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
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
David Amato
Redondo Beach, Ca. 90278
September 2, 2025
Redondo Beach Planning Commission
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose South Bay Social District’s 650-Unit Redevelopment – Protect Kingsdale Property Values
Dear Commissioners,
As a resident of Kingsdale Avenue, I strongly urge you to reject the proposed South Bay Social District (SBSD) redevelopment project (State Clearinghouse No. 2015101009), which includes 650 residential units (300 in Phase 1B and 350 in Phase 2), a 150-room hotel, and 300,000 square feet of commercial space at the South Bay Galleria.
This project poses a serious threat to the livability and property values of adjacent neighborhoods. According to the Appraisal Institute (2023), impacts from traffic, noise, and air quality could reduce nearby home values by 5–15%, violating the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.).
If the project proceeds, I request that it be reduced to no more than 300 units—consistent with the 2017 compromise—or that the city enforce strict mitigations under applicable state and local laws.
Key Concerns
1. Property Value Loss
• Issue: Traffic, noise, and prolonged construction could reduce Kingsdale home values by 5–15% (NAR, 2024), echoing a 4–8% decline during earlier Galleria phases (Easy Reader, 2017–2019).
• Impact: Direct loss of homeowner equity violates CEQA’s human environment protections (§15126.2).
2. Zoning & Voter Approval
• Issue: Proposed 65-ft height and 50 units/acre exceed C-2 zoning limits (30 ft, no specific residential density; Municipal Code §10-2.1116) and trigger voter approval per Article XXVII of the City Charter (§707), especially post-Measure RB (2024). • Impact: Unapproved upzoning undermines public trust and violates Government Code §65300.
3. Traffic & Safety Risks
• Issue: The project could add 6,000–7,000 daily trips (2019 EIR), overwhelming Kingsdale’s ~1,500-trip residential capacity (ITE standards), endangering emergency response and children at Alta Vista Elementary.
• Impact: Potential 5–10% property value decline (Utah, 2021); violates SB 330 and HAA (AB 1893 §65589.5(j)).
4. Construction & Health Impacts
• Issue: Dust and emissions in the already non-attainment South Coast Air Basin (AQMD, 2025), 110–120 dB pile driving (FHWA, 2006), and blocked residential access during 3– 5 years of construction threaten health and livability. • Impact: Value loss of 3–7% (Journal of Real Estate Research, 2023); violates SB 1000 (§65302(h)).
5. Noise & Sunlight Loss
• Issue: 65 dB construction noise exceeds §4-24.301 (60 dB daytime / 50 dB nighttime limit); 65-ft building massing may block 2–3 hours of daily sunlight to nearby homes. • Impact: Noise can reduce home values by 5–15%; sunlight loss by 2–5% (Redfin, 2024).
6. Character & Infrastructure Strain
• Issue: Project scale conflicts with General Plan Policy 1.2.1 (preservation of suburban character; §65302(b)), and could overburden water (80% capacity), sewer (75%), and Alta Vista Elementary (~551 students, RBUSD 2024).
• Impact: 3–8% value decline (Urban Institute, 2023).
7. Inadequate Community Benefits
• Issue: Only 10% of units (65) are designated affordable—far short of AB 2430’s 20% goal.
• Impact: Does not meaningfully offset value losses or comply with AB 3012’s community benefit requirements.
Requested Actions
1. Deny or Reduce the Project
o Reject the 650-unit plan, or cap total units at 300, as done in 2017, to reduce safety and livability risks (SB 330 §65589.5(h)).
2. Require Voter Approval
o Enforce Article XXVII of the City Charter (§707) for zoning height/density exceedances post-Measure RB.
3. Protect Kingsdale Avenue
o Require the developer to fund one of the following mitigation options:
▪ Option A: 10-ft street widening to include a 12-ft emergency lane and 8-ft resident-only lane.
▪ Option B: One-way northbound traffic (from 177th St to Grant Ave) with a 6-ft bike lane.
