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
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: LTE and public comment to Redondo Beach Council Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:14:30 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Last week's article on RBUSD obesity rates was an eyeopener. Both Hermosa and Manhattan Beach have roughly 4% obesity rates, while RBUSD has gone from 20% to 6%. What happened? As the County noted, BCHD never put a control group in place. BCHD's failure to adhere to standard health practices of control groups for comparison makes it impossible to know why obesity rates dropped.
Of course BCHD's PR department is always right there to claim credit. Evidence be damned.
The reality is more likely the massive increase in household income in Redondo Beach over the same timeframe. Redondo Beach's income profile now looks similar to Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. So it's little surprise that parent's healthier food choices occurred naturally with income, just like they did in Hermosa and Manhattan a decade earlier.
BCHD needs to start using science to evaluate programs and cost-effectiveness as they spend scarce taxpayer funds. Unfortunately BCHD steadfastly refuses to evaluate the public health benefits and cost effectiveness of its programs, called evaluation outside of its ability. That's just doublespeak from a taxpayer agency that doesn't want to be held accountable.
Mark Nelson
Redondo
From: Therese Mufic Neustaedter
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Bill Brand; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Sean Scully; Brandy Forbes
Subject: Metro C/Green Line Support
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 2:07:06 PM
Attachments: Metro C-Green Line Extension Letter.pdf
Some people who received this message 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.
Hello Mayor Brand, City Council and City Staff Members, Please find a letter attached regarding the C/Green Line.
Thank you!
Teri Neustaedter
Therese Mufic Neustaedter
President
League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities
Torrance City Council Redondo Beach City Council
3031 Torrance Blvd. 415 Diamond Street
Torrance, CA 90503 Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: Metro C/Green Line Extension – Support for the Regional Good Honorable Mayor Chen and Mayor Brand, council members, and staff of Torrance and Redondo Beach:
For more than a century, the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, has encouraged informed and active participation in government, worked to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influenced public policy through education and advocacy. We take policy positions only after intensive study.
The League of Women Voters of Californiastrongly supports public transitas a way to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), relieve traffic congestion and pollution, and mitigate climate change. LWV urges you to continue your support of the Metro C/Green Line Extension through to Torrance.
Transportation is critical for all people, and providing alternatives to those who cannot or choose not to drive private automobiles is the government’s responsibility. This is especially urgent when considering that more than 25% of LA County’s population is expected to be seniors by 2030, and seniors who live in walkable neighborhoods or have better access to public transit give up driving earlier than those who don’t. Even now, wheelchair users and people traveling with bicycles are often passed-up by buses for lack of space.
Light Rail would give South Bay residents and businesses extensive access to fast, reliable and frequent service that buses cannot provide. For instance, in 2005, Torrance 8 ran 41 trips per weekday to LAX. In 2023, Torrance 8 has only 13 scheduled trips per weekday and many trips are canceled on short notice for lack of drivers. The C/Green line sails above traffic, and runs more frequently and reliably than buses; it would be part of the solution to reduce car traffic in the South Bay and at LAX. LA County voters have expressed their strong support for infrastructure projects that increase and improve public transit and non-automotive travel.
The C/Green Line is also a rare opportunity for Torrance and Redondo Beach to invest in their future by attracting new customers, new businesses, and new workers. Take the Expo Line, which was once heavily protested by Westsiders, as an example. It now brings packed Metro cars to West LA; people pour out of the stations and into the communities, and close-by real estate values have increased because of the convenience that’s offered. Torrance, Redondo and the Peninsula face critical shortages of essential workers like caretakers for children and the elderly due to the high cost of living and lack of fast, accessible transportation, for which the C/Green Line can provide some relief.
On-road transportation is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Bay at 39% - and in Torrance (43%) and Redondo (51%) it is the largest source. Projects like the C/Green Line provide an opportunity to make large-scale reductions to the climate impact contributions of the South Bay.
Transportation is a regional issue, and requires every city to do its part to connect networks to move people and goods beyond its own jurisdiction’s boundaries. Just as we cooperate so that roads connect across each area’s borders, our cities need to connect transit as seamlessly and efficiently as possible.
The South Bay segment of the Metro C/Green line would be a vital link connecting the South Bay to LAX, the E/Expo line to the north, and the A/Blue line to the south. In this way, South Bay residents and businesses would be able to easily access the cultural and economic benefits of the greater LA region.
