BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 1, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; info; LA District Attorney Cc: James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer Subject: Public Comment - All Agencies - BCHD Continues to Mislead the Public and REQUIRES INVESTIGATION Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 5:43:22 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: Hermosa Beach Mayor, Council, City Attorney; Manhattan Beach Mayor, Council, City Attorney; Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, City Attorney; LALAFCO Commissioners and Executive Officer; County of Los Angeles Counsel and District Attorney:
BCHD must be held accountable for its constant misrepresentation. Specifically, BCHD was served a CPRA request that stated the following:
Provide documents that demonstrate the public review process and comment for BCHD's proposed solicitation for bids for commercial development of the taxpayer-owned South Bay Hospital District campus that will occur prior to BCHD's publication of the solicitation documents.
In response BCHD provided a number of links to documents. NONE OF THE LINKS CONTAINED THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE SOLICITATION. It is therefore impossible that any of those links were responsive to the CPRA. BCHD is attempting to defraud district residents. BCHD must release the proposed Request for Information/Proposals/Bids/Quotes or whatever RFx BCHD intends to use for PUBLIC REVIEW and COMMENT. At this point, NO SUCH ACTIVITY HAS OCCURRED, DESPITE BCHD's
MISREPRESENTATION THAT IS HAS OCCURRED. NO PROPOSED RFx DOCUMENT IS KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.
The District Attorney and County Counsel need to investigate BCHD attempted misdirection and lack of transparency.
Mark Nelson
Property Owner BCHD
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:39 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mark,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received 6/9/25 that reads:
Provide documents that demonstrate the public review process and comment for BCHD's proposed solicitation for bids for commercial development of the taxpayer-owned South Bay Hospital District campus that will occur prior to BCHD's publication of the solicitation documents.
Please see District links below for years of public input about the District redevelopment of the 514 N. Prospect Ave. Campus.
Community Input - Beach Cities Health District
Community Working Group - Beach Cities Health District
Frequently Asked Questions - Beach Cities Health District In addition, the District engaged the Community in more recent public meetings:
April 25, 2025 - Strategic Development Half Day
2025/04/25 Strategic Development Half-Day Video
June 17, 2025 Property Committee Meeting (see pages 11-13) These upcoming BCHD public meetings offer opportunities for Community input:
June 23, 2025 – Finance Committee at 6:00PM
June 25, 2025 – Board Study Session at 5:30PM
At those meetings you can learn about further opportunities for the Community to engage and provide Public Input about the redevelopment.
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.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 1:46 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Provide documents that demonstrate the public review process and comment for BCHD's proposed solicitation for bids for commercial development of the taxpayer-owned South Bay Hospital District campus that will occur prior to BCHD's publication of the solicitation documents.
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: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Council and City Manager
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 12:45:12 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The PWSC and RBPW made a suboptimal decision regarding the 500-600 N Prospect frontage restriping. The RBPW proposed to preserve 1 of 68 on street parking spots WITHIN THE INTERSECTION of the frontage road. That is 1.5% of the stock of parking on the street. The street has 2.5 on-street spots per house. The decision jeopardizes resident safety by continuing to allow a south facing 2000 to 6000 pound vehicle parked facing southbound - sending a CLEAR MESSAGE that illegal, southbound, wrong-way traffic is allowed.
The RBPW based its decision on flawed data.
1. RBPW conducted no analysis of parking. Even 2 minutes on Google Earth would show that there are 68 spots on the frontage and one is irrelevant.
2. RBPW stated that leaving a vehicle would reduce illegal u-turns. Currently, over 75% of u-turns occur with from one to four vehicles parked in the intersection facing south.
3. RBPW failed to consider the City's lack of enforcement of parking across driveways, especially in the intersection. This also sends a false signal that southbound traffic is allowed.
