J.1 BLUE FOLDER — Redondo Beach City Council, September 15, 2026

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 15, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
From: Bryan Stone
To: CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Subject: Comment on the September 8 draft facility naming policy — adopt descriptive names only Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 12:26:34 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers:

I write about the naming of public spaces now before you. My position is simple. Parks and buildings should bear descriptive names. They should not bear the names of people or companies.

Aviation Park tells a visitor where he is. Seaside Lagoon describes the place. Those names serve the public. A name given to honor a person, or leased to a brand, serves the honoree. The ground still belongs to the people who paid for it. They did not buy a billboard.

A libertarian case: the City holds land by tax, not as a private owner. It has no right to pick a winner, a late official, a donor, a favored firm, and write that name on property the rest of us fund. An application with staff review and a Council veto is a political market. Friends get plaques. Others wait. If a name is granted at all, the honest method is an open bid and a clock.

The term ends. The name comes down.

A conservative case: civic places should teach continuity, not fashion. Geographic names last.

They do not expire with a council, a brand, or a reputation. Honor is cheap when it costs only a motion. Streets, halls, and parks are a common language. Do not spend that language on private glory.

A progressive case: public space is a commons. Residents who reject a brand should not have to pass under that brand to enter a lagoon, a court, or a playground their taxes built. A gift to the City or to a charity does not buy the right to mark other people’s land. A name bestowed by Council is a subsidy in prestige. It is no cleaner than a subsidy in cash. Equal treatment means either no commemorative names or the same price and the same term for every applicant—person or company.

Those three lines meet on one rule. Prefer descriptive names only. Do not put public spaces up for sale. The people are not for sale. If you reject that rule and name amenities anyway, use one process for all: a public auction, a published reserve, a short term, and no exclusions that spare the well connected. Do not give what you would make others buy. Do not sell what the public has already paid for.

I ask you to confine official names to place, feature, and use; to bar naming parks and buildings after persons or firms; and, if any lesser amenity is ever named otherwise, to require an open bid and a term limit for every such name.

Respectfully,
Bryan Stone
Redondo Beach Resident

Note: These messages are emailed to all jurisdictions in SPA8 that BCHD is required to service for ALLCOVE, along with all funding agencies.

BCHD Bikepath - $2,069,963 for 400-FEET (over $400 PER INCH!) More than crossing rivers!
More than the $7M per mile downtown Seattle bikeway!
BCHD wasted enough taxpayer funding to build OVER 1 MILE of HIGH END Protected Bikeway using LA COUNTY METRICS!
This BCHD SCAM Project WAS BUILT IN AN ALREADY FULLY
PROTECTED, NON-MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS ALLEY WAY!
Beach Cities Health District, one of 2 LA County Health Districts, spent $2,069,963 of taxpayer funding on the 400-foot bike path at Diamond and Prospect - commonly called Flagler Alley. It is the highest unit cost ever spent on a bike path in the United States according to thorough records search. BCHD has not presented a higher cost itself! OUTRAGEOUS MISMANAGEMENT!

1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 5:36 PM
To: CityClerk; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; James Light; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Mike Witzansky; Garth Meyer; Joy Ford
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment - non-agenda - City Council and Planning Commission next meeting CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Below is a comment to the Redondo Beach City Council, City Manager and City Attorney regarding the 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd liquid nitrogen and argon tanks that have no analysis of safety for a location 200 feet from homes. This is unacceptable.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Subject: Public Comment - non-agenda - City Council and Planning Commission next meeting To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Send an email to the City Council and the Planning Commission:

[email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
Subject: Public Comment - Neighbors Deserve a Full Safety Analysis of the Four, 38-foot, Cryogenic Tanks at Impulse Space
Council Members, Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney:

At the recent Planning Commission meeting, we were told that liquid Nitrogen and liquid Argon are not explosive and not toxic. We were also told by RBFD that they cannot conduct any analysis of the gasses because they do not have a HAZMAT unit. We were then told that LA County HAZMAT would conduct the analysis.

In an email from August 27 by Specialist Doom of LACoFD, the City and the Residents were informed by LA County that no analysis would be conducted for residents of a catastrophic rupture of any of the tanks. LA County did make it clear that there was an asphyxiation risk from both Argon and Nitrogen and that they would have their teams analyze the health and safety impacts on first responders.