▪ Option C: Dead-end Kingsdale with removable bollards, allowing 28-ft Fire Department turning radius.
o Ban construction truck access on residential streets.
4. Mitigate Construction Impacts
o Enforce Tier 4/electric equipment use, dust suppression, anti-idling policies, restricted work hours, and real-time air/noise monitoring (SB 1000 §65302(h)).
5. Enforce Legal Limits
o Cap height at 30 ft, require 50-ft setbacks from homes, and enforce 60/50 dB noise limits (§4-24.301).
6. Enhance Community Benefits
o Require 20% affordable units (130 total), 2-acre public park, and provision of 100 Metro passes (AB 3012 compliance).
7. Fund Independent Studies
o Mandate developer-funded traffic, noise, air quality, shadow, property value, and cumulative impact studies per CEQA (§15126.6, §15130).
Why This Matters
The SBSD project poses serious risks of 5–15% property value losses for Kingsdale and surrounding homes, based on peer-reviewed data and the Galleria’s past impacts (2017–2019).
Kingsdale—a narrow, family-oriented street—cannot function as a commercial thoroughfare.
This proposal violates CEQA, HAA, and Redondo Beach’s General Plan (§65302). The city’s 2017 reduction proves compromise is possible. While new state housing laws limit density restrictions, local mitigation is still essential to protect our safety, health, and home values.
Next Steps
Please include this letter in the public record for the SBSD project and notify me of all future hearings, appeals, and city responses.
Under the California Public Records Act, I also request the following documents:
• 2019 Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
• 2024 traffic and air quality studies
• Any property value or cumulative impact analyses related to SBSD Please respect my privacy in all public correspondence.
Sincerely,
David Amato
Resident, Kingsdale Avenue.
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: Statement of Fact from Redondo Beach Traffic Engineer Entered into the Record Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 11:01:44 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
See reference at https://youtu.be/zMfThLym4EY?t=4313
On June 23, 2025 at 757PM at the Public Works and Sustainability Commission meeting, the City Traffic Engineer made the following statement to a Commissioner in direct response to resident concerns regarding safety issues and emergency vehicle passage in the 500-600 block of N. Prospect frontage due to it's 26-foot width and 2-side parking and 2-way traffic:
"Um, I think we (the City) will probably want um about at least 36 feet (minimum width for 2- way, 2-side parking street). Uh so two eight you know if you have two eight foot parking lanes on either side you want an additional 20 feet so yeah about 36 feet or uh up in northondo our (the City) typical 28ft streets is 8ft parking on one side and two 10ft lanes on either so so as as it is you know that the frontage road north of here it is you know about 26 28 ft uh while we have parking on both sides we do allow two-way traffic and it's it's really a negotiation you know some if if there is oncoming coming traffic in both directions. Generally, one side pulls into the side where you know maybe there's not a lot of parked cars or an area where there's driveways and um that
that it's a negotiation." Ryan Liu see link above.
FACTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD (without dispute, cited to the City Traffic Engineer on video)
1. Typically, 26-foot wide streets DO NOT have 2-side parking (per Traffic Engineering)
2. In order to have safe use by vehicles, both resident emergency vehicles, there needs to be "not a lot of parked cars" or available "driveways" (per Traffic Engineering) without illegally parked vehicles across them. Violation of VEH 22500 (e)(1).
The only reasonable conclusion is that the City is aware that this is a dangerous situation with limited transit space and since "not a lot of parked cars" is outside the control of the City, the driveways MUST be kept empty and clear of VEH 22500 (e)(1) violations to facilitate both resident traffic and LIFESAVING EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRAFFIC.
At present, the City is not enforcing the safety requirements as stated into the record by the City Traffic Engineer.
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: Re: Jim Light"s 500-600 N Prospect Ave "Beautification" Project FAIL Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 2:33:50 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Your plants are nearly dead out here on the 500-600 N Prospect Ave. median Jim. And weeds are growing around them.
