Attachment 9 – Public Comments — Redondo Beach City Council, October 6, 2026

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPEAL RECORD
October Appeal to CC -
Public Comments
2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard
Case No. 2026-0595

COMPLETE PUBLIC-COMMENT RECORD
45 distinct email submissions
Chronological by original public sender within each meeting section AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION 16 comments
SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION 18 comments
OCTOBER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL 11 comments
Duplicate source files excluded; supporting materials retained with the parent email October 2026 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission Public
Comments
Meeting Date: August 20, 2026
Agenda Item J.1 - Case No. 2026-0595

PUBLIC COMMENT COMPILATION
16 distinct email submissions
Original public-sender dates: August 6 - August 20, 2026 Emails are arranged by the original public sender's date and time. Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers are permanently redacted. 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Case No. 2026-0595
PUBLIC COMMENT 01 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Roxanne Ferebee

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 4:34 PM

SUBJECT
Re: IMPULSE INDUSTRIES
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Roxanne Ferebee
To: Marc Wiener
Cc: Scott Behrendt; James Light; Mike Witzansky; Quality of Life; Steven Giang Subject: Re: IMPULSE INDUSTRIES
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2026 4:34:27 PM
Attachments: image001.png
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

August 6/2026,
Good Afternoon,
I would like to follow up on your offer of scheduling a meeting, to go over some current concerns that are happening across the street from our homes.

There seems to be a lot of activity regarding Impulse Industries with no community outreach, information or any contact information.

I have looked at past City Council meetings and I can not find any early discussions on this project that appeared in our area.

It would be nice to have some knowledge and answers when we reach out to the city, when this type of construction and development is going to happen in our neighborhood. For several months I have been reaching out to the city and have been told to call/email this person, that person, and just recently I was advised to NOW reach out to the planning department. I approached our planning commissioner in district 5, and he was not aware of this project. Who in the planning department has the answers and why couldn't I have been advised to reach out to that contact months ago?
This is not just a simple business moving in after a similar business moved out.

These are major changes to the structure of the current property - walls, windows, doors, lighting and the change of the type of work that will be done at the property.

Impulse Industries clearly states they will do their hot testing (Rocket engines) in the Mojave desert, however, they also state that they will be doing testing at the new Redondo Beach 60,000 square-foot facility
The site discusses:
-Vibration testing
-Heat testing (not rocket boosters) but products being assembled to withstand extreme heat -Cooling testing for products to withstand extreme freezing temperatures.

What about the installment of a half dozen new electrical transformers, and new grotesquely large AC units across the rooftops, visibly noticeable to accommodate the electrical surge for extreme heat and cooling testing of products. What liquids will be stored over there.

With 3 Major warehouse fires in the last few months, what precautions are being made for safety?
Warehouse fire and Garden Grove scare test CA chemical safety Garden Grove chemical leak plant faces lawsuits, supply disruption - Los Angeles Times And with the notice of an increase (several hundred employees), how are they going to accommodate the parking for workers.

We are now daily having numerous employees parking in the neighborhood at astonishing numbers.

As a 25 year resident, seeing 30+ extra cars parking on your residential street and dozens of strangers walking by our yards is a high alert safety concern.

Too much has been going on over at the location, with little information from the city.

Roxanne
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 1:07 PM Marc Wiener <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Roxanne,
The City has been working closely with Impulse Space on this project. The activities at this facility will primarily consist of product and component assembly, similar to their existing facility in Redondo Beach. The rocket testing occurs at their facility in Mojave Desert and will not take place at the facility in Redondo Beach. Impulse Space is working on an information brochure that they will be circulating to the neighborhood soon. I am happy to speak with you sometime this week about the project.

Marc Wiener, AICP
Community Development Director
310.697.3185
[email protected]
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).

From: Lorena Soules <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 9:36 AM
To: Roxanne Ferebee
Cc: James Light <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Daisy Canales <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: IMPULSE INDUSTRIES
Good morning Roxanne,
Thank you for your follow-up email and for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the construction activity and the Impulse Industries project. I appreciate your patience while I gathered information.

Regarding your concerns about employee parking and whether the project is providing adequate parking, these matters fall under the City's Planning Division and are governed by the Redondo Beach Municipal Code parking regulations. For questions regarding parking requirements, land use approvals, or conditions of approval associated with this project, please contact the Project Planner:

Steven Giang, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (310) 697-3696
Mr. Giang will be able to discuss the applicable parking requirements, any planning-related approvals associated with the project, and answer questions regarding the approved land use.

If you are interested in learning more about the project, the approved construction plans are public records and are available for review at City Hall. Mr. Giang can review the approved plans with you and discuss the project, including the approved use and any applicable Planning conditions.

With respect to your concern regarding construction activity beginning at approximately 6:00 a.m., the City's permitted construction hours are enforced through Code Enforcement and the Police Department. If you observe construction occurring outside the permitted hours, I recommend contacting the Redondo Beach Police Department Non-Emergency Dispatch at (310) 379-2477 while the activity is occurring. Reporting it at the time of the occurrence allows the incident to be documented and investigated appropriately.

Regarding the construction signage, the City does require that construction projects post signage identifying the contractor and providing contact information. I appreciate your feedback that it would also be helpful for nearby residents to have contact information for the project owner or owner's representative. I will reach out to the project team and request that the primary project contact, in addition to the contractor's information, be included on the project signage to improve communication with the surrounding neighborhood.

I understand the neighborhood's interest in learning more about the future operations of the business. Questions regarding the approved use of the property, operational activities, and any Planning approvals are best directed to the Planning Division, as they oversee the land use entitlements and conditions associated with the project.

Thank you again for bringing these matters to the City's attention. We appreciate residents taking the time to report concerns so they can be directed to the appropriate department for review.

Sincerely,
Lorena Soules, CBO, CASp
Building Official
310.697.0636
[email protected]
For further assistance contact [email protected] or call 310-318-0636.

Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).

From: Roxanne Ferebee
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 4:45 PM
To: Lorena Soules <[email protected]>
Cc: James Light <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Daisy Canales <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IMPULSE INDUSTRIES
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hello,
I am checking back for a follow up regarding my email.

There remain numerous concerns about the ongoing construction and development across the street with the business Impulse Industries.

We remain concerned about the lack of information regarding the business, what their operations will be, the parking issues for the employees, and the massive changes to the nature of the warehouses across the street from Redondo Beach residential homes, to accommodate "space industries operations"
We still have construction being done in violation of city codes. Yesterday 7/16/2026, we had jack hammering and other construction work start at 6am. My neighbor physically walked over to the site at 615 am, looking for a supervisor. None was able to be found. She approached the security guard at the gate and asked about the sign that states "Construction hours" and she states they just shrugged their shoulders.

The work stopped until she left the site, then they started right back up.

We also are continuing to have our streets being impacted with Impulse employees parking here.

We would also like to have a better understanding what type of work will be done across the street close to our homes.

Residents here are concerned by - what we see being done to the warehouse site and the changes being made to a simple storage warehouse -to accomodate what Impulse Industries manufactures and the types of testing that is needed for their business.

Why have the residents in this neighborhood not been advised of what the situation is.

I can find no discussion to the community of this, by the city, or of any notice to the residents.

We have reached out to the city a few times and are still waiting for some information on how we can be assured we will not be victims of a massive toxic warehouse fire, as seen in the latest news, or be exposed to toxic waste, heat, vibrations and noise.

Impulse Industries own websites discusses the "testing" they will be doing at their "new RB location", and it is unclear how all the changes being done to that location and the inhouse testing expected to be done, is not going to affect the homes across the street.

Please help provide some follow up information.

Thank you
Roxanne
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 4:05 PM Lorena Soules <[email protected]> wrote:

Roxanne,
Your email is received, I will respond soon.

Thank you,
Lorena Soules, CBO, CASp
Building Official
310.697.0636
[email protected]
For further assistance contact [email protected] or call 310-318-0636.

Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).

From: Roxanne Ferebee
Sent: Wednesday, July 1
To: Lorena Soules <[email protected]>
Cc: James Light <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Daisy Canales <[email protected]> Subject: IMPULSE INDUSTRIES
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Good Afternoon,
I have an additional concern regarding the ongoing process of Impulse Industries located on Manhattan beach blvd in North Redondo beach.

We have begun to notice a number of additional vehicles parking in our neighborhood that are not in - anyway - associated with the residents who live here. This is an immense concern.

It was known that on the Manhattan Beach "front street" that runs east / west between Gibson and Mcbain - had become a huge parking lot for the Impulse employees located across the street at 2651 MBBLVD.

Six months ago myself and a neighbor counted the cars parked on that side street and as a homeowner 25+ years of living and daily walking our neighborhood, we have a very strong "knowing' of who's cars belong to which houses on our streets. We counted 27 cars parked there that were not from the homes on that street.

With Impulse expanding over to the new area at 2425 MBBLVD we are NOW seeing Impulse employees parking on Sebald and walking over to the warehouses. I asked the workers if there was a problem with parking due to the ongoing construction and they said - There just is not enough parking and to contact the CEO Tom Mueller.

Doesn't the city and planning assess this during the application and permitting process. I have watched and attended enough city council meetings and watched the city express concerns and guidelines with new construction and the parking requirements.

While our streets are public, this is a safety and quality of life issue impacting our homes in Redondo Beach.

Does Impulse have no obligation to provide adequate parking for its employees and are not getting the grilling and scrutiny regarding parking concerns like many other applicants are forced to abide by.

If this is a temporary matter due to ongoing construction / remodeling work, over there - we can be patient, but 5 cars turn into 10, then 20, then 30, then 40.

Also curious why are they not obligated to put some contact information up to call, like a construction manager? owners rep?)
Also is there any information on when we can expect the construction process to be close to being somewhat completed?
Thanks for your help
Roxanne
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.

Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.

PUBLIC COMMENT 02 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Roxanne Ferebee

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 5:46 PM

SUBJECT
Fwd: neighbors concerned about Impulse Industries
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Jamaal Brown
To: ‘Sean Scully Cc: ‘Mare Wiener Subject: FW: neighbors concerned about Impulse Industries Date: Thursday, August 6, 2026 5:51:28 PM Attachments: imaaeQO1.ona
Jamaal Brown
Planning Analyst
310.697.3142
Please complete our short Customer Service Survey if you would like to share your experience with management and help us improve our services! @%& REDONDO == BEACH Business Hours: 7:30AM-5:30PM
Please note: City Hall is closed holidays and every other Friday From: Roxanne Fereh:>
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 5:46 PM
To: Jamaal Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: neighbors concerned about Impulse Industries You don't often get email {rom III Lcarn why this is important | reached out to the city this am for information on how to email our Planning Commisioner / District 5 Roger Light.

He lives several blocks from us in North Redondo (TRW) tract and | spoke to him regarding some concerns and he asked that | send him some information. | called the Planning office and was told to reach out to you? lam forwarding an email for him, please advise if this is the correct process to have this information sent to him.

To Dr. Light,
We spoke last week regarding some concerns about Impulse Industries and the building and expansion of the business located on MBBLVD.

There were a number of issues you asked me to send to you - but - there is no direct RBemail for you (per the Planning office - and | was advised to email this person as a liaison?)
| have many concerns, and NOW...
we just received a public hearing notice on this matter coming to you at the next Planning commission meeting.

Please reach out to me via email, | would love to come by and discuss this - and say hello to Dr. Lori.(it's been awhile, | cc'd an old email address) Roxanne
text a
weseeenn= Forwarded message ---------
From: Roxanne Ferebee is
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 5:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: neighbors concerned about Impulse Industries To: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>
cece ncnne Forwarded message ---------
From: Roxanne Ferebee
Date: Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 5:22 PM
Subject: neighbors concerned about Impulse Industries
To: <[email protected]>
For several months, | have reached out to the city and elected officials regarding Impulse Industries.

There has been an unsatisfactory response on providing the information to residents when they need to know when a large business corporation is embarking on a massive restructuring of the building area and the change of day to day operations, directly across the street from an entire residential community.

