BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 7, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Barbara Epstein
To: CityClerk; Bill Brand; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Mike Witzansky
Cc: Cameron Harding
Subject: Publicity For Seaside Lagoon/Promenade Public Meeting Date: Sunday, October 29, 2023 11:01:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear City Leaders,
I am concerned that vast numbers of our residents are not aware of the exciting plans available to them to view by our landscape design company on November 16 at the main library.
Please, could we wage a publicity blitz and bombard our residents with news of this meeting, ASAP ? I can’t help but feel the urgency of my request. I went to the Halloween Car Trunk show at the harbor on Saturday, and was delighted with the the plans I saw at the booth. This project is too important for the public not to know a thing about it.
Thank you so much!
Barbara Epstein
Cheerleader For The Waterfront
Sent from my iPad
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; City Council Cc: Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; [email protected]; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; info; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach Subject: BCHD Continues to Operate in the Shadows with its 100% Private PMB developed/owned/operated project on
PUBLIC LAND
Date: Friday, October 27, 2023 12:45:30 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Mayors and Councils of HB/RB/MB/Torrance Public Comment - Planning Commissions of HB/RB/MB/Torrance Public Comment - LA County Board of Supervisors, LALAFCO, RB Chamber, SBCCOG Board
Media Backgrounder
BCHD, the so-called "Public" health agency is "Publicly" stating that it intends to cut taxpayers out of the private developer process of using 3 acres of "Public Land" for a 95-year 100% owned/operated PRIVATE PMB LLC Project.
BCHD's ACTIONS ARE
UNACCEPTABLE!
BCHD must come to the table with public hearings on its current PRIVATE project.
NO BCHD/PMB PLAN UPDATES SINCE MARCH 2021:
BCHD's last published plan update to the public was provided in the draft EIR in March 2021.
That was the roughly 110-foot tall, 250,000 sqft, 1950's Miami hotel design proposed on the north and east perimeter of the campus up against residential housing.
NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS PLAN FOR THE PRIVATE PROJECT ON PUBLIC LAND:
On September 18, 2023, BCHD stated that it is withholding any community outreach or communications plan for the PMB LLC project from public review.
BCHD and PMB LLC continue to operate in the shadows as reflected in BCHD CPRA response to a 9/7/23 request.
NO BCHD INTENT TO UPDATE THE PUBLIC OR SEEK INPUT ON THE 100% PRIVATE PROJECT ON 100% PUBLIC LAND:
BCHD has publicly stated it will CONTINUE to work in the SHADOWS "the public will be able to access the plan when it is submitted to the City"
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jane Diehl; Vanessa I. Poster; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Geoff Gilbert; Todd Loewenstein
Subject: BCHD Withholds the TRUTH from Agencies & Neighbors Yet Again Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:36:17 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment for City Councils and Agency Boards
The following photos demonstrate what BCHD proposed to Metro, the City of Redondo Beach, and most importantly the surrounding neighborhoods.
Yet, BCHD instead installed large equipment on a median that had NO BUSINESS even being part of the project at all. BCHD misled the regulators, agencies, and neighbors.
Remember - BCHD pledged to complete 1200-feet of bike path for $1.8M when it applied for the grant.
IN FACT - BCHD WILL COMPLETE ONLY 400-feet for $1.7M.
That's 1/3rd of the scope for 95% of the
FUNDING
This is very likely the most expensive bike path PER FOOT ($4500) in the City or County. Are we to believe that $100,000 will complete the 800-feet that BCHD failed to build? Nonsense! Measure M funds were used for deferred BCHD maintenance on the sliding hillside.
SHAME ON BCHD FOR CONTINUING TO
MISLEAD AGENCIES & NEIGHBORS!
