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
MARCH 5, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk
Subject: Comments for Redondo March 5 on Non Agenda (Green Line) Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 1:33:26 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.
Good evening
This is Holly Osborne, Redondo Beach.
This is regarding the width of the narrow part of the ROW on the Green Line in Lawndale; and I have 3 points to make.
Recall: The width was 75 ft in 2018.
It mistakenly grew to 81 ft, when Metro printed their TOWN HALL charts in August 2022. The ROW was just barely wide enough for the at-grade option with that width. (Metro had charts for both the at-grade and trench options at this width.) Metro was reminded the width was 75 ft. They changed the at-grade chart and put it in the Jan 2023 DEIR package. BUT THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING CHART FOR THE TRENCH. That is because the chart would have shown the trench was not a viable option. If Metro doesn't put the diagram in the package, it cannot be criticized.
Then along came Holly Mitchell and her walk this past December. With Metro people standing at 170th street in front of easels, the trench chart suddenly appeared at the 75 ft width, and it shows clearly things WILL NOT WORK. There is only a 4 ft maintenance area for the pipes, where there needs to be 12-14 ft. The ROW is not wide enough. (Note: The LRT takes up more width in the trench configuration than in the at-grade configuration: 38 ft vs 31 ft See diagram below).
That is point 1.
Here is point 2. The Hybrid/ROW in this narrow section is conceptually the at-grade option, with trenches at 170th (and 182nd) But, the trench part of the Hybrid option is basically the same as the trench part for the "full trench option." If the configuration does not fit for full trench at 170th it does not fit for the Hybrid/ROW trench at 170th either.
Metro has said they did not "anticipate" condemning properties. These pictures seem to contradict their words.
Here is point 3. There is an Appendix document with detailed drawings for the at- grade option between 170th and Artesia, BUT NOT FOR THE TRENCH OPTION. It is apparent that when Metro put out the DEIR, they had no idea how the trench option would work in that area. Further, the ROW takes a sudden jagged increase, and lo and behold the ROW is increased to 80-81 ft. There is so much illogical work in the Appendix on this part of the diagram, that none of it can be believed.
Thank you
Below is sketch from Dec. 16 . 2023 Metro Walk, between 170th and Artesia:
4' wide Maintenance area is not sufficient.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info
Subject: BCHD"s CEO Red Herring on Providing Services to Non-Residents Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 7:38:07 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - City Councils of Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo Beach:
At the end of this is the AI generated transcript segment of the BCHD CEO making unfounded and unsupported claims.
BCHD IS FULLY WITHIN TAXPAYER RIGHTS TO LIMIT SERVICE
1) LALAFCO clearly stated that BCHD was fully within its right and the rights of the taxpayers to use a residency test for services. The transcript of that authority was captured by LALAFCO and provided to the public.
BCHD (OPTIONAL AGENCY) HAS NO ANALOGY TO FIRE OR POLICE
SERVICES (MANDATORY AGENCY)
2) Mandatory Fire and Police services bear no relationship to Optional Health District services. The majority of LA County (95% by population) has no health district coverage.
Only those areas that LOCALLY FORMED, LOCALLY FUNDED, and LOCALLY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE TAXES have Health Districts. Therefore, a mandatory service such as Police and Fire has NO ANALOGY to a health district.
BCHD'S FLAWED ANALOGY WOULD RESULT IN NO NON-RESIDENT
SERVICES BY PD OR FD FOR OPTIONAL SERVICES
3) The closest, yet flawed analogy for a health district and Police Department would be for a non-resident to report a crime from another City to the Redondo Beach PD. In that case, the RBPD would NOT take the report and would instead return the non-resident to his/her proper jurisdiction.
4) The closest, yet flawed analysis for a health district and Fire Department would be for a non-resident to call the RBFD and report a fire in a non-resident city and request service.
Again, that would not occur and the non-resident would be redirected to his/her local jurisdiction.
BCHD HAS NO ANALYSIS OR DATA
BCHD has repeated stated that analysis of program public benefits is beyond BCHD's limited capabilities (per CPRA response). As a result, BCHD is incapable by their own admission in stating that providing allcove to 1.4M population service area (SPA8) has a net benefit to the District residents.