So neighbors are in a position where we know:
1) the tanks can explode,
2) the liquids inside are at -300 degrees F,
3) the liquids will roll out over the neighborhoods after a tank explosion, 4) the liquids will re-gasify to Argon or Nitrogen gas, both of which displace oxygen required for life, 5) LA County sees risk to first responders from the gas and the risk of asphyxiation, and 2 6) NO AGENCY WILL CONDUCT ANY SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS' SAFETY.

That is unacceptable.

The City is obligated to protect resident health and safety. Until a full analysis and mitigations are completed to protect the neighbors, we demand that no permits are issued.

If any tanks are relocated, they must be required to have safety walls that will stop a catastrophic release from flowing off the Impulse Space property. If Impulse won't allow that, then this is clearly an unsafe situation for residents also.

Please act quickly as this situation is stressing residents who are in the blast and gas zone. 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 6:39 PM
To: CityClerk
Cc: Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Joy Ford; Garth Meyer; Mike Witzansky
Subject: Public Comment - City Council - Non-Agenda Items - QUICK SUMMARY OF RB D3 MEETING @ 4PM LABOR DAY AT RB NORTH LIBRARY (FEEL FREE TO WEIGH IN!)
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

QUICK SUMMARY OF RB D3 MEETING @ 4PM LABOR DAY AT RB NORTH LIBRARY (FEEL FREE TO WEIGH IN!) AGENDA: -10 minutes of CM3 providing some updates, -10 minutes of public comments, -an hour on homeless services from the City Attorney, -10 minutes of final public comments for a total of 90 minutes. OBSERVATIONS: -Wasn't really a D3 meeting - little D3 content HOMELESS POWERPOINT BY CITY ATTORNEY -Majority of time was spent on the City Attorney's homeless services presentation. It was informative, but generic to the entire City. -Much of the follow up on the presentation with City Attorney/Homeless Services funding, budgets, expenditures, and transparency concerns. It appeared to be a fairly long term concern of several commenters -Also questions about whether or not a high paid elected official should be spending time with non-legal issues like homelessness -Several first hand accounts of current homeless encounters and questions to better understand procedures MORE LOCAL-ISH ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED -Crayola color paint on turns and streets - confusing, unneeded -Turtle signs - why? what did they cost? how much will lifecycle maintenance and replacement cost? -Micro direction signs? residents don't need or want them. What will they cost -A few general comments about mis-spending taxpayer funds on project of no material benefit

33.85622, -118.37732CA
Comment
Share
Post Insights
Pin a comment
2 6 reactions
15 comments
Mark N.
19h · Edited·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Here's written comments about issues that were filed with the City Clerk for Tuesday's meeting. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-
Qnzsgs50BXjVd6hdECrgrqBUdGpeGtGe9izL7QyXOw/edit?usp=sharing WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT D3 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING – LABOR DAY 2026 docs.google.com
Reply
2 Darryl Boyd
17h·Beryl Heights
Paige & Ford were up against the ropes from the beginning Paige became very defensive & threatened to shut the meeting down more than once when she was pushed to respond on the non-homeless items that many of us came there to confront her about. This was some kind of victory lap meeting by Paige & Joy Ford on a homeless program that Residents aren't allowed to get full disclosure on. Questions weren't really answered. Just more lack of transparency as usual which makes things continue to look shady. This was NOT a real community meeting, this was a show.

Reply
3 4
Alicia Evans
5h·TRW Tract
Darryl
Joy is a total politician. Smile everyone, shake hands and avoid the hard topics.

Reply
Mark N.

Now·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Darryl
There was definite frustration that the numerous topics that people wanted to bring up couldn't be discussed
Reply
Mark N.

Now·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Alicia
The bulk of this meeting was essentially on the topic of homelessness, with little time available for other HARD topics
Reply
4 Jim Mueller
7h·Redondo Beach
Mark should probably add that several attendees weren't exactly calm and orderly in their interruptions and comments. There were many loud, aggravated and provocative accusations.

It's a wonder anyone wants to serve in elected office in that kind of atmosphere.

Reply
Alicia Evans
5h·TRW Tract
Jim
Really Jim, Really…you don’t think there’s a ton of contempt for these elected officials not doing their job for the community and their citizens. I can’t even tell you how hard it is to get any answers! Then Joy tried to railroad me and attempted to interrupt as I was speaking. So, I told her as much. Because, I had to explain to our district what was going on as her only concern was singing her own praises about the homeless.