BCHD's PROPOSAL/DECEPTION TO NEIGHBORS
BCHD's SWITCHEROO AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT INSTEAD
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: ER Letter to Editor (10-26-23 Pub Date) Regarding BCHD"s Failure to Protect Children from METRO Damages
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 6:20:54 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment to Mayor and Council
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) < >
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 6:19 PM
Subject: ER Letter to Editor (10-26-23 Pub Date) Regarding BCHD's Failure to Protect Children from METRO Damages
To: Communications <[email protected]>, Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>, Noel Chun <[email protected]>, Jane Diehl <[email protected]>, Martha Koo <[email protected]>, Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>, info <[email protected]>, Jacki Bacharach <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Thrown under the train
Dear ER:
Why is it that neither the Beach Cities Health District, nor the Redondo Beach Unified School District is opposing the Metro Green Line extension path that would add two tracks to the existing right-of-way (ROW), through the yards of homes in Lawndale and Redondo Beach. BCHD has spent millions on Blue Zones and its research shows that chronic stress to children leads to a number of lifelong health problems, including heart disease and depression. Even Metro acknowledges the ROW project would cause significant and non-mitigatable damages to the Lawndale and Redondo Beach neighborhoods. BCHD has an obligation to actively support the health of children. Why won’t BCHD step up and advocate for the Green Line extension path along commercial Hawthorne Boulevard, instead of past the homes of children and families? Where is RBUSD’s voice in this matter? Those are RBUSD families and children who live next to this planned 24/7 rail project. Three of the five BCHD Board members will be up for reelection soon. If this is how the current Board and management toss generations of children under the train, then we need to vote them out and replace them with an empathic, pro-resident Board.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment on BCHD Board Meeting (10-25-23) to BCHD, Metro Board, SBCCOG Board, Metro IG, LA Board of Supervisors, [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 6:20:33 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment to Mayor and Council
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) >
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 6:14 PM
Subject: Public Comment on BCHD Board Meeting (10-25-23) to BCHD, Metro Board, SBCCOG Board, Metro IG, LA Board of Supervisors, [email protected] To: Communications <[email protected]>, Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>, Noel Chun <[email protected]>, Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>, Jane Diehl <[email protected]>, Martha Koo <[email protected]>, Kevin Cody <[email protected]>, Lisa Jacobs <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Jacki Bacharach <[email protected]>
BCHD 1/2 DAY STRAT PLAN MEETING - NON-REPRESENTATIVE &
MEANINGLESS
As usual, BCHD had about 5% unaffiliated public participation. About 50% of participants were BCHD Board, Executives (13 @ $2.3M/yr), Staff, Committee Members, Vendors, Contractors, Consultants, Public Agencies, and Affiliated Volunteers. Only 5 of the 95 participants were NOT part of a paid or BCHD-affiliated group. In fact one consultant from Blue Zones has received $1.5M from BCHD according to a University of So California publication. BCHD continues to swamp the meetings so as to mute opposing opinions.
Further, with the Board and Executives present, the committee members, employees, consultants and contractors are stifled in any attempt to speak truth to power.
BCHD BIKE PATH - BCHD MISREPRESENTED THE PROJECT TO METRO AND SBCCOG
BCHD represented the 1200-foot project as a cost of $1.8M when it submitted for Measure M funds. In the end, BCHD will only complete 1/3rd of the scope and consume $1.7M or 95% of the funding, leaving only $100,000 for the remaining 67%. It is clear that BCHD's cost of $4500 per foot of bike path is egregious. Further, it is clear that BCHDs $1.8Mf cost for 100% of the project was inaccurate and misleading.
SBCCOG FAILED IN ITS MEASURE M FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY - NO
ANALYSIS
SBCCOG recommended BCHD's project to Metro with no formal analysis. The BCHD cost was 15X the 2012 cost estimated by the South Bay Master Plan. SBCCOG failed to conduct sufficient analysis to realize that BCHD's Redondo Beach segment was likely the most expensive 400 feet of bike path created in the South Bay and the BCHD plan including the completion of DEFERRED maintenance for failure by the District to maintain the hillside.
BCHD FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE HILLSIDE - MEASURE M SHOULD NOT PAY
FOR NEGLIGENCE ON BCHD'S PART
The District condemned the site for the benefit of the "residents who reside ... inside the District" according to contemporaneous Court papers. Implicit in that benefit and resident vote and funding was the District maintaining the property. The District failed. The District hillside has been sliding for decades with no intervention by the District.
ALLCOVE BEACH CITIES IS 91% NON-RESIDENT SERVICE AREA - LA COUNTY SPA8 IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR BCHD SERVICE
Without dispute, SPA8 has a population of 1.4M per the US Census. That is 91% non-resident of the 3 beach cities. BCHD has used District staff, facilities, property, and tax revenues for a contract that services 10 to 1 non-residents.