BCHD must required to use facts and stop misleading the public.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; Communications
Cc: [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: CPRA - Gallup Survey
Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 9:24:12 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Thank you for acknowledging that BCHD has no additional materials that might demonstrate the Gallup Survey's ability to measure causality. As such, the Gallup survey makes no findings regarding Blue Zones causality nor BCHD program causality. cc: Public Comment, Hermosa, Redondo, Manhattan City Councils as owners of the District On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:55 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request originally received 2/8/24 that reads:
CPRA Requests:
1. For the Gallup survey at https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd_42cf4ed233a536488505da468677bb2c.pdf&view=1, provide all documents demonstrating that the Blue Zones Project is causal to the differential in scores presented by Gallup for the District cities vs the US.
2. For the Gallup survey at https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd_42cf4ed233a536488505da468677bb2c.pdf&view=1, provide all documents demonstrating that the Blue Zones Project is causal to the differential in scores across time presented by Gallup for the District cities..
3. For the Gallup survey at https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd_42cf4ed233a536488505da468677bb2c.pdf&view=1, provide all documents demonstrating the differences in results of the District cities vs. the US are significant after controlling the CDC racial factors in the link presented, such as income, education level, household asset value, race, age, and other CDC identified factors.
The Gallup Well-Being Index Results presented by Dan Witters, Gallup Research Director, and the link to the Board Study Session are available below. There are no other responsive documents.
Gallup Slides: BCHD BOD Study Session - Gallup Presentation January 24, 2024 Link: January 24, 2024 Study Session Video
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 followup 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: Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:45 AM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Cc: info <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Vanessa I.
Poster <[email protected]>; Noel Chun <[email protected]>; Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]>; Martha Koo <[email protected]> Subject: CPRA - Gallup Survey
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
PUBLIC COMMENT ALL AGENCIES
PUBLIC COMMENT BCHD HALF DAY STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING 2/16/24
BACKGROUND
The characteristics of the District cities are substantially different from the US as a whole, and no demonstration of controls for those differences is presented by Gallup. Per the US CDC, the social determinants of health, such as income and race demonstrate substantially worse health outcomes, morbidity and mortality for non-whites, less educated, and those of lower income. As such, CDC finds that these variables must be considered (controlled for) for valid comparisons across locations.
Gallup, BCHD, and Blue Zones comparison of data average from the District cities to the US Average must be controlled for these CDC identified factors to make valid comparisons. See https://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/racism-disparities/index.html For example, US Census data for the US vs Manhattan Beach are available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US,manhattanbeachcitycalifornia/PST045222 Summary results are as follows:
CPRA Requests:
1) For the Gallup survey at https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd_42cf4ed233a536488505da468677bb2c.pdf&view=1, provide all documents demonstrating that the Blue Zones Project is causal to the differential in scores presented by Gallup for the District cities vs the US.
2) For the Gallup survey at https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd_42cf4ed233a536488505da468677bb2c.pdf&view=1, provide all documents demonstrating that the Blue Zones Project is causal to the differential in scores across time presented by Gallup for the District cities..
3) For the Gallup survey at https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd_42cf4ed233a536488505da468677bb2c.pdf&view=1, provide all documents demonstrating the differences in results of the District cities vs. the US are significant after controlling the CDC racial factors in the link presented, such as income, education level, household asset value, race, age,and other CDC identified factors.
THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM.
USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. PLEASE NOTE THAT CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH
DISTRICT, ALONG WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS, MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
CLAIMS, LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE DISCLOSURE OR USE OF ANY INFORMATION, DATA OR OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo
Subject: BCHD "Packs" the Strategic Half Day Meetings with PAID EMPLOYEES/CONSULTANTS/CONTRACTORS/VENDORS Date: Thursday, February 22, 2024 6:18:36 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - District Cities of Manhattan/Hermosa/Redondo Beach City Councils BCHD Pays Two-Thirds of Attendees at its Half Day
Meetings who Attend! That's PACKING THE MEETING!
From the prior Strategic Half Day we see from the Roster that 41% of attendees were paid staff, 25% of attendees were paid contractors/consultants/vendors, and 5% were the Board itself. So 71% of the attendees were either PAID AS BCHD EMPLOYEES or PAID CONSULTANTS/ CONTRACTORS/VENDORS or THE
BOARD ITSELF.
ONLY 6% WERE UNAFFILIATED WITH BCHD!
BCHD deliberately STACKS THE DECK against the PUBLIC!
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchd-pays-two-thirds-of-attendees-at-its-half-day-meetings-who-attend-that-s-packing-themeeting From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Communications; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Lisa Jacobs; Garth Meyer; Vanessa I.