The League of Women Voters of Torrance Area, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Beach Cities and LA County strongly urge Metro, Torrance and Redondo Beach to carefully consider all the facts – including significant impacts on climate and the well being of residents and businesses – and continue to support the extension of the C/Green Line.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Gloria Gutierrez
Co-President, League of Women Voters of Torrance Area
Teri Neustaedter
President, League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities
Linda Herman
Co-President, League of Women Voters of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Also serving San Pedro Margo A. Reeg
President, League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County CC:
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Metro Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
https://www.metro.net/about/contacts/
Torrance City Council
3031 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
https://www.torranceca.gov/government/city-council
Redondo Beach City Council
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
https://www.redondo.org/depts/council/contact_information.asp From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk
Cc: Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; info; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD is effectively donating 91% of the taxpayer owned "Beryl & Flagler" lot to LA County Department of Public Health
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:15:31 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
As BCHD's $1M per year PR machine as advertised, BCHD received a grant to build a building for allcove Beach Cities on the C-2 zoned, Beryl & Flagler lot. The lot is 100% owned by the taxpayers/residents of the District.
BCHD's contract terms for allcove are to service LA County DPH SPA8. That is an area of approximately 1.4M population. Of SPA8, the District residents comprise under 9%.
Therefore over 91% of allcove contracted service area are non-residents of the District. Based on US Census data, the fraction of 12-25 year olds in SPA8 is also under 9% District residents and over 91% non-taxpayer, non-residents.
As such., the allcove building that will sit on taxpayer owned property will service a market of over 91% non-residents of the District and will thereby be dedicated to 91% District nonresident benefit.
Furthermore, BCHD's allcove operation grant funding terminates at roughly the same time as completion of the building, leaving District taxpayers footing the bill for 91% non-resident services.
BCHD's Board and $2.3M of annual Executive Management are derelict in their fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayer owners of the District.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Bill Brand; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Scott Behrendt; Planning Redondo; info; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - City Council Meeting, Planning Commission Meeting Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 4:26:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The following text is included in the Agenda Packet and deserves scrutiny and revision:
"Beach Cities Health District: Health organizations like the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) which has been serving the communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and
Redondo Beach since 1955, offer important preventative
health services to residents of all abilities and ages—from pre-natal and children to families and older adults."
ADDITION TO TEXT:
"Future BCHD Healthy Living Campus facilities and services are planned to be a SUPERMAJORITY for non-resident benefit resulting in less focus on the founding communities and increased environmental impacts from added traffic, construction, criteria pollution, toxic air contaminants and other negative externalities." Factually, South Bay Hospital District was established and funded by voters to provide hospital services to the "Residents who Reside" in the "District" according to District legal pleadings with Superior Court. BCHD has abandoned that voter requirement. 84% of Covid tests were non-resident/non-taxpayers costing taxpayers $2.3M in unreimbursed costs (Data from LA County and BCHD CEO Report)
91% of the legal, contracted allcove program service area of SPA8 is non-resident/nontaxpayer (Data from LA County) 80% of the proposed 100% private assisted living will be non-resident/non-taxpayers according to BCHD's MDS consultant study, Table 3-3
95% of the proposed PACE facility will service non-resident/non-taxpayers according to the statistics of the National PACE Assoc
30% of the existing heavily subsidized CHF membership are non-resident/non-taxpayers (Data from BCHD FAQ)
In short, BCHD's future plan is to maximize services to non-residents and that needs to be reflected in your statement above.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Michael Webb
Cc: Todd Loewenstein; Nils Nehrenheim; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Need for BCHD to reopen CEQA for allcove facility on C-2 lot Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:50:05 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
City Council
Planning Commission
City Attorney
In BCHD's CEQA document, it did not contemplate the broad, District non-resident use of "allcove" specifically. It only contemplated a generalized youth center concept. "allcove" is now determined to serve the totality of SPA8, an area of roughly 1.4M total residents with approximately 300,000 of them in the "allcove" age group based on Census data. The three beach cities of Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo Beach are less than 10% of the overall "allcove" market, and as a direct result, the CEQA analysis failed to include the significant levels of daytime traffic created from a non-District resident market 270,000 target youth (90% of the 300,000).
Until BCHD reopens CEQA to conduct a proper analysis of the "allcove" facility and use, no permits can be granted.
According to Welfare & Institutions Code § 5960.3(b)(9), CEQA is required unless all conditions in (b) are met, including: "(9) The project does not result in any increase in the existing onsite development footprint of structures or improvements." From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Smoking Ban in Torrance
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 1:06:20 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hopefully Redondo Beach can do this.
