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
AUGUST 5, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - 8/5/25 RBCC - Flawed Assumptions by RBPW on 500-600 N Prospect Intersection = Flawed Outcome by RBPW Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 3:35:34 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
REFUTE RBPW Assumptions of REQUIRED on-street parking 8-1-25 7AM (1).mp4 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We were finally able to extract the finalized plan from RBPW after a 30-day wait from an email request and then a follow-up formal CPRA request. The following is by no means a totality of issues, it is however, a fact-based discussion of some of the more obvious errors.
RBPW ASSUMPTION ERRORS - 1) Wrong-way traffic is NOT thru traffic from residents; 2) Wrong-way traffic IS from illegal U-turns off Prospect In its meetings, RBPW has represented that it believes (without evidence and against video evidence) that illegal, wrong way traffic is from residents on the street. While there is one resident that routinely drives illegally the against the one way, we have plenty of video of her actions and can let the RBPD pay a visit later. Otherwise, as demonstrated with video to the PWSC and RBPW, the overwhelming majority of wrong way traffic is generated by ILLEGAL U TURNS FROM PROSPECT RBPW RESULTING DESIGN FLAW - 1) RBPW wrongly concludes that ON STREET PARKING is required to stop wrong-way traffic When in reality and as demonstrated in numerous videos presented to RBPW, the illegal U-turn vehicles - the overwhelming majority of wrong way traffic - are not deterred by RBPWs incorrect assumption of a parked vehicle, nor the decades old, ineffective street signage lack of effective street lettering warnings.
The attached video shows 2 cars at the intersection, 2 adults attempting to warn an illegal U-turner, and an ILLEGAL U-TURN. The parking cited by RBPW has absolutely no impact on the illegal action. The same can be said for the ineffective signage and road lettering. Excerpt are below.
NOTE: The white car is parked illegally across the driveway in violation of California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22500 - narrowing the already narrow 26-foot wide roadway and creating a hazard for emergency response. Two pedestrians are pointing north to the illegal U-turner. And finally, there is no sidewalk on the east side of the frontage with the disabled bus stop. The closest ADA access to the sidewalk on the west side of the frontage is over 200-feet away.
The video can be viewed at https://youtu.be/ZmuUI6byY8Q as well. CLEARLY - CARS PARKED IN THE INTERSECTION ARE NOT A DETERRENT AS
ASSUMED BY RBPW
RBPW IGNORED THE PLENTIFUL ON-STREET PARKING - No preservation of one parking spot is meaningful nor needed As previously demonstrated to both the RBPW and the Council, there are 68 on-street parking places in the 2 blocks of the Prospect frontage for 27 homes. Each home has a 2 car garage and a 2 car (or 3 car) driveway. At 2.5 on street parking spaces per home, this area is likely the "richest" neighborhood in on-street parking in the City.
In short, now that the RBPW finally released a final plan on July 30, 2025 for the intersection, it is clear that it is flawed.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 8/5/25 RBCC - Flawed Assumptions by RBPW on 500-600 N Prospect Intersection = Flawed Outcome by RBPW Date: Monday, August 4, 2025 10:18:39 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
Attempted Illegal U Turn Wrong Way Thwarted by Good Samaritan (1).mp4 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Further Example of the ineffectiveness of parked cars in the intersection from reducing illegal U-turn, wrong way traffic. In this video a good Samaritan catches the attention of the illegal turning driver, points upward to the decades old ineffective wrong way sign,and with personal interaction, is able to stop the illegal turn.
Note that the 5500 pound white van and illegally parked Range Rover across the driveway did NOTHING to thwart the planned illegal U-turn and wrong way driver. Only the personal intervention of a neighbor "literally" pointing to a thoroughly misplaced sign was able to get the point across. This is yet another example of why evidence is so critical, especially in the face of flawed assumptions. Watch the video to see the determination of the pedestrian..
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:34 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:
We were finally able to extract the finalized plan from RBPW after a 30-day wait from an email request and then a follow-up formal CPRA request. The following is by no means a totality of issues, it is however, a fact-based discussion of some of the more obvious errors.