Poster; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat Subject: BCHD Fails to Disclose that Gallup Survey does not Measure BCHD Activities or Programs Date: Thursday, February 22, 2024 7:32:49 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: Hermosa/Manhattan/Redondo Beach City Councils BCHD recently sent out a misleading advertising email with the headline "Beach Cities Scores High on the 2023 Well-Being Index". BCHD's headline is deliberately using the "Beach Cities Scores" to imply that the survey was regarding BCHD. It was NOT.
The survey is regarding the three beach cities of Hermosa/Manhattan/Redondo Beach. Had BCHD not intended to misrepresent the survey, the correct headline would have been "Beach Cities Score High" - correctly reflecting the three beach cities. And we know BCHD action to be deliberate, as BCHD in the following link changes its language to TRUTHRULLY STATE "WELL-BEING REMAINS HIGH IN THE BEACH CITIES."
Further, under public questioning, Gallup was quick to admit that the survey does not evaluate any programs and a BCHD meeting transcript reflects Dr. Witter on the record affirming that no evaluation occurred relating to BCHD.
BCHD is engaging in a misinformation program regarding the GALLUP survey.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; Holly J.
Mitchell
Cc: Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Vanessa I. Poster; Communications; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - BCHD must subtract the cost of its $2.3M annual excessive executive headcount and payroll from volunteer "value" Date: Monday, February 26, 2024 12:20:46 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment All Agencies and Electeds
The Cities of Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach need to protect their resident-taxpayers of the Health District from fiduciary failure and financial waste by BCHD Board and $2.3M annual Executive overstaff.
The current net value of BCHD volunteer hours is $608,470 less $2,327,049 or a NET LOSS TO RESIDENT-TAXPAYERS of $1,718,579 due exclusively to BCHD excessive number of executives and related payroll. Each $200,000 average executive manages only 5 FTEs. No solvent company or well operated City has such a miniscule span of control for its executives.
DETAILS ON THE CORRECT VALUATION OF NET BENEFITS OF VOLUNTEERS BY
ACCOUNTING CORRECTLY FOR BCHD EXECUTIVE EXCESSIVE COSTS BCHD computes the gross "value" of its volunteer time, without netting out the excessive cost to residenttaxpayers of its excessive number of executive management staff.
BCHD spends over $2.3M annually on executives, or about 15% of the total budget of the enterprise, and about 50% of the annual property tax revenues from resident-taxpayers. As a result of BCHD's excessive overheads, the net value of the volunteer hours must be presented as a net value to resident-taxpayers by removing the $2.3M annual executive load. It's worth noting that the average volunteer puts in only ten (10) hours per year, making the management of volunteers excessively costly.
For the current period, BCHD reports the GROSS VALUE of volunteers at $600K annually While BCHD ignores the $2.3M of executive payroll overheads.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Zein Obagi; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; James Light; Mike Witzansky; Holly J. Mitchell
Cc: RightOfSay/RBQoL
Subject: Public Comment - Failing Jet Fuel Pipeline in RR ROW in Redondo Beach Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 1:40:10 PM
Attachments: Torrance Pipeline WORK PLAN MTA v2.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayor and Council:
First off, my condolences and sympathies to all over the loss of Bill Brand. I met Bill during the Heartburn of the City process. He was a truly special man that will be missed by all who knew him.
Secondly, congratulations to newly appointed Mayor Light. I believe the Council has done itself and the residents proud. I wish the new Mayor much success and longevity in the role.
Now to the topic of pipeline failure in the RR ROW. After 5 months, Metro has finally responded to a Public Records Request from October 2023 regarding the pipeline anomaly in the right of way. I was truly concerned to find that the "anomaly" was actually a compromised section of the jet fuel pipeline that runs under it. I've attached a work order for excavation, examination and repair that Metro provided.
I urge the City to take a long, hard look at the risks of adding 2 more 24/7/365 rail lines in a right-of-way through Redondo Beach residential areas that contains an active jet fuel pipeline.
As a retired utility executive with experience in oil and gas, I believe that aging/failing pipelines in corrosive soil in high seismic areas should not be disturbed by additional 24/7 rail in an abundance of caution for the safety of the community.
Mark Nelson
Retired VP MVL LLC and Director of Planning
SCE and Mountainview Power LLC (an SCE company)
PL-2405
WORK OVERVIEW
SEND TO PCC 48 HOURS PRIOR TO WORK - FIRST 2 PAGES ONLY (VIA E-MAIL: [email protected] (PREFERRED) OR FAX (346) 814-6464) 1 Revised: 10/24/2023
CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION I - PCC NOTIFICATION
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Title: M-141 Integrity Inspection & Repair
Description of Work:
Locate, excavate & expose pipeline, remove coating, power brush & visually inspect; abrasive blast pipeline, complete pipeline inspection, report findings, perform repair, coat, backfill TLC to install a fence to delineate the Work Area from the property owner and secure site. TLC will be removing the fence/wall that is encroaching on MTA property that is in conflict with the proposed excavation. TLC will be submitting a dig alert ticket for this scope as it may include removal of trees, wall footing, and earth movement.
