I support the city moving the pallet shelter from the Kingsdale location to the proposed location at the BCHD. The original agreement that the city council made to establish the pallet shelter was that it would be at Kingsdale for six months then moved another location in South Redondo or shut down. It is past time for the council to keep its word. The Kingsdale neighborhood has done it’s share.
There has been a significant increase in issues involving the homeless since the shelter opened to both the residents and the businesses in the Kingsdale area. However, I do believe that the Redondo Beach P.D. could have been more proactive in mitigating these issues with a greater police presence in the area and been more responsive to calls from the area businesses and residents. Harbor Interfaith and City Net should have done a better job managing the area around the shelter.
Moving the pallet homes to the BCHD site would allow council to keep its’s word to move the shelter, give the police and service organizations another shot at better managing the area around the shelter and buying more time for the city to consider other locations for the pallet homes to be rotated to.
No location in the city is ideal for this project. The pallet homes should be rotated between the five districts, each hosting for a six month period. Thank you!

The original agreement was that the Kingsdale location was only a 6 month solution which has already passed. This was never meant to be a permanent location and it needs to be moved per the initial agreement and plan. This isn't fair to the local residents nor should it be located this close to an elementary school and middle school. Adams middle school already had a Shelter In Place Order due to a homeless person entering the campus during school hours. We also consistently find drug paraphernalia and belongings in/around the neighborhood and school parking lots. Redondo City Council, please hold up your end of the agreement. This location needs to be moved. END OF STORY! Thank you!

I support having a support system for those experiencing homelessness. I encourage the City the explore locations in South Redondo as the City Council originally planned when implementing this project.

I'm opposed to this because that medical area has a lot of geriatric and pediatric patients. We are putting our most vulnerable into a potential of being exposed to homeless individuals who could be violent/mentally unstable. Not to mention right behind the parking lot is a shopping center that has a lot of children after school activities (Kumon, My Gym, Music Together, Fitness Studios) That parking lot and plaza is not well lit and a better solution would be to put a homeless shelter in high traffic areas. This means any potential issues will be more highly visible/reported. More eyes is also a natural deterent for mischief. Let's be pragmatic and not put our most vulnerable in any potentially dangerous encounters. I say move it near the Pier as previously promised or move it up to the Marine Ave/Inglewood Ave area where we plan to put more housing density. It's pretty clear from the rest of the state, seeing homeless in beach areas and in highly dense housing is no anomaly, so any argument for it being an eyesore is irrelevant. Let's be protective of our senior and youngest members of our community. Thank you.

Andrew Chen
District 4

I support discussion (minus the toxic discourse which undermines any progress) of where to move the pallet shelter since we have lived out our 6+ months of impacts at the Kingsdale location. In that vein, it does need to be moved.

It is through well studied analysis in looking at our city as a whole, that the least impacting location for placement is the unused SOUTH Metro lot on Marine, within city boundaries. It is fairly well hidden from view, MUCH further away from any Redondo Beach residents, not nearly as close to Redondo's major retail, it's clean, fenced in and the industrial complexes have a good amount of security. Better safety will be ensured than what is currently being experienced for homeowners on 182nd St. To continue to ignore and dismiss the value of these families' safety would be devastating and shameful. This needs to be more of a priority.

If that spot isn't available, in the spirit of keeping the promise to move south, then consider as 2nd choice some other South Redondo location. I see the BCHD healthcare complex along with neighboring homeowners and retail as having heavy potential for negative impacts. Personally I have 3 doctors there with bloodwork lab and physical therapy at that campus. The pre-designated back lot is against the UCLA wing of the complex and where I need to park and enter the building for my appts. That isn't to mention all of the school children who now have a fairly safe community to walk in. I would not wish any of the impacts we have suffered at Kingsdale onto any of them.

If these don't work, then I suggest considering going outside city limits with the possibility of partnering with another city.

So many concerns about housing homeless at BCHD.

We already have day and night loitering and smokers on the sidewalk (we only have 1 sidewalk) and bus stop on the 500 block of North Prospect directly across from BCHD on the frontage road. The city ordinance against public smoking within 20 feet of public space isn't enforced, nor is the city ordinance against blocking sidewalks loitering. We have real problems. It's not safe for elderly or children any more to pass. The sidewalk is always blocked with people talking that won't yield, dogs, and smokers. It's terrible for the fragile elderly and children.

BCHD will add more loitering and more smoking and we have TOO MUCH already with no end in sight unless the City enforces the current laws.

The current no smoking law requires smokers to be 20 feet from sidewalks, streets, bus stops, etc., but that's not enforced and it's not far enough. The City would need to put a 100-foot smoking ban from any public area (sidewalk, street, etc.) if it's going to override the BCHD zoning for homeless shelter, like the staff report says.

BCHD has literally 100s of unused, paid for hospital rooms that could be used to securely move the homeless into the old Hospital building. What a beautiful, easy security option for a public owned building.

We need protection from our existing smokers and loitering on the Prospect frontage. We can't survive more addicts, homeless, and potential child predators than there already are. If the City moves the homeless to BCHD, they need to be indoors inside the old hospital, we need enhanced smoking & loitering restrictions, and we need enforcement. We need enforcement right now to be safe on Prospect.