Come take a look. They are not "thriving" as you say. Brown, brittle, shriveling up is not thriving. Maybe if we lived in the Wilderness Park since you seem to care more about that project, we humans here on N Prospect Ave. would stand a better chance of being taken care of. Your little "beautification" project here is a total joke.
Why can't we have traffic control and enforcement on this street? The Police Chief gets paid well over $300K per year according to public information. He reports to you, we pay his salary, so why aren't you telling him to do his job? Darryl Boyd
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:26 PM Darryl Boyd wrote:
Bcc: 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Neighbors
Jim, you argued with me on Facebook all weekend, then came here to 500-600 N Prospect Ave. secretly to take a few select pictures to try and back yourself up on your failed N.
Prospect "Beautification" project. If you were so confident in what a success it is, why did you come here secretly instead of maybe actually trying to talk to me and the neighbors? You were hiding. How disgraceful.
You show a few pictures with a few thriving plants. You don't show the plants that have a very low possibility of surviving, and there are many. You don't show the weeds, the mushrooms, and the gaps in between plants. You tell me I should volunteer more for my community and get out there and do the job of Public Works pulling weeds and being a gardener. What a disrespectful thing to say to a Resident and constituent. We pay property taxes here, this median has been neglected in every way for over 30 years. So why don't YOU do your job, or YOU come and pull weeds and be a gardener since you care more about your plant, butterfly, and bird projects more than the people of Redondo Beach. Public Works reports to YOU the "Mayor". Do your job! And Mike Kiline should have been fired after he completely removed any privacy, noise deflection, and "safety" (there was and is none) that we had left.
Videos
Here is what your "Beautification" project really looks like. Watch these videos:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/9goPABRFN5soqBRc6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/BSV7ACK1PjyaPdZQ6
For pictures, see my attached PDF file at the bottom of this email named JimLightsBeautificationProject.pdf
You said that we now have a thriving hedge and a "state of the art" irrigation system. A state of the art irrigation system would be included in a formal landscape plan. But there never was a formal landscape plan. So please explain how you came up with the term "state of the art"? Please show us how it functions and the complete specs to back up your claim. It's complete B.S. Jim.
The Oleanders were diseased and died due to lack of maintenance, not draught, complete lack of care and maintenance. Again a City problem, another Public Works fail, under the Mayor's watch. But even the dead shrubs gave us 8-10' height and 8-9' in density. See my 6'5" Hummer H2 up against those old hedges. Had I not got involved, nothing would have ever been done after Mike Kline had the dead shrubs removed. There was no plan, there still isn't. We would have been left wide open exposed in perpetuity to unsafe and toxic conditions, no privacy, no sound deflection. You have said more than once the City has a plan and you are executing on it. Yet, over and over I have asked you to produce the plan and you go silent. The same when I ask about the over $200K budget that Paige said was reserved for improvements to the median. I keep asking about it, you both are silent now.
I previously sent you this PDF file, here it is again showing my truck up against those diseased Oleanders and size.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VebNtjEjnxBoBPRAN0Vhmi4Yy7Si1JqQ/view? usp=drive_link
You are now disrespecting me and my neighbors by trying to force me to prove that cars have actually jumped and flipped over that median. You are basically calling me and my neighbors liars and it's disrespectful and totally outrageous. Mark Nelson has requested Public Records for the past 10 years for all accidents and occurrences surrounding us, and he is being stonewalled. The City of Redondo Beach is out of compliance on providing Public Records to us in the 10 day time frame as required by CA State Law. I have notified you of every law, code, and ordinance that I find the City of Redondo Beach in violation of or out of compliance on, you are silent.
During your "Campaign Stop", Paige brought you here on Feb. 8th which was a Saturday morning, and lighter than normal weekday traffic, we had a City Bus head the wrong way towards us on the service road (little Prospect), the driver was obviously confused, rolled right past us. Then a big Fed-Ex truck wedged it's way through, a pack of motorcycles and speeding cars went by. We all had a laugh because there was no denying the noise, safety, and traffic issues that morning. And that was just a small taste. After your "Campaign Stop" you emailed us about looking into speed tables for traffic calming measures on Big Prospect.