Restoration of fence/wall and paving of excavation to be completed by TLC. (additional discussions with MTA to follow concerning MTA’s acknowledgement of restoration plans including reimbursement costs) NON-HRO Procedure – First Line Supervisor Approval
Start Date: 10/30/2023 Time: 7 AM End Date: 11/13/2023 Time: 5 PM NOTE: If work is going to exceed the above end date and time, notify PCC and the appropriate supervisor as soon as possible.
GENERAL INFORMATION
System / Facility Name: M-141 MTA Right of Way N. of Artesia Blvd
Product: Jet Fuel
Dig Location: ~91+28 to ~91+38 (5’W x 10’L x 7’D)
33.8745687 -118.3587322
Name Company Title Cellular
Jesse Lopez Torrance Logistics Co Inspector (909) 702-8917 Richard Montejano Torrance Logistics Co Operations Supervisor (310) 347-2203 Rachel Brossman Torrance Logistics Co Integrity Engineer Sup (562) 241-9981 Joe Acuna Torrance Logistics Co Construction Supervisor (310) 755-8156 EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS (IF OTHER THAN 911)
Fire Police Sheriff Hospital/Medical
Emergency Other
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS / COMMENTS
When working in Railroad ROW (within 25’ from rail), Flagman required. Training thru BSNF certificate also required. No abrasive blasting may take place if scale on the pipe is found & wall thickness cannot be confirmed. Confirm remaining wall thickness is at or above 90% nominal at weld ends of full encirclement Type B sleeve. UT scan by certified NDT Technician. If below 90% wall thickness consult engineering and review NDT report to confirm landing strips for the full encirclement. Pipeline with 90% or more wall loss – An HRO procedure must be routed for review & Area Manager Approval, before for abrasive blasting.
Type of expected repairs:
o Included in this procedure:
✓ Type A/B Welded Sleeve
Confirm clamp the size of the pipeline, ½ round bbl. on site before commencing any pipeline cleaning: Wire brushing or abrasive blasting.
Consult Engineer for maximum flow rate while welding. Maximum flow rate while Welding per Engineer: __________ The work site will need to be kept delineated, in order, and clean. Work site will require 24/7 security provided by TLC
PL-2405
WORK OVERVIEW
SEND TO PCC 48 HOURS PRIOR TO WORK - FIRST 2 PAGES ONLY (VIA E-MAIL: [email protected] (PREFERRED) OR FAX (346) 814-6464) 3 Revised: 10/24/2023
CONFIDENTIAL
Contaminated Soil - SCAQMD Rule 1166 testing will apply while digging.
Any contaminated soil (VOC reading above 50ppm) identified during the excavation will be placed in 20yrd bins & sent to Vernon Meters Warehouse (Temp Storage), a sample will be taken, analyzed & a profile issued for future disposal to an approved disposal site.
Asbestos Coating – SCAQMD Procedure 3 or Procedure 5 to be used. Treat all coating as asbestos containing material unless we are positive it does not contain asbestos or has been tested by a lab and comes back with less than 1% Asbestos content. Asbestos to be removed by approved Contractor always.
Procedure 3 can be utilized if once pipeline has been exposed and certified Asbestos Consultant has deemed that coating is undisturbed. Once Asbestos Consultant has deemed that coating is undisturbed and is less than 100sq ft, a 24 hour notification will be made to OSHA.
Procedure 5 will be utilized when removing more than 100 sq. ft. of coating or coating has been damaged or disturbed, in this case, it will require a 10 day notification.
SECTION II - WORK PROCEDURES
1.0 Scope
1.1 Description of Work
Excavate, expose pipeline, wire brush, inspect pipe by Qualified NDE Contractor if dealing with internal or external corrosion otherwise inspector will visually inspect pipeline. Abrasive blast, inspection to take place by Qualified NDE Contractor, perform type A/B Sleeve, re-coat, slurry back fill.