Reply
2 Jess Money
5h · Edited·
Author
Jim
You mean the kind of atmosphere where they get called to account for how millions have been spent with no accounting? Whether you accept the city's number for the homeless program of $7 mil or an assertion by the the former chair of the recently disbanded Public Safety committee that the amount is actually $14 mil, either way that's a lot of money. The city gives nothing but vague numbers like, "We spent 'X' on the pallet shelter". Okay, who was that money paid to? What materials or services did they provide? At what cost? Did the electrical cost $40K or $400 K. The Public Safety Committee was disbanded after 40+ years of service because the chairman filed too many Public Records Requests for homeless program records.

We know this because the mayor is on tape at a council meeting telling the chairman to "stop filing PRR's". An attorney I know filed a detailed 14 point records request TWO YEARS AGO and still has not received the requested records. The city leases space in a skid-row rooming house in Wilmington for homeless aside from those housed at the pallet shelter. But reportedly, on average, only half the rooms we lease are used at any one time. So who owns this building? Is it, as some speculate, at least partly owned by a certain city councilman? And 5 are you aware that while cutting crossing guards AND BORROWING $3 mil to cover this year's state pension assessment they city has spent almost $1 mil on a weed patch laughingly proclaimed as Bill Brand Park (a disgrace to Bill's memory) and is going to spend more to replace the King Harbor sign? Our sordid municipal history is a long one of corruption. One former councilman went to federal prison for bribery. A former city clerk had to resign after he plead out to felony forgery. Another councilman's business partner was indicted on federal fraud charges, prompting said councilman to suddenly resign mid-term and flee to Brazil where the U.S. does not have an extradition agreement. Then there was the former mayor who got caught using a city credit card to buy jewelry for some bimbo he was trying to nail. And our CURRENT council includes the D4 councilman who: a) Admitted to swindling a client out of $500,000. b) Was originally suspended by the Bar Association but later had to resign from the bar because: c) He entered into a "Deferred Prosecution Agreement" with the U.S. DOJ over that fraud. However, our city attorney, Joy Ford, has taken the position that he cannot be removed from the city council under the city charter's "moral turpitude" clause because under his plea deal he was not "convicted" of a crime involving moral turpitude. So pardon me, and some others, if we get a little vocal about how and where our freakin' money is being spent.

And anxiously awaiting your rebuttal response...if you have one and the guts to post it.

Reply
4 Jim Mueller
4h·Redondo Beach
Alicia
An election is coming up for D3 Council seat. If you don’t like how the current Councilperson is doing her job, nominate a candidate, or better yet, run for Council yourself. Then you might get a better idea of what the job is like and why they do what they do Reply
6 Alicia Evans
3h·TRW Tract
Jim
my area isn’t D3, but I have issues with my area as well. Tired of all the corruption, misinformation, misappropriation & mismanagement. Sorry that I’m not satisfied with the status quo. Maybe you should run, because you did a lovely job with the NRB farmers market. I’d like to hear more of your ideas for our community.

Reply
Mark N.

Now·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Jim
Thanks for adding to the description of the meeting
Reply
Mark N.

Now·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Jess
Thanks for the chronology. It's good we've got long timers, who've stayed in the trenches, who can provide context. What's the phrase? "those who fail to recall history are destined to repeat it..."
Reply
Mark N.

Now·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Alicia
Thanks! We need more passionate and articulate concerned residents willing to post and get involved.

Reply
Alicia Evans
6h·
Author
Omg, that’s literally what happened in our district meeting over year ago. The City Attorney of RB just bragged about how much they were helping the homeless. While I think this is an important issue it’s has no merit taking up well over half our meeting or your district meeting.

The City Attorney & our D5 council member could NOT answer the simple questions at hand 7 knowing full well we were up in arms about Impulse Space allowing 200 plus employees to park in our residential neighborhoods. She couldn’t explain to neighbors concerned about parking what preferential parking was in so many words and couldn’t even tell us how much a parking permit would cost. Pretty shameful behavior from City of Redondo Beach!!! Maybe City of Redondo Beach representatives need to focus on the issues that are important and impacting their constituents or find other jobs?
Reply
3 Mark N.