Of all the questions and inquiries sent to the city with minimal answers, TODAY our neighborhood received the "city of redondo beach notice of public hearing" that will be held on THIS months planning commission meeting to review a request for “a variance to exceed the 30 foot maximum height requirement:

For the installation of three 3 BULK cryogenic storage tanks with a proposed height of 38 feet at the existing facility" ie: they want to go to 4 stories.

This ?? 300 ft. from our homes? How long was the city aware of this and why was this not disclosed?
Warehouse fire and Garden Grove scare test CA chemical safet After all the inquiries, emails and calls to the city and code enforcement, related to construction without approved permits, violations of construction hours (3 am, 11pm, 5am, Sundays etc.) and violations of construction rules on the ground, digging, dust control, parking issues, and even being shut down due violations, why is this just now becoming public knowledge.

Again,
How long was the city aware of this and why was this not disclosed by anyone when we asked?
This is ridiculous, so unsafe and how did the city do this? Roxanne
Understanding Cryogenic Liquids and Storage Safety Near Residential Areas Cryogenic liquids are gases that remain in liquid form only at extremely low temperatures — below about -150 °C (-238 °F) — such as liquid nitrogen (-196 °C), liquid oxygen (-183 °C), liquid argon (-186 °C), and others like hydrogen or methane Environment, Health & Safety+1.

They are odorless, colorless, and expand into large volumes of gas when they warm to room temperature, which can create significant pressure and safety hazards.

Key Hazards
Extreme cold: Can cause frostbite or cold burns on contact with skin or equipment Environment,
Health & Safety+1.

Oxygen deficiency: Large volumes of gas released can displace oxygen, leading to asphyxiation in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces
Environment, Health & Safety.

Pressure build-up: Rapid vaporization in sealed containers can rupture tanks Air Products.

Material embrittlement: Cold temperatures can make metals, plastics, and rubber brittle Air Products.

Flammability: Some cryogens (e.g., hydrogen, methane) are flammable; others (e.g., oxygen) can make nearby flammable materials more combustible Environment, Health & Safety.

Storage Tank Design
Cryogenic storage tanks are engineered to minimize heat transfer:

Inner vessel: Holds the liquid, made from materials strong at cryogenic temperatures.

Outer jacket: Encloses the inner vessel, often with a vacuum and multi-layer insulation to reduce boil-off www.cryogenictank.com+1.

Pressure relief systems: Valves and rupture discs prevent over-pressurization www.cryogenictank.com+1.

Ventilation: Tanks are typically located in well-ventilated areas to prevent oxygen depletion Linde.

Should They Be Near Residential Areas?
No — cryogenic storage tanks should not be located close to residential areas without strict safety controls.

Nearby homes or occupied spaces increase the risk of:

Asphyxiation if gases leak into air.

Cold injury from splashes or leaks.

Fire or explosion if flammable cryogens are involved.

Unnoticed leaks because cryogens are odorless and colorless Environment, Health & Safety+1.

Best practice:

Store cryogenic liquids in dedicated, well-ventilated, and isolated facilities away from public access.

Maintain buffer zones and perimeter controls to limit exposure.

Conduct hazard assessments and install gas detection and ventilation systems Environment, Health & Safety+1.

Follow local, state, and federal regulations for hazardous material storage.

In summary: Cryogenic liquids are essential in many industries but pose serious health and safety risks. Storage tanks should be kept away from residential ar with engineering an ministrative controls in pl. to protect ni PUBLIC COMMENT 03 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Mark Nelson

ORIGINAL SENT
Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 7:25 PM

SUBJECT
Public Comment - Planning Commission - Permit
Application Defects - 2425/2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Sean Scully
Ce: Fire-HHMDCERS@fire,Jacounty.gov
Subject: Public Comment - Planning Commission - Permit Application Defects - 2425/2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 7:25:47 PM
Attachments: RB Cryogenic Tank Permit Record Deficiency Memo,odf Planning Commission, Planning Department, RBFD, RBPD, City Attorney On behalf of a resident approximately 1000 feet or less from the permit action property, | file the following analysis and defect list of the application and materials. This application has not had proper QA/QC and must be corrected prior to wasting any more of the public's time. LA County Fire has been noticed as well. As a process note, the City should have had the public materials posted concurrent with the signage. The public was forced to waste significant time, effort and analysis guessing what the permit request entailed. As is, the current permit package and record is filled with contradictions and has lacks significant disclosures. See below. Ata minimum, the proponent and the City need to complete the punch list at the end of the memo.

Mark Nelson
Expert Witness

MEMORANDUM
TO Redondo Beach Planning Commission; Redondo Beach
Fire Department; Redondo Beach Police Department;
Redondo Beach City Attorney; Community
Development Department; Building & Safety Division
CC/ OTHER JURISDICTIONAL Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous REVIEW Materials Division / CUPA, as applicable; other
hazardous-materials and emergency-response
agencies having jurisdiction
FROM Interested public / permit-record review
DATE August 15, 2026
RE 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard — Case No. 2026-
0595 / PC26-1012 — Cryogenic Storage Tank Variance
SUBJECT Inconsistencies, informational shortfalls, public-safety deficiencies, and items that should be remedied before
approval

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The submitted package is not presently a coherent, site-specific safety record for the proposed installation. It contains material contradictions about the number of tanks, the products to be stored, and even the project address. It also omits basic information needed to evaluate the relationship between the tanks and the immediately adjacent residential neighborhood.

The most consequential defect is the absence of a readable vicinity/context map showing street names, property boundaries, surrounding land uses, residences, tank-to-property-line distances, tank-to-residence distances, emergency access, delivery routes, and the applicant's own emergency isolation distances. The Administrative Report expressly recognizes R-1 residences south of the site across Manhattan Beach Boulevard, while the safety presentation instructs responders to establish a 330-foot isolation zone for a large release or vessel damage and a one-half-mile isolation distance for a fire involving a tank. Those facts should be shown together on a single scaled map before the Commission makes findings concerning safety, neighborhood impacts, or CEQA.

The record also does not disclose the capacity, inventory, operating pressure/MAWP, manufacturer/model, relief-device discharge configuration, or U-1/nameplate data for each proposed vessel. The applicant's safety presentation repeatedly states that such vessel-specific documentation exists or is available to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, but it is not included in the public packet. Without the quantities and design data, staff and the public cannot independently verify NFPA 55 quantity-dependent requirements, setbacks, emergency planning assumptions, delivery frequency, or the consequences of a credible release.

These deficiencies do not establish that the proposed tanks are unsafe. They establish that the present record is insufficiently consistent and site-specific to support the broad safety conclusions stated in the Administrative Report and draft findings. The appropriate remedy is to require a corrected, consolidated submittal and documented review by the agencies having jurisdiction before final approval or, at minimum, before the tanks may be installed or filled.

1. Documents Reviewed
« Administrative Report, File No. PC26-1012, meeting date August 20, 2026.

Attachment 1 — Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-08-PCR-11.

Attachment 2 — Site Plan, including revision notation “Tank Relocation 8/12/26.” Attachment 3 — Project Renderings.

Attachment 4 — Bulk Cryogenic Storage Safety & Compliance Presentation, prepared by Matheson, dated June 9, 2026.
e Attachment 5— CEQA Exemption Declaration, dated August 20, 2026. e Attachment 6 — Public Comment and City correspondence.

2. Principal Record Inconsistencies
A. Tank count is inconsistent
The CEQA Exemption Declaration describes three tanks. The Administrative Report and title of the draft Resolution describe four tanks, with three initially. The Resolution's conditions attempt to reconcile this by authorizing three initially and a fourth in the future. A CEQA determination and project description should address the same project that is being approved, including the reasonably contemplated fourth tank.

Record references: Attachment 5 describes “three bulk cryogenic storage tanks”; Administrative Report describes “four (three initially)”; Draft Resolution authorizes three initially and a future fourth.

The record is sloppy and convoluted.

B. Stored products are inconsistent — and liquid oxygen appears in the safety record The Administrative Report first states that the tanks will store liquid nitrogen (LIN) and liquid argon (LAR). Its Safety section then states that the proposed storage includes liquid nitrogen, liquid argon, and liquid oxygen (LOX). The Matheson presentation is titled for LIN/LAR, but its Executive Summary and emergency instructions also refer to liquid oxygen. By contrast, the submitted site plan labels two LN2 tanks, one LAR tank, and a future LAR/LN2 tank.

This is not a clerical detail. LOX is an oxidizer with a materially different fire-risk profile from inert LIN/LAR. The approved product for each tank must be unambiguous, and any future product conversion should require prior Fire/CUPA review and any necessary land-use or environmental review.

C. Project address is inconsistent
The Planning documents identify 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The Matheson AHJ safety presentation identifies the site as “2425 Manhattan Beach.” Public correspondence also refers to 2425. The safety document therefore should be corrected and reissued for the exact parcel and installation being approved.

D. The safety presentation makes site-specific claims without supplying the site-specific proof The presentation states that NFPA 55 requirements are met or exceeded, that secondary containment will hold 110% of the largest vessel, that an emergency shutoff is accessible outside the exclusion zone, and that a site map identifies exclusion zones and emergency access. Those items are either not shown in the Planning packet or cannot be verified from the submitted plan. A conclusion of compliance should be supported by a code matrix and drawings demonstrating the applicable distances and features.

3. Missing Site Context — Critical Mapping Defect
The packet lacks a usable vicinity map with street names and surrounding uses. Attachment 2 is essentially an internal facility plan. It does not give the Planning Commission or first responders a clear neighborhood-scale depiction of the hazard source relative to the public.

At minimum, a corrected scaled exhibit should show:

Manhattan Beach Boulevard and all surrounding streets by name; the project parcel boundary and adjoining parcel boundaries; all adjacent zoning and actual land uses, with the R-1 residential area prominently identified; the location of the nearest residences and measured distances from each tank, fill connection, vent/PRV discharge point, and property line; e the 100-meter/330-foot isolation radius cited by the applicant for a large release or vessel damage;
e the 800-meter/one-half-mile isolation radius cited for a fire involving a tank, preferably as a separate emergency-planning exhibit;
¢ prevailing access points, Fire Department apparatus access, hydrants/FDC, emergency shutoff location, staging area, and HAZMAT access;
¢ cryogenic delivery truck route, on-site maneuvering/turning, unloading location, and whether a delivery vehicle blocks emergency access;
topography, drainage direction, low areas, pits, trenches, storm drains, and other locations where cold argon or nitrogen gas could accumulate;
the location and height of walls/fences and any structures that may channel or confine a vapor cloud.

4. Vessel and Inventory Information Is Missing
The public record should identify each tank as an actual engineered vessel, not merely as a 38-foot generic cryogenic tank. The Matheson presentation itself says the AHJ can review Form U-1, nameplate photographs, National Board registration, manufacturer certificates, and inspection information. Those records should be submitted before a finding of site-specific compliance. e Manufacturer, model, serial number, National Board number and ASME U-stamp. documentation for each vessel.
¢ Gross and usable capacity of each vessel in gallons and pounds; maximum inventory of LIN, LAR and any LOX.
e Normal operating pressure, design pressure, MAWP, design temperature, and relief-device set pressures/capacities.
e Exact tank diameter and overall height, foundation/anchorage design, center of gravity, and seismic design criteria.
¢ Fill connection, piping, vaporizers, valves, emergency shutoffs, relief devices, rupture discs, vent outlets and discharge elevations/directions.
¢ Product-specific Safety Data Sheets and a definitive tank/product assignment. ¢ Maximum delivery-truck inventory and transfer hose location during filling. e Expected consumption rate and substantiation for the stated approximately weekly delivery frequency.

5. Emergency Planning Is Not Adequately Connected to the Residential Setting
The applicant's own safety presentation classifies a release greater than 10 gallons as a life-safety emergency, directs evacuation and HAZMAT response, cites 330 feet as an initial isolation/downwind planning distance for LIN/LAR, and cites one-half mile for a fire involving a tank. Yet the Planning packet contains no neighborhood emergency plan, no overlay showing how many residences fall within those distances, and no documented evacuation/shelter protocol for the surrounding neighborhood.