BCHD ALLCOVE BUILDING ENCUMBERS TAXPAYER LAND FOR 30 YEARS -
LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESIDENTS PER THE COURT
BCHD encumbers the land by contract for 30 years of services provision in the building by taking the funding from the State for allcove. This deprives residents of 91% of the benefit of the land.
BCHD ALLCOVE BUILDING MUST REMAIN IN SERVICE FOR 30 YEARS - BCHD HAS NO FORWARD FUNDING AND TAXPAYERS FACE $30M LIABILITY The State contract for funding states that the building must remain in service for 30 years.
BCHD will need to fund both programs and the building expenses during that period. Thus, residents will gain 9% of the service area benefit and face a 100% liability for costs.
BCHD HAS NO COMMUNICATIONS PLAN FOR THE 100% PRIVATE PMB LLC FACILITY ON 3 ACRES OF TAXPAYER PUBLIC LAND
BCHD has withheld all information from the public since approximately February 2021 when DEIR was released. As such, the public has been blinded and per CPRA PRR, BCHD has no plan for communications to the public.
PMB LLC RCFE WILL SERVICE 80% NON-RESIDENTS - PER BCHD MDS
CONSULTANT STUDY
MDS provided BCHD with a zip code level analysis of tenancy. That was 30% outside the local area and 50% outside the District, yielding only 20% of tenants from RB/HB/MB. Table 3-3 is indisputable in the study by MDS.
ANY PACE FACILITY WILL SERVICE 95% NON-RESIDENTS - PER NATIONAL
PACE ASSOC DATA
BCHD proposes a PACE facility for 400 enrollees. National PACE Assoc data shows that only 1 in 1000 seniors uses PACE. There are 16,000 seniors in the District, meaning that 16 RESIDENTS and 384 NON-RESIDENTS will benefit from the taxpayer land and facilities.
BCHD STRATEGIC PLANNING ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS ARE ONLY 5%
GENERAL PUBLIC - THE REMAINDER ARE PAID PARTICIPANTS OF
AFFILIATES
Per corrected analysis of the roster.
ADVENTUREPLEX AND CHF ARE TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED WITH 30% NONRESIDENT MEMBERSHIP - NON-RESIDENTS DO NOT PAY A FAIR SHARE Per BCHD data, 30% of the membership of CHF is NON-RESIDENT. Since CHF is a money loser, high cost provider, it is subsidized with taxpayer funds. Such funding should NOT be allowed for NON-RESIDENTS.
BCHD MISREPRESENTED THE BIKE PATH DESIGN - BCHD IS ATTEMPTING
TO SADDLE NEIGHBORS WITH UGLY INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
BCHD drawings misrepresented the views of the bike path in Redondo Beach. BCHD plans to place ugly, large, controls equipment into the median across from homes. Per the City, BCHD proposed a federally prohibited location for the equipment because BCHD apparently had no working knowledge of the ADAAA requirements. BCHD's foray into streets, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. has been an abject failure due to poor contractors and a complete lack of knowledge and experience on BCHD's part.
BCHD IS MONTHS BEHIND ON THE BIKE PATH PROJECT
The project should have been long completed. BCHD's execution has been poor and cost has been extreme at $4500 per foot or $1.7M for 400-feet.
BCHD HAS PROVIDED THE PUBLIC WITH NO PLANS OR VIEW OF THE ALLCOVE BUILDING - DESPITE IT BEING 91% NON-RESIDENT BENEFIT BY
CONTRACT
As with the PMB LLC building plan, the BCHD allcove plan has continued to operate in the shadows, hidden from all public view.
BCHD's 13 EXECUTIVES WITH COMPENSATION OF $2.3M MANAGE ONLY 57
FTES - BOARD OVERSIGHT IS NEGLIGENT
Organizational span of control at BCHD is tiny and trivial. 13 executives with CEO, director or GM titles have TOTAL FTE span of only 4.5 employees each. At an average compensation of $200K per year per executive, that yields a direct oversight cost of each FTE of nearly $50,000 per year.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Date: Thursday, October 19, 2023 2:29:32 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
How is it that BCHD is advocating to run the Green Line down the existing right-of-way in Lawndale and Redondo Beach? How could BCHD believe that damaging generation after generation of child health with 24/7/365 train noise and vibration is healthful act for a taxpayer funded special district?
