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 8, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: Darryl Boyd
To: CityClerk; 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; Andrew Winje; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle Subject: City of Redondo Beach is out of compliance on noise, safety, and health issues Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 8:03:23 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Good Morning Council Members and Mayor Light,
It is impossible to speak and address a very important topic like the safety and noise problems at the 500- 600 N Prospect Ave. block and median in 3 minutes. The Residents on this street are not happy. We need real solutions, not 4 foot tall plants. The 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents are bcc: in this email.
The City of Redondo Beach is out of compliance and in violation of several codes and ordinances. We have the legal right as Residents and the majority of us are owner occupied here, to a safe, healthy, and peaceful living environment. The City of Redondo Beach has provided neither safety nor a peaceful living environment for the 500-600 N. Prospect Ave. block for decades.
California Health and Safety Code 46000 is very clear regarding excessive noise and our rights to peaceful enjoyment of our property. It reads:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that:
(a) Excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare. (b) Exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage.
(c) There is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas.
(d) Government has not taken the steps necessary to provide for the control, abatement, and prevention of unwanted and hazardous noise.
(e) The State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise.
(f) All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare.
(g) It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end it is the purpose of this division to establish a means for effective coordination of state activities in noise control and to take such action as will be necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
California Civil Code 3479 addresses Public Nuisance and our rights to peaceful free enjoyment of our property.
It reads:
Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.
Los Angeles County Code Section 12.08.390 defines acceptable noise levels during the day and the evening as 50 decibels during the day, 45 decibels at night. The City of Redondo Beach is out of compliance. There may be several other code sections that the City of Redondo Beach is out of compliance with as well.
Section 12.08.210 addresses Intrusive Noise
Section 12.08.230 addresses Noise Disturbance
Section 12.08.250 addresses Noise Level
Section 12.08.300 addresses Public Right Of Way
Section 12.08.320 addresses Real Property Boundry
Section 12.08.560 addresses Vibration
City of Redondo Beach Code Section 4-24.301 defines acceptable noise levels during the day and the evening as 50 decibels during the day, 45 decibels at night, same as LA County. The City of Redondo Beach is out of compliance with its own ordinance.
The noise levels on the 500-600 N. Prospect Ave. block range from 64.3 to 68.8 decibels, and as high as
85.2 decibels during afternoon drive time. The City Of Redondo Beach has acknowledged this, has an obligation to remedy, yet has done nothing about it. This is way above the acceptable levels of both LA County and the City of Redondo Beach. BCHD is a major contributor of noise with increased traffic, employee and patient/customer vehicles, and constant emergency vehicles in and out of their property.
The City of Redondo Beach has been and continues to be an enabler of intrusive and unsettling noise upon our persons and our properties by not remedying the situation with proper traffic control, citing traffic and noise offenders which includes drivers on North Prospect Avenue, and controlling activities at BCHD that cause constant noise disturbances. The noise levels we have been forced to live with are insane and are totally unacceptable.
Additionally, this ongoing situation and due to a nonexistent safety barrier on the North Prospect Ave. median may also be considered a Dangerous Condition Of Public Property and a Public Safety and Noise Nuisance, defined under California Government Code 835 and California Penal Codes 372, and 373A. This may apply to the City of Redondo Beach for allowing a Dangerous Condition and a Public Safety and Noise Nuisance to continue without taking the steps to remedy.
Regarding the North Prospect Ave/ “Beautification Project”: Mayor Light, the majority of Residents on this street feel slighted and ignored by you. It is not within the Mayor’s purview or authority to make personal decisions on a beautification project that affects the Residents quality of life, and this is exactly what you have done. The Residents and City Council should have had discussions together, we should have had input but you didn’t allow it. You pushed for native plants, small plants, budget cutting plants. There was no landscape plan for us, the Residents, to review and comment on. You got what you wanted, not what the Residents wanted. This is wrong. This was not your decision alone to make. We have to live with this, you do not. Your lack of transparency was in question by several Residents and was a topic that stood out in last night's City Council meeting. The Residents on this block have the same issue with you regarding this project.
We need a real safety and noise barrier and we need this very unsafe and unhealthy situation at 500-600 N Prospect Ave. block remedied immediately. This is not a Prop 218 situation Commissioner Anderson in which the Residents should be forced to pay for the City of Redondo Beach's decades of neglect of this street and the problems here. This is a City of Redondo Beach created problem not a Resident created problem. We the Residents need to be included in what is happening moving forward. Please clearly explain to us what you plan to do.