The emergency contact page is also incomplete: the product supplier, tank manufacturer service contact, local Fire Department, and local HAZMAT team are left blank. Those blanks are inconsistent with the document's representation that it provides complete first-responder coordination.

6. Conditions of Approval Omit Several Measures Claimed in the Safety Presentation
The safety presentation lists several measures as site-specific safeguards, but the draft Resolution does not clearly make all of them enforceable conditions. Examples include:
secondary containment berm/dike sized to 110% of the largest vessel; minimum two-person rule for filling and transfer;
pre-operation checklist for every delivery/fill;
emergency shutoff accessible from outside the exclusion zone; fixed atmospheric monitoring in enclosed or semi-enclosed areas and portable monitoring where gas may accumulate;
¢ annual emergency-response training and annual cryogenic-release drill; ¢ daily visual inspections and maintenance/recordkeeping requirements; ¢ annual review/update of the safety packet upon changes in storage area, product or quantity.

If staff relies on these measures to support the safety finding, they should be incorporated expressly into enforceable conditions or into an approved safety plan incorporated by reference.

7. Fire Department / HAZMAT / CUPA Review Should Be Documented, Not Merely Described
The Administrative Report says staff consulted the Redondo Beach Fire Department and that Fire's assessment is consistent with staff's safety conclusion. The packet does not include a written Fire Department plan-review memorandum, code analysis, approval, conditions, or sign-off. For a large cryogenic installation adjacent to residences, the record should contain the actual written technical review.

Los Angeles County Fire Department is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for most incorporated areas of Los Angeles County, with Redondo Beach identified as a participating agency in County materials. County guidance requires hazardous-material handlers above reporting thresholds to submit hazardous-material inventory, a site map, emergency response/contingency information, and training information through CERS. The City should identify on the record which agency is administering each applicable hazardous-material program for this site and document required permits/submittals before operation.

8. CEQA Documentation Contains a Material Template/Error Issue and an Incomplete Project Description
Attachment 5 states that the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 because it is a “negligible expansion of the existing residence.” This is an industrial aerospace manufacturing facility, not a residence. That language appears to be an uncorrected template error in the operative exemption document.

More importantly, the Exemption Declaration describes only three tanks while the proposed entitlement contemplates a fourth. It also does not discuss the unusual site circumstance that single-family residences are immediately across Manhattan Beach Boulevard, even though the applicant's emergency materials identify substantial isolation distances for large releases and tank fires. The City Attorney should review whether the exemption record adequately defines the whole project and addresses applicable exceptions to categorical exemptions before the exemption is adopted.

9. Variance Findings Need Better Evidentiary Support
The draft findings state that the tank height/location cannot be materially reduced or relocated, that no feasible location exists, that nearby facilities have comparable taller tanks, and that a lower tank configuration would cause significantly more frequent deliveries. The packet does not provide the engineering alternatives analysis, tank-sizing calculation, delivery-frequency comparison, or mapped comparison facilities needed to evaluate those assertions.

The draft Resolution also states that strict adherence to the 30-foot height limit would “eliminate the ability of the property owner to use the property for the existing manufacturing facility.” That is substantially broader than the evidence shown in the packet. At most, the materials indicate that the proposed bulk-storage configuration supports operations; they do not demonstrate that the entire 250,600-square-foot manufacturing facility cannot be used without these particular 38-foot tanks.

10. Noise and Operational Impacts Are Deferred
Staff concludes that noise is not expected to impact adjacent properties, but the Resolution requires the applicant to provide a tank-operation noise report later and allows additional mitigation after measured violations. Given the acknowledged residential frontage, the better sequence is to establish baseline and predicted noise from filling, transfer equipment, venting/PRV events, truck idling and nighttime/off-hour scenarios before operation. The condition allowing “very limited” offhour deliveries as a minor change should also define objective limits and require Fire/Planning review.

11. Public Comment Identifies Broader Operational Context That Is Not Fully Resolved
The public correspondence raises construction-hour violations, employee parking spillover, substantial facility modifications, increased electricaV/mechanical equipment, testing activities, and uncertainty about materials stored on site. City correspondence directs several of these matters to Planning and acknowledges the need for better project contact information. The Administrative Report reduces the public correspondence to concerns about employee numbers and public safety.

The Commission should receive a clearer response matrix identifying which concerns are within this variance, which are governed by existing permits, and which require separate enforcement or entitlement review.

12. Recommended Agency Responsibilities
Agency / Office Recommended documented action
Planning Commission / Planning Division Require a corrected, internally consistent project description; neighborhood context map;
substantiation of variance findings; definitive
tank count/products; and conditions
incorporating relied-upon safety measures.

Redondo Beach Fire Department Issue written plan-review findings addressing adopted Fire Code/NFPA 55, quantities,
setbacks, separation, venting, vehicle
protection, access, monitoring, emergency
shutoffs, delivery operations and emergency
response.

Redondo Beach Police Department /
Emergency Management
Review traffic/access and neighborhood
evacuation or perimeter-control implications for
the applicant's 330-foot and one-half-mile
emergency planning distances; coordinate
public warning/traffic control roles.

City Attorney Review variance findings, CEQA project
description and exemption language, including
the “existing residence” error and the
contemplated fourth tank; confirm that deferred
safety measures are enforceable.

Building & Safety Verify structural foundation/anchorage, seismic design, electrical/mechanical work, barriers,
grading/drainage and consistency of final
construction drawings with approved plans.

Los Angeles County Fire Department HHMD /
CUPA and applicable Participating Agency
Confirm hazardous-material handler status,
CERS/HMBP inventory and site-map
requirements, emergency response/contingency
plan, applicable Unified Program permits,
inspections and any CalARP applicability.

PUNCH LIST — ITEMS TO REMEDY BEFORE APPROVAL / OPERATION The following is intended as a concise completion checklist for the Planning Commission and reviewing agencies. Items marked “before approval” affect the adequacy and consistency of the entitlement record; operational items should be completed and verified before any tank is filled.

Required correction Minimum remedy

1. Correct the project description Reconcile three versus four tanks in the Administrative Report, Resolution, CEQA
Exemption and drawings. Define whether the
fourth tank is part of the present project.

2. Definitively identify tank contents State the authorized product in each tank.

Resolve all references to LOX versus LIN/LAR.

Prohibit product substitution without prior
agency review.

3. Correct the project address Reissue the Matheson safety document for 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard or explain the
relationship of 2425 to the project parcel.

4. Provide a neighborhood-scale vicinity map Show street names, parcel boundaries, actual surrounding uses, R-1 residences, tank locations
and measured tank-to-home/property-line
distances.

5. Overlay emergency planning distances Map the applicant's 330-foot largerelease/vessel-damage isolation area and onehalf-mile tank-fire isolation area relative to residences, streets and neighboring facilities.

6. Provide complete vessel specifications For each tank: manufacturer/model, serial/National Board number, capacity,
maximum inventory, dimensions, operating
pressure, MAWP, design temperature and
product assignment.

7. Submit vessel certification records Provide ASME U-1 data reports, nameplate photographs, U-stamp/National Board
information, certificates of conformance and
applicable inspection records.

8. Submit a site-specific NFPA/Fire Code
compliance matrix
Identify the adopted code provisions, quantity
thresholds, required setbacks/separations, and
drawing references demonstrating compliance.

9. Provide complete engineered site drawings Show foundations/anchorage, seismic design, bollards, piping, fill points, vaporizers,
emergency shutoffs, PRVs/rupture discs, vent
discharge locations, walls, fencing, drainage and
containment.

10. Resolve secondary containment
discrepancy
The safety presentation promises 110%
containment; the Administrative
Report/Resolution largely reduce this to
grading/drainage. Show the actual design and
make it enforceable if relied upon.

11. Provide gas-dispersion / oxygen-deficiency
evaluation
Evaluate credible release scenarios using actual
inventories and site geometry, including low
areas, structures, wind and potential off-site
migration toward residences.

12. Address LOX separately if LOX is
contemplated
Provide oxidizer-specific code analysis,
separation from combustibles/flammables,
oxygen-enrichment monitoring/controls, fire
exposure analysis and emergency procedures.

13. Complete the emergency-response plan Include neighborhood interface, incident comman4d, isolation/evacuation/shelter criteria,
public notification, staging, responder access,
shutdown, re-entry and recovery.

14. Complete emergency contacts Fillin product supplier, tank manufacturer/service, local Fire Department and
local HAZMAT team contacts in the safety plan.

15. Obtain written RBFD technical review Place a signed/dated Fire Department review, conditions and approval in the public record
rather than relying solely on a staff statement
that Fire was consulted.

16. Confirm CUPA/CERS/HMBP requirements Identify the administering CUPA/participating agency and document required hazardousmaterial inventory, site map, emergency/contingency plan, training and
permits.

17. Verify emergency responder access Demonstrate apparatus access, hydrants/FDC, gate access, Knox/emergency access as
applicable, staging, and access during cryogenic
deliveries.

18. Provide delivery route and transfer plan Show truck route, turning, unloading position, transfer hose, duration, frequency, traffic
conflicts, emergency access and limits on offhour deliveries.

19. Substantiate weekly delivery claim Provide tank-sizing/consumption calculations and compare delivery frequency for the
proposed 38-foot tanks versus code-compliant
alternatives.

20. Provide alternatives analysis supporting
the variance
Document why shorter tanks, different
capacities, multiple smaller vessels, or alternate
on-site locations are infeasible or materially
inferior.

21. Correct and supplement the CEQA
Exemption Declaration
Remove the erroneous “existing residence”
language; reconcile tank count/products;
accurately describe the industrial project;
document City Attorney review of categoricalexemption applicability and exceptions.

22. Tighten the variance findings Remove or substantiate the assertion that the 30-foot limit would eliminate use of the entire
manufacturing facility. Cite evidence for claimed
physical hardship and comparable properties.

23. Make relied-upon safety measures Add conditions for two-person filling, pre-fill enforceable checklist, emergency shutoff, atmospheric
monitoring, training/drills,
inspections/maintenance and annual safetyplan updates if these measures support the safety finding.

24. Complete noise analysis before operation | Measure/model filling, transfer, venting/PRV and truck noise at the residential property line; define
objective mitigation and off-hour delivery limits.

25. Provide a public-comment response Address parking, construction hours, operational matrix testing, mechanical/electrical expansion,
hazardous materials, project contacts and
enforcement responsibility; distinguish issues
inside and outside this variance.

26. Require final interagency sign-off before No cryogenic product should be introduced until first fill Planning, Building & Safety, RBFD and the
applicable hazardous-materials/CUPA authority
confirm completion of their conditions.

Source Notes
e Administrative Report, PC26-1012 (Aug. 20, 2026): project description, zoning/residential adjacency, LIN/LAR and LOX references, safety/noise discussion, Fire Department consultation statement, variance findings, CEQA conclusion.
e Draft Resolution No. 2026-08-PCR-11: four-tank title, three-initial/fourth-future condition, construction and operational conditions, site-map/noise/delivery requirements. e Attachment 2 Site Plan: tank labels LN2, LN2, LAR, future LAR/LN2; internal layout; tank relocation revision dated Aug. 12, 2026.
e Matheson Bulk Cryogenic Storage Safety & Compliance Presentation (June 9, 2026): address 2425 Manhattan Beach; LIN/LAR title; LOX references; vessel documentation; hazards; 330-foot and one-half-mile emergency planning distances; site-specific safeguards; incomplete emergency contact fields.
e CEQA Exemption Declaration (Aug. 20, 2026): three-tank project description and statement that project is a negligible expansion of an “existing residence.” e Attachment 6 Public Comment: neighborhood concerns regarding operations, parking, construction activity, testing, materials and communication. e External jurisdictional check: Los Angeles County Fire Department CUPA/Hazardous Materials Program materials and California Cal/OSHA pressure-vessel materials were consulted only to identify potential reviewing agencies and program responsibilities; final applicability should be confirmed by the City/CUPA for the specific vessels and inventories.

PUBLIC COMMENT 04 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Roxanne Ferebee

ORIGINAL SENT
Sunday, August 16, 2026 at 4:57 PM

SUBJECT

IMPULSE SPACE ASKING FOR EXEMPTION ON SAFETY
STUDIES ETC.