We need a new Board and new Management at BCHD before it willfully destroys the next generation of children in Redondo Beach.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
cc: Redondo Beach Mayor and Council
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Council - Object - Revised Logo Date: Thursday, November 2, 2023 7:25:50 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I object to the revised logo for the City. It is a waste of time and money. We can never have our time back, but, we can surely STOP spending money.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Green Line Extension Route Survey Bias Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 11:06:06 PM
Attachments: 230814 C Line Extension to Torrance Project Update.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment- Metro Board and LA County Board of Supervisors Public Comment - Mayor and Council of Hermosa, Manhattan, Redondo Beach, Lawndale and Torrance
Notification to Metro IG of Biased Business Activity by Metro SUBJECT: Biased Metro Green Line Survey
I have attached the memo from the Metro CEO to the Board. As an expert witness with extensive experience in polling, surveys and data analysis, I am very concerned about 2 significant topics in the Metro Green Line survey that was fielded in Lawndale, Redondo Beach, and Torrance.
First, the survey is biased to provide a greater level of familiarity with the project than actually exists. It is a well know fact from data analysis that asking a respondent how much they know about a project results in an upward bias. Just as the natural psychological response is to be agreeable and answer yes to questions, the natural bias is represent greater knowledge levels.
As such, the survey needed to ask one or more specific questions to reveal true familiarity rather than stated familiarity.
Second, the survey failed to even broach the most significant issue, that of the route. The most significant issue is clearly the significant and non-mitigable damages that Metro seeks to cause to generations of families by adding two 24/7/365 rail lines in the existing right-of-way through Lawndale and Torrance. Had Metro correctly represented the 24/7/365 2-track addition through family neighborhoods vs. an elevated line down Hawthorne Blvd through a commercial area, the results could have been useful.
METRO DELIBERATELY BIASED BOTH QUESTIONS.
The survey results are largely useless due to this deliberate bias. Metro fielded a survey and sought to gain support for its project, and so Metro biased the results. The survey must be refielded, this time with a fact-based knowledge question(s) and a full disclosure of the routes.
Mark Nelson
Expert Witness
Retired Executive
Redondo Beach
AUGUST 14, 2023
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
THROUGH: STEPHANIE N. WIGGINS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FROM: JAMES DE LA LOZA
CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER
SUBJECT: C LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE PROJECT UPDATE
ISSUE
Metro is approaching a major milestone for a recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) at the October Metro Board meeting for the Metro C (Green) Line Extension to Torrance Project. This memo provides an update on the project benefits, a recent community poll, public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as well as a summary of the alignments and alternatives studied through the environmental process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND
The Proposed Project would provide rapid, high-capacity transit connecting the South Bay, a major jobs center, with the rest of LA County’s growing Metro rail network. The Project would extend light rail 4.5 miles south from the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station through Lawndale, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, terminating at the new Mary K. Giordano Regional Transit Center (Torrance Transit Center). The Proposed Project seeks to connect the Metro rail system with new regional bus transit centers in the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance, which provide service to the greater South Bay region. The Project has received funding from Measure R ($272M in 2008), Measure M ($619 in 2016), and a grant ($231M in 2018) from the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA).
With the recent Metro Board-adopted K Line operating plan, the Project would serve as a southern extension of the K Line, providing travelers a one-seat ride from the South Bay to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Inglewood, and 2 the Metro E (Expo) Line. As part of a separate Measure M project, there are plans to the K-Line further north to the Metro D (Purple) and B (Red) Line, providing access further north to the San Fernando Valley via the Metro G (Orange) Line. When fully built out, the K Line would connect to the Metro C, E, D, and B Lines, making it one of the most connected rail lines in the Metro system, providing an attractive alternative to driving along congested streets and the I-405.