Darryl Boyd
--
Darryl Boyd - Broker/Owner, MRP, SFR, CPTS
Specialized Court Services:
Expert Witness - Probate & Trust Valuation Disputes
Substitute Administration - Probate Cases
DARRYL B. BOYD, BROKER
811 N. Catalina Ave. Suite #2016
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 490-0139 Direct cellular
[email protected]
DarrylBoydBroker.com
CA DRE #01178871
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi Subject: Fwd: Post Mortem Summary of 500-600 N Prospect Soundwall During 2025 Budget Cycle - High costeffectiveness and need based on Metro requirements Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:21:57 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - defective RBPW cost analysis
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Post Mortem Summary of 500-600 N Prospect Soundwall During 2025 Budget Cycle - High cost-effectiveness and need based on Metro requirements To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Darryl Boyd <[email protected]>, James Light <[email protected]>, Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>, Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>, Kevin Cody <[email protected]> I provided the resident group on the frontage a summary of the Soundwall action during this budget cycle. I have documented it in a single email below.
For the 2025 RB budget process record:
Based on objective facts and the expertise and requirements of Metro for LA County sound walls, the 500-600 N Prospect Ave Soundwall is both highly cost-effective (Benefitto-Cost of 10-to-1) and necessary based on noise damages (frontage noise level is 2.5X beyond the Metro Noise threshold for damages).
The noise level on the frontage road is 2.5X the damages-based requirement set by Metro.
The benefit-to-cost ratio of the soundwall is 10-to-1 using data published by Metro.
The RBPW estimate of $3.13M has compounding errors that resulted in an overestimate of 10X in cost.
RBPW Dimensions of the Soundwall in BRR#03 were in Error resulting in overestimated cost of 2-times to 5-times EXCESSIVE
Estimated cost in BRR#03 based on 1050-feet long and 24-feet tall 24-feet tall is beyond the 6-14 foot State of California design standards 1050-feet long includes blocking the north egress and the BCHD intersection Resulted in a cost estimate based on 25,200 SQFT
Corrected length would remove 80-feet for the egresses and also appropriate setbacks for vehicle safety at egress
More appropriate estimate is 850 for entire frontage and 650 for the north of intersection segment
Using MAXIMUM design height of 14-feet and corrected length of 850-feet, the MAXIMUM cost estimate should have been based on 11,900 SQFT (47% of RBPW estimate). Using MINIMUM design height of 6-feet, the cost estimate should have been based on 5,100 SQFT (20% of RBPW estimate).
RBPW Unit Cost of the Soundwall in BRR#03 was in Error due to inclusion of a 400- SQFT Wall Unit Cost resulted in 2-times EXCESSIVE unit cost RBPW used a unit-cost estimate of $68.22 per SQFT (psf) with a standard deviation of $64.18 psf.
Following removal of the outlier wall, the Caltrans database yielded a unit-cost of estimate of $32.23 psf with a standard deviation of $6.07 psf
That resulted in a RBPW overestimate of unit cost of 1.9-times the reasonable unit cost estimate
The Compounded Errors of RBPW in BRR#03 resulted in an overestimate of 10-times a reasonable cost estimate.
The reasonable minimum estimate for the entire street (minus openings and setbacks from openings) should have been 6-feet tall x 850-feet long x $32.23 psf x 135% City Costs x 135% inflation factor which equals $299,569.79 (clearly this should be rounded to $300,000 as an estimated cost)
The Benefit to Cost of the soundwall is 10-to-1 based on Metro data Assuming that each of the 27 houses on the frontage is "benefitting", the Metro break-even benefit estimate of the homes collectively is $2.9M based on Metro's published Highway Soundwalls document.
The Noise Level of the Frontage is 2.5X more than the 67dB Metro threshold According to the certified BCHD EIR for the Healthy Living Campus, the base noise level in 2020 on the Frontage was 69.5dB. Being a log scale like the Richter scale for earthquakes,
69.5 dB is 2.5X the noise of 67dB.
Based on what I've seen in this year's budget activity, I don't believe that the City has the capital project decision-making discipline that we use in the private sector to consider monetized net benefits. As such, I have no way to judge this project quantitatively versus the projects that were green lighted by vote. I would definitely recommend the City increase its discipline in decision making to include benefit-to-cost ratios, especially on capex or programs with a long funding tail requirement.