RBPW ASSUMPTION ERRORS - 1) Wrong-way traffic is NOT thru traffic from residents; 2) Wrong-way traffic IS from illegal U-turns off Prospect In its meetings, RBPW has represented that it believes (without evidence and against video evidence) that illegal, wrong way traffic is from residents on the street. While there is one resident that routinely drives illegally the against the one way, we have plenty of video of her actions and can let the RBPD pay a visit later. Otherwise, as demonstrated with video to the PWSC and RBPW, the overwhelming majority of wrong way traffic is generated by ILLEGAL U TURNS FROM PROSPECT RBPW RESULTING DESIGN FLAW - 1) RBPW wrongly concludes that ON STREET PARKING is required to stop wrong-way traffic When in reality and as demonstrated in numerous videos presented to RBPW, the illegal U-turn vehicles - the overwhelming majority of wrong way traffic - are not deterred by RBPWs incorrect assumption of a parked vehicle, nor the decades old, ineffective street signage lack of effective street lettering warnings.
The attached video shows 2 cars at the intersection, 2 adults attempting to warn an illegal U-turner, and an ILLEGAL U-TURN. The parking cited by RBPW has absolutely no impact on the illegal action. The same can be said for the ineffective signage and road lettering. Excerpt are below.
NOTE: The white car is parked illegally across the driveway in violation of California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22500 - narrowing the already narrow 26-foot wide roadway and creating a hazard for emergency response. Two pedestrians are pointing north to the illegal U-turner. And finally, there is no sidewalk on the east side of the frontage with the disabled bus stop. The closest ADA access to the sidewalk on the west side of the frontage is over 200-feet away.
The video can be viewed at https://youtu.be/ZmuUI6byY8Q as well. CLEARLY - CARS PARKED IN THE INTERSECTION ARE NOT A DETERRENT AS
ASSUMED BY RBPW
RBPW IGNORED THE PLENTIFUL ON-STREET PARKING - No preservation of one parking spot is meaningful nor needed As previously demonstrated to both the RBPW and the Council, there are 68 on-street parking places in the 2 blocks of the Prospect frontage for 27 homes. Each home has a 2 car garage and a 2 car (or 3 car) driveway. At 2.5 on street parking spaces per home, this area is likely the "richest" neighborhood in on-street parking in the City.
In short, now that the RBPW finally released a final plan on July 30, 2025 for the intersection, it is clear that it is flawed.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; City Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - All Agencies - BCHD FACT CHECK on RFI Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:57:04 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - All Agencies - Data showing that gardening decreases BMI has been falsified Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 12:39:48 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Like BCHD, others make false claims about the causality and performance of their programs.
The following demonstrates the fallacy in believing sources like BCHD.
The Improbable Case of Gardening and Obesity
In our paper, we illustrate these concepts by examining the idea that gardening can treat or prevent obesity. Although space limits in this post prohibit full exposition, we and others have shown that expecting large effects of gardening on obesity was never reasonable. We further contend that there is not a single study showing a causal effect of gardening on either prevention or treatment of obesity, and at least one study shows no statistically significant effect on any obesity measure. Nevertheless, there is a body of literature that treats the notion of a causal relationship between gardening and obesity as having a high degree of credibility.
One recent evidence synthesis from 2023 concluded, “…we investigated… school gardening… Types of positive outcomes included …improved BMI…” However, the literature cited to support that claim variously did not measure BMI, did not find changes in BMI score, did not analyze gardening as a primary intervention, or contained other errors. Then, that synthesis was cited in a 2025 review of gardening (with a focus on cancer prevention) as showing “improvements in anthropomorphic outcomes after gardening initiatives.” Evidence provided to support that claim also included a paper (which was already part of the 2023 synthesis) that found that “changes in cooking and gardening behaviors were not associated with changes in BMI z-score or waist circumference.”
While this science may (and likely will) be corrected over time, the specific types of errors made in the gardening and obesity literature appear, in the short term, to be cultivating additional errors.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Kevin Cody; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies - BCHD"s Board Meeting 7-23-25 Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 1:14:09 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD's 6-year plan is defective. Measure BC's rejection by nearly 20% was a clear repudiation of 91% non-resident service area ALLCOVE, demolition of the hospital, creation of open space, and further spending on a flawed and failed campus privatization. The Board wasted over $12M so far on pre-development costs for the hLC - cost that NEVER should have been paid by TAXPAYERS. Developers pay pre-development costs, unless of course the landowner is incompetent or inexperienced or both in the art of development.
The City Councils of Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo Beach have the legal ability as impacted agencies to request dissolution of BCHD at LALAFCO if the District continues to ignore the will or the voters.
BCHD Comment
Goal A is faulty. The Community is undefined. The community must be defined as the 3 beach cities comprised of resident-taxpayers in Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach.
Measure BC was soundly rejected. It would have funded the 91% non-resident service area of ALLCOVE. The rejection is a clear voice of the BCHD owners that out-of-district services should not be provided.
