BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 13, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Joy Ford; Mike Witzansky; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; Paige Kaluderovic; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; James Light; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; Garth Meyer; Nick Biro Subject: Public Comment: The "Final" Materially Changed, Proposed Resolution for Impulse Space"s Variance was noticed with ONLY 40:09 Minutes MAXIMUM Time
Date: Monday, October 12, 2026 8:01:17 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From: Cheryl Marino
To: Daniel Besinaiz; CityClerk; Khatirah Nazif
Cc: Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Bill Drews Subject: DO NOT APPROVE REQUEST FROM IMPULSE TO INSTALL CRYOGENIC TANKS IN NRB Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 11:06:49 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hello, I am a resident of District 5 since 1987 And I OPPOSE allowing the increase of the height variance. I am very concerned about the city allowing four, or possibly more, 40-foot cryogenic tanks to be installed outside, visible to neighborhoods, families’ backyards and all commuters coming to the beach cities. There are still many unanswered concerns, misinformation and inconsistencies from the city and Impulse that need to be answered, and resolutions have not been provided to the residents.
These tanks are too close to residences, and are not compatible with the community. The light industrial area was created as a buffer to separate the larger industrial businesses from being too close to homes. Any special privileges granted to one company will allow any company the same privilege, destroying the district 5 community and quality of life.
This is unacceptable in a residential area that should be deemed safe to live in along with the beauty of living in a beach city of NRB!
Kind Regards,
Cheryl Marino
District 5 resident
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford; Marc Wiener; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; James Light; Nick Biro; Garth Meyer; Sean Scully Subject: Public Comment: The City Deliberately Denied the Public its Brown Act Rights regarding the Impulse Space Variance Hearing
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2026 2:56:52 PM
Attachments: RBCC - 20261012_Impulse_Resolution_Comparison.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PENDING PRRs - We currently wait for the City to fulfill a number of complaint related CPRA requests to provide information regarding "STAFF REVISED 10/6/26 RESOLUTION NO. CC-2610-083" (hereafter Third Revised Resolution).
RESOLUTION WITHHELD - Metadata shows that that the Third Revised Resolution has a last modified date of Oct 6, 2026 5:20:14 p.m. PDT, or less than 40 minutes prior to the beginning of the Redondo Beach City Council open session. Council was in closed session for delivery of the document.
PUBLIC RELEASE TIME UNKNOWN - CPRA requests seek the actual posting time of the Third Revised Resolution, which must be greater than or equal to the last modified date.
10/2/26 RESOLUTION THEORY GUTTED - The City struck the 271 words in the Oct 2 public record version of the Resolution that contained the theory of the Variance. Nearly 100 public comments against the Resolution were filed under the GOOD FAITH ASSUMPTION that the 10/2 Resolution would not suffer a last minute gut-and-amend as the City did execute.
RESOLUTION INTRODUCED FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE - With less than 40 minutes before the Oct 6 meeting, the City provided the Third Revised Resolution with 843 (3-times the content gutted) words inserted. The Resolution itself introduced facts not in evidence to the public.
CONCLUSION - The public was denied due process under the Brown Act.
1. The City provided a completely revised Third Revised Resolution after 540PM on the day of the 6PM hearing.
2. The of-record October 2, 2026 Resolution was the only theory of Impulse Space Variance until 40 minutes or less before the 6PM hearing.
3. The October 2, 2026 theory was gutted.
4. The October 6, 2026 540PM theory insertion was three times longer because it introduced facts not in evidence into the public record via the Third Revised Resolution.
5. The many comments from the public were mooted because of the last 40-minute gut-andamend process used by the City.
6. The Cure and Correct Demand Letter is pending the City's fulfillment of precise time of public posting of the Third Revised Resolution and the record of communication and correspondence between Impulse Space and both Planning Staff and Electeds of Redondo Beach.
7. A group of the public that commented based on the Good Faith Resolution theory from 10/2/2026 stand ready to take the necessary next steps following the Demand Letter.
Attachment: Detailed Analysis of Material Changes to Resolution that Denied Public Participation
October 12 2026 | Page 1
Impulse Space variance resolution comparison
Resolution CC 2610 083 • Prepared October 12, 2026
Finding: Yes, the earlier resolution is the substantive text base of the redline. The revision changes the stated cause of the requested variance from height and tank technical requirements to site constraints and parking loss. It retains some industrial-use comparisons. Embedded timestamps do not establish public posting times. 1 Document metadata
Document 1 is the supplied DOCX. Document 2 is the Blue Folder PDF containing a cover sheet and a ten-page redlined resolution. Times below are embedded document metadata, not upload or local filesystem times.
Metadata field Document 1 Earlier DOCX Document 2 Blue Folder PDF Created Pacific time Oct 3, 2026
10:29:11 p.m. PDT
Oct 6, 2026
5:19:51 p.m. PDT
Last modified Pacific time Oct 3, 2026
10:29:11 p.m. PDT
Oct 6, 2026
5:20:14 p.m. PDT
Created UTC 2026-10-04 05:29:11Z 2026-10-07 00:19:51Z
Last modified UTC 2026-10-04 05:29:11Z 2026-10-07 00:20:14Z Author or creator Creator: Legistar Author: ESCHMITZ
Application Microsoft Office Word
AppVersion 12.0000
Creator and producer:
Microsoft® Word LTSC
Other embedded fields Company: Redondo Beach
Template: Normal
Total editing time: 0
Title, subject, keywords: blank
PDF version: 1.7
11 pages
Visible version identifier RESOLUTION NO. CC-2610-083 STAFF REVISED 10/6/26 RESOLUTION NO. CC-2610-083
Public posting time Not present in supplied file Not present in supplied file Metadata table footer: The public notice posting time is later than or equal to the metadata timestamp for the exact file version posted; this PRR has requested documents with posting times. This ordering assumes accurate metadata and posting of these exact bytes. Metadata can be preserved or altered and does not independently prove publication, public availability, or the timing of an earlier version.
