City of Redondo B...
  • Sign In

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2026-08-20 6:30 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER

Meeting Time: August 20, 2026 at 6:30pm PDT

Disclaimer:

Tell us what's on your mind. Your comments will become part of the official public record. 


Agenda Item

J.1. PC26-1012 DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 30-FOOT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR (THREE INITIALLY) BULK CRYOGENIC STORAGE TANKS WITH A PROPOSED HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 38 FEET AT AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL (IC-1) ZONE. RECOMMENDATION 1. Open public hearing, receive and file all documents and correspondence on the proposed project; 2. Accept all testimony from staff, applicant, and the public and deliberate; 3. Close public hearing; 4. Adopt a Resolution by title only approving an Exemption Declaration and granting a Variance to exceed the 30-foot maximum building height requirement for the installation of four bulk cryogenic storage tanks with a proposed height of approximately 38 feet at an existing manufacturing facility on property located within an Industrial-Commercial (IC-1) Zone.

Legislation Text Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution Attachment 2 - Site Plan Attachment 3 - Project Renderings Attachment 4 - Bulk Cryogenic Storage Tank Safety & Compliance Presentation Attachment 5 - CEQA Exemption Declaration Attachment 6 - Public Comment
   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
2200 of 2200 characters remaining
1 Public Comment
  • Default_avatar
    Mark Nelson at August 17, 2026 at 9:16pm PDT

    Some of you know that I sited, permitted and built facilities for Edison. I also did work on LNG for both Edison and other companies where we specified horizontal tanks for storage to avoid this very permitting issue. It also minimized seismic mitigations. I oppose approval of this variance as proposed and filed. It is objectively poor quality work. In some places the project is 3 tanks moving to 4. The 4th is never specified. In some places, it's N2 and Ar. In some places, it's O2, N2, and Ar. The site plan doesn't even label the streets. It doesn't show the surrounding area. The safety and compliance section is literally "boilerplate". THESE ARE SERIOUS DEFECTS and this is not ready for evaluation. Nor is it a good use of your time in this condition. It needs a lot of red ink spilled on it and another pass through the proponent and then the city and then the public and then back to you. My written comments contain a roughly 20 item, 2 page punch list of clean up before this should be presented back to this Commission. Thank you for your service and I'm sorry to take up your time on a project that isn't ripe.