1.2 Schedule and Timing of Work: Start date: 10/30/2023; End date: 11/13/2023 Work Hours: 7 AM – 5 PM, 7 days/week
2.0 Permitting and Notification Requirements
2.1 Internal
A. Torrance Logistics Management Review and Approval – FLS Level B. Work Permit, Procedures, Checklist’s and JSA’s
C. Pipeline Control Center (PCC)
D. ROW
E. Torrance Meters Operations
F. Commercial
2.2 External
A. One Call / USA
B. MTA
C. BNSF (track control/flagging), if required
3.0 Environmental
4.0 Safety
4.1 Hazard Analysis & Preventive Measures
Traffic (city streets) – Follow traffic control plans & watch book if applicable. Pipeline Leak – Lay down excavation with visqueen type plastic (Min. 3 Mil) and prepare
Neighborhood Character
Impacts of BCHD 103-foot tall,
800,000 sqft Development
From 501 N Prospect
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (L)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (R)
From 511 N Prospect
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (L)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (R)
From 521 N Prospect
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (R)
From 601 N Prospect
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (R)
From 611 N Prospect
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (R)
From 621 N Prospect
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (R)
From 1400 Diamond
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
From 1408 Diamond
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
From 1201 Beryl
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (R)
From 1211 Beryl
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
From 1221 Beryl
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
From 1311 Beryl
PACE (L)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
From 1321 Beryl
PACE (Front)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (Top + R) From Towers Elementary
PACE (R)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (C)
4-story, Health Club/Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking (L)
From Towers Elementary School and Public Recreation Fields
PACE (R)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (C)
4-story, Health Club/Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking (L)
From 19301 Tomlee
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
From 19326 Tomlee
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
From 19326 Tomlee
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
From 5656 Towers
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
From 5635 Towers
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
From 19510 Tomlee
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
From 19802 Tomlee
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (R)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
From 827 Anita
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living
From 600 Anita
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
From 700 N Paulina
6-story, 103-foot , $12,000+/month Assisted Living (L)
4-story, 65-foot tall Health Club Pavilion (C)
10-1/2 Story Parking Ramp (L)
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Planredondo; CityClerk; Michael Webb
Subject: Fwd: Comments on Significant Visual Character Impacts of the BCHD Project Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 12:31:28 AM
Attachments: Aesthetics - Significant Neighborhood Character Impacts.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: Mayor, Council, Planning Commissioners, City Attorney, GPAC Record On April 7, 2021, a detailed analysis of the impacts of the height and mass of BCHD's proposed development on P-CF zoned property was entered into the record of the GPAC. It reflected the negative impacts of excessive height and square feet on the community surrounding P-CF zoning using the example of BCHD's proposed nearly 800,000 sf Phase 1 and Phase 2 commercial development. The document was provided to the Planning Director and GPAC for review in determining appropriate height and density limits for the general PCF zoning. FAR is a common method of creating a numerical standard. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Comments on Significant Visual Character Impacts of the BCHD Project To: <[email protected]>, Brandy Forbes <[email protected]> Attached is the latest modeling of the significant impacts to neighborhood visual character for both Redondo and Torrance neighborhoods. It is important that GPAC keeps its eye on the ball when making recommendations, so that well-intended policies don't leave other neighborhoods with out of character 103-foot, 800,000 sqft development proposals to fight. cc: Redondo Beach Planning Commissioners as Public Comment From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Michael Webb
Subject: Fwd: Public Comments to Torrance and Redondo Beach Mayor, Council and Planning Commissions Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 12:37:10 AM
Attachments: Redondo North Branch Library P-CF.PNG
Broadway Fire Station P-CF.PNG
Beryl Yard P-CF.PNG
Andrews Park P-CF.PNG
Grant Fire Station P-CF.PNG
Kensington P-CF.PNG
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, GPAC On December 7, 2020, a public comment document was provided into the record of the Mayor, Council, Planning Commission and Planning Director describing the general character of existing P-CF structures and their surrounding neighborhoods for the purpose of comparison of height, mass, character and density of P-CF development. As noted, a nearly 100-foot above the street, 800,000 sf P-CF development is far, far different than any other existing P-CF land use.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 6:27 PM
Subject: Public Comments to Torrance and Redondo Beach Mayor, Council and Planning Commissions
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Brandy Forbes <[email protected]>
BCHD is the only incompatible zoning use in Redondo Beach in a P-CF zone. Structurally it is 3 times the height of surrounding neighborhoods, and due to the elevation of the site, it is 80 to 150 feet higher than visible homes, thereby devastating privacy and generating visual blight and noise. Historically, BCHD assumed the assets of the failed South Bay Hospital. Since South Bay Hospital was an emergency hospital, its location was relevant and a direct lifesaving service as a quid pro quo to the surrounding community for the Environmental and Economic Injustice impacts. BCHD provides no such benefits and will only provide 5% of its planned services to south Redondo Beach 90277 while that same area suffers 100% of the damages.