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2023/08/10/torrance-enacts-ordinance-to-ban-smoking-in-multiunit-housing-complexes/ Smokers will soon have to think twice before taking a puff in some Torrance residential buildings.
The City Council this week gave final approval of an ordinance that will ban smoking in all multi-family residences, joining a growing trend of cities across the state and the nation to do so.
“I always believe that the government should play one major role in people’s lives,” Councilmember Aurelio Mattucci, who proposed the ordinance, said before this week’s meeting, “to protect their quality of life. And I think this is one of those situations where government should step in, in an attempt to protect people’s quality of life,”
The ordinance will become effective 30 days from Tuesday, Aug. 8.
Under the new law, smoking is not only prohibited in all multi-family residential units, but also on private balcony, porch, deck, patio, and common areas, such as lobbies, elevators, swimming pools, laundry rooms and eating areas.
Smoking can be allowed at designated places established by a landlord or homeowners’ association, but it has to be in an unenclosed area and at least 25 feet away from any doorway, window, opening and areas used for physical improvement, such as tennis courts and playgrounds.
Multi-unit residences are defined as lots with two or more units, such as apartments, townhomes, attached townhomes, condo complexes, senior and assisted living facilities, and long-term health care facilities. Single-family homes, duplexes on a single-family lot, accessory dwelling units and mobile homes do not fall under this category.
Violators of the ban could be cited and subject to fines. The ordinance, though, prevents the city from issuing monetary penalties unless the violator has previously been given at least three notices of violations.
The ordinance does include a grandfather clause as well, meaning that current smokers living in multi-unit housing can continue to smoke only within their unit for two years after the ordinance becomes effective.
Around 80 million people in the US live in multi-family units such as condos or apartments, and an estimated 27.6 to 28.9 million are exposed to secondhand smoke infiltration from neighboring units or common areas in the building, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As of July 1, 79 governments statewide, at the city or county levels, have implemented laws prohibit smoking in all private multi-unit rental housing complexes, according to a report by the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation.
With the addition of Torrance, 19 Los Angeles County cities have now adopted a policy to ban smoking in multi-unit housing, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.
This main purpose of the ordinance is to help protect the quality of life of renters who live in close quarters with other renters, Mattucci said. “I respect people’s private property rights,” he said, “but when there’s a shared space between different families, between different groups, there has to be rules put in place to help maintain that good quality of life that people should expect and get.” The ordinance is also designed to give landlords more power to enforce smoking bans, Mattucci said. Landlords often include smoking bans within their leases, but when the renter smokes outside of their units, the landlords have no way to regulate the act.
Alix Politanoff is a project coordinator at Behavioral Health Services Inc., a nonprofit health care organization that has been providing public education on the ordinance.
She said it protects residents’ public health. It also gives landlords more credence to enforce smoking bans and gives neighbors the right to declare smoking a public nuisance.
“The neighbors themselves can take it into their hands and take it as a civil case or whatever,” she said, “if they want to go that route and declare it a public nuisance.” The vote was 5-1, with Councilmember Mike Griffiths voting no and Councilmember Bridgett Lewis absent.
Griffiths said he is against smoking, but he’s concerned about enforcing the ordinance. To write a violation, an enforcement officer has to witness the smoking happening. What’s more, three warnings have to be given before the officer can cite the violator, he said Wednesday.
“And to me, that’s just a huge amount of effort by our staff to write a violation for no smoking,” Griffiths said. “I just see that that’s not likely to really happen and if it does, I think it will be a tremendous burden on our staff to run out and try to catch smokers in multifamily units.”
A more efficient way to deal with the issue, Griffiths said, is having the landlords be the enforcement arm and impose the smoking ban as part of their leases. “It just seemed a little bit too much of a city overreach to end up being responsible for trying to enforce a law that’s very, very difficult to enforce,” he said, “considering you have to actually catch someone in the process of smoking in order to even give them a warning.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info Subject: Public Comment: BCHD cannot be allowed to build allcove on the C-2 Beryl & Flagler lot without adequate on-site parking
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:31:02 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD is effectively donating a parcel to a 30-year mandated use for 91% non-residents of the District due to allcove contract terms.
If the residents sought to assign or sell the commercial parcel at Beryl & Flagler, BCHD's current plan does not provide for adequate parking for the sale. BCHD plans to "short sheet" the parking on the C-2 lot and use general P-CF zoned parking instead. This is unacceptable.