Now·
Author
·Beryl Heights
Alicia
AGREE! Instead of having a presentation, like the turtle sign woman at Brad Waller's D1 meeting, the meetings should be a forum for constituents to bring their concerns to their ELECTED representative. FORCING residents to sit an hour only ESCALATES the FRUSTRATION of not being heard.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer
Subject: Public Comment - US ADA Complaint, State Fire Marshall Complaint Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 5:30:52 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Taxpayers pay $3M of the total $15M BCHD programs and services budget for EXECUTIVE PAYROLL. Yet, they can't plan ahead to have an ADA compliant path during construction? BCHD is legally required by CEQA to oversee construction and compliance for their 5-year privatization project. How's that GONNA WORK? (IT WON'T!)
... see more
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford; Sean Scully; Scott Behrendt; Andrew Winje; Marc Wiener; Gale S. Hazeltine; Jason Conroy; Wayne Craig; Douglas Boswell; Roger K. Light; Robert Gaddis; Julie Young Subject: Public Comment (Council, Planning Commission) : 2477 Man Bch Blvd Surrounding Resident Safety Danger and Permitting Denial Hearing
Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 1:13:26 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

SAFETY MEMORANDUM
Date: September 14, 2026
From: M E Nelson
To: Redondo Beach Planning Commission; Redondo Beach City Council; Redondo Beach City Attorney; Redondo Beach City Manager
Re: Cryogenic Storage Tanks — Pressure-Relief Requirements and Australian CommonMode Failure Experience Purpose
This memorandum addresses a narrow but important safety issue associated with the proposed large liquid-nitrogen and liquid-argon storage vessels:
whether the required redundant pressure-relief devices actually provide independent protection against catastrophic overpressure.

A recent Australian investigation is particularly relevant. A cryogenic liquid-nitrogen tank equipped with two pressure safety valves catastrophically ruptured even though both valves had been periodically inspected and tested. The subsequent SafeWork NSW investigation determined that the two valves shared a common inlet pipe and that this common pathway was highly likely blocked by water ice. The single blockage therefore prevented both pressure-relief valves from protecting the vessel.

The significance for Redondo Beach is not that Australia employed materially inferior pressure-relief standards. To the contrary, Australian and U.S. requirements for cryogenic pressure relief are sufficiently similar in the respects relevant to this accident that the Australian failure provides an important real-world warning concerning a failure mechanism potentially applicable to U.S. cryogenic storage systems.

Australian Accident and Subsequent Investigation
SafeWork NSW investigated the catastrophic rupture of a liquid-nitrogen cryogenic tank container after vessel pressure exceeded its 1,000 kPa maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP).

The vessel had:
two pressure safety valves;
both valves set at the vessel's 1,000 kPa MAWP; and
pressure safety valves that had been periodically inspected and tested.

Nevertheless, the vessel ruptured.

SafeWork NSW ultimately determined that the two pressure safety valves were connected through a common pipe. Its investigation concluded that the root cause was blockage of the pipe supplying both valves, highly likely caused by water ice. SafeWork further determined that the configuration of the internal piping leading to the pressure safety valves made this particular tank more susceptible to blockage than other cryogenic tanks.

This distinction is critical. The failure was not simply that two independent relief valves coincidentally malfunctioned.

The problem was that the two apparently redundant safety devices were dependent upon a single common flow path:

VESSEL → COMMON RELIEF PATH → PRV #1 / PRV #2
Once the common pathway was blocked, neither relief valve could perform its safety function.

Thus, although the vessel nominally possessed redundant pressure-relief valves, the complete pressure-relief system contained a single point/common-mode failure vulnerability.

Extensive Australian Post-Failure Analysis
The importance of this event is reinforced by the extent of the subsequent Australian investigation and corrective recommendations.

SafeWork NSW did not limit its inquiry to whether the individual relief valves operated correctly on a test bench. Its investigation examined the entire pressure-relief circuit, including the internal pipework between the vessel and the safety valves.

SafeWork's post-incident recommendations include measures directed specifically at preventing recurrence of the common-pathway failure. Among other measures, it recommends ensuring that relief piping is purged and free from moisture, examining piping configurations for locations where moisture can accumulate, and performing commissioning or acceptance testing capable of demonstrating that the complete pressure-relief circuit is clear and functional.

That distinction is important for Redondo Beach.

Testing a pressure-relief valve demonstrates that the valve works.

It does not necessarily demonstrate that:

VESSEL → RELIEF INLET → INTERNAL PIPING → MANIFOLD → PRV constitutes an unobstructed pressure-relief pathway.

The Australian accident demonstrated the potentially catastrophic difference between those two propositions.

Comparison With United States Pressure-Relief Requirements The Australian accident should not be discounted on the theory that Australian pressure-relief requirements are fundamentally different from those applicable in the United States.

They are not materially different with respect to the safety principles implicated by this failure.

Both regulatory systems require cryogenic pressure vessels to be protected against excessive pressure by appropriately designed and sized pressure-relief devices. Both systems recognize the importance of an unobstructed relief pathway, appropriate set pressures and sufficient relieving capacity.

In the United States, CGA S-1.3, Pressure Relief Device Standards—Part 3—Stationary Storage Containers for Compressed Gases, establishes minimum requirements for pressurerelief devices installed on stationary storage vessels constructed under the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or equivalent requirements. CGA identifies S-1.3 as applicable to stationary storage tanks and specifically addresses PRD sizing, venting, installation, testing and related requirements. The current edition was published in September 2024 and is referenced by both NFPA and ICC.

NFPA requirements similarly address the integrity of the complete relief pathway. Current NFPA material requires vent lines to be sized and arranged so they do not restrict PRD discharge and specifically requires piping to prevent restriction or closure caused by frozen condensation or rainwater, among other obstructions.

The U.S. standards therefore recognize essentially the same physical hazard demonstrated by the Australian accident:

A pressure-relief valve cannot protect a vessel if the pathway between the vessel and the pressure-relief device becomes obstructed.

Comparable Standards Mean the Australian Accident Is Relevant The appropriate conclusion is therefore not that the Australian vessel failed because Australia had materially inadequate pressure-relief requirements.

The more important conclusion is:

The Australian and U.S. pressure-relief requirements for bulk cryogenic storage are substantially comparable in the respects relevant to this accident. Both rely upon appropriately sized pressure-relief devices connected to an effective, unobstructed relief pathway. Consequently, the Australian accident demonstrates a common-mode failure mechanism that is potentially relevant to a U.S.-compliant cryogenic installation.

This is particularly important when a design is described simply as having a "dual pressurerelief system." Two pressure-relief valves do not necessarily provide two independent means of protection.

If the arrangement is:

VESSEL → COMMON PIPE OR PASSAGE → PRV #1 + PRV #2
then blockage of that common component can disable both pressure-relief devices simultaneously.

The Australian accident demonstrated that this is not merely a theoretical engineering possibility. It occurred on an operating cryogenic vessel whose two pressure safety valves had been periodically inspected and tested.

Application to the Proposed Redondo Beach Tanks
For this reason, confirmation that the proposed tanks comply with ASME, CGA, NFPA or applicable California Fire Code requirements, while necessary, does not by itself answer the specific question raised by the Australian failure.

Nor would documentation merely identifying two pressure-relief valves resolve the issue.

The critical question is whether those two pressure-relief devices have genuinely independent pressure-relief pathways from the vessel, or whether there is any common internal or external piping, nozzle, manifold, passage, selector/diverter arrangement or other component whose obstruction could simultaneously prevent both devices from relieving vessel pressure.

This cannot reliably be determined from a general tank specification sheet or a statement that the vessel incorporates "dual PRVs."
It requires examination of the actual pressure-relief configuration.

Requested Documentation
Before approval of these cryogenic storage vessels, the City should require production of the Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) and, where necessary, manufacturer's sectional or fabrication drawings showing the complete pressure-relief pathway for the specific tank model and manufacture date proposed for installation.

The documentation should identify the pathway from the vessel vapor space through all internal and external piping and components to each required pressure-relief device.

The City should obtain sufficient documentation to establish that:

At no point do the required dual pressure-relief devices depend upon a common pipe, passage, nozzle, manifold or other pathway whose obstruction by ice, contamination, mechanical failure or another credible mechanism could simultaneously disable both pressure-relief devices.

If any common pathway does exist, the applicant should specifically identify it and provide the engineering analysis demonstrating how the Australian common-mode failure mechanism is prevented.

Conclusion
The SafeWork NSW investigation provides unusually valuable real-world evidence because the Australian tank was not an unprotected vessel. It had two pressure safety valves, both set at MAWP, and those valves had been periodically inspected and tested. Nevertheless, a single blockage in their common inlet pathway defeated both safety devices and the vessel catastrophically ruptured.

The United States likewise requires pressure-relief protection for stationary cryogenic storage vessels, and current U.S. standards expressly recognize the need to prevent restriction of pressure-relief pathways, including restriction caused by frozen condensation. CGA S-1.3 provides detailed requirements for pressure-relief devices on stationary storage containers and is referenced by NFPA and ICC.

Accordingly, the Australian event should not be dismissed because it occurred under a foreign regulatory system. The underlying pressure-relief safety principles are substantially comparable, and the physical common-mode failure mechanism is not jurisdiction-dependent.

The appropriate response is straightforward and verifiable:

The City should require the P&IDs and necessary manufacturer's drawings for the exact tank model and manufacture date proposed for installation and independently verify that the nominally redundant pressure-relief devices do not, at any point between the vessel and the relief devices, share a common pathway capable of producing the same common-mode failure demonstrated by the Australian accident.

Until that configuration is documented, describing the proposed tanks as having a "dual pressure-relief system" does not establish that they actually provide two independent means of protecting the vessel from catastrophic overpressure.

Note: These messages are emailed to all jurisdictions in SPA8 that BCHD is required to service for ALLCOVE, along with all funding agencies.

BCHD's CEO has repeatedly LIED to the Media
CEO Bakaly told the Easy Reader News that the current 4-story hospital was 60-feet tall. It is NOT. It is 51.5-feet tall according to the BCHD Drawings that were part of the nearly $13M pre-development taxpayer spend.

CEO Bakaly's response was "I DON'T KNOW" in a later Easy Reader News interview when he was explicitly asked from the BCHD Drawings if the 4-story hospital was 51.5-feet tall.

CEO BAKALY WAS THE SIGNATORY AND NAMED SUBMITTER OF THE PLANS TO THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH. "I DON'T KNOW" WAS A LIE -- OR-- one of the biggest admissions of INCOMPETENCE of any CEO ever! BCHD and CEO Bakaly must be held accountable for their PUBLIC LIES!

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Sean Scully; Marc Wiener; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford Subject: Public Comment City Council and Planning Department - Defective Staff Report and Attachments for Liquified Gas Storage at 2477 MBB
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2026 10:15:33 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The staff report is frequently unsupported and uses incorrect references for permanent tank installation. Other specific comments were previously submitted.

The site plan is woefully inadequate. There isn't even a street name labeled.

Project renderings have no blast shielding, noise protection of even simple fencing. In short, they are inadequate.

Staff refers to DOT Emergency Response Guidebook 2024 (ERG 2024), published by PHMSA. That is a manual for transportation use. The manual itself states "This guide is designed for use at a dangerous goods incident on a highway or railroad. It may have limited value at fixed-facility locations, or onboard aircrafts or vessels." References are inappropriate for the FIXED HAZARDS of four 12,000 gallon tanks. The entire analysis is suspect if those analyzing are unaware of the proper resources and use resources that ARE NOT INTENDED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD FIXED USE RUPTURE.

The appropriate references for permitting of a permanent installation are:
2025 California Fire Code, Chapter 55 — Cryogenic Fluids. Argon is expressly classified by the CFC as an inert cryogenic fluid.

NFPA 55 — Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids Code. NFPA states that the code provides safeguards for installation, storage, use and handling of compressed gases and cryogenic fluids in stationary tanks.

ANSI/CGA P-18 — Standard for Bulk Inert Gas Systems. This is particularly important because it is written specifically for bulk argon, nitrogen and helium systems and covers siting, equipment selection, installation, startup, maintenance and removal.

CGA S-1.3 — Pressure Relief Device Standards, Part 3. This is the detailed CGA standard for PRDs on stationary compressed-gas storage containers constructed under the ASME pressurevessel code.

ASME BPVC Section VIII. This governs pressure-vessel design, fabrication, inspection, testing and certification.

CGA P-12 — Safe Handling of Cryogenic and Refrigerated Liquids. It expressly covers argon and cryogenic-liquid storage and handling.

CGA P-69 — Emergency Response to Cryogenic Liquid Releases. Unlike the DOT ERG, this specifically applies to stationary storage-tank releases.

The PHMSA ERG Guide 120 is useful for consequence-response planning—not design approval.

Overall, the Staff analysis continues to be insufficient to make the case that the project is safe or that it meets the threshold required for a variance.

From: Mark Nelson
To: CityClerk; Building Redondo; [email protected]; Mike Witzansky; Paige Kaluderovic; Marc Wiener; Stephen Sprengel; James Light Subject: Public comment, city Council, Planning commission, Planning department and code enforcement Date: Saturday, September 12, 2026 9:03:31 AM
Attachments: IMG_2728.PNG
IMG_2727.PNG
IMG_2726.PNG
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Twice this week, Beach cities health District has ignored municipal code and constructed outside of allowed days and hours. They had backhoes going on Labor Day that had to be shut down by the police. And on Saturday they had crews there at 7:30 and I grabbed some security cam footage that's time stamped around 8 o'clock and they were building forms for concrete. This needs to end. Beach cities is a CEQA lead agency, they did the EIR for redevelopment, they put in the mitigations, and they need to enforce their contractors. This contract is inked by the CFO of Beach cities herself. This is a formal complaint and we need to get the city to deal with what Beach cities refuses to deal with as a self contractor. The rules are clear in the municipal code and Beach cities doesn't care. Enforce the law and stop the local quality of life destruction by BCHD.

Dictated to Siri.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: info
Cc: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD Malfeasance
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 5:32:31 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment: How can a public agency have a FINANCE 101 level error in its annual report and audited financials for 7 years, and have NO ONE at BCHD, or the AUDITORS, or the paid "award" granting taxpayer funded Trade Association even notice? Because that's how the Public Sector wastes TAXPAYER FUNDING?

33.8482, -118.37982CA
2 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Joy Ford
Cc: [email protected]; CityClerk; Building Redondo; Mike Witzansky; Paige Kaluderovic; Marc Wiener; Stephen Sprengel; James Light
Subject: Re: Public comment, city Council, Planning commission, Planning department and code enforcement Date: Saturday, September 12, 2026 9:52:17 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Final update. I was told that around 6pm one of the neighbors took the contractor a copy of the RBMC time for Saturday operations. They disbursed shortly there after. Pretty clearly they would have operated until later without notice.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 5:10 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Update - BCHD contractors are continuing to work after 5PM on Saturday. Assuming that they don't start running the backhoe, generators, or power tools, we'll let it go. If that happens, we will call the police and require BCHD and its contractors to ADHERE to RBMC 9-1.12
Despite the fact that BCHD is the lead CEQA agency and the general contractor, it's clear that BCHD has no experience, expertise nor intent of following Federal, State and Local laws for development and construction.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 2:10 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Correcting City Attorney email address
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 9:03 AM
Subject: Public comment, city Council, Planning commission, Planning department and code enforcement
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>, Marc Wiener <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, James Light <[email protected]> Twice this week, Beach cities health District has ignored municipal code and constructed outside of allowed days and hours. They had backhoes going on Labor Day that had to be shut down by the police. And on Saturday they had crews there at 7:30 and I grabbed some security cam footage that's time stamped around 8 o'clock and they were building forms for concrete. This needs to end. Beach cities is a CEQA lead agency, they did the EIR for redevelopment, they put in the mitigations, and they need to enforce their contractors. This contract is inked by the CFO of Beach cities herself. This is a formal complaint and we need to get the city to deal with what Beach cities refuses to deal with as a self contractor. The rules are clear in the municipal code and Beach cities doesn't care.

Enforce the law and stop the local quality of life destruction by BCHD.

Dictated to Siri.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Joy Ford
Cc: [email protected]; CityClerk; Building Redondo; Mike Witzansky; Paige Kaluderovic; Marc Wiener; Stephen Sprengel; James Light
Subject: Re: Public comment, city Council, Planning commission, Planning department and code enforcement Date: Saturday, September 12, 2026 5:11:22 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Update - BCHD contractors are continuing to work after 5PM on Saturday. Assuming that they don't start running the backhoe, generators, or power tools, we'll let it go. If that happens, we will call the police and require BCHD and its contractors to ADHERE to RBMC 9-1.12 Despite the fact that BCHD is the lead CEQA agency and the general contractor, it's clear that BCHD has no experience, expertise nor intent of following Federal, State and Local laws for development and construction.

On Sat, Sep 12, 2026 at 2:10 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

The rules are clear in the municipal code and Beach cities doesn't care. Enforce the law and stop the local quality of life destruction by BCHD.

Dictated to Siri.

Sent from my iPhone

Redondo Beach City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
September 15, 2026