There are only 7 parcels zoned P-CF in the City. Of the 7, only BCHD is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods visually and operationally and provides no quid pro quo.
BCHD will have 80% out of district tenants and up to 91% out of district daily PACE patients, thereby rendering its location largely irrelevant. Furthermore, its disparate services could be broken apart into various locations or privatized.
The following 6 locations are the other P-CF parcels. Note that NONE of them invades their areas the way the BCHD is planning with a 75 foot structure on a 35 foot elevated site, moved from the center of the campus to the extreme perimeters.
BCHD is an incompatible future use for the parcel.
Mark Nelson
3+ Year Volunteer BCHD CWG
Redondo Beach Property Owner
Expert Witness
Retired VP and Planning Director
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Michael Webb
Subject: Fwd: BCHDs Proposed Overdevelopment is Inconsistent with More Current P-CF Zoned Development Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 1:14:23 AM
Attachments: Required Approvals - BCHD Proposal Inconsistent with current P-CF development.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, GPAC On June 7, 2021, the City of Redondo Beach was presented with a detailed analysis of ALL PCF parcels in the City, including photos, impacts, and neighborhoods. The analysis clearly showed that a tall, high mass, high FAR development on P-CF was both inconsistent with existing P-CF, but at 800,000 sqft and over 100-feet tall, it was a wildly out of scale and character with surrounding neighborhoods. This detailed analysis was reviewed by the Planning Director and available to GPAC and any City Department. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <
Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:32 PM
Subject: BCHDs Proposed Overdevelopment is Inconsistent with More Current P-CF Zoned Development
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, Brandy Forbes <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, Christian Anthony Horvath <[email protected]>, Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>, Laura Emdee <[email protected]>, Christian Horvath – Redondo Beach District 3 Council Member <[email protected]>, Bill Brand <[email protected]>
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dear Mayor, Council and Commission:
The attached PDF shows all 7 P-CF parcels in the City of Redondo Beach and demonstrates how they conform to a consistency requirement of the local neighborhoods. The proposed BCHD is well outside 2 standard deviations of the local neighborhoods in both height and size.
Please include comments in the DEIR demonstrating the City's concern regarding the BCHD project's lack of conformance with required approvals.
BCHDs Proposed Overdevelopment is Inconsistent with More Current P-CF Zoned Development From: Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach Property Owner
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer, Community Working Group
Based on information from the City of Redondo Beach, there are seven (7) P-CF parcels in Redondo Beach. They are:
1) Andrews Park 1801 Rockefeller Ln, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2) Beach Cities Health District 514 N. Prospect Av, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 3) Broadway Fire Station (#1) 401 S Broadway, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 4) City of Redondo Beach Facility 1513 Beryl St, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 5) Grant Fire Station (#2) 2400 Grant Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 6) Kensington Assisted Living 801 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 7) North Branch Library 2000 Artesia Bl, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 With the exception of BCHD, the former South Bay Hospital parcel and the City of Redondo Beach multiple use facility, the remaining five (5) P-CF parcel uses appear to be consistent with surrounding land uses from a design, height, and traffic perspective. Both the current BCHD and the 103-foot tall, 800,000 sqft proposed overdevelopment are inconsistent with more current, allowed P-CF development.
Andrews Park
Per the City of Redondo Beach, Andrews Park is local neighborhood recreation facility, “Andrews Parkette is a 1.61 acre park located just north of Grant Avenue in Redondo Beach. The park features grass, trees, play equipment, picnic tables and picnic shelter.” Based on observation, there are no features at Andrews Park, such as commercial buildings or tall parking structures that are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood uses and design. Andrews Park is a recreation facility per the City of Redondo Beach.
Beach Cities Health District (BCHD)
BCHD was renamed from South Bay Hospital District (SBHD) in 1993 following the 1984 failure of South Bay Hospital as a publicly-owned emergency hospital, and the subsequent failure as a leased facility to AMI/Tenet. Per Google Earth Pro (GEP) measurements, the hospital towers are generally 4- story, 60-feet tall. Per BCHD, there is a single, 968-sqft “penthouse” mechanical room atop the 514 N.
Prospect hospital building at 75-feet. That represents 0.3% of the approximately 300,000-sqft of the existing campus buildings. At 75-feet, BCHD is 250% the height of surrounding 30-foot height zoning limits. SBHD also allowed construction of two (2) medical office buildings on land it leased to third (3rd) parties. These buildings are both 3-stories and 40-feet, also according to GEP measurements.