Based on my 40 years of experience and observation, I doubt very much that many of the City projects could exceed 10-to-1 for a benefit cost ratio and I continue to support this project based health damages mitigation and cost-effectiveness analyses so long as the residents behind the wall continue to seek it.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi Subject: Fwd: Post Mortem Summary of N Prospect Frontage Intersection Plan and Analysis - Primary wrong way traffic source is illegal U-Turns off Prospect, Vehicles are Parked in Intersection During 75%+ of Illegal Turns Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 3:20:42 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - process issues for City and Citizen communications ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 11:36 AM
Subject: Post Mortem Summary of N Prospect Frontage Intersection Plan and Analysis - Primary wrong way traffic source is illegal U-Turns off Prospect, Vehicles are Parked in Intersection During 75%+ of Illegal Turns
To: Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>, James Light <[email protected]>, Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]> This is provided for the public record and future use because a significant amount of incorrect assumptions regarding the intersection dynamics were used by Traffic Engineering in the design, according to its presentation at PWSC on June 23, 2025.
A considerable amount of information was provided to the City regarding the dynamics of the intersection from my security system. As noted before, I own the property at the intersection and my security system picks up the wrong-way traffic, the illegal U-Turns and other events.
Not only did the City ignore hard data, it also acted opposite of the demonstrated facts. #1 Over 75% of all illegal U-turns off of Prospect occur with from one to four vehicles parking in front of 511/513 in front of the two properties and across the driveway of 513 extending to the driveway of 515. Yet, the City made the anti-factual statement that one parked car will deter traffic. That is clearly false and antithetical to the facts. Allowing parking in the intersection does NOTHING to enhance safety in this particular location based on recorded data.
#2 The City persists in the false claim and assumption that wrong way traffic is predominantly generated by residents. While there is one recurring resident that ignores the one-way, the overwhelming majority of wrong way traffic is from ineffective signage and City control at the intersection for decades. As one commenter seemed to state, the City may have civil liability for the misdesign for damages and accidents.
#3 Preservation of 1 of 68 on-street parking spaces is a de minimis issue. Because only one side of the frontage has homes, there are 2.5 parking spaces on-street per home. That likely swamps the City average.
These are serious incorrect assumptions that led the City to an incorrect outcomes.
Some data is presented below of the danger of the intersection and the dynamics.
Intersection Dynamics
https://youtu.be/doFsT46J43Q
Wrong Way U-Turns
https://youtu.be/iadhACdAvY4
Resident Wrong Way
https://youtu.be/35Rls7YOc1k
Danger to Pedestrians/Bikes at Intersection
https://youtu.be/afScK-jx1-E
Documents provided to the PWSC and PSC will be provided in a separate email, again, for the public record and future actions as needed.
provided the resident group on the frontage a summary of the Soundwall action during this budget cycle. I have documented it in a single email below.
For the 2025 RB budget process record:
Based on objective facts and the expertise and requirements of Metro for LA County sound walls, the 500-600 N Prospect Ave Soundwall is both highly cost-effective (Benefit-to-Cost of 10-to-1) and necessary based on noise damages (frontage noise level is 2.5X beyond the Metro Noise threshold for damages).
The noise level on the frontage road is 2.5X the damages-based requirement set by Metro.
The benefit-to-cost ratio of the soundwall is 10-to-1 using data published by Metro.
The RBPW estimate of $3.13M has compounding errors that resulted in an overestimate of 10X in cost.
RBPW Dimensions of the Soundwall in BRR#03 were in Error resulting in overestimated cost of 2-times to 5-times EXCESSIVE
Estimated cost in BRR#03 based on 1050-feet long and 24-feet tall 24-feet tall is beyond the 6-14 foot State of California design standards 1050-feet long includes blocking the north egress and the BCHD intersection Resulted in a cost estimate based on 25,200 SQFT
Corrected length would remove 80-feet for the egresses and also appropriate setbacks for vehicle safety at egress
More appropriate estimate is 850 for entire frontage and 650 for the north of intersection segment
Using MAXIMUM design height of 14-feet and corrected length of 850-feet, the MAXIMUM cost estimate should have been based on 11,900 SQFT (47% of RBPW estimate). Using MINIMUM design height of 6-feet, the cost estimate should have been based on 5,100 SQFT (20% of RBPW estimate).
RBPW Unit Cost of the Soundwall in BRR#03 was in Error due to inclusion of a 400-SQFT Wall Unit Cost resulted in 2-times EXCESSIVE unit cost
RBPW used a unit-cost estimate of $68.22 per SQFT (psf) with a standard deviation of $64.18 psf.