The first concept of a rail connection to the South Bay was envisioned as part of the regional rail network in Proposition A (1980) with the goal of connecting LA County via rapid rail service. In 1993, Metro made a significant regional real estate investment, purchasing the 26-mile Harbor Subdivision freight corridor from the BNSF Railway (BNSF) predecessor with the goal of providing rail service between Downtown Los Angeles and the South Bay and Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Over the years, Metro prepared several transportation studies, starting with the 2009 Harbor Subdivision Alternative Analysis (AA) which prioritized a segment of the Harbor Subdivision corridor between Redondo Beach and Torrance with light rail as the preferred mode.
In 2010, Metro started an environmental study for the Project with funding from the voter-approved Traffic Relief and Expansion (also known as Measure R). In 2014, Metro paused the environmental study due to funding uncertainty after Measure J failed in 2012 to pass by voters. In 2016, voters approved the Los Angeles Traffic Improvement Plan (also known as Measure M), which included funds for the Project and identified 2030-2033 as the opening year for this Project.
With funding secured from Measure R and M, Metro prepared a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAA) Study for the Project. The SAA Study identified the need for a high-quality transit option to connect to employment centers and key 3 destinations both locally and outside the Project Area to address congested roadways and close a gap between the Metro system and local bus networks. In 2018, the Metro Board approved two light rail alignments from the SAA Study to move forward into environmental review and removed proposed stations in the City of Lawndale from further study based on the City’s request.
Metro was awarded a $231M TIRCP grant for the Project from Cal-STA in 2018 as one of several Metro capital improvements that seek to broaden and modernize transit connectivity in LA County. In 2019, the Metro Board designated the Project as one of four “pillar projects,” reflecting the priority for this Project in the County.
On a parallel track, the cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance purchased land adjacent to the Metro ROW to construct new bus transit centers, which assumed a connection to future rail stations as part of the light rail extension. After many years of planning and design, the Redondo Beach Transit Center and Torrance Transit Center opened this spring (2023), both partially funded by Metro grants.
This January (2023), Metro published a Draft EIR evaluating the Proposed Project, a 4.5-mile light rail extension along the Harbor Subdivision (Metro ROW) with two options in the north (Trench and Hawthorne), and three “Alternatives to the Proposed Project” to reduce potential significant impacts. Metro received over 2,200 comments on the Draft EIR. This spring, Metro worked with a market research company to poll residents in the Project area on levels of support for the Project. Metro is in the process of preparing a staff recommendation to share with the Metro Board this Fall to consider in the selection for an LPA based on the project objectives, findings from the Draft EIR, technical studies, and input received during community engagement.
DISCUSSION
The South Bay is a significant jobs center, particularly in the industrial and technology sectors. Like much of LA County, the subregion suffers from heavy vehicle congestion, a constrained housing supply, and limited convenient transportation options. Data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) anticipates the existing jobs/housing imbalance to worsen in the coming decades with employment growing twice as fast as the population in the South Bay. By providing a fast, frequent transit option to the South Bay, the Project is expected to expand mobility options and access to the South Bay and help to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), which contribute to climate change. By shifting drivers to transit, the Project would reduce 49,000 VMT per day and result in a net reduction of 2,369 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year in 2042.
The Project would serve between 11,570 and 15,648 daily project trips in 2042.
This equates to around 5,700 to 7,800 daily boardings per station, which is similar to the Metro B (Red) and E (Expo) Line average daily boardings in 2019,
6 of opposition, despite a group of vocal opponents that have attended many public meetings on the Project. See Attachment B for a complete poll summary.
Draft EIR & Technical Studies
In early 2021, Metro started the environmental review process for the Proposed Project and held public scoping meetings. Metro published the Draft EIR in January and held five public hearings during the 61-day comment period. The Draft EIR outlines the Project objectives, describes the Project design, operations, and maintenance, and discloses potential environmental impacts in the short-term (construction) and long-term (operations) to reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts from the Project. In addition to the Draft EIR, Metro prepared several technical studies and reports to further analyze the Project and address areas of public interest that are not evaluated under CEQA.
These include advanced conceptual engineering plans and related studies such as geotechnical, hydrogeology, and drainage reports, traffic and parking, ridership, cost, real estate acquisitions, urban design, purpose and need, and alternatives considered and dismissed over the years.