They are both 130% of local zoning height restrictions and the 510 N. Prospect building is built at the west-most lot line, increasing its mass, noise reflection, and visual height to a maximum for its construction. At 130% to 250% in excess of surrounding zoning height limits, with concrete soundreflective walls, substantial reflective glass, night time outdoor lighting, traffic, and emergency siren activity, BCHD is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in function nor design.
Broadway Fire Station (#1)
Per in-person visual inspection, the Broadway Fire Station is a corner lot with general building height of 1-story, except for a specialized small footprint multistory tower. The overall facility is generally lower height than surrounding residential and multi-family facilities and built in a not dissimilar architectural design to minimize its impacts.
City of Redondo Beach Facility (Beryl St)
Per in-person visual inspection, this multi-use facility houses both the police shooting range and a number of public works functions. It is in the southeastern most corner of the Dominguez Park parcel, adjacent to the Edison right-of-way and across the street from Towers Elementary. The Edison right-ofway to the north is utility/industrial use and the park to the west is public use and significantly elevated above the parcel. The Torrance public facility, Towers Elementary is to the south. There is some residential to the east behind a sound wall. On three (3) sides, the use of this parcel is consistent with its surrounding public facility zoning, although the police shoot range has decades of controversy surrounding it. The residential to the east is buffered by a strip of land and the road. Most of this parcel’s surrounding neighbors are consistent uses.
Grant Fire Station (#2)
Per in-person visual inspection, the Grant Fire Station is a corner lot with general building height of 1- 1/2-stories, except for a specialized small footprint multistory tower. The overall facility is generally lower height than surrounding residential and multi-family facilities except for the specialized tower, and built in a not dissimilar architectural design to minimize its impacts.
Kensington Assisted Living
Per the City of Redondo Beach EIR, the project includes an 80,000-square foot assisted living facility with 96 suites and 11,000-sqft of common space on 3.37 acres gross. The footprint of the facility buildings is 1.15 acres based on aerial analysis. The architecture and design is earth tone Spanish revival and at 33-feet maximum height is very consistent with the surrounding single and multifamily residential.
North Branch Library
Based on aerial analysis and GEP, the North Library is approximately 12,000 sqft footprint and surrounded on three (3) sides by commercial development. To the south is multifamily residential.
Based on in-person inspection, the interface of the tallest point of the library and the multi-family to the south are approximately equal height at two (2) stories. The mixed use to the north of the Library is nominally 4-stories and more visually massed than the Library. The Library has clean design and is consistent with the adjoining land uses visually and in terms of height, is lower than the land use to the north.
Conclusion
Based on this analysis, only BCHD is vastly out of scale and design with surrounding neighborhoods.
Except for a small, local servicing strip mall to its north, the 30-foot elevated site of BCHD is visible to all residential construction on all four (4) sides of the lot. Noise, aesthetic blight, glare, reflection, night time lighting, traffic, sirens, and associated PM2.5 emissions are inconsistent with surrounding land uses, notwithstanding any CEQA self-certification by BCHD.
Further, BCHD had developed a moral obligation to protect the community standard that is more stringent than laws and ordinances. This moral obligation standard was used by BCHD to justify seismic retrofit or demolition of the 514 hospital building. Consistent application of the standard to the surrounding neighborhoods, 60+ years of economic and environmental injustice by SBHD and BCHD, and a proposed 50-100 years more of economic and environmental injustice renders this overdevelopment unbuildable.
Last, the current BCHD has only 0.3% of its campus sqft at 75-feet tall. The 514 building is on average just slightly over 30-feet tall, and as such, that average height should serve as the average height cap to any future site development under a CUP for P-CF zoning.