Following removal of the outlier wall, the Caltrans database yielded a unit-cost of estimate of $32.23 psf with a standard deviation of $6.07 psf
That resulted in a RBPW overestimate of unit cost of 1.9-times the reasonable unit cost estimate
The Compounded Errors of RBPW in BRR#03 resulted in an overestimate of 10-times a reasonable cost estimate.
The reasonable minimum estimate for the entire street (minus openings and setbacks from openings) should have been 6-feet tall x 850-feet long x $32.23 psf x 135% City Costs x 135% inflation factor which equals $299,569.79 (clearly this should be rounded to $300,000 as an estimated cost)
The Benefit to Cost of the soundwall is 10-to-1 based on Metro data Assuming that each of the 27 houses on the frontage is "benefitting", the Metro break-even benefit estimate of the homes collectively is $2.9M based on Metro's published Highway Soundwalls document.
The Noise Level of the Frontage is 2.5X more than the 67dB Metro threshold According to the certified BCHD EIR for the Healthy Living Campus, the base noise level in 2020 on the Frontage was 69.5dB. Being a log scale like the Richter scale for earthquakes,
69.5 dB is 2.5X the noise of 67dB.
Based on what I've seen in this year's budget activity, I don't believe that the City has the capital project decision-making discipline that we use in the private sector to consider monetized net benefits. As such, I have no way to judge this project quantitatively versus the projects that were green lighted by vote. I would definitely recommend the City increase its discipline in decision making to include benefit-to-cost ratios, especially on capex or programs with a long funding tail requirement.
Based on my 40 years of experience and observation, I doubt very much that many of the City projects could exceed 10-to-1 for a benefit cost ratio and I continue to support this project based health damages mitigation and cost-effectiveness analyses so long as the residents behind the wall continue to seek it.
From: Stop BCHD
To: Stop BCHD
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Garth Meyer; Kevin Cody Subject: HANDS OFF OUR PUBLIC LAND! BCHD seeks bids for a 50% larger project than the Prior PMB LLC 3-acre plan (Public Comment, RB/HB/MB Mayors & Councils)
Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 8:00:46 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
SADDLE UP! BCHD IS READY TO DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOODS - THIS TIME WITH A 50% LARGER PROJECT THAN THE 3-ACRE 100% PRIVATE PMB LLC PROJECT THAT FELL THROUGH!
Instead of just 3 acres on the very north side of the campus behind Vons, the project area for lease to a 100% private company for a 100% private development has been increased by 50% to 4.5 acres. That's 50% more noise, dirt, construction, worker parking, traffic, and other health damages to the surrounding residents. We've already lost $170M in property value within 1/2-mile radius of BCHD, how much more do they want to take from us? Don't listen to BCHD's $1M PR/Marketing department's spin. This is NOT a smaller project. That's complete spin. This is a BIGGER PROJECT. After BCHD lets commercial developers pack the 4-1/2 acres FULL, then BCHD can move on to the other 6 acres. FARs and other City limits don't apply to BCHD's private developers as they proceed gaming the system with State-exempted high density "bonus" project. Plus, after 8 years, BCHD has demonstrated that it has no interest in protecting surrounding residents health or property values.
BCHD is simply taking a BIGGER FIRST BITE THIS TIME! 50% BIGGER!
WE ASKED WHEN WE COULD REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS (OR WHATEVER MADE UP TERM BCHD IS USING) BEFORE IT WAS SENT OUT AND BCHD REFUSED!
Stay tuned, this is the WORST ASSAULT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH AND PROPERTY VALUES EVER BY BCHD as it plans to provide PRIVATE DEVELOPERS with 4-1/2 acres of PUBLIC LAND.
See info at https://easyreadernews.com/bchd-seeks-expressions-of-interest-for-campussite/ from Garth Meyers. Thanks to the Easy Reader for reporting on Tom Bakaly and the BCHD Board.