October 12 2026 | Page 2
2 Finding on the redline base document
YES as to the substantive language; not an exact file identity finding. Every substantive deleted passage in Section 3(a), and the deleted wording in Section 3(b), is present in Document 1 in the corresponding place. Removing insertions and restoring deletions reproduces the earlier rationale. That supports Document 1 as the earlier text version used for the redline, but cannot prove which particular electronic file staff opened.
Deleted language in Document 2 Match in Document 1
Section 3(a): paragraph beginning “The subject property’s current use” Matches the earlier paragraph comparing IC-1 uses with surrounding I-1 uses.
Section 3(a): paragraph beginning “The ‘special circumstances’ applicable to this project”
Matches the earlier explanation based on
stricter height standards and the assertion
that 30 feet would eliminate aerospace
manufacturing.
Section 3(a): paragraph beginning “Accordingly, relief from the standard height restriction”
Matches the earlier lesser-height,
customized-tank safety and increaseddeliveries explanation.
Section 3(b): “the existing”; the capital T in “The”; and the ending beginning “similarly situated properties”
All occur in the earlier paragraph; the
redline replaces or removes them.
Qualification: The reconstructed PDF baseline differs in clerical details. Its certification uses CC-26XX-XXX and supplies “None” for NOES, ABSTAIN and ABSENT; Document 1 uses CC-2610-083 and leaves those vote entries blank. These differences are not shown as edits. Formatting, list labels and line wrapping also differ. Therefore, the redline is strong evidence of the earlier substantive text base, but is not a complete record of every difference between the supplied files. [1; 2, Section 3 and certification page 10]
3 Word counts in the second resolution
Category Words
Unchanged 1,751
Struck 271
Inserted 843
Scope and method: Count the resolution itself, including title, recitals, numbered conditions, signature and certification text. Exclude the Blue Folder cover, the STAFF REVISED heading and repeated page footers. Classify actual PDF strikethrough and underline marks, rather than infer edits from a text comparison. Count letter or number tokens; internal apostrophes and hyphens stay within a word. Join words hyphenated across a line and treat 182nd as one token.
Punctuation alone is not a word.
The change from “The” to “the” strikes only T and inserts only t. Those two letter fragments are reported separately, not as deleted or inserted whole words; the continuing word counts once as unchanged. Counting each marked fragment as a separate token instead gives 1,751 unchanged, 272 struck and 844 inserted. These are reproducible analytical counts, not a Microsoft Word application word-count reading. All marked substantive edits occur on printed resolution pages 2–5. [2]
October 12 2026 | Page 3
4 Significant changes in the asserted cause
Document 1
The asserted cause is the conflict between aerospace manufacturing requirements and the IC-1 30-foot height limit.
Staff compares the site with surrounding industrial properties allowed heights over 100 feet and similar tanks, asserts that strict compliance would “eliminate the ability” to use the site for aerospace manufacturing, and says lesser-height tanks would require custom fabrication, have a weaker safety track record and require more frequent deliveries. [1, Section 3(a)]
Document 2
The revised asserted cause is physical site constraint and preservation of required parking: 385-foot lot depth versus IC1 comparators over 400 and 500 feet; a 20-foot rear fire lane; the existing building location; and SCE transmissiontower setbacks. It attributes to Impulse an estimate that tanks at 30 feet or less would eliminate roughly 50 parking spaces. Staff now says compliance would “limit the ability” to conduct manufacturing effectively and satisfy parking requirements. [2, printed pages 3–5, Sections 3(a) and 3(b)] The revision deletes the custom-tank safety and more-frequent-delivery explanation. It adds IC-1 comparisons based on room for parking and accessory equipment, and a 47-foot cell tower at 2500 Marine Boulevard permitted through a separate conditional use process. It also retains an I-1 comparison, now describing the surrounding height allowance as 100 feet. The stated need for cryogenic tanks and the economic-retention rationale remain. [2, printed pages 3–5] Significant change: The claimed necessity for eight extra feet shifts from technical height necessity and disadvantages of shorter tanks to the parking and space consequences of a shorter-tank layout. The revised wording acknowledges shorter tanks as a considered configuration and characterizes their consequence as parking loss. The supplied resolutions state that estimate but do not provide its layout calculations or supporting analysis. This report compares the asserted reasons; it does not independently verify the tank, safety, parking or comparator claims.
Sources and reproducibility
[1] R 2026-2610-083 GRANTING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 30-FOOT MAX.docx. Metadata extracted from docProps/core.xml and docProps/app.xml; substantive citations refer to numbered sections.
[2] L.1 BLUE FOLDER (ADDITIONAL)(1).pdf. Metadata extracted from the PDF document information dictionary. PDF page 1 is the cover; PDF pages 2–11 are printed resolution pages 1–10. Redline classification uses the PDF text coordinates and horizontal strike-through or underline graphics, visually checked against the marked pages.
Only the two supplied files were used. Neither contains an independently verifiable public posting timestamp or completed signatures and recorded voting results establishing final adoption.