Though I sympathize to the cause, I would like the opportunity to be part of the discussion rather than be given notice the day of the council meeting. As an associate of Silverado Memory Care Community located in the 514 N. Prospect building for the past 10 years I have had several incidents with the homeless. I have experienced and observed the following; swearing at me or others, cleaning themselves in the public restroom sinks, approaching our staff and families using completely inappropriate verbal attacks, and also trying to get inside of our community with our already vulnerable population of Dementia and Alzheimer's residents. They have also parked their vehicles right in front of the entry way door yelling at people who are trying to get in and out of the building. We are afraid for our safety as this has been an ongoing disturbance. This will only get worse with a shelter.

Kingsdale should not even be an option on the drawing board if you want to be a trustworthy and true to your word Council. The deal was 6 months at Kingsdale then it moves. There is drawback at any given location as you saw with Kingsdale and as you see with any new potential sites but you must hold to your word or it will be impossible to take you seriously.

On behalf of Silverado Senior Living, we are strongly opposing the temporary homeless transitional pallet shelter. We are located at 514 Prospect and this shelter will be in our backyard. We care for over 60 vulnerable seniors with memory impairment and families who visit regularly. In addition, we employ over 80 associates, providing care 24 hours per day. This shelter presents a safety issue for our residents, families and associates. We have had ongoing challenges with the homeless coming into our building, presenting a risk to our safety. Our families are afraid, and we (the staff) are afraid. We have experienced verbal confrontation and threats. We have experienced disregard and indifference. We have experienced poor sanitary situations that present an infection control problem, that leads to questionable COVID exposure. Although we are sympathetic to their need for shelter and support, there must be a better location away from our senior living community, surrounding residential area and schools. Thank you for your consideration. - Daizel Gasperian, Administrator for Silverado Senior Living, Beach Cities

As an employee in building 514 I oppose the decision to move the pallet housing in this location. During COVID the testing center being behind the building brought in much foot traffic of people asking for directions or to use the bathroom. This is not only not making it unsafe for us the employee's but as well as those visiting the building.

As a resident with two young children in the Beryl Heights District I strongly oppose the decision to move the pallet housing to this location. As noted by another resident below, the location is in close proximity to 4 schools. The safety of our children needs to come first. There is no doubt that mentally ill or unstable drug addicted people should not be in close proximity to children. Our children are incapable of defending themselves from unstable adults. I understand the predicament that the city is in, but if anything happens to our children I assure you that lawsuits will be filed. I think a compromise is to limit access to that location to individuals that are not mentally ill or drug addicted as those two groups pose significant risk to the surrounding schools. The shelter could be reserved for those that have fallen on hard times as they do not pose a threat to the surrounding community.

I am a 7 year resident of Paulina Avenue. I am writing to you today to oppose the recommendation for the pallet shelter to be moved to the Beach Cities Health District location. The City will incur costly moving expenses that can be better allocated to other services to our residents. The current pallet shelter was created using the blending and braiding of County and Cares ACT funds. Both funds might not be available again so the City would be making a premature financial decision without even knowing the fiscal impact.

I would also like to bring to your attention that there are 4 schools within .25 radius of this proposed site. (Towers, Beryl, Parras, and Redondo Union) Thee high school alone has 3000 kids. The sheer number of students that could be impacted, in addition to the residents that could be impacted from the Beach Cities location doesn't sound like a wise choice. While I understand it can be a challenge to find the perfect fit, I challenge the City to find locations that have minimal impacts to students and residents.

Lastly, I request that you do extensive community outreach to the surrounding schools, residents and other stakeholders who could potentially be impacted BEFORE you make a decision to move the pallet shelter or add an additional one.

BCHD had a Board meeting a couple weeks ago, and apparently concealed this action and also concealed an apparent purchase of a parcel from the City. BCHD is the least transparent agency imaginable based on their lack of neighborhood communications.

Sadly, this is yet another clandestine activity by BCHD. No notice was provided to surrounding neighbors. Again, the neighbors weren't worth a 50 cent stamp to notify them of BCHD's activity that will impact them.

BCHD also did not notify the surrounding neighbors of the release of the DEIR that was 103-feet tall, even though the board approved only 75-feet in June of 2020. BCHD walked around personal letters in 2020 for a 1 day use of the Flagler lot, but nothing on a homeless camp or a $400M project.

As a surrounding homeowner that found out via another surrounding homeowner, I fully oppose based on lack of notification and inclusion in the project by the secretive BCHD.

In late 2018/early 2019, BCHD as a project proponent, not as lead agency, had secret negotiations with the City Attorney. In February of 2019 BCHDs outside counsel issued a letter to the City Attorney. BCHD further concealed the activity until July 2020, one month after it approved the 75-foot tall 793,000 foot project. I was both a multi-year BCHD volunteer and a surrounding homeowner, and we were all excluded from what should have been public record.

BCHD has demonstrated it cannot be trusted and this project needs to return to square one for inclusion of the surrounding homeowners.