Alignments & Alternatives Evaluated in Draft EIR
The Draft EIR evaluates three light rail alignments to connect the existing C Line terminus at the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station southeast to the Torrance Transit Center:
- Metro ROW (Elevated/At-Grade), travels on Metro ROW
- Trench Option, travels on Metro ROW below street level and open to sky - Hawthorne Option, travels along a section of the I-405 and Hawthorne Blvd
South of 190th Street, all three alignments are the same and travel along the Metro ROW to end at the Torrance Transit Center. Per CEQA, the Draft EIR must also include “Alternatives to the Project” to reduce or eliminate significant impacts generated by the Project. As such, the Draft EIR includes three Alternatives:
- 170th/182nd Grade Separated Light Rail Alternative (Metro ROW Hybrid) - High-Frequency Bus Alternative
- No Project Alternative
See Project Maps, Attachment A.
Community Engagement & Input
Between 2021 to 2023, the project team led extensive outreach to engage the community virtually and in person when safe to do so during the pandemic. Metro expanded the radius of notifications from 750 feet to a 1-mile area around the corridor, which includes over 47,000 addresses. Metro held virtual walking tours and surveys, in-person walking tours, open houses, and public hearings to invite the public to provide feedback and hosted dozens of targeted stakeholder
16 NEXT STEPS
Based on the input on the Draft EIR, the benefits the Project brings to the South Bay as historically documented and advocated for, and the results of recent public polling data, Metro staff will return to the Metro Board in September for a receive and file presentation and in October to recommend a preferred alignment to consider as the LPA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Project Maps
Attachment B – Spring 2023 Community Poll
Attachment A: Project Maps for C Line Extension to Torrance Project Light Rail Alignments Studied in DEIR
170th& 182nd Grade Separated Light Rail Alternative (Metro ROW Hybrid)
High Frequency Bus (HFB) Alternative
1 Community Poll
Spring 2023
Metro C Line Extension to Torrance Project
Community Perception Poll in Project Area
• Performed by MDC Research, a market research firm that has been conducting thousands of telephone interviews each year since 1978 with consumers, voters, and the general population.
• Interviewers stated that they were from MDC Research and were conducting a study regarding issues facing California residents.
• Conducted poll in April/May 2023 of residents in Lawndale, Redondo Beach & Torrance
• Randomized dialing of cell and land lines
• Metro not revealed as sponsor of poll
• Sample Size: 670 participants
• Torrance: n=249
• Redondo Beach: n=200
• Lawndale: n=221
2 Survey included
Familiarity w/ Project
How familiar are you with
Metro’s Green Line (also called
“C” Line) light rail extension
from Redondo Beach to
Torrance?
• Very familiar
• Somewhat familiar
• Never heard of it
Support for Project
How much do you support or
oppose Metro’s Green Line
(also called “C” Line) light rail
extension from Redondo Beach
to Torrance?
• Strongly support
• Somewhat support
• Neither support nor
oppose
• Somewhat oppose
• Strongly oppose
Demographics
• Gender
• Age
• Race & Ethnicity
• Income
• Employment
• Education
• Car Ownership
• Commuting Mode
• Zip Code
• Metro Riding Frequency
3 Summary of Poll
• 60% of residents are familiar with the Project.
• 67% of residents support the Project.
• 8% oppose—with a margin-of-error of +/- 2%
• Support for Measure M (ballot measure) in 2016:
• Lawndale: 73% of voters
• Redondo Beach: 60% of voters supported
• Torrance: 55% of voters supported
8 Footnotes
9 • Where the demographic composition of the sample varied from Census for the areas, the final data was weighted to mirror the 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, for the combined three-city area and each city individually.
• Unweighted Base Sizes:
• Combined Three City Area: 670
• Torrance: n=249
• Redondo Beach: n=200
• Lawndale: n=221
• At 95% confidence, the margins of error (M.O.E.) for the study overall are as follows:
• combined three city area +/- 4%
• Torrance +/- 6%
• Redondo Beach +/- 7%
• Lawndale +/- 7%.
