is limited to NEVER EXCEED 65 dBA night and 70dBA day with further limits as follows:

Correction for time characteristics.

Thank you for you cooperation in this request for transparency in commercial building development.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Re: California Public Records Act Request 6/26/23 Date: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:30:42 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Withdrawn. Thank you.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 7:42 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Please see below.

BCHD claims that the City of Redondo Beach paid $2104 per foot for Beryl Street bike lane. Please provide documents demonstrating the scope of work, cost and length of the beryl street bike path project.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: PRR <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request 6/26/23 To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Cc: PRR <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 6/26/23 that reads:

Provide all documents demonstrating that Beach Cities Health District's proposed $1.4M to $1.8M expenditure on 400-feet of bike path utilizing the paved culdesac of Diamond Street and paved path of Flagler Alley is a cost-effective use of taxpayer funding. BCHD's specific range of costs is $290 to $450 PER INCH of bike path.

The Bike Path construction is a public benefit project providing many safety enhancements and improvements to the built environment that promote multi-modal mobility and active transportation. The project works to close an important gap in the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan to provide regional connectivity to key destinations in the South Bay, including schools and beaches. The new pavement, lighting, video bike detection and landscaping add additional safety, comfort and convenience for students, families and commuters. This project will promote active transportation, results in a reduction in vehicle miles travelled and provides important regional connectivity between the Beach Cities and more inland South Bay communities.

The construction cost is in line with similar recent projects. BCHD also worked to keep cost in line including a value engineering that resulted in deleting one retaining wall at the hillside. For cost comparison, the recent City of Redondo Beach Beryl Street Project that included a new bike path and similar street work was $2,104 per LF (per low bid), which is comparable to the District’s Diamond Street Bike Path cost of $2,248 per LF that was bid in a less favorable market and includes new 6-foot retaining walls and hillside improvements not included in the City’s Beryl Street project.

Please visit the District website for more information and benefits of the Diamond Street Bike Path.
https://www.bchd.org/bikepath
Please note that if records you are seeking do not exist, BCHD has no obligation to create new records, or to obtain records from other sources, unless those sources are considered “prepared, owned, used by, or retained by” by the District.

Please note that the District may not respond to questions or comments included with your request that are not themselves requests for identifiable public records under the California Public Records Act. The lack of response by the District to any such questions or comments, including follow-up questions and comments, is not an indication of the District’s position on any topic or item, and should not be presented as such to any person.

Thank you.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 10:38 AM
To: PRR <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Lisa Jacobs <[email protected]>; Kevin Cody <[email protected]>; Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>; Noel Chun <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]>; Martha Koo <[email protected]>; Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>
Subject: California Public Records Act Request 6/26/23

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
CPRA Request to:

Beach Cities Health District
SBCCOG
Metro
Provide all documents demonstrating that Beach Cities Health District's proposed $1.4M to $1.8M expenditure on 400-feet of bike path utilizing the paved culdesac of Diamond Street and paved path of Flagler Alley is a cost-effective use of taxpayer funding. BCHD's specific range of costs is $290 to $450 PER INCH of bike path.
cc: Torrance and Redondo Beach City Councils and Public Works Directors for awareness cc: BCHD Board
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat
Subject: Re: California Public Records Act Request 6/26/23 Date: Monday, June 26, 2023 8:32:39 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

One agency has already responded that it has no cost-effectiveness analysis. I cannot imagine how 1200-feet at $1.8M (the original BCHD proposal) or 400-feet at $1.4M to $2.2M (the current BCHD proposal) could be in the best interest of the community. That same $2M could complete up to 4 miles elsewhere based on UNC-Chapel Hill data.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:37 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

CPRA Request to:

Redondo Beach City CouncilJuly 11, 2023

Redondo Beach City Council
July 11, 2023