The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: ‘Sean Scully To: Sean Scully Subject: FW: IMPULSE SPACE ASKING FOR EXEMPTION ON SAFETY STUDIES ETC. Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 12:16:25 PM From: Roxanne ere <<
Sent: Sunday, 16 August 2026 16:57:34
To: Brad Waller <[email protected]>; Chadwick B. Castle <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic ee Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <Scott. Behrendt @redondo.or:

Subject: IMPULSE SPACE ASKING FOR EXEMPTION ON SAFETY STUDIES ETC.

You don't often get email from [i Lam why this is
important
Hello City Council,
This Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the fence of the business property last week.

Many, many many (one household received a notice) neighbors have stated this was not received by residents across the street of this business.

Residents have been concerned about the retrofitting and construction activity at the site for over 8 months and have received very little data from the city when residents asked about the operations, filed complaints of violations, and are concerned of the lack of transparency and notice.

The Planning Commission will be asked on this Thursday 8/20/2026 to grant a height variance request - and- states the business is exempt from a number of important environmental, safety, fire, and other requirements due to its zoning (light industrial) and is compared to the Northrop G Space campus.

NG is a purpose built - facility - built to specifically meet the required needs of its operations.

While this warehouse is in light industrial zoning - its use has NOT been for this type of manufacturing or operations.

There has been a multitude of odd businesses throughout the years at this location. Auto parts storage, delivery and pickup (DHL, Dol&co?) furniture storage, office space, TV productions(e-ball) and NG temporarily while doing major remodeling projects to their other sites in the area. They used it for office space, mail & delivery, Trash and garbage storage, and a small design/think tank center.

Impulse Space is in the process of a major remodeling and restructuring of the entire area to accommodate their needs and has not been required to follow the guidelines most applicants are asked to meet.

We understand Impulse Space will remain in our neighborhood, and we support this business into our community but they need to meet the most stringent of requirements based on the nature of operations and be held accountable to the safety of the area.

We feel the city is being too lenient and is placing this whole area in a disaster zone.

We are asking the Planning Commissioners for a continuance on this project (as they have just received the 52+page staff report to consider action on this Thursday 8/20/2026) and to direct staff and the applicant to address the safety concerns and make safeguards enforceable.

We feel more time is needed to address the many concerns residents have been inquiring about. (The staff report will recommend an approval) Yet the report has errors, inconsistent data, lack of precise data, mapping defects, public safety deficiencies and items that should be remedied before approval.

This is an exciting and welcoming time for Redondo to have Impulse Space come to our area - BUT - the City better make sure everything is done properly, safely and wisely and not hastily.

The residents of Redondo Beach are not wanting to be impacted by something that looks negligent at this time.

Roxanne
8/16/2026
PUBLIC COMMENT 05 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Alicia Evans

ORIGINAL SENT
Monday, August 17, 2026 at 6:44 PM

SUBJECT
Public Comment RB Planning Commission Mtg 8/20 -
DEFECT LIST Impulse Space - Case No. 2026-0595
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

Sean Scully
From: alicia evans [is
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 6:44 PM
To: CityClerk; Sean Scully; alicia evans
Subject: Public Comment RB Planning Commission Mtg 8/20- DEFECT LIST Impulse Space- Case No. 2026-0595
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from in Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hello All,
| wanted to make sure that the residents of North Redondo are heard! Impulse Space has & continues to be a nuisance to the neighborhood residents and community of NRB.

However, it’s apparent the city desperately wants their business. It doesn’t care about the residents of North Redondo Beach at all. Impulse Space has clearly been a nuisance with the noise pollution of large semi trucks very early in the morning, dust and other particles polluting the air during construction and renovations, congestion of traffic, parking issues and employees parking in residential neighborhoods. The three 40 foot tanks of who knows what material is just the icing on the cake. It’s clear the city continues to sweep all of this under the rug and doesn’t even give notice to those neighborhoods involved.
limplore you to take the necessary steps & precautions regarding these tanks and not just push this through. See checklist on file below.
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1RImyE9CE4 Wd FQO108R306BiVOkUVO9pg%2Fview&data=05%7C02%7CSean.Scully%40redondo.org%7C4b7022f139bf4893 fod608defc ca34c4%7C08ea6101a7cb4984aff676e3d00172d'%7C0%7C0%7C639226142769150954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d 8eyJFbXBOeU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIIYiOilwLjAUMDAWMCISIIAiOUXaW4zMilsIkFOljoiTWFpbClslldUIjoyfQ%30%3D%7C80000 %7C%7C%7C&sdata=V%2FGWMi1LOFQw8P8m0%2B%2B3jmiBv4ckhSOxp1UfYVyRouPE%3D&reserved=0 Regards,
Alicia Evans
Sent from my iPhone
DEFECT LIST — ITEMS TO REMEDY BEFORE APPROVAL
The following is intended as a concise completion checklist for the Planning Commission and reviewing agencies. Items marked “before approval” affect the adequacy and consistency of the entitlement record; operational items should be completed and verified before any tank is filled.

Required correction Minimum remedy
T. Correct the project description Reconcile three versus four tanks in the Administrative Report, Resolution, CEQA Exemption and drawings, Define whether the fourth tank is part of the present project.

2. Definitively identify tank contents State the authorized product in each tank. Resolve all references to LOX versus LIN/LAR. Prohibit product substitution without prior agency review.

3. Correct the project address Reissue the Matheson safety document for 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard or explain the relationship of 2425 to the project parcel 4, Provide a neighborhood-scale vicinity map Show street names, parcel boundaries, actual surrounding uses, R- I residences, tank locations and measured tank-to-home/propertyline distances.

3. Overlay emergency planning distances Map the applicant's 330-foot large-release/vessel-damage isolation area and one-half-mile tank-fire isolation area relative to residences, streets and neighboring facilities.

6. Provide complete vessel specifications For cach tank: manufacturer/model, serial/National Board number, capacity, maximum inventory, dimensions, operating pressure, MAWP., design temperature and product assignment
7, Submit vessel certification records Provide ASME U-I data reports, nameplate photographs, U- stamp/National Board information, certificates of conformance and applicable inspection records.

8. Submit a site-specific NFPA/Fire Code compliance matrix Identify the adopted code provisions, quantity thresholds, required setbacks/separations, and drawing references demonstrating compliance

9. Provide complete engineered site drawings Show foundations/anchorage, seismic design, bollards, piping, fill points, vaporizers, emergency shutoffs, PRVs/rupture discs, vent discharge locations, walls, fencing, drainage and containment.

10. Resolve secondary containment discrepancy The safety presentation promises 110% containment; the Administrative Report/Resolution largely reduce this to grading/drainage. Show the actual design and make it enforceable if relied upon.

TI. Provide gas-dispersion / oxygen-deficiency evaluation Evaluate credible release scenarios using actual inventories and site geometry, including low areas, structures, wind and potential off-site migration toward residences.

12. Address LOX separately if LOX is contemplated Provide oxidizer-specific code analysis, separation from combustibles/flammables, oxygen-enrichment monitoring/controls, fire exposure analysis and emergency procedures.

13. Complete the emergency-response plan Include neighborhood interface, incident command, isolation/evacuation/shelter criteria, public notification, staging, responder access, shutdown, re-entry and recovery.

14. Complete emergency contacts Fill in product supplier, tank manufacturer/service, local Fire Department and local HAZMAT team contacts in the safety plan.

15. Obtain written RBFD technical review Place a signed/dated Fire Department review, conditions and approval in the public record rather than relying solely on a staff statement that Fire was consulted.

16. Confirm CUPA/CERS/HMBP requirements Tdentify the administering CUPA/participating agency and document required hazardous-material inventory, site map, emergency/contingency plan, training and permits.

17. Verity emergency responder access Demonstrate apparatus access, hydrants/FDC, gate access, Knox/emergency access as applicable, staging, and access during cryogenic deliveries.

18. Provide delivery route and transfer plan Show truck route, turing, unloading position, transfer hose, duration, frequency, traffic conflicts, emergency access and limits on off-hour deliveries.

19. Substantiate weekly delivery claim Provide tank-sizing/consumption calculations and compare delivery frequency for the proposed 38-foot tanks versus code- compliant alternatives.

20. Provide alternatives analysi upporting the variance Document why shorter tanks, different capacities, multiple smaller vessels, or alternate on-site locations are infeasible or mater inferior

21. Correct and supplement the CEQA Exemption Declaration Remove the erroneous “existing residence” language; reconcile tank count/products; accurately describe the industrial project:
document City Attorney review of categorical-exemption applicability and exceptions.

Tighten the variance findings Remove or substantiate the assertion that the 30-foot limit would eliminate use of the entire manufacturing facility. Cite evidence for claimed physical hardship and comparable properties. 23, Make relied-upon safety measures enforceable ‘Add conditions for two-person filling, pre-fill checklist, emergency shutoff, atmospheric monitoring, training/drills, inspections/maintenance and annual safety-plan updates if these measures support the safety finding. 24, Complete noise analysis before operation Measure/model filling, transfer, venting/PRV and truck noise at the residential property line; define objective mitigation and off- hour delivery limits.

25. Provide a public-comment response matrix ‘Address parking, construction hours, operational testing, mechanical/electrical expansion, hazardous materials, project contacts and enforcement responsibility; distinguish issues inside and outside this varianee.

26. Require final interagency sign-off before first fill No cryogenic product should be introduced until Planning, Building & Safety, RBFD and the applicable hazardousmaterials/CUPA authority confirm completion of their conditions.

PUBLIC COMMENT 06 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Gary Mlynek

ORIGINAL SENT
Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 10:24 AM

SUBJECT
Re: Planning commission meeting 8-20-2026
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: ‘Sean Scully
To: “gary mlynek"
Cc: Marc Wiener; Daniel Besinaiz Subject: RE: Planning commission meeting 8-20 -2026 Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:40:00 AM Attachments: image001.ona
Hello Mr. Mlynek,
You are very welcome. | do understand your concerns. We worked very hard with our Fire Department and the applicant to ensure the project is safe.

These projects can seem like a “surprise” sometimes. The City’s Zoning Ordinance and State Laws are very specific concerning when a project is “noticed” to the public prior to a public hearing. The “public noticing” is one of the last steps before the actual public hearing. It’s set up this way because sometimes we’re not sure the project will advance until very late in the review process and we don’t want to send out public notices on a project that may change significantly or not happen at all.

In this case the Planning Commission is the approval authority for the Variance. The only way the City Council would rule on this project is if the decision of the Planning Commission is appealed.
| hope this answers all your questions. Thank you.

Sean Scully
Planning Manager
310.697.3194
[email protected]
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
a REDONDO
= BEACH
From: gory ck
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:24 AM
To: Sean Scully <[email protected]>
Cc: Mare Wiener <Marc.Wiener @redondo.org>; Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Planning commission meeting 8-20 -2026
Thank you for the response and the good info. Greatly appreciated.

I can not attend the meeting this week but do know a few people who say they will be there. Some of the folks here in Dow/Johnson area just feel
like it was sort of a quick & secretive decision. Doesnt it have to go to City Council before a final decision is reached ? Thanks again.

On Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 09:08:12 AM PDT, Sean Scully <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Mr. Mlynek,
You absolutely have a say in the proposed tank installation. I'm providing a link below to the Planning Commission Agenda Packet which includes City staff's analysis (Community Development and Fire Department) of the proposed project (Height Variance) that includes a "safety analysis". These tanks are proposed to be filled with liquid Argon and Nitrogen. Both of these gasses are chemically non-flammable inert noble gases that will not ignite and cannot undergo a chemical combustion explosion. That said, we've extensively reviewed this project with our Fire Department and they will be available to answer questions concerning the safety of the proposed tanks and any potential hazards at the public hearing scheduled for Thursday night at 6:30 PM. I've also included a link to register and attend the meeting by Zoom.

If you wish to discuss the project further after reviewing the staff report or have any additional questions please call me at the number below.
https://redondo.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8 173340&GUID=0F5901BE-0C57-44FD-BC2AAZ540F5988C6 htt dondo.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_GikHDB7kQBKhf_sQY4PWai Thank you.