See BCHD's prior plan to lease 3-acres to PMB LLC for a 100% private development for 95 years at the City of Redondo Beach website
at https://bchd.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?
view_id=2&clip_id=592&doc_id=1121fda1-3e82-11ed-95a3-0050569183fa --
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: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; [email protected]; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment All Agencies: BCHD Lied to the Public about the Hospital Height per BCHD"s $12M+ of Predevelopment Spending on the Failed PMB LLC Deal Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:31:27 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Tom Bakaly in the Easy Reader claimed, "Height is to be limited to 60 feet – that of the four-story main hospital building, not counting its tower." (see https://easyreadernews.com/bchd-seeks-expressions-of-interest-for-campus-site/) BAKALY'S CLAIM OF 60-FEET IS PLAINLY FALSE using the $12M+ of pre-development materials prepared for the failed PMB LLC deal.
The $12M+ that BCHD spent on the failed PMB LLC deal would have nearly funded health services for a full year of BCHD operation!
Per BCHD Documents - the hospital building is 51.5 feet.
In fact, 99.7% of the Square Feet of the entire BCHD complex is 51.5 feet or shorter.
THE REASON THAT BCHD REFUSED TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON THE EXPRESSION OF
INTEREST DOCUMENTS BEFORE THEY WERE SENT OUT LOOKS TO BE BECAUSE BCHD WAS FULLY AWARE THAT IT WAS PLANNING TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC.
It appears that BCHD needs fact checkers on its $1M per year PR/Marcom department and its CEO. FACTS ARE EASY TO FIND IN BCHD'S OWN DOCUMENTS!
CAN ANYONE STOP BCHD FROM LYING TO IT OWNERS?
There's a reason Measure BC failed by 20% points!
--
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: Terry Thomas
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for July 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Item J.1. 25-0974 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public
Date: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:05:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The following is information for the City's use in nuisance claims, clearing of abandoned vehicles, and strict 72 hour parking enforcement. Homes in neighborhoods with abandoned cars, heavy trucks and white vans are devalued from 7% to 16% From the Guardian: (https://www.theguardian.com/business) White van man keeps house prices down 11% (worse than even an abandoned car) Living next door to a truck driver or someone who keeps a travel trailer in their drive can knock thousands of dollars off the value of your home, a survey out today warns.
Property website assertahome.com said having a high gross weight truck parked next to a house could knock around 16% off its value.
Homes with a travel trailer or self-propelled travel van parked nearby do not fare much better, facing a 12% reduction in their price.
Other offenders include white vans, which can knock 11% off a property's value, because potential buyers will worry the image of white van man will lower the tone of the neighbourhood, while having an abandoned car nearby can reduce prices by 7% as it suggests the area is run down with a high crime rate.
From Google AI:
The phrase "white van man" is a stereotype, primarily used in the UK, referring to drivers of commercial vans, particularly white ones. This stereotype often portrays these individuals as inconsiderate, rude, aggressive, and sometimes of a particular socioeconomic background, such as being self-employed tradespeople like builders or plumbers. The "white" refers to the common color of the van, not the driver's race.
This image can cause worry due to a couple of reasons:
1. Negative Driving Associations: The stereotype is linked to aggressive and selfish driving behaviors, leading to a general negative perception of white van drivers. While this stereotype exists, research suggests it may be outdated, and many van drivers are actually careful and controlled on the road.
2. Association with Crime and Abduction: In some contexts, white vans have been linked to crime, including sensationalized and often unsubstantiated social media rumors about kidnappings and sex trafficking. This association, while largely unsupported by evidence, can cause fear and anxiety among the public. The movie "The Man in the White Van" further reinforces this image by featuring a killer who uses a white van.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Joe Hoffman; Mike Witzansky
Subject: Public Comment: Next Available July 2025 Meeting of City Council, Public Safety Commission, Public Works Sustainability Commission
Date: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 10:37:10 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
As part of the effort to have a safer 500 block of N Prospect intersection, the City needs to step up enforcement of illegal parking across driveways.
cc: City Manager and RBPD Chief
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Adriana Romo
Cc: info; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]
Subject: Re: LALAFCO - California Public Records Request Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 5:18:45 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Wow, there's no LAFCO process for waste in Special Districts. That's thoroughly unbelievable. We'll chat with the CA AG's office.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 2:19 PM Adriana Romo <[email protected]> wrote:
LAFCO has no records responsive to your request.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2025 1:54 PM
To: info <[email protected]>
Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: LALAFCO - California Public Records Request
Please provide documentation that demonstrates how the taxpayer-owners can recover the $12M+ that BCHD's board spent on pre-development for the failed PMB LLC project. That is roughly one full year of District services that were denied to the residents due to the fiduciary failure of the BCHD board.
Public Comment RB, MB, HB Mayors, Councils, City Attorneys for awareness.