Redondo Beach Code Conformance
The current BCHD at 312,000 sqft does not appear to conform with existing Redondo Beach code for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 793,000 sqft, 103-feet tall, 6-story senior apartments and 10-1/2 story, car parking structure violate the following RBMC section based on height, noise, invasion of privacy, and excess generated traffic. In addition, the proposed BCHD overdevelopment is inconsistent with design guidelines for Beryl Heights. 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit shall be to review certain uses possessing unique characteristics, as listed in Article 2 of this chapter, to insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties nor disrupt the orderly development of the community. The review shall be for the further purpose of stipulating such conditions regulating those uses to assure that the criteria of this section shall be met. (b) Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project’s consistency with the intent and purpose of this section:
(1) The site for the proposed use shall be in conformity with the General Plan and shall be adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use and all setbacks, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required by this chapter to adjust such use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
(2) The site for the proposed use shall have adequate access to a public street or highway of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. (3) The proposed use shall have no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Michael Webb
Subject: Fwd: CPRA - FAR components for P-CF zoned parcels Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 12:26:04 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment
As noted below in the email of Sep 27, 2021, the Planning Director was again put on notice that the FAR was an issue with P-CF and that sufficient public data was not even available to compute the FARs of the P-CF parcels in Redondo Beach. Throughout the activity of the GPAC, FAR for P-CF was an issue and was presented to the Planning Director, Mayor, Council, Planning Commission and GPAC.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:08 PM
Subject: CPRA - FAR components for P-CF zoned parcels
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Cc: Brandy Forbes <[email protected]>
After searching the public record and the county assessor records, I cannot find sufficient data to compute the Floor Area Ratios of the P-CF zoned parcels, with the exception of Kensington using the EIR data (i.e., 80,000 sqft facility on a 3.37 acre parcel) and BCHD (i.e., 312,000 sqft on a 10.4 acre parcel). The same data is not available for Fire Station 1 or 2, the North library, the maintenance facility on Beryl, or the park.
Request: Please provide the lot size and building sqft values needed to compute the FAR for the P-CF parcels.
If the city concurs that the BCHD and Kensington data that I cite is accurate, then please provide the other 5 locations. If the City does not concur with my BCHD and Kensington data, then provide data for all 7 P-CFs
Thank you.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Planredondo; Sean Scully; James Light Cc: Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: GPAC PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL/OPEN SPACE F.A.R. GPAC PUBLIC RECORD Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 7:50:43 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: All agencies and electeds
The public record of the GPAC and of public comments is progressive and extensive on the matter of Public/Institution FAR. With the exception of member Lamb, no written comments appear on the topic of the FAR (subject to check) by other GPAC members. As is clear to any reader, there is a robust discussion/simulation/documentation of the impacts of height, mass, and FAR differences in Public (P-CF) usage submitted to the record. The damaging impact of excessive FAR development is demonstrated with visualizations.
In addition, the GPAC had a paid consulting firm to provide support, analysis and respond to questions. As typical public committees go, GPAC was relatively resource rich during its operation.
CONCLUSION
1) The assignment of 0.75 FAR for most P/I/O (Public zoning) is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. 2) Furthermore, removing the subjectiveness of the FAR determination from the CUP process for P-CF is consistent with the State mandate of objective standards in planning and design requirements and remove (to the extent possible) the subjective standards.
PUBLIC COMMENT DEC 7, 2020 "BCHD is the only incompatible zoning use in Redondo Beach in a P-CF zone" Email with 6-page simulation attachment comparing P-CF implementations in the City of Redondo Beach BCHD is identified as a clear land use outlier
Provided to the Planning Director and City Clerk for distribution PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 7, 2021 "Comments on Significant Visual Character Impacts of the BCHD Project" 26-page Google Earth-based simulation of BCHD's proposed roughly 100-foot tall, 800,000 sf Phase 1 & 2 project.
Provided to demonstrate the negative impacts of height, mass, and high FAR Provided to both PlanRedondo and the Planning Director for distribution PUBLIC COMMENT JUNE 7, 2021 "CHDs Proposed Overdevelopment is Inconsistent with More Current P-CF Zoned Development" 6-page detailed analysis of ALL P-CF zoned sites in Redondo Beach demonstrating how existing uses are reflect an outlier.
Demonstrates the negative impacts visually of height, mass, and FAR in varying neighborhoods Provided to City Council, City Clerk, and Planning Director for distribution GPAC 24 AGENDA PACKET FAR EXCERPT (0.75 to 1.25) 03312022 GPAC 25 FAR DRAFT EXCERPT (0.1 to 1.0) 08312022 FOR Public Facility GPAC 25 FAR EXPECTED (0.75 to 1.25) 08312022
MEMBER LAMB CLARIFYING COMMENT EXCERPT TO THE RECORD (FAR 1.25 for only 2 City properties) 08252022 GPAC 26 FAR EXPECTED (0.75 to 1.25) (EXCERPT) 09292022 MEETING HANDOUT (unchanged from GPAC 25) Conclusion - Except for 2 City of Redondo Beach uses, the P/I FAR is 0.75.
Mark Nelson
Retired VP Mountainview LLC (an SCE Company)
Retired Director of Planning SCE
Expert Witness