Sean Scully
Planning Manager
310.697.3194
sean,[email protected]
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
-----Original Message-----
From: gary mlynek
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 10:07 PM
To: Sean Scully <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning commission meeting 8-20 -2026
[You don't often get email from’ Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dont the citizens get a say in the 4 tanks that will be placed across the street from the Dow-Johnson triangle. ? | think we should.

The gasses & chemicals could be & probably are dangerous & deadly if they escape. Seems like this decission is putting us in this area in a very precarious situation.

W.Gary Mlynek Dow Ave R.B.

PUBLIC COMMENT 07 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Nick Biro

ORIGINAL SENT
Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 12:48 PM

SUBJECT
Re: PC Agenda Item 2026-0595
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Nick Biro
To: Daniel Besinaiz
Cc: ‘Sean Scully; Marc Wiener; Rox Ferebee; Scott Behrendt; Lorena Soules Subject: Re: PC Agenda Item 2026-0595 Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 12:48:52 PM | You don't often get email from [NNN Learn why this is important Hi Daniel,
Thank you - my e-comment is below.

Please continue the hearing and direct staff to complete, publicly circulate, and obtain written agency approval of the missing project-specific safety and environmental record before taking final action. Require a written Community Development Director and City Attorney determination under RBMC §10-2.1020 identifying the proper entitlement path, including whether CUP review must supplement the height variance. This request does not ask the City to prejudge or deny the project; it asks for an informed decision and enforceable residential protections.

Material gaps:
e Three versus four tanks: the CEQA declaration and original notice describe three; the staff report and resolution approve four, with the fourth deferred to a later installation.
e Gas identity: the project description says nitrogen and argon, while the safety discussion also refers to liquid oxygen. Oxygen would present a materially different oxidizer hazard and code pathway.
e Wrong/template text: the safety presentation names 2425 Manhattan Beach Boulevard and labels itself a boilerplate to be verified before AHJ submission; the CEQA declaration says the project expands an “existing residence.” © Moving design: the site plan bears “Tank Relocation 8/12/26,” but the record does not explain the change, provide a full parcel plan, or show exact distances to residential property and dwellings.
© Deferred verification: the draft requires Fire notification, a noise report and possible mitigation after approval rather than written agency approval and predictive analysis before the land-use decision.
e Emergency planning distance: the applicant’s own safety presentation cites an initial 330-foot isolation/downwind planning distance for a large nitrogen or argon spill—approximately the reported separation to residences—yet no neighborhood protective-action analysis is provided.

No approval should rest on future studies or undefined phrases such as “normal business hours,” “very limited,” “may be required,” or “as required.” Each condition should identify the duty, responsible reviewer, deadline, objective standard, required evidence, inspection method, public record, correction period and consequence of noncompliance On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:32 PM Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Nick, I'm sorry to hear you're having difficulty with the e-comment system. I've forwarded your contact information to the City Clerk's Office so they can look into the issue.

In the meantime, if you would like, you are more than welcome to submit your public comment directly to me by email. Comments submitted this way will also become part of the public record.

LT hope this helps. | will keep you updated on what the City Clerk's Office may suggest for your e-comment account. Please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions.

From:

Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:26 AM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>
Ce: Sean Scully <[email protected]>; Mare Wiener <Mare. [email protected]>; Rox Ferebee Subject: PC Agenda Item 2026-0595
[You don't often get email a Learn why this is important at me — https://aka.ms/Lea: enderldentification | CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Good morning Daniel,
I am trying to post an e-comment for the subject agenda item and I have not received the email authentication required to confirm my account in order to submit the comments.

Could you please let me know if there is an issue with the system or can you help me with creating an account?
Thanks,
Nick
Sent from my iPhone
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email. icholas J. Biro
PUBLIC COMMENT 08 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Alicia Evans

ORIGINAL SENT
Tuesday, August 18, 2026 at 1:31 PM

SUBJECT
Issues leaving a comment for meeting on August 20th
regarding Impulse Space
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.
fod Outlook
RE: Issues leaving a comment for meeting on August 20th regarding Impulse Space (North Redondo Beach Residents want to be HEARD)!!. Fwd: Your Granicus Support Case #08472010 Has Been Created
From Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>
Date Wed 8/19/2026 9:54 AM
To alicia evans i James Light
<[email protected]>; Planning Redondo <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>
Hi Alicia,
Thank you for your comments and interest in this project. Staff is working to address the issue is with the e-comment system. In the meantime, all public comment received via email is being entered into the public record and will be added to the agenda for the public to have access to.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel Besinaiz
Associate Planner
310.697.3191 | daniel. besinaiz(@redondo.org
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
ar REDONDO
= BEACH
Sent:

From:

Tuesday,
alicia evans
August
ia
18, 2026 1:31 PM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>; alicia evans James Light <[email protected]>; Planning Redondo <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]> Subject: Issues leaving a comment for meeting on August 20th regarding Impulse Space (North Redondo Beach Residents want to be HEARD)!!. Fwd: Your Granicus Support Case #08472010 Has Been Created Some people who received this message don't often get email from [III [cam why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hello All,
| want to make sure that our voices are represented & some of the neighbors are having issues with the website. They can’t access it to leave a comment. Some will be unable to physically attend the meeting and want to be able to have a say in North Redondo Beach.

I'm asking for a continuation as a Redondo Beach resident. | want a continuance from the Planning Commission. As more time is needed to read, understand these impacts and have safety measures, noise measures, traffic measures, parking measures, and evacuation concerns addressed by The City of Redondo Beach as well as Impulse Space.

The proposed installation is not adequately defined or reviewed in the public packet. | do not support this, because there are no current environmental reviews and safeguards in place.

Regards,
Alicia Evans
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Granicus Customer Support
Date: August 18, 2026 at 12:16:51 PM PDT
To:

Subject: Your Granicus Support Case #08472010 Has Been Created Ld
Granicus Case Created
Hi,
Thank you for contacting Granicus Support. Your case has been created successfully.

Case Reference: #08472010
Please include this number in any communication about your case.

Our Technical Support Team will review your request and follow up with you shortly.

For the fastest assistance:

Chat provides quicker response times than email and ensures your case gets immediate attention, especially when time is critical.

Access your case here: Link to Case (Portal login required) Case Details:

Case #: 08472010
Status: New
Created On: 18 August 2026
eoeee
Subject: Please assist as | can’t get email to activate account.

Need a Support Portal account?
You can register anytime by following these instructions.

If you run into any issues during registration, reply to this email and we'll assist you.

Thank you for working with Granicus Support.

Granicus Use Only:

Case Thread ID: ref:!00D46018MW9.!500Vq01Bz27t:ref

PUBLIC COMMENT 09 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Katherine

ORIGINAL SENT
Wednesday, August 19, 2026 at 10:23 AM

SUBJECT
Public Comment: OPPOSE/CONTINUE Item 2026-0595 -
Impulse Space Cryogenic Tanks
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Katherine
To: Daniel Besinaiz
Cc: ‘Sean Scully; Marc Wiener; Ferebee; Rox Scott Behrendt; Lorena Soules Subject: Public Comment: OPPOSE/CONTINUE Item 2026-0595 - Impulse Space Cryogenic Tanks (Manhattan Beach Blvd) Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 10:23:45 AM You don't often get email ror III carn why this is important Dear Chair and Members of the Redondo Beach Planning Commission, My name is Katherine Strohlein, and I am a 31 year resident of Redondo Beach. I am speaking tonight regarding the proposal by Impulse Space to install three (or four) bulk cryogenic storage tanks at their Manhattan Beach Boulevard facility.

While we support technological innovation, our neighborhood is already bearing a massive industrial burden. Directly across the street, Northrop Grumman operates enormous industrial gas storage tanks that are regularly filled and vented.

Surrounding residents know firsthand how incredibly loud and disruptive that highpressure gas venting noise is. Furthermore, Northrop operates extremely bright industrial lighting that bleeds directly into our neighborhood, disrupting our sleep and our quality of life. And their facility is located further away from our homes than what is being proposed tonight.

What is deeply alarming is that Impulse Space is slating these new cryogenic tanks to be 38 feet high and positioned even closer to local homes—literally a matter of mere yards away from families’ backyards. Tanks of this height and volume pose unique structural and chemical hazards. We cannot look at this application in a vacuum. The City must evaluate the cumulative impact of adding three more highcapacity infrastructure units directly adjacent to a residential zone.

The operational safety of this facility is paramount to our neighborhood. Therefore, I request that the Planning Commission continue this item tonight and direct city staff and the applicant to return only after they have fully addressed three critical concems with legally binding Conditions of Approval that can be strictly enforced by the city:

First, regarding Physical Safety and Hazard Zones:

A 38-foot vertical tank acts as a top-heavy lever in a seismic zone, and an insulation failure can trigger a catastrophic pressure explosion or unleash heavy asphyxiation clouds mere yards from our families’ yards. As an enforceable condition of approval, will the city mandate a formal Quantitative Risk Assessment to map the blast and oxygen-displacement radiuses, and require an independent Seismic Bracing Audit to guarantee that a 38-foot structural failure cannot breach the residential property line?
Second, regarding Bulk Truck Deliveries and Operations: Filling these tanks requires massive, multi-axle industrial semi-trucks that bring heavy diesel idling, backup beeps, and low-frequency rumbling. Furthermore, the transfer of cryogenic liquids involves high-pressure open-valve venting that generates a sustained, loud roaring and hissing noise. Because industrial gas suppliers often run 24/7 to avoid highway traffic, our neighborhood faces the reality of sleep-disrupting deliveries at 3 AM. We request a strict, enforceable condition of approval banning all cryogenic truck deliveries, transfers, and related operations between the hours of 6 PM and 7 AM.

Third, regarding Cumulative Noise and Environmental Proximity:

Given that residents are already subjected to the disruptive venting from Northrop Grumman, what will the combined acoustic impact be once Impulse adds three more towering tanks? We request an enforceable condition requiring continuous, real-time noise monitoring with automatic fines if they violate the Redondo Beach Noise Ordinance during overnight hours.

Fourth, regarding Light Trespass and Security Illumination:

Because our neighborhood is already blinded by Northrop’s bright lights, we request an explicit condition of approval mandating zero light trespass at the residential property line, requiring fully shielded downward, north-facing fixtures, and prohibiting any direct glare from shining over into our neighborhood.

Commissioners, please do not approve this blanket permit tonight. Please continue this meeting and require staff to draft airtight, enforceable conditions of approval that protect our community's safety, peace, and health.

Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedicated service to Redondo Beach.

Sincerely,
Katherine Strohlein
PUBLIC COMMENT 10 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Alexander Hawkins

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 11:29 AM

SUBJECT
Cryogenic Storage Tank approval
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz
To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Cryogenic Storage Tank approval Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:47:17 AM Attachments: image001.pnq Hi Jamaal,
See below public comment.

Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel Besinaiz
Associate Planner
310.697.3191 | [email protected] daniel
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
a REDONDO
== BEACH
From: Alexander Hawkins (i
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 11:29 AM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>
Subject: Cryogenic Storage Tank approval
You don't often get email from II Lear why this is importa attachments or links.

Dear Planning Commission,
lam a Redondo Beach resident in District 5, writing regarding Agenda Item J.1 and the proposed cryogenic storage tanks at 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard. | request that the Planning Commission continue this item rather than take final action today, August 20. This will allow residents and the Commission sufficient time to fully understand the proposal and address several inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the current materials.

While the staff report and attachments contain extensive technical information, they were released shortly before the hearing. They also appear to contain errors and leave important project-specific questions unresolved.

Before final approval, | ask the Commission to direct staff to:
- Correct and clarify the approval documents and inconsistencies in the record. - Complete and publicly provide the project-specific safety and environmental information needed to understand the impacts of this installation. - Obtain the appropriate written agency and Fire Department review of the final proposal.
- Clearly identify the substances and quantities that will be stored, ensuring the approval is limited to what is actually being considered. - Make the safety measures and operating safeguards relied upon in approving the project enforceable conditions, rather than simply statements in supporting materials. - Address impacts on the immediately adjacent residential neighborhood, including safety, emergency response, noise, deliveries, traffic, and parking.