The City's lack of illegal parking enforcement and proposed plan provide an elevated risk level to residents, legal northbound traffic, and the many pedestrians and school children that use the one-way frontage back and forth to Parras and RUHS.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Andrew Winje; Anneke Blair; Jeffrey Gaul; Alan Klainbaum; Nancy Skiba; Austin Carmichael; [email protected]; Gilbert M. Escontrias; Cindi Arrata; Candace Nafissi; John Simpson; Andrew Beeli; Jay Tsao; Steven Anderson; Bhuvan Bajaj; Traffic Engineering; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle
Subject: Public Comment: Prospect Frontage Road Does NOT REQUIRE PARKING IN THE INTERSECTION - IT"S A CAUSE OF THE
PROBLEM WE HAVE
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 11:07:14 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Thank you to everyone who has been working on the Prospect Frontage road project. This is our first concentrated attention in my 30+ years on the street and we appreciate it.
We need the redesigned Frontage road intersection to provide UNIFOCUSED CLEAR GUIDANCE to incoming traffic off of Prospect.
RIGHT TURN ONLY ARROW AND PAVEMENT PAINT w/ YELLOW PAINTED
ROAD DIVISION TO FORCE TRAFFIC NORTH
LARGE DO NOT ENTER PAVEMENT PAINT AT THE END OF THE ONE-WAY (Caltrans offramp example)
RED CURB ALONG THE ENTIRE BUS STOP FOR SAFETY BY INCREASED
VISIBILITY
LARGE EYE-LEVEL NO LEFT TURN SIGN
NO PARKED CARS IN THE INTERSECTION
As I noted in comments at the RBCC on 6/17/25 with my exhibit, the intersection at the Prospect Frontage does not require a parked vehicle in the intersection. In fact, it is a counterproductive visual cue. A parked vehicle, pointed southbound into the WRONG-WAY of the Frontage road is simply a 5000-pound LEFT TURN OK HERE sign. How do we know that? We have 30+ years of experience watching the U-turns off of Prospect go down the wrong-way on the one-way Frontage.
I posted security system video at https://youtu.be/iadhACdAvY4 that is representative of the multiple times per day illegal U-turn issue.
The overwhelming majority of all wrong-way traffic on the Frontage is from illegal U-turns as drivers avoid the posted NO U-Turn signs on Prospect. And 9 times out of 10, the illegal U-turn occurs with a southbound parked car in the intersection pointing toward Diamond sending the visual cue that LEFT TURNS ARE OK.
My lived experience (6 cars hit parked in the intersection) is that a northbound parked car deterred more illegal wrong-way southbound traffic than the DO NOT ENTER signs that are ignored.
THANK YOU to Traffic Engineering for their latest design of the intersection - it's getting really close to complete. As you can see from the security video, a southbound parked car invites illegal U-turns, it does not deter them.The overwhelming majority of illegal U-turns have a southbound car in the intersection.
Wrong-way through traffic is the issue that would call for a parked car to narrow the road. THAT'S NOT OUR ISSUE - ours is U-Turns off Prospect.
And as I also noted at the RBCC meeting, I'm disabled, have pounds of metal and screws in my body, and I'm willing to walk from a couple houses away when I need to put a car on the street.
Morally, Convenience must take a backseat to Public Safety. I'm from an LEO family that suffered a line of duty death. I grew up understanding the moral obligation of public safety in the most personal way possible.
1) We need a red curb in front of the 2 houses in the intersection (I've owned 511 for years and year) with a LARGE NO LEFT TURN SIGN AT EYE LEVEL
2) We need a red curb along the entire bus stop area. We do not want Dr. Lesser's story of urine and feces at our bus stop. Nor will we tolerate creating a place for children to be molested after LA County informed RBPW that there have been child predator investigations in the area of the bus stop.
Again, the morality of this decision is clear. Safety over Convenience.
Thank you for your work, and please provide us with a safe intersection for the first time in my 30+ years on the street.
Further security video examples of the chaos in the T-intersection can be seen on Youtube at https://youtu.be/doFsT46J43Q
And the recent bus accident is at https://youtu.be/afScK-jx1-E I'm certainly grateful that no children were standing at the signal pole waiting to cross, and that no bicyclist was queued up in the road waiting to get onto Prospect.
Thank you again and I will attend the PWSC meeting either live or by Zoom if anyone has any questions.
Mark Nelson
Long time owner 511
DO NOT PROVIDE ANY MIXED MESSAGES TO DRIVERS FROM
PROSPECT
WITH SOUTHBOUND PARKED VEHICLES