Goal B is also faulty. It too fails to define Community as the resident-taxpayers of the three beach cities. Clearly, the failure of Measure BC was a vote not to extend services to the rest of SPA8 and disapproval to build any ALLCOVE facility for non-residents.
Goal C is defective. BCHD spends roughly $1M annually on marketing-communications. The resident-taxpayers of the 3 beach cities cannot afford any more "bought and paid for" awareness. The limit of BCHD communications must be the contiguous limit of the three combined cities.
Goal D is defective. BCHD is thoroughly inept and untrustworthy with the funds of residenttaxpayers. BCHD plans to accept a meager $6.3M ALLCOVE grant that will require 30-years of operation of both the ALLCOVE building and ALLCOVE program for the 91% nonresident service area of SPA8. The estimated 30 year cost is in excess of $150M. BCHD is either incapable of computing the 30-year cost, or refuses do so. That is based on BCHD CPRA responses.
BCHD's Measure BC was rejected. Voters who are the resident-taxpayers of the District rejected the plan to demolish the Hospital. They rejected the plan to create open space. They rejected the plan to fund an ALLCOVE building and they rejected any more wasted funds on the HLC development or consultants. Clearly the resident-taxpayers voted "no confidence" in the BCHD Executives and future spending plans.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; James Light Cc: Kevin Cody; Communications; [email protected]; Jane Diehl; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat Subject: Public Comment RBCC - Non Agenda Item : BCHD"s Attack on Surrounding Property Owners and Residents Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 9:25:44 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Zein Obagi; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment RBCC Meeting - The City"s Standing to Request Dissolution of the BCHD on behalf of City resident-taxpayers
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 7:07:04 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
In order to simplify future public comments to the City Council regarding BCHD:
As an "affected local agency," the City of Redondo Beach has standing at LA LAFCO under Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg to request a dissolution hearing of BCHD.
The actions of BCHD that damage the resident-taxpayers of the City (such as BCHD taking on $150M+ of ALLCOVE debt for a 91% non-resident service area) can reasonably be considered by the City as an "affected agency." At such time as the City concludes the damages or risks to its constituents of BCHD's actions have become excessive, the City can move at LA LAFCO to dissolve BCHD.
Dissolving a California healthcare district is a formal legal process guided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) and overseen by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each county.
Here are the general steps involved
Initiation of the process: Dissolution can be initiated by a petition from property owners or registered voters within the district, a resolution from an affected local agency, or in certain cases, by LAFCO itself.
LAFCO Public Hearing and Consideration: LAFCO will hold a public hearing to receive testimony and consider the proposed dissolution. Following the hearing, LAFCO will decide whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
Public Hearing for Protests and Potential Election: If the dissolution is approved by LAFCO, a second public hearing may be required to consider any protests against the dissolution. Depending on the level of protest and other specific circumstances, LAFCO might need to order an election among the district's voters.
Dissolution Election (if required): If an election is ordered, the dissolution must be approved by a majority vote of the district's voters.
Winding up the district's affairs: As part of the dissolution process, the district's assets and liabilities must be managed according to the CKH Act. This may involve coordinating with the California Attorney General's Office, Secretary of State, and Franchise Tax Board to ensure the proper distribution of assets and fulfillment of obligations.
LAFCO Staff Completes Dissolution Filings: After all requirements are met and, if applicable, the election results are certified, LAFCO staff will file the necessary documents to formally complete the dissolution.
Expedited Dissolution
Under the CKH Act, dissolution can be expedited if initiated by the district's board and aligned with a previous LAFCO action, allowing LAFCO to order dissolution without a protest period or election. Proposed legislation may further allow LAFCO to order dissolution without an election for districts meeting specific criteria like not receiving property tax and not providing direct healthcare services.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; James Light Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD Caught in YET ANOTHER LIE! The hospital is 4 stories and 51.5-feet tall Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 9:37:41 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Tom Bakaly's interview to the Easy Reader was MORE BIG LIES! BCHD Certified in the FEIR that the hospital was only 4-stories TALL. WHO DID BCHD LIE TO? THE STATE OR THE ER?
"The invitation features only the six-story former South Bay Hospital and its ground parking lot." BCHD filed a draft Pre-CUP that stated the 4-story hospital was 51.5-feet tall. WHY THE LIE TO THE ER?
"Height is to be limited to 60 feet – that of the four-story main hospital building, not counting its tower." From the BCHD Pre-CUP to the City - WHO DID BCHD LIE TO? THE CITY in 2022? These are LIES and BCHD cannot be trusted.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; James Light Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment: Voters are Increasingly Fed Up with The District and its ABUSE OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS Date: Thursday, July 17, 2025 9:30:48 PM
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.