But now you have been elected and you are in complete denial about our problems and issues here. No more talk about traffic calming for us any more, just lies and denials from you. But you got what you needed for traffic calming and noise reduction right near your residence. Brad Waller did a great job lobbying for you in City Council, and last week PWSC immediately approved what you wanted for yourself and your neighbors Jim. It was totally disgusting display to watch you at the podium saying you weren't there speaking as the Mayor. A total abuse of the Mayor's seat for your own wants and needs.
Early this morning at 2:52am my household and I'm sure most of the neighborhood was awoken by bright red and yellow flashing lights into our home and the noise from what sounded like 4 trash trucks operating all at once. It was SCE power washing power poles with a huge truck and crane and a safety vehicle trailing it. Intense flashing lights, loud crashing noises before 3am in the morning, on N Prospect right in front of BCHD. Who schedules this kind of maintenance to happen in a Residential zone before 3am in the morning Jim? It falls right into more violations of noise on State, County, and Local levels.
You wanted the job as Mayor Jim. You got what you wanted. So far you have failed us. So please do your job or resign.
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
--
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: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk
Subject: Remarks for Non Agenda items on September 9 2025 Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:55:07 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Eleanor:
This is my non agenda speech for tonight. Please put it in bluefolder, so that council members can look at it. This is a speech I made at Metro.
Holly Osborne
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Holly Osborne
To: Board Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker Stephanie Wiggins
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 at 01:24:11 PM PDT
Subject: P and P Committee, June 2025, Non Agenda, pipelines Good morning,
This is Holly Osborne, Redondo Beach
For the Green Line, Metro has submitted plans to add an LRT, which means two additional tracks on a narrow ROW (right-of-way) that already has pipelines and a BNSF freight train on it The ROW is too narrow, I will show you how Metro violates the BNSF requirements regarding separation distances that BNSF has for distance between its freight train and the pipelines that are on the ROW.
Metro released a video in April 2024, showing the placement of the pipes and the LRT in the ROW in the narrow part which is only 75 ft wide. .. (This graphic was NOT in the DEIR, which was released in Jan 2023.)
The top graphic shows the system as it is now. The freight train is 25 ft from the wall on the right (and 50 ft from the wall on the left). .
Metro proposes to move four of the pipelines to the right hand side of the freight train, within the approximate.25 ft space between the freight centerline and the wall on the right as shown in the bottom graphic. Those pipelines are supposed to be greater than 25 ft from the centerline, and encased and buried.
(Here is the link to the BNSF document that talks about pipeline separation:
. https://www.bnsf.com/bnsf-resources/pdf/about-bnsf/utility.pdf See page 2-4, printed below:
b. Pipelines
i. Any pipeline installation paralleling BNSF property shall be within ten (10) feet of property line and a minimum of forty (40) feet from track.
ii. If the pipeline is proposed to be located forty (40) feet or less from centerline of nearest track, the pipeline shall be encased in a steel pipe subject to approval from BNSF. No pipe may be placed closer than twenty-five (25) feet from centerline of any track. Pipe must be buried with a minimum cover of six (6) feet. If less than minimum depth is necessary because of existing utilities, water table, ordinance or similar reasons, the line shall be rerouted.)
The BNSF engineer I showed this to said the diagram violated their rules.
Please Directors, ask Metro about this; and maybe you will get an answer.
Figures from video, showing configuration south of 170th street, where the ROW is only 75 ft wide.
(I added circles around pipe in red lines; and also the app. 25 ft centerline-to-wall measurement.) (Top is current configuration; bottom is after an LRT is inserted, which is emerging from the trench configuration.)
Note: BNSF centerline to western wall (on right) = approx. 25 ft, both figures.
Thank you
Holly Osborne PhD, PE