Installing large bulk cryogenic storage tanks next to a residential neighborhood warrants aclear, complete, and internally consistent public record before the City grants the requested variance. A continuance will allow all parties to resolve outstanding questions and make an informed decision with appropriate protections in place.

Thank you for your consideration and for allowing residents to participate in this process. Please confirm receipt of this comment.

Regards,
Alexander Hawkins
Alexander Hawkins
PUBLIC COMMENT 11 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Janet

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 12:58 PM

SUBJECT
Public Comment - Impulse Facility
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz
To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Public Comment - Impulse Facility Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:31:57 PM Attachments: image001.pnq
Hi Jamaal,
See below for public comment. I’m about to send you two more after this.

Good Afternoon,
My name is Janet Scully, and I have been a North Redondo Beach resident in District 5 for more than 30 years.

I am asking the Planning Commission to continue this hearing to allow additional time for the Commission, staff, and the community to fully review and understand the staff report and the proposed project.

Given that this facility is proposed within 500 feet of an established residential neighborhood, I believe the project warrants careful and thorough review. There appear to be issues and inconsistencies in the current report, as well as questions about whether all appropriate environmental studies and safety considerations have been adequately addressed. These issues should be resolved before any approval is granted.

I am also asking that City staff engage directly with the local community so residents have a clear understanding of what is being proposed and how the facility will operate so close to their homes. Residents deserve to understand the potential risks, applicable safety requirements, environmental reviews, monitoring, and regulations that will govern this facility.

A continuance would provide the necessary time for a more complete review and meaningful community understanding of the proposal.

Thank you for considering this request.

Janet Scully
as
PUBLIC COMMENT 12 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Tala Schwindt

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 1:17 PM

SUBJECT
Public comment for today's agenda
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz
To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Public comment for today’s agenda Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:32:02 PM Attachments: imaqe001.pnq Hi Jamaal,
See below for public comment.

Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel Besinaiz
Associate Planner
310.697.3191 | [email protected]
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
a REDONDO
== BEACH
From: Tala Schwindt
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:17 PM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment for today’s agenda
You don't often get email from II Lear why this is important To whomever it may concern,
My name is Tala Schwindt and | live in North Redondo Beach in district 5. | would like to ask the planning commission to please ask for a continuance of the meeting regarding the approval of Impulse’s request to add the cryogenic storage tanks. We believe there are inconsistencies in the existing report and not adequate environmental reviews considering the impact it will have on our community. There are a few measurable enforcements that |’d like to see in place before we blanket approve the report as is. It is across the street from so many young families and we must ensure their safety. Thank you for your consideration!
Tala
Sent from Gmail Mobile
PUBLIC COMMENT 13 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Janine Villa Sison

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 1:25 PM

SUBJECT
Comments for Public Hearing

SUPPORTING MATERIALS INCLUDED
- FILE PC26-1012 - Written Public Comment
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Comments for Public Hearing Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:32:17 PM Attachments: FILE PC26-1012.pdf
image001.pnq
Hi Jamaal,
See below for public comment.

Our neighbors also have a list of questions that we feel are unanswered by the packet released. | want to submit these, in addition to the comment, in case they can either be answered tonight, or by the commission in the coming weeks. -Can we have tank contents clarified? Administrative report mentions Oxygen, but the Impulse safety report and site map only show Argon and Nitrogen. -Can the contents change in the future? If so, is Impulse required to notify anyone, and whom?
-Will/can any CEQA exemptions and variances granted tonight be used as precedent for future decisions regarding Impulse or other companies zoned IC? -Has SCE been notified or surveyed the site? Are they required to be? They have large equipment operating less than 150 ft from the proposed tank installation. -Safety level of this project is mentioned in several places as "subject to compliance".

Who is monitoring this compliance?
-When does Impulse expect vibration testing, that is being supported by these tanks, to begin?
-Who do we reach out to for tank certification information mentioned in the safety presentation?
-Where is the secondary containment site being located? -Why does the site plan say "Tank Relocation". Are there already tanks onsite? -How will the community be alerted in the event of an emergency? -No mention of plans or safety regarding seismic events were included in the presentation. Do we have that information?
-How are lost parking spaces being replaced during construction and long term? Thank you.

Best,
Janine
Janine M Villa Sison
Cl ae
FILE PC26-1012
Aug, 20th 2026
We are requesting a stay of approval re: height variance and environmental exemption for 30 days to allow the Planning Commission time to consider greater community input, clarify all and any questions, and reevaluate potential impact of this project on the neighborhood. We are also requesting facilitation for a community meeting between Impulse and the community at large to allow for a Q&A session. We acknowledge the commission’s resolutions in Section 2, but ask for quantified/qualified limits to be included for clearer enforcement (ie. normal business hours, acceptable decibel of noise, etc.) We would like to see application and clerical errors corrected before any approvals or exemptions are made, as would be expected of any other application (Safety presentation has a different location listed, public hearing notice listed 3 tanks and proposal is actually 4, Site plan is missing many of the required measurements and annotations, included required safety grading, measurements to street and residential neighborhoods, location of required impact barriers, location of secondary containment site, etc)

CEQA EXEMPTION
Our view on the ruling is that the logic is loose and largely interpretive. Literal interpretation of the text, “The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use”, bears consideration, as it was used as recently as June 2026 by the CA Supreme Court in the case of Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2024) to overturn CEQA exemptions granted. The planning commission reasons that Impulse cannot continue use of their facilities without allowing a variance for the 38 foot tanks. How were they in business for 2+ years at the same location without these tanks? One could reason it is because the tanks are a new requirement for operation, and therefore an expansion of use (addition of vibration testing). Site plans show 25ft subterranean ancillary equipment for the tanks, and a secondary containment site for 110% of stored materials is also required. Plus the addition of potential sound wall construction and the tanks themselves. One could reason this is not “negligible”.

HEIGHT VARIANCE
We understand the case made for this project to be granted the same privilege as Northrop Grumman, and many of the Planning Commission points are valid. If these comparisons continue to be made as grounds for approvals, we ask to city to hold Impulse accountable to the same standards as Northrop, including issues regarding CEQA exemptions and adherence to zoning characteristics listed in 10-2,100 of city code, including: (f) Minimize the impact of industrial and commercial uses on adjacent residential zones; (g) Ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.

Regardless of your decision, it needs to be stated that it shouldn’t matter that I-1 businesses nearby are less strict in zoning. Residents purchased properties knowing they are adjacent to an I-C zone, not an Industrial Zone. The burden should not be on the community to accommodate an Industrial business that CHOSE to move into a zone that cannot accommodate or sustain their business activities, regardless of what “type” of business they are. Similar zoning, is not the same zoning.

We urge you to consider the balance of the needs of the community with the needs of Impulse in a more thoughtful way. We know they’ve already paid the city more than a quarter million dollars in permitting fees since 2025, but that does not absolve them from proper proceedings.

Janine and Michael Villa Sison
North Redondo Beach residents
PUBLIC COMMENT 14 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Hilary Nash

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 1:50 PM

SUBJECT
Continuance requested for cryo storage tanks for
Impulse
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz
To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Continuance requested for cryo storage tanks for Impact Date: ‘Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:58:25 PM Attachments: image001.pnq Hi Jamaal,
See below for public comment.

Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel Besinaiz
Associate Planner
310.697.3191 | daniel [email protected]
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
a REDONDO
== BEACH
From: Hilary N2sh
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:50 PM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>
Subject: Continuance requested for cryo storage tanks for Impact You don't often get email from [iE Learn why this is important Hello,
| live at [IY Redondo Beach CA 90278 and I’m requesting a continuance for the cryogenic storage tanks at IMPACT on Mb Blvd and Dow Ave.

We as residents need more time to learn about these tanks and see if there are risks to our health and safety.

Thank you,
a
Hilary Nash
PUBLIC COMMENT 15 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Cherise

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 2:15 PM

SUBJECT
Request for Continuance and Public Safety and
Environmental Records
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz
To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Request for Continuance and Public Safety and Environmental Records Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:13:31 PM Attachments: imaqe001.pnq Hi Jamaal,
See below for public comment.

From:

Thursday, August
Cherise 10 i
20, 2026 2:15 PM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for Continuance and Public Safety and Environmental Records You don't often get email from [BE Learn why this is important Dear Planning Commission,
lam writing regarding the requested variance for the installation and use of approximately 40-foot cryogenic storage tanks containing liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, and argon.

Given the nature, size, and proposed contents of these tanks, | respectfully request that consideration of this variance be continued to a later hearing date so that the public has a meaningful opportunity to review the safety and environmental information associated with the proposal before any decision is made.

Before the variance is considered for approval, | request that all relevant safety and environmental records be made publicly available and circulated sufficiently in advance of the continued hearing, including, as applicable:

1. Site plans and specifications identifying the size, capacity, location, setbacks, and intended use of each cryogenic tank;

2. Hazardous-materials and hazardous-substance documentation;

3. Fire and life-safety evaluations;

4. Emergency response, spill, leak, venting, and evacuation plans;

5. Applicable environmental studies, reviews, determinations, and supporting documents;

6. Risk analyses addressing potential releases, oxygen-enriched or oxygen-deficient atmospheres, fire hazards, pressure-related incidents, and impacts to neighboring properties;

7. Applicable building, fire, mechanical, hazardous-materials, and cryogenic-storage code evaluations;

8. Correspondence, comments, conditions, approvals, or determinations from the Fire Department and any other agency having jurisdiction over these installations; and

9. Any permits or agency approvals that would be required for the proposed tanks and their operation.
| further request that the variance not be approved until the Fire Department and all other relevant safety, environmental, and regulatory agencies have reviewed the proposal and provided whatever approvals, clearances, conditions, or determinations are required within their respective jurisdictions.

The public should not be asked to comment on, nor should the decision-making body be asked to approve, a variance involving large-scale storage of cryogenic oxygen, nitrogen, and argon without first having access to the information necessary to evaluate the associated risks and regulatory requirements.

Acontinuance would allow adequate time for agency review, public disclosure of the relevant records, and informed public participation. Please include this correspondence in the administrative record for the project and provide notice of any continued hearing date.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Cherise Ho
PUBLIC COMMENT 16 AUGUST 20 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
G. P. Suddeth

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 3:12 PM

SUBJECT
Planning commission hearing regarding IMPULSE
height variance request
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Daniel Besinaiz
To: Jamaal Brown Subject: FW: Planning commission hearing regarding IMPULSE height variance request Date: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:14:40 PM Attachments: imaqe001.pnq Hi Jamaal,
See below for public comment.

From:

Thursday, August
G P Suddeth i
20, 2026 3:12 PM
To: Daniel Besinaiz <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Planning commission hearing regarding IMPULSE height variance request You don't often get email from [III Learn why this is important To the Commission:

Please continue the meeting/discussion of this request to allow citizens to become better aware of what is being proposed at this site.

My neighbors and | are concerned because of a woeful lack of outreach from IMPULSE to residents whose homes are just feet away from where this installation is proposed to occur. The only notice my neighbors on Sebald and other nearby streets got about this height variance request was via a photo of an 8 x 11 note posted on the fence surrounding the Impulse property that one of my neighbors shared on the Dow-Johnston Triangle Neighborhood Watch website.

This is not "good neighbor" behavior on the part of Impulse, and it would be a mistake for the Planning Commission to reward this misbehavior by rubber stamping Impulse's plan.

The residents of this area need time and information to better understand exactly what is being proposed, and what would be this project's potential impacts on the neighborhood.

Voting approval for Impulse's proposal at this time would be premature.