• Overall M.O.E. is based on a percentage of 50%. Actual M.O.E. varies by percent within the study. For example, the 67% of the combined three city area that support the C Line Extension has a M.O.E. of +/- 4%. The 8% of the combined three city area that oppose the project has a M.O.E. of +/- 2%.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Nicole Wesley; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; info; Bill Brand; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; RightOfSay/RBQoL Cc: Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; Vanessa I. Poster Subject: Public Comment - Why does BCHD support damaging children"s health with 24/7/365 Green Line in the ROW? Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 11:56:49 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mayor and Councils of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance:
Boards of Agencies:
I've been very concerned that both BCHD and RBUSD have ignored the negative health impacts of 24/7/365 train traffic caused by proposed Metro Green Line expansion along the current right-of-way (ROW). Both are special districts that are alleged stewards of our youth, yet neither BCHD nor RBUSD will fight to stop the Metro Green Line through those neighborhoods.
Now, BCHD has taken a step further and SUPPORTS running the Green Line past homes along the ROW. How can BCHD, an alleged health district, ignore the lifetime negative impacts to children from stress identified by Blue Zones researchers? How can BCHD ignore Blue Zones clear statement that "stress is the silent killer"? How can BCHD ignore the increased levels of depression and mental illness that BCHD refuses to stop? Why won't BCHD affirmatively support our children?
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From BCHD's Facebook Site
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchd-does-support-metro-and-24-7-365-trainsthrough-family-neighborhoods-how-can-that-be From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic Cc: [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Letters; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Jacki Bacharach; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: BCHD Failure to Maintain Public Property and Associated Misuse of Measure M Funding Date: Sunday, October 29, 2023 1:50:23 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
As is clear from Superior Court filing below, voters approved the District for the benefit of "residents who reside" in the District. The July 31, 1957 court filed document by the District is the most contemporaneous record of voter intent, since BCHD cannot provide the voter ballot measure from the District's formation. It is emblematic of the District's lack of attention to detail that it cannot produce its foundational voter-approval document. As such, the document below represents the most contemporaneous document of the District's understanding of its limitations by voters.
Following the condemnation by the District, the District had an affirmative responsibility to maintain the property. The District clearly failed as it allowed its hillside to slide to Flagler Alley. This is unequivocally a failure of the District Board and Management, with no fault of the wider voters of LA County and Measure M.
BCHD must reimburse Measure M the full cost, from planning through execution of the retaining wall required due to the District's failure to maintain the property. cc: Public Comment Mayors and City Council, Metro Board, LA County Board of Supervisors From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR
Cc: Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; info; Jacki Bacharach; [email protected]; Communications; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Garth Meyer
Subject: Re: CPRA - Roster from 1/2 Day Strat Plan Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 4:29:58 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT ALL AGENCIES AND BOARDS (HB/RB/MB, Torrance, LALAFCO, LA County Supes, Metro, SBCCOG)
Following documented searches of each member of the public as claimed by BCHD, we have corrected BCHD's misleading roster to demonstrate that a MAXIMUM of 6% of the attendees of the recent Strategic Planning Meeting were unaffiliated members of the public.
Of the most concern is that the entire Board and most of the 13 executives ($2.3M annual compensation) were in attendance, thereby providing a de facto toxic environment for the input of the roughly 25 BCHD non-executive Staff that attended. Further, 41% staff + 25% Consultants/Vendors/etc. were PAID BY BCHD either in salary, fees, or grants. With 66% PAID ATTENDEES, the results of the half day are BIASED and likely GARBAGE.
Buettner's firm alone took $1.5M according to USC records.
I'm saddened by BCHD's deep misrepresentations of attendance affiliations at its meetings.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:42 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) > wrote:
Thank you. This serves as notice that a number BCHD-affiliated volunteers are misrepresented by BCHD as members of the public. We will have our staff conduct searches to determine which are affiliated volunteers and correct your misrepresentation.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:04 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 10/06/23 that reads:
Provide electronic document of the attendees of the 10-6-23 meeting from 8-noon.
Please find attached responsive document.
If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
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) >
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 6:42 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Roster from 1/2 Day Strat Plan Meeting
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Provide electronic document of the attendees of the 10-6-23 meeting from 8-noon.
From:
To: CityClerk
Subject: blue folder non agenda
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 3:02:20 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi,
Can this make it into the blue folder for J.1?
It's recommended and approved LPA for Eastside Gold Line extension. https://metro.legistar1.com/metro/attachments/915fc828-a0e4-4f64-b7dccbac2859e336.pdf Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3