If BCHD needs to put parking underneath allcove, then so be it. Taxpayer cannot be left with a building on a lot that cannot be monetized due to BCHD's failure to plan ahead for adequate parking.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; info; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment: BCHD Misrepresentation - RCFE is PLANNED FOR NON-RESIDENTS - Hospital was EXPLICITLY
PLANNED FOR RESIDENTS
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 3:33:43 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD states the following in its FAQs -
Much like the South Bay Hospital served residents and those from other communities, BCHD’s campus will do the same. Public libraries, parks, universities and other taxpayersupported facilities and services often serve both residents and non-residents alike. We believe residents will benefit from having these resources in close proximity to their homes and in the Beach Cities community.
BCHD's analogy is UNEQUIVOCALLY FALSE. The South Bay Hospital's size (bed count) was driven by a consultant study of the 3 beach cities. The actual size of the hospital, even after expansion, was still SMALLER than the need of the 3 cities. Any non-resident use was purely of excess capacity.
BCHD's MDS consultant study shows that under 20% of the RCFE will service the zipcodes of 90266, 90277, 90278, and 90254. About 50% is from PV with the rest from completely outside the local area. Cite is Table 3-3 and the text stating that 30% will be from completely outside the area.
BCHD'S PR DEPARTMENT MUST BE FACT CHECKED ON EVERY DOCUMENT The Hospital was built for RESIDENTS WHO RESIDE in the DISTRICT The specifics from Table 3 are:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/ending-the-bchd-doublespeak-on-assisted-living-tenancy-80- of-the-rcfe-is-target-at-non-residents
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Blue folder, J.1 non agenda
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 2:07:27 PM
Attachments: Metro_Wiggins_CLine_update081423.pdf
TorrQR Ltr Screen Shot 2023-09-04.png
CityCouncil 9523.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear City Clerk,
Attached please find three files for the blue folder, 2 PDF's and a JPG for NonAgenda J.1 to include:
• Wiggins update to Metro Board with "poll and LPA results" • Screenshot of Torrance's official QR code form letter campaign • Written form of my oral comments I'll be giving tonight Please make sure all cm's, the mayor and city manager get a copy.
Thank you!
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3 speaking as Redondo Beach ROW Shareholder, 42 year Redondo Beach resident and 4th generation South Bay native. Regarding C-Line:
To help make sure you all have your facts straight and can identify pr propaganda in going forward on the draft EIR discussions, this especially goes for our city manager and our D3&4 reps. You need to understand why there is such a huge volume discrepancy in the Greenlineextension public comments for locally preferred alternative. You may have heard this being characterized by Metro as indicative of a higher percentage of community favoring the ROW at grade, ignoring the lack of substance and before having answered any real public comments on the DEIR.
There are TWO things to consider right off the bat, which are, 1) We fully expected Torrance's volume of "ROW support affirmations" via QR codegenerated form letters which UNdemocratically only offered their residents ONE option to support, and I’m sure none of Torrance’s form letters have addressed the very serious technical problems on the ROW. Volume without substance is meaningless to the Board of Directors. However current Torrance city council reps have acknowledged that they understand our issues as they have stated in their public meetings recently and they seek to change their position. 1)
2) A small poll, deliberately targeted to avoid our ROW communities, likely intended to rope Torrance back in, was brought to the Torrance Transportation Committee as argument to keep them on board with the project. Out of more than 250k residents between the 3 cities only 670 respondents happened to pick up their spam phone call to answer their scripted tailored questions. That is not a true representation, especially considering all of Metro's public hearings in two of the three cities were overwhelmingly in favor of the Hawthorne option.
We’re not surprised by these characterizations. We look forward to Metro's answers to our public DEIR comments and questions.
Further on the rigged Torrance QR code campaign, how could that have gotten approved for an official city government website? We can and should easily dismiss those results. Reps from that same body have made false claims over the years, too many to list BUT one example - a Torrance Transit official cited a “20 yr old Torrance took 25% Redondo took 75% deal” that turned out to be egregious disinformation, purposely manipulated and presented to the COG. I have those reports.
It is so necessary to highlight the bad faith efforts that have been used against my community over the years with hopes that our city manager understands these variables. I’ve reached out but have not heard anything back. Between Metro and Torrance we have suffered a lot of gaslighting and bullying. We need you and our D3 rep to stand up for us going forward. Thank you for hearing me tonight.