Thank You --
G P Suddeth
ME Redondo Beach, CA 90278
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission Public
Comments
Meeting Date: September 17, 2026
Agenda Item K.1 - Case No. 2026-0595

PUBLIC COMMENT COMPILATION
18 distinct email submissions
Original public-sender dates: August 21 - September 17, 2026 Emails are arranged by the original public sender's date and time. Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers are permanently redacted. 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Case No. 2026-0595
PUBLIC COMMENT 01 SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Mark Nelson

ORIGINAL SENT
Friday, August 21, 2026 at 1:55 PM

SUBJECT
2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. - Request for HHMD
Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Sean Scully
To: Jamaal Brown
Subject: FW: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 4:35:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Planning Manager, Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street, Door 2
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-697-3194
From: Raquel Doom <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 5:31 PM
To:

Cc: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Andrew Winje <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>; Gale S. Hazeltine <[email protected]>; Jason Conroy <[email protected]>; Wayne Craig <[email protected]>; Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>; Roger K. Light <[email protected]>; Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>; Julie Young <[email protected]>; Mark N Charlene Lomeli <[email protected]>; Mathias Mekasha <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Good Afternoon
In response to your inquiry, the CUPA would not have requirements prior to hazardous material container or tank installation or use.

Scenarios that might require our approval prior to installation or use would be for the installation of Hazardous Waste Treatment Systems and hazardous materials regulated under our California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program.

Argon and liquid nitrogen are not regulated under CalARP (CCR Title 19) or the federal Risk Management Program (RMP) under CAA Section 112(r).

Neither substance is classified as toxic or flammable for purposes of these regulations, and they do not appear to be listed on the EPA Consolidated List of Lists (CERCLA, EPCRA, RCRA, and CWA).

Additionally, there does not appear to be statutory off-site consequence analysis (OCA) requirements or regulatory toxic endpoints applicable to these substances under CalARP (19 CCR § 5080.2) or the EPA RMP regulations (40 CFR Part 68), where the primary hazard associated with these gases would be oxygen displacement and potential asphyxiation. Given this, using a general air-dispersion model for these gases, such as RMP*Comp, would not be appropriate for conducting an OCA.

That said, the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) may still want to be informed of the physical location where these gases are stored or used, as an oxygen-deficiency hazard could be a significant consideration for emergency responders.

I hope this clarifies. Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

Best Regards,
Raquel Doom
Hazardous Materials Specialist III
Los Angeles County Fire Dept.

Health Hazardous Materials Division
Inspection Section - Southwest District
24330 S. Narbonne Ave., Lomita, CA 90717
Cell (213)703-4592 | Office (310) 534-6274 | Fax (310) 539-6948 My Regular Day Off is Friday
For CERS Assistance, e-mail [email protected] Para asistencia en Espanol, e-mail [email protected] Website: www.fire.lacounty.gov/health-hazardous-materials-division From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Fire-Hhmdcers <[email protected]>; FIRE-AskHHMD <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Andrew Winje <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.

Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
County of Los Angeles Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
cc: Redondo Beach Councilmember Behrendt, Mr. Witzansky, Ms. Ford, Mr. Wiener, and Members of the Planning Commission:

I am transmitting the attached memorandum on behalf of myself and interested residents in the neighborhood surrounding 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278, regarding the proposed bulk liquid-nitrogen and liquid-argon storage tanks.

The August 20 Planning Commission hearing was useful in identifying both the issues of concern to nearby residents and several questions of interest to the Commissioners. Among the subjects discussed were tank capacity, separation from the residential neighborhood, oxygen displacement, emergency isolation and evacuation distances, and the consequences of a major vessel failure. The proposed tanks are approximately 222 feet from the nearest residential property.

The hearing also helped clarify the respective regulatory roles. Redondo Beach Fire Department indicated that it does not maintain its own hazardous-materials team and that Los Angeles County Fire performs the hazardous-materials/CUPA inspection function for facilities of this type.

I do not interpret the questions raised at the hearing as establishing that the proposed tanks are unsafe. Rather, my takeaway was that some of the specific technical questions being asked by Commissioners and residents could not be answered in detail at the hearing and appear more appropriately directed to HHMD/CUPA.

That is the purpose of the attached memorandum.

Because argon is denser than air—and a cryogenic release initially produces a very cold, [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mark N Subject: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
dense gas—the proximity of the R-1 neighborhood immediately south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard makes the off-site consequence question worth resolving quantitatively.

The attached memorandum therefore does not assume simultaneous failure of all four vessels and does not attempt to establish an evacuation zone. It asks whether the appropriate reviewing agency has evaluated, or will evaluate, a credible single-vessel catastrophic release using the actual tank inventory and site conditions, and determine the resulting oxygendeficiency/protective-action distances.

One difficulty apparent from the hearing is that responsibility for this installation is distributed among several regulatory functions. Planning is addressing the height variance; Building and RBFD have their respective responsibilities; and hazardous-materials review appears to reside principally with LA County Fire/HHMD-CUPA. That division of responsibility may be entirely appropriate, but from the standpoint of the surrounding residents it makes it difficult to determine which agency evaluates the off-site consequences of a catastrophic cryogenic release and how that analysis becomes part of the overall safety review.

Accordingly, I would appreciate HHMD's assistance in answering the questions in the attached memorandum, particularly:

For catastrophic loss of one full maximum-capacity liquid-argon vessel at 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, what analysis establishes the distance and direction at which oxygen concentrations remain above applicable oxygendeficiency/protective-action criteria under reasonably conservative meteorological and site conditions, including at the R-1 residences south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard?
I am copying the City and Planning Commission because these questions arose directly from the public hearing and the answers should be useful to Commissioners, City staff, the applicant, and the surrounding residents. The hearing itself reflected substantial interest in obtaining additional information concerning these issues; one Commissioner specifically raised the possibility of continuing the matter to allow additional information and public outreach.

Thank you for your assistance. Our objective is straightforward: to identify the agency with the relevant technical responsibility, obtain the appropriate analysis, and give the surrounding residents and City decision-makers a clear factual basis for understanding the off-site emergency implications of the proposed installation.

Regards,
Mark Nelson
Attachment:
2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard — Single-Tank Catastrophic Cryogenic Release / HHMD Review Request
PUBLIC COMMENT 02 SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Mark Nelson

ORIGINAL SENT
Wednesday, August 26, 2026 at 8:15 PM

SUBJECT
Fwd: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. - Request for HHMD
Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning

SUPPORTING MATERIALS INCLUDED
- 2477 HHMD Single-Tank Catastrophic Release Memorandum The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Sean Scully
To: Jamaal Brown
Subject: FW: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 4:36:26 PM
Attachments: 2477_HHMD_Single_Tank_Catastrophic_Release_Memo.docx Planning Manager, Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street, Door 2
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-697-3194
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 8:15 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Andrew Winje <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>; Gale S. Hazeltine <[email protected]>; Jason Conroy <[email protected]>; Wayne Craig <[email protected]>; Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>; Roger K. Light <[email protected]>; Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>; Julie Young <[email protected]>; Mark N
Subject: Fwd: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Reminder: Potentially hazardous physical situation that does not have any reported HAZMAT/HHMD Review. Basic mass transfer equations have a significant rupture of a 12,000 gallon tank of LAR rolling into the neighborhood. Residents deserve to know the plan and the City of RB/RBFD is pointing squarely at LA County Fire. Please advise. We are sending a certified communication since time is wasting before the next Redondo Beach permitting meeting.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 1:55 PM
Subject: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>, Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>, Andrew Winje <[email protected]>, Joy Ford <[email protected]>, Marc Wiener <[email protected]>, Sean Scully <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Mark N Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
County of Los Angeles Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
cc: Redondo Beach Councilmember Behrendt, Mr. Witzansky, Ms. Ford, Mr. Wiener, and Members of the Planning Commission:

The August 20 Planning Commission hearing was useful in identifying both the issues of concern to nearby residents and several questions of interest to the Commissioners. Among the subjects discussed were tank capacity, separation from the residential neighborhood, oxygen displacement, emergency isolation and evacuation distances, and the consequences of a major vessel failure. The proposed tanks are approximately 222 feet from the nearest residential property.

That is the purpose of the attached memorandum.

Because argon is denser than air—and a cryogenic release initially produces a very cold, dense gas—the proximity of the R-1 neighborhood immediately south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard makes the off-site consequence question worth resolving quantitatively.

Accordingly, I would appreciate HHMD's assistance in answering the questions in the attached memorandum, particularly:

Regards,
Mark Nelson
Attachment:
2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard — Single-Tank Catastrophic Cryogenic Release / HHMD Review Request
2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 — Case No. 2026-0595 — Single-Tank Catastrophic Release / HHMD Review Request

MEMORANDUM
TO: County of Los Angeles Fire Department
Health Hazardous Materials Division
5825 Rickenbacker Rd
Commerce, CA 90040
CONTACT: General: (323) 890-4045 | Data Ops/CERS: (323) 890-4000 | Fax: (323) 890-4046 [email protected] | [email protected] SUBJECT: 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 — Case No. 2026-0595 — Request for Review of Off-Site Oxygen-Deficiency Consequences from a Single-Tank Catastrophic Cryogenic Release DATE: August 21, 2026
Purpose. This memorandum requests HHMD/CUPA review of the emergency-planning implications of the proposed bulk cryogenic storage installation at 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (City of Redondo Beach Case No. 2026-0595). The principal concern is not routine filling or normal operation, but the low-probability, high-consequence catastrophic loss of containment from a single full cryogenic vessel—especially liquid argon (LAR)— and the potential for an oxygen-deficient atmosphere to extend off site toward the R-1 residential neighborhood immediately south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

1. Project and Tank-Size Bounding Assumptions
The City project record describes four bulk cryogenic tanks approximately 38 feet high for liquid nitrogen (LIN) and liquid argon (LAR). To establish reasonable source-term bounds before the actual vessel specifications are available, this memorandum uses Linde's published standard cryogenic tank data. Linde's Size 300 and Size 490 air-gas tanks are both 11.55 m high (37.9 ft), closely approximating the proposed 38-ft height.

The Linde catalog lists Size 300 at 30,205 L gross / 28,700 L net and Size 490 at 49,020 L gross / 46,570 L net. At the catalog's 18-bar, 95% filling condition, the Size 300 holds 23,190 kg LIN, while the Size 490 holds 64,965 kg LAR.

Parameter Smaller 38-ft class
(Size 300)
Larger 38-ft class
(Size 490)
Significance
Overall height 11.55 m / 37.9 ft 11.55 m / 37.9 ft Both closely match proposed height
Diameter 2.40 m / 7.87 ft 3.00 m / 9.84 ft Site-plan diameter can narrow actual capacity
Gross capacity 30,205 L / ~7,980 gal 49,020 L / ~12,950 gal ~62% capacity difference Net capacity (18 bar) 28,700 L / ~7,580 gal 46,570 L / ~12,300 gal Usable liquid inventory Relevant mass LIN: 23,190 kg / ~51,100 lb LAR: 64,965 kg / ~143,200 lb
Source term for release
analysis

2. Single-Tank Catastrophic Release Scenario and Inventory Context For emergency-planning purposes, the principal scenario recommended for detailed analysis is catastrophic loss of one full maximum-capacity LAR vessel. Four-tank inventory cases may be retained only as broad inventory context; simultaneous catastrophic failure of all four tanks is not relied upon as the primary credible emergency-planning scenario.

Scenario Cryogenic inventory Approx. ambient inert-gas
equivalent*
Use
A. One large LAR tank 64,965 kg LAR; ~12,300 gal
net
~38,450 m³ / 1.36 million ft³ Primary case
recommended for detailed
HHMD off-site
consequence analysis
B. Four smaller tanks, all
LIN
92,760 kg LIN; ~30,300 gal
net total
~78,300 m³ / 2.76 million ft³ Inventory context only; not proposed as primary
2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 — Case No. 2026-0595 — Single-Tank Catastrophic Release / HHMD Review Request
credible failure scenario
C. Four larger tanks, all LAR 259,860 kg LAR; ~49,200
gal net total
~153,800 m³ / 5.43 million ft³ Absolute inventory
envelope only; not
proposed as primary
credible failure scenario
* Ambient-gas equivalents are approximate inventory conversions at about 1 atm and 15°C. They are not plume volumes, hazard-zone areas, or predictions of actual dispersion.

3. Why Liquid Argon Warrants Off-Site Consequence Review Argon is chemically inert and nonflammable, but it is an asphyxiant because it displaces oxygen. At ordinary temperature argon gas is denser than air; immediately after a cryogenic release, the vapor is also extremely cold. A major release can therefore initially behave as a dense gas, with dispersion affected by wind, atmospheric stability, ground heating, buildings, walls, depressions, drainage features, and local grade.

