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
MAY 6, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; James Light Cc: CityClerk; Traffic Engineering; Andrew Winje; Joe Hoffman Subject: Public Comment: Traffic Situation on 500-600 N. Prospect Service Road (Distribute as public comment to: Mayor, Council,
PWSC, PSC, RBPW)
Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:03:53 PM
Attachments: Slide1.PNG
image.png
500-600NProspectIntersection2025-05-05 - Analysis Proposal.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Thanks to the organization and effort of the neighborhood's Darryl Boyd, the residents of 500-600 N Prospect service road have been working with the City to improve several issues on the street, including the dead hedge between the service road and Prospect, 70dB noise generated by Prospect, and various traffic issues. The mayor and our CD3 councilmember have attended meetings and worked with the neighborhood.
Last Monday we had a meeting at the PWSC to discuss both speed cushions and re-engineering the roadway to decrease a number of dangerous and illegal activities. RBPW brought forward a proposal that seemed to have little support from the neighborhood to have a trial basis removal of the access from the protected light across from BCHD. The members of the PWSC had good questions and insights and ultimately did not recommend either the RBPW trial proposal, nor the speed humps due to a lack of compelling speed data. (Note: for over 45 days we have had a CPRA request in at the City to get the detailed, raw speed data and we are still waiting).
The following proposal was prepared as an alternative to the RBPW trial closure and is based on the recommendations of the PWSC to use lower cost, paint, sign, and lane divider solutions that maintain the protected turns.
The road is 26-feet wide, is both one-way and two-way with an awkward interface where two-way and one-way meet at an H-shaped intersection across from BCHD as shown in the USGS maps. At 26-feet wide, the usable street with two-side parking is 9-feet to 13-feet based on a mix of cars and full-size pickups.
The full analysis is about 10 pages and is attached to the PWSC and RBPW for their review and consideration. The proposed outcome would be inexpensive, utilizes the State's Daylighting law at the intersection, and reduces parking by 2 spaces in front of 511/513 N Prospect. I own 511 and understand the need to remove the constraint at the intersection due to the complex traffic pattern and parking that promotes confusion at the intersection as to direction of traffic.
With limited red curbing that relies primarily on the east side on the State law for Daylighting and perhaps one additional car length of red curb and the less than 2-spaces in front of 511/513 as red curb, the chaos of both inbound and outbound, along with the illegal U-turns and wrong way driving can be significantly reduced. Further, it removes the current issue of having 2 or 3 parked cars all facing south (1 in front of 511, 1 in front of 513 and 1 across 513's driveway in the street). The cognitive dissonance for drivers of a north-facing one-way sign coupled with 10,000 pounds of vehicles point south is obvious by all the illegal, wrong way traffic toward Diamond.
This is a simple, low cost solution that provides both safety and a substantial visual barrier, especially to those that are not simply scofflaws driving knowingly, and illegally the wrong way against traffic on the one-way. Further it preserves the protected left inbound turn from Prospect.
Just an FYI - the DO NOT ENTER lettering is a new Caltrans method for the offramps that attempts to reduce wrong way entrances onto freeways.
Mark Nelson
consultant to neighborhood technical issues
property owner on service road
Analysis and Discussion of North Prospect Avenue
Service Road Intersection Traffic Patterns and
Some Potential Corrective Actions
500-600 N Prospect Ave Service Road
May 2025
PROSPECT SERVICE RD
PARKING IMPACTS
Parking
width can
range
from
6.5’W for
a close
parked car
to 8.5’W
for a
distant
parked
truck
PARKING IMPACTS
Yields a 9
to 13-foot
vehicle
clearance
in areas
with
parking on
both
sides.
TRAFFIC FLOWS
Northbound
traffic can turn
onto Prospect
or continue
north
All
Southbound
traffic must
exit onto
Prospect (if
not parking)
Northbound
has 100% of
traffic rightsof-way to
proceed
straight or
turn right
TRAFFIC FLOWS
Parking on
east side of
Service road
south of
intersection
forces
Northbound
traffic into
center of road
– creating
contention
with
Southbound
traffic
TRAFFIC FLOWS
Parking in
front of
511/513 forces
100% of all
Southbound
traffic that
MUST turn left
into center of
road blocking
Northbound
right-of-way to
proceed North
or turn right
INBOUND TRAFFIC
Parking on
east side of
Service road
North of
intersection
forces both
Northbound
and Inbound
traffic into
center of road
– creating
contention
with
Southbound
traffic
OUTBOUND TRAFFIC
All traffic
headed onto
Prospect must
queue up for
left or right
turn onto
Prospect with
BCHD crosstraffic.
PARKING CHANGES
NO PARKING in front of
511/513 to clear
intersection for
Southbound exiting traffic.
NO PARKING on east side
of Service Road on either
side of Intersection to
allow for a northbound
traffic flows from the south
and from Prospect entering
vehicles.
FINAL – PAINT ONLY
FINAL – PAINT ONLY
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment BCHD Study Session, Board Meeting, Half Day Offsite Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 9:54:36 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
ALLCOVE has been denied funding from District taxpayer-owners by rejecting Measure BC.
Further, BCHD has been wholly unsuccessful in raising funds for ALLCOVE. It is very clear from Measure BC and the lack of donations that the taxpayer-owners of BCHD have no interest in programs that are 91% non-resident service areas. Despite BCHD nonsense rhetoric, the voters of the three beach cities DID NOT vote to establish a District that services non-residents.
The Boundaries of the District were intended in PLAIN ENGLISH to be its limits. The Hospital is long dead and no obligation has existing to accept any non-resident since the emergency room closed.
BCHD needs to honor the CLEAR INTENT of its voters and taxpayer-owners and require residency for all services.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years.
Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment District Service for "Residents who reside" within the District Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 12:52:43 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment BCHD Study Session, Board Meeting, Half Day Meeting and the Mayors and Councils
Let's show a literal image of the SOURCE DOCUMENT that demonstrates VOTER INTENT for the DISTRICT. This is the most contemporaneous interpretation of the voter intent and it was filed by the DISTRICT. Its meaning is CRYSTAL CLEAR.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Communications
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Public Comment District Service for "Residents who reside" within the District Date: Thursday, April 24, 2025 5:43:26 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We received this email from our legal counsel earlier this month, regarding these claims from Mr.
Nelson:
From: "Robert W. Lundy" <[email protected]>
Date: April 7, 2025 at 12:28:59 PM PDT
To: "Tom Bakaly (he/him/his)" <[email protected]>, "Monica Suua (she/her/hers)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Attorney Client Privileged Communication re: BCHD: Recent Public Comment from M.
Nelson
Tom and Monica, The most recent public comment from Mark Nelson is based on the same argument he has made for the past four years, namely that the District is prohibited from serving residents outside the District based on a court proceeding in 1957 that authorized the District to acquire the hospital property by eminent domain. In multiple public comments, he has cited language in the court pleadings that state the hospital site was condemned “for the benefit of the Residents who reside within the District.”He conveniently omits the language of the Court’s Final Judgment of Condemnation that states that the condemnation was ”for the construction, completion and operation of a hospital thereon in order to provide hospital services for the residents of said district and others…” (Emphasis added.) So even as early as the 1950s, the District had authority to serve non-residents.
On January, 18, 1955, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors declared the District “duly organized under and pursuant to The Local Hospital District Law (Division 23 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California)”, thereby giving it all the powers and authority under such law. In 1994, the Local Hospital District Law was amended to significantly expand the powers of a hospital district beyond the operation of a hospital to include a wide variety of health care services and programs. To reflect these broader powers, the law was renamed the “Local Health Care District Law” and the South Bay Hospital District was renamed the Beach Cities Health Care District. Among the powers added to the law is the power to “establish, maintain and operate, and provide assistance in the operation, of one or more health facilities or services… at any location within or without the district for the benefit of the district and the people served by the district.” This gave the District clear authority to expand its services beyond hospital services and to provide them beyond its territorial boundaries.
Notably, the 1957 Court Judgment did not include any language mandating that the proposed use of the District’s land be perpetual or that there be no future change in public use. This is consistent with many court decisions that have held that if property is acquired by eminent domain for a specified use, the use may be changed by the acquiring public entity if the new use is authorized under then existing law.
These court decisions and the Eminent Domain law were explained in detail in our firm’s legal opinion on this issue dated October 22, 2021, a copy of which is attached.
In conclusion, we see no legal basis for Mr. Nelson’s contention that the District is barred from providing health services to non-residents by the Eminent Domain court proceedings in 1957. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. My best, Bob Robert W. Lundy
HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, P.C.
DIRECT: +1 310.551.8180 MAIN: +1 310.551.8111 FAX: +1 310.551.0304 [email protected] | www.hooperlundy.com
Please let me know if you have questions regarding this.
Dan Smith
Director of Communications
Beach Cities Health District
[email protected]
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 12:52 PM
To: Communications <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment District Service for "Residents who reside" within the District
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Public Comment BCHD Study Session, Board Meeting, Half Day Meeting and the Mayors and Councils
Let's show a literal image of the SOURCE DOCUMENT that demonstrates VOTER INTENT for the DISTRICT. This is the most contemporaneous interpretation of the voter intent and it was filed by the DISTRICT. Its meaning is CRYSTAL CLEAR.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
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.