Accordingly, a generic circular isolation distance does not by itself establish whether the R-1 neighborhood is protected.

The relevant question is the predicted oxygen concentration at off-site receptors following a credible major or catastrophic release.

4. Screening Calculation — Not a Dispersion Model
A deliberately simplified perfect-mixing/ground-layer screening calculation was used only to test whether neighborhoodscale oxygen depletion is physically plausible. Assuming a uniform 2-m-deep mixed layer, the approximate equivalent radii are:

O₂ endpoint One large LAR tank 4 small LIN tanks 4 large LAR tanks

19.5% O₂ ~990 ft ~1,415 ft ~1,980 ft
18% O₂ ~690 ft ~980 ft ~1,380 ft
15% O₂ ~480 ft ~690 ft ~970 ft

12.5% O₂ ~405 ft ~580 ft ~810 ft
Important limitation. These radii are not predictions and should not be used as evacuation zones. A real cryogenic release is neither uniformly mixed nor circular. The screening result merely demonstrates that the inventories are sufficiently large that off-site oxygen-deficiency at neighborhood-scale distances cannot be excluded by inventoryvolume reasoning alone. A site-specific dense-gas/cryogenic dispersion analysis is needed.

5. Regulatory Emergency-Planning Context
California's Hazardous Materials Business Plan regulations require emergency response procedures for a release or threatened release to be scaled to the size and nature of the business, the damage potential of the hazardous materials, and the facility's proximity to residential areas and other populations. 19 CCR §5030.9 includes notification, appropriate emergency medical assistance, mitigation/prevention/abatement, evacuation, and earthquake-related inspection/isolation provisions.

Los Angeles County HHMD states that businesses handling reportable quantities must submit hazardous-material inventory, a site map, and emergency response/contingency and employee-training information through CERS. HHMD also states that its emergency responders perform hazard analysis, technical advising, multi-agency coordination, and evacuation and re-occupancy determinations. These functions make HHMD/CUPA review particularly relevant to the off-site residential consequence issue.

6. Requested HHMD/CUPA Review

1. Confirm the maximum permitted/reported LIN and LAR inventory for each vessel and for the installation as a whole, including the quantities reported or to be reported in CERS. 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 — Case No. 2026-0595 — Single-Tank Catastrophic Release / HHMD Review Request

2. Identify the actual vessel manufacturer/model, gross and net capacity, maximum fill quantity, operating pressure, and product assignment for each tank.

3. Confirm whether HHMD has reviewed, or will require, a site-specific oxygen-deficiency/dense-gas dispersion analysis for a major or catastrophic LAR release.

4. Evaluate at minimum catastrophic loss of one full maximum-size LAR vessel. If a different credible worst-case release scenario is used, identify the technical basis.

5. Identify the oxygen-concentration endpoints and meteorological conditions used to establish protective-action distances, including 19.5%, 18%, and 15% O₂ contours where technically appropriate.

6. Include actual site geometry and receptors: tank location, buildings/walls, grade, streets, storm/sewer drains or depressions, and the R-1 residences south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

7. Identify the technical basis for the 330-ft major-release/vessel-damage isolation distance presented in the applicant's safety materials and state whether it is site-specific or generic guidance.

8. State the planned protective actions for the R-1 neighborhood for a major inert-cryogen release, including notification, evacuation versus shelter-in-place criteria, incident command, monitoring, and re-occupancy.

9. Confirm coordination among HHMD/CUPA, Redondo Beach Fire Department, the tank owner/supplier, and the facility operator, including which agency has responsibility for off-site hazard assessment and public protectiveaction decisions.

10. Provide or identify the applicable HMBP/CERS emergency response and contingency materials, site map, inventory information, and HHMD review/inspection records, subject to applicable disclosure restrictions.

7. Requested Technical Question
For catastrophic loss of one full maximum-capacity liquid-argon vessel at 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (Case No. 2026-0595), what analysis establishes the distance and direction at which oxygen concentrations remain above applicable oxygen-deficiency/protective-action criteria under reasonably conservative meteorological and site conditions, including at the R-1 residences south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard?

8. References
 Linde AG, Cryogenic Standard Tanks LITS 2, Technical Data — Tanks for Air Gases LIN, LOX, LAR, p. 6. The catalog identifies LIN as liquid nitrogen and LAR as liquid argon and provides capacities, fill masses, diameters and heights for the Size 300 and Size 490 tanks.
 California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 5, Chapter 1, §5030.9, Emergency Response Plans and Procedures (CalEPA publication).
 CalEPA, Hazardous Materials Business Plan FAQ — emergency response plans/procedures and site-map requirements.
 County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Health Hazardous Materials Division — Hazardous Materials Program; CERS Information; Haz Mat Emergency Operations; HHMD Contact Information.  City of Redondo Beach project record, Case No. 2026-0595 / PC26-1012, 2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278, including the proposed approximately 38-ft bulk cryogenic storage tanks and adjacent R-1 zoning south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard.

PUBLIC COMMENT 03 SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Mark Nelson

ORIGINAL SENT
Wednesday, August 26, 2026 at 11:09 PM

SUBJECT
Public Notice: This 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd.

Exhibit is Defective
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.
https://redondo.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15770496&GUID=13D082F2-8474- 44DF-9249-E2F88B8D2C8E
The drawing fails to label tank size, volume or content. The drawing has no streets. The drawing has no surrounding land uses. The drawing has no as-is location despite being a purported "relocation" drawing. In short this does not meet the evidentiary requirements of any permitting or emergency response use.

As of today, LA County Fire has not responded to local neighborhood concerns regarding tank safety and rupture planning of the heavier than air Liquid argon. cc: Redondo Council
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Sean Scully; Fire-Hhmdcers; CALFIRE State Fire Marshal Subject: Public Notice: This 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Exhibit is Defective Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:09:58 PM
PUBLIC COMMENT 04 SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Mark Nelson

ORIGINAL SENT
Thursday, August 27, 2026 at 6:43 PM

SUBJECT
Re: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. - Request for HHMD
Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Sean Scully
To: Jamaal Brown
Subject: FW: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 4:35:26 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Tamworth liquid nitrogen explosion December 14 2021 The Northern.mp4 Planning Manager, Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street, Door 2
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-697-3194
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2026 6:43 PM
To: Raquel Doom <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Andrew Winje <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>; Gale S. Hazeltine <[email protected]>; Jason Conroy <[email protected]>; Wayne Craig <[email protected]>; Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>; Roger K. Light <[email protected]>; Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>; Julie Young <[email protected]>; Charlene Lomeli <[email protected]>; Mathias Mekasha <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Here's a rupture of 20-foot tank of liquid nitrogen. Without dispute, it would have carry well into surrounding neighborhoods and displace oxygen. Also, had it been argon, it would be heavier than oxygen and be even more of a hazard. Yet, no agency cares.

Surrounding neighbors should be furious.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 5:51 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:

Thank you for your response. My response is not aimed at you, but rather, a failed process.

I'm going to paraphrase:

I think we all agree that in a catastrophic rupture, the residents 200 to 500-feet away (depending on wind speed and direction) could be snuffed out by oxygen displacement, especially from argon, but also from nitrogen. If we aren't in agreement, I'll be happy to provide the engineering analysis of a 12,000 gallon catastrophic liquid Ar release event under perfect mixing - the best possible life preserving case.

Apparently, under state and federal law, that's ok that residents might be killed without any analysis - and no analysis is required because they are non-flammable.

Hypothetically, a million gallon tank that could saturate one-half mile radius would not require any analysis either.

However, the emergency agency does voice concerns about the life and safety of first responders in the exact same situation, as it recognizes the asphyxiation properties of N2 and Ar.

This is truly unacceptable to the surrounding neighborhoods and at the minimum, the Planning Commission needs to deny the variance and the City should not cooperate with this flawed process.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 5:31 PM Raquel Doom <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon
In response to your inquiry, the CUPA would not have requirements prior to hazardous material container or tank installation or use.

Argon and liquid nitrogen are not regulated under CalARP (CCR Title 19) or the federal Risk Management Program (RMP) under CAA Section 112(r).

Neither substance is classified as toxic or flammable for purposes of these regulations, and they do not appear to be listed on the EPA Consolidated List of Lists (CERCLA, EPCRA, RCRA, and CWA).

Given this, using a general air-dispersion model for these gases, such as RMP*Comp, would not be appropriate for conducting an OCA.

I hope this clarifies. Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

Best Regards,
Raquel Doom
Hazardous Materials Specialist III
Los Angeles County Fire Dept.

Health Hazardous Materials Division
Inspection Section - Southwest District
24330 S. Narbonne Ave., Lomita, CA 90717
Cell (213)703-4592 | Office (310) 534-6274 | Fax (310) 539-6948 My Regular Day Off is Friday
For CERS Assistance, e-mail [email protected] Para asistencia en Espanol, e-mail Fire-HHMDDOU[email protected] Website: www.fire.lacounty.gov/health-hazardous-materials-division From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Fire-Hhmdcers <[email protected]>; FIRE-AskHHMD <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Andrew Winje <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; CAUTION: External Email. Proceed Responsibly.

The August 20 Planning Commission hearing was useful in identifying both the issues of concern to nearby residents and several questions of interest to the Commissioners.

Among the subjects discussed were tank capacity, separation from the residential neighborhood, oxygen displacement, emergency isolation and evacuation distances, and the consequences of a major vessel failure. The proposed tanks are approximately 222 feet from the nearest residential property.

That is the purpose of the attached memorandum.

In particular, I believe a useful and reasonably bounded question is the consequence of catastrophic failure of one full liquid-argon vessel. Argon is nonflammable and [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mark N Subject: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
chemically inert, but a sufficiently large release can create an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. Because argon is denser than air—and a cryogenic release initially produces a very cold, dense gas—the proximity of the R-1 neighborhood immediately south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard makes the off-site consequence question worth resolving quantitatively.

One difficulty apparent from the hearing is that responsibility for this installation is distributed among several regulatory functions. Planning is addressing the height variance; Building and RBFD have their respective responsibilities; and hazardousmaterials review appears to reside principally with LA County Fire/HHMD-CUPA. That division of responsibility may be entirely appropriate, but from the standpoint of the surrounding residents it makes it difficult to determine which agency evaluates the off-site consequences of a catastrophic cryogenic release and how that analysis becomes part of the overall safety review.

Accordingly, I would appreciate HHMD's assistance in answering the questions in the attached memorandum, particularly:

Regards,
Mark Nelson
Attachment:
2477 Manhattan Beach Boulevard — Single-Tank Catastrophic Cryogenic Release / HHMD Review Request
PUBLIC COMMENT 05 SEPTEMBER 17 PLANNING COMMISSION

ORIGINAL SENDER
Mark Nelson

ORIGINAL SENT
Friday, August 28, 2026 at 4:23 PM

SUBJECT
Re: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. - Request for HHMD
Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning
The following pages contain the comment as received, followed by any supporting materials.

Non-government email addresses and personal phone numbers have been permanently redacted.

From: Sean Scully
To: Jamaal Brown
Subject: FW: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 4:35:03 PM
Attachments: image001.png
LN2_Catastrophic_Release_Screening_2477_MBB.docx
Planning Manager, Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street, Door 2
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-697-3194
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 4:23 PM
To: Raquel Doom <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Andrew Winje <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Sean Scully <[email protected]>; Gale S. Hazeltine <[email protected]>; Jason Conroy <[email protected]>; Wayne Craig <[email protected]>; Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>; Roger K. Light <[email protected]>; Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>; Julie Young <[email protected]>; Charlene Lomeli <[email protected]>; Mathias Mekasha <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Subject: 2477 Manhattan Beach Blvd. — Request for HHMD Review of Cryogenic Tank Emergency Planning (Case No. 2026-0595)
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The attached engineering screening analysis demonstrates that a rupture of single 12,000 gallon, 38-ft tank would have sufficient product to impact the residential area to the south of the site. Absent detailed modeling, which the agencies refuse to conduct